Saturday assorted links


4. So the common assumptions on how to build a thriving economy are wrong. Just think how much more prosperous they would be if they had zero interest rates. And diversity. And a facebook connected workforce.

"Allowing our members to shift their interdependence on each other to dependence upon any outside source would inevitably lead to the breakup of our order." The Amish & Social Security

The libertarians told me if we tear down the state we would have prosperity. And they were right. Too bad they mainly focus on tranny bathrooms now.

But have you tried the tranny bathroom? And, no, I'm not referring to racy websites you visit.

We will pretend for a second that you don't consume a ton of pornography- what in your moral perspective lets you judge someone for consuming tranny porn. It's funny how quickly PC leftists urge to belittle overrides their supposed principles.

A quick hit of humour plus an implicit tolerance for what you thought she was lecturing about? If someone here has the urge to belittle people, it is not Jan (certainly not in this instance anyways).

I've been trying to coin a term for the equivalent of an SJW on the other side of the spectrum. Anti-SJW comes to mind, but it's not right because it suggests opposing SJW strategies. SJ anti-W comes to mind, but it suggests rather more a social justice-oriented person who is not so offensive about things. S anti-JW seems getting somewhat closer, since they seem to have some pretty anti-justice notions when it comes to the groups favoured by SJWs. But I think it's all going in the wrong direction. An entirely new term is needed. Any ideas? Perhaps SJJ, for Social Jerk Jerkoffs? Na, too offensive. Has to be something more representative of what actually drives them. How about just "assholes"? Yeah, that seems about right. No special terms needed after all.

Then again, the SJWs might be offended at portraying elements of gay sex (assholes) in negative light. Maybe we need a new word for assholes. Jerk doesn't quite do it, because hey, what's wrong with ****ing off? Wouldn't want to portray that in a negative light either. Tough one ... something with come ... racist? mysogynist? homophobe? Na ... they would never say racist, sexist or homophobic things because they're actually like that.

Got it! "Truth Talkers". Courageous people who speak the truths of how everyone else is inferior, themselves to be praised! TTs indeed. Then they can go jerk off because it sounds like "titties", which they probably don't see much of because they're such ... y'know, haven't quite found the word for it yet, TTs. With the added benefit that that's actually how they see themselves.

Anti-SJ Warriors.

But you're not a leftist.

Thiago - I see the appeal, and it has the advantage of being recognizable. Shifting the "Warrior" completely out of the acronym I think appropriately groups together the "anti-SJ" part of things. I kind of liked TT because it might help them to clue into why they don't have girlfriends and the like, or why their wives left them, etc. (not only missing out on the on-average moderating and caring aspsects of women, but also probably making them feel excluded and angry, on average - I had an Iranian roommate whose wife divorced him and got custody of the children shortly after moving to Canada - he blamed it on soap operas - in the most tactful of possible ways, I suggested to him that maybe he didn't treat her that good and that's maybe why she left, but no, in his mind it was the fault of soap operas and perhaps the Queen of England. Might similar denialism be rampant among the anti-SJ Warriors?).

Careless - it was an open question, if framed somewhat offensively (but hey, anti-SJ Warriors are kings of offensiveness, and should LOVE me for it, right?).

What do you call someone who patently IS a racist, sexist homophobe who demands the right to engage in hateful and derogatory practices and speech which make life hell for people whose only crime is by accident of birth? Moreover, one who seems to think that all others MUST tolerate their hateful and insulting ways, not so much as even MENTIONING that these necessarily reflect racist, sexist or homophobic attitudes. Shouldn't. Even. Speak of it.

While I regularly and strongly condemn the irrational lynch mobbing of SJWs, it is clear that they have an analogue at the other side of the spectrum. Careless: a modern anti-SJ Warrior indeed.

Upon making which point you paint me into the left. You must be a TT.

Since when is it "leftist" to want people to be respectful with each other, and not to judge people based on things they were born into? If it is a defining feature of the right to oppose such thinking, then perhaps you'd better go read your Bible or something - whether you believe it was sent by God or not, there be some good sense in there. I get it, it's hard, you must have been born into such hateful attitudes. But, I don't want you to hate your parents or friends, they were born into it too, ad infinitum. Times are changing.

TT has a ring to it.

How about ASJW for Actual Social Justice Warrior ?

Makes sense if you remove the Orwellian usage of social justice in SJW.

Along comes Nathan to immediately shit all over the comment thread and derail it for his own entertainment. Post that stuff on your own blog.

Cliff - since it wasn't remotely directed at you, it could only have stung if it applies to you, and presumably hurts because you know deep down that anti-SJ Warriorism isn't the right way to go. It is no less polite than your frequent personal attacks, and actually points to some potentially construtive discussion without singling out any individuals or broadly tarring specific groups for things they are born into.

TMC - I encourage you to share your views on what "Actual Social Justice Warriors" would hold as their key values. SJWs tend to defend all non-white non-Christian minorities, women in particular and and LGBT, and hold currently living straight white men responsible for all evils ever perpetrated against these groups if they deign to stray whatsoever from the victim narrative. What does an ASJW stand for, and what means of communication do they use?

Of course, the group I refer to are raging racists, sexists and homophones who attack any and all who have the nerve to point out the presence of their socially undesirable tendencies, implicitly demanding the right to attack any and all in a context where no one should presume the right to so much as point out the realities of their disdainful and hateful attitidues. If you wish to dissociate yourself from such types, no one is stopping you. If you want to defend that as "Actual Social Justice", then please do tell. Or, perhaps, in dissociating yourself from such types, you might like to defend an entirely different perspective of what "Actual Social Justice" is. But, in that case, you're talking about something else altogether and this has precisely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Social justice cannot exist in a world where we discriminate against and maltreat people on the basis of accidents of birth that are utterly beyond their control. And if you're dedicated to attacking people on the basis of things earned by birth, then it is entirely correct to point this out as an utterly disgusting view which is completely inconsistent with the objective of living in a world where all can enjoy a free and decent life. The freedom to treat people like shit for no good reason is no freedom worth protecting.

I made a comment about libertarians, not transsexuals, yet the response was not to defend libertarianism. Liberatarianism is a dead movement.

If the Amish and the Nordics are both successful, then the libertarian test does not pass.

Nordic success

The success found on one road does not mean that the other leads to disaster.

3) Seems like a good idea to remove wording from anthems which calls countrymen "scum". Surely they can uphold history without such language. I'm surprised that the British anthem still refers to the strategy of interfering in the internal politics of foreign countries ("confound their politics") - I would have thought that they would have scrubbed that once the word started to get around.

6) Isn't the obvious answer that people do not signal that they are getting drunk alone at home, but tweet from bars, where a) this signals that they have a social life and b) serves as a potential invite for others?

(I recently saw a widely-shared Facebook post which said something to the effect of "If you're too classy to drink beer in the shower, then sorry, I can't be friends with you." I responded that if you cannot make it through a shower without a beer that you're probably an alcoholic, but that's OK, we can still be friends and meet for coffee any time you want. This drew great ire from dozens of people, to the effect of "mind your own God damned business" or "well I guess you're obviously just some loooser". Hey, it's possible to drink 7 days a week socially, even heavily, and then refrain for weeks or months with no problems. But some people seem to be rather in denial about seeing when substance use ventures into substance abuse. I've even known at least two people who I would consider to have used cocaine responsibly, and wouldn't go any further than to entreat them to be self aware if they stray into dependency - of course, that would sound like pure insanity if you've been heavily indoctrinated by war on drugs propaganda - neither ever became an addict of any sort.)

I've always been skeptical of the value of the "once you use it once, you could become heavily addicted" sort of anti-drug teaching. This might prevent some people from starting, but I'm concerned that it might cause others to believe that they are hopelessly addicted the moment they start, and perhaps as a result in fact CAUSE a rapid descent into addiction rather than prevent it.

Then again, we should definitely not be naive as to the potential for certain substances to rapidly lead into dependency. I'm surely far from alone in knowing people who went from first encounters to ravings meth-heads in the space of weeks. Meth is one of the few drugs I would support to keep very illegal, in particular, very strong penalities against meth lab operators (why not offer a nation-wide 10k payout guaranteed to anyone who offers information leading to a meth lab bust? Middlemen are typically poor, and would likely respond well to the incentives. Meth, after all, is not prone to cartel-like distribution, and threat of being found out or reprisal is not such a big deal).

While it may be a good thing, once someone realizes they have been lied to, they will never believe anything those in authority say. I don't think they will be fooled into thinking a non-addictive substance is addictive. I've always found it funny people consider cocaine more addictive than caffeine.

I think death is a reasonably big deal in terms of reprisal. If you offered a 10k payout, people would file false reports on their enemies, or set up fake labs until GDP was exhausted.

Maryland had a good anthem. I hope people continue to sing the original. For life and death, for woe and weal, thy peerless chivalry reveal that Lincoln could be an as$.

"once someone realizes they have been lied to, they will never believe anything those in authority say"

Without consideration of all the ill effects of the war on drugs itself, I think this itself, even upholding the general objectives of the war on drugs (reduce drug usage), this suggests that a more honest approach would be best.

I think the UN commission on drugs has a very credible tabulation of the risks associated with various drugs. MJ, of course, receives the lowest possible rating. Ecstasy would receive the lowest possible rating except for concerns about being too habit forming. There should be no denial - MJ is habit forming, but definitely not addictive. Anti-drug crusaders tend to classify "addiction" based on regularity of use, and write off "I could quit any day, but why would I, I like it?" as pure denialism. In which case, one could similarly be "addicted" to bacon, driving, cheddar cheese, and any number of other things according to such critiera - the only relevant criteria being that one disapproves of the substance being discussed in defining it as "addiction".

The alcohol tweet AI only lacks one thing -- sending notifications to your medical and car insurance companies.

I'm sure the French to English translator can tell us what qu'un sang impur means and where it occurs. I won't stretch him too far with what abreuver means.

On the other hand it's entirely I surprise that he doesn't know that confound their politics likely refers to the Gun Powder Plot.

Yeah, because most people know about obscure historical references to the third verse of foreign anthems. Or anything about any foreign anthem for that matter. Or even much more than the opening line of their very OWN anthem ...

Never knew the French anthem. But on looking it up, there appears to be some disagreement of what it means (translation is often not remotely as obvious as it might seem). Some propose that it meant killing the nobles, but there seems rather more agreement that it's about killing non-French if they invade. Extensive historical analysis might be needed to be sure, or perhaps a quick phone call to the right person who specializes in precisely that kind of thing. Hey, it's pretty out of date too. Maybe someone should lecture the French on their barbarous national anthem. Generally, better to let them arrive at that on their own - given the Front National and all, it's more likely to create backlash than anything.

(It's a lot easier when you can just ask the author what they actually mean. In the British case, even if there's a specific historical analogy, presumably the meaning was intended more broadly, double (or more) entendre being a pretty big thing in poetry.)

Nathan you brought up God Save Queen in the course of yet another interminable day journaling exercise. I proceeded to humiliate you with facts and now you are retreating to teenager-like sneering. Act your age not the number of years since you've had a girl friend. My point which eluded you was tha a lot of anthems have pretty violent imagery in them. Why harp on Maryland except for as your quickly demonstrated a reasons of complete ignorance about how prevelant violent imagery in anthems is.

Yes, I feel sooooo humiliated when people lecture me about vague historical references in the third version of a foreign anthem while ignoring the likely second order meaning.

I should probably choose a new screen name. The embarassment is just killing me. I might even shoot myself - dammit - it's IMPOSSIBLE to buy guns in the country I'm in - oh well, guess I'll have to live another day.

Sam - I'm approving of their independent decision to take initiative and make that change on their own. I would never deign to have the right to lecture a foreign nation on their national anthem.

However, I have formerly engaged in a project to dissect each and every anthem in Africa, in addition to their constitutions, in order to understand the interplay between imagery, public politics, etc., as a part of being a good translator. It seems that getting rid of the colonists was rather important, and issuing (often not even veiled) threats of vigilance against its return is prevalent. Roughly similar to the French anthem, in that sense, if you consider that the realities of 18th century France were absolutely worth rising up in violent revolution for.

Canada, as one of the few nations on the planet that did not have to use violence to rid themselves of kings, queens, imperialists or autocrats, of course, has a fairly peaceful national anthem. However, "we stand on guard for thee".

Humiliation is different than shame. You are incapable of shame because you were poorly socialized and are extremely lonely. Refusing to be humiliated when you criticize the British anthem for doing something that it doesn't do isn't a sign of hardiness just a complete lack of basic shame.

Yes, I feel sooooo humiliated when people lecture me about vague historical references in the third version of a foreign anthem while ignoring the likely second order meaning.

Wait, you're Canadian, right? That's not a foreign anthem for you.

Careless - it hasn't been Canada's anthem for generations already.

Sam - whatever, if it makes you happy to lecture people about their ignorance of vague historical references of third verses of foreign anthems written hundreds of years ago, then, well, why don't you just pat yourself on the back and be happy. As an alternative, I suggest humility as you stride forward on the path to greater knowledge and understanding of perspectives, and if you have some specific relevant factoid, then feel free to share such knowledge without being an ass.

Shall I refrain from mentioning which of us OBVIOUSLY suffers from poorer quality socialization? Not this time. According to your own standards, you should be deathly embarassed for your incorrect innuendo about the French anthem. But that would be dumb. As a translator, I would take no special pleasure in pointing out that someone jumped to the wrong conclusion, rather, this is normal course as experienced daliy on many translator forums, where many people regularly correct each other on less-than-obvious points without feeling any need to TRY to shame people. Even the most retarded of suggestions is met with something to the effect of "Um, definitely NOT, here's why, and refer to my better answer and the explanation for it." And that, among people who compete head-to-head for bids and whose peer-reviewed answers contribute to metrics relevant to bid applications.

Kill the nobles. That's what it meant. The timing of writing confirms it (99% sure, hard to confirm with the writer). Crowdsourced knowledge is wrong again. But hey, that's why real professionals will never use Google Translate.

I assume it was an implicit reference to the offensive notions that nobility tended to have with regard to the rifraff, throwing it back in their faces as the revolutionaries went about slaughtering the nobility. A form of sarcasm, I would think.

The Amish/Mennonite community is also doing very well in Sarasota Florida

#2....It was on the basis of jobs like these that Marx determined capitalism was about to end.

I think this list includes the responses of some 19th century gagsters. Haven't you ever a silly response in a questionnaire you don't respect?

#2: Pretty sure I can explain the "knocker-up..." The job was basically a human alarm clock, who would knock on your door to wake you up in time for your workday.

6. I think we'll see, possibly before this decade is out, a good all-around* asshole detector -- probably as a mobile app. It will not only analyze emails, tweets, posts, etc., but also a person's facial expressions (including microexpressions), body language, tone of voice, etc.

You could program the asshole detector to alert you in various ways...including placing a fake call to you (we've long since had apps for that already).

[*] And probably customizable for obvious reasons.

And as soon as we have this technology, so will the robots. And if the robots decide to remove all those people, hey, I'm all for that! Eugenics will win after all!

29 comments. 13 from one person. At least 3 responses to his own comment.


Robots, you know what to do.

I can see you miss me Bob. See what happens when I don't post?

@#1 - chicken diapers are for people who keep chickens for pets. I am the expert on chickens (I raise them for food here in the Philippines). I just culled 26 yesterday. The fun part is slicing their throats: upside down in the killing cone, two slits just below the jaw line, keeps the head on the neck, does not damage the windpipe, then bleed out (sometimes they keep their eyes open for up to a minute, even though I've sliced the artery). BTW, chopping the head off is both dangerous for the executioner, and, crucially, is NOT more humane. The UK humane society specifically has said so: their scientists determined the chicken head (sans body) is still alive for up to ten seconds after being severed from the body (I bet the same is true for humans, recall stories from the French Revolution and the guillotine). They recommend only slicing the throat after stunning the chicken with a specially designed stun gun, which of course no small grower can afford. I don't see how it's less painful than exsanguination. The non-fun part: plucking the feathers, so tedious. I paid $4 to two people to do it.

Now about poop: the so-called "45 day" or "Cornish CX" bird, selectively bred to show to full maturity in 45 days (though the market size of 1 kg is reached in 30 days, you keep the lights on at night so they eat 24 hours a day), generates a lot of poop. It's not suitable as a pet. But, the native chicken here (a Rhode Island Red variant; the hens are extremely aggressive, I've seen them literally peck the eyes out of a rooster that was not assertive enough--a hen pecked husband if you will--of course we ate him) do not generate that much poop, about one-tenth as much, and would make a suitable pet, but I feel strongly that these birds should be outside, in a coop, with dirt floors, and you should spray for red mites every two weeks using Malathion. Red mites, btw, will get on you and bite you, the human host, for up to ten days before dying. On chickens they will cause anemia and even (rarely) death. They are too small to clearly see: about the size of a 'period' :--> . On humans they leave a tell-tale mosquito bite with a bright orange-red dot in the center, that's the larvae. A special cream or tweezers will remove them. I usually just wait for them to drop out by their own. They're itchy but not super itchy. They can (and for some reason typically do) migrate to your genitals.

Personally, I feel dogs, cats or, if you're lucky like me, a monkey, make the best pets. Chickens are more like reptiles. If you like chickens why not get a lizard or parrot instead?

Be honest Ray did you create Nathan W as a sock puppet in order to make your normal persona more palatable.

"They can (and for some reason typically do) migrate to your genitals."

Warm and sweaty, and harder to get clean than most other parts.

If it was that tedious, you would just ignore me.

There is a greasemonkey extension that lets you "killfile" the stupid people Tyler attracts. Heavily called for here.

I would have a lot less to say if bullies like Bob, Sam and some others would just ignore me, so it would be great if they could make use of an extension like that. At least with Peter, SMFS, Art, or others with whom I disagree on a lot of things, I think we are all learning to better understand the opposite sides of the argument and there is some legitimate value in the exchange.

Some say not to feed the trolls. I disagree. We should call them on their bullshit every time.


A troll would say that.

Right. I'm the troll, but you're the person who told me to stop "shitting on this board" and go away to my own blog.

If you think I'm trolling anyone, please do not hesitate to point out how so and be explicit in explaining why it comes across that way. If you can express yourself clearly, I will apologize for the misunderstanding and posit a guess as to the reason for the misunderstanding. That is not a troll, troll.

Comments for this post are closed