So, a week ago I had an experience that reminded me up close and personal, in stark vivid detail, just how thoroughly vile this world is. It's not the first time it's happened. And it's not even the first time I ended up miserable because of it. It is the first time I undertook a systematic investigation into just what the fuck misery is exactly.
Wow, has it only been a week? My depressions and misery used to last for uncounted lengths of time, not mere days! Well, that's what happens when you've got thorough knowledge of human psychology behind you. Because knowledge is power and in this case, it's the power to exquisitely manipulate one's own emotions. This is real power, bitches!
The first thing I learned about misery during this spell is that anger, hatred and loathing are really good at tamping down misery. And as great as they are for your posture, they're not any good for your teeth. I'd never felt them for very long before so after sustaining them for days without any end in sight, I was getting kinda tired of them. So I undertook to investigate them too.
Eventually, what I discovered is that misery is:
your self associated with actions or events with bad outcomes over which you have no power
there are a few qualifiers to that plus additional context I'm skipping but they're not important here.
What has made me miserable my whole entire life is being associated with you. With humanity, with the human species, with the world. Because I'm part of that humanity, part of that human species, and part of that world. And it is obviously wholly evil from my perspective. I mean, you don't notice evil happening around you, and you don't care that it happens. That makes you evil.
Well, I got over that. The first step was to grab power and personalize the problem. Which involved completely mentally dissociating myself from humanity. I'm not going to go into the details, they're not pertinent. Or comprehensible to such limited and evil beings. The second step was to use power to create positive outcomes. And that left me where I was ten days ago.
Except it's not status quo anymore because the ante's up. You are all more evil than I had come to expect and hate you for. And I am even further removed from you than I used to be.
How many people do you know suffer emotional breakdowns because they watched some random child get emotionally abused in public? Not any I'm willing to bet. If people like me were a significant portion of the general population, that kind of thing wouldn't happen in the first place. This entire world would be very different from what it is.
So most things are back to normal for me, but there is one huge difference. I hate you. I really, really hate you. And since I have an excellent appreciation for the precise and exact manner in which hatred and misery are related, the way I'm framing it in my own mind is "associating myself with my blog's audience makes me miserable".
Which is why I don't intend to finish the updates and maintenance to some articles that badly needed it. Even the one blogger pushed me into unpublishing while I updated it. Nor do I intend to write the article I've left copious dangling references to in the last few posts. Nor do I even intend to publish a draft that was essentially finished a couple days ago.
Because I am dissociating myself from you.
You're so easy to read
But the book is boring me
You're so easy to read
But the book is boring me
You're so easy to read
But the book is boring
Boring boring boring boring
Boring boring me
Pray for me
If you want to
Pray for me
If you care
Pray for me
If you want to
Pray for me
If you dare
Pray for me
If you want to
Pray for me
If you care
Pray for me
If you want to
Pray for me you fucker
If you fucking dare
Posts
41 comments:
You should see Dr.Phil. :3
I'm sorry you hate us richard. It seems you're going to have to assassinate all those evil politicians and the president, who seem more concerned w/ foreign affairs than America, where I live.
Why would I do anything to your evil overlords Ryan? Your evil overlords are a manifestation of your own evil.
Furthermore, I despise you and all your ilk. So why do you imagine I would ever lift a finger for your convenience or piss on you when you're on fire?
The stupid shit pouring out of your mouth is just more proof, as if I needed any more, that you are a completely worthless moron and that I am right to despise you.
Have no doubts about this fact Ryan: I despise egotistical moronic shitbags like you. So if I ever change the world, I will do so for my own convenience and in such a way that you will still suffer.
It's in the title of the post (I despise you) yet still there are moronic egotistical narcissistic shitbags who just refuse to imagine that I hold them in utter contempt and would be perfectly happy to see them annihilated.
Still there are moronic egotistical narcissistic shitbags who against all empirical evidence, believe there is something good in them, something worth preserving from death and destruction. Something that may redeem them in my eyes.
When the truth is, there is not. You are monsters. Irredeemable in the extreme. And I would be grimly satisfied to see you burn to death.
The truth is the only people worth preserving are the ones who take my accusations to heart. The ones who begin to doubt themselves and to consider that they ARE monsters.
The ones who dismiss it out of hand or make a joke of it deserve a quick death. The ones who try to spin it all to their own egotistical self-interest ... those deserve a slow death in weak acid. Or perhaps being slowly charbroiled while given plenty of ice water to drink.
So, what you're saying is that you only want to help about 5% of the human population... Seems kinda selfish... and that brings up the issue of why you would write a blog for the monsters to read...
So I could tell people "read this and get the fuck out of my face until you understand every word of it".
The purpose of this blog has ALWAYS been to be an archive of my arguments so I wouldn't have to repeat them.
And you don't get to call me selfish you egotistical bag of shit. You don't even know the meaning of the word.
Selfishness is you trying to exploit 95% of everyone you ever meet.
My desire to make sure the 5% of the general population you belong to is burned alive is pure altruism in comparison.
I believe you have difficulty grasping the notion that I would be helping you become a better person by burning you to death. This is so because zero is a higher number than negative one million.
I say you personally because as an egotistical narcissistic shitbag, you're incapable of caring about any other member of your species. You care only for yourself. Whereas I care to help ALL the members of your kind to become better persons by burning you ALL to death.
(And if a cure were found for your psychological disorder, I would still vote for burning.)
I like nachos
This blog post reads like a suppurating wound.
"moronic egotistical narcissistic shitbags"
Using such language to denigrate opponents actively harms your position. People who might be interested in entering a discourse with you are less likely to do so or to absorb your ideas when you embed them in vitriol.
What part of "I despise you" did you fail to comprehend? And yes, I meant you.
People who think the truth is a "position" that needs to be argued, sweetened, sold and bartered disgust me.
I miss your blog posts.
Yes well unfortunately, it hurts me to associate myself with people I despise. I came to despise the general population and I don't see that reversing into warm fuzzies anytime soon.
So what I've been doing is whenever I think of a magnificent argument, I write it up and then ... not post it. I've got quite a few saved up and they won't see the light of day anytime soon. But that's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant because the name of the game isn't talking to people or convincing them of some truth. The name of the game is transforming the world.
Even if I cared ONLY about truth, transforming the world so that people care about truth is far more important than trying to spread one particular truth. Winning the war is far more important than waging a battle.
I've got 9 wars to win and I'm not going to win any of them using pathetic tools like logical persuasion. There's only so tall a house you can build out of LEGO blocks. The building blocks are inadequate.
Which is why I think I'm doing exactly the right thing by doing research rather than talking. Magnificent and revolutionary research. I am laying the groundwork for an entirely new field of science that will displace psychology as completely as chemistry displaced alchemy.
That isn't the only thing I'm doing these days let alone the only goal I have my sights on. But I think it's a lot more important than educating random anonymous strangers.
Which is why I'm filling my quota of social contact in private correspondence with people I know are worth talking to. If you think you're worth talking to, it's easy enough to guess my email address since it's just my full name at google's email service.
I don't waste my time on psychology because my own research into the human mind makes the whole field obsolete. It's like the relation of chemistry to alchemy.
From what you say of him, Robin Hanson is an obvious idiot. The parts of his theories that are true are not original and the parts that are original aren't true.
The notion that power relations determine 90% of human action dates back to Adler, to the beginnings of psychology itself. So it isn't original in the least. And you know what? The truth is that power is merely a prerequisite for 90% of what human beings want.
Social status is merely one of Reiss' 16 Basic Needs. And the 16 Basic Needs theory is false anyways, because it is merely an arbitrary sample of what humans want. And then only for primitive humans (that have not undergone Dabrowskian multi-leveling) at that.
Even if the 16 Basic Needs were a statistically accurate model, social status would only be 1/16th of what human beings want. This is very far from the dominance you say Robin Hanson sees in humans.
Speaking of power, it is obvious to me that out of the trifecta {power, wealth and glory} it is glory that is most evil. Wealth is a prerequisite for freedom from others' impositions. Power is a prerequisite for imposing oneself on others (whether for good or evil). Imposing oneself on others only seems evil because most people ARE evil. Glory serves only conformism and groupthink, which are of course Evil.
Speaking further about power, the relationship a person has towards power can fall into one of four categories. Preacher, leader, follower, monk.
If a person thinks others' value systems have negative legitimacy then they are a Preacher.
If they think others' values have small positive legitimacy then they become a Leader.
If they think others' values have great positive legitimacy then they become a Follower.
And if they think others' values have precisely ZERO legitimacy then they become a Monk, totally removed from the concerns of others.
All of those categories can become pathological. Followers become submissives. Preachers become commanders. Leaders become dominants. And monks become anti-social. So evidently, mental health is independent of one's attitude towards power but depends on entirely different (and unknown) factors.
You mentioned some bloviating crap of Robin Hanson which you thought might be true and might be insightful. I have produced genuine insights for your use as standards. If someone says something which is less useful, less true, or less insightful than THESE insights ... then it's crap.
Your notion that people model their conscious beliefs of humanity is absurd and flies in the face of everything I know about the human mind.
Human personalities are formed almost entirely by early adolescence with very little change afterwards. And the little that does change requires extraordinary pressure which causes pain of epic proportions as a side effect.
In other words, by the time human beings are even CAPABLE OF consciously forming models of humanity, either individually or collectively, their OWN personality has been set in concrete.
Your hypothesis is fairly typical for the quality of thinking found in psychology circles. But I have much, MUCH higher standards than psychology averages, or can ever attain. So to me it is worthless. It flies in the face of the evidence so it is crap.
You are also entirely wrong about the distribution of self-deceit versus intelligence. Your perception is an observational artifact. It's due to the fact that it requires intelligence to reach any kind of conclusion about anything. Conclusions can only be wrong (let alone deliberately so) if you're capable of producing them in the first place!
Finally, you and Robert Trivers are ALSO wrong about the nature of lying. It is not a "proclivity". It is not something that humans WANT to do. Rather, it is merely a requirement. It is something people have to do to fulfill their values.
Contrary to your impressions, lying is not generally an active process. It is passive. In order to not-lie you actually have to WANT to tell the truth. You actually have to CARE about the truth. Whereas in order to lie ... you can care about ANYTHING AT ALL.
Just about anything will provide a justification for lying. But ONLY caring about the truth will provide a justification for consistently not lying.
I despise humans not because of some "proclivity to lie" but because nearly all of them lack a core value of 'truth'. Which is why things 'other than the truth' will always gain priority for them.
The reason psychopaths lie all the time is because they have no core values. They are too brain-damaged for their brains to ever synthesize any core values (or even any secondary values). And nearly anything will provide a justification to avoid telling the truth. A lie will always be more convenient than the truth, so long as you're too brain damaged to ever perceive inconsistencies between your lies (and so incapable of caring about that). There is no 'Tell Lie' circuit in the brain as you moron psychologists seem to think. There is no such thing as "pathological lying". There is only "pathological unconcern for the truth".
The truth is one of my core values. In most people, it's merely a preference, and easily overridden by something of great value. In psychopaths, there is no concept of the truth. You are all pathologically unconcerned with the truth from where I stand.
The origin of your very mistaken notion that lying is an active process comes from your association of lying with creativity, originality and imagination. But that has nothing to do with lying per se. The nature of lying is lazy or deliberate inaccuracy. Inaccuracies that could be avoided but aren't due to sloth or deliberation. So you see, unlike imagination, lying can be passive just as easily as it can be active. And at the most fundamental levels of the human mind, which are largely opaque to you, lying is entirely passive.
You are truly an ignoramus, stop whining. Yeah your "stuck here" with humanity well guess what, so am I, and it sucks. So if you cant do anything you might as well just deal with it, look at it and laugh, don't get angry. This world is shit and the more you try to prove that to everyone the angrier you get when you realize they are all dumb and don't care. I don't go around telling people I hate them, there was a time where I was ignorant. I try to help people realize the truth instead of talking down to them. You need to rethink your approach because you seem intelligent but you need to realize there is more to the world than just numbers and nuclear power and greater possibilities exist, your pessimism extremely limits your thinking ability. you devote too much effort into trying to disprove others with which you are angry.
How astoundingly delightful! LOL. One of the rare people I genuinely and positively wish to talk to commenting on my blog. And he's anonymous, as usual.
Degree and form of psychological dependence on others isn't a unitary psychological trait at all. It's 3+ different traits.
There is extraversion which is an emergent phenomenon from core values' meta-effects. There is attachment style. There are various sundry emotional problems.
All of the emotional problems can be dealt with. They require vastly different levels of effort and insight depending on their natures. Anything from trivial and under one hour, to esoteric and requiring the intervention of an expert of my caliber for months of intense effort.
There are even emotional problems which can't be resolved until after the psychiatric problems which cover them up are resolved. Which naturally enough requires blind trial and error over years because the whole field is run by dumbasses. Once the overwhelming psychiatric problem is resolved, the underlying emotional problems may take anywhere from hours to years to resolve.
Attachment style may or may not be traced to an emotional problem. With all the varying complexity those have.
And of course, if it's core values then it's simply immutable. As it damn well should be.
Your problem is your conception of "personality" is flawed. You conceive of core values, self-esteem, self-identity, pseudo-core-values, neuroses, triggers, phobias, insecurity, worthlessness, depression, misery, and on and on and on to all be EQUALLY parts of a person's personality.
In other words, you treat equally the wood and the wood rot, the flesh and the gangrene, the functional organs and the cancer. So long as it isn't transitory, you call it 'personality'.
I do not. What I mean by personality is ONLY the functional parts of the mind. And NOT the problems. And the functional parts of the mind are ALMOST immutable.
> honesty is an example of a trait that can change a lot
Honesty isn't a psychological trait at all excepting for the ultra-honest, those who have truth as a core value. And those people are largely immune to corruption.
As for psychopathy, you seem to think it's a matter of opinion. You look at the PCL-R by that idiotic dumbass Robert Hare and you consider it the gold standard. You think that empirical pile of crap is the definition of psychopathy. Whereas I consider the PCL-R to be a pathetic crutch which psychologists rely on only because they are imbeciles, and whose only (small) real value is educational. (And then only due to the lack of adequate material.)
No Stephen, it isn't a matter of opinion whether or not most of the general population are psychopaths. They are not. You know what else isn't a matter of opinion? That narcissism is a form of lite psychopathy since both are differentially crippled empathy (psychopathy being more so). And that on an even more fundamental level, all psychopathic spectrum disorders have at their core an extreme manifestation of a deficient concern for truth.
You may not think all automobiles are evil, but I do. We may agree that Veyrons are evil. But that doesn't mean that all automobiles are Veyrons. Nor does it mean that I think all automobiles are Veyrons. Nor does it mean that what one calls a Veyron is a matter of taste.
The purpose of words is to meaningfully communicate about the real world, not to advance some political agenda.
And the purpose of debate is to establish truth, not to dismiss the other sides' arguments as a mere question of taste.
When you claim that I want to redefine and expand the term psychopathy you insult me. When you claim to be willing to let me do so, you insult yourself!
But when you dismiss out of hand my accusations that unconcern for truth is evil (eq, that all cars are evil) by saying it's a matter of taste, then you prove yourself an imbecile.
My emotional reaction to your little accidental faux pas / deliberate stunt would have been indifferent / irked. Except that our discussion is about truth and honesty! So it got upgraded to irked / irate.
Congratulations Stephen, you've managed to prove you are an imbecile worthy of my contempt. I knew it was inevitable but you were doing such a sterling job of holding it off that I'd started to wonder.
Homosexuality CANNOT be related to narcissism for utterly trivial reasons.
First, sexual attraction, gender identity, and biological gender are all biologically separate variables.
Second, unlike the number of legs, eyes or fingers one is born with, these are all continuous variables.
The first fact alone is sufficient to establish the default assumption. To wit, separate variables are independent variables.
A default assumption which it is your obligation to disprove either with irrefutable logic or overwhelming empirical evidence.
Neither of which you possess!
And you NEVER WILL have ANY empirical evidence WHATSOEVER for your imbecilic claim EVER because it's already disproved.
You see, imbecile, if the three continuous variables were correlated together, then we would find a high degree of correlation between transexuals, bisexuals and intersexed people.
Something which we do not observe. Something which if your feeble-mindedness allowed you to actually speak with these people without sounding like a total and utter retard, you would discover your supposed correlation is ludicrous and absurd!
And that's without considering the fact you can't advance studies of narcissists being inordinately homosexual.
All you have going for you is some brainless bloviating and fuzzy thinking about possible linkages between concrete self-concept / gender identity and the cognitive cripples that are incapable of forming abstract self-concepts (incapable of empathy).
You have nothing solid. And you have a LOT going against you.
FURTHERMORE, you are in violation of Harry Collins' sociology research on scientific authority. Research which establishes that even if political and other concerns actually ARE factors in scientific debate, it is not good to ever treat them as if they were legitimate. Which is exactly what you did!
Opinions do not matter and I certainly do not care for them. If you can't deliver facts, arguments or judgement, but must rely on opinion, then you are worthless.
FINALLY, you are anti-scientifically seeking anthropomorphic "reasons" for phenomena which have absolutely no reason behind them.
There is a biochemical mechanism that creates biological gender in animals. This biochemical mechanism can fuck up in any number of ways, creating intersexed people. Deal with it.
There is a biochemical mechanism that creates sexual attraction in animals. This biochemical mechanism can fuck up in any number of ways. At random.
These things happen for no other reason than the fact that DNA is shit, proteins are shit, and humans are squishy bags of mostly water. Deal with it.
You are superstitiously trying to divine goats' entrails. Trying to come up with "reasons" for totally arbitrary phenomena. This activity is despicably anti-scientific.
Oh and Stephen? Blanchard's theory of transexualism only furthers the notion that these biochemical fuckups are totally senseless and have no meaningful psychology behind them. At least, not beyond Blanchard's theory itself.
In fact, you are a total fucking disgrace to your profession for your imputation that gender identity is anything but biologically fundamental. It is well established that gender identity happens in infants.
The fact that biological gender and gender identity are both biologically fundamental and independent of each other, THAT ALONE serves to make your notion that sexual attraction is anything but absolutely fundamental (and independent) seem like the absurd ludicrous claptrap it really is.
Furthermore, sexual attraction is hardwired by overwhelming evolutionary pressure. Hence not a psychological phenomenon at all! You would have caught that if you weren't a total disgrace.
You're not a scientist. You're a pseudo-intellectual fashionista!
> Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.
> When you see a colony of black-headed gulls, you can be sure that almost every tenth pair is lesbian. The females have no problems with being impregnated, although, according to Petter Boeckman they cannot be defined as bisexual.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
> WHAT'S THE "DEFAULT ASSUMPTION"? WHAT'S THE POINT OF YOUR 3RD SENTENCE, WHEN YOU'VE ALREADY ASSERTED THESE VARIABLES' INDEPENDENCE.
You've got an interest in philosophy yet you can't separate the concepts 'separate' and 'independent' in your mind? Philosophers are the kinds of imbeciles that try to separate 'water' 'wet' and 'h2o'. Something that doesn't even work, yet they *think* it does. And yet you can't even separate out concepts that actually are legitimately separable?
> WHY SO HIGH A BURDEN OF PROOF? WHY NOT SIMPLE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE? I'M ONLY SAYING MY VIEW IS MORE PROBABLE THAN NOT.
And that makes you an imbecile. There are countless reasons why your view is NOT in fact more probable. That should be sufficient to you to see why you would require overwhelming reasons otherwise.
I'm not going to go into why it's an excellent heuristic to stick to the elegant default hypothesis short of overwhelming evidence whenever in a situation where the opposition are imbecilic cattle who believe otherwise due to fashion and politics.
> THAT'S WHAT I'M FOCUSING ON, YOUR PROOF THAT I'M WRONG. THE BURDEN OF PROOF, IT IS TRUE, IS ORDINARILY ON ME (ALTHOUGH NOT SO HEAVY A BURDEN AS YOU IMAGINE); BUT YOU'VE ASSUMED THE BURDEN, AT LEAST TEMPORARILY, BY MAKING THE AFFIRMATIVE ASSERTION THAT I'LL NEVER HAVE ANY EVIDENCE.
Why should I go for a win when I can utterly annihilate your position and salt the earth beneath you?
> NO DISPUTE HERE. BUT HAVEN'T YOU NOTICED THAT MY VIEW ALMOST MUST POSIT A *DIFFERENT* CAUSE OF TRANSEXUALITY AND HOMOSEXUALITY (ON MY THEORY'S OWN TERMS). IF HOMOSEXUALS' DEMONSTRATE THEIR NARCISSISM BY THEIR INABILITY TO LOVE SOMEONE WITH A DIFFERENT GENDER (BAD WORD, BUT IT'S EASY TO USE), THEN TRANSEXUALS, WHOSE PARAMOUNT TRAIT IS REJECTING THEIR OWN GENDER, ARE UNLIKELY TO BE NARCISSISTS. -- A TANGENT THOUGH.
Except that your ludicrous "theory" of transexuality flies even more in the face of the empirical evidence. And I can see already that you're going to try to "rescue" your ludicrous theory by claiming there are different degrees of rejection. That transexuals reject their gender in themselves but not their birth gender in lovers. You're just throwing up obfuscatory claptrap that you're making up on the spot. Your "theory" is just bullshit you've pulled out of your arse. You are in fact explaining NOTHING and just going around in loops.
> MY "SUPPOSED CORRELATION"? YOU'VE "REASONED" YOUR WAY INTO IMPUTING TO ME BELIEFS ABOUT CORRELATED SEXUAL IDENTITY AND ORIENTATION THAT I NEITHER ASSERT OR REQUIRE.
That's because you're an imbecile incapable of seeing what's right in front of your nose. It is a fact of statistics that correlated continuous variables should correlate everywhere. This is pure statistics.
Variables can be weakly correlated, but this is not what you have asserted. You have asserted they are correlated perfectly.
I suppose imbeciles like you need pretty pictures to make sense of anything. And unfortunately, these would take far too much effort. No matter.
Two strongly correlated variables X and Y make a scatter-plot that follows a diagonal line across the XY graph. In this case, we're talking about a scatter-plot dense at both ends and sparse in the middle.
Usually, when two variables are only partially correlated (such as income and intelligence) the diagonal line still exists but it is bifurcated at the high end.
What you're suggesting is that there is still a diagonal line in the scatter-plot, but it is bifurcated down in the middle where it is sparse.
The problem for your ridiculous "theory" is that,
1) YOU are the one that has to explain, with overwhelming evidence, why the scatter-plot should be complicated with a bifurcation right down the middle instead of any of the more likely scenarios (either no diagonal or a perfect diagonal).
2) I'm not going to accept the handwaving crap you pulled out of your arse as any kind of explanation. Your explanation needs to be SIMPLE, not fuzzy-minded useless ad hoc crap.
3) the correlation between the variables at the ends where they are dense (where people are clearly attracted to one sex over another and where they clearly belong to one gender over another) doesn't matter to your theory because of the way you've structured it. It only matters to my theory which explains sexual attraction of everyone, not just of "deviants".
4) so your theory actually says that the MIDDLE is highly correlated (is a unitary diagonal), in direct violation of biological reality, and in direct contradiction to your backpedaling.
Your theory actually DOES say that bisexuals, intersexuals and transexuals are all correlated to each other. If you don't understand what your own theory says about statistical distributions, it's because you're an imbecile.
Your theory doesn't match up to reality. Game, set, match. All that's left is for me to abuse you. To make you shut the fuck up because your idiocy is revolting.
> One small point: You seem misinformed about my profession.
I misremembered. I care not. Though you're right that you can't be a disgrace to your profession (lawyer) since your profession is already a disgrace to thinking beings everywhere.
I can relate to your experience of despising people for their deficiencies (though you seem to have a larger and more basic set of things to despise people for). I am in that set too, since I am not good (morally) and I have problems empathizing with people who are not very similar to me and I all but lack synthesis. You seem to be right about a lot of things (thanks for the insights) so good luck with your project to make people care about the truth. I've given up on that project a long time ago. It has always been painful for me just how much blatant disregard for the truth people have. I have tried using logical persuasion, and you can guess how well that worked. Not only people will never see their own faulty logic (majority of population lacks analitical ability to do so anyway), they are often anti-intellectuals, claiming that discussed concept doesn't matter, before any arguments are even made. And if your argument touches anything remotely tied to anything subjective you are effectively slamming your head against the wall. Subjective things are formed by them (or they percieve it as such) and thus sacred, since accepting someone else's opinion (which can be the truth) would mean their ego gets shit on. That's when I started despising people and after that everything went downhill since I can't relate to people I despise and they can feel my contempt further poisoning any interaction.
Shit... people can't even care about the truth when talking about something completely technical. You posts about engineers are mostly right, but about 5% of them are intellectual and they care deeply about the truth, understanding the systems they build, about knowledge of things they know they will never use and so on... 95% of them however, don't give a rat's ass about anything they know they won't need at work and only care if the system is working and is maintainable (even barely so will work). For instance when I point out multiple instances where Java standard library has shitty abstractions, they simply don't care - LOL who cares about consistency of interface, it works that what's important
It's depressing... I have to deal with this piece of shit "worse is better" attitude all the time.
When people can't be trusted to care about truth and doing the right thing in something as detached, logical and not part of their core as their field of work, making them care about the truth in their personal lives seems like an unsolvable problem.
Majority is so stupid that they can't even form a response that would actually be responding to your arguments. Second comment is basically saying "why don't you do something about it yourself" with sarcasm. Hard not to despise people like that.
In any case, I hope you change your mind and post more. I don't always agree with your posts, but I'd rather read something well written I don't agree with than read some unargumented or outright fallacious post with general point I agree with. (though a special place in hell should be deserved for people who speak half-truths, embellishing parts of it that are positive for them and their argument and knowingly suppressing part of it that shows their shit ain't golden).
Wow, you're Kevin Spacey from the movie Seven.
Well, you're not only boring but you're stupid too.
The way you begged for my attention in your other comment was rather pathetic. Equally pathetic was your transparent ploy attempting, badly, to set yourself up as someone I should answer to.
But this ... this is just blatantly, nakedly stupid. It's stupidity writ large. It proves you aren't capable of grasping simple concepts like 'narcissism'.
And your attempt to "push me over the edge" leaves me utterly indifferent. I've actually accomplished with three separate people what you've so ineptly tried to do. Back when I thought people were generally worth talking to.
It's difficult to describe what's wrong with your attempt, there's just so many things wrong with it. Starting with its total incoherence. And then there's the fundamental lack of leverage.
You're taking potshots blindly. You don't know the slightest thing about me. No matter how much of my blog you read, you will still know nothing about me. And you think you can hurt my feelings? Feeble-mindedness at work surely.
You also lack any cognitive or empathic leverage over me. You're a lightweight boxer going up against an armoured tank. Does your teeny tiny mind seriously expect the tank to even notice when it rolls over you? Ridiculous!
Your tripe comments are your ego talking, nothing more. You need to believe you're my equal for some reason, even though you're not. You can't accept that you're my inferior. So you imagine that you have the power to hurt my feelings the same way I've hurt yours. Ugh.
I was linked to this article by a puerile commenter on TheLastPsychiatrist's blog where I've been ranting against the moronic lying to children by mothers who Know Best. No doubt he imagined he was being especially sardonic.
I've read this page and the comments; you're clearly way ahead of me. You're literally saying exactly what I've been trying to say (albeit a great more intelligently and competently than I can manage).
This filthy vermin species has been reduced so low by Self-defeating deceit, it's beyond horrifying. I don't think humans are utterly worthless; our sub-beastly species is worth so, so much less than that. No species I can think of is as inhumane as 'Humanity'. Leeches, perhaps; but leeches don't feed on their own.
I intend on reading a great deal more because I don't hate humans [yet]; but I am gravely concerned that this might only be due to my conditioned wanting to believe (in sanity).
It's incredibly hard not to despise the pathetic little minds who imagine they're oh-so-crafty when they run demented game as transparent as their moronic delusions that they already know all of knowledge. Everyone I meet already knows everything; the most stupid of all are certain they even know best. How about that?
The lying is out of control; the insanity is entrenched. They literally cannot even be honest when it's in their best interests to do so; I've structured countless situations where they can either lie for a tiny (perceived) gain or be honest for a large gain and they horrify me every single time. They don't want to act in their own best interests; they just want to be naughty. *teehee*
And when they're busted running their demented Confidence 'tricks'...oh.my.god. I had to fight the urge to destroy these tiny little Toddler rats; snickering and smirking and sneering at their 'victim' when I (stupidly) demand an explanation for why they've just shot us both in the foot. But they're triumphant. The horror...
So finally, someone who clearly has a clue. I've been looking for awhile now. Aside from John le Carre and maybe Sam Harris, Ricky Gervais and a couple others, it's been pretty slim pickings.
> No species I can think of is as inhumane as 'Humanity'. Leeches, perhaps; but leeches don't feed on their own.
That's not even remotely true. If you bother reading The History of
Childhood by Lloyd deMause or any of his books available on his
website, you will learn that it is actually the OPPOSITE of the truth.
Most of the most despicable behaviours in humans (infanticide,
genocide, cannibalism, child abuse, sexual child abuse) were inherited
from apes.
> I've structured countless situations where they can either lie for a tiny (perceived) gain or be honest for a large gain and they horrify me every single time.
You've probably structured it so that they need to admit they're wrong
or something else that makes them look bad. In their teeny tiny minds,
that counts as an enormous loss that outweighs any gain.
> So finally, someone who clearly has a clue. I've been looking for awhile now. Aside from John le Carre and maybe Sam Harris, Ricky Gervais and a couple others, it's been pretty slim pickings.
There's quite a few people I know personally. I don't need to resort
to public figures. And if I did, I'd still have a good half a dozen
people in the 20th century who had enough of a clue to change the fates of nations.
You fail reading comprehension. Look up the title of this post again: I despise you.
Or I would if I weren't totally indifferent to you, insect.
You remind me of Nietzsche. I would love to function on your level but I'm too weak willed.
"Primitive man, threatened by a fierce animal or by hunger, can fight in self-defense or travel in search of food. He has no certainty of success in these efforts, but he is by no means helpless against the things that threaten him. The modern individual on the other hand is threatened by many things against which he is helpless: nuclear accidents, carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of his privacy by large organizations, nationwide social or economic phenomena that may disrupt his way of life."
Post a Comment