Overmoralistic:

On the one hand I experienced the whiny neoliberalism that took away my city's choice whether have plastic or paper grocery bags and forced everyone to use reusable cloth sacks (and instituted a sintax on if you chose paper, not a large tax but a bit of an annoyance) but at the same time on aesthetic grounds opposes people hanging their laundry out to dry on account of it looking tacky and how nobody else wants to see somebody else's sundries hanging out to dry.  On the other I see Neocon hardliners sticking their noses in where they don't belong trying to pass moralistic based legislation that criminalizes certain shady but previously ambiguous behaviors or practices because the idea of an even sometimes shades of gray world that isn't entirely just black and white is to be found appalling.  I find it ironic that some of the same people who would complain about taxes and large government feel it so imperative to spend large sums of money on task forces to police and micromanage the behavior of others in society.  I am also sick of liberal whining.  I don't like how every time I go onto a certain public web encyclopedia (which I am avoiding naming because I'm unsure of its copyright status) I get shown ads with mugshots of the owner imploring people to donate money.  When it isn't doing that it's trying to redirect me to vote for or against certain pieces of legislation (while I do agree that some of those proposed laws are terribad and should be petitioned against I don't like being told to do so by something I go to for looking up information on various errata).

It bothers me how racist and xenophobic some of the right wing groups are too and [I] do feel like this fearmongering hysteria about this, that or the other moral-thing-to-be-upset-about of-the-week ^TM is going to be a great excuse to have another sort of a red scare -like witchhunt with HUAC-esque committees to bully and interrogate dissidents or rivals into shutting up. Stick to your guns (sorry for the crappy figurative pun there people!). If you say you are for less taxes and smaller government then don't waste gobs of cash micromanaging and trying to police the moral behavior of the rest of society at large.

Every historical instance of implementing such moralistic kinds of laws I can think of has correlated in an increase in organized crime (look at prohibition, and the war-on-drugs).
Also, hypocritically some substances which are fairly bad for you are made okay because the consumer must pay a sin tax for purchasing them whereas other things (also bad for you) are contraband. If you over-regulate the hell out of everything I think businesses and the economy are to suffer the most bluntly from it in addition to this becoming a much less fun place to live.

Though I will not express support of piracy I do have a want to take the piss out of big media for their current moralistic war on online file sharing, use of torrents and crusade against anonymity by which they are attempting to forcefully tame the untamed frontier that is the Internet. It is this: "I am led to believe that record executives are upset they will get to have cocaine (+expensive champagne and exotic hookers) a day or so (a few days) less a week than they currently do."

The lie perpetrated on the general public that digital online distribution through a large online content distributor (of which there are sadly only a handful, & of those - perhaps somebody ought to look into that with some antitrust or to see about if it otherwise encourages anticompetitive practices, which if their lobbying groups weren't so large perhaps some legislators might have the backbone to do) benefits anyone other than the content distributor has been so thoroughly touted by advertisers that most consumers don't even bother to question it anymore. The fact of the matter is artists and musicians make less money per sale of MP3s than they do or did with albums and the bulk of any profits go to the vendor. This remains sadly true with authors trying to electronically publish (for the most part) & it's not a pretty picture.

This excessive mollycoddling toward offended people by increasingly censoring things is worrisome to me too. If people are never previously exposed to something "bad" or upsetting, you are increasingly ensuring the likelihood that they will be very shocked and not know how to cope (instead of being able to ask questions about it and in doing so, learn something valuable!) the very first time they are exposed to it. I say there needs to be some controversy and decent things for people to get angry about or be upset with... otherwise it's just a bunch of silly stupid little mindless things that don't deal with the real issues and we as a whole as a culture are not going to mature or progress past the puritan colonial days, McCarthyism, and dark age superstitions.

Not knowing about something doesn't make you safe from it. On the contrary, it leaves you ill-informed to deal with it later on when it does rear its unpleasant head. But not knowing about things makes people feel content instead of ill-at-ease so they'd rather purposefully be unsafe than rationally approach problems to acknowledge they exist. Fighting superficial problems gives the satisfying appearance of doing something about things without dealing with the larger underlying issues plaguing people which could be sticky and unpleasant or involve being self-critical just a tad. The illusion that we are all good people most especially when we do bad things is something that groups have used for centuries to keep their padded ego (although psychologically what we call the ego in informal day to day use usually is what they call the id) intact*. When will somebody propose a different and novel set of tactics to deal with unusual situations?


*Social psychologists call the phenomenon of behaviors being used to do that cognitive dissonance reduction.

A renewed attack on superficiality:

I honestly feel like sometimes maybe you could probably show up to a meeting with absolutely nothing of meaning or interest to contribute or bring to the table and still get positive marks for being on time or early to it.

I also am coming to the notion that you could turn in pages of complete shlock and drivel and as long as everything was perfectly exactly formatted to the anal-retentive specificity of the person reviewing it,- if not your boss or instructor & graders,- many people would think it was the best essay/homework/assignment ever and give it a good score because they had an easier time understanding it.

More disturbingly I noticed (not to be classist but this shows up alot more in predominantly blue collar and no collar environments) that there are a decent proportion of people who are SO VERY FEELINGS GUIDED that they will rationalize and justify in a perfect textbook case cognitive dissonance reduction manner doing all sorts of horrible and rotten things to you under the table because you momentarily made them feel awkward or rubbed them the wrong way during a brusk interaction or by an offhand remark. Some of these people will use that as a reason to exact retribution and attempt to see to it to if not ruin your life or career in what manner they can,- to be a roadblock and speedbump to impede progress if you need to request something from them or some assistance. Not the most highly mature reaction to being made to feel slightly uneasy during some interactions but hey...

Lastly, you can be a smug and smarmy bastard and lead people down a course of action that leads to large amounts of unnecessary death and/or ancillary destruction but people will gladly sacrifice their lives or livelihoods to support your corrupt and inept idiotic plans because you seemed overly-confident about the likelihood of the success of your actions if implemented.

My, my - how unimpressive in the morning: (In progress):

I've been having an interesting conversation with my coauthor about how part of the decay in society or its dysfunction surging may stem from the replacement of social values with market (driven?) values and thought a topic as rich as that deserves some fleshing out. 

In the meantime I noticed that perhaps our values are skewed and backwards in that regard but perhaps taken a different way.  Specifically I observed out in the public discourse collective/sphere making fun of individuals seems to be all fine and good but as soon as you start making fun of products sooner or later a brand-loyalist fanboy (who seems to derive an almost sort of tribal sense of self-identity associated with preferring his or her brand of thing A, B, C of choice and how much better he or she thinks it is than all X, Y, Zs) will blow a gasket.

P.S.: The snide sounding title refers not to his conversation I picked up bits and pieces of that stuck with me but to the latter observation where (some) people will go "How dare you suggest my favorite ______[insert blank brand thing] isn't the very best in the world and furthermore, why won't you agree with me on my opinion that everything else that isn't that one sucks mightily?"

The End is Annoying:

Noticed an increase in the number of sandwich board style street preachers outside the college and library.
They like telling us how the Bible should be the only book a person will ever need. I am tempted to ask one if there is a patron saint of calculus. Everything which is not part of their ideology but still exists causes these people to become uncomfortable enough they feel a need to rant and rave in public spaces about how everybody is a sinner and how there are all these debauched depravities they project onto us from their imaginations (uh, a good chunk of people go to colleges to learn and teach things... these guys maybe need to watch a bit less TV).

It is perhaps ironic that the only people who seem to really give a damn about things also come across as stark raving nuts.

The Bible itself has something to say about public preaching.

Matthew 6:1-7 (21st Century King James version):
   1 "Take heed that ye do not your almsgiving before men, to be seen by them; otherwise ye have no reward from your Father who is in Heaven.
   
 2 Therefore when thou givest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.
   
 3 But when thou givest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth,
   
 4 that thine almsgiving may be in secret; and thy Father who seeth in secret, Himself shall reward thee openly.
   
 5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.
   
 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret; and thy Father who seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
   
 7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions as the heathen do, for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

I'm going to interpret this passage as saying that if you are praying to try to materialistically show off how religious you are to other mortal people then this is probably doing it for the wrong reasons. I believe it to be saying one should strive to be humble and try to keep it between you and God.  It also might be suggesting that it is the quality of spirituality and not the quantity of religiousity that should make up a person's faith?

Then in Matthew 6:8 it goes a bit further by saying:
 "Be not ye therefore like unto them, for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask Him."
 See? The Bible itself is saying you don't need to show off to other people what it is you are praying about because God already knows and He isn't particularly impressed by that. Or at least that's how I'm choosing to interpret it.

Misogyny and Misandry: Misanthropy?

Men and Women can have different socioculturally ingrained ways of thinking about the same things. This doesn't mean that either of them are necessarily always right but also means that neither one is necessarily always wrong.

It is this author's belief that subjecting members of the opposite sex to a battery of increasingly horrific and difficult MINDGAMES and psychological tests is not a good way to try to enjoy each other's company. If you like someone, then say so. If you are okay with just being friends, yes, do that. If you are mature enough to understand that people can still flirt even without being sexually attracted to you then good for you, you get to have a cookie (yes, sometimes this is easier said than done, particularly when it is someone you find yourself possibly attracted to, but it is possible,- everybody just has to be mature, reasonable and civilized adults... which is part of the problem).

Trial and error taught me to never apologize to someone for liking them if you tell them that (yes, even if it turns out they do not like you in return). This, you see, is a compliment. What it means is that you find the other person likable and a worthwhile human being. Do not pester them about liking them however, as this will drive them away and lead to much misery for all parties involved.

In closing: MEANINGFULNESS is a salve to the MEANINGLESSNESS of this SHALLOW AND SUPERFICIAL CESSPOOL. I DON'T RUN FROM MEANINGFULNESS, I EMBRACE IT.

Why Marx was wrong

Corporate Overlord here. Yes I’m a capitalist ideologically… Of sorts anyway. Maybe a reluctant capitalist. I can see where capitalism produces inefficient and non socially optimal outcomes. (I’m an economics student, remember?) When I was younger I was very into Marx. Reading Marx can in fact be enlightening. But Marx was wrong on many points. The biggest point being his labor theory of value. Marx believed that a product has value based on the labor put into it. If one expands on this idea they come to the conclusion that any profit made by the capitalist (Capitalist can mean two things: one who owns capital, and one who holds the view that economically capitalism works the best. I hold that view, but now we are talking about an owner.) must be the result of exploitation, for profit must come when something is sold for greater than its value.

The problem with this notion is that a capitalist must be induced into acting. If one can only make personal profits from one’s own labor, than one will try to avoid contributing capital, for doing so would be at a cost. If ones decisions on capital only lead one to make exactly what one has put in, contributing capital is not at a cost, but not at any profit either. A capitalist MUST therefore purchase labor at a bargain price in order for the expenditure of capital to be justified. Given multiple choices between a little profit, and a large amount of profit, the capitalist will seek the largest amount of profit possible. This means purchasing labor at the greatest discount possible.

Is this exploitation? Truthfully it can be, but it depends. How free are the laborers to refuse work? If they are free to refuse work then it is not exploitation because workers will only seek employment if the marginal product of their labor is greater than the marginal dis-utility of labor. If the marginal dis-utility of labor is greater than the marginal product of labor for workers, workers will only work under coercive circumstances. In some countries such circumstances do in fact exist. Ironically they don’t tend to be capitalist countries. Providing labor when its marginal product is greater than its marginal dis-utility cannot be considered exploitation.

On Disappearing:

Only two reasons I avoid:

Maintaining friendships with some types of people.

I have repeatedly found myself defending why I'm not around, AKA online whenever the person/people in question wanted to talk to me. Over and over and over.

So, two reasons:

1.) If it's somebody who is disrupting my work, trying to distract me from it or basically shitting on the vast majority of my ideas, I may disappear to get away from that.  When you get bombarded too much, it's pretty normal to want to take a breather since this allows you to think a little more clearly.

2.) I'm a STUDENT.  We spend time STUDYING STUFF!  Like, FOR TESTS.  Which are REQUIRED.  It really helps with things like, say, GOOD GRADES.  So in fact, I may actually be doing student things, which can lead to being tied up in research or needing some time to myself.
If it's important, people do know how to reach me.  Seriously, I don't just go AWOL without making allowances for emergencies. Key words here are "important" and "emergencies." 

I have a phone, email, and this page here. This is not exactly a total off-the-grid situation where, I don't know, someone would have to start up a fire and get busy sending smoke signals.

I do remember somebody getting mad that I didn't make a superb effort to talk to her at length every single day.  Well, I didn't mean to upset her, but things do come up.
Another person got mad if they saw me spending any time with other people who weren't them. Then I had to draw a line in the middle of their rant and explain that I was spending time with the other people because those "other people" were folks I was discussing an idea with for a project.  You know, fellow students, teachers, etc?

It bothers me, this notion of being constantly connected and always available, be it through the internet, cell phones, what-have-you.
Sometimes you're trying to talk to specific people about specific stuff, which with me often involves school; and you don't want to be torn away from that to deal with somebody else being mad at you because they think you aren't paying enough attention to them at that exact moment.
Not to mention, sometimes you just don't want to talk to anybody because you need some solitude to work on something that's complicated. These are not evil things, or they weren't before instant gratification via being constantly plugged in resulted in people thinking that not being immersed at all times was wrong, even socially offensive.

I even had one person who couldn't get used to the idea that I wasn't around to chat when I was AT SCHOOL IN CLASSES.  Right, yes, because clearly the student thing is a cover story.  I must really be living in my parents' basement with a Matrix-style jack directly into the back of my skull (btw, would so not want to get a computer virus from one of those).
He got sort of paranoid and kept trying to "prove" that I was signed into my regular IM program as Invisible, when it was really just that I was logged out or not online. The way I'd find out that he was doing that would be when I finally did get out of class or finish work, I'd sign into my email and there'd be yards and yards of increasingly angry "messages that were received while you were offline."
To liken this to something "in RL," think of it as being at work or at school and having people fill up your voicemail and/or your answering machine with increasingly angry messages, all insisting that you must really be home and you need to pick up RIGHT THAT SECOND!!!1!!
This would not be considered socially acceptable behavior--in a way, it's a type of harassment.  So why is it considered OK just because it happens over the internet?  It still involves a type of verbal harassment that escalates in tone.

Sometimes I have to disappear, from anywhere from a few days up to a whole week or more at a time if I get embroiled in something exceedingly complicated. It's one of the perils of being friends with somebody who studies science and research for a living.

These people who would get mad would always choose right near my finals week or if I was doing a term paper to do their blowups. It's the damnedest thing. It would consistently happen, whether I had repeatedly told them that I was trying to study or not. If I said that I was trying to study, they'd insist that studying was irrelevant, or try to make it my fault for not signing out.  Of course, if I had signed out, then I would have gotten a ton of offline messages demanding to know why I wasn't online.  Lose-lose situation.
I do try to be patient and explain at first, but at this point it's like, YOU DON'T OWN ME. Get back to where proper boundaries are or eff off.

The other ugly thing about arguing online is when the other person insists what they are doing (religion, school, career, hobby, etc) is real, but what you're doing...well, it just isn't important on any level, according to them. And then, satisfied that they've made their points, the person goes "I'm going to bed!" and then signs out leaving you to puzzle out just what the hell they were mad at you about in the first place--that, or unable to explain your side of things because you'd be just talking to yourself.
(Because, well, talking to someone through your computer who's offline is pointless.  BECAUSE THEY ARE OFFLINE.)

One last creepy thing that sometimes people do is  passive-aggressively wait and stalk you in your IM list on stealth the whole day.  Essentially, they wait until you sign in unawares to check your inbox, flip to online, and blast you away about whatever it is that they are mad at you about (sometimes in caps--only ever had that happen twice but it's a surefire way to a quick block and delete and never being spoken to again ).

Here's a thought--if you can't behave like a decent, rational human being in public, you probably can't behave like one online.  Not to mention, some people have way too much time on their hands to spend stalking and harassing others-- and maybe they shouldn't be given a computer...

(Edited by Mary this week who is made of awesome... Go see her blog The PMS Project. DO IT).

Update 10/23/11: It said you can't use the icons from the other site externally without permission, so I removed them.