That's the thing. Even if it is a bunch of white guys at the top that does me no good even if I am also a white guy since I don't have a buddy from the tennis club downtown, am not a member of the right country club, and didn't go to the right school/fraternity.
So the main requirements are being willing to put up with hours that suck, competent schmoozing, advanced small talk with simians and being willing to put up with a hollow and dull life.
Honestly I'd be so miserable in those conditions I'd need an extremely good benefits package to attract me to the job.
The ability to herd cats is probably a plus. Then move on to the hard things like getting groups of human beings to cooperate for a decent amount of time.
that'll teach me to use angle brackets around my groups on slashdot. I forgot slashdot cuts out anything within angle bracket. Can't be arsed re-writing it.
In the case of "too many white people", the hypothesis that seems to be advanced is that CEO's are insular and are based on friendship / family rather than merit, which isn't necessarily in and of itself racist but it's still wrong and it ends up being racist because what it perpetuates comes from a time of greater racism.
actually there is a difference. If it's true racism, as in the CEO's are all closet white supremacists who think black people are incompetent rather than if it's just nepotism/hiring friends then you get 2 quite different situations if you grab 2 people and put them into a job interview.
Situation 1: supremacists:
+ goes for job interview.supremacists assume is incompetent and hire .
has no chance.
supremacists:
+ goes for job interview. they both get a chance.
Situation 2: Nepotism:
+ goes for job interview.Neither are drinking buddies with the interviewer. They both get a chance.
+ goes for job interview.Neither are drinking buddies with the interviewer. They both get a chance.
+ goes for job interview.person1 is mates with the interviewer. person2 has no chance.
+ goes for job interview.person1 is mates with the interviewer. minority has no chance.
Coupled with the fact that people tend to be friends with people from their own ethnic group it leads to very similar effects and both situations can be operating at the same time but the fine distinction is that Nepotism disadvantages me or anyone else who doesn't tend to build large networks of contacts to the exact same degree.
Now there is of course also racism at play since I've never met a human being of any race, creed or profession who wasn't in some way racist.
Hell you can get at the subtle end of the spectrum people getting blamed because they happen to *look like* some ethic group who screwed over a lot of people in history even if their ancestors were getting screwed right along side everyone else.
no. The the name may be "Old boy network" but in reality what it actually is is people who know each other. As in if I have a choice between 2 people and I know or a friend of mine knows one of them and can vouch for how competent they are then I'm more likely to hire them.
There's this idea floating around that seems to get voiced by the far crazy end of the feminist movement that the male 50% of the population gets invited to weekly meetings where we get handed updates to the policy documents on how we're going to keep women down this month.
The reality is that you can get this situation even when nobody involved thinks women are incompetent, someone sets up a company, hires a few people he/she trusts, the people he/she trusts could be of either gender but most people have more friends of the same gender.
I'd question why so few women try setting up companies given that if only 3% of tech firms were founded by women but got 9% of venture capital investments then that's saying they get 3 times more investment than the average which could for example mean that women tend to go for the 'safer' firms or it could mean that less women try to build startups but the ones who do are the most competent fraction.
What you completely fail to understand is that while this does cut women out and that's a problem it cuts me and any other men who don't happen to have family connections or friends with investment capital to exactly the same extent. I'm going to lose to that guy or girl the interviewer went to college with or knows through family.
To me, that could easily mean that just went about their business without bothering anybody else, tolerating and being tolerated.
You mean not trying to force other people to conform to their culture, not bitching about people talking languages they can't understand etc?
to me for example Australians are closer to the British than many others.
But his basic premise is that there are degrees of difference. Do you deny that, and it's completely binary? So Finns are as similar to the French as Belgians are? And that all three are more similar to each other than any are to the Japanese? Utter tripe.
Well Australia would be closer culturally to the UK given that Australia was where the UK used to ship people who they decided they didn't want.
So what you're saying is that because people have different cultures then nobody should be allowed live near you unless they act the way your grandmother acted and speak the way your grandmother spoke.
Seems we've got a real genius here. With the ability to bitch about trivialities of grammers while at the same time failing to understand population growth.
3%+(Compound interest on 3%) Wow. That's scary. Now lets drop that into the future population....
97% +(Compound interest on 97%)... oh wow!
3% of the the population! They're gonna swamp us all!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's a news flash for all those slashdot pedants who when faced with the possibility that they're morons with nothing but biggoted racist newsletters to support their points of view:
English does not have a linguistic governance body. As such there are no "official" rules for english at all. None. If I say something and you can follow what I'm saying and it sounds like english then it's english.
The Oxford English dictionary is just an arbitrary standard written by a private non government organisation.
So if a large portion of the population start using the word "Cause" instead of "because", "in hospital" instead of "in the hospital", "wait on line" instead of "wait in line" and can use it to communicate with each other then it means the language has changed.
Any pedants who try to give the impression they (despite evidence to the contrary) have a tipple digit IQ by loudly pointing out that *teacher told them that that wasn't the right way to say things* are in fact wrong and simply haven't been keeping up with the recent changes in usage.
So your ancestors changed religion (or changed their religion to fit), gave up all old family traditions,
FWIW, being from another European country doesn't really count as different.
Ah so it's "I'm not really foreign, but those fuckers from slightly further away than my parents? they're different."
"fit in or fuck off" is just as hard for conservative Christians to grasp.
Say if an Amish family moved into a village in the UK, they kept their own traditions, religions beliefs and customs and then some fucks like the BNP come along, insists they start dressing like everyone else, acting like everyone else and talking like everyone else. That's no less fucked up than you insisting everyone else should be just like you or fuck off back into the void.
Guess what. Back when your mothers family immigrated there would have been plenty of other immigrants just like them, some of whom would have lived in their own communities, not learned english and generally been just like any other large group of migrants and there would have been dickheads who wanted to send your mother *back where she came from* for the good of preserving british society. But of course that's different... because.... um....
40 years from now I predict someone on a slashdot equivalent complaining about all the Korean migrants in Britain, how only True british people like him should be allowed in, how his family were muslim migrants from the middle east but he sure as hell thinks of himself as british now and so that doesn't really count as foreign and how it's disgraceful how these new migrants don't seem to want to speak popper English like him.
Just like every other wave of migrants muslims will fade into british culture, subtly altering it but mostly being changed themselves with few exceptions fitting in as much as anyone else and a few generations down the line some of their descendent will be standing right beside you being racist at the next wave of immigrants.
Remember when the Irish were destroying british society? with their own neighbourhoods. their own religion. extremists who bombed tube stations?
And people like you put up "no cats no dogs no irish" on rental ads to prevent the destruction of True Blooded british society by the fucking foreigners.
I never said you blamed the economy on said brown people or people who talk differently. I said you blame your problems on them and that that tends to happen more at times when the economy goes down the tube since BNP style groups are great at whipping up support from people who are mad as hell and want *anyone* to blame.
Lets turn this around then.
Shall we start exporting all the british dickheads back to you guys?
Or is the british way of life ordained by god as superior and as such it is the job of all british abroad to spread british culture and all british in Britain to extinguish all other cultures?
Because let me tell you. You guys tend to be terrible at actually integrating into other cultures. British emigrants tend to barge in and create pockets of all english speakers in other countries. (and that's when they don't just take over)
I know more than a few London born people living in their own insular little social pockets in Paris who can't speak a word of french. Should they all be evicted from their homes and forced to move back to England?
Withdrawn. Lets make that idiots like you who blame all their problems on anyone who doesn't talk the same way they do when the economy does down the tube.
Will these restrictions apply to everyone, or just indigenous white people? Because it seems that Sharia law enshrines and promotes discrimination against women and gays, among others. Is that somehow different becuae it's part of a religion?
wow, you really aren't the sharpest tack in the box. Nowhere did he exclude sharia law.
Would you rather it was you that was deported (if you're lucky)? The appearance of being moderate and being in a minority often go together, but it all changes when the boot's on the other foot. Take a look at how non-muslims are treated in countries like Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Take a look at Bradford, or some of the Parisian banlieue - not quite there yet but they're trying.
Right cause that 3% of the population is about to turn all the god fearing white people into a minority and will then kill them. Moron.
If they actually *do* try to overthrow the government by violence then they have committed a crime and can be tried and punished for it.
Once you start punishing people for *wanting to* do anything before they actually do anything then you really have gotten into the realms of thought crime.
So what's your plans for dealing with all the british citizens who's parents get deported after being identified as people who might *want to* do things which you don't like and grow up extra pissed off at the british government.
You honestly can't see why people make nazi comparisons when BNP types talk about solving the "problem" of *insert ethnic minority here* by means of either deporting *insert ethnic minority here*, locking up majority of *insert ethnic minority here* or in other ways doing away with *insert ethnic minority here* so that *insert generic true blood people here* can have a nice static society?
Why limit it to mosques and muslims? perhaps we should deport anyone who wants to change the form of government or make chances to the country which you wouldn't like no matter if they happen to be christian, Muslim, brown or white.
Of course if say your brother, sister, son or daughter gets deported for wanting to institute communism, supporting anarchists, wanting to change the government from it's current form to anything else, supporting violence for any reason or looking at a policeman funny and if you get radicalized by that then you were not a true moderate to begin with under these circumstances and can safely be deported too.
Where are we going to deport all these people too? I'm not sure.... other countries probably won't want them.... perhaps we could build holding facilities in remote places....
Some of my family live in london. They're Irish. They live and work in London. Should they be required to stop considering themselves Irish if they want to work in london for a few years?
On the other hand my mother was born in England but has lived in Ireland for the last 40 years. She considers herself British. She even still has a British passport. Why should she be required to stop considering herself British or English just because she lives a few hundred miles away?
Or are brown people special? Should they have to forsake all old identities and loyalties before swearing their allegiance to the British crown if they want to live and work in the UK for 5 or 10 years?
I imagine it's almost as bad as trying to find somewhere to live when most of the ads for flats include words like "no dogs, no cats, no irish."
30 years on that phrase may be illegal to include in a rental ad but it seems the racists and bigots who used to include those words made sure they passed on the attitudes to their kids.
Massively racist fucks like you are a tiny minority.
It's a growing minority since idiots like to blame all their problems on brown people when the economy goes down the tube but it's still a tiny minority.
The problem being that ultimately the people with wads of cash and a team of high priced lawyers will find a way around it and get whatever they want done done. The people who can't do that are the individuals, small parties and small organisations.
More than that. If I publish a newsletter and some of my subscribers are part of terrorist groups and I include a section on how to prepare a good lamb roast then I'd be sharing information intended to be useful and some of the people it would be intended to be useful to would be terrorists.
Example: An insane proportion of the remains of medieval period coffins have fingernail marks on the inside. They were so bad at figuring out if you were *really* dead that it wasn't that unlikely that you'd wake up inside your own coffin.
Hence many other traditions like the 3 days laying out etc or people being buried with vials of poison.
As long as they get better at it as time goes on I'm happier.
So, who wants to flood this system to the point that it starts impacting everyone and gets removed? I'm thinking of something like this:
Google for terms like "armed resistance" "bomb made from" "nerve gas" "freedom" "oppression" "kill" "opposition" "freedom of speech"
then some setup where we run through the first few hundred thousand google results, grab the domain names and use some PHP script to serve up bite sized portions that random Slashdoters can copy paste into the form for submitting "terrorist" web pages. I'm thinking we could drown the system in noise.
"See, I never bought into the bullshit that its necessary for my survival or well-being. And, guess what? It isn't!"
where did I say that? I specifically said the opposite.
"No great yearning"
No offence intended but that makes you a significant oddity amongst normal humans.
"Sex keeps people in abusive relationships, leads to unwanted children, makes one initially be in a "lovestruck fog" with someone new. No, thank you."
Personally given the choice between the warm happy feeling of cuddling up with my girlfriend on a long evening or a brisk walk and a cold shower followed by eating rice cakes alone I'll take the former.
No matter how much you dislike the sheeple they're still what you've got to deal with. You can get off on looking down on them all you want but it isn't going to help anyone. 99% of the sheeple aren't going to embrace your ascetic ideal no matter how much you talk about consequences.
And thus a solution needs to do more than complain about the actions of the sheeple. For the sake of minimising the suffering of those not responsible (the progeny of the sheeple) any solution has to mitigate the consequences of the sheeples actions.
"become addicted to the sex partner" There's a less sinister way of describing that.
In any case, in my experience I'd liken it much more to air. When you're getting regular sex then it's no big deal. But if someone is deprived of it for a long time it consumes a lot more of their attention and gradually seems more important. If anything I was most "addicted" before I first had sex at all. (of course taking into account that it's lack is not lethal.)
Also you do realise that your viewpoint is not exactly a common one amongst normal people? Most healthy non-traumatised adults aren't prone to utter the words "I dislike sex".
Comparing sex to alcohol would only work if 99% of the population was born preprogramed to develop moderate to strong alcoholism from about age 13 onwards no matter if they ever touch a drop.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the thing.
Even if it is a bunch of white guys at the top that does me no good even if I am also a white guy since I don't have a buddy from the tennis club downtown, am not a member of the right country club, and didn't go to the right school/fraternity.
So the main requirements are being willing to put up with hours that suck, competent schmoozing, advanced small talk with simians and being willing to put up with a hollow and dull life.
Honestly I'd be so miserable in those conditions I'd need an extremely good benefits package to attract me to the job.
Ah, a good starting question.
The ability to herd cats is probably a plus.
Then move on to the hard things like getting groups of human beings to cooperate for a decent amount of time.
Anyone got any good rundown of management skills?
that'll teach me to use angle brackets around my groups on slashdot.
I forgot slashdot cuts out anything within angle bracket.
Can't be arsed re-writing it.
In the case of "too many white people", the hypothesis that seems to be advanced is that CEO's are insular and are based on friendship / family rather than merit, which isn't necessarily in and of itself racist but it's still wrong and it ends up being racist because what it perpetuates comes from a time of greater racism.
actually there is a difference.
If it's true racism, as in the CEO's are all closet white supremacists who think black people are incompetent rather than if it's just nepotism/hiring friends then you get 2 quite different situations if you grab 2 people and put them into a job interview.
Situation 1:
supremacists:
+ goes for job interview.supremacists assume is incompetent and hire .
has no chance.
supremacists:
+ goes for job interview. they both get a chance.
Situation 2:
Nepotism:
+ goes for job interview.Neither are drinking buddies with the interviewer. They both get a chance.
+ goes for job interview.Neither are drinking buddies with the interviewer. They both get a chance.
+ goes for job interview.person1 is mates with the interviewer. person2 has no chance.
+ goes for job interview.person1 is mates with the interviewer. minority has no chance.
Coupled with the fact that people tend to be friends with people from their own ethnic group it leads to very similar effects and both situations can be operating at the same time but the fine distinction is that Nepotism disadvantages me or anyone else who doesn't tend to build large networks of contacts to the exact same degree.
Now there is of course also racism at play since I've never met a human being of any race, creed or profession who wasn't in some way racist.
Hell you can get at the subtle end of the spectrum people getting blamed because they happen to *look like* some ethic group who screwed over a lot of people in history even if their ancestors were getting screwed right along side everyone else.
no.
The the name may be "Old boy network" but in reality what it actually is is people who know each other.
As in if I have a choice between 2 people and I know or a friend of mine knows one of them and can vouch for how competent they are then I'm more likely to hire them.
There's this idea floating around that seems to get voiced by the far crazy end of the feminist movement that the male 50% of the population gets invited to weekly meetings where we get handed updates to the policy documents on how we're going to keep women down this month.
The reality is that you can get this situation even when nobody involved thinks women are incompetent, someone sets up a company, hires a few people he/she trusts, the people he/she trusts could be of either gender but most people have more friends of the same gender.
I'd question why so few women try setting up companies given that if only 3% of tech firms were founded by women but got 9% of venture capital investments then that's saying they get 3 times more investment than the average which could for example mean that women tend to go for the 'safer' firms or it could mean that less women try to build startups but the ones who do are the most competent fraction.
What you completely fail to understand is that while this does cut women out and that's a problem it cuts me and any other men who don't happen to have family connections or friends with investment capital to exactly the same extent.
I'm going to lose to that guy or girl the interviewer went to college with or knows through family.
To me, that could easily mean that just went about their business without bothering anybody else, tolerating and being tolerated.
You mean not trying to force other people to conform to their culture, not bitching about people talking languages they can't understand etc?
to me for example Australians are closer to the British than many others.
But his basic premise is that there are degrees of difference. Do you deny that, and it's completely binary? So Finns are as similar to the French as Belgians are? And that all three are more similar to each other than any are to the Japanese? Utter tripe.
Well Australia would be closer culturally to the UK given that Australia was where the UK used to ship people who they decided they didn't want.
So what you're saying is that because people have different cultures then nobody should be allowed live near you unless they act the way your grandmother acted and speak the way your grandmother spoke.
Seems we've got a real genius here.
With the ability to bitch about trivialities of grammers while at the same time failing to understand population growth.
3%+(Compound interest on 3%)
Wow. That's scary.
Now lets drop that into the future population....
97% +(Compound interest on 97%) ... oh wow!
3% of the the population!
They're gonna swamp us all!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's a news flash for all those slashdot pedants who when faced with the possibility that they're morons with nothing but biggoted racist newsletters to support their points of view:
English does not have a linguistic governance body.
As such there are no "official" rules for english at all.
None.
If I say something and you can follow what I'm saying and it sounds like english then it's english.
The Oxford English dictionary is just an arbitrary standard written by a private non government organisation.
So if a large portion of the population start using the word "Cause" instead of "because", "in hospital" instead of "in the hospital", "wait on line" instead of "wait in line" and can use it to communicate with each other then it means the language has changed.
Any pedants who try to give the impression they (despite evidence to the contrary) have a tipple digit IQ by loudly pointing out that *teacher told them that that wasn't the right way to say things* are in fact wrong and simply haven't been keeping up with the recent changes in usage.
So your ancestors changed religion (or changed their religion to fit), gave up all old family traditions,
FWIW, being from another European country doesn't really count as different.
Ah so it's "I'm not really foreign, but those fuckers from slightly further away than my parents? they're different."
"fit in or fuck off" is just as hard for conservative Christians to grasp.
Say if an Amish family moved into a village in the UK, they kept their own traditions, religions beliefs and customs and then some fucks like the BNP come along, insists they start dressing like everyone else, acting like everyone else and talking like everyone else.
That's no less fucked up than you insisting everyone else should be just like you or fuck off back into the void.
Guess what.
Back when your mothers family immigrated there would have been plenty of other immigrants just like them, some of whom would have lived in their own communities, not learned english and generally been just like any other large group of migrants and there would have been dickheads who wanted to send your mother *back where she came from* for the good of preserving british society.
But of course that's different... because.... um....
40 years from now I predict someone on a slashdot equivalent complaining about all the Korean migrants in Britain, how only True british people like him should be allowed in, how his family were muslim migrants from the middle east but he sure as hell thinks of himself as british now and so that doesn't really count as foreign and how it's disgraceful how these new migrants don't seem to want to speak popper English like him.
Just like every other wave of migrants muslims will fade into british culture, subtly altering it but mostly being changed themselves with few exceptions fitting in as much as anyone else and a few generations down the line some of their descendent will be standing right beside you being racist at the next wave of immigrants.
Remember when the Irish were destroying british society?
with their own neighbourhoods.
their own religion.
extremists who bombed tube stations?
And people like you put up "no cats no dogs no irish" on rental ads to prevent the destruction of True Blooded british society by the fucking foreigners.
I never said you blamed the economy on said brown people or people who talk differently.
I said you blame your problems on them and that that tends to happen more at times when the economy goes down the tube since BNP style groups are great at whipping up support from people who are mad as hell and want *anyone* to blame.
Lets turn this around then.
Shall we start exporting all the british dickheads back to you guys?
Or is the british way of life ordained by god as superior and as such it is the job of all british abroad to spread british culture and all british in Britain to extinguish all other cultures?
Because let me tell you.
You guys tend to be terrible at actually integrating into other cultures.
British emigrants tend to barge in and create pockets of all english speakers in other countries. (and that's when they don't just take over)
I know more than a few London born people living in their own insular little social pockets in Paris who can't speak a word of french.
Should they all be evicted from their homes and forced to move back to England?
Withdrawn.
Lets make that idiots like you who blame all their problems on anyone who doesn't talk the same way they do when the economy does down the tube.
Will these restrictions apply to everyone, or just indigenous white people? Because it seems that Sharia law enshrines and promotes discrimination against women and gays, among others. Is that somehow different becuae it's part of a religion?
wow, you really aren't the sharpest tack in the box.
Nowhere did he exclude sharia law.
Would you rather it was you that was deported (if you're lucky)? The appearance of being moderate and being in a minority often go together, but it all changes when the boot's on the other foot. Take a look at how non-muslims are treated in countries like Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Take a look at Bradford, or some of the Parisian banlieue - not quite there yet but they're trying.
Right cause that 3% of the population is about to turn all the god fearing white people into a minority and will then kill them.
Moron.
The key words here are "want to".
If they actually *do* try to overthrow the government by violence then they have committed a crime and can be tried and punished for it.
Once you start punishing people for *wanting to* do anything before they actually do anything then you really have gotten into the realms of thought crime.
So what's your plans for dealing with all the british citizens who's parents get deported after being identified as people who might *want to* do things which you don't like and grow up extra pissed off at the british government.
You honestly can't see why people make nazi comparisons when BNP types talk about solving the "problem" of *insert ethnic minority here* by means of either deporting *insert ethnic minority here*, locking up majority of *insert ethnic minority here* or in other ways doing away with *insert ethnic minority here* so that *insert generic true blood people here* can have a nice static society?
Why limit it to mosques and muslims?
perhaps we should deport anyone who wants to change the form of government or make chances to the country which you wouldn't like no matter if they happen to be christian, Muslim, brown or white.
Of course if say your brother, sister, son or daughter gets deported for wanting to institute communism, supporting anarchists, wanting to change the government from it's current form to anything else, supporting violence for any reason or looking at a policeman funny and if you get radicalized by that then you were not a true moderate to begin with under these circumstances and can safely be deported too.
Where are we going to deport all these people too?
I'm not sure.... other countries probably won't want them.... perhaps we could build holding facilities in remote places....
Some of my family live in london.
They're Irish.
They live and work in London.
Should they be required to stop considering themselves Irish if they want to work in london for a few years?
On the other hand my mother was born in England but has lived in Ireland for the last 40 years.
She considers herself British.
She even still has a British passport.
Why should she be required to stop considering herself British or English just because she lives a few hundred miles away?
Or are brown people special?
Should they have to forsake all old identities and loyalties before swearing their allegiance to the British crown if they want to live and work in the UK for 5 or 10 years?
I imagine it's almost as bad as trying to find somewhere to live when most of the ads for flats include words like
"no dogs, no cats, no irish."
30 years on that phrase may be illegal to include in a rental ad but it seems the racists and bigots who used to include those words made sure they passed on the attitudes to their kids.
Massively racist fucks like you are a tiny minority.
It's a growing minority since idiots like to blame all their problems on brown people when the economy goes down the tube but it's still a tiny minority.
The problem being that ultimately the people with wads of cash and a team of high priced lawyers will find a way around it and get whatever they want done done.
The people who can't do that are the individuals, small parties and small organisations.
More than that.
If I publish a newsletter and some of my subscribers are part of terrorist groups and I include a section on how to prepare a good lamb roast then I'd be sharing information intended to be useful and some of the people it would be intended to be useful to would be terrorists.
Example:
An insane proportion of the remains of medieval period coffins have fingernail marks on the inside.
They were so bad at figuring out if you were *really* dead that it wasn't that unlikely that you'd wake up inside your own coffin.
Hence many other traditions like the 3 days laying out etc or people being buried with vials of poison.
As long as they get better at it as time goes on I'm happier.
So, who wants to flood this system to the point that it starts impacting everyone and gets removed?
I'm thinking of something like this:
Google for terms like "armed resistance" "bomb made from" "nerve gas" "freedom" "oppression" "kill" "opposition" "freedom of speech"
then some setup where we run through the first few hundred thousand google results, grab the domain names and use some PHP script to serve up bite sized portions that random Slashdoters can copy paste into the form for submitting "terrorist" web pages.
I'm thinking we could drown the system in noise.
Or am I supporting the terrorists now?
"See, I never bought into the bullshit that its necessary for my survival or well-being. And, guess what? It isn't!"
where did I say that?
I specifically said the opposite.
"No great yearning"
No offence intended but that makes you a significant oddity amongst normal humans.
"Sex keeps people in abusive relationships, leads to unwanted children, makes one initially be in a "lovestruck fog" with someone new. No, thank you."
Personally given the choice between the warm happy feeling of cuddling up with my girlfriend on a long evening or a brisk walk and a cold shower followed by eating rice cakes alone I'll take the former.
No matter how much you dislike the sheeple they're still what you've got to deal with.
You can get off on looking down on them all you want but it isn't going to help anyone.
99% of the sheeple aren't going to embrace your ascetic ideal no matter how much you talk about consequences.
And thus a solution needs to do more than complain about the actions of the sheeple.
For the sake of minimising the suffering of those not responsible (the progeny of the sheeple) any solution has to mitigate the consequences of the sheeples actions.
wow.... this is kinda a cool story.
Any links to the posts in question?
I can't seem to find them with a few googles.
"become addicted to the sex partner"
There's a less sinister way of describing that.
In any case, in my experience I'd liken it much more to air.
When you're getting regular sex then it's no big deal.
But if someone is deprived of it for a long time it consumes a lot more of their attention and gradually seems more important.
If anything I was most "addicted" before I first had sex at all.
(of course taking into account that it's lack is not lethal.)
Also you do realise that your viewpoint is not exactly a common one amongst normal people?
Most healthy non-traumatised adults aren't prone to utter the words "I dislike sex".
Comparing sex to alcohol would only work if 99% of the population was born preprogramed to develop moderate to strong alcoholism from about age 13 onwards no matter if they ever touch a drop.