Permanent incompetence

Today, I saw a group of three people that may or may not have been incompetent, but one of their number chose to walk in the bike lane as opposed to walking on the sidewalk with the other two. This is some degree of either incompetent or entitlement that really needs to be disabused of the multiple generations that have created it. Unfortunately, when I hear about news stories about somebody killed because they were walking in a bike lane and hit by a vehicle, I will think back to this and have less care than I really should.

Stupid people do stupid things. I'm tired of being forced to humor them.

If you do something stupid, that's on you. Done.

I was tempted to take a picture, but even a picture from the back side would have only gained these idiots some notoriety. And they deserve no notoriety.

Forced Opinions

If I'm not forced to have an opinion, I may or may not have one about said thing. (apathy)
If I AM forced to have an opinion about something, probability is that I won't side with whatever agency (person, group, whatever) forced me to have an opinion.(antipathy)
If I am forced to have an opinion about something, and government says I'm supposed to be tolerant of it, I'm more likely to go the Jefferson way and choose to oppose it.  There is some slush to this in that I'm more likely to accept local recommendations than state recommendations and accept state recommendations over federal recommendations. (fairly aggressive antipathy)

Some gays (male or female) are very tolerable.  I tolerate them.  I actively like many.  Easy. (apathy and/or friendship)
Some people tell me that I'm using the wrong pronoun set for certain people.  I care not.  Until that person comes to me and asks me to use a different pronoun set for them when discussing them with other people, I have no reason to not call that person by what I perceive of their physical makeup.

You want me to not care about you.  This is apathy.  If you force me to care about you and whatever you think you are, then you've forced me to care about what you are.  This is antipathy.  This is a lesser form of hate.  If you want me to not hate you, don't make me care about you.  Making me care about you, by force, ends badly, If I care about you organically, I may care, or not.  That's better than the hate.

Some folks better learn... and fast.

Unintentional taunting

Some places so forcibly project positivity that there is little question given to the inherent negativity that may be present.  The key concept here is projection of positivity. While at the location, any negativity perceived by a customer (no, they are not a guest) is jarring and potentially a reason to summon a manager.

One place this is notable is environmental music of the location.  Often this is done by some clueless person tasked with music selection to match some generic venue-style, approved by some moron tasked with approving such things.

The obvious idiocy and failure of corporate bureaucracy deserves little note but no positive otherwise.

Someone chose these things to be something that would probably be comforting to consumers at the location.  This is all well and good.  But, to a person that is seasoned in the location that is no longer a fan of the location, some songs become more of a taunt.

"Put on a happy face" (not sure of title or artist)
No. My happy face is miles from here.  I might be able to fake a veneer.

Taxes profitmongering

I recently filed my taxes.  Meh.

Federal government owed me money. No surprise.
Indiana wanted more money, on the order of about 66% of what I was getting back in Federal refund.  Seemed excessive, but whatever.

Filed the taxes anyway.  To pay State, was sent to some mostly non-descript site for paying all manner of "government" payments, and as a not-logged-in person, it didn't ask who or what I was paying for.
For a $315 bill, it wanted to charge me a nearly $8 (7.8?) fee to use a card.

I'm sorry, but I'm not.  If this is the payment system you have, it can go unmentionable itself.  Bill me.  I'll send a money order at a cost of maybe a couple dollars, but I will not pay your "convenience" fee.

I hope I'm not the only person to have this annoyance and choose to skip the "convenience" provider, putting said provider out of business.

I'm tired of being treated like a money-source.  EVERY state should be "retired" at this point, with enough money in the bank and investments to support itself without needing ANY taxpayers. States and the federal government were stupid and didn't do this.  That's on them.

Nepotism

In general, nepotism seems to be loathed. The reasoning for this used to be logical. But after additional scrutiny, there does seem to be some very good reasons for nepotism to occur.

You'd be amazed at how many unloyal people there are within your family. You should also be amazed at how many unloyal people there are outside of your family.

What should really disturb people is how many people think that government owns your business because government owns everything and thus knows you owe them a job. Never mind that they are unloyal to friends, family, and father big government... Or mother, or whatever.

Ghandi reconsidered

Once, I thought that Ghandi had screwed up the math about how to deal with the tyrannical regime with which he was dealing.

My thinking has shifted slightly and I'm thinking that he may not have been wrong.  

Some "leaders" (managers, "representatives", senators, so on) under whose authority we are currently placed are clearly oblivious to how hated they are.  This is unsurprising when it is considered from the outside and it is obvious that the mindless or misinformed followers of said "leaders" create an echo chamber where the "leaders" only hear what they want and never hear ... truth.  

This is systemic of tyrants...  I could call some out by name, but it would never get through their echo chamber or even cause them even a moment's pause if it did get to them.

In the end, I think that Ghandi's actions had little to no direct effect on the actual leaders he was trying to identify or the evils he was trying to point out.  I think his actions worked more indirectly by assisting others to realize the evils (both policy and persons) that were very wrongfully being permitted to continue.

Labels

Labels tend to have meanings, typically of a categorical context.  It's a necessity.  A tomato isn't an apple, and suchlike.

Unfortunately, some legislatures and worse some judicial branches have started valueless-ing some categories, essentially refusing to accept real-life categories.  The value of being a real woman (created via nature) or real man (same) as opposed to a fabricated woman (whatever creator you choose or un-choose to believe in made you such) or fabricated man (whatever) come to mind.  What you choose to pretend to be... is whatever it is.  You pretend successfully, I'll probably ignore you because you pretend well. 

Let's intentionally include the man that pretends to be female and doesn't creep out the other girls (or hit on them) in the girl's room or the woman that pretends to be a man and doesn't creep out the other boys (or hit on them) in the boy's room.  Fine.  Whatever.
Let's intentionally preinclude the people that have had "reassignment" ... whatever that actually means as far as nature and GOD are concerned.  If you "fake the funk" as a what your pretend to be, and people don't "detect" it, success.

I'm friggin' tired of having to address people in ambiguous ways because they may choose to interpret things wrong.  If you're a guy or you look like a guy, I'll call you "sir" or (less likely) dude, or guy.  That should not EVER be considered an insult.  Same for a (what looks like woman) being called "ma'am" or equivalents.  Being forced to use sex-less pronouns will get tired fast (with reason, because they make no sense).

If sex-less-ness is forced upon service locations, I can bet that service will suffer and those that provide service will quit because [humanoid phallic organs] (of the unpleasant variety) (regardless of gender or sex) are acting like [humanoid phallic organs] (of the unpleasant variety).  Was that confusing?  Blame the dicks (of both sexes/genders).

I've tried to be civil, but they (as a monolithic community) seem to nationally refuse to be.  Instead of asking to be tolerated, and tolerating "oopses", they distolerate anything even slightly resembling an error. 

So, in general, I ignore them and resort to silence.  As a busser, I guess that's a perk.

Tides prove GOD

Suppose you live on a planet on which there are three primary states.

Suppose on this planet that the states of said things are solid, liquid, and gas.

Now, suppose that there is this thing that happens to have a gravitic effect (student homework) on things on the planet you're on, and it happens to orbit the planet you're on.  It pulls things on the planet to itself, but weakly.  Gas seems to not care and solid really seems to not care.  But liquid seems to really like being played with, so it plays along.  Things like tides happen.

Without a GOD to make all this happen, how does any of this make any sense?  I expect a number of atheists to have any number of reasons (all nonsense) for why this is, but I'm interested to hear from others.

Meh

Cost increases of "medical" things are a cross-junct of insurance (a bet against oneself) and governmental control.  People that are "suffering" from over-cost drugs because of choices they intentionally made (supporting insurance or government involvement) brook no sympathy from me.  They chose their bed.  Now they have to slumber in it.

If insurance hadn't been a thing, there would be no problem.  If government intervention hadn't happened because insurance had gone wrong, there would (again) not be a problem.  That people are unhappy because X caused Y and then Y (because some clueless people didn't realize their cluelessness) caused Z, I care not.  Or more precisely, I'm hateful of the people that caused X, Y, and Z, because they should have known better.  They or their parents or grand parents (etc) chose this and the choice was made to not fix it and complain about it instead. (most often in the form of government intervention)
I choose to refuse to care.  If your default reaction is to choose to get government involved instead of dealing with things yourself, I choose to refuse to care about you.

If government is your god, then as a human, I have no reason whatsoever to humor you because you're worshiping a false god.

Some people seem confused why I'm so cold and distant from their "problems" and they don't understand why I don't care.  The obvious causality of it seems to miss them entirely.  Meh.

Chivalry, decimated

It used to be that people did nice things for women, just because it was the right thing to do. 
Feminists and liberals hate this, assuming emotionally with no math to support it, that it makes the woman look weak.
In spite of this, I've tried to be a gentleman and show (rightfully) deference and respect to women. But, some real idiots have gotten control of the language and the political apparatus and have made gender and sex completely meaningless.

So while I was on the bus stop waiting for the bus I thought to say, "ladies first" and wave the person that I somewhat assumed to be female on in front of me, ...but then I thought there's no value in this because gender and sex are meaningless and therefore I don't have any reason to show any deference to anybody. So I didn't. I was the closest to the bus. So when the bus pulled up and opened the doors I stepped on first. If anybody thinks that this is wrong, they may be right, but you know what, this was all driven by feminism and political correctness, so screw everybody.

If I have to play by their rules, then screw them when their rules end up destroying the things of value.

So many idiots really love the concept of equality. Wish granted. I will treat everybody equally. Everybody has a value of zero.

Predictions

For all that follows, the precondition is that Ted Cruz was eliminated in either the primary or general election process.

I predict:
The internet, within the US either becomes very cost prohibitive or quits entirely.
Health care providers, already gut-punched by Barry decide it isn't worth it anymore and give up... with members possibly joining militias that actually feed and support them and their families.
Workers that are fired, with or without cause (most, without), decide that working just isn't productive, and they give up on looking for employment since their work (or their employer) feeds government... which destroyed their last job.

Distilled:  When evil takes over things, and it has been for some time, people that are capable of doing things surrender and stop doing things.  There's no point, and when a thing is done, government wants its pound of flesh for it having been done. There is an exception for friends and maybe friends of friends.  Those rare exceptions tend to be done with zeal.

EU (ew?) cookie policy

If you have the misfortune to live in a place controlled by a european legislature, this is my official notice that I don't care any tiny bit about the stupid legislation that declares that people must disclose a site's cookie policy.

What's worse I feel sorry for EVERYBODY that has to deal with the the results of this in the form of fairly intrusive boxes, dialogs, and other crap that demand that a person read and accept that a site is using cookies to continue using said site.  If a user is too uninformed to know what a cookie is or that sites may be doing bad things with them, too friggin' bad.  No action by any moronic legislature is going to stop bad people from using people's ignorance against them.

To clarify my position, I am not personally using cookies on this blog to do anything.  Since it's hosted on blogger (Google essentially), they may be using cookies to disambiguate visitors from each other, or whatever.  I don't care, and you probably don't either.  Further, I think that you and your other continent-men should start putting in power some legislators that will reverse idiotic laws like this.  If you do care, and you think the legislation was a good idea, I welcome and invite you to go wander off and read something else, because you're some horrible, stinking form of unsalvageable.

That's my cookie policy.  I'm not tracking you.  Google may be.  Meh.  I don't care.  If you care, you have the option to leave.  Use it.  Take your governments with you.

Woefully lacking predators

Once upon a time, a friend of mine, and I came to the realization that one of the reasons the species had gotten lazy, sloppy, stupid, and a number of other things was because we lacked something resembling a proper predator.

Humans, as a group and individually, become a bit stupid and lazy in general without upward pressure.  Sometimes this pressure comes in the form of an enemy to be defeated, such as during World War I and II.  Other times it exhibits because there is a predator that must be defeated or avoided.  Minus this upward pressure, the species has this tendency to generate some silly illusions of stability.  Preemptively, I will say that "caste systems" and "slavery" are mechanisms that while "unfair" do tend to generate a semblance of stability.  Then, there's another number of misguided people that would see something (that appears to be) more powerful (than themself) and they would try to make a god from the thing, and start worshiping it, leading to human sacrifice and other horrors.


He suggested that humans are naturally the only real predator for humans.  I agreed, but lamented the fact that humans being humans, most underestimate the capacity of fellow humans to be truly inhumane creatures.  As such most humans are incapable of seeing their fellow humans as predators that must be defeated or avoided.  So, humans just aren't enough of a threat to be taken seriously until it is too late.  I guess that's the hallmark of a great predator.  The predator isn't noticed until it is too late.

Then, humans being humans, entirely too many are incapable of learning anything from experiences that are not their own.  They can see another person being attacked and totally omit any possibility from their thinking that the same thing could happen to them.  As thinking goes, we're a pretty dense species.

I have lamented a lack of zombies, vampires, werewolves, hostile space aliens... pick a poison.  I continue to.  In the face of zombies, stupid causes like "climate change", welfare, immigration "equality", "gay marriage", eat the rich, and a host of other stupid (typically liberal led) causes would not just take a back burner, but they'd be thrown off the stove because they're useless.  On the plus side, zombies would willingly comply with gun-free zones, and kill people anyway.

From the "religion of peace" (which in all honesty is repressive and hasn't really ever been peaceful) has arisen ISIS.  The behavior of these predators can only truthfully be categorized as predatory.  And yet again, humans just don't get it.  The american president doesn't get it.  Most of the american public doesn't get it.  (the anti-capitalization isn't a typo, it's on purpose)

I wished for a better predator.  As the djinn's warning goes, "Be careful what you wish for.  You just might get it."  Well, we got it.  It hasn't helped one bit.  I still want zombies, or vampires, or aliens (from space, not Mexico).

Oh well.  I'll keep wishing and hope it eventually doesn't backfire.

I am not a peaceful person

I had an epiphany recently.  On the scope and scale of epiphanies that I've had (in the past) this one wasn't a big one, but it was a piece of the puzzle that finally fell into place and gave me a "Well, duh.  Why didn't I realize that before?"-type reaction.

I am not a peaceful person.
This is in direct contradiction to what others might assume from my actions (more precisely lack thereof).

• I have not yet killed a human and hope to have the good luck to not have to within my lifetime.  

• Since elementary school, I don't think it could not be said that I've thrown a punch (actually at anything, human or creature).

These elements of evidence are not necessarily evidence of peacefulness. 

I know that I am possessed of (or in possession of) a quantity (legion?) of war-like states.  Since these states are all housed within me, each has a number of big, fat targets to go after.  Elitism, stupidity, willful ignorance, the left, too-much-order-at-the-expense-of-liberty, government, lack-of-government... the list goes on.  All of these have an army or at least some soldier on the battlefield that is my mind.  With the war-like states being kept so close to each other, each one constantly gains and loses ground against the others.  None lack for targets and none are ever really at rest.  One particular army of note is the "Don't do something stupid" army, which has some really big guns and some awesome snipers.  That army knows that there's a war on.  And it knows that there are only so many threats it can neutralize.  And that one army does an expert job at keeping the others from running amok (and ruining my life).

I look peaceful.  Mathematically, that may hold true, generally.  But, it completely misses the truth regarding what's going on below the surface.

Survivor Season 30, episodes 1-5

I'm feeling fairly solid at this point.  I haven't yet seen some obviously incompetent  defeat some more obviously capable person.

Episode 1, So Kim and Joaquin proved to be untrustable (hopefully permanently) and So got sent home.
Episode 2, Vince showed too much attachment, plus or minus, and repelled a number of others.
Episode 3, Nina tried too hard to play the victim.  She may not realize that she's playing that role.  She got voted out, and may finally realize that it was because she played a role that was unwanted.
Episode 4, Meh.  Lindsey got removed.  I didn't hate her, but I didn't love her.
Episode 5, Max was a bit of a weirdo.  Things were in a considerable bit of flux.  The instability he represented was something that others had a responsibility to redact.

I can hope that the rest of the season makes sense.  But after last season, I'm trying to restrain my hopes.  Last season really poisoned me on the series.

The Curse of Knowledge

Have you recently started to recoil in horror at having to know [pick something]?  I didn't previously recoil from knowledge.  I assimilated it.  Then when queried about anything related to the topic, I regurgitated some simulacrum of what I had consumed.  I never once thought about attribution, but my domains were generally websites, chat channels, and spoken word.  The purpose was to spread knowledge.
Sadly, I'm starting to develop a habit of recoiling in horror at having to learn things because to learn it means that sooner or later, I'll have to cite the source of the damned thing.  My memory is vast, but I CAN NOT remember every stupid source for every stupid fact or opinion which I absorb.  I could take some machine I have and make it a database of "where I got [x] from" thinger, but that's totally unrealistic.  Maybe I could push that database into the cloud (and then pay for that ... monthly) but again, that's wasteful.  What is the purpose?

Is wisdom intended to be only held for a short term and then destroyed?

I tend to buy books, not necessarily because I intend to read them again, but because it is a story that I really love.  If I later pass those to my nieces and nephews am I doing a service or a disservice by expanding their knowledge?  If that child, which I love, then says (or types) something that they got from some book that I passed them, will they then be accused of plagiarism?  Will I be culpable in causing grief and possibly permanent damage to the reputation of a child which I love?  Is my responsibility then to keep the child ignorant of things I know?  Further, is it my responsibility to keep myself ignorant of as much as possible because to learn things can cause irreparable harm later? Should I shield instead of exposing my extended family to Piers Anthony, Robert Heinlein, R.A. Salvatore, and Stephen King because some idea or phrasing may "look like" something that they may formulate on their own later?

The species seems to be in flux and day-by-day, ignorance seems to be heralded as a virtue while wisdom seems to be shunned.  Is wisdom no longer wanted?  Is it the goal to be an ignorant sheep that does what it is told, and no thought is applied?

(side note: I somewhat equate wisdom and knowledge, though they're not exactly the same.  Intelligence is something else which isn't strictly necessary.  Some unintelligent people make some very good decisions regularly because they know who/what to listen to and who/what to not listen to.  Some "intelligent" people make some really dumb decisions, REPEATEDLY because they're using "facts" that are entirely false.  You get some real facts to penetrate those craniums, and those people will either recoil in horror at what they've done, or they'll embrace the dark side and keep going.)

Death, retort

Every time an apple is opened, a quantity of seeds is exposed.  A number of these seeds, that are all viable, are effectively  killed because I put them in the trash. Because of this, they won't ever grow to any useful fruit, others die on the spot because my knife cut destroyed them.  I do not feel bad about any of this.  I cannot feel bad about this.  This is the nature of things.
Sadly, humans are the same.  We're on a higher level.  We "feel".  So we have the in-built desire to not destroy our "fellow apple" or "fellow seed".  That needlessly complicates things more than uncomplicating things.  Death is inevitable.  Some just have longer timelines than others.  Trying to sugar coat this causes needless harm to the thinking of fellow humans.  A death sentence is in-built on birth.  Dancing with why or why not some person's timeline shouldn't be being abbreviated is too much playing-god to me.

I tire of some of these worn out "what-if" scenarios.  If I'm sentenced to death, wrongfully, I'm likely to not ask for any appeals.  I'll accept death and be done with it.  I know what faces me, for good or for bad.  Let's be done with the second-guessing.  It bores me.  Enough is enough.  I'm a tired apple.

Daft federal government, sigh

How does the federal government not comprehend that it only has one group it can grow?  The federal government can't "grow from the middle class out" (which is the new, unfortunate narrative). 
The federal government can only grow the poor.  Every time the federal government takes money, it is from taxpayers.  Then because it would be "unfair" (gag me with a spoon) to distribute that set of taken (stolen, but some hate that word in relation to government) resources to anyone but the poor, Only the poor benefit, but not in individual quantity (more to you) but in total zombie count. 
If you're thinking about benefiting yourself, you then you want to be poor, to get "free" goodies.  Of course, you'll have to partially subsist, but such is the cost to join the zombie horde.

If you're a taxpayer, you're just plain screwed.  The government will take what you have sooner or later.  Give up.  Game over.  Join the horde.  That's the plan anyway, so quit resisting.  The government horde is the Borg written in flesh with no technological boost to reign in the stupid.  Resistance is futile.

Robin Hood and the Red Herring

Recently the annoying question of "Would you steal bread to feed your starving family?" has come back up, yet again.  This question annoys me to no living end.  Right from the top, the whole thing is a red herring masquerading as a valid question.

First, there's the tragic case that it is assumed that God has nothing to say about the scenario.  With so many continuously noisy atheists running around nagging people about how even talking about a god is offensive, it's not surprising that most people quickly give up on trying to talk about that.  God has a plan, and maybe his plan is to perform a miracle whereby the potential thief is soon to be gifted with a quantity of food out of the kindness of someone's heart.  But God sees that the potential thief is going to take law or lawlessness in their own hands and "remedy" the "unreasonable situation".  So, God cancels the planned miracle.  Maybe the would-be altruistic neighbor witnesses the theft and decides that feeding a family supported by a thief would do more harm than good.  But, since God is so unpopular, we'll set this possible resolution aside.

The question pre-assumes that every other option has been exhausted.  This is patently nonsense. 

There are lots of charity groups whose stated goal is to prevent people from starving (or even simply being hungry) by providing them food.  Yes, there is humility that must be exhibited in going to these charity groups and asking for help.  It is probably not even necessary to beg for help.  Begging would still be appropriate if the situation is "dire".  There are many charity groups that can be asked or begged for help.  Refusing to make the effort of trying those options before choosing to steal shows a serious flaw of priorities.  Clinging to pride instead of embracing humility is probably one of the worst character flaws, especially if it is to the detriment of loved ones.  Even if every charity group reports an inability or an unwillingness to help, there are still other options.

If family, friends, and neighbors are unaware of the situation, they may not know that there is a need.  Informing family, friends, and neighbors may prompt them to supply food, money, or offer to take the potential thief to a store and buy food for the family.  Again, telling family, friends, and neighbors about the situation and its seriousness requires a degree of humility.  Again, if pride defeats humility, that counts as a serious character flaw.

No matter how much I hate the food stamp or SNAP programs, those are still options.  The problem with the programs is that the asking person doesn't really have to exhibit humility since both the asking person and government think that the person "deserves" help because of "circumstances beyond their control".  Unfortunately pride, which likely led to the situation in the first place, is one of those "circumstances" and isn't properly treated as the character flaw it is.  So, the character flaw is reinforced instead of being addressed and replaced with proper humility.

All of this available help still doesn't help in the cases where a person already suffers the mental error that says that stealing from the "rich" is a virtue instead of the crime it is.  This mental error has been growing more and more recently with people choosing to view themselves as a Robin Hood character.  It doesn't help that too many in government have continued to push the false narrative that the "poor" are the victim of the "rich" instead of the truth that both the poor and rich are victims of a government grown far beyond anything resembling a reasonable size.  It is easier for government to keep both sides in check by continuing the narrative that the two sides should be fighting each other instead of fighting the government like they really should be.

Long story short, don't come to me with the question of, "Should someone steal to feed their family?"  The question and the premise are broken.  Humoring the possibility that maybe theft is reasonable, is actively harmful to individual thinking and to the future of society in general.  Stop asking the question.  Asking the question in any serious manner without "No!" being the only right answer just makes you look foolish.

Survivor 29, apathy

This is a first.  In general, I enjoy Survivor (the TV series).  In spite of how much I hate the direction that a season is going (including knowing where a season is going because it has already aired), I tend to follow it.
This season is an exception.  Midway through the finale episode, Keith was voted out.  OK.  That happens.  ... The problem is that the three jerks (I'm trying to be kind) that were left were all people that I care nothing about.
I aborted out of the episode (seriously, I did) because one of the three a-holes will get the $1m.  I don't care at all which a-hole it is.  I don't care about the great dramatic BS that the Survivor crew bothered to put them through to make it look like they earned it.  I proactively don't care.
None of them deserve it.  They voted off the one guy that did.

Screw this season finale.  I won't watch.
Screw the reunion.  I don't care.

What's worse, this season has poisoned my interest in following seasons.
Oh well, I've got better things to do anyway....