Parents as Stars, Children as Supports

I don’t mind the woman being a realistic bitch. I don’t mind the man being an unrealistic cuck. I don’t even mind the art standards of western webcomics and all the words words words words words.

What really grinds my gears is the portrayal of the kid.

I absolutely refuse to believe any kid would respond to that sequence of events in that way. They’re not that stupid. Or more importantly, unlike ~mature~ adults, they call shit as they see it. The stated intent was obviously not fulfilled. There’s innate physical truths which are immediately observable and understood by instinct, stronger than any understanding by words: if you assume a specific physical stance and are moving forward and then, for no discernible physical reason, start going in reverse, then obviously something is wrong.

At “best” the kid’s response would be “oh… okay”. Wouldn’t be uncommon for questions to start appearing. If it was a ballsier kid they’d just voice their disappointment. But a “Wow! You got serious game dad!“? I’d be really worried.

There’s screwing with visual beauty standards ala “tumblr art”, and then there’s… whatever this is. I want to say “logical beauty standards” but it’s not really logic. There’s a natural order to the world that’s understood innately by everyone and this screws with it at a primal level. I don’t even like kids, but they act a certain way and can see certain things, a way which is useful to everyone else in its own right.

And this comic says that unique insight of kids is “Hey everyone, my shit doesn’t stink!“.

I’ve heard the idea before, but it didn’t really hit until seeing this “comic” that this parent generation is the first one where baby pictures are more important than the actual baby. All the kindergarteners holding up signs about abortion or trump or immigration were just whatever to me, I suppose, because in their minds they’re just holding up the sign mommy told them to. But a comic depicting “the whole situation” with no direction or prepping beforehand… maybe I’m just stupid. But better late than never.

And something I’ll never do is making children the supporting cast for their parents. If I made something where a bunch of adult women drooled over my dick, either 1) it would be taken as an obvious joke, except for the part where I’m a pervert, or 2) it would be taken seriously and I’d be delusional, as well as a pervert. I wouldn’t be able to do that with less-than-adult women. People take children seriously. As they should.

But not seriously enough, it seems.

If you had asked her if she wanted to raise a transvestite she’d have said no– she wants a child free of stereotypes– because there are stereotypes of boys and girls but not of boys who dress like girls. That mixed logic reveals the true intent of her “gender-neutral” project. It isn’t for the kid, it is for her. If it wasn’t for her, you wouldn’t have heard about it. Wasn’t the whole point not to call attention to the gender? Oh, I had it backwards, the whole point was entirely to focus on the gender. Sigh. The main character in this story is herself. The kid is supporting cast. He is not a person, he is a blog topic.

“”Did you see that wonderful melodrama, Stella Dallas with Barbara Stanwyck? She has a daughter who wants to marry into the upper class, but she is an embarrassment to her daughter. So, the mother – on purpose – played an extremely vulgar, promiscuous mother in front of her daughter’s lover, so that the daughter could drop her, without guilt. The daughter could be furious with her and marry the rich guy. That’s a more difficult sacrifice. It’s not “I will make a big sacrifice and remain deep in their heart.” No, in making the sacrifice, you risk your reputation itself. Is this an extreme case? No, I think every good parent should do this.” […]

She is doing the exact opposite: sacrificing her child’s reputation, subjecting him to potential ridicule and god knows what else, not for his benefit but in order to promote her own identity. It’s not the gender neutrality that’s going to mess this kid up, though it might; but being raised by parents who are using their kid as something other than an end in himself. As was said in a movie I hope has no parallel here: this isn’t going to have a happy ending.

A self-aggrandizement parent comic for self-aggrandizing parents.

On Free Marketers’ Free Marketing of Free Markets

“The Free Market creates higher quality products at lower prices” is a tagline masquerading as an explanation, a simplification of a relationship of opposing parties down to one constant result. Any time something odd happens, libertarians et. all will say “it wasn’t a true free market”, “capitalism != corporatism”, or any number of words they define at that moment purely for rallying purposes.

These are the three parties that marketists marketers will talk about:

  1. The seller,
  2. The buyer, and
  3. The other sellers.

Supposing, for the duration of this post, that other parties and factors from government to culture and infrastruture to topography are as irrelevant as they say, they are still wrong about the balance of these three, and will basically be wrong about the balance everywhere even if the model was a neighborhood garage sale, a simulation run by a class of college students, or the same simulation run by children. Communists don’t understand human nature, and Marketers don’t understand it either. Libertarians are often pointed out as having a very high population of autists, which makes sense if we look into how they see the world: “I want it, therefore I will be given it”.

Let’s start with the seller.

People driven by profit are inclined to take as much money as they can while putting in minimum effort. Wherever it can, it will attempt to maximize in these two directions: it will sell down to whatever people are willing to accept, up to whatever price they are willing to pay. The best situation is for people to give them any amount of money they want for nothing. People have heard famously about 100$ Nike shoes costing 1$ to make, but their measly 11.25% profit margin isn’t the holy grail. “Rent-seeking” isn’t it either, they barely do much better at 12%, and were only at 2% before the start of the second great depression. No, the holy grail is much higher than that. The holy grail is 100%.

They are not your friends. Their best interests are not and will never be your best interests. They’ll try to be your friends. Just like how the street hustler with the cards will tell you you’re such a pretty girl, aw thanks you’re so nice. But if they can rig the cards while making you believe you can follow them, they will. And if they can make you feel at home while getting some of their actual friends to pick your pocket, they’ll do that too. Which they of course do, in whatever form it takes for their industry.

“People aren’t that mean!”

You’re paying for a product which is 97% profit.

Unless my blog is so great someone printed it out, you used it to read this post.

No need to disagree about how “the people would never stand for that”. They do. They have been for 20 years. It’s probably true in a number of other places too. So let’s talk instead about how it works and see if we can’t find out something that might predict where profit can be made, rather than waiting for libertarians marketers to complain afterwards about how something or other wasn’t a real free market.

The reason why they believe things shouldn’t happen this way is because of the buyer. Sellers can sell for whatever they want, but it doesn’t mean anything without the buyer, and the buyer will always want higher quality at a lower price.

…”And therefore the higher quality will appear at a lower price” would be golden, maybe someday a libertarian will actually say it and then I’ll have another permanent pet toy, but that’s basically what they believe and espouse without irony or further explanation. Tell this to a child and they’d know that something’s up. How is it possible that, when two people with opposing goals negotiate, one just always wins, and wins everything they want at the cost of the other guy? No middle ground? No give-and-take? Just a “And I would’ve gotten away with it too if it weren’t for you meddling kids”?

It should be obvious that if the buyer wants something that the seller doesn’t it won’t happen either, and marketers will recognize this logic when presented with their favorite S&D graph, but completely forget it otherwise. Outside it they use quotes like

There is only one boss. The customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else.

which is surprising, or unsurprising, because they don’t realize the meaning of it being a well-publicized quote about consumers, from someone who didn’t make a name for themselves on consumer advocacy, but the exact opposite. The customer can fire everyone? Really? Can someone name the last time something like that happened? Everyone hates Comcast and EA, when’s the last time something substantial happened at those companies in any direction the customer wanted? Anyone?

The biggest problem in the model is that there isn’t one customer.

Every individual transaction may be one seller and one buyer but the vast majority of transactions only exist because there’s one seller and many buyers. Only a very few businesses can be made off of only one buyer, like being an artist in the Renaissance, or being Boeing, Bechtel, Raytheon, or Tesla today. Everyone else needs a bunch of customers. It’s basically true to say “the seller”, it’s basically untrue to say “the customer”.

And these customers don’t know each other – meaning if one guy is screwed the others won’t know, and if they do, they won’t care. Even if they do know, does it mean anything beyond an Angry reaction on Facebook? Does it affect the seller in any significant way?

A big thing happened a little while back; United Airlines beat up a customer to unreasonably get him off a flight, all recorded and known around the world minutes after it happened thanks to the wonder and ubiquity of smartphones. Reddit’s subforum for cat videos had nothing but pages and pages of stuff on UA, and apparently UA’s stock dropped by more than $1 Billion USD. Stock market being, we’re told, a reflection of consumer opinion.

Here’s a graph of UA stock. Can you tell me when the incident happened?

Are you looking for the biggest drop? It’s not so obvious is it. It’s somewhere in these last three months. Here’s the graph for the last year, which won’t help either.

The other problem is buyers generally don’t know anything about the product. It’s easy to say people want a higher quality product at a lower price, which is how you know it’s just a marketing line. Chasing the words will only lead you into the predetermined holes. In abortion you’re “pro-choice” or “pro-life”, but how can you say you’re against choice or against life?

Let’s ask an answerable question: How does a buyer know something is higher quality?

When you think of an average person looking up products to buy to fulfill a particular need, and they’re not simply buying the same thing they’ve bought before, they’re not just doing whatever their friends said, and they’re out looking for whatever is the best actual thing for the job, what do you think of?

That’s right. Reviews. Or if it’s Amazon/Yelp, not even the reviews, just the rating distribution. It better be mostly 5/5’s and have 100+ reviews or forget about it. The other routes would be it’d be whatever the bigger review magazines said, or if in a physical store whatever the Sales Associate™ said, or some brand with trustworthy-looking graphic design.

People don’t know what they’re buying and are buying only because they’re told to.

“Well what else could it be?”

Reading specsheets. i.e. Looking at the actual thing money is being paid for.

The reviews part is important too but we’ll get back to that in a bit.

When switching to a new case a while back I bought fans for my computer, a few Fractal Design Venturi HF-14s. Aside from positive reviews, I bought it because I knew a bit about what the product would actually do based off of what it said. Rubber corners means fan vibration doesnt lead to noise. Multi-size means I can use a larger fan i.e. push more air through my smaller components. It’s not a sleeve bearing so it’ll last longer. There’s a number for how many dB’s of noise it’ll make. There’s a lot of other stuff too which I don’t know how to read, but of what I do know, and I know some, it looked pretty good. Here’s their page on the product (backup link).

I also got a new fan recently because it’s summer and it’s hot, a Honeywell 7″ Power Air Circulator, but only because my mom had one too and I fiddled with it beforehand: quiet, small, high airflow, and the rotation is stiff rather than flimsy. But if I hadn’t had this experience, I wouldn’t have gotten it, because there’s nothing about it I can find beforehand that makes any sense. There’s no specsheets on it from Honeywell. On a Venturi box most of the specs are listed on the back. On the Honeywell box are:

  • 7″
  • 3 Powerful Speeds
  • Turbo FORCE Power
  • 25% Quieter
  • SAVE up to 20% on Energy Bills

and that’s it for specs. The back is in Spanish.

7″ and 3 speeds are the only specs on the box, everything else, including the stuff I did bother to list, is nonsense. I can tell you how much noise a Venturi makes, says right on the box, 26.5dB. I wouldn’t know if it makes 25 or 27, but I know what 20, 30, and 40dB are so it gives me a rough idea. “25% quieter” doesn’t tell me anything. Quieter than what?

25% quieter claim is based on internal sound test (#08-017) comparing model HT-900 to another similar sized air circulator, HT-800.

What’s the problem with listing the number on the box?

What’s that supposed to mean anyways? I need to buy your HT-800 first? Wouldn’t be the worst thing ever if I could access this “internal sound test #08-017”, but that’s also not public information. And what’s with the rest of it? “Turbo FORCE Power“? Graphic design from the 90’s doesn’t keep the hot air away. Do I need to go to the dollar store to pull examples of big bang words in fancy fonts and colors paired with products that aren’t worth the time spent in the drive over? Again, the fan isn’t actually so bad, but how would I know? Or, in obverse, I don’t know if there’s actually significantly better fans out I could’ve gotten instead of this one, because all of the stuff any of them list in their advertising is complete hot garbage.

Sure, Fractal Design could be lying to me, maybe the fan actually produces a louder 40dB instead, but Honeywell could’ve given me a trash fan and I wouldn’t be able to say anything about it because Turbo FORCE Power doesn’t mean jack squat. With the Venturi I know there’s certain other fans out there that are better at this or that, but for the size I had, and a price range I was willing to pay, it was the best in terms of airflow and noise level. I don’t know anything about the Honeywell except that I turn it on when it’s hot.

The same holds true for most people about anything they’re buying. They want something to fulfill a need, they look up what people have been saying about various products that claim to fulfill that need, they get one, and that’s it. It could be better, it could be worse. They don’t know. They don’t have a clue. And they don’t care; if they’re told it’s 5/5 stars and it doesn’t have any obvious problems for 6mo~1yr (depending on the person), it’s perfect by them. It just so happens there’s quite a lot of perfect products on Amazon and restaurants on Yelp waiting for everyone. God Bless America.

I’m not saying this way of doing things is wrong. If you can’t tell the difference in quality and you think it’s fine then for you it probably is. Let the people who care about what you see as minutiae deal with whatever they think the problem is. People only have so much time in a day anyways, no one person can be expected to be educated and perfectly informed on everything. Just recognize that you basically don’t know what you’re doing for most of the things you’re buying, you most likely aren’t getting the best, and are making decisions based off of pretty pictures and silver words.

For libertarians though:

This is supposed to be the grand ultimate force which is supposed to oppose money.

Certainly in some fields “the” customer holds more power than not, but it’s never, ever due to any populist reasoning. It’s more that a few powerful buyers with very strong opinions and very specific goals saying to the seller “I’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse”, and less of everyone else absentmindedly reciting “The meek shall inherit the earth”. Buyers who only buy a product once or otherwise only think about it and then go on with their lives have no power in any field. Buyers who are recognized as informed and thus guide others opinions on the matter – those have power. They make the changes, everyone else is just the tool. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people; you don’t fire everybody in the company the chairman on down, popular reviewers do. Maybe. I haven’t seen it ever happen. But if it happens, it’ll be because of them, not because of any stupid Hollywood-tier Power To The People crap.

The more a seller relies on buyers with opinions, the more the balance shifts towards the buyers. The less a seller can be influenced by other people in power, the more the power shifts toward the seller. For higher quality lower cost product to exist, there must be powerful buyers whose desire is higher quality lower cost products. This is the full logic chain, not “if: competition, then: better cheaper stuff”.

There’s also plenty of powerful buyers whose desire is something other than higher quality lower cost products, a topic which I won’t get into in this post. Suffice to say, shilling is a thing. A really big thing.

Read a handful of Amazon Vine reviews, and tell me how many of them you think were written by a real person. Expand to big reviewers in general. Remember, they get free products from the company and make their living off of them. See also “Sponsored Content” and “Native Advertising”. Or just look at Starbucks.

The final party is the other sellers. There’s generally not a lot of other sellers. Certainly if there’s more of them, then it’s more likely that there’s going to be variances.

But even then it’s not like it’s all competition all the time. Even amateur markets like Artist’s Alley at anime and comic conventions have organizations. However many of them there are, there’s always lot more of you. Why is it that basically every stall you go to and every poster or charm you see, they’re all selling at about the same price? It’s not like some kind of reverse auction where they’re all scouting around the place all the time, starting at various different prices and all cut down over the course of a convention so they could cut into the profits of whoever was selling cheaper.

Because you’re faceless, and they’re not.

Even before the internet and “price-matching”, look on any older box, you’ll find that the price was already on the product. “MSRP”: Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price. And basically, unless it was Christmas Shopping Season or some other special event, that was the price for that thing, everywhere. That number can’t come to exist if we accept the libertarian individualist state of nature explanation of the world, where the manufacturer simple ships the product to a distributor, who cares who actually sells it in the end, let them figure out the price themselves I already got my cut.

No, obviously there’s a supply chain, distributors and retailers which have stayed in business, have connections, and use general agreed-upon practices and markups. They talk to each other and come to agreements. They don’t just roll over and say the customer wants higher quality at lower prices, whats my competitor got, time to offer higher quality at lower prices. Unlike you, they have to deal with the other guy tomorrow, probably the day after too, and potentially ten years from now. And the other guy has a lot more impact on them then literally who. Listed MSRP hard to find these days, but its existence and disappearance suggests certain structures, structures which generally haven’t changed, structures which show more cooperation with each other than with you.

Even if they only have one meeting with each other a year, it’s probably between a couple of their bigwigs, making a deal of some sort, setting up information sharing. What’s your connection to any of these manufacturers or retailers? One purchase? Maybe one review whose star rating is seen by 50 people? A call to customer service?

And then what? You got a higher quality product at a lower price from a competitor?

And that’s why this whole system is the best, thank god we aren’t communists?

If we assume it’s an average buyer with an average product, then it comes back to the same problem as before: There’s no knowledge that it’s actually a better product. What was better was the final opinion, because of the product not breaking or reading more shining reviews or friendly customer service that happened to resolve the problem this time rather than with the nonresolution with the other company, or who knows what else; whatever it is: not the product. “The free market provides higher quality products at lower prices” is literally completely unrelated to the actual experience, to most anyone’s actual experiences, yet it’s chanted at anything and everything nonstop all the time.

What sellers actually do: Sell poorer products at higher prices.
What buyers actually do: Look at whatever has the most positive/popular reviews.
What sellers actually do: Pay well-known reviewers to review positively.
What buyers actually do: Buy anyways.

This is the actual result.

“But it’s wrong and probably illegal for them to do some of the things they’re doing, let me try and find some law that supports my argument, then I’ll show you why it isn’t actually a free market” is not relevant. Sellers in a market want to make more money while having spent less to do it, and buyers in most markets, who number in magnitudes larger than the sellers, have no clue what they’re doing, put those two together and whatever fancy jargon you make up aside, the cards always fall this way. Maybe the details differ. Nike makes 10 cents per dollar rather than 97. Whatever. But 97 is possible, is happening, and the more companies do it the happier the people are.

That’s right: The more companies profit, the happier people are to buy from them. If the marketers’ ideology was true you’d expect to see the opposite. If people were actually so concerned about lower prices then there’d be info spread around about companies producing whatever product and compare all their profits to see who made the least. Assuming all their products cost the same, this should approximately mean that whoever is profiting the least put the most money into doing the work, therefore a better quality product. What we actually see is everyone wanting to wear Nikes driving Teslas drinking Starbucks while using their iPhone.

People want to spend money on expensive things that they’re told everyone else likes. They don’t need to know what’s in it as long as it doesn’t obviously break, they just need it to have the best reviews and be on the top of all the lists and the tip of everyone’s tongue. Nevermind if it actually breaks, or how it breaks, or how soon it breaks, technology is really complicated these days doncha know? The customer service guy was nice and I like the font and logo the brand uses. I’m proud to continue to support a company that says it’s the leader of innovation into the future. Nevermind if they do or not, who cares anyways, looking at numbers and comparing stats is for nerds.

This is supposed to be the grand ultimate force which is supposed to oppose money.

It opposes with as much resistance as you’d expect.

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.

98% of reasoning is ad hoc

The idea of science or truth-finding, as it’s thrown around, is to “let the evidence speak for itself”. The ideal is that no opinions are formed beforehand, and only after gathering, sorting, and analyzing the indisputable facts, is a conclusion made.

Now, for some reason, people assume that they’re able to do this correctly off the bat. They also assume, I think due to some Western dogma that I can’t name because I don’t know my history, that everyone else is able to do the same, completely naturally and without effort, unless they have otherwise been artificially corrupted or sinned. Nevermind that they think of scientists highly and think of it as a well-paid profession, that they’ve learned of the history of vastly different and mutually exclusive ideas held as true by scientists throughout time, that there are things that scientists disagree with each other upon, little old them can do it with any subject matter because duh, it’s not like they have to do any work. Didn’t you hear? “The evidence speaks for itself!” As for any potential self-conflicts, they write it off as “new evidence” or “science is a self-correcting process” or any number of other things. They treat it as the worldview version of democracy: ‘the worst epistemology, except for everything else’; except who cares what else there might be in “everything else”, this is what I was taught in school and it’s all I need, hasn’t failed me yet. Except when it does, and when it does, it’s self-correcting.

As if “self correcting” is such a big deal for an epistemology. They criticize Christian priests for saying that “oh, actually, God doesn’t say anything bad about gays!” or dinosaurs or heliocentricity or whatever, then blink and forget about it. Same with the Chinese Communist Party. They’re not very communist now are they? They’ll disagree with you though. I don’t know what they’d say exactly but it’d probably be along the lines of “we’ve made some improvements”. I don’t need to talk about the American media and the whole rise and fall of the term”Fake News” do I?

Every way of thinking has ways of self-correcting, and every way of thinking will self correct until the moment you no longer believe it.

If that feels a little stretched, that’s because it’s worded backwards. Forwards, it’s

You will continue to think in a certain way as long as you can correct its errors.

Oh, but there’s a difference between “reasoning” and “rationalizing”. Sure. There’s also a difference between “nepotism” and “connections”, and “fact” and “opinion”, and “Correcting” a mistake is different than “Covering it up” too. Gee isn’t that nice, great sixth grade vocabulary lesson. One of us totally didn’t have a grasp on the English language before the other of us came along. So what’s the followup? So what?

Well, the difference is applied, and we can tell whether a way of thinking is faulty and needs to be changed or works just fine and nothing needs to be done.

Results are in: we’re always right and the other guy is always wrong.

All our corrections are either ‘improvements’ from people we already agreed with, or admitted changes but denied significance e.g. “oh pfft yeah I knew that, I just forgot / I just didn’t care / who cares”, while every inch the other guy gives is significant no matter what.

Test: What proportion of disagreements are civil, substantive, do result in a participant changing his mind, and don’t result in one participant characterizing the other as a simple cartoon villain who is inexplicably and irrelevantly evil and corrupted?

Is it 1 in 2?

1 in 5?

I think it’s closer to 1 in 100, but I can compromise halfway and say 1 in 50.

Now, it absolutely could be, that there’s a bunch of absolutely stupid retarded or corrupted people running around spouting opinions and just using defense mechanisms and logical fallacies every time they come to something which is against what they believe in, and by some magical spell or stroke of luck, you aren’t one of them. I can’t disprove that. But it seems a little too long winded and self fellating. Easier and simpler to model it as “I do things right, and my enemies do things wrong”. Hanlon’s razor might be retarded, but Occam’s is pretty good.

Eventually people will give in and admit this is actually what they do, and this is the kind of person they want to associate with. Those who don’t value others they’ve had history with and don’t cover for people who they’ve worked with before, just because in some instance and some interpretation, they didn’t follow the rules or weren’t strictly correct on some opinion, those kinds of people don’t have friends. And friends are important. Hobbesian State of Nature is intuitively ludicrous because everyone needs to sleep, and that means you’re going to need people helping you keep watch while you sleep, which means regardless if they tell a lie here or fuck your wife there, unless you have better options for the same purpose, you’re gonna have to deal, and even if you have better options, you better be careful, because you are also someone else’s consideration for replacement. It makes sense why it is the way it is. It also makes sense why people still hold up all the stuff they claim they do but they admit they don’t – the words and beliefs too are defenses against outsiders.

Networking. Rule of law. Evidence speaks for itself. I Fucking Love Truth, amirite lol?

I can only say such things because I can also say openly that I favor my friends, that everything that comes out of my mouth is my opinion, and that I think I’m always right. It’s more vulgar and crude, my personality and approach. Whether or not I actually do those things is a different matter. Isn’t it funny that it seems more likely that I’d engage in nepotism? Because I told you I would? Alternatively, if you already know me, isn’t it funny that your opinion on my likelihood on whether or not I’d do those things didn’t change? I did tell you, didn’t I?

If I had to venture a guess it’s because I’ve been an outsider my whole life trying to get inside various groups using their explicitly stated rules, continually failing, continually getting shafted, continually being told I’m “us” while I’m still “them”, and continually finding out that the game is rigged. It’s never the explicit rules, it’s always some other, hidden, second set. Yes, I am mad because bad, I am frustrated because I’m a loser; what winner would ever need to reconsider and improve on his ways? As for why I’m an outsider, I’m not sure. I think it might be because I’m Chinese and my way of thinking or speaking is also inherently Chinese. But in any case why is the enemy. What matters is “now what”, and the answer to that is “revealing the rigging”.

But I still get my laughs sometimes. Yesterday was the “Vault 7” Wikileaks and there’s been a lot of buzz about the “Deep State” of the American government, where the “unelected bureaucracy” and “intelligence community” hold the true power in relation to foreign policy and a number of other things. There’s been some uproar about a former CIA chief saying it’s not a “deep state” but a “friendly permanent government” – ‘It’s the beginning of a dark age!’ ‘The end of the experiment of freedom!’ I mean, really, what’s the big deal? They’re doing the same thing you’re doing, just with more people and more money. They’re your countrymen. Same culture, same blood – what makes them so special that they would refrain from doing at work what everyone else is doing everywhere? You think they weren’t doing it in any way at some point in time?

I guess some people actually think everyone else is just stupid.

Actually, I shouldn’t say that. Occam’s razor might be pretty good, but Hanlon’s is retarded.

Aesthetics before Communists

I was going to make a comment about how I’ve played games with good aesthetics that have bad mechanics/balance, but never the other way around. I stopped, but not because I found examples of the other way around (which I did).

I stopped because I remembered that once upon a time, SJWs basically didn’t exist in videogames, and bad aesthetics were just a result of the art being done by non-artists or because of technical limitations.

RIP GW.