On Libertarian Morality

Economic Inequality Is Just A Cover For Anti-Rich Prejudice

by Don Watkins, for The Federalist, 2016 April 14

Regarding businessmen, for example, we should condemn those who lie, cheat, and steal. But we should condemn them as individuals for their dishonest and predatory actions.

Universally, all white collar crime gets punished multiple degrees of magnitude less than hood crime. Condemning one businessman and not all of them is a concession that a couple of years in a comfy cell for frauding millions of people out of billions of dollars is approximately the right response.

There’s value in condemning a dishonest businessman over a dishonest person. A person’s role matters. A negligent student is nothing, a negligent mother should mean something extremely serious but doesn’t thanks to a certain demographic in tandem with a certain political structure, a negligent father has a special derogatory word made up just for him. Businessmen of today are lords of the past. It’s one thing to say they should be able to get away with more – maybe they should? But that’s not the argument libertarians make. “They’re just the same as everyone else!”

Replace “the rich” with “Hispanics” or “women” or “Jews” in that sentence, and ask yourself: isn’t this precisely the sort of prejudice we object to when it is targeted at other groups?

Good thing this isn’t a problem then.

Actually being against prejudice is even more stupid than buying Hanlon’s Razor, which I’m pretty confident was created to cover for corruption. You are prejudiced that your key will turn on your car, the switch will turn on the light, the food you buy isn’t rotten, and that you won’t get assaulted just walking down a street, unless you’re in South Africa, Detroit, Berlin, Paris, or London, then maybe you would. And why would that be reasonable? Is it because of ley lines? Some miasma? Special ghosts haunting those areas? Some other magic? Maybe it’s global warming? But we’re all “just” people right?

Equality is just for show. Your ten fingers are all different lengths and your two eyeballs have different strengths, you treat your mother differently than you do your wife but we pretend we’re all equal because as a public narrative repeated ad naseum at no one in particular and only believed by initiates, “it’s good for business”.

That’s why libertarianism exists. “It’s good for business”. Full sentence: It’s good for millionaires’ business in screwing over fresh cheap labor. And, on occasion, it’s good for businesses screwing over other businesses. Full sentence: It’s good for some bigger businesses screwing over other smaller businesses. And there’s no world outside of business. Nevermind that there are other narratives which are better for everyones’ business. “It’s good for business”.

Everywhere outside America immigration is primarily a cultural issue, but here it’s terrible to think about closing borders because startups might suffer. You know, those small businesses whose entire purpose is to sell out so that its owners can strike it big and always results in all its employees getting laid off because the buyout was for purposes of obtaining patents and the “brand”? Forget any other discussions, forget the state of demographics in this country, or unemployment, how the current generation of young adults have no future except grinding a life of poverty living in a truck at the parking lot of their dream job. If we limit immigration, startups might suffer.

Oh. No. Not the startups. Anything but the startups.

Prejudice encourages dehumanization – it encourages demonizing “the other” so they are seen as less than human and therefore unworthy of respect.

Whose problem is this? Is this an appeal to me to be a better person at any cost to me all for the benefit of someone else? Come back with a billion dollars and a sentence to few years in jail and then we’ll talk about “dehumanization of the rich” or whatever you want. Of course, the billion has to come first.

Should have plenty of billions laying around. You did seize all those assets right?

No?

We need to ask ourselves: Do we really think of rich individuals as human beings?

I can tell you how rich people in this country think of poor people.

No, I don’t have any citations. No reputable sources. I guess I’m just making shit up.

Making shit up that’s just magically on the mark every time.

Do we ever so much as ask: Did they honestly earn their money?

Considering most people quit their bosses and not their jobs?

Did they gain it by dealing voluntarily with other people, through an incalculable number of win-win trades?

Inside systems with many involuntary parts that favor them.

Remember: Libertarians think taxation is coercion and theft.

This is prejudice, plain and simple.

Repeat after me: The end goal of knowledge is prejudice.

What’s worse, it is not directed toward traits that have no bearing on a person’s character, it is directed at something that is in fact a moral achievement.

A literal statement straight from the mouth of a libertarian that having more money is a “moral achievement“, and that this moral achievement also, simultaneously, has “no bearing on a person’s character“.

Cult of Entropy.

This wasn’t a waste of my time after all.

When I discuss unfair treatment of successful businessmen, I almost always hear comments like, “Oh, boohoo. What do the rich have to complain about? Look at everything they have!” This reflects a crass materialism, which amounts to the notion that money solves everything, and that no one can be hurt by or object to mistreatment unless he’s poor.

We live in an advanced technological society, and enjoy a level of wealth, health, comfort, and opportunity that our ancestors could not have dreamed of. What made it possible? The effort of producers, on every level of ability, but with the most credit going to the men and women of extraordinary ability: the inventors, entrepreneurs, and investors who drive progress – and earn a fortune in the process.

Materialism is good or bad depending on the intent of the author in that particular paragraph. Or maybe the author wants it both ways; insults people for being materialistic but believes that they probably still believe it anyways, why not use that too for a little extra cha-ching I mean, impact? Maybe the author doesn’t think of his audience as human beings.

Or maybe this is all “human being” means to him.

originally discovered and commented on Facebook, 2017 April 17
edited and added upon for better flow as standalone

Marketing, ideas, and sorting

I wonder how much can actually be paraded due to a combination of lack of expertise and trust in authority on the side of the audience and social shaming tactics on the side of the deliverer.

Seeing through solar roadways needs some understanding of engineering. Seeing through hyper-realistic portraits needs some understanding of drawing. Seeing through No Man’s Sky needed some understanding of programming or video game design.

Mass Effect Andromeda claims to not be able to make white characters because of the “textures” they used. The new Scorpio console says it’ll be better than the best PCs at the cost of one top-of-the-line PC component. Trump’s Syria attack is defended on the grounds that the president has more “intel”.

No one can be an expert on everything, but neither can one not trust in anything nor not care about others’ opinions. “Fuck haters” and “Question everything” are worse-than-nothing statements because the questions should be directed towards critical points.

I think analyzing people’s backgrounds, connections, and objectives bypasses these problems to a reasonable extent. These should be the baseline, with the “facts and evidence” on the “actual” issues as secondary, because the “actual facts” are more easily fabricated by quite a few orders of magnitude. There are people that lie about their work history, but at some point they leave a trail, and people even in the age of their internet for one reason or another generally don’t change names. Generally speaking peoples’ history of actions are hidden or missing rather than fabricated – the opposite of “actual facts”.

The people most worth looking into demonstrate this principle. Executives are the most powerful and their backgrounds generally aren’t in any “field” – Sooner will an executive of groceries become an executive of pharmaceuticals than a pharmacist, even though their degree might’ve been in partying sociology, or maybe never had a degree at all. Arguing a pharmaceutical executive’s, whether a CEO’s or a politician’s, decisions primarily on basis of biology or chemistry or medicine – or worse, morals – is the discussion level of peons.

“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

Any person can expound about ideas. Even when talking about celebrity gossip and keeping up with the Joneses they’re basically talking about ideas. We even have a grammatically correct form of the word for personification: idols.

Expounding on people though is different. Beyond saying she likes cake or he goes weightlifting, can just any person accurately and effortlessly predict what some other person is going to do or say? They can’t. They can’t even fathom where to begin. Of course not, they can’t even understand the people they’ve spent years with!

“I thought you were going to do X.”
“Why in the hell would I do X? That never even occurred to me.”
“I dunno. Maybe you might’ve.”

But he sure does know what’s moral and what’s not or what’s the right thing to do in a certain situation of a field he only heard about two days ago! Just look at all these links and quotes from reputable sources he found on Google.

If only Google could predict what his friends were going to do too, then he could be just as confident and correct with people as he was with ideas. Such a lookup exists, it’s just not available at http://www.google.com, and is only available to advertisers, politicians running for head of state, and other big dollarydoo clients.

But it’s okay, because only small minds discuss people anyways.

But what will the idiots think?

The ability to sustain a disagreement is one of the qualities of power.

If you cede power to idiots, you will be ruled by idiots. Since idiots in power don’t exist: If you cede power to people determined to hold their opinion over yours, you will be ruled by people determined to hold their opinion over yours.

The idiots are just a convenient excuse which exploit the easiest chokepoint of human psychology. Oh no, we can’t offend nice little Billy Bob down the street! What will he think of us? What will he say to his friends? Until you say “fuck Billy Bob” you’re stuck whatever Billy Bob thinks. “Thinks” is generous; you really think Billy Bob thinks? He votes one way one year and the other way the next! Of course he has reputable sources. Of course he has arguments. But you get what you pay for, and reputable sources with analysis and evidence these days comes pretty cheap. Is that all it takes?

How cheap is it to stop you?

Why does the West feel the need to filter the fuck out of Japanese games before introducing them to the market?

Because they fear an uninformed consumer ,like a soccer mom or whatever, getting the game for themselves or possibly some kiddo like their child or whatever. And then if something objectionable, saucy, or even edgy that offends or bothers them they would shit up a dumb ignorant storm. So they get what they deemed is the worst and easiest things that would offend the uninformed dumb consumer soccer mom type person.

so dumb people essentially the remove/censor shit cause of dumb people and to avoid a stink that the dumbest of people tend to cause all to often.

Cutting Cards

In urban planning, a transit-oriented development (TOD) is a type of urban development that maximizes the amount of residential, business and leisure space within walking distance of public transport.

A TOD typically includes a central transit stop (such as a train station, or light rail or bus stop) surrounded by a high-density mixed-use area, with lower-density areas spreading out from this center. A TOD is also typically designed to be more walkable than other built-up areas, through using smaller block sizes and reducing the land area dedicated to automobiles. […]

One criticism of transit-oriented development is that it has the potential to spur gentrification in low-income areas. In some cases, TOD can raise the housing costs of formerly affordable neighborhoods, pushing low- and moderate-income residents farther away from jobs and transit. When this happens, TOD projects can disrupt low-income neighborhoods.

 

Commies are so full of their own shit they actually believe that more public transportation is worse for the poor. Or at least some of them do. Those that’d cite such a statement would. I’m not sure about those who wrote it though.

I really wonder how many statements like these aren’t actually made with the overt topic in mind. Or rather, in obverse, how many statements were made with a different intent in mind but got cited in a different way because words can mean different things if cut different ways.

Sometime recently some HK bureaucrat was asked why he chose an existing apartment block to be demolished for a new one, rather than choosing nearby land that was only being used to house rusting vehicles and equipment. His answer was “it’s easier to move people than to move stuff”. Cue days-long grilling and laughingstock by public opinion, his true position was obvious given the situation, but that sort of thing generally isn’t recorded for the purposes of academia, because there, ad hominem is bad, and if you use it you should feel bad, while they simultaneously also admit that sources are important, and “irreputable sources” exist. No such thing as a irreputable researcher though, of course. Nevermind that researchers only get money if they publish and only get big if they get cited.

But I probably shouldn’t talk too much about that while I’m linking Wikipedia.

Ad Hominem Is Effective

Most posts/articles cite obscure statistics and facts and people, and then link it to some big idea like social justice or equality or progress or something. I do the latter, though I talk about better ideas (and in better ways) like order and discipline.

As for the former, I cite obscure blogs and porn sites and video games.

It’s funny because my reasoning ends up being better than theirs.

Any truth searched for by a worthless person is bound to be worthless.

– Erika Furudo, Umineko no Naku Koro Ni: Chiru

Dynamics: Scrubs Finale (Standard Deviation)

I was back in highschool, one of those senior/graduation events.

Don’t particularly remember what the event was but it was time to go and I was not where I was supposed to be. For whatever reason it was okay to be in a large number of areas rather than a single point, like a bus terminal rather than a bus stop, so I got to an area I liked. Away from most of the other people, though not the furthest one out from the median. At least, not in this direction. There were a bunch of people a long ways away in a certain direction, and it seemed like just a one sided tail of people trickling this way. Had just come down from a flight of stairs from a higher level of ground, sat on one of those concrete blocks next to the pillars rather than a standalone bench. Like the parking or bus spaces under a large airport.

A couple of guys rolled up. The guy in the front passenger seat of the sedan rolls down the window, pulls out a gun and pointed it at me. I am about two or three car widths away from him. It was an undetermined semi-auto pistol. No traffic on the road. Somewhere in the back of my mind I remember this is a guy who’s been wanted for murder before. Nothing huge. Each time he’s only killed one or two people. But each time he’s gotten away really easily, so he’s been known mostly for his evasiveness rather than evilness or whatever. I know there’s a driver because this was standard american car on standard american road, but I didn’t identify his existence except by this proxy.

Said some things to me, something along the lines of the usual threat and I’m-better-than-you-I-got-da-gun stuff. I said the usual stuff I say too, ignoring content and attacking structure and presentation. My class and the teachers knew what was going on, they had called the cops. Not that they texted me this or told me this or whatever; again I figured that’s what happened by proxy. The cops were there, but rolling up slowly, and everyone that was part of my highschool group at the scene in general was hidden, so my guess probably wasn’t too far off. Or maybe security called the cops? Not too relevant.

The man with the gun was not mad and unfazed by my method. He kept pushing content, I kept pulling structure. At a point where the rear cop car got close enough to some point (I’m not good at determining distances when it’s relative to an object far away from me), he said in a philosophical and whimsical way,

“Do you want to die?”. I countered,

“Does your gun have a trigger?”

I usually don’t see facial expressions, or hell, even a face, but at that moment I sensed he made a scowl, or a face of disappointment. It shocked me. I wasn’t paralyzed but at that moment I realized I would not be able to move. He moved his gun arm slightly, lazily… and fired. The driver sped the car away, the police chase wasn’t really a chase. More like a “I’m going to move in your general direction”.

I thought that was the end. The dream usually ends when I die. There have been a couple where I go on past death, but it’s not a common occurrence.

This one continued, because I didn’t die.

For whatever reason I remembered that I had a way of chasing the shooter that outpaced the cop car speeds: running around like an ape. On all fours (though not with the knuckle problem). It didn’t actually feel like I was on all fours, but my all-fours speed was still faster than basically everything else in the universe at that point. Caught up to the chase, was not on a freeway or whatever. This was a hard-to-catch mastermind, not a coward nobody who gets away just because his car has a better engine. He was waving through here and there – not switching cars, but this world had no GPS or helicopter to track top-down. Maps, but we had to guess which way and spread out like a net – problem being the net required to ensure capture was too big. Even though I moved faster than everyone else, including the killer, I was ultimately unable to get to him.

A while later, got home. Visually not similar to my real home, but I identified the place as home. Someone had gotten back about the same time I did. In real life she is my cousin and I’ve lusted after her before on a mental exercise. Pretty, but not eye-catching pretty. In dreams, I simply know who everyone is – the only people who have faces on all the time are women who I have lusted after enough. I do not see this cousin often and she has no real significance in my life, but not only was she here and with me in my dream (I identified her as part of my highschool group trip; she is older than me significantly so this would not have actually happened in real life), she was rendered full face and full body. What we first conversed were just the common niceties. I can’t remember all of how she got to the point. But she built up to it. Dreams screw up my sense of time so I don’t know how long this “really” was, but it felt like at least 1.5x the duration of the chase.

She was talking about how I didn’t do anything. How I unnecessarily egged a man with a gun, a known killer, on. How, because I wasn’t able to keep my mouth shut and let the cops just close in and finally capture this wanted trickster and threat to civilization (he was immortal or something? felt like that’s how it was spoken of), I got Dodo killed.

Dodo, or Fofo, or Lolo, or something _o_o, I forget. I didn’t know what she was talking about. The guy was pointing his gun at me the entire time. He just fine-tuned and failed like a dupe at the last second.

Apparently not. He just re-aimed, at the guy next to me. A guy I didn’t even notice was there, a guy of no social importance (I remember at this time that my cousin has some kind of leadership position, like class rep or something) and mediocre academic skill. I immediately felt horrible. I averted my eyes to the ground, but other than that I kept my outward composure. She continued talking, I forget what exactly about. Probably about how _o_o didn’t want to die, didn’t do anything to deserve it, was a person of this and that personality and had this and that accomplishments. I was the one who caused all of that to disappear and burn to oblivion. If I hadn’t egged the gunman, a known killer, on, _o_o would still be alive and well. I had robbed _o_o’s parents of their son (I didn’t remember him at all, but my dream world identified to me it was a male name). And now the cops were coming to get me. There was nowhere to run.

I stood there for some time. She was on the stairs heading up but didn’t move either. I was sorting out in my head – or heart rather, what had just been thrown at me. I looked at her. She was looking at me with eyes and a face that read “judgement”. I did not identify her as the one who had put this idea together against me. She was simply telling me because I often didn’t know how to interact with people, and was my family (whether or not she was a sister here was not clarified; relations on the closeness of the nuclear family was defined though) and wanted me to know. It was a social response. Everyone who I had known in the dream, from the students to the teachers to the now-coming-into-existence principle and administrators and school district president and mayor and etc. etc, had or were now passing judgement on me. They saw the facts, and they deemed instantly I was the one responsible.

I don’t remember screaming.

Or attacking her.

Or running out the door.

I want to remember that I started screaming, but as I try to remember now, it did not happen and could not have happened.

I was looking at her now, and had turned my head up to face her and look her in the eyes. My heart and my dream self’s heart were beat, beat off like one. My dream self’s mind… was now unknown. I was viewing myself from the second person, and… maybe it was my own mind that was screaming. Something somewhere was screaming. The temperature was the same but the energy levels of something was rising. The world was falling apart. Outside the window, things were obliterating into their geometric components. Then the force of nature reached the window, disassembled it into its rectangular glass, rectangular frame, the million strands of filament from the screen… then they unified in color, a sort of crystallic white… and disappeared. The tiles from the floor lifted a couple of inches, lifted from the outside in, one concentric circle at a time. They broke into their component stones, and same as the window and everything else, whitened and disappeared.

There was only her, and me, in nothingness. She had not moved an inch, had not noticed any change in the universe. And neither had I. We were still looking at each other, same as that moment when I locked eyes again. Then both she and I tessellated, every feature was now defined by triangles. And in an instant, all the triangles decolorized.

And I opened my eyes.


It’s been a long time since I answered a dream’s question in such a strong way.

I was talking with a friend last night about frames in relation to interacting with women. Though I have read PUA stuff on and off, one of the biggest things that has refrained me from actually taking time out of my life to actively test and improve myself is that it feels like I don’t have enough frames. I spend almost all my time developing a single frame – it is the “discipline” and “passion clarity” one you see written on this blog. I can move everything into this frame consistently, and into other frames like trolling or empathy with varying levels of success. From what I have read, it felt like getting through shit tests was not simply a matter of frame control, but being able to frame control to several different frames. Moving her back into the same frame every time would be boring – an autistic could do that. My question was whether it would be better to just fall for shit tests, because it would encounter more frames in total? He gave me a few stories of some of his attempts to pick up girls, and they illustrated to me that a bigger problem was at work.

He spoke not in terms of frames and shifting frames, but in terms of recognizing and adapting to the other and dominating theirs so they enter yours.

And that is exactly my disability. I have been focusing so much on frame and changing frame (which is moving from one frame to another) that I have completely ignored that they are all for use in relation to another frame, to other frames. I have studied statics – but the world is not always static.

I do not regret it, to be sure. I have actively ignored every single “it depends on the situation” “principle” that has come from the mainstream, because it not only learns nothing, but destroys everything I know. I’ve spoken on and off and tangentially about how ignoring the idea of fundamentals doesn’t help, at least in terms of pure truth value – but it is true that it is not enough. It is the main point though, and because I didn’t know the main point, I needed to work on it. And I’ve worked on it, for the past seven years. While every other teenager was out fucking around, going to alcohol gatherings, and lighting grass on fire, I was trying to figure out what the fuck was wrong with… something. Big ideas first, figure out all the deviations and applications later.

I’ve now largely solved the problem, but it is fact that I am and have been open and weak to attack by the most trivial of deviations.

I am fairly certain this dream is telling me that I need to now move on from the mean to figuring out the most standard of deviations, and then the variances.

The difference between possibility and hope is courage to dream. The difference between hope and success is discipline of skill. The difference between success and mastery echoing throughout time is respect and benevolence.

It is time to move to part three.

As for the dream itself… Some of it is pretty obvious and some of it isn’t; I’ll leave it up to your curiosity.

  • Everyone hiding and then coming out and blaming me is very clearly my hate and distaste for the anti-negative crowd. Not only do the arguments my cousin use echo exactly some of the structures scrubs use (morality, responsibility, inaction as the answer), there is the explicit structure of nobody doing anything but hide when the gunman could get away and everybody doing everything when I could be easily captured.
  • The cops being slow and not just capturing the guy is indicative of my view of the people in society today who are assigned to protect and deliver truth: the journalists. Slow and chicken to actually approach anything real, but quick to jump on anything easy but mislead.
  • If a man with a gun asked me that question in that position, and for whatever reason my brain was having diarrhea and decided to not have me smack the gun out of his hand… how I answered in my dream would be exactly how I would answer in real life.
  • I am still uncertain as to why my cousin appeared. She was mentioned recently by my mom, but offhandedly and without much importance. Perhaps I simply needed a female who I respected as a woman, was attracted to for womanly qualities, and was close enough to me on the familial level, and she was the only one who fit the qualities.
  • The elevations probably mean something. The fact that I came down from where I was having fun earlier, the fact that there were no hills and no helicopters or satellites during the chase, the fact that my cousin was on her way up a flight of stairs when telling me to prepare to face the music.
  • The fact that the driver of the gunner wasn’t really “there” shows that the cars were probably only in existence to show relative speed to the average person (who walks).
  • I do not own a car.
  • I love my carbon bike and how by my power alone, I can get up to 20+ mph. I don’t even really care if I am a bad cyclist and can’t ever win a race. It’s amazing.
  • The fact that I was going faster than cars on all fours is probably reflective of the language people have been using to describe The Way of Men. “Tribalist”, or something? I didn’t have a model for imagining myself on all fours though, so I imagined myself on a bike, which I do know. More specifically, a time trial position. Of course, the “going faster” is representative of being better when it counts.
  • My reaction to my cousin is accurate of how I respond to false accusations in real life. I consider how I am wrong first, and then once I am done figuring it out in my head, I go on the counterattack.
  • The world disappearing is most definitely based on Assassin’s Creed.
  • It’d be really funny if that dead guy’s name was “Yolo”.

Opinions on the Structure of Blogging/Journalism

  • There are certain ranges of length in writing I’m comfortable with. A couple of sentences, or enough to fill a simple syllogism. 2-3 (standard text, double spaced) pages, to fill a larger syllogism. Then about 7-9 pages. Beyond 9 isn’t something that really happens so I haven’t thought about it too much.
  • The more I plan to write something in particular, the more it doesn’t happen. The less I plan to write, the more I can write. If I plan to write on more than a couple of topics, I actually can’t write anything at all for a while. Except, apparently, stuff like this where I’m meta-ing, posting music where I don’t really need to use any “creative energy”, or reposts where I’m commenting on stuff that I don’t plan on having a higher purpose for. Keyword being planned, not higher purpose – I’ve been rereading some of my older stuff and it blows my mind how stuff which meant nothing to me before is so true/representative of how I think now.
  • Quality control in presented thought structure and points elaborated on feels largely variable. It is, at the very least, not planned on such a high level (I do small edits like sentence structure and word choice after the whole thing is done), because planning generally leads to the above described syndrome. A couple of the long posts I wrote had to be restructured by simple bullet points in notepad in order for me to actually finish a cohesive entry, but it felt unnatural. The most recent one that’s “worked” with a planned structure was my review of The Way of Men, but I wrote it mostly in freeform and used it only as “I have to get back on topic” guidance, as indicated by its ridiculous length.
  • Schaefer method is retarded. Any structure requirement is generally retarded or will become retarded.
  • Blogging and writing articles seems to be, either by emergence or design, for those who can write how an idea is shown and manifested in a certain instance. For instance, how the Batman shooting is part of a bigger problem about guns or parenting or the education system or whatever. I am not good at this, and do not intend to write articles.I like having an opening story where I jump off from. But afterward, I generally don’t care about it. I’ll use stories as necessary, but I always focus and discuss how it’s part of a bigger picture. In my style, I attempt to in every instance imply that I really could’ve used an infinite amount of other examples, it just so happened that this particular one was used because it was convenient. What most writers and journalists seem to prefer is the opposite. While they don’t exactly ignore the big idea, they do focus on how the thing at hand is important. Of course the big idea is important; that’s why it’s discussed and that’s why it’s talked about. But it always ends up being how we need to do that to solve this problem because its part of a bigger problem. The bigger idea is the justification, rather than the end. Do you see the difference?

    I couldn’t give a mass of two shits about the particular problem, but even if I did, how it’s part of a bigger problem is not fucking relevant to doing the problem at hand. Killer? Kill him. Theft? Disable him. Disagree with me? Fine, but unless your answer involves something you or I could do immediately in the given situation, your answer is invalid. Imagine, if in some alternate world or by magical and divine intervention, the people getting shot at in some situation were able to hear and see the media commentary from the future in real time. Do you really think that the columbine kids hiding under desks find your tirades for gun control amusing? Are the engineers at Deepwater Horizon being helped by your campaigns and protests about government oversight and drilling regulations? Yes, they are part of bigger problems. No, you do not talk about them in such a manner. Shit like this should be fucking obvious all the fucking time and many times it feels like I’m the only one who sees the emperor with no clothes.

    I wanted to use Trayvon Martin as one of my examples a few sentences back but (outside of the fact that talking about shootings three times isn’t very illustrative) I realized it was inefficient as fuck because people have politicized it to an unimaginable degree. It’s AAAAAAAAAAAALLLL about race. Let’s have that given for a moment because if you haven’t realized that Zimmerman isn’t white and is actually some cuban I’m not about to help you about that. Ignore all evidence against the justice for trayvon shit about how Zimmerman was actually beat up and fired in self defense. A man was in a neighborhood. Another man thought he didn’t belong there. FOR WHATEVER REASON a fight broke out. And someone died. Let us assume it was an unfortunate death and not a deserved one; the family and friends of the dead do make sense in their actions by going after the perpetrator. But all this HE DID IT BECAUSE OF RAAACIIISSSSMMMMM? Fuck the evidence. Fuck the situation. He’s a RACIIIIST and he killed someone SO DO. HIM. IN.

    See the parallel? This guy is part of a big idea, big idea is bad, therefore we must fuck this guy up. Not, part of a big idea, big idea can also be seen in these other instances, big idea is bad because insert reasoning here. I am very interested in individual instances as individual instances, and I am very interested in big ideas as big ideas. I’m not interested in this freak hybrid chimera that destroys both the instance and the idea by merging everything into this lynch mob slob of non-ideas. I can’t write short entries on news items because I’m often only interested in them for the sake of bigger ideas, and if I’m going to write on bigger ideas I need to write a long post.

    Individual instances of great importance only happen in my own life or in things I am immensely interested in that I do. Some cyclist wins the Tour de France, or my friend finally catches the fish he’s been hunting, or a family friend achieves some respectable position in some productive company? Fabulous. Plenty to write about. But if some guy somewhere I never knew in a place I know nothing about, gets killed? Or even if many guys get killed? This or that happens in national policy? Unemployment or pollution? I don’t give a fuck about how its unjust or its a corrupt system. I see 1) a system which will collapse and shit will happen soon for a rebuilding of the world (big idea), and 2) something to look out for and maneuver around/through (particular instance). They are events to respond to, not events to wallow in – external, not internal. There is emotion, but only in disappointment that it is not equivalent to an ideal philosophical model or a higher order of honesty, and frustration that I’m going to need to deal with shit. “Justice” and “Morality” mean nothing to me. It is stuff I like, and stuff I don’t like. Perhaps that is part of why I can’t write articles.

    Obviously for the individual instances I am interested in, I’d link these to big ideas like discipline. But even then it is not about acting on those same situations after the fact, it is for learning from those situations so future instances which are similar can be acted on with improved knowledge.