Interesting, I think the most wonderful thing you could give your wife on your wedding night is a few really good orgasms and a sex experience that lasts more than five seconds (not counting bra removal time).
I absolutely understand the reality differs from my ideal. All I'm saying is, I think the reality is highly flawed. Whether we need to deal with that or not is one thing... usually, we do... though you could make a nice case for a small-scale rebellion in this way;) But you're right, whenever you fight the accepted norm, there are consequences.
I think the ultimate problem I have with it is the perpetuation of decisionmaking based on irrelevant criteria. I'm talking society-wide here.. the people your company may be afraid will not do business if you are the sales guy in a T-shirt, the suits who do the hiring, all of it. It just shows poor critical thinking skills as a whole, I think, which is troubling to me. The world where it doesn't matter how you're dressed because the people are interested in what you can do and who you are, period, is the one I wish we were in and would like to push towards, you know?
And when you can pin down *what* that reason is by simply looking at their clothes, then you would be right that clothes could partly define a person. In my experience, at least a short conversation is usually required in addition.
I agree with you in many respects... such dress is often just a uniform of a different sort for some people... but how you dress is ultimately an aesthetic choice any way you slice it, you're "conforming" to some image that has been done before, whether it's goth, punk, hippy, corporate suit, GQ... I happen to like baggy (not as baggy as ten years ago, but still loose and large) clothes. Very comfortable. I often wear a baseball cap. Backwards, even. I save my more fitting clothes for buisness appointments, out of self-preservation, but I do feel it's dumb to have to do that. Realistically or not, clothing does not in any meaningful way define an individual. It's just that a large number of ignorant people act like it does.
exactly my point, how you dress has nothing to do with qualities that I would consider to be important. I've seen extremely friendly, personable, intelligent people with a face full of piercings wrapped in the best money can buy at goodwill. People that would, in meaningful way, be an asset to my company. I've also seen such people looking like they stepped out of GQ. And morons of both cuts of cloth as well. Yet you imply that somehow, the rags on their bodies actually indicates something of value about the person?
I'm not saying it's not "smart" to dress for the culture you are trying to join. I'm just saying it's not a real indicator of a damn thing of worth, and as an employer I would hope that more relevant criteria would guide my hiring.
Kind of. I do war with this a bit myself... when I went into business for myself, I had a nosering, for example. Lost it one day, slow to replace it, healed over... and I would kind of like to have it back, but now i'm all nervous about it (now that the biz is moving up).
On the one hand, I very much like the idea that perhaps dressing as YOU feel comfortable could strike some sort of blow for a meritocracy. That is, if it makes just a few people stop and re-evaluate their set of assumptions about "people with piercings" or what have you... it may make some beneficial changes. Perhaps encourage more people to look at substance instead of image. and in the meantime, I get to look the why I like to look.
On the other hand, if it spooks someone, it could cost me and my biz a whole lotta bread. And while I like my nosering, I wouldn't walk out and pay $5000 to have one, and I'm not sure I'm willing to risk that (or more, or less) simply for a fashion accessory which isn't ultimately all that important.
But, maybe that's the kind of thinking that allows image-based evaluations to continue on a wide scale?
I still don't know. I have no concrete evidence that when I did have one, that it ever cost me, or my previous employer a project. but what if, what if...
It is, if you're trying to hire sycophants. Personally, I like my hires to have some individuality and creativity. How they dress, either way, says nothing about this to me. A short interview, however, can tell quite a lot. Being personable is important. I guess if you don't have that, you probably need to dress to mask it rather than call attention to it. Camoflauge?
That wasn't a news program, it was a talk show. You know, like crossfire. Where you get people that disagree on an issue to go and argue about it in public. Wow, that's a shocking concept right there.
You posted a link to a talk show that had a pro-Osama and an anti-Osama person on it. Why are you trying to make it sound like Al Jazeera was promoting one of those two viewpoints in a talk show representing both?
In what state can you not recover lawyer's fees for suing someone against wrongful misconduct?
I'm suing an ex-landlord right now for a withheld security deposit and rest assured, she's paying for my lawyer. My lawyer is charging me, but the understanding is I am not paying until it's settled.
IA most definitely NAL, but it seems quite unreasonable that if someone screws you and you sue them that they should not pay your court costs and lawyers fees. what am I missing?
Why aren't we deposing Indonesian tyrants? Why are we still working with South American governments operating death squads? Why aren't we doing a lot of things?
Seems like the simplistic thing to do is first to stop supporting the assholes out there. Then, maybe, once we have a little credibility again, we can think about taking real action against despots. But when most of the world sees us as imperialistic aggressors, given the hypocrisy you yourself just pointed out with the pick-and-choose method of attacking people we seem to employ, exactly how successful do you expect "unilateral" action to be?
I'll tell you just how successful it'll be. Just as successful as Iraq. Oh, but that's a "success". I keep forgetting.
Funny thing when this war was being hyped, it was the WMDs that was the focus, and now it's a grand plan for democracy. What, exactly, was wrong with trying to make afghanistan a functioning democracy first, before we waltzed into another middle eastern country and practically abandoned our first attempt at a "shining beacon of democracy"?
Well, nothing was wrong with it, we just have self-righteous, ignorant bastards in charge like you that have no concept that we are anything less than all-powerful. All we have to do is WANT something and POOF, there it is, cause damn it, we're america! We can do anything! Damn the cost (unless it's our own poor that need help), damn the citizens we kill (collateral damage, can't be helped), damn everything!!
Man, I just wanna go throw a flag on my car radio antennae now. Thanks, man.
Apparently you can't read. I didn't want us to help them be persecuted under saddam IN THE FIRST PLACE. But you keep trolling, you'll hit a nerve sooner or later.
But we did prop him up for years, and we don't have the ability to right it by waltzing into their country and drawing every terrorist in the middle east into their hometowns, and dissolving the country into civil war. That's exactly why Bush Sr didn't go in back in '92, and now his predictions are coming true. Course Jr. doesn't like Dad telling him what to do, so in we went anyway.
Being "Free" is of small consequence if you are simply "free" to live in terror of going to supermarket, as opposed to living in terror that you will offend the powers that be. But you're right, we can do no wrong, we're the good guys, go us, it'll all work out in the end.
Keep waving the flag, man. Everything will be ok. Just don't pay attention to the death toll. No reflection on the situation we created in the first place, either... that might be unpatriotic!
There is a difference between WANTING to do something and being ABLE to do something.
We could have NOT supported saddam in the first place. We could have NOT supported the Iranian revolution, replacing a democracy with a theocracy. But we set these things in motion.
We have no credibility in the middle east, and our very presence in Iraq makes it unable to succeed at what we're trying to do there.
btw, those bombings during the elections last year, happened after the elections. The last few months have set records for violence in Iraq, you think that is just suddenly over? talk about head up asses... nice rose color glasses you're wearing there, don't let the facts bother you!
Yeah, Russia would have magically nuked us, if it weren't for Osama standing up to them, eh? There's a brilliant analysis. Way to go. If they couldn't be allowed to waltz into afghanistan.. exactly what would have happened if we went in there? it would have been resolved. Nukes would not have flown. We're dumb, but we're not that dumb, and neither was Russia.
Saddam wouldn't have even remained in power for nearly as long as he did without our help. he needed help. We gave it to him. Go us!
What we're finding out is when we try to play in the shit, we get dirty. it's not really that complicated, come on, I know you can get it.
if it's NOT important enough for US to go in with OUR people, OUR money, and OUR guns... it's not important enough to get involved. You still can't see why, eh? Well aim your global ambition just a hair lower... say, to a rich and prosperous country instead of a global hegemony... and suddenly, it's a reasonable proposition. You just can't control everything in the world. On the plus side, you have less worry about people sneaking dirty bombs into your country because you aren't fucking around with the fates of nations like fucking chess pieces.
The lesser of two evils still supports evil. It's very simple. don't work with muderous tyrants.. do your own dirty work, if it needs to be done, but don't entrench a fuckwad like saddam. It's not some touchy-feely "be nice" philosophy, it's a basic recognition that these people are not only evil, but they have a long history of biting hands that feed them, and eventually the shit comes back on us.
I see you still haven't learned the lesson. Which is a prime example of why we keep repeating the same mistakes and are left wondering why things don't get better and why people fly planes into our buildings. How odd, huh? We train Osama in guerilla tactics, send him money and guns, and when he's done with his big evil (Russia in Afghanistan) he's free to focus on HIS "lesser of two evils", us. OMG!! WOW!!
History bears me out. You cling to your rationalizations as long as you like, and it will continue to bear to me out. How long will you hold on?
funny thing is, Iraqis are dying faster now that we're there. Helping is great... if you do something that *helps*.
Like, say, not supporting someone like saddam in the first place, under any circumstances. Or, the Indonesian government (which we still are supporting).
Not just bush who should be held accountable.. but he's the one charge now who should be. How about his appointment of Mike Brown in the first place, a clearly unqualified head for FEMA?
It's even better in real life... my school had exchange students, and there was this kid from Spain that got so pissed off on day, and he just blew up 'YOU PIECE OF BITCH! EAT FUCK!!"
The rest of us dissolving into hysterics didn't help his mood much either >:)
well, I guess any historical game that involves two sides hating each other should be banned too. The English hated the french, everyone hated the Germans, Vietnamese and Americans..
In any real world conflict, you have two sides that dehumanize the other. In any game that involves conflict, it will be present.
The only thing you could do to avoid that is completely dehumanize the game.. wait, even "dehumanize" is racist in the context of WoW isn't it?.. by making everyone look the same (maybe red blobs and blue blobs, unless you're afraid of red vs blue hatred) with serial numbers for names.
Faction 349829 is a bunch of jerks! Kill them all, blues!!
give me a break man. I hope you are kidding. If not, you really need to take a step back and take a deep breath, cause you're treading on seriously unstable footing at this point.
please drop me a line if you can. I'd be interested in discussing further since three of my long-term vegetarian friends have just hit that "wall" I mentioned and I'd like to see what you're doing differently if I could.
to a third party, any vote is not a waste of time. Even if they don't win, they need the votes for official recognition as parties, matching funds, ballot access, etc.
If the two biggies aren't doing it for you, you *must* vote third party. It's the only way anything will ever change.
Imagine the 40% that didn't vote last year.. what proportion of those are apathetic because of the very system itself as it is these days? Enough to shake things up quite a bit. All they have to do is get off their ass one day every couple of years.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting, I think the most wonderful thing you could give your wife on your wedding night is a few really good orgasms and a sex experience that lasts more than five seconds (not counting bra removal time).
I absolutely understand the reality differs from my ideal. All I'm saying is, I think the reality is highly flawed. Whether we need to deal with that or not is one thing... usually, we do... though you could make a nice case for a small-scale rebellion in this way ;) But you're right, whenever you fight the accepted norm, there are consequences.
I think the ultimate problem I have with it is the perpetuation of decisionmaking based on irrelevant criteria. I'm talking society-wide here.. the people your company may be afraid will not do business if you are the sales guy in a T-shirt, the suits who do the hiring, all of it. It just shows poor critical thinking skills as a whole, I think, which is troubling to me. The world where it doesn't matter how you're dressed because the people are interested in what you can do and who you are, period, is the one I wish we were in and would like to push towards, you know?
And when you can pin down *what* that reason is by simply looking at their clothes, then you would be right that clothes could partly define a person. In my experience, at least a short conversation is usually required in addition.
As opposed to the corporate or sales subcultures?
I agree with you in many respects... such dress is often just a uniform of a different sort for some people... but how you dress is ultimately an aesthetic choice any way you slice it, you're "conforming" to some image that has been done before, whether it's goth, punk, hippy, corporate suit, GQ... I happen to like baggy (not as baggy as ten years ago, but still loose and large) clothes. Very comfortable. I often wear a baseball cap. Backwards, even. I save my more fitting clothes for buisness appointments, out of self-preservation, but I do feel it's dumb to have to do that. Realistically or not, clothing does not in any meaningful way define an individual. It's just that a large number of ignorant people act like it does.
exactly my point, how you dress has nothing to do with qualities that I would consider to be important. I've seen extremely friendly, personable, intelligent people with a face full of piercings wrapped in the best money can buy at goodwill. People that would, in meaningful way, be an asset to my company. I've also seen such people looking like they stepped out of GQ. And morons of both cuts of cloth as well. Yet you imply that somehow, the rags on their bodies actually indicates something of value about the person?
I'm not saying it's not "smart" to dress for the culture you are trying to join. I'm just saying it's not a real indicator of a damn thing of worth, and as an employer I would hope that more relevant criteria would guide my hiring.
Kind of. I do war with this a bit myself... when I went into business for myself, I had a nosering, for example. Lost it one day, slow to replace it, healed over... and I would kind of like to have it back, but now i'm all nervous about it (now that the biz is moving up).
On the one hand, I very much like the idea that perhaps dressing as YOU feel comfortable could strike some sort of blow for a meritocracy. That is, if it makes just a few people stop and re-evaluate their set of assumptions about "people with piercings" or what have you... it may make some beneficial changes. Perhaps encourage more people to look at substance instead of image. and in the meantime, I get to look the why I like to look.
On the other hand, if it spooks someone, it could cost me and my biz a whole lotta bread. And while I like my nosering, I wouldn't walk out and pay $5000 to have one, and I'm not sure I'm willing to risk that (or more, or less) simply for a fashion accessory which isn't ultimately all that important.
But, maybe that's the kind of thinking that allows image-based evaluations to continue on a wide scale?
I still don't know. I have no concrete evidence that when I did have one, that it ever cost me, or my previous employer a project. but what if, what if...
It is, if you're trying to hire sycophants. Personally, I like my hires to have some individuality and creativity. How they dress, either way, says nothing about this to me. A short interview, however, can tell quite a lot. Being personable is important. I guess if you don't have that, you probably need to dress to mask it rather than call attention to it. Camoflauge?
That wasn't a news program, it was a talk show. You know, like crossfire. Where you get people that disagree on an issue to go and argue about it in public. Wow, that's a shocking concept right there.
You posted a link to a talk show that had a pro-Osama and an anti-Osama person on it. Why are you trying to make it sound like Al Jazeera was promoting one of those two viewpoints in a talk show representing both?
In what state can you not recover lawyer's fees for suing someone against wrongful misconduct?
I'm suing an ex-landlord right now for a withheld security deposit and rest assured, she's paying for my lawyer. My lawyer is charging me, but the understanding is I am not paying until it's settled.
IA most definitely NAL, but it seems quite unreasonable that if someone screws you and you sue them that they should not pay your court costs and lawyers fees. what am I missing?
you've been ignoring anything I say, and you expect me to research your point?
I don't know, why didn't we go in there?
Why aren't we deposing Indonesian tyrants? Why are we still working with South American governments operating death squads? Why aren't we doing a lot of things?
Seems like the simplistic thing to do is first to stop supporting the assholes out there. Then, maybe, once we have a little credibility again, we can think about taking real action against despots. But when most of the world sees us as imperialistic aggressors, given the hypocrisy you yourself just pointed out with the pick-and-choose method of attacking people we seem to employ, exactly how successful do you expect "unilateral" action to be?
I'll tell you just how successful it'll be. Just as successful as Iraq. Oh, but that's a "success". I keep forgetting.
Funny thing when this war was being hyped, it was the WMDs that was the focus, and now it's a grand plan for democracy. What, exactly, was wrong with trying to make afghanistan a functioning democracy first, before we waltzed into another middle eastern country and practically abandoned our first attempt at a "shining beacon of democracy"?
Well, nothing was wrong with it, we just have self-righteous, ignorant bastards in charge like you that have no concept that we are anything less than all-powerful. All we have to do is WANT something and POOF, there it is, cause damn it, we're america! We can do anything! Damn the cost (unless it's our own poor that need help), damn the citizens we kill (collateral damage, can't be helped), damn everything!!
Man, I just wanna go throw a flag on my car radio antennae now. Thanks, man.
Apparently you can't read. I didn't want us to help them be persecuted under saddam IN THE FIRST PLACE. But you keep trolling, you'll hit a nerve sooner or later.
But we did prop him up for years, and we don't have the ability to right it by waltzing into their country and drawing every terrorist in the middle east into their hometowns, and dissolving the country into civil war. That's exactly why Bush Sr didn't go in back in '92, and now his predictions are coming true. Course Jr. doesn't like Dad telling him what to do, so in we went anyway.
Being "Free" is of small consequence if you are simply "free" to live in terror of going to supermarket, as opposed to living in terror that you will offend the powers that be. But you're right, we can do no wrong, we're the good guys, go us, it'll all work out in the end.
Free to be killed?
Free to disentegrate into civil war?
Keep waving the flag, man. Everything will be ok. Just don't pay attention to the death toll. No reflection on the situation we created in the first place, either... that might be unpatriotic!
There is a difference between WANTING to do something and being ABLE to do something.
We could have NOT supported saddam in the first place. We could have NOT supported the Iranian revolution, replacing a democracy with a theocracy. But we set these things in motion.
We have no credibility in the middle east, and our very presence in Iraq makes it unable to succeed at what we're trying to do there.
btw, those bombings during the elections last year, happened after the elections. The last few months have set records for violence in Iraq, you think that is just suddenly over? talk about head up asses... nice rose color glasses you're wearing there, don't let the facts bother you!
You want to argue hypothetical situations?
Yeah, Russia would have magically nuked us, if it weren't for Osama standing up to them, eh? There's a brilliant analysis. Way to go. If they couldn't be allowed to waltz into afghanistan.. exactly what would have happened if we went in there? it would have been resolved. Nukes would not have flown. We're dumb, but we're not that dumb, and neither was Russia.
Saddam wouldn't have even remained in power for nearly as long as he did without our help. he needed help. We gave it to him. Go us!
What we're finding out is when we try to play in the shit, we get dirty. it's not really that complicated, come on, I know you can get it.
if it's NOT important enough for US to go in with OUR people, OUR money, and OUR guns... it's not important enough to get involved. You still can't see why, eh? Well aim your global ambition just a hair lower... say, to a rich and prosperous country instead of a global hegemony... and suddenly, it's a reasonable proposition. You just can't control everything in the world. On the plus side, you have less worry about people sneaking dirty bombs into your country because you aren't fucking around with the fates of nations like fucking chess pieces.
The lesser of two evils still supports evil. It's very simple. don't work with muderous tyrants.. do your own dirty work, if it needs to be done, but don't entrench a fuckwad like saddam. It's not some touchy-feely "be nice" philosophy, it's a basic recognition that these people are not only evil, but they have a long history of biting hands that feed them, and eventually the shit comes back on us.
I see you still haven't learned the lesson. Which is a prime example of why we keep repeating the same mistakes and are left wondering why things don't get better and why people fly planes into our buildings. How odd, huh? We train Osama in guerilla tactics, send him money and guns, and when he's done with his big evil (Russia in Afghanistan) he's free to focus on HIS "lesser of two evils", us. OMG!! WOW!!
History bears me out. You cling to your rationalizations as long as you like, and it will continue to bear to me out. How long will you hold on?
It can be, if you *learn* from it. We don't seem to be doing that though.
funny thing is, Iraqis are dying faster now that we're there. Helping is great... if you do something that *helps*.
Like, say, not supporting someone like saddam in the first place, under any circumstances. Or, the Indonesian government (which we still are supporting).
Not just bush who should be held accountable.. but he's the one charge now who should be. How about his appointment of Mike Brown in the first place, a clearly unqualified head for FEMA?
It's even better in real life... my school had exchange students, and there was this kid from Spain that got so pissed off on day, and he just blew up 'YOU PIECE OF BITCH! EAT FUCK!!"
The rest of us dissolving into hysterics didn't help his mood much either >:)
What, not enough tentacle rape for you?
And Wilt was also a black belt in Kung Fu I believe.
well, I guess any historical game that involves two sides hating each other should be banned too. The English hated the french, everyone hated the Germans, Vietnamese and Americans..
In any real world conflict, you have two sides that dehumanize the other. In any game that involves conflict, it will be present.
The only thing you could do to avoid that is completely dehumanize the game.. wait, even "dehumanize" is racist in the context of WoW isn't it?.. by making everyone look the same (maybe red blobs and blue blobs, unless you're afraid of red vs blue hatred) with serial numbers for names.
Faction 349829 is a bunch of jerks! Kill them all, blues!!
give me a break man. I hope you are kidding. If not, you really need to take a step back and take a deep breath, cause you're treading on seriously unstable footing at this point.
my email is rhakka AT nrtradiant.com
please drop me a line if you can. I'd be interested in discussing further since three of my long-term vegetarian friends have just hit that "wall" I mentioned and I'd like to see what you're doing differently if I could.
to a third party, any vote is not a waste of time. Even if they don't win, they need the votes for official recognition as parties, matching funds, ballot access, etc.
If the two biggies aren't doing it for you, you *must* vote third party. It's the only way anything will ever change.
Imagine the 40% that didn't vote last year.. what proportion of those are apathetic because of the very system itself as it is these days? Enough to shake things up quite a bit. All they have to do is get off their ass one day every couple of years.