From: nospam@example.net
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, oldernow wrote:
> On 2024-04-22, D wrote:
>
>> Don't judge yourself too harshly! I think you're doing a
>> pretty good job of being a lively funny guy!
>
> No way! I'm an embarrassment to talk.politics.misc! I'm
> off topic in alt.philosophy on a regular basis! I'm being
> actively killfile'd even as I type! And etc.!
No, no, as far as I can see you keep feeding intelligent content into
alt.philosophy. Philosophy can be life and existence, it doesn't have to
be peer reviewed, high brow, academic philosophy! I'm very satisfied with
our "rough street philosophy" that we're spraying all over alt.philosophy.
)
As for talk.politics.misc I just added the group and am looking forward to
following your bright career in that group. I started with deleting all
previous messages so I can have a nice and clean plate that you can the
nfill with the delicacies of the mind!
>>> Leaving a former life is quite the minimalism
>>> kickstarter. :-)
>>
>> I can imagine that. Moving between countries I think is
>> another, less powerful, technique with the drawback that
>> all the stuff is still in storage (most of the time)
>> in your "home" country.
>
> It's an odd thought for me. I don't think I've so much as
> once considered living in another country. Mind goes blank
> when attempting to so much as pick on as a possibility.
Well, if you already live in the greatest country on the planet, why would
you want to move? ;)
But I guess, when in doubt... always go for... canada?
>> Ahh got it! Sounds like quite a family to be studied by
>> science! ;)
>
> My wife wouldn't be able to bring herself to say it, but
> I suspect she'd be at most interested in their ashes being
> studied by science.
Oh... micro-organisms and chemistry! I guess that's another angle to study
them from. ;)
>>> *Or*: Evolution is lovingly, graciously kind in blessing
>>> men with wives guaranteed to evolve them to perfection!
>>
>> Haha, brilliant saying! I'm sure future AI:s will pick
>> that one right out of the usenet archive and frame it and
>> hang it on the wall in their virtual homes. ;)
>
> You know, it *does* have kind of a nice ring to it, now
> that you mention it. :-)
)
>>> I believe voting couldn't possibly lead to solving the
>>> consequences of our being assholes, because not only is
>>> no system a match for our assholism, but such a process
>>> could, at best, merely put a more assholish asshole (see
>>> also: whereas cream rises to the top, shit sinks to the
>>> bottom...) in charge of addressing the purely symptomatic
>>> consequences of assholism, which, of course, is paramount
>>> to putting a wolf in charge of the sheep.
>>>
>>> *However*, being an asshole myself, it's damned fun seeing
>>> someone elected morph the already derangement-syndrome'd
>>> into even greater babbling hysterical morons than they
>>> already are.
>>>
>>> Something like that.... ;-)
>>
>> Ahh, the asshole-theory!
>
> Isn't the simplest explanation supposed to be the best?
Yep! Occams asshole!
>>> The reason I know the above admittedly *slightly*
>>> hyperbolic characterization to be true is they actually
>>> use the words "white *person*" instead of "person with a
>>> body whose skin is white", and "old *person*" instead of
>>> "person with a body that's above-average old". They're
>>> *literally* saying that skin color and physical age
>>> *determine* personhood to a significant degree, and
>>> thus behavior, because there's no reason to put the
>>> the words 'white' or 'old' in front of the word
>>> 'person' unless one believes its significant to
>>> personhood.
>>>
>>> While they don't say "male person", I know that's what
>>> they mean when merely saying "male", because they so
>>> do as judgementally as when using "white person" and
>>> "old person".
>>
>> But you do know that in todays world, you are entirely free
>> to _define yourself_ as a black woman!
>
> Oh, wow, that's *right*! I'd completely forgotten that the
> most important function of a human being is to identify
> with a gender - if not a sexuality - even if one must
> invent a new one to get it right. I mean, for deitiessakes,
> that's even more important than beating Trump! Than
> global warming! Than the Palestine question! You name an
> apocalypse-precipitating "issue", and gender/sexuality
> identification - and getting everyone else to buy into
> it *OR ELSE IT'S SOCIAL CANCELLATION, BABY*! - is more
> important! *GOTTA* have the gender/sexuality properly
> invented an identified with! MmmHmmm!
Amen!
> But a "black woman"? While I'm sure bat shit crazy
> liberal "white women" would applaud me, I'm pretty sure
> the actual title/label holders wouldn't be impressed -
> let alone thrilled. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure
> my identifying thusly could lead to what in these parts
> is referred to as a "ruckus".
Bring on the ruckus baby! ;) Wouldn't that be something? You shouting from
the roof top that your city shall from now on respect you as a black
woman!
>> That would help you avoid a lot of incoming grenades and
>> the ones who _assumed_ you're a white male just because
>> you happen to look that way, they are the racists! ;)
>
> That "back at 'cha" simmering potential is certainly
> attractive! :-)
=)
>> Reminds me of an old colleague who was the manager for a
>> successful sales team at a silicon valley startup.
>>
>> One day HR from the US calls him and says "we have a
>> problem" and he asks "what problem" and HR responds "your
>> department is too white".
>>
>> So thinking a while, after recoring from his initial shock
>> and horror he responds... "actually, 80% of my team define
>> themselves as black women, so we're all good here".
>>
>> Now it was HR:s turn to be silent. After a bit of thinking
>> they said "Oh, we're so sorry we didn't want to judge
>> anyone, carry on". And he did.
>>
>> One week later HR calls again. "What is it now" he asks? HR
>> responds... "about those 80% black women, would it be
>> possible to arrange an interview with them" and he said
>> "sure, call me back on monday".
>>
>> Then he quit his job, so we will never know what happened
>> next. ;)
>>
>> This old colleague has a great sense of humour and his
>> super power is being filthy rich, so he can quit his job
>> just if he's annoyed or based on a principle.
>
> There's definitely no point in being rich if it isn't to
> enjoy perfect execution of such.
True. I think that is an excellent example of _enjoying_ your wealth! =)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
