Sunday, June 01, 2014

Why Does Fight or Fuck Exist?

I once saw a retarded psychology professor giving a video lecture
about emotions to undergraduates. He asked his class what the opposite
of love was. Most said it was hatred, which is very inaccurate since
contempt would be better, but this moron berated them as if they'd
done a great wrong. Then he proceeded to tell them as if imparting a
great insight that love and hatred are both "arousal" and the opposite
of "arousal" was calm or neutrality or indifference.

(This moron didn't even grasp that indifference is negative, not
neutral, ah but such is life in the field called psychology.)

Setting aside the fact that it can be PROVED contempt is opposite of
love, due to the fact if you feel both of them towards the same person
simultaneously they will cancel out leaving you feeling absolutely
nothing towards that person. Or the further fact that hatred comes
reasonably close to being another opposite.

Yes, setting aside the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, let's examine this
retarded moron's (and all psychologists are retards, whether they're
clinicians or researchers or professors since they do not acknowledge
their own minds' limitations, the fact they are idiots at best,
despite working WITH minds) idiotic claims that negative emotions and
positive emotions are similar because magnitude is more important than
quality.

Arousal ... there's another type of arousal than this retard talked
about, it is sexual arousal. Now, in comedies it's often the case that
two people who are angry and hate each other get sexually aroused and
suddenly start lusting after each other and tearing each other's
clothes off. But this cliche humour is not cliche because it is true
of real life. It is true because it is ABSURD. It is funny because it
is NONSENSE.

But, and some people will object, why does one sometimes become
sexually aroused during a fight with a loved one? Doesn't this prove
that love and anger are closely related and that "arousal" is
"arousal"? No, because if it were true then a fight with a complete
stranger would lead to people fucking in the streets. However, that
doesn't fucking happen, does it?! In fact, the notion is fucking
retarded. ABSURD. NONSENSE.

So ... here we have a phenomenon which has 3 important
characteristics. 1. it's very mysterious and no one can quite explain
it. 2. ordinary people reject as absurd the simple-minded explanation.
3. psychologists believe themselves deep thinkers for embracing the
retarded explanation that is total nonsense contradicted by the
evidence. And in fact, psychologists believe themselves BETTER than
ordinary people because they bite the bullet of logically
self-contradictory "explanations". Idiots.

What *IS* the explanation? It's really beautiful and elegant once you
know it, and obviously very deceptive since people don't talk about
it. The explanation is that when you feel anger or hatred at a loved
one and your love for them is *almost completely canceled* you will
still desire to feel close to them ... and sex is the only POSITIVE
intimate act left to you. Anger or hatred (and especially the PARTIAL
anger left over during the makeup phase of a fight with a loved one)
forces your love and desire / need for intimacy into unconventional
channels. Much the same way dropping a big boulder into a reservoir
will cause the dam to overflow.

Ahh, but such wisdom is not for the "deep thinkers" of psychology.
FACTS AND EVIDENCE are not for the "deep thinkers" of psychology. Sick
disgusting fucks.

Other wisdom I've found about relationships that turned out to be
literally and absolutely true

* relationships are built on trust and trustworthiness <- formally provable
* love is an emotion - the emotion that is the merger of affection and
fondness intensified to the next level
* so-called moments of connection (ie, attunement) really do bond
people together
* lovesickness literally is when someone else's happiness is essential
to your own

Because love is an emotion it feels like something. Love is ALSO not
at all an emotion. It has in total three different meanings. It is
annoying that way. Also, sex-as-love isn't a separate meaning at all
but dovetails right in the primary meaning of love.

Also, so-called "romantic gestures" are sickeningly close to
narcissists' notions of love and empathy. Hint: narcissists can only
love themselves and have no empathy. These two categories are not
identical but they are close enough for romantic gestures to be
repulsive to most mentally healthy people.

Wednesday, May 07, 2014

The Internet's Fascist New World Order

They call themselves "moderators" but you'd have to be an idiot to
believe they have any resemblance to moderators in religious or
political debate groups. Of course, being being retarded idiots, most
people actually take the name "moderator" seriously. Most people
disgustingly RESPECT moderators.

In real life, moderators don't go around with guns and a license to
kill spraying bullets at anyone they don't like the way cops and Nazis
do. In real life, moderators' actions aren't invisible to the
participants the way Stasi's are. In real life, moderators can't
execute "power plays" to kick out other moderators and "usurp power".

In real life, moderators don't go around with magic gags that can
erase everything you've ever said. In real life, moderators don't go
around complaining about how the (few) people who hate them are
whiners, enemies of the state, and the disgruntled few who are
astroturfing anyways.

Real life moderators of discussion groups have ZERO connection with
internet "moderators" of internet forums. You might as well be trying
to compare a warm breeze in the middle of winter to the very fires of
Hell.

It just proves how condemnable, contemptible, and downright Evil the
bulk of humanity is that when faced with the raw vileness of
"moderators" that they shrug their shoulders and say ... "well,
unmoderated forums are crap anyways" as if fascism and
right-libertarianism were the only political ideologies and the only
forms of social control around.

Internet participants EXPECT Evil. It's just a question of whether
it's right-libertarian slavery and omnipresent death or fascist
servitude and homicide everywhere. 6 eggs on one hand or half a dozen
ovoids on the other. And why do they expect Evil? Because programmers
are overwhelmingly Evil and/or worthless retarded morons.

Ward Cunningham created his "noble experiment in totalitarian
communism" which failed utterly once it scaled up about two to three
orders of magnitude (I'm being generous). And what did he resort to
when it failed? FASCISM! Because of course there's no middle ground,
and *certainly* there's no alternative. Utmost marxism and fascism
(and psychopathy) are the ONLY alternatives on offer.

Because of course, the Internet is NEW and it's not like the THREE
MILLENIA of human political history have anything to teach anyone at
all!! No, rather than start with democracy or shoot beyond it for
anarcho-communism, we need to go BACK to fascism or FEUDALISM or
murderous infanticidal tribalism!

And of course, the fact that these worthless retarded cretins are
resurrecting dead and buried ideologies from political history doesn't
imply that political history is RELEVANT to the Internet! No, we'll
bake our cake, sell it, and then we'll use it as collateral to get a
bank loan! Where have I heard that one before?

Fuck, I despise people who can't do logic. They should all burn in
Hell! If you're going to do politics fucking do it right. And if
you're not then you'd better stand out of the way of people who CAN do
politics, and bend over to get the ass-rape you deserve!

Monday, April 14, 2014

Against: Food Miles and Vertical Farming

Greens being idiots believe that the cost of goods and services are
ultimately based on energy. They are totally wrong. Everything's cost
is based on labour. Energy ceased to be a factor sometime in the 1970s
or 1980s. In other words, they are living in a bygone age.

Back in the dinosaur era from which they hail, the value of the
economy was precisely proportional to the energy consumption of the
economy. Industrial planners MEASURED the economy's output by its
energy input! But ever since then, the two measures have radically
diverged.

Green foodists and local-vores are dinosaurs and maladaptive. They
believe in some "food miles" crap when trucking has not and never will
be an issue. They're the same breed of people as the futurologists who
believe in molecular disassemblers and recovery of "resources" from
garbage dumps (something which will never happen as recovery from
seawater is easier). It's people who don't understand entropy and what
the term 'ore' means.

To sum up, nowadays the economy has fuck all to do with energy. It's a
non-issue which doesn't and never will matter anymore.

What's worse is these local-vores go the extra mile of advocating the
destruction of cities, which of course they totally deny. But let's
face it, they want to stick uninhabited buildings in the middle of the
city. When "city" is defined as a congregation of PEOPLE.

Well, you know what? The sublimation or evaporation of cities (aka,
their destruction) is never going to happen. Never fucking going to
fucking happen. Put it to a song and sing it. NEVER. GOING. TO.
HAPPEN. Even when humans are extinct and AIs rule the world, they'll
do so in CITIES.

I hate pretend-rural fucks. Hey, here's a clue: 90% of rural people
want to live in cities if given a choice. And here we have gutless
city boys who want to destroy cities and remake them into the country,
rather than just fucking moving there!

Thursday, April 03, 2014

AI and robots

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/technology/10274420/Artificial-intelligence-will-take-the-place-of-humans-within-five-years.html

Assuming the pseudo-AI replaces 1000 operators in each of 4 shifts
then that's 4000 humans * 20 years * 20k a year = 160 million. That's
what it's WORTH so if it costs less than that then the difference is
profit.

There will be interesting times in China and India in the near future,
with AI and robots. But especially with India that fashioned itself
the call center of the world. Because its population is largely
uneducated and used to a corrupt ineffective government.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Violence vs Gutlessness

<blockquote>it seems to me that the policies put in place with the
intent to curb violence are often misguided</blockquote>

<p>Why are you surprised? Why are you sad that this is happening? This
is predictable.</p>

<p>These gutless retards are saying that violence itself is the
problem. That if everyone just held hands and sang kumbaya then
everything would be fine. They're delusional lunatics without any
grasp of the real world.</p>

<p>But let me ask you this, if some genocidal cannibal was raping your
wife, do you believe he would DESERVE violence on him? Or that he
should be "stopped"?</p>

<p>In the gutless mindset, the guy raping your wife isn't any worse
than her getting a papercut. Both of them are bad and they are as bad
as it gets. It certainly isn't the case that some injury is WORSE than
another injury.</p>

<p>And since Gutless people don't recognize the existence of Evil
(things that are more than slightly bad), they also don't recognize
the existence of Evil people. Therefore, they don't believe it's GOOD
when Evil people receive violence.</p>

<p>Gutsy people think Evil people getting pounded is exactly how it
should be and exactly what they deserve and exactly what they've been
asking for. Gutless people meanwhile think that Evil doesn't exist and
that the answer to Evil is to ignore it. That the PERCEPTION of Evil
is the problem.</p>

<p>Violence isn't the problem, it is the solution to many, many
problems. The problem of violence perpetrated by Evil people. Or the
existence of Evil people period.</p>

<p>So why are you so surprised when after blind retards eliminate the
solution to a great many of life's problems, they cause more problems?
It's as if there were a CONNECTION there. It's like it's MAGIC. It's
as if calling the blind retards "misguided" is like calling the ocean
a little wet or a salt mine a little salty.</p>

Saturday, March 22, 2014

Rationality

What is rationality? It's the ability to make life plans which reach your goals. Funny thing though, the INABILITY to (care about) making such plans is the defining trait of psychopaths. In other words, Narcissists qualify as rational. No wonder Narcissist shitheads like Yudkowsky go on and on and on about rational this and rational that. He's basically crowing in triumph "I am not a psychopath!!" like it's this marvelous achievement worthy of acclaim. Worthy of adulation even!

And for your information, I first heard that definition of rationality many years before I'd ever heard of Yudkowsky or even knew what Narcissism or Psychopathy were. I heard about it from a philosophy book trying to justify Good according to Evil principles. It was a disgusting exercise but for the exercise to work the disgusting fucker obviously had to admit Narcissists and Right-Wing Authoritarians. You know, to even HAVE Evil in his assumptions.

Man, it sounds so self-aggrandizing to hear "I am not a psychopath!! HAHA. IN YOUR FACE PERSON WHO ISN'T LIKE ME!"

Friday, March 21, 2014

Why Charities Are Pathetic

charity means you're so hopeless it's obvious to everyone

benefactor means you've so much potential that it's obvious to someone

Now if only Yudkowsky's patron weren't so fucking idiotic and deluded and cut that Narcissist asshole's purse-strings!

I'm pretty satisfied with this short and elegant proof that displaces pages and pages of arguments and facts. Especially since I don't have the link to that ancient article about how Northern charities were displacing Southern governments and keeping money flowing from the South to the North while keeping control firmly in the North despite decolonization.