Heads up.
This one is for the un-zombiefication I intended here.
99% vs the 1%
"They are socio-paths", "Evil cynical gits" and so on and so on ...
Hang on...
Wait up!
I think. You are thinking about this wrong. Just like the 99%'rs, they totally believe what they are doing is the right thing to do. Mind bending huh? But pretty much likely to be true in the vast majority of cases. Even serial killers tend to believe they were doing the right thing.
So if you want to PsyOp this one, you need to retrain the thinking. Once you've got that "They really think they are doing the best thing" under your hat, it begins to be easier to see where logic and questions can be applied and asked to undermine it rather than all out pointless confrontation.
But...
There's a problem.
People holding right wing, homophobic, racist and generally intolerant views (in fact the common factor is resistance to change from a norm), have been proven to have lower IQ's.
You're not just figuring out which pillars of unfounded logic to chip away at here, you're dealing with someone who has a relatively reduced mental capacity compared to yourself.
Put that first misconception and that second compounded problem together? And you've got a why left bashes it's brains out against the right again and again and again for decades ...
Fun huh?
Later Edit:
Clarity time. It's just a hunch, but I think many of the people on the right who annoy the left so much are not doing the best they can to sabotage the country. I think a fair few of them just honestly believe (in my view wrongly), that if you protect the money and allow profiteering that jobs will be created and everyone will be happy. They still buy in to trickle down economics and a faith that those at the top act in the interests of the majority. Almost touchingly naive and idealistic perhaps?
Even Later Edit:
I've watched a fair few of these arguments scroll past. Athiest v Christian, Democrat v Republican and a fair few other flavours. The end it seems. Is not the argument. In virtually all cases you have one side with an entrenched world view who is willing to bend rules lets say to preserve that world view. On the other side you have someone with a new idea or approach that conflicts with that view.
Seems stupidly simple, but a battle us weird humans seem to fight every second of every day, focusing on the issues that bring the difference to the light, and ignoring the basic root problem. Fear of change / the unknown vs. new approaches or interpretations that might work better (or worse!).
I don't really have an answer to it. Just a sneaky feeling that this is how humans do it since language enabled it. The side that shouts longest and loudest, wins. That's Democracy isn't it? Oh hell no. Not touching that with a barge pole. It might be the roots for the concept of Democracy. Where we are now is a whole different ball game.
5 Sept 2012
3 Sept 2012
The World According To Me
Nice title huh?
Ok bits of the world...
Assange
It's impossible to be 100% certain, but I'm going with 95% sure the whole rape allegation thing is a set up with the CIA behind it. The lone accuser has known ties with CIA affiliated groups. The CIA is known to frame people with whatever bogus crime they can chuck at them to bring them down. The FBI has even been known to be involved in entrapment in such cases that Federal America doesn't like.
It stinks to high heaven and it plays on the worst side of human emotion. Rape is a horrific thing. By painting Assange as a rapist, they have turned every defender of him in to a "Rape Apologist". Humans tend to think in black and white. That's what it plays on. "The reliable main news media says Assange is wanted for serious rape charges, so he must be a rapist". These people forget who won awards for Journalism and revealed tens of thousands of documents and the Collateral Murder video. If you've not seen that video. Go look on youtube for "Collateral Murder". Go watch a trigger happy helicopter crew waste over a dozen people including those who came to rescue who had been shot already. As far as I know, attempting to get someone who has been shot to hospital is not a crime punishable by death from above. According to Federal America? Yeah it is. Nothing to see here. Move along.
If you're still unconvinced, do your own reading *at source* not via main stream media or some biased blog you found that has already judged Assange guilty of rape.
In my world? Yup. Assange may have some odd bedtime habits. I don't think he's a rapist. I think Federal America just wants him down for revealing the contempt Federal America has for foreign countries and foreign citizens via WikiLeaks.
The Euro
Roll up and witness the spectacle of the 2000's. Witness the unbelievable truth that when it comes down to it, it's not Goverments that control the world. It's the money that control's governments. You will not believe how the goal posts can be moved, time can be bought or how many millions of citizens can be screwed in to the ground to protect the interests of ... money. It's a meme thing. It's not (in my view) some vast Illuminati conspiracy. It's a meme. I know of some fairly clever people in the fiscal world who are still baying for the money presses to turn, for anything at all to happen to keep the market bullish to a degree and screw the people. They are not in some huge group (ok maybe the masons, but I doubt the women are so much).
It's just the mantra since around the 1980's (depends where you draw the line) has been continual growth, ever expanding liquidity based on ever expanding trickery. The ride can't stop. We made billions out of this! It just can't stop! Blame the population on less than average wage. Screw them. I want my thousands to keep piling up like they have done for decades ... The rich get richer. That's how it works right?
That's what you're up against. The machine can't fail for these people. They will happily short a falling market to make a profit. But when defaults and wipe out bankruptcy on a large scale becomes an issue? Oh hell no. They can't go there. Might actually loose a bundle of cash on that one.
Stupidity
We live in a world of sheep.
It's annoying as hell how these people breed and spread yet more sheep. We live in a world where potential statesmen can talk of "Legitimate Rape" and how women can magically reject sperm if it's not. We live in a world where people still believe the every word of the bible is true (that they choose to focus on). We live in a world of climate change deniers. On this already screwed up world we then have yet more billions who focus on the actions of minor celebrities and brand label products to validate themselves and determine who they can and can't associate with. It's the same world harbouring the new wave of Nazi. A whole wave of people who hate immigrants, gays and any other bogus religion except their own bogus religion.
But hey ... don't worry ... we can make jokes on Twitter and get pissed off with all that and just ignore it ...
Uh... Yes that's tempting. But it just lets the whole things slide towards slowly getting more and more stupid as each year, month, week, day, hour, minute, second passes.
It's insanely hard work fighting stupidity when you're outnumbered by thousands to one. But ... What's the alternative?
...
The world according to me is pretty bleak isn't it? On some levels I can get by on the fact I've just got this lifespan to go, then I'm out of it. Having children complicates it. Feels to me like there's little I can do beyond chipping away as best I can to give them a very tiny bonus for when I'm gone. I try to tell them not to be sheep. I don't know if it will stick. The sheep seem to be winning. If the sheep win. My children loose.
Ok bits of the world...
Assange
It's impossible to be 100% certain, but I'm going with 95% sure the whole rape allegation thing is a set up with the CIA behind it. The lone accuser has known ties with CIA affiliated groups. The CIA is known to frame people with whatever bogus crime they can chuck at them to bring them down. The FBI has even been known to be involved in entrapment in such cases that Federal America doesn't like.
It stinks to high heaven and it plays on the worst side of human emotion. Rape is a horrific thing. By painting Assange as a rapist, they have turned every defender of him in to a "Rape Apologist". Humans tend to think in black and white. That's what it plays on. "The reliable main news media says Assange is wanted for serious rape charges, so he must be a rapist". These people forget who won awards for Journalism and revealed tens of thousands of documents and the Collateral Murder video. If you've not seen that video. Go look on youtube for "Collateral Murder". Go watch a trigger happy helicopter crew waste over a dozen people including those who came to rescue who had been shot already. As far as I know, attempting to get someone who has been shot to hospital is not a crime punishable by death from above. According to Federal America? Yeah it is. Nothing to see here. Move along.
If you're still unconvinced, do your own reading *at source* not via main stream media or some biased blog you found that has already judged Assange guilty of rape.
In my world? Yup. Assange may have some odd bedtime habits. I don't think he's a rapist. I think Federal America just wants him down for revealing the contempt Federal America has for foreign countries and foreign citizens via WikiLeaks.
The Euro
Roll up and witness the spectacle of the 2000's. Witness the unbelievable truth that when it comes down to it, it's not Goverments that control the world. It's the money that control's governments. You will not believe how the goal posts can be moved, time can be bought or how many millions of citizens can be screwed in to the ground to protect the interests of ... money. It's a meme thing. It's not (in my view) some vast Illuminati conspiracy. It's a meme. I know of some fairly clever people in the fiscal world who are still baying for the money presses to turn, for anything at all to happen to keep the market bullish to a degree and screw the people. They are not in some huge group (ok maybe the masons, but I doubt the women are so much).
It's just the mantra since around the 1980's (depends where you draw the line) has been continual growth, ever expanding liquidity based on ever expanding trickery. The ride can't stop. We made billions out of this! It just can't stop! Blame the population on less than average wage. Screw them. I want my thousands to keep piling up like they have done for decades ... The rich get richer. That's how it works right?
That's what you're up against. The machine can't fail for these people. They will happily short a falling market to make a profit. But when defaults and wipe out bankruptcy on a large scale becomes an issue? Oh hell no. They can't go there. Might actually loose a bundle of cash on that one.
Stupidity
We live in a world of sheep.
It's annoying as hell how these people breed and spread yet more sheep. We live in a world where potential statesmen can talk of "Legitimate Rape" and how women can magically reject sperm if it's not. We live in a world where people still believe the every word of the bible is true (that they choose to focus on). We live in a world of climate change deniers. On this already screwed up world we then have yet more billions who focus on the actions of minor celebrities and brand label products to validate themselves and determine who they can and can't associate with. It's the same world harbouring the new wave of Nazi. A whole wave of people who hate immigrants, gays and any other bogus religion except their own bogus religion.
But hey ... don't worry ... we can make jokes on Twitter and get pissed off with all that and just ignore it ...
Uh... Yes that's tempting. But it just lets the whole things slide towards slowly getting more and more stupid as each year, month, week, day, hour, minute, second passes.
It's insanely hard work fighting stupidity when you're outnumbered by thousands to one. But ... What's the alternative?
...
The world according to me is pretty bleak isn't it? On some levels I can get by on the fact I've just got this lifespan to go, then I'm out of it. Having children complicates it. Feels to me like there's little I can do beyond chipping away as best I can to give them a very tiny bonus for when I'm gone. I try to tell them not to be sheep. I don't know if it will stick. The sheep seem to be winning. If the sheep win. My children loose.
26 Aug 2012
The Profit Problem
A very simple one this.
"What's good for capitalism is bad for the purchaser".
That's the simplest I can boil it down to.
If profit is the main motive of any business transaction, then extracting the most money from the payee is the goal.
It's bad enough if you're an individual on a budget trying to get by. You may have seen some of my early posts on the junk we all get sold at "low, low" (actually as high as we can get away with it) prices. If you keep your wits about you, you'll notice these days it's actually only a percentage of goods at the supermarket that are actually cheap. If you wanted to stretch your money as far as possible, you can often find cheaper deals for specific items in local pet centres, hardware stores, butchers, veg stalls, even sometimes in the corner shop. No I'm not saying everything they sell is cheaper. But certain items often are.
So your ideal shopping route in the UK (cost wise) would now involve darting around all local shops and the supermarket, then buying up what you actually wanted at the best deal from each shop. Not going to happen is it?
I'm getting distracted. I just hate the supermarket model. It doesn't provide nearly as much locally recycled income and work. I digress ...
Privatisation. That was my point.
There's an insane view that privatising things makes them somehow more efficient. In one very narrow term of the word efficient this is true. They become efficient at maximising profit. It doesn't automatically make them any safer, faster, easier or anything that might actually matter to the end consumer "efficient".
This somehow seems to have got extended to a capitalism v socialism argument. Socialist want unions and the state running things, capitalists believe the free market can do a better job.
Hang on a minute. If we are talking about a provision that can be opened up to multiple effective competing companies, then yes, ok, we can argue capitalism might do a good job. Trouble is there are very few examples of this actually happening in the real world. When it comes to things like railways, electricity, water, gas, phone lines, one of two things tends to happen ...
You either get entirely false competition (say UK railways here) and replace unions with incredibly limited providers subsidised and in bed with the government interests in making profit. OR ... You get something like the current UK electric provider farce which manages to get what should be opposing companies collaborating behind the scenes on price setting for mutual profit.
The problem isn't state funding / union power vs free market capitalism. The problem is effectively controlling either solution to prevent profiteering at the expense of the consumer.
The kicker? If you want to go the free market way, you have to invest in a government funded and effective regulation system. I don't mean the jokes we have like offcom, the PCC, the IPCC, even HMRC Tax Offices! They all get cut back to a point where they are inefficient an unable to control the sector they are supposed to, or find it's easier to get by jumping in bed with the sordid crew they are supposed to be monitoring.
Free market solutions come with a cost that free market idealists are not willing to pay.
State provided solutions come with the exact same problems .. but at least you're removing one step in the profit chain of pain to the end user.
What it keeps coming back to is ... motive for profit, either in a state funded or free market system is the killer. Greed. Money. Unreasonable earnings for what eventually becomes sub-standard provision.
As a species, we don't yet seem to have a way round that.
Once again I seem to find myself in a lonely place watching most of humanity arguing about socialism v capitalism, and shouting in to the wind .. "Guys? It's greed and corruption screwing us up whichever way we do it!"
"What's good for capitalism is bad for the purchaser".
That's the simplest I can boil it down to.
If profit is the main motive of any business transaction, then extracting the most money from the payee is the goal.
It's bad enough if you're an individual on a budget trying to get by. You may have seen some of my early posts on the junk we all get sold at "low, low" (actually as high as we can get away with it) prices. If you keep your wits about you, you'll notice these days it's actually only a percentage of goods at the supermarket that are actually cheap. If you wanted to stretch your money as far as possible, you can often find cheaper deals for specific items in local pet centres, hardware stores, butchers, veg stalls, even sometimes in the corner shop. No I'm not saying everything they sell is cheaper. But certain items often are.
So your ideal shopping route in the UK (cost wise) would now involve darting around all local shops and the supermarket, then buying up what you actually wanted at the best deal from each shop. Not going to happen is it?
I'm getting distracted. I just hate the supermarket model. It doesn't provide nearly as much locally recycled income and work. I digress ...
Privatisation. That was my point.
There's an insane view that privatising things makes them somehow more efficient. In one very narrow term of the word efficient this is true. They become efficient at maximising profit. It doesn't automatically make them any safer, faster, easier or anything that might actually matter to the end consumer "efficient".
This somehow seems to have got extended to a capitalism v socialism argument. Socialist want unions and the state running things, capitalists believe the free market can do a better job.
Hang on a minute. If we are talking about a provision that can be opened up to multiple effective competing companies, then yes, ok, we can argue capitalism might do a good job. Trouble is there are very few examples of this actually happening in the real world. When it comes to things like railways, electricity, water, gas, phone lines, one of two things tends to happen ...
You either get entirely false competition (say UK railways here) and replace unions with incredibly limited providers subsidised and in bed with the government interests in making profit. OR ... You get something like the current UK electric provider farce which manages to get what should be opposing companies collaborating behind the scenes on price setting for mutual profit.
The problem isn't state funding / union power vs free market capitalism. The problem is effectively controlling either solution to prevent profiteering at the expense of the consumer.
The kicker? If you want to go the free market way, you have to invest in a government funded and effective regulation system. I don't mean the jokes we have like offcom, the PCC, the IPCC, even HMRC Tax Offices! They all get cut back to a point where they are inefficient an unable to control the sector they are supposed to, or find it's easier to get by jumping in bed with the sordid crew they are supposed to be monitoring.
Free market solutions come with a cost that free market idealists are not willing to pay.
State provided solutions come with the exact same problems .. but at least you're removing one step in the profit chain of pain to the end user.
What it keeps coming back to is ... motive for profit, either in a state funded or free market system is the killer. Greed. Money. Unreasonable earnings for what eventually becomes sub-standard provision.
As a species, we don't yet seem to have a way round that.
Once again I seem to find myself in a lonely place watching most of humanity arguing about socialism v capitalism, and shouting in to the wind .. "Guys? It's greed and corruption screwing us up whichever way we do it!"
22 Aug 2012
Rape II
This is getting weird.
I've had the joy of discussing what I'd call morning sex on Twitter yet again.
Before we get to that let me explain a few things call it establishing credentials:
Yes I really did get the chance to help convict the rapist of a girl I knew, and yes I was horribly aware of what it did to her.
I do sometimes get blocked by people on Twitter because I will sometimes point out to people that continually making rape jokes adds to a culture where rape is taken lightly and a bit of a joke. They don't tend to like it when I do this. I get arguments about free speech back and told I can't take a joke.
I have a tumblr account in which I've posted a couple of items pointing out things like the problems women face reporting a rape and being taken seriously, or that in some school playgrounds kids have modified "tag" games to "rape" games ... See my comment on joking about rape all the time above.
So I like to think of myself fairly well placed on the side of trying to nudge the world to a place with a lot less rape in it. I'm not in the "I never think about it" set. I think I'm quite firmly in the "Oy! Maybe think a bit about the rape culture you're perpetuating mate" set.
However! Back to Twitter judgement on rape & morning sex...
I am .. apparently .. a multiple rapist.
I have in my long past, had morning sex a few times, with an established lover, without first waking them up and asking them, or asking them the night before if it would be ok. This. In the black & white judgemental world of Twitter labels me 100% a rapist with no room for argument.
I'm a little upset by this.
I've pointed out that morning sex isn't with a partner that's asleep the whole time. In fact your partner will normally wake up very early on in the process, and have plenty of time to tell you to sod off. Yup. I've been told to pack it in before and have. That's life. It's not like I'm trying to force myself on my lover here, I just thought it might be nice. Most of the time it seems to go down rather well actually. You end up with a lover who feels cherished and wanted from breakfast onwards. Not a bad start to the day .. and pretty much totally at the opposite end of oppressing women.
That doesn't matter. The Twitter lords hath spoken. I didn't get consent. It was rape.
So then I point out, they woke up, didn't say no at all (I'd stop if they did .. see above), and everything seemed to go fine ... Is that rape then oh experts of Twitter?
YES. That's rape. How can I not understand this? I did not get prior consent!
Hmm ... Ok. So what if this morning sex happened .. and she was fine about it, no complaints during or after?
Ah .. in that case. I'm a 'lucky' rapist.
Apparently, I could do that .. with the best intentions in the world, and that woman could still decide a day or so later to go to the police and report a rape. That's her right as a woman who had sex without giving explicit consent.
Oh!
So I'm sat here today with a new found knowledge. I am in fact a multiple rapist according to the people I keep clashing with on Twitter. I have no excuse, I have in actual fact committed rape several times in my life, and I'm only lucky none of those women decided to report it as rape days later despite saying nothing to me about it. Had they chosen to? I should be charged as a rapist, and presumably put on a sex offenders register and jailed.
That's not exactly what you want to find out about yourself is it?
It's also the first time in my entire life I find myself having trouble staying on the same side as the "No means No" brigade. As I see it? I've only intended good things for the girls involved. There's no hint of malice in wanting a woman to feel loved and cherished all day. I don't feel like a rapist. Yet I am one. I'm still not sure how that works, but that's the message I've had several times now...
Odd. And rather unpleasant.
Sat and thought about this post for a few minutes and wanted to add this:
The sad thing is. The people who seem quite happy to label me a multiple rapist because of the above will think "Good. He has realised he's a rapist" ... Without thinking ... "Why are we labelling a guy who supports women's rights, has never forced himself on a woman, and always without fail stopped if need be a rapist?"
It's pretty darn offensive actually from where I'm sitting. Women's rights for me now have a problem. An innocent man can be labelled a rapist apparently when no intent to commit, or knowledge that a rape has been committed has occurred. That seems deeply unfair and wrong to me. I don't care how hard you stamp your foot and point at your simple definition of rape. I still don't think I'm a rapist.
[For the sake of clarity: I'm well aware that the UK definition of rape includes for the fact that the defendants belief consent was given can be a valid defence, and that in most cases I believe that would be for the jury to decide. Not some self appointed expert on Twitter. The point of this little piece is to point out how utterly nuts the rape debate has become in recent days. If you don't understand the laws on rape, don't go calling people multiple rapists! It's bloody annoying!]
I've had the joy of discussing what I'd call morning sex on Twitter yet again.
Before we get to that let me explain a few things call it establishing credentials:
Yes I really did get the chance to help convict the rapist of a girl I knew, and yes I was horribly aware of what it did to her.
I do sometimes get blocked by people on Twitter because I will sometimes point out to people that continually making rape jokes adds to a culture where rape is taken lightly and a bit of a joke. They don't tend to like it when I do this. I get arguments about free speech back and told I can't take a joke.
I have a tumblr account in which I've posted a couple of items pointing out things like the problems women face reporting a rape and being taken seriously, or that in some school playgrounds kids have modified "tag" games to "rape" games ... See my comment on joking about rape all the time above.
So I like to think of myself fairly well placed on the side of trying to nudge the world to a place with a lot less rape in it. I'm not in the "I never think about it" set. I think I'm quite firmly in the "Oy! Maybe think a bit about the rape culture you're perpetuating mate" set.
However! Back to Twitter judgement on rape & morning sex...
I am .. apparently .. a multiple rapist.
I have in my long past, had morning sex a few times, with an established lover, without first waking them up and asking them, or asking them the night before if it would be ok. This. In the black & white judgemental world of Twitter labels me 100% a rapist with no room for argument.
I'm a little upset by this.
I've pointed out that morning sex isn't with a partner that's asleep the whole time. In fact your partner will normally wake up very early on in the process, and have plenty of time to tell you to sod off. Yup. I've been told to pack it in before and have. That's life. It's not like I'm trying to force myself on my lover here, I just thought it might be nice. Most of the time it seems to go down rather well actually. You end up with a lover who feels cherished and wanted from breakfast onwards. Not a bad start to the day .. and pretty much totally at the opposite end of oppressing women.
That doesn't matter. The Twitter lords hath spoken. I didn't get consent. It was rape.
So then I point out, they woke up, didn't say no at all (I'd stop if they did .. see above), and everything seemed to go fine ... Is that rape then oh experts of Twitter?
YES. That's rape. How can I not understand this? I did not get prior consent!
Hmm ... Ok. So what if this morning sex happened .. and she was fine about it, no complaints during or after?
Ah .. in that case. I'm a 'lucky' rapist.
Apparently, I could do that .. with the best intentions in the world, and that woman could still decide a day or so later to go to the police and report a rape. That's her right as a woman who had sex without giving explicit consent.
Oh!
So I'm sat here today with a new found knowledge. I am in fact a multiple rapist according to the people I keep clashing with on Twitter. I have no excuse, I have in actual fact committed rape several times in my life, and I'm only lucky none of those women decided to report it as rape days later despite saying nothing to me about it. Had they chosen to? I should be charged as a rapist, and presumably put on a sex offenders register and jailed.
That's not exactly what you want to find out about yourself is it?
It's also the first time in my entire life I find myself having trouble staying on the same side as the "No means No" brigade. As I see it? I've only intended good things for the girls involved. There's no hint of malice in wanting a woman to feel loved and cherished all day. I don't feel like a rapist. Yet I am one. I'm still not sure how that works, but that's the message I've had several times now...
Odd. And rather unpleasant.
Sat and thought about this post for a few minutes and wanted to add this:
The sad thing is. The people who seem quite happy to label me a multiple rapist because of the above will think "Good. He has realised he's a rapist" ... Without thinking ... "Why are we labelling a guy who supports women's rights, has never forced himself on a woman, and always without fail stopped if need be a rapist?"
It's pretty darn offensive actually from where I'm sitting. Women's rights for me now have a problem. An innocent man can be labelled a rapist apparently when no intent to commit, or knowledge that a rape has been committed has occurred. That seems deeply unfair and wrong to me. I don't care how hard you stamp your foot and point at your simple definition of rape. I still don't think I'm a rapist.
[For the sake of clarity: I'm well aware that the UK definition of rape includes for the fact that the defendants belief consent was given can be a valid defence, and that in most cases I believe that would be for the jury to decide. Not some self appointed expert on Twitter. The point of this little piece is to point out how utterly nuts the rape debate has become in recent days. If you don't understand the laws on rape, don't go calling people multiple rapists! It's bloody annoying!]
21 Aug 2012
Rape
Thanks to Assange accusations, this one has come to a bit of a boil. This little blog bit isn't about that Republican nutter. Pretty sure we can all agree he knows nothing about rape or the female anatomy. This little probably much hated piece is about something that I'm getting the feeling cannot be rationally discussed in the current climate of hysteria about rape.
It's because, at the moment, I'm getting a rather weird message from the "rape is rape" brigade. I'm getting two things: Every single time I'm about to have sex, even with an established partner, I *must* get verbal consent to penetrative sex. Otherwise she is perfectly entitled to decide it's rape and she never gave consent. This also rules out early morning sex. A bit of a pain, since I've known a few girlfriends over time who have loved being woken up like that occasionally.
Lets set up a hypothetical...
I've met a girl, we've had sex a couple of times with no worries. We joke, we chat, we eat, we go to bed ... you know ... normal relationship stuff. I sleep over, and in the morning wood, decide to see if I can carry on where we left off last night. Of course she wakes pretty quick, but it's lazy and nice, and we chat, have breakfast, I leave ... As far as I know .. We had a nice time.
Now she decides a day or two later to go to the police and tell them she didn't consent to that sex in the morning. True. She didn't. But does that make me a rapist?
I know "rape is rape" love to see things in black and white, but isn't intent also involved here? If the intent is to have a nice morning and leave a smile on a face, even if a misunderstanding does occur and she later decides "actually I wish that hadn't happened" ... If I've had no signal of lack of consent before, during and after ... No chance to stop because she said "stop" ... Am I a rapist?
The worrying thing is .. according to the hysterical and well meaning messages in support of rape victims I keep seeing on Twitter. Yes. Actually. That would make me a rapist.
I'm not buying it so much. The hysteria of black vs white thinking isn't allowing any sane debate over what's reasonable and what isn't.
If anyone does read this ... I bet I get called a "rape apologist" in seconds flat.
This brings up a second point I've seen scroll past: Apparently, me saying "I've been there and witnessed the damage rape has done to a girl first hand and I utterly hate it". Is inexcusable in the new climate. Apparently that's me justifying my "rape apologist" attitude. That seems utterly bonkers to me.
I've actually been able to testify in court to help convict a rapist and been damn proud of it! ... I guess mentioning that makes me an even worse monster for hiding my rape apologist attitude behind the poor girl's suffering or something?
Uhm. Hang on. Why is the alleged rape apologist proud of helping to convict a rapist exactly? Just WTF level 10 right there!
The ability to discuss this issue rationally is dangerously close to vanishing entirely. It's even managing to make me fall out with people I share in general very similar anti-rape views with! What the hell is going on people? When did we loose sanity and the ability to question and discuss? When did it become a culture based entirely on accusation and hate?
It's very sad and very worrying.
To bring it full circle and back to Assange:
As far as I'm aware (and I've read the testimony's) two girls went to the police a day or so after Assange was with them. One of the girls refused to complete and verify her testimony. The other was interviewed on the phone later. Her testimony was later edited after she verified it. Having issued an arrest warrant for Assange on this basis, within hours ... another higher power checks the statements and retracts the arrest warrant and rape charges. Something along the lines of "sexual misdemeanour" remains as a possible charge. It's not "A serious sexual assault" as the BBC will repeat loudly at you.
So...
I'll ask you again all of you that have already decided Assange needs to face serious sexual assault allegations in Sweden ... What the fuck are you talking about? And why won't you look at the facts for yourselves? You're buying in to hysteria, denying the ability for anyone to discuss it rationally, and accusing people of being rape apologists left right and centre for pointing out that in this particular case, it's not that simple.
And one final point that virtually no one wants to consider:
*IF* the charges against Assange have been cooked up under political pressure? Then that does a sh*tload of damage to the reputation of every single woman who has been raped and wants to report it. Probably the worst scenario of all, because by US pressure kicking up rape accusations to snatch a whistle-blower, you've ended up with this whole mess of argument, accusation and bad feeling, accused people of being rape apologists who might actually be talking sense on this one, possibly produced inflated false charges to get one man, and turned the rape hysteria dial up to max.
All thanks ... to the US wanting to gut Assange. Yet. I'm the guy putting rape victims in a bad light?
I'll leave you with this:
To bring it full circle and back to Assange:
As far as I'm aware (and I've read the testimony's) two girls went to the police a day or so after Assange was with them. One of the girls refused to complete and verify her testimony. The other was interviewed on the phone later. Her testimony was later edited after she verified it. Having issued an arrest warrant for Assange on this basis, within hours ... another higher power checks the statements and retracts the arrest warrant and rape charges. Something along the lines of "sexual misdemeanour" remains as a possible charge. It's not "A serious sexual assault" as the BBC will repeat loudly at you.
So...
I'll ask you again all of you that have already decided Assange needs to face serious sexual assault allegations in Sweden ... What the fuck are you talking about? And why won't you look at the facts for yourselves? You're buying in to hysteria, denying the ability for anyone to discuss it rationally, and accusing people of being rape apologists left right and centre for pointing out that in this particular case, it's not that simple.
And one final point that virtually no one wants to consider:
*IF* the charges against Assange have been cooked up under political pressure? Then that does a sh*tload of damage to the reputation of every single woman who has been raped and wants to report it. Probably the worst scenario of all, because by US pressure kicking up rape accusations to snatch a whistle-blower, you've ended up with this whole mess of argument, accusation and bad feeling, accused people of being rape apologists who might actually be talking sense on this one, possibly produced inflated false charges to get one man, and turned the rape hysteria dial up to max.
All thanks ... to the US wanting to gut Assange. Yet. I'm the guy putting rape victims in a bad light?
I'll leave you with this:
Released on 2012-02-28 15:00 GMT
| Email-ID | 389793 |
|---|---|
| Date | 2010-12-10 03:34:36 |
| From | mongoven@stratfor.com |
| To | morson@stratfor.com, defeo@stratfor.com, pubpolblog.post@blogger.com |
A hero?
Avaaz is right. It's not illegal but it does make you accessory to being
an asshole. Real people are being tortured by governments that Avaaz and
Assange probably like more than the US, all the while the two of them
denounce US 'torture' at Guantanamo.
They are like the crazy IPS/CISPES/SDS people who were so full of hate
that they could not see that they are doing so much more bad than they at
doing good.
I'm in favor of using whatever trumped up charge is available to get this
guy and his servers off the streets. And I'd feed that shit head soldier
to the first pack of wild dogs I could find.
Or perhaps just do to him whatever the Iranians are doing to our sources
there.
Avaaz is right. It's not illegal but it does make you accessory to being
an asshole. Real people are being tortured by governments that Avaaz and
Assange probably like more than the US, all the while the two of them
denounce US 'torture' at Guantanamo.
They are like the crazy IPS/CISPES/SDS people who were so full of hate
that they could not see that they are doing so much more bad than they at
doing good.
I'm in favor of using whatever trumped up charge is available to get this
guy and his servers off the streets. And I'd feed that shit head soldier
to the first pack of wild dogs I could find.
Or perhaps just do to him whatever the Iranians are doing to our sources
there.
1 Aug 2012
Like an onion.
As humanity has managed to shuffle in to 2012, lets have a quick check.
Onion layers of problems.
Got the theme?
Limited scope here, I'm just going for one aspect in onion land...
Boundaries. A main purpose of being a parent is setting and sticking to boundaries.
This is how kids know right from wrong, how you eventually get a good nights sleep, and why your kid isn't still breast feeding at age 6.
Mother's are traditionally bad at this, don't shoot your mouth off and call that a fault. Mother's will also kill a grizzly bear that attacks the kids for the exact same reason. Like everything, caring too much is good and bad. To some extent this is why having a Dad is important. They tend to be the one's that say "No! They can't keep creeping in to our bed!" and set some boundaries out where mum would tend to let things slip a little out of love.
Yup that's the short version. Many hole's can be picked in it. But fundamentally, this is why a loving couple (male / male. female / female, male / female I don't care!), are better at kid rearing than a single parent. In a couple, one person sets rules the other doesn't, and kids need rules! Right?
[Later Edit: Occurs to me months later I left a case out here. Single parents. I'm not anti single parents at all, it's a fact of life these days that there are many of them. I just think they have a much harder time bringing up children. I'd even go as far as to say those single parents that do bring up loving balanced kids are true heroes of the modern world.]
Hello onion.
Why? .. What? ... Why rules? Uhm .. kids need boundaries to be socially acceptable and not end up in prison in later life. Uh huh. And?
Many of the boundaries, and the act of being the authority (the parent) that imposes those limits, reinforces the messed up boundaries and limits of the politicians and law makers of this world.
Step back a little. How many millionaires got there by respecting all boundaries in the world? Very few indeed. If you want your kid to have a chance in this messed up world, you have to teach them to disrespect the boundaries they can get away with.
WOAH! Hang on. How am I supposed to instill boundaries in my children and yet teach them to be rebellious at just the right times?
You can't.
Onion layers bites back.
In this 2012 messed up world. The true path to fiscal success is to cheat and ignore rules. You can't teach that to your kid unless you have the power and money to bail them out again and again, then give them a job with a friend of Dad that gives them a leg up to keep cheating. The rest of us proles? Kinda screwed. You let the kid loose and it's a vandal with a criminal record and you're a bad parent. You teach them rules and respect? And they are stuck living the tax payer life for eternity who never rocks the boat.
Ah noooo way .. I'm exaggerating! I am?
Take a working / lower class kid. Let them go trash a restaurant, or dress up as a Nazi and sing racist songs for a night out. Result's aren't good are they? Criminal record? Nice! Ok now lets try that at the rich end of the scale. Call it the Bullingdon Club. Trash a few restaurants and throw cash at the owner, go for the Nazi themed party and oh noes! The public school / University might say your social club isn't recognised by them ... But it's ok ... You can still become Mayor of London, Prime Minister, hell you can even run the entire country's finances if you like.
You can pause there and spend a few minutes trying to reconcile it all in your mind if you like. But it doesn't fit. There are very basic structural problems of unfairness in society that if anything are getting worse not better, and there's no solution. No political party that even recognises the problem. There isn't even a current philosophical position on what's right and what's wrong in the above.
You're on your own kids in an impossible position. That's life. What do you want to do about it?
Onion layers of problems.
Got the theme?
Limited scope here, I'm just going for one aspect in onion land...
Boundaries. A main purpose of being a parent is setting and sticking to boundaries.
This is how kids know right from wrong, how you eventually get a good nights sleep, and why your kid isn't still breast feeding at age 6.
Mother's are traditionally bad at this, don't shoot your mouth off and call that a fault. Mother's will also kill a grizzly bear that attacks the kids for the exact same reason. Like everything, caring too much is good and bad. To some extent this is why having a Dad is important. They tend to be the one's that say "No! They can't keep creeping in to our bed!" and set some boundaries out where mum would tend to let things slip a little out of love.
Yup that's the short version. Many hole's can be picked in it. But fundamentally, this is why a loving couple (male / male. female / female, male / female I don't care!), are better at kid rearing than a single parent. In a couple, one person sets rules the other doesn't, and kids need rules! Right?
[Later Edit: Occurs to me months later I left a case out here. Single parents. I'm not anti single parents at all, it's a fact of life these days that there are many of them. I just think they have a much harder time bringing up children. I'd even go as far as to say those single parents that do bring up loving balanced kids are true heroes of the modern world.]
Hello onion.
Why? .. What? ... Why rules? Uhm .. kids need boundaries to be socially acceptable and not end up in prison in later life. Uh huh. And?
Many of the boundaries, and the act of being the authority (the parent) that imposes those limits, reinforces the messed up boundaries and limits of the politicians and law makers of this world.
Step back a little. How many millionaires got there by respecting all boundaries in the world? Very few indeed. If you want your kid to have a chance in this messed up world, you have to teach them to disrespect the boundaries they can get away with.
WOAH! Hang on. How am I supposed to instill boundaries in my children and yet teach them to be rebellious at just the right times?
You can't.
Onion layers bites back.
In this 2012 messed up world. The true path to fiscal success is to cheat and ignore rules. You can't teach that to your kid unless you have the power and money to bail them out again and again, then give them a job with a friend of Dad that gives them a leg up to keep cheating. The rest of us proles? Kinda screwed. You let the kid loose and it's a vandal with a criminal record and you're a bad parent. You teach them rules and respect? And they are stuck living the tax payer life for eternity who never rocks the boat.
Ah noooo way .. I'm exaggerating! I am?
Take a working / lower class kid. Let them go trash a restaurant, or dress up as a Nazi and sing racist songs for a night out. Result's aren't good are they? Criminal record? Nice! Ok now lets try that at the rich end of the scale. Call it the Bullingdon Club. Trash a few restaurants and throw cash at the owner, go for the Nazi themed party and oh noes! The public school / University might say your social club isn't recognised by them ... But it's ok ... You can still become Mayor of London, Prime Minister, hell you can even run the entire country's finances if you like.
You can pause there and spend a few minutes trying to reconcile it all in your mind if you like. But it doesn't fit. There are very basic structural problems of unfairness in society that if anything are getting worse not better, and there's no solution. No political party that even recognises the problem. There isn't even a current philosophical position on what's right and what's wrong in the above.
You're on your own kids in an impossible position. That's life. What do you want to do about it?
16 Jul 2012
Stuff wot bugs me...
Here's a little blend of 2012 insanity for you...
Mobile Phone's: Crapitalism at it's best?
Why's that then? Hokay ... we ready?
First, any mobile you get on a pay monthly is locked to that network. Doesn't need to be. If you had a good network and decent bill's you'd be happy to stay with them. Right? And when you upgrade and get a new phone, what does the old one become? A brick? You can't just stick a sim in it and use it on another network without (usually) an unlocking charge.
Then there's contract length. Every upgrade, every buy in, you get locked in to a contract length. Semi fair enough. They need to cover the cost of that lovely new mobile they just gave you for peanuts. But why isn't there a "minimal payback" option? Why can't you say "Hey I want to move to a different provider and not use any of your services, what's the monthly charge for that then?".
It gets better! "Pay As You Go". I don't know if any of you noticed, but that is now a mythical beast. It's now, pay monthly for a bundle as you go, which is pretty much the same as a monthly contract, but you don't get tied into a contract length .. yay! Er. No. You end up paying as much for a sim over the months and unlocking an old phone as you would going for the pay monthly by contract with upgrade option.
It's a locked in model of crapitalism, from the throw away phone culture to opaque package deals, hidden costs to keep your number, unlock your phone, close the contract, add more data, and mr or mrs happy at the end of the phone line selling you the next fantastic contract, will always without fail try and sell you a contract that costs more and provides more than you need.
Ideal world? The one that doesn't exist? Pay as you go *does* mean something. You pay a flat rate per minute voice and data, if you run out, it stops, you don't get smacked with a huge charge with no warning. No contract to worry about. Absolute transparency. Also? You get your phone on a monthly contract unlocked or free to unlock. Sure let them have a shot at reducing the stupidly expensive monthly deal they sold you to keep you on. Fair enough. But ring this number and free unlock with a sales pitch and we're sorry you want to leave us.
Ink
Got a printer?
Think again.
You've actually got an ink sales device.
For a vast number of printers you've had for a year or so, when it comes to buying a new set of ink cartridges, you may just dig around, swear at how expensive they are and buy a set.
Did you think of checking how much an equally good printer is these days including a first set of ink? Hey! Guess what! Probably cheaper or around the same price you just paid for a set of ink cartridges.
Wait what?
Nope. Doesn't make any sense at all does it?
Oh ok, so I'll refill the cartridges I've got with cheaper ink. Cunning plan! Except ... all ink jet printers I know of now have chipped cartridges, not only do they tell you they have run out very often before they actually have run out, but if you take one out, drill a hole, fill it and replace it? The printer will still say it's empty. It's ok you can get around this. You can buy a complete set of resettable chip cartridges and the ink. YAY! Oh. Wait. That costs more than buying a new printer again.
Ink jet printers are a superb example of crapitalism at it's very worst. Discard-able culture, inventing value in what should be the cheap consumable and a mountain of "dead" printers in the junk yards of the world.
Computer says "No".
In a way, it's not the poor soul at the phone help desk's fault. They just get to deliver a shit service dictated by the company and financial limits... Let me explain...
Phone support for pretty much any company you want to mention is a crap paid job. It's front line against pissed off customers and not very rewarding. The churn rate is generally horrible even if it is off-shored.
So when you and your complex little world meets the phone number of customer support doom? You're basically dealing with someone who has a little more than the FAQ you just had access to on the webpage to ring them, very little company loyalty, and no reason on earth to really care about how the company works because that doesn't pay extra, and "Hey I'm applying for different jobs already!", who can blame them?
So what you get is a little maze of "press #". If you're lucky, that actually matches up with your particular problem. Fairly often, you don't quite fit. You've got a couple of questions that fit more than one menu option, or you just don't fit the template. You end up with generic support person at the end of the phone.
Generic support person cares sometimes that they don't get flak for being crap and unhelpful. That next job application hasn't come back yet, so polite is built in to the pay packet. Sadly knowledge, an urge to actually help beyond the script and FAQ they have, or the time to spend 30 mins on your particular problem, isn't on the menu.
I tend to find, the end result is that the only way to get anywhere with a problem that doesn't fit exactly the cookie cutter answer sheet is to threaten legal action and get very pissed off until they escalate the case to middle management and someone who half gives a shit. Ok. That's generous. One hundredth gives a shit. They may have to add to the company FAQ manual with a non-conformance issue if this gets logged and that means work! Way easier just monitoring the phone pit peons for throughput, length of loo breaks and attitude to earn a living. That stuff is automated.
Basically. It's the crap cleaning, toilet washing glamour end of the industry. You buy the product? It all works fine in 75% of cases? Fantastic. Give us the money. You're in the 20% of foul up that easily fit a problem we know about or don't want to kick up a fuss? Fantastic. Computer FAQ via a voice line that you could have read up on the website for yourself is here to help. You're in the 5% that wants to kick up a fuss or doesn't fit the template? ... Get angry and try and make waves if you like. It'll take legal action to make a difference or you can just bin the company and move on to the next, exactly the same phone support model company in the same industry.
It sucks.
Mobile Phone's: Crapitalism at it's best?
Why's that then? Hokay ... we ready?
First, any mobile you get on a pay monthly is locked to that network. Doesn't need to be. If you had a good network and decent bill's you'd be happy to stay with them. Right? And when you upgrade and get a new phone, what does the old one become? A brick? You can't just stick a sim in it and use it on another network without (usually) an unlocking charge.
Then there's contract length. Every upgrade, every buy in, you get locked in to a contract length. Semi fair enough. They need to cover the cost of that lovely new mobile they just gave you for peanuts. But why isn't there a "minimal payback" option? Why can't you say "Hey I want to move to a different provider and not use any of your services, what's the monthly charge for that then?".
It gets better! "Pay As You Go". I don't know if any of you noticed, but that is now a mythical beast. It's now, pay monthly for a bundle as you go, which is pretty much the same as a monthly contract, but you don't get tied into a contract length .. yay! Er. No. You end up paying as much for a sim over the months and unlocking an old phone as you would going for the pay monthly by contract with upgrade option.
It's a locked in model of crapitalism, from the throw away phone culture to opaque package deals, hidden costs to keep your number, unlock your phone, close the contract, add more data, and mr or mrs happy at the end of the phone line selling you the next fantastic contract, will always without fail try and sell you a contract that costs more and provides more than you need.
Ideal world? The one that doesn't exist? Pay as you go *does* mean something. You pay a flat rate per minute voice and data, if you run out, it stops, you don't get smacked with a huge charge with no warning. No contract to worry about. Absolute transparency. Also? You get your phone on a monthly contract unlocked or free to unlock. Sure let them have a shot at reducing the stupidly expensive monthly deal they sold you to keep you on. Fair enough. But ring this number and free unlock with a sales pitch and we're sorry you want to leave us.
Ink
Got a printer?
Think again.
You've actually got an ink sales device.
For a vast number of printers you've had for a year or so, when it comes to buying a new set of ink cartridges, you may just dig around, swear at how expensive they are and buy a set.
Did you think of checking how much an equally good printer is these days including a first set of ink? Hey! Guess what! Probably cheaper or around the same price you just paid for a set of ink cartridges.
Wait what?
Nope. Doesn't make any sense at all does it?
Oh ok, so I'll refill the cartridges I've got with cheaper ink. Cunning plan! Except ... all ink jet printers I know of now have chipped cartridges, not only do they tell you they have run out very often before they actually have run out, but if you take one out, drill a hole, fill it and replace it? The printer will still say it's empty. It's ok you can get around this. You can buy a complete set of resettable chip cartridges and the ink. YAY! Oh. Wait. That costs more than buying a new printer again.
Ink jet printers are a superb example of crapitalism at it's very worst. Discard-able culture, inventing value in what should be the cheap consumable and a mountain of "dead" printers in the junk yards of the world.
Computer says "No".
In a way, it's not the poor soul at the phone help desk's fault. They just get to deliver a shit service dictated by the company and financial limits... Let me explain...
Phone support for pretty much any company you want to mention is a crap paid job. It's front line against pissed off customers and not very rewarding. The churn rate is generally horrible even if it is off-shored.
So when you and your complex little world meets the phone number of customer support doom? You're basically dealing with someone who has a little more than the FAQ you just had access to on the webpage to ring them, very little company loyalty, and no reason on earth to really care about how the company works because that doesn't pay extra, and "Hey I'm applying for different jobs already!", who can blame them?
So what you get is a little maze of "press #". If you're lucky, that actually matches up with your particular problem. Fairly often, you don't quite fit. You've got a couple of questions that fit more than one menu option, or you just don't fit the template. You end up with generic support person at the end of the phone.
Generic support person cares sometimes that they don't get flak for being crap and unhelpful. That next job application hasn't come back yet, so polite is built in to the pay packet. Sadly knowledge, an urge to actually help beyond the script and FAQ they have, or the time to spend 30 mins on your particular problem, isn't on the menu.
I tend to find, the end result is that the only way to get anywhere with a problem that doesn't fit exactly the cookie cutter answer sheet is to threaten legal action and get very pissed off until they escalate the case to middle management and someone who half gives a shit. Ok. That's generous. One hundredth gives a shit. They may have to add to the company FAQ manual with a non-conformance issue if this gets logged and that means work! Way easier just monitoring the phone pit peons for throughput, length of loo breaks and attitude to earn a living. That stuff is automated.
Basically. It's the crap cleaning, toilet washing glamour end of the industry. You buy the product? It all works fine in 75% of cases? Fantastic. Give us the money. You're in the 20% of foul up that easily fit a problem we know about or don't want to kick up a fuss? Fantastic. Computer FAQ via a voice line that you could have read up on the website for yourself is here to help. You're in the 5% that wants to kick up a fuss or doesn't fit the template? ... Get angry and try and make waves if you like. It'll take legal action to make a difference or you can just bin the company and move on to the next, exactly the same phone support model company in the same industry.
It sucks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)