I would be sad about your viewpoint of life, your closed off mind, and your inability to discern the difference between physiological states and your own prejudice against "spiritual and religious experiences." However, I have realized that you will always be that way and that it pays off for you.
You have your reward in that you get to choose what parts of reality you believe in. You have created your own religion where anything that doesn't fit your predetermined, self limited, and (intellectual honesty requires me to say this) bigoted mindset gets thrown out, denied, labeled as untrue and the persons who dare speak of them are excommunicated as infidels to your reality. I sure hope you enjoy this life you have created for yourself. If you do not you only have yourself to blame.
How small of a world where you know all and already have all of the answers. How small a man that he only considers his own counsel in matters beyond his knowledge.
Wow, thought your uninformed thoughts you inadvertently described what actually happens sometimes when taking LSD. I have heard multiple users speak of gaining awareness of this state.
Imagine the sensation of observing yourself do all of the things you do, from a vantage point behind and above your consciousness. You can see, feel, and sense your body and mind performing the actions of breathing, heart pumping, thinking, emoting, making decisions, speaking, moving muscles etc. but not as the normal instantaneous and personal immersive experience. You are one step removed from that experience, able to observe yourself doing all of these things, like you are the thing operating the levers and dials of your body and mind.
For instance, if you are trying to perform certain mental tasks that you do in every day, life for your job, taking moderate to high doses of hallucinogens will make that task more difficult. You might start to question why you are doing this type of work. You might realize that this particular activity could be done better in a number of ways. Or you might realize that this type of rote regurgitation is so far beneath what you are actually capable of that you can do it while performing other tasks at the same time, something you would never have thought possible when not under the influence.
If you are a highly trained scientist you can reliably use hallucinogens to enhance your creativity, create breakthroughs, and solve vexing problems. For instance, the US government still uses an anti-submarine detection device developed during an LSD study.
If you are interacting with another human, it can lead to all kinds of interesting places. Communication without the use of normal language, interactions like having a deep philosophical conversation while copulating furiously, or empathic co-communication that leads to psychological breakthroughs. Other interactions can happen as well, that border on or cross the line completely into the realm of what some would call paranormal. From experience I can say it is only strange until you are part of it, then you realize it is natural, normal, human. You have just been brainwashed to believe that it is not real, not available, not possible.
These things are merely the tip of the iceberg. However, uninitiated, small minded, and confused individuals control the laws regarding these substances. I think it is due to their minds being limited. Not stupid mind you, which is excusable. Self-limited, controlled, and unwilling to accept things as they truly are. Kind of like a scared animal that puts its head in the sand, thinking that if you can't see it, it can't see you. Except that they know better and still do it. The problem with this type of thinking is that it is the truth, true reality, that people like this are hiding from. Undeniable, immense, and self evident; it terrifies people who would like the world and themselves to be as they define, not as they really are.
If the "equilibrium is out of balance" there will be shifts and changes in the system until equilibrium is achieved.
So, once the sun stops adding energy to the system things should settle down. Until then you should buckle your seat belt. Its going to be a bumpy ride.
And I don't know why we don't all have Braille keyboards. After a couple of years of typing everyone would know Braille.
Then we could put it on buttons and controls that are in hard to see places or areas where there is little light. Like those tiny ass buttons on the side of flat screen TV's that have imperceptible markings. Or any switch on the bottom of the sink disposal. Wrenches and sockets could be marked with Braille so you could tell the size without having to look.
It is an imperative statement, the implied "you" is just that, implied. So you should read it as this:
"You, don't be evil."
Which when expanded to it's proper form is rendered as:
"Hey you, don't be evil, that is our job and we're better at it, plus we have all kinds of cool protections as a corporation. Not to mention we spend more time at the White House than the president does, so yeah, come at me bro."
Yeah close but no cigar. Institutionalized racism is the racism that still exists when all of the overt and covert racism of people is removed. It is the ever present accusation of racism towards white people regardless of whether or not they are racist. It is a wrong that can never be righted. It is the problem of whiteness, namely that it still exists.
If you are going to fire someone, fine. Just do it for reasons related to the job. Not because of what they do with consenting adults in their off time. And certainly don't start a whispering campaign and out them to curry disfavor.
If he's a racist in your work discussions, bingo, there's your answer. Fire away. If he creates a problem with personnel, another bingo. Fire away. If he does something in his off time that is completely legal between consenting adults, don't fucking bring that up as part of his removal. Don't out him. Leave that part of his life completely alone.
If there were so many straws that it broke a camel's back then you have plenty of work related issues to choose from besides the guy's personal life, which has absolutely nothing to do with his professional performance or how he treats his co-workers. So yes, it is completely "unjustified" if you do it this way.
Redacted abundant expletives, you people are sick. How can you call yourself civilized, or even human? You take your self loathing and empty it out on someone else and call it their fault. That is just pathetic. I am completely disgusted.
So what you are saying is that because you and others were ineffective at managing this relationship you took matters into your own hands to attack this person based on their chosen form of consensual recreation, get them ridiculed in public, and railroaded them out of their job.
Swap Goreanism with homosexuality and you might get a clue to what is wrong with this picture, and it sure ain't the fired guy.
You should get those articles you quoted fired from Drupal. Oh, wait a second. Those articles don't work for Drupal, and I will bet you your authoritarian thought-crime accusing self-righteous ass that the guy who did work for Drupal doesn't ascribe to every hyperbolic tenet these hit pieces describe. Even if he did think exactly like these articles say if he doesn't bring that attitude into the workplace, which by actual reports he does not, why would you persecute him?
Also, that woman on the Wikipedia page has a giant smile on her face. You would rather her be unhappy, her self expression and sexuality stifled and under your puritanical control? God forbid someone enjoy themselves in a way that you find objectionable, eh?
The psychology has been elucidated for a long time.
The "submissive" is in control of the scenario. It is their will to be tied up. One thing precedes another.
It's pretty obvious you haven't and shouldn't engage in BDSM. You don't have the right mindset for it. The reason you see consent being violated in a bondage scenario is because it is what you would do. You are a predatory person with no concern for the consent of others. This is clear from what you wrote. You cannot even imagine something other than a violation of another person if they choose to place themselves in a submissive role.
I think you may need psychological help for this. There is the very real possibility that your viewpoint has repercussions greater than you imagine in your daily life.
They don't exactly declare the funds "obvious drug money." What they do is file charges against the money/property being seized. This results in a situation where the money/property is guilty until proven innocent.
Yes you read that right. You have to prove the money/property was not being used in any illegal way to get it back. This process is designed to have a price tag of about $5k in most areas, though it can be much higher.
If this were done to organized criminals most of the time you would see lots of violent repercussions levied against these officers and their families. Truth be told, the victims of police predation of this kind are generally law abiding citizens.
We are operating on different assumptions, so the communication between us will be flawed. Here are some of my suppositions and logic:
We do not know the provenance of the DNC emails. Conjecture abounds, from a Russian hack to a voluntary disclosure by a now-dead DNC staffer. Nothing is proven, no smoking gun exists. Therefore, your assertion that a foreign power was the source of the leaked emails is irrelevant, as there are sufficient questions about where the emails came from to render it a moot point. Only the content of the emails is not in question. We know for certain what they contain, thus any judgement should be made not for or against where they came from, or for what purpose they were released, but on their content alone.
Another set of assumptions with regard to the second part:
In today's political climate, hiding what you do from the electorate is of tantamount importance for our government officials and their party. If you cannot do this you cannot effectively play the public, appearing to give your supporters what they want while advancing an agenda that is contrary to what your voters and constituents actually want.
Consider that both "parties" are, without a doubt, completely compromised in every way: phishing and social engineering attacks with lurked access, moles with external loyalties or who are bought and sold for influence or cash, technical hacks that bypass security...you name it. Your responsibility as a political entity is to keep those holes plugged by grift or by graft. Sure you know your security and integrity is a holey as shotgunned Swiss cheese. That is the only valid starting point of any realistic plan to manage security.
Where you end up is the test, and so far, the democrats have failed. This is indicative of a group with internal strife and that doesn't have their eye on the ball. Is it any wonder they lost the last presidential election? Not to me.
So it is OK with you that one of our political parties conducts secret, distasteful activities that, if revealed to the public, would sway the election toward the other candidate?
Personally, I see the hacking of DNC emails as an intelligence test that they failed miserably. If your party cannot conduct their unpleasant business clandestinely they surely do not deserve to win office. Imagine what would happened if these idiots were actually allowed to run the country. Our entire ruling party would have been compromised from day one.
I used to despise Elizabeth Warren. Some of the quotes attributed to her in print media were quite objectionable to me. Then there was the whole Pocahontas thing, icky to say the least.
Then I heard her speak in a few interviews and watched her fricassee the Bank of America CEO on national television. Without Bernie on the ticket I would have liked to see her in Clinton's place. She is much more electable that Clinton. I daresay she would be our president if she had run. Bernie would have toasted Trump as well, but we all know this.
The thing I kept hearing was "Yes, we want a woman president. Badly. Just not her." A huge lost opportunity for America, all because it was "her turn."
Monogamy need not be tied to religious beliefs. Thinking so is a serious shortfall on your part. Many exceptionally civilized animals mate for life, and even some lowly humans do the same.
Also, in the political context, when you have a public with a puritanical mindset that includes severe repercussions for infidelity, the opportunity for blackmail and manipulation exists. Definitely a stupid social stigma to create, but its what we have to work with in the US. Dalliances by high ranking officials could result in big problems so the desire to hide said dalliances is disproportionately large. So, the indiscretion is not the issue. It is the possibility that a person of power could abuse that power to hide indiscretions, or worse, that someone could obtain proof of indiscretion and use it to leverage a person in power.
That region exists in a destabilized state. Sunni and Shia conflicts have been fucking up that region for god knows how long. Toss in over capitalized violent despots, terrorist organizations, still militarized deposed factions in just about every single state, religious military sects, cross-state support for revolutionaries, and pissed off indigenous peoples arrogant and stubborn enough to fight any and all comers and what you have is the functional definition of instability.
You can place all of the blame you want at the feet of whoever you want, but never forget that those countries have been fucked up for a long time before the US intervened. I posit if all US intervention in the region stopped for 50 years they would either still be fighting or all dead.
Drawing equivalence between Clinton's stated policy and this incident is incredibly foolhardy. They are not even close to the same thing.
Using chemical weapons invites a military response from just about any interested country. We basically got in a "free shot" where even Russia can't talk too much shit without getting called out by other countries. In fact, they already have been called out by a number of countries for interdicting and their rhetoric in the wake of the strike.
I am surprised someone gave Trump this chance to simultaneously prove he isn't a windbag and that he isn't Putin's bitch, either. And, as a new leader, Trump couldn't pass this opportunity to rattle the old sabre a bit (especially with China visiting!) and show other nations he is not afraid to take decisive action.
Nationalism kept America strong enough to forge those golden platters to serve up the future to our country's children. Globalism is shipping all of those platters overseas or into the vaults of the already wealthy.
I can see the rationale for the people voting for their own raises. When you put the American worker in direct competition with every other worker in the world and engineer in to the system job instability and fear, the results are predictable. It seems many would prefer, nay, demand that the American worker to cower in fear of their government and their client corporations, hunkering down out of indecision and paralyzed by survival mode programming, completely abased and submissive to the whims of the government and those corporations. The recent votes in the US and GB show that there is a pressure release valve that circumvents the previously mentioned engineered worker domination scheme.
Not that I agree with electing a guy like Trump, but when you give people a choice between cutting their own throats and electing a mad man, the mad man will win every time. Ironic that you condemn the people who were given everything for wanting to go back to a system that gives people the ability to provide for their future generations, rather than spend everything they have to just survive.
Well maybe not ironic, maybe its just that you have different motives.
So not only is half of my screen presently covered with previously absent ads when I read/., but now the stories themselves are also thinly veiled advertisements, this one for going to the movie theater of all things.
I always thought of it as an imperative statement, not a declarative and self referential one.
"(You,) don't be evil."
When read that way, as it is actually written written, it leaves the writer free from all obligation, all the while having the plausible interpretation of being self referential. Perfectly weasel like and morally bankrupt.
Just what you would expect from a bunch of evil bastards.
Slashdot Mirror
I would be sad about your viewpoint of life, your closed off mind, and your inability to discern the difference between physiological states and your own prejudice against "spiritual and religious experiences." However, I have realized that you will always be that way and that it pays off for you.
You have your reward in that you get to choose what parts of reality you believe in. You have created your own religion where anything that doesn't fit your predetermined, self limited, and (intellectual honesty requires me to say this) bigoted mindset gets thrown out, denied, labeled as untrue and the persons who dare speak of them are excommunicated as infidels to your reality. I sure hope you enjoy this life you have created for yourself. If you do not you only have yourself to blame.
How small of a world where you know all and already have all of the answers. How small a man that he only considers his own counsel in matters beyond his knowledge.
Wow, thought your uninformed thoughts you inadvertently described what actually happens sometimes when taking LSD. I have heard multiple users speak of gaining awareness of this state.
Imagine the sensation of observing yourself do all of the things you do, from a vantage point behind and above your consciousness. You can see, feel, and sense your body and mind performing the actions of breathing, heart pumping, thinking, emoting, making decisions, speaking, moving muscles etc. but not as the normal instantaneous and personal immersive experience. You are one step removed from that experience, able to observe yourself doing all of these things, like you are the thing operating the levers and dials of your body and mind.
Thank you!
Higher is definitely not better.
For instance, if you are trying to perform certain mental tasks that you do in every day, life for your job, taking moderate to high doses of hallucinogens will make that task more difficult. You might start to question why you are doing this type of work. You might realize that this particular activity could be done better in a number of ways. Or you might realize that this type of rote regurgitation is so far beneath what you are actually capable of that you can do it while performing other tasks at the same time, something you would never have thought possible when not under the influence.
If you are a highly trained scientist you can reliably use hallucinogens to enhance your creativity, create breakthroughs, and solve vexing problems. For instance, the US government still uses an anti-submarine detection device developed during an LSD study.
If you are interacting with another human, it can lead to all kinds of interesting places. Communication without the use of normal language, interactions like having a deep philosophical conversation while copulating furiously, or empathic co-communication that leads to psychological breakthroughs. Other interactions can happen as well, that border on or cross the line completely into the realm of what some would call paranormal. From experience I can say it is only strange until you are part of it, then you realize it is natural, normal, human. You have just been brainwashed to believe that it is not real, not available, not possible.
These things are merely the tip of the iceberg. However, uninitiated, small minded, and confused individuals control the laws regarding these substances. I think it is due to their minds being limited. Not stupid mind you, which is excusable. Self-limited, controlled, and unwilling to accept things as they truly are. Kind of like a scared animal that puts its head in the sand, thinking that if you can't see it, it can't see you. Except that they know better and still do it. The problem with this type of thinking is that it is the truth, true reality, that people like this are hiding from. Undeniable, immense, and self evident; it terrifies people who would like the world and themselves to be as they define, not as they really are.
If the "equilibrium is out of balance" there will be shifts and changes in the system until equilibrium is achieved.
So, once the sun stops adding energy to the system things should settle down. Until then you should buckle your seat belt. Its going to be a bumpy ride.
And I don't know why we don't all have Braille keyboards. After a couple of years of typing everyone would know Braille.
Then we could put it on buttons and controls that are in hard to see places or areas where there is little light. Like those tiny ass buttons on the side of flat screen TV's that have imperceptible markings. Or any switch on the bottom of the sink disposal. Wrenches and sockets could be marked with Braille so you could tell the size without having to look.
It is an imperative statement, the implied "you" is just that, implied. So you should read it as this:
"You, don't be evil."
Which when expanded to it's proper form is rendered as:
"Hey you, don't be evil, that is our job and we're better at it, plus we have all kinds of cool protections as a corporation. Not to mention we spend more time at the White House than the president does, so yeah, come at me bro."
Yeah close but no cigar. Institutionalized racism is the racism that still exists when all of the overt and covert racism of people is removed. It is the ever present accusation of racism towards white people regardless of whether or not they are racist. It is a wrong that can never be righted. It is the problem of whiteness, namely that it still exists.
If you are going to fire someone, fine. Just do it for reasons related to the job. Not because of what they do with consenting adults in their off time. And certainly don't start a whispering campaign and out them to curry disfavor.
If he's a racist in your work discussions, bingo, there's your answer. Fire away. If he creates a problem with personnel, another bingo. Fire away. If he does something in his off time that is completely legal between consenting adults, don't fucking bring that up as part of his removal. Don't out him. Leave that part of his life completely alone.
If there were so many straws that it broke a camel's back then you have plenty of work related issues to choose from besides the guy's personal life, which has absolutely nothing to do with his professional performance or how he treats his co-workers. So yes, it is completely "unjustified" if you do it this way.
Redacted abundant expletives, you people are sick. How can you call yourself civilized, or even human? You take your self loathing and empty it out on someone else and call it their fault. That is just pathetic. I am completely disgusted.
So what you are saying is that because you and others were ineffective at managing this relationship you took matters into your own hands to attack this person based on their chosen form of consensual recreation, get them ridiculed in public, and railroaded them out of their job.
Swap Goreanism with homosexuality and you might get a clue to what is wrong with this picture, and it sure ain't the fired guy.
You should get those articles you quoted fired from Drupal. Oh, wait a second. Those articles don't work for Drupal, and I will bet you your authoritarian thought-crime accusing self-righteous ass that the guy who did work for Drupal doesn't ascribe to every hyperbolic tenet these hit pieces describe. Even if he did think exactly like these articles say if he doesn't bring that attitude into the workplace, which by actual reports he does not, why would you persecute him?
Also, that woman on the Wikipedia page has a giant smile on her face. You would rather her be unhappy, her self expression and sexuality stifled and under your puritanical control? God forbid someone enjoy themselves in a way that you find objectionable, eh?
You are a sick person. Grow up.
The psychology has been elucidated for a long time.
The "submissive" is in control of the scenario. It is their will to be tied up. One thing precedes another.
It's pretty obvious you haven't and shouldn't engage in BDSM. You don't have the right mindset for it. The reason you see consent being violated in a bondage scenario is because it is what you would do. You are a predatory person with no concern for the consent of others. This is clear from what you wrote. You cannot even imagine something other than a violation of another person if they choose to place themselves in a submissive role.
I think you may need psychological help for this. There is the very real possibility that your viewpoint has repercussions greater than you imagine in your daily life.
And its why I love gay bars!
They don't exactly declare the funds "obvious drug money." What they do is file charges against the money/property being seized. This results in a situation where the money/property is guilty until proven innocent.
Yes you read that right. You have to prove the money/property was not being used in any illegal way to get it back. This process is designed to have a price tag of about $5k in most areas, though it can be much higher.
If this were done to organized criminals most of the time you would see lots of violent repercussions levied against these officers and their families. Truth be told, the victims of police predation of this kind are generally law abiding citizens.
We are operating on different assumptions, so the communication between us will be flawed. Here are some of my suppositions and logic:
We do not know the provenance of the DNC emails. Conjecture abounds, from a Russian hack to a voluntary disclosure by a now-dead DNC staffer. Nothing is proven, no smoking gun exists. Therefore, your assertion that a foreign power was the source of the leaked emails is irrelevant, as there are sufficient questions about where the emails came from to render it a moot point. Only the content of the emails is not in question. We know for certain what they contain, thus any judgement should be made not for or against where they came from, or for what purpose they were released, but on their content alone.
Another set of assumptions with regard to the second part:
In today's political climate, hiding what you do from the electorate is of tantamount importance for our government officials and their party. If you cannot do this you cannot effectively play the public, appearing to give your supporters what they want while advancing an agenda that is contrary to what your voters and constituents actually want.
Consider that both "parties" are, without a doubt, completely compromised in every way: phishing and social engineering attacks with lurked access, moles with external loyalties or who are bought and sold for influence or cash, technical hacks that bypass security...you name it. Your responsibility as a political entity is to keep those holes plugged by grift or by graft. Sure you know your security and integrity is a holey as shotgunned Swiss cheese. That is the only valid starting point of any realistic plan to manage security.
Where you end up is the test, and so far, the democrats have failed. This is indicative of a group with internal strife and that doesn't have their eye on the ball. Is it any wonder they lost the last presidential election? Not to me.
So it is OK with you that one of our political parties conducts secret, distasteful activities that, if revealed to the public, would sway the election toward the other candidate?
Personally, I see the hacking of DNC emails as an intelligence test that they failed miserably. If your party cannot conduct their unpleasant business clandestinely they surely do not deserve to win office. Imagine what would happened if these idiots were actually allowed to run the country. Our entire ruling party would have been compromised from day one.
He was asked to hand over the tapes. He should have wiped them first, you know...like with a cloth.
I used to despise Elizabeth Warren. Some of the quotes attributed to her in print media were quite objectionable to me. Then there was the whole Pocahontas thing, icky to say the least.
Then I heard her speak in a few interviews and watched her fricassee the Bank of America CEO on national television. Without Bernie on the ticket I would have liked to see her in Clinton's place. She is much more electable that Clinton. I daresay she would be our president if she had run. Bernie would have toasted Trump as well, but we all know this.
The thing I kept hearing was "Yes, we want a woman president. Badly. Just not her." A huge lost opportunity for America, all because it was "her turn."
Monogamy need not be tied to religious beliefs. Thinking so is a serious shortfall on your part. Many exceptionally civilized animals mate for life, and even some lowly humans do the same.
Also, in the political context, when you have a public with a puritanical mindset that includes severe repercussions for infidelity, the opportunity for blackmail and manipulation exists. Definitely a stupid social stigma to create, but its what we have to work with in the US. Dalliances by high ranking officials could result in big problems so the desire to hide said dalliances is disproportionately large. So, the indiscretion is not the issue. It is the possibility that a person of power could abuse that power to hide indiscretions, or worse, that someone could obtain proof of indiscretion and use it to leverage a person in power.
That region exists in a destabilized state. Sunni and Shia conflicts have been fucking up that region for god knows how long. Toss in over capitalized violent despots, terrorist organizations, still militarized deposed factions in just about every single state, religious military sects, cross-state support for revolutionaries, and pissed off indigenous peoples arrogant and stubborn enough to fight any and all comers and what you have is the functional definition of instability.
You can place all of the blame you want at the feet of whoever you want, but never forget that those countries have been fucked up for a long time before the US intervened. I posit if all US intervention in the region stopped for 50 years they would either still be fighting or all dead.
Drawing equivalence between Clinton's stated policy and this incident is incredibly foolhardy. They are not even close to the same thing.
Using chemical weapons invites a military response from just about any interested country. We basically got in a "free shot" where even Russia can't talk too much shit without getting called out by other countries. In fact, they already have been called out by a number of countries for interdicting and their rhetoric in the wake of the strike.
I am surprised someone gave Trump this chance to simultaneously prove he isn't a windbag and that he isn't Putin's bitch, either. And, as a new leader, Trump couldn't pass this opportunity to rattle the old sabre a bit (especially with China visiting!) and show other nations he is not afraid to take decisive action.
Or the Ainu...
+5 LMAO!
Nationalism kept America strong enough to forge those golden platters to serve up the future to our country's children. Globalism is shipping all of those platters overseas or into the vaults of the already wealthy.
I can see the rationale for the people voting for their own raises. When you put the American worker in direct competition with every other worker in the world and engineer in to the system job instability and fear, the results are predictable. It seems many would prefer, nay, demand that the American worker to cower in fear of their government and their client corporations, hunkering down out of indecision and paralyzed by survival mode programming, completely abased and submissive to the whims of the government and those corporations. The recent votes in the US and GB show that there is a pressure release valve that circumvents the previously mentioned engineered worker domination scheme.
Not that I agree with electing a guy like Trump, but when you give people a choice between cutting their own throats and electing a mad man, the mad man will win every time. Ironic that you condemn the people who were given everything for wanting to go back to a system that gives people the ability to provide for their future generations, rather than spend everything they have to just survive.
Well maybe not ironic, maybe its just that you have different motives.
So not only is half of my screen presently covered with previously absent ads when I read /., but now the stories themselves are also thinly veiled advertisements, this one for going to the movie theater of all things.
What the hell guys?
I always thought of it as an imperative statement, not a declarative and self referential one.
"(You,) don't be evil."
When read that way, as it is actually written written, it leaves the writer free from all obligation, all the while having the plausible interpretation of being self referential. Perfectly weasel like and morally bankrupt.
Just what you would expect from a bunch of evil bastards.