Soooooo, you read a news article and it told you why "The Russians" did something, eh? And you believed them, hook line and sinker...
So, who are you believing in this, the newspaper author, or "The Russians?" I am sure the author of the paper has a recording of the leader of "The Russians" that took out these ads stating this, right? Or, he has a signed affidavit to that effect from "The Russians" press secretary? Some notes of a phone conversation with some underling who participated with "The Russians?" Even a "unnamed source" within the inner circle of "The Russians" would be nice.
My apologies, but I don't know how to confront the level of gullibility you have demonstrated with anything less than derision and sarcasm. What you wrote literally blew my mind. Here is what you stated, at a meta-level:
"A news article told me the exact motivations of an unidentified group of people on another continent, of which we know almost nothing. I believed it completely."
If this is indicative of the level of scrutiny that people use when reading news reports these days I fear deeply for the fate of our nation. You're not a sheep, you're an attack sheep on a long leash, trained to savage other sheep without question. You obey your masters (who appear to be any news article you run across that fits your worldview) unquestioningly and without shame for the ease with which you are manipulated. You see no deeper than the words on a page, unless they conflict with what you already believe.
More than Trump, or Hillary, the NSA, or the Russians, it is my own American brothers and sisters who possess a mind compromised by partisan thought that I fear. I predict it will be the end of our great experiment.
I find it Interesting that you introduced Helen Keller. I thought of her as well. My assertion is that how we define consciousness is conflated with the development of recursive thought, which is directly related to language development. The two are intertwined because to even define something is to presuppose the possession of language. And, in having language one also acquires recursion as a part of their thought process.
We see consciousness through the inalienable lens of thinking about thinking about ourselves, our experiences, our memories, sensations, and even our internal state. That consciousness can exist without the ability to observe itself is antithetical to our observation and communication about consciousness because to know you have observed it and to communicate about that observation requires meta-cognition and recursive thought. It is the water we swim in, without knowing water exists. We are, in essence, biased against any form of consciousness that does not include recursion because it is so intrinsic to our own experience of everything once we attain it. The author even points to this by using the terms "meta-consciousness" and "re-representation" which I feel point directly to my assertion.
At some point the definition of consciousness starts to look like a tautology, circularly reinforced by its own observation of itself, defined by what it is because it does what it does. The piece that is missing is the acknowledgement of the underlying components that inform, and in many ways form, the observations that lead to the definition itself.
In the case of Helen Keller we have the analysis and remembrances of a post-recursive consciousness who can now relate to us in language the experiences of her own pre-linguistic and possibly pre-recursive existence. I am now inspired to go back and re-read some of her writings. It has been decades and I feel it is overdue in light of this discussion.
(Shameless plug alert!) Peter Watts wrote a great book, Blindsight (Direct link to the book, available free: http://www.rifters.com/real/Bl...) which explores some very interesting angles on consciousness vs. self consciousness. Go read it. You won't be disappointed.
(This post is not about these reviews, it is about censorship and corporations in general.)
Remember, if a company is restricting the speech of certain people at the secret behest of government or government officials, it is not censorship because a company is doing it.
This is why we, the people, need to continually ensure there remain ways and methods for governments to employ censorship. It is in our best interests to undermine our own rights and allow governments to do whatever they want without recourse from the people. If we close off their ability to secretly manipulate us they would have to come out and do it in the open, and no one wants that. Transparency removes the ability to use the incredibly massive power of government without repercussions. It is, without a doubt, much better for us, the people, to remain in the dark as to the motives and actions of corporations and government when they are working as a single unified front to manipulate and control the electorate.
We should continue to argue not only for the right of compromised and clandestinely cooperative corporations (Ack! Too much alliteration!) to practice shadow censorship, but we should also vigorously assert the virtue of such actions and the people who perform them. In addition, we should make sure that any and all repercussions for such behavior on the part of a corporation and their staff are visited upon the victims of the shadow censorship and not the perpetrators of such. This is how you maintain the proper order of things.
Also, don't forget to attend the 15 minute hate tomorrow or we will burn your mother's face again, and if you see anyone doing anything suspicious, like thinking for themselves, report them immediately to the re-education officers.
*If you think these are the ideas of a crackpot, a sensationalist, a madman, well you may be right. But what if there is even a smidgen of truth to them? You would never know, because our government is not transparent. Just what did Google discuss in their over 400 visits to the White House over 8 years? One can only wonder what any one of us could accomplish with such unprecedented access to the government, much less what the largest information handling company in the world could could do.
If we know someone is building bombs by what they are buying and we disrupt the algorithm from suggesting the next items they need I think we are wasting an opportunity. For instance, the algorithm could be set to record, track, and alert law enforcement when these items are purchased together. Duh?
In addition, how about sending faulty items? Maybe the ordered containers where the bomb reactants mix is clandestinely impregnated with a chemical agent that reduces the expected explosion to deflagration. I cant wait to see the review on that one. "My chemical bomb didn't go off, saving the lives of 50 orphans in Kahare. 1 star, wouldn't buy again."
Also, for the racist angle, how nice would it be if certain retailers marketed certain items ONLY to racists identified by the algorithm. That blue and yellow Tag Hauer watch is only suggested to people who also bought KKK hoods. You know, that sort of thing.
This just proves my rule. If you go with your gut reaction of rejection you will ALWAYS miss opportunities to address the underlying problem. Step back, assess what is going on, get connected to what you are committed to, and understand why your reaction was so strongly against this thing. Once you have dispassionately examined yourself and the situation devise an answer that works for what you are committed to, rather than against what you are opposed to. It's a small adjustment that makes a world of difference in the end.
If "consciousness" or "intelligence" is an emergent property of certain types of complexity one need not understand how to "build" one. All that is needed is to assemble the necessary components and allow them to interact.
As we are more closely able to simulate or create analogous structures to neurons, and are able to interconnect and densely pack them, the greater the chance we will stumble upon the threshold for emergence, if it exists. This is the Skynet scenario where intelligence is not the objective, merely the result, of complexity, capability, and opportunity.
If we do discover strong AI, I feel it will be "grown" rather than built.
These transfers of wealth from one person to another in Japanese bathrooms were not properly taxed and the identities of the individuals were not properly disclosed to the tax officials. These anti-government activities are designed by subversives to deprive the government of their rightful tax revenue and ultimately undermine the social structure of a nation. The recipient of the money is of particular concern. Unreported and un-taxed income is illegal. It only makes sense that the government would need to know who they are.
Every time someone brings this up I cringe inside. Yes I understand the whole KLF idea was just to prove a point. And, yes, in many ways I can see where they were coming from. But DAMN! WHY WHY WHY?!?!
I am more concerned with leaks in the vehicle, bleeding out air from the passenger compartment and eventually suffocating the occupants who arrive at their destination on time, but blue and very stiff.
WRONG! Life evolved because our fungi overlords wanted a better variety of tasty plants and animals to eat. They are the true rulers of this world and it would behoove you to recognize their ascendancy before it is too late.
Now, the people in this test weren't your average every day fucktards, like most of us who frequent this site, so their results may be different than mine or yours. Also, the circumstances of the test were different than the normal dosing regimen for people consuming LSD. There were no lava lamps or loose women, no long haired psychonaut vererans, certainly no LED impregnated gloves, and house music hadn't been invented yet. Without those distractions interfering who knows what someone could do with a cortex full of lysergic acid? Well, apparently the government scientists who performed this test.
Also many people who dabble are at the effect of the drug. Their minds are particularly malleable while under the influence of LSD. It is entirely possible the implied circumstantial expectation of enhanced performance could have led to the results. An interesting aside, I would be curious to see how someone who has learned that LSD is a tool to be used, rather than an all powerful master, would perform under similar clinical conditions.
Lastly, due to the stigma attached to psychedelic drugs, not to mention the stiff as fuck federal penalties, I would not be surprised if many things we attribute to ingenuity and hard work are actually the result of driven people who aren't afraid to push their own boundaries with these substances.
He already pointed out what it says about them in the first part of what he wrote. Succinctly.
There is no innuendo. It is easy to ascertain his logic and viewpoint. He showed his work before making that statement.
What seems blatantly obvious is that you are looking for an opportunity to be argumentative with this person because you side with the AC. What I can't tell is if you had that little voice in your head telling you your post is intellectually dishonest and you did it anyways out of some misguided "the ends justify the means" rationale, or if you are just so filter blind that you really believe what you wrote.
Either way it is irrelevant. You may want to re-read The Prince or abandon your snide sideswipe attacks and take your opponents head on instead of trying to undermine their statements with appeals to non-existent logical fallacies.
Stopping population growth is easy. It just takes two things:
1) Allow women to control their own reproductive rights. 2) Provide university level education to women.
These two things result in a drastic decrease in the birth rate.
There may come a day when religious institutions that teach and enforce subjugation of women and uncontrolled copulation are considered criminals against humanity and the earth.
Interesting. My wife climbs trees, wields chainsaws and pole saws, moves tons of wood with simple tools, works with moving and replacing HVAC units, and performs a variety of physical feats of strength and endurance that are only available to people who are "fit" and "athletic." I still call her "curvy" and I wager she is in better physical shape and condition than many people who work out 3-5 times a week for a few hours. She works 6-10 hours a day 3-7 days a week doing hard physical labor.
I doubt very seriously that her condition is bad for her health. She has rock hard muscles, great stamina, phenomenal cardiovascular conditioning, and is still shaped like a woman.
I have corrections for them, but not the kind I gave you. I wanted to see you make a better argument, not a worse one. I was not trying to undermine you, I was trying to goad you into making a better argument for the same end. For those that would march to preserve the Confederate "heritage" I would take an entirely different tack. I would try to convince them they are misguided at the very least.
Don't just tear these statues down. Relocate them. Create a museum dedicated to the folly of mankind. A testament to how people can feel right about things and still get them completely wrong. Something that could engender humility and reflection, rather than outrage.
The past needs to be put in the proper context, not erased. To that end, the places where these statues were located should be changed to reflect better values than leadership in war. A shrine to the values of the constitution and specifically the 13-15th amendments would be appropriate. There are other ideas that would work as well.
No they are not, but that doesn't mean shit based on your conjecture that we settled something with a war last century.
What I am pointing to is that your approach is beneath you. Yes, NAZIS are fucking scum. Yes, it is self evident to all but the most stunted and malformed of us. You can do better than that. There are much better terms and much more universal principles to base this off of besides who won some war.
For instance, if war results are the basis for argumentation you will need to lay off of Israel, and I am sure you don't want to do that. Do better.
Awesome that you are proving Damore's point. In the realm of engineering, the high paying jobs require handling stress in a certain way in order to qualify for a promotion. These structures are unintentionally androcentric, a relic of an unstructured approach to job design. Leaving that part of the job description the same and asking more women to come work there is unfair to women who have different concepts of how to handle stress, and how much they are willing to put up with before they move on to something else.
Adjusting the type of stressors that are part of the job, completely different than the work itself of engineering, makes a more attractive work environment for those that are part of the distribution that Damore points to, whether they are female or not. The end result of doing what his memo suggests would be more diversity. It would just be more organic, in that the jobs would be the first choice for the people that occupy them, rather than a results based incentivization system that just makes the opportunity cost too much to pass up.
No. Whites can vote for either party without being called a traitor to their race. It makes them a viable political entity instead of a marginalized group, regardless of how ostracized they become. As long as they are able to vote with autonomy and freedom they will always have more political influence than a group that does not.
When I was growing up there were two ways to catch a beating from your friends, family members, and random strangers alike. All it took was an accusation, someone to back it up, and some violent asshole to throw the first punch, usually to the back of the head or to the kidneys.
"Acting white" was the first one. Definitely a no-no and would result in anywhere from a few people to a whole mob getting their licks in on you. Have seen a kid getting his face beat in by his "best friend" while his other "friends" held him because he was "acting white."
The worst was "acting gay." Way worse. I have seen a guy's cousin and his brother both kicking him in the head, body, and face while he was on the ground because "he was actin' gay." They walked up behind him, catching up like, and then just started beating on him, calling him names and asking why he liked to touch men, if he liked it when they hit him, and if he was going to perform sex acts on them. These were his relatives.
I wonder if the threat of daily beatings have anything to do with the low numbers of them.
We shouldn't be arguing that because it was never a supposition of the memo. Skill at programming was never the issue. The issue was all of the other shit that isn't programming that gets lumped in with a standard programming job, and how much of that shit men and women are willing to take to do that job.
Heh. If fight club's first two rules are not to talk about it, and the third one is essentially an admittance of the fact that someone just broke the first two rules and talked to you about it enough to get you to go, what do you think those first two rules are all about, eh?
If the company had asked him to contribute to an anti-rape initiative then, yes, that could easily show up. in this case, they specifically asked for ideas in this area, and he gave them.
So, we have established so far:
1) You lie a lot about this subject. 2) You are intentional bout spreading lies about this subject. 3) Your logic and reason are severely impaired with regard to this subject. 4) There is some payoff you get from lying and thinking about this subject in irrational terms.
Just a question, but have you been diagnosed with bipolar or borderline personality disorder? A better question might be are you taking your required medication, but I don't know that there is medication for people who intentionally act like you do. Borderline seems a good fit.
Slashdot Mirror
Soooooo, you read a news article and it told you why "The Russians" did something, eh? And you believed them, hook line and sinker...
So, who are you believing in this, the newspaper author, or "The Russians?" I am sure the author of the paper has a recording of the leader of "The Russians" that took out these ads stating this, right? Or, he has a signed affidavit to that effect from "The Russians" press secretary? Some notes of a phone conversation with some underling who participated with "The Russians?" Even a "unnamed source" within the inner circle of "The Russians" would be nice.
My apologies, but I don't know how to confront the level of gullibility you have demonstrated with anything less than derision and sarcasm. What you wrote literally blew my mind. Here is what you stated, at a meta-level:
"A news article told me the exact motivations of an unidentified group of people on another continent, of which we know almost nothing. I believed it completely."
If this is indicative of the level of scrutiny that people use when reading news reports these days I fear deeply for the fate of our nation. You're not a sheep, you're an attack sheep on a long leash, trained to savage other sheep without question. You obey your masters (who appear to be any news article you run across that fits your worldview) unquestioningly and without shame for the ease with which you are manipulated. You see no deeper than the words on a page, unless they conflict with what you already believe.
More than Trump, or Hillary, the NSA, or the Russians, it is my own American brothers and sisters who possess a mind compromised by partisan thought that I fear. I predict it will be the end of our great experiment.
Curious why someone would copy your entire post...
https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
What a jerk.
I find it Interesting that you introduced Helen Keller. I thought of her as well. My assertion is that how we define consciousness is conflated with the development of recursive thought, which is directly related to language development. The two are intertwined because to even define something is to presuppose the possession of language. And, in having language one also acquires recursion as a part of their thought process.
We see consciousness through the inalienable lens of thinking about thinking about ourselves, our experiences, our memories, sensations, and even our internal state. That consciousness can exist without the ability to observe itself is antithetical to our observation and communication about consciousness because to know you have observed it and to communicate about that observation requires meta-cognition and recursive thought. It is the water we swim in, without knowing water exists. We are, in essence, biased against any form of consciousness that does not include recursion because it is so intrinsic to our own experience of everything once we attain it. The author even points to this by using the terms "meta-consciousness" and "re-representation" which I feel point directly to my assertion.
At some point the definition of consciousness starts to look like a tautology, circularly reinforced by its own observation of itself, defined by what it is because it does what it does. The piece that is missing is the acknowledgement of the underlying components that inform, and in many ways form, the observations that lead to the definition itself.
In the case of Helen Keller we have the analysis and remembrances of a post-recursive consciousness who can now relate to us in language the experiences of her own pre-linguistic and possibly pre-recursive existence. I am now inspired to go back and re-read some of her writings. It has been decades and I feel it is overdue in light of this discussion.
(Shameless plug alert!) Peter Watts wrote a great book, Blindsight (Direct link to the book, available free: http://www.rifters.com/real/Bl...) which explores some very interesting angles on consciousness vs. self consciousness. Go read it. You won't be disappointed.
(This post is not about these reviews, it is about censorship and corporations in general.)
Remember, if a company is restricting the speech of certain people at the secret behest of government or government officials, it is not censorship because a company is doing it.
This is why we, the people, need to continually ensure there remain ways and methods for governments to employ censorship. It is in our best interests to undermine our own rights and allow governments to do whatever they want without recourse from the people. If we close off their ability to secretly manipulate us they would have to come out and do it in the open, and no one wants that. Transparency removes the ability to use the incredibly massive power of government without repercussions. It is, without a doubt, much better for us, the people, to remain in the dark as to the motives and actions of corporations and government when they are working as a single unified front to manipulate and control the electorate.
We should continue to argue not only for the right of compromised and clandestinely cooperative corporations (Ack! Too much alliteration!) to practice shadow censorship, but we should also vigorously assert the virtue of such actions and the people who perform them. In addition, we should make sure that any and all repercussions for such behavior on the part of a corporation and their staff are visited upon the victims of the shadow censorship and not the perpetrators of such. This is how you maintain the proper order of things.
Also, don't forget to attend the 15 minute hate tomorrow or we will burn your mother's face again, and if you see anyone doing anything suspicious, like thinking for themselves, report them immediately to the re-education officers.
*If you think these are the ideas of a crackpot, a sensationalist, a madman, well you may be right. But what if there is even a smidgen of truth to them? You would never know, because our government is not transparent. Just what did Google discuss in their over 400 visits to the White House over 8 years? One can only wonder what any one of us could accomplish with such unprecedented access to the government, much less what the largest information handling company in the world could could do.
If we know someone is building bombs by what they are buying and we disrupt the algorithm from suggesting the next items they need I think we are wasting an opportunity. For instance, the algorithm could be set to record, track, and alert law enforcement when these items are purchased together. Duh?
In addition, how about sending faulty items? Maybe the ordered containers where the bomb reactants mix is clandestinely impregnated with a chemical agent that reduces the expected explosion to deflagration. I cant wait to see the review on that one. "My chemical bomb didn't go off, saving the lives of 50 orphans in Kahare. 1 star, wouldn't buy again."
Also, for the racist angle, how nice would it be if certain retailers marketed certain items ONLY to racists identified by the algorithm. That blue and yellow Tag Hauer watch is only suggested to people who also bought KKK hoods. You know, that sort of thing.
This just proves my rule. If you go with your gut reaction of rejection you will ALWAYS miss opportunities to address the underlying problem. Step back, assess what is going on, get connected to what you are committed to, and understand why your reaction was so strongly against this thing. Once you have dispassionately examined yourself and the situation devise an answer that works for what you are committed to, rather than against what you are opposed to. It's a small adjustment that makes a world of difference in the end.
If "consciousness" or "intelligence" is an emergent property of certain types of complexity one need not understand how to "build" one. All that is needed is to assemble the necessary components and allow them to interact.
As we are more closely able to simulate or create analogous structures to neurons, and are able to interconnect and densely pack them, the greater the chance we will stumble upon the threshold for emergence, if it exists. This is the Skynet scenario where intelligence is not the objective, merely the result, of complexity, capability, and opportunity.
If we do discover strong AI, I feel it will be "grown" rather than built.
These transfers of wealth from one person to another in Japanese bathrooms were not properly taxed and the identities of the individuals were not properly disclosed to the tax officials. These anti-government activities are designed by subversives to deprive the government of their rightful tax revenue and ultimately undermine the social structure of a nation. The recipient of the money is of particular concern. Unreported and un-taxed income is illegal. It only makes sense that the government would need to know who they are.
So they can kill them.
Every time someone brings this up I cringe inside. Yes I understand the whole KLF idea was just to prove a point. And, yes, in many ways I can see where they were coming from. But DAMN! WHY WHY WHY?!?!
I am more concerned with leaks in the vehicle, bleeding out air from the passenger compartment and eventually suffocating the occupants who arrive at their destination on time, but blue and very stiff.
WRONG! Life evolved because our fungi overlords wanted a better variety of tasty plants and animals to eat. They are the true rulers of this world and it would behoove you to recognize their ascendancy before it is too late.
Put that Shitake down right now! Heathen!
The government might think differently than you when it comes to the effects of LSD on creativity.
Take a look here, try the results section:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Now, the people in this test weren't your average every day fucktards, like most of us who frequent this site, so their results may be different than mine or yours. Also, the circumstances of the test were different than the normal dosing regimen for people consuming LSD. There were no lava lamps or loose women, no long haired psychonaut vererans, certainly no LED impregnated gloves, and house music hadn't been invented yet. Without those distractions interfering who knows what someone could do with a cortex full of lysergic acid? Well, apparently the government scientists who performed this test.
Also many people who dabble are at the effect of the drug. Their minds are particularly malleable while under the influence of LSD. It is entirely possible the implied circumstantial expectation of enhanced performance could have led to the results. An interesting aside, I would be curious to see how someone who has learned that LSD is a tool to be used, rather than an all powerful master, would perform under similar clinical conditions.
Lastly, due to the stigma attached to psychedelic drugs, not to mention the stiff as fuck federal penalties, I would not be surprised if many things we attribute to ingenuity and hard work are actually the result of driven people who aren't afraid to push their own boundaries with these substances.
He already pointed out what it says about them in the first part of what he wrote. Succinctly.
There is no innuendo. It is easy to ascertain his logic and viewpoint. He showed his work before making that statement.
What seems blatantly obvious is that you are looking for an opportunity to be argumentative with this person because you side with the AC. What I can't tell is if you had that little voice in your head telling you your post is intellectually dishonest and you did it anyways out of some misguided "the ends justify the means" rationale, or if you are just so filter blind that you really believe what you wrote.
Either way it is irrelevant. You may want to re-read The Prince or abandon your snide sideswipe attacks and take your opponents head on instead of trying to undermine their statements with appeals to non-existent logical fallacies.
Stopping population growth is easy. It just takes two things:
1) Allow women to control their own reproductive rights.
2) Provide university level education to women.
These two things result in a drastic decrease in the birth rate.
There may come a day when religious institutions that teach and enforce subjugation of women and uncontrolled copulation are considered criminals against humanity and the earth.
EE - toys with dark forces
Marketing - of the devil
Sounds like a Charles Stross novel in the making there.
Interesting. My wife climbs trees, wields chainsaws and pole saws, moves tons of wood with simple tools, works with moving and replacing HVAC units, and performs a variety of physical feats of strength and endurance that are only available to people who are "fit" and "athletic." I still call her "curvy" and I wager she is in better physical shape and condition than many people who work out 3-5 times a week for a few hours. She works 6-10 hours a day 3-7 days a week doing hard physical labor.
I doubt very seriously that her condition is bad for her health. She has rock hard muscles, great stamina, phenomenal cardiovascular conditioning, and is still shaped like a woman.
I have corrections for them, but not the kind I gave you. I wanted to see you make a better argument, not a worse one. I was not trying to undermine you, I was trying to goad you into making a better argument for the same end. For those that would march to preserve the Confederate "heritage" I would take an entirely different tack. I would try to convince them they are misguided at the very least.
Don't just tear these statues down. Relocate them. Create a museum dedicated to the folly of mankind. A testament to how people can feel right about things and still get them completely wrong. Something that could engender humility and reflection, rather than outrage.
The past needs to be put in the proper context, not erased. To that end, the places where these statues were located should be changed to reflect better values than leadership in war. A shrine to the values of the constitution and specifically the 13-15th amendments would be appropriate. There are other ideas that would work as well.
No, it was not. Right here in the good ol' US of A. Texas in fact.
No they are not, but that doesn't mean shit based on your conjecture that we settled something with a war last century.
What I am pointing to is that your approach is beneath you. Yes, NAZIS are fucking scum. Yes, it is self evident to all but the most stunted and malformed of us. You can do better than that. There are much better terms and much more universal principles to base this off of besides who won some war.
For instance, if war results are the basis for argumentation you will need to lay off of Israel, and I am sure you don't want to do that. Do better.
Awesome that you are proving Damore's point. In the realm of engineering, the high paying jobs require handling stress in a certain way in order to qualify for a promotion. These structures are unintentionally androcentric, a relic of an unstructured approach to job design. Leaving that part of the job description the same and asking more women to come work there is unfair to women who have different concepts of how to handle stress, and how much they are willing to put up with before they move on to something else.
Adjusting the type of stressors that are part of the job, completely different than the work itself of engineering, makes a more attractive work environment for those that are part of the distribution that Damore points to, whether they are female or not. The end result of doing what his memo suggests would be more diversity. It would just be more organic, in that the jobs would be the first choice for the people that occupy them, rather than a results based incentivization system that just makes the opportunity cost too much to pass up.
No. Whites can vote for either party without being called a traitor to their race. It makes them a viable political entity instead of a marginalized group, regardless of how ostracized they become. As long as they are able to vote with autonomy and freedom they will always have more political influence than a group that does not.
When I was growing up there were two ways to catch a beating from your friends, family members, and random strangers alike. All it took was an accusation, someone to back it up, and some violent asshole to throw the first punch, usually to the back of the head or to the kidneys.
"Acting white" was the first one. Definitely a no-no and would result in anywhere from a few people to a whole mob getting their licks in on you. Have seen a kid getting his face beat in by his "best friend" while his other "friends" held him because he was "acting white."
The worst was "acting gay." Way worse. I have seen a guy's cousin and his brother both kicking him in the head, body, and face while he was on the ground because "he was actin' gay." They walked up behind him, catching up like, and then just started beating on him, calling him names and asking why he liked to touch men, if he liked it when they hit him, and if he was going to perform sex acts on them. These were his relatives.
I wonder if the threat of daily beatings have anything to do with the low numbers of them.
And Japs get nuked, too, eh? We settled that at that same time you know.
We shouldn't be arguing that because it was never a supposition of the memo. Skill at programming was never the issue. The issue was all of the other shit that isn't programming that gets lumped in with a standard programming job, and how much of that shit men and women are willing to take to do that job.
Heh. If fight club's first two rules are not to talk about it, and the third one is essentially an admittance of the fact that someone just broke the first two rules and talked to you about it enough to get you to go, what do you think those first two rules are all about, eh?
Might want to think about that one...
If the company had asked him to contribute to an anti-rape initiative then, yes, that could easily show up. in this case, they specifically asked for ideas in this area, and he gave them.
So, we have established so far:
1) You lie a lot about this subject.
2) You are intentional bout spreading lies about this subject.
3) Your logic and reason are severely impaired with regard to this subject.
4) There is some payoff you get from lying and thinking about this subject in irrational terms.
Just a question, but have you been diagnosed with bipolar or borderline personality disorder? A better question might be are you taking your required medication, but I don't know that there is medication for people who intentionally act like you do. Borderline seems a good fit.