Ever notice how excessive affective conditions of all kinds are disorders except laziness?

I was originally going to publish a list of emotions from Wiki and note the jargon associated with each entries extreme. In doing so I discovered that apparently laziness is not considered an emotion. That’s fascinating in and of itself. What is laziness if not an emotion? Is it an action?

As of this writing the Wiki on laziness contains the following

Feelings of laziness may be a symptom of mental illness, or a medical condition. Chronic laziness may be an underlying psychological condition. [citation needed]

Indeed citation is needed. I’m going to ask Wiki answers.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_recognized_medical_conditions_either_psychological_or_physical_have_laziness_or_indolence_as_symptoms&waAn=2

Hell even excessive happiness is labeled unipolar hypo-mania. It seems to me that pathological laziness is a pathology just like every other emotional extreme a person can be immersed in.

Laziness is the drive for efficiency and ease while cleanliness is the drive for order and sterility. Now since excessive cleanliness can be obsessive compulsive disorder, could excessive laziness manifest as an obsessive desire for efficiency and ease?

I think such a recognition would corrode the work force and put medicine directly at odds with the interests of the state. In light of that it is not at all surprising to find that the government is blocking a study which could show that a condition formerly dismissed as whining by the lazy has a biological basis and is therefor incontrovertibly “real.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/study-that-solves-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-blocked-2022195.html

Since when does the government block studies it disagrees with? I think it’s clear there is more to this than raw science.

Dysfunction For Dollars – NYTimes.com.

People love a good torture show. Especially if there are children and sex. We are creatures of extremes, it’s a survival trait, its extremes that let you live or make you die in unusual situations. Children are holy in this society, and powerless. And we like them that way. (This is the real reason why children’s suffrage will not happen pre-singularity. After all we let adult morons vote based on which looked better in a suit, why not let children vote? The vision of the informed voter is a myth anyway between government lies and secrets and Corporate censorship and exaggeration. And that assumes passionate interest in the truth and a brain made for research.

Voting exists to pacify the public and to enact near unanimous decisions not enacted by default through mass action. That’s why we elect people instead of laws, because if we elected laws, our ignorance and apathy and ease of manipulation would cause the country to disintegrate.

That’s why serial killer books crime novels and cop shows are so popular mainly. Some of us are so specific that it effected rating and the corporations noticed. Now we have cop shows full of nothing but sex crimes, or cop shows centered on specific cities marketed to the residents of those cities.

It like a real life horror show, we want to be scared, but then we want to be told its all going to be ok.

“The criminals would tear you apart, but don’t worry so long as you’re a good obedient citizen we’ll protect you.” Ever notice how cop shows are like the WORST for peddling normalcy no matter how obviously destructive it is the fakers in question? I highly doubt cop shows are realistic to any significant degree except in the worst possible ways. For example I have no doubt at all that cops routinely lie about the law in an attempt to manipulate suspects, but I suspect in real life everyone knows that and so never falls for it unless they are children or mentally ill or beaten into lying about themselves. Which I’d say explains about 90% of criminals now, at best.

We just love peering into our own abyss. We want to see the innocent stomped on and burnt, but only in such a way that assuages our insecurity and assures our control. That’s why we don’t want to see little blown up Iraqi babies, but we absolutely want to read about the child called it. We don’t want to see horror produced by the “good” guys, that would put us at risk. And we absolutely don’t want to see accidents, unless we were there and up close. Because there is no one to punish with an accident and if we are close then the feeling is the horror missed us, what are the odds of us having an accident right here right beside the first one?

We want to see poor innocent little children (insert back lit white toddler makeuped angel doll Ramsey clone here) strangled and crushed and burnt and stabbed. That way we can vent some truly righteous hatred at the people we just know are responsible, those people that we hate already, people different from us. We get to talk about all the yummy torture they’ve earned for themselves now, and we can guiltlessly indulge that urge to power which can only be expressed with a pair of pliers and a blow torch.

We imagine ourselves behind the executioner hood and the beatific haughty stare, smiled on by our gods for our obvious righteousness while our enemies scream and beg for mercy that is not given and a reprieve that isn’t coming.

And on the other side of that bloody little fantasy is the fact that these horrific abuses remind us that hopefully life is graded on a curve and the petty torments I inflict on my children, subordinates, and customers are nothing compared to the systematic torture I just saw on TV or just read about. I paddled little Sarah till she could hardly breath from crying because she wouldn’t do what I TOLD her to do or because she didn’t finish her homework, that’s not torture that’s “parenting”… at least I didn’t make her eat her own vomit and stab her, right?

It also lets us convince ourselves that we weren’t abused. “Well my parents treated me like a robot but at least they didn’t STAB me and make me eat dog shit.” And in this way we can justify the everyday torture the TV demands. Every child needs “discipline,” you can’t be a friend and a parent at the same time, they tell us. Bullshit.

Pelzer begins his talk, saying, ”Kids read my books and clean up their room because they’re afraid Mrs. Pelzer will baby-sit them.” The audience laughs.

That’s actually not too far from the truth. What kid is going to report spanking and slapping as the abuse it is when he’s aware of other kids being burnt on the stove? Count your blessings we tell them, and it keeps them in line. If they even get a chance to make that decision. We isolate them So much, and we censor their contact with an already censored media reporting on a secretive world and we act surprised when they make it clear that they just graduated high school and still don’t know SHIT.

What we do to children as a matter of course is JUST as bad as any abuse because it kills who they are and we repeat our tiny abuses across millions of children thousands of times to the point that they grow up thinking this shit is normal. They turn into adults who do the same shit and have the guts to DEFEND it. If you’ve EVER struck your child and felt it was the right thing to do and it wasn’t about knowing them out of the way of a car or something, I’m talking to you.

You people are as transparent to me as the stereotypical balding fat white guy with glasses and a camera at the girls soccer game, you think lurks in every parked van and in every hedge, just waiting to jump out and molest your little princess. I don’t think you care who’s winning no matter how much you can rattle off about the semi-finals, I think you care about the hotpants.

You’re a whole culture sweating and staring and squirming straightening your tie crowded around a centerfold telling me that its all about the articles.

Well I call bullshit.

You people would love to bring back public execution and the inquisition. You want MORE blood you want MORE righteous indignation you want CREATIVE LASTING pain.

That’s why Seven was popular. The whole movie was about torture. And if it was too complicated to understand, since much of the pain was mental, and we don’t like thinking about what other people feel because that makes them harder to destroy for profit and fun, there are always the raw physical torture movies. Hostel and Saw for example.

Should I even bring up the God of torture porn movies? The Passion Of The Christ. The WHOLE MOVIE is a torture scene. Setting aside the frothing psychotics that love this movie, do the rest of you not see it as BLATANT emotional pandering of the worst sort? Can you not draw some parallels between it and the cops shows and hostel and the child called it?

The bottom line is we are fearful violent chimps more apt to circle a fight than to break it up. And until we face up to that (or change it), the people that already have will be able to manipulate us with ease.

Great article, but basically all it is doing is setting the stage for the other shows to be accepted. Dave is pushing it, and now he’s being called. The next one will be more believable. Sadly there are no shortage of abused children with torture tales to hold up.

Basically the whole thing is an “It could be worse, shut up.” Yeah well it could be worse, but it could also be a whole lot better. So YOU shut up.

This post was inspired by a craigs list posting about a young man apparently very frustrated with the sexual constraints applied to him by both his own brain and society.

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/mnt/140004773.html

Regardless of whether or not the post is genuine I’m going to treat it as such for argument’s sake. Because I’ve heard comments like the title before with varying degrees of sincerity, also the issue of sexual identity is going to literally become a choice some day, so we might as well start debating the relevant points and lay the ground work.

Its like he’s encountered some of the same logical geography pertaining to the mating system as I have but feels guilty talking about and attacking such a basic and complicated topic and thus he makes this semi-sarcastic gay rant to explain himself.

His premise has a number of flaws. Not the least of which is his goal should be less reliant on others. If I were to wish for something about my own sexuality I would either wish for a lack of one or for a masturbation fetish.

The same situation he describes is pretty much is true of gay men I would say. They apparently want to get married and they have the parade of unattainable hotties as well. Its not heterosexuality that’s the problem, its sexism and enforced monogamy.

It’s not the gender that is the issue but the rules we apply to each gender. What he’s attacking is the artificial scarcity that pertains to sexually appealing women as a result of sexual puritanism. The terms “slut” and “whore” exist only to keep women sexually unavailable via price or guilt, when otherwise they would be.

His solution of wanting to want men could be better stated as wanting to want women who are as free and as compassionate as men.

Don’t give me that look. Men are very compassionate if they don’t feel like they are being watched, but thanks to camera’s and religion that’s almost never. Plus, women are trained from childhood to be dismissive, frightened, disgusted, and even scornful of male sexual need. Men being men of course are not.

What he wants, is for women to be as compassionate as men about the reality of sexual deprivation, and who are as free as men from the constraint surrounding words like slut and whore. Sadly that’s not going to happen barring disruptive technological impact (orgasmitron, gynoid, etc) because women are most sexually valuable when they are or near children. That’s right, 15-30, again, stop with the look, Juliet was a teen, and go put “jail bait” in Google, see if you can tell them apart from college freshmen, don’t blame the messenger, blame rBGH.

By the time women begin to think for themselves truly they’ve already been married off or tricked into being a mother.

The VAST majority of children in this country are accidental. The divorce rate is 50%. And we have reality TV shows about pregnant teens. You do the math.

His point about the problems with monogamy and the male position in heterosexual relationships is perfectly valid. Monogamy is an absurd demand to make of a primate male. Its serves no human interest until that interest is manufactured.

Even women don’t really want monogamy at a genetic level they simply want to ensure the survival of their offspring. Applying monogamous pressure accomplished that in past social contexts. But we were never meant to breed for life.

Evolutionarily speaking how the human race is supposed to advance is simple.

A superman is born. And before you make assumptions about what I think of myself, no I am not such a super man, I mean like immune to cancer, or hyper senses, etc. I don’t deserve to breed by any objective standard, there is very little special about my genes and a lot of room for improvement.

Shooting for this super male is why males mutate faster. The Y in the XY is a broken X, warped from constant mutation. Even our sperm is made in a variety of ways which to my thinking encourages mutation.

A woman encounters that superman. It is in her best interest to stick with that man and to attempt to fight off other women, so that the world her child comes into has less competition from the children of other mothers. But allowing this to be is bad for the species.

But for the man, while the first mate is in progress, he can be impregnating other women. If monogamy is ignored then the superman can produce hundreds possibly thousands of children. And within a generation a whole genetically varied segment of the population can be produced. This could be enough to survive an extension event or a plague.

Isn’t it interesting that the male’s gene are copied letter for letter but the females aren’t? That’s because it makes sense to preserve the rare and valuable mutation, where as female genetic material can afford to be more conservative. Which is why they are built better, why they last longer, in part.

A male is an altered female male nipples being the best proof. Females are built from scratch from the cell up to be what they are, males are retrofits. Purpose built usually looks better than after market. But that will change in time.

Even now there is the desire to act in the way which selects the best male genes and reproduces them. Sperm banks sells top quality sperm because mothers who actually want a child want the best for their child. For a short time some sperm banks even guaranteed specific traits like in Gattica though not via alteration.

Those fearful of change stopped that practice. We’ll be seeing a lot more of that. The old way fighting the new. Luddism and sabotage. Nothing new.

Monogamy is foolish for the man the woman and the future of our species. Luckily, our ability to tinker with our own build will more than offset the effective halt, if not back slide we’ve brought to natural evolution.

The rules that have developed around monogamy are oppressive and narrow minded echoes of laughable religious sexism and sexual ignorance puritanism and raw worker exploiting greed.

I share the original author’s desire to achieve sexual fulfillment. But the price in modern society is simply too high and its climbing. As it stands now more and more wonderful men and women are denied breeding rights, chokes out by the foolish, the impulsive, the ruthless, and the rich.

Morlock and Eloi. I’ll pass thanks. I’ll wait till I’m allowed to actually raise my own child as I see fit before I have one, or maybe I’ll just preserve my genetic line the direct way. By living forever.

Ahh yes the time honored tradition of mimicking a mother spitting chewed food into the mouth of a baby. Sorry but spit and my mom are not turn ons. The only reason kissing is so popular is because western culture is sex obsessed and puritanical. Kissing is a huge euphemism and substitute for sex. We couldn’t show fucking, or even really talk about it in books, so they focused on kissing instead, something that was originally so asexual in some cultures it’s still the equivalent of a handshake.

Over the top face sucking to slow violin music is a stand in for a sex scene that can’t be filmed or shown. Like day time soap opera TV. Or that quick “passionate” kiss from the heroine to the hero to alert him to the fact that whatever he’s just done or about to do has granted him future access to her vajayjay.

And in a classic example of life imitating art, lovers who lets face it are always children at first, started kissing because they were ignorant of what to do and they took their cues from books and paintings and later TV and movies.

Now 99% of people kiss not because of some natural urge, which originally was about as sexual as the desire to suck on a nipple, but because that’s just what they know they’re supposed to do. It’s pretentious and gross and it reminds me of ignorance and censorship.

The human mouth is disgusting and its constantly venting toxic gas, reminiscent at best of putrefaction and mint. How is that hot?

Pass.

Licking of the neck on the other hand… Yes please.

Irssi is a classic example of luddism among technicians and style over function.

Ironic considering it looks like a xerox terminal and it tries to bill itself as a technical marvel.

The sad fact is that Irssi is only decent because there are no good irc clients, and that is intentional: Can’t have expert tools look (or be) friendly, then the peasants might be able to figure it out and then suddenly no one will have to put up with snide worthless tie wearing corporate slaves and fat wow addicted 40 year old children.

It’s like the placebo effect. If it looks like it was written in 1970, is as picky as Paris Hilton, and is intentionally counter intuitive thus resulting in a learning curve measured in years, then it’s probably going to be embraced by that portion of the tech community trying desperately to hold onto the image of computers as magic in the face of ever increasing ease of use.

This is the irc client for the type that wishes for the glory days of the internet when five people were on it and they were one of them. (I was there too, and it sucked. Search consisted of guessing domain names.)

What’s really sad is irc is still an extremely awesome resource and it really would and could be another communications revolution if it weren’t for all the developers of the clients trying with their collective might to ensure that everything is the same.

Rule one of software development: Always preserve the value of time investment, innovating yourself out of a job is a real concern. This also applies to open source, in many cases involvement in open source projects is a clout creating maneuver so that you can be paid for your work somewhere else.

I’m willing to bet that a good deal of Canonical’s staff are getting money from the closed source private sector.

As for Irssi, just imagine what a Mozilla pure irc client would look like, now in your mind does it look like the ATM from Terminator 2? I didn’t think so. It would probably look like firefox and Thunderbird, slick, efficient, infinitely extensible, etc.

I can’t wait till we’ve outsourced every over priced tech job in the united states, innovation will explode there after because the conflict of interest that currently prevents disruptive development will disappear.

I’ve made up to 75$ an hour in my time behind the keyboard and that is just theft and I honestly feel bad about it now. It doesn’t matter how good a job i did or how important their data was that I saved or how long it took me to learn to do what I do, 75$ an hour for something I can now do easily is just not fair. I was in effect participating in blackmail. I only had one rich client, and I don’t mind having taken his money. But all the others were normal people.

My contemporaries lack such compunction. And crap like this is a grand example. All they care about is their wallet and their prestige. Which is retarded in my opinion because a computer is a tool. If it worked properly we wouldn’t need 0.001% of the experts we have now. Imagine if I were all proud of how well I could use a chair and then demanded 75$ an hour to do so. (Making a chair however is a different matter, carpentry is hardcore though these days its more about having the money to buy a workshop still there is a good bit of respectable art in there.)

Another good example of this intentional backslide/stasis for ego and profit is how canonical apparently feels no motivation to embrace Wine for Ubuntu. If I were them I’d devote fully half my resources into making an official Ubuntu Wine fork. Why don’t they? Because almost the whole tech *nix community has this adversarial attitude, they don’t want equality or coexistence they want victory. They want revenge. They want to give the bullies a swirly instead of just preventing the formation of future bullies.

Vengeance is not the way guys, success is the best revenge and there is nothing like out living and forgetting your enemy. That is the essence of what I call social sniping. Evade, obviate, survive. I call it sniping because this approach is as distanced, independent, and superior to the common approach to our social enemies, as sniping is to the infantry approach to military enemies.

If I were ubuntu wine would be in my top 5 most important development topics.

1. Install/multiboot: If the OS won’t install properly from every conceivable media in every conceivable situation then all the other features mean precisely dick.

2. Internet drivers: Because the first thing you need to be able to do after the software installs is check for updates. To assume your release version will be good enough for any length of time at all given the accelerating speed of change is insanity.

3. Video drivers: Because you need to be able to see what you are doing.

4. GUIs, automation, and intuitive control upgrades: Because if your user can’t make the operating system do it’s thing properly then effectively it does not have that feature and you’ve just wasted your time. Zero tolerance for learning curves should be the goal.

5. Wine (and other compatibility support): Because in order to perfectly capitalize on a price advantage product must be identical in quality. Ubuntu is a network good, that is the more people that use it the better it is for those that use it.

What would happen to windows and all the third party brain power that goes into it if you could say for 95% certainty that X application from M$ will run under ubuntu? That’s right, the whole freaking world would shift over to Ubuntu and then suddenly an open source project gets to dictate industry standards which is effectively the same as democratizing it. Suddenly developers start writing for Ubuntu instead of for windows, suddenly viruses are a thing of the past, etc.

This all should be obvious, like making an irc client not look like a dot matrix print out. But hey, gotta make that buck, gotta look cooler than the other guy, gotta have the latest iPhone.

I was just reading about Freud and his belief that the development of sexuality by the male for the mother automatically sets up conflict between himself and the father to me assumes that monogamy in innate.

I would demand proof of this claim. Just because society has transferred the desire to posses onto the mate and developed a system which allows for the possession of people, the last remnant of slavery outside of economics, does not mean that the desire to for exclusive right to a mate is inborn.

Indeed I would argue that the obvious desire to compete found among men is inborn only to the extent that tests are expected, not necessarily that exclusivity is desired.

After all humans are tribal creatures. It seems to me if were were programmed from the cell up to desire total exclusivity we would live in a more individualistic solitary way and breed accordingly.

the image of the cave man dragging the cave women off to the cave belies that fact that other people probably lived in that cave with him and were no more ashamed of the act of sex than they were their body odor or hair composition.

Thus they were not dragging them away from people but towards safety which as history has show for tribal animals is towards people. Plus we all like to perform. And how best to demonstrate sexual fitness to other than allowing them to observe the sex act?

I think only later did we learn for reason stemming from the transition to agricultural and industrial society, to hide, and covet mates as if they were objects.

Indeed I would guess that ownership as we know it didn’t even exist in these times since all or most manufacturing was done personally.

If you had a replicator in your chest, would you care very much about your objects beyond the time investment they represent? But that’s really beside the point, true or not.

My point is, monogamy is taught by parents and discovered by children. In conditions devoid of the markers of scarcity I believe we all share. I think most people in the presence of a buffet are content to take what they want and leave the rest, and tend to only want what they can consume. Now this may include a couple subsequent meals but this does not mean they want to steal the whole buffet. Which is what monogamy is.

Sex is a buffet item. You don’t run out of it. Thus while you are not eating in theory, someone else could eat as well.

If Freud was right, the unconscious conflict with our fathers is common, and that I am right in that monogamy is learned, then what would the long term effects of just this aspect of the dissolution of monogamy as a socially enforced goal be? Would men generally become less subconsciously violent and competitive? Would that reduce global violence?

As always my final question on this subject is even if monogamy is natural, why do we not suppress it? Is not killing your rivals also natural?

According to the Columbus Dispatch “More men killing their families.”

As tragic and horrific as this is, it is not unexpected or surprising from the perspective of this masculist.

Men are under increasing social and economic pressure, while simultaneously expressions of frustration at said pressure is also increasingly viewed as “emo” and in other ways shameful.

Women overwhelmingly get custody and sizable, in terms of either raw dollars or percentages, fiscal considerations upon divorce.

Facing the prospect of being socially shamed as well as losing access to their children as well as any hope of financial freedom, all on top of impending loneliness as well as the shame that all men feel upon rejection. It’s not shocking that some men decide in these instances that death for all involved is a better choice.

Indeed, in many ways being divorced can be just like being married in terms of obligations, but with none of the rewards.

We routinely use the language of death to express love. “I can’t live without you” or “you are my life.” Well, some men clearly mean this literally.

It should be noted that this is typically (mistakenly?) considered romantic until someone follows the logic to the extreme worst case scenario.

As horrible as this is, it’s an unavoidable side effect of enforced monogamy, state controlled marriage, and various other social and legal institutions we use to shape how the family unit is structured.

Our society is saturated with instructions for the male that routinely alternate between expected fanatical and often violent devotion to family, and direct military or otherwise tactical solutions.

How many songs, movies, and television shows are at their core a story about a man killing someone to prove his love for a woman and or his family?

A great many.

We need to rethink a few things we take as given. Important things. Such as the nature of love, the reality of sexism against men, and the separation of church and state with regard to the institution of marriage.

I am a middle child of the transhuman movement. I have wanted a synthetic body since Star Trek the Next Generation, and as of this writing I am 30 years old. That means I seriously thought about what it would be like to be Data before I really thought about girls.

In the time line of a boys mind, that’s before the beginning of time.

I also grew up in a place where I was tormented for my physical weaknesses, and mental strengths, which further created a divide between me and my body, and that on top of my physical limitations that also happened in the beginning. I have bad vision, my right foot and hand are deformed, I wore a brace on my leg as a toddler, and it wasn’t until recently in my life that my ankle stopped hurting constantly.

As an adult this expanded to kidney stones, gal stones, a tooth problem, and my right knee dislocating at random one time.
You couple all this with a white hot love affair with all things speculative and you get a transhumanist before he knew there was such a thing.

I feel on a subjective level that I discovered many of these things, because from my perspective I did. There was no internet when I was a kid and in Ashland Kentucky there wasn’t exactly a ground swell of scientific interest and information sharing. (see below about my science teacher)

This gave me a measure of pride, I was the nerd kid, I won my science competitions as part of the academic team because to enjoy science fiction one has to know a little something about science.

Sure it meant bullies and girls being the stuff of legends and fantasy, but it also meant the intellectual and moral high ground, the feeling of discovery and pioneering spirit that being on the forefront of something entails.

I spent a good deal of my time thinking about how wonderful the world would be without the baggage of a “human nature” or a “that’s just how it is” mentality. I invented for myself the concept of what is now known as a post singularity, transhuman, future.

I read books like Chaos, and Nanocosm, The Elegant Universe, Hyperspace, Holographic Universe, and A Brief History of Time, along with books like Bloom, and the foundation series, and every Asimovian robot work. I have a crystal clear picture and have had for my whole life, how absolutely wonderful life can be if we can just apply some science.

Transhumanism’s and futurism’s greatest power is the ability to gut the dismissive “well that’s just how it is.” And so I did what anyone passionate about an idea does, I spoke about it and wrote about it, but at the time there were precious few places to do this.

Some of it ended up in journals and offline computer files, because there was no truly easy blogging method, there was no life time free hosting, there was no Google, no social networks, no stumbleupon.

But the vast majority of it was wasted on individuals. On IRC. I spent virtually my whole adolescence on IRC debating religion and every other serious topic, and linking it all to my transhuman future. I spent my passion, my best creative energies, on a handful of people, in a handful of places that are as lasting as a message scrawled in the sand at low tide. (I’m no Buddhist so that sucks for me.)

Besides all this was manifest to me. I couldn’t just write a book because I didn’t know what readers needed to hear, I had to talk to them first, I debate. It shocks me still to this day every time I see someone say something that is obviously wrong to me. Like when people speak in favor of intellectual property law, or when they talk about human nature as if it’s changeless and eternal.

I needed feed back. Now I have it.

I didn’t even think to try and publish, who’s going to publish a no body? Everyone except my parents were too busy telling me to prepare for a life of slavery to some company, or some college. and I believed them for a long time.

I didn’t even go to school dances, I’m damn sure not going to get a book deal. My school was so ignorant I asked my 7th grade science teacher if I could study black holes exclusively as a career and she told me categorically no.

My point being, anything I ever said or indeed to this day, say, is swallowed up into a publicists black hole. All because of my ethics. Because I don’t think I should charge money to share an idea. Intellectual property law to me is like pedophilia to you. It’s the most harmful thing EVER.

So, as far as society is concerned barring the stumblers and blog hunters and my personal friends and the people in brazil who actually paid me for a piece and then didn’t publish it, no one knows I exist. No one has heard me speak passionately about the future I see coming and how wonderful it is.

This knowledge defined me. My hope for the future is my religion, it’s what gives meaning to my life, it’s what makes drawing breath in the toxic painful cesspool called life tolerable to the point of avoiding a buckshot mouthwash.

So when the net came along, with its search systems and easy desktop publishing, I was overjoyed, I’ve always been an optimist, my parents saw to that with marvelous efficiency. Hiding random gifts for a child his whole life will make him come to almost expect joy around every corner. So when I dived into the net, I saw only the good.

In time however the debates got more heated, as more people of lesser skill got online. As the net became more user friendly the IQ bar lowered, and that’s perfectly fine to me before you assume that’s a complaint. But it means that people unaccustomed to actual debate started hopping into the debates.

Up until this era I had not encountered the Ad Hominem approach. That is I had never heard “well yur just a fag” as a response to a serious claim about robot’s impact on the future and our culture. Over time I found that my high expectations of people only amounted to disappointment, and so my writing became for them since I know that one violent cretin can turn a peaceful protest into a riot, I considered their ideological plague the first thing that must be sterilized.

And so I spent my whole adult life in effect proselytizing my “new” religion. I told EVERYONE who would listen about the glorious future that was to come if we would only work towards it, if only they could see the endgame.

My goal was to change the course of humanity’s future.

I was like a man pushing on the side of the mountain, with everything he’s got, for his whole life, and then suddenly the mountain shifts, and he looks left and right and there are millions of others pushing with him.
And I smile to them with tears in my eyes, until I realize they didn’t even see me, and they ask “what are you getting all emo about?” For them it’s not a life quest, for them its just an obvious casual thing. they saw the herd pushing and hopped in on the action.

I have gotten my wish. The singularity will happen. The future heaven that I’ve been waiting for and fighting for my whole life will arrive, the only thing that could stop it now is total annihilation of the human race.

And to my horror, I realize that my lack of desire for credit and pay has equaled the complete obfuscation of what I am and where I came from intellectually.

Now I’m just another transhuman. No one cares, and no one will ever care what I have to say, or what I went through being the crazy robot SciFi guy. It cost me my whole life. I’m 30, I don’t drive, I can’t handle the phone. I am like the Taliban in a way, I have spent so much time living in the future that I am no longer fit for the present.

The ideas that are required for day to day life in this culture are primitive and harmful to me. Your monogamy, and your competition, your patriotism and your faith, your greed and vengeful blood lust are all behind me.

And so I’m alone. All my friends have go on to their picket fence lives, or the best version they can acquire.

And what do I have to show for it? Nothing. Indeed I have failed so utterly at life that I may not even be able to afford a cryopreservation tank, or transhuman upgrades when they finally become available. Rich bastards like Dawkins and Kurzweil, the assholes that got rich off the truth despite that fact that simply BEING rich is unethical, is theft, is a crime against humanity.

My only achievements are absences. An absence of addiction, an absence of violence, an absence of suffering of those around me, an absence of indulgence of my atavistic desires coupled with the enabling power of my intellect.

Put simply I failed to be the monster I could easily have been, thanks to my parents and to my own ethics and willpower.

I may be excluded from my heaven because I spent my entire life fighting for it.

I may experience final death because I fought so hard to alert people to the fact that death need not be final.

I may be left behind because I was so far ahead.

I will not be forgotten because I was never known.

“They fought to have it sealed, and they will die because they won.” – The Hellstrom Chronicle

This is a response to Schrödinger’s Rapist.

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

—-

Abstract of my opinion: All these rules are like gun law, they only apply to the law abiding, you are only punishing the good men. Thugs and alphas and the manipulative will ignore them and proceed. Which is why we have a surplus of thugs and alphas and nice guys die unbred.

But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is.

For many men it is as well. Atheists, gays, minorities, or anyone simply aware of how violent people are or carries anything worth stealing at knife point, which in today’s world means virtually anyone with a cell phone or a wallet.

I sleep with a loaded S&W 38 attached to my headboard. I took time and effort acquiring a CDWL so I can carry a lethal weapon with me at all times. And I’m not even phobic. Men are overwhelmingly the most violent gender as far as crime per capita goes, but they are also more often than not the victims of unreported assault in addition to overt crimes.

Men that call the police over “a fight” are treated shamelessly as weak, cowardly, and unmanly. Some of us worry constantly about fights, but of course we don’t have the luxury of talking about it. When we express fear or sadness we’re wussies and “emo.”

Do you follow rules like these?

I think you are phobic and irrational. This is not an attack. Just an opinion. Further your stance is insulting to men and unfair for the same reason presumption of guilt is excluded from the justice system.

It is unhealthy to assume your date is a murderer or a rapist and unfair in the extreme to ask him to think of himself as a rapist just to coddle your irrational insecurity. You are far more likely to die in your car.

One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.

Sexual assault in some districts can mean a cat call from a moving car, or being mooned, that’s a far cry from the vicious rape ending in murder you seem to paint them as. Simple assault figures are comparable. Does that mean we should live our lives as if we’re going to be mugged and beaten at any moment? Your position, is indeed alarmist. And putting the onus on men to both assume all women are equally phobic by default is irresponsible. You are contributing to the victim culture. You are encouraging young women to cage themselves.
You’ve learned a martial art, and you’re a prisoner in your own home, and you’ve given yourself a curfew, I think its safe to say the problem is yours. Not mine.

You may or may not be a man who would commit rape.

And by your own numbers I am most probably not, so why should I assume that all women think I am?

I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me.

You could know by the fact that I’m not.

you are being cavalier about my personal safety.

As you are about my right to assumed innocence. Would I be justified in calling you a whore just because some women are? How would you react if I wrote a blog post about how to convince men you’re not a whore simply because you’re a woman? I’d be called a sexist wouldn’t I. Be honest.

To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance.

And you must accept that there are positions on that scale that are neurotic. How many hand washings a day before you know you have a problem? By many definitions a psychological problem is defined by its impact on day to day life.

That possibility is never 0%.

The same is true of lightening strikes, do you plan your day around that risk as well? Granted sexual assault is more likely, but again, so are innumerable other terrors. Flights of steps, your own bathroom, swine flu, cars, etc etc.

That’s their right.

Indeed it is, but the vast majority of the time they are looking, if they are unmarried. One study I’ve read but cannot relocate sadly, said that 90%+ of women in the united states get married in their life. That means nine of ten that aren’t married are looking, now if its fair to assume men are rapists on a 1 in 6 lifetime figure, then its fair to assume women are in the market 9 in 10.

you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment

Fashion is indeed a factor. Now, don’t try to twist my words, I’m not saying women ever “ask for it” I’m simply saying if you don’t want attention, and by attention I mean attention, not rape, don’t dress like it. This of course is a case by case basis, some women are simply too beautiful to dress down, some climates and seasons make it impossible as well, and finally there is the quite reasonable freedom to dress as you please, but, even as I man, if I dress a certain way I expect to be treated a certain way. Sort of like how you expect the man with puzzle tattoos to expect a certain reaction eh? If I walk into a police station with baggy neon orange pants and a t-shirt that says “Die Pigs” I’m going to get nasty looks and curt responses.

Men don’t read minds either. If you want the public to behave a certain way towards you, make it clear at a glance.

I want them to leave me alone so I dress like a church kid despite being an anarchist goth at heart. If I wanted attention I’d wear my leather and my hat.

some men should never approach strange women in public

So we all have a dress code now?

Are you wearing a tee-shirt making a rape joke?

Men are more often by leaps and bounds the butt (no pun intended) of rape jokes. Drop the soap? This may come as a shock to you, but men on a rape for rape basis are the more common victim. That’s what happens in a country with the highest number of prisoners in the world. (over 1%) A single prison “bitch” in his life time can match an entire town’s total rape rate. But I bet you think he asked for it don’t you. (If you’re that stupid go check out the innocence project and look at the number on wrongful conviction.) Prisoners are people too and a shocking number of them are wrongly convicted. And even if they weren’t rape is cruel and unusual punishment, regardless of the crime or your bloodlust.

The same applies if you are alone with a woman in most public places.

You obviously don’t understand the courage it takes to approach a beautiful woman or the risk of humiliation. Maybe we don’t want to be shot down and be thought a huge loser (which is in many ways defined SOLELY by success with women) in front of 30 people, maybe we don’t want to put you on the spot. Quit making something respectful a prelude to attack. You only succeed in shoving away those who care about you the most.

Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this woman be safe in this space with me?”

If you choose to see rapists everywhere that’s your business, don’t demand all men think of themselves as rapists just to help you cope with your phobia.

Learn to understand and respect women’s communication to you.

Expecting men to be profilers is unfair. I have just as much right to demand clarity from you. How hard is “I’m flattered but not interested, thank you” ? Maybe if you didn’t reward persistence, men would not behave that way. Men act as they do because obviously it works.

Speaking as a man who does not play minds games, I can tell you with objective distance that all the behaviors women say they do not want are tolerated or indeed enjoyed when they come from a man they have deemed fit. Arrogance becomes confidence, entitlement becomes determination, stalking becomes loyalty, anger issues become passion, etc.

Quit rewarding brutal alphas with children and sex, maybe eventually men will try a different set of tactics. Until then expect them to do what works. And remember you determine what works.

So, y’know, don’t disturb her.

Right, so that the cute alpha can ignore that rule and strike up a conversation, and then I’m left out in the cold because women have trained men to compete relentlessly.

You are a threat, remember?

No, thank you, I’m Not.

Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win her over with charm or flattery. Believe what she’s signaling, and back off.

Read my abstract again.

On the other hand, if she is turned towards you, making eye contact, and she responds in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to her, you are getting a green light.

But… didn’t you just tell me NOT to talk to her? So now it’s ok if I talked to her and she liked it.. but I ask you, how would I know that UNTIL I talked to her?

In the two days after the date, he sent me about fifteen e-mails, scolding me for non-responsiveness.

Why did you give him your email if you weren’t going to respond? You can always respond to say that you would rather not speak to him, and you might want to include a reason why.

Again, women often reward men with persistence and women are socially unpunished for being indecisive and fickle. This means that men have no real reason to expect consistency. Indeed for many years what is now stalking was romantic. Check out every 80s romantic comedy.

Holding a boom box up in the rain no longer means what it used to, why? Because you guys change your minds like the weather. Email is just about the most non invasive form of communication there is, you don’t even have to open an envelope. And there are always email filters. Just inform him that you are blocking him, try to keep snide juvenile stabs to a minimum, and then block him. That is, if you’re too undisciplined to ignore them or respond consistently in the polite negative. Most women are capable of explaining in no uncertain terms just how loathsome they think a man is, especially in email.

This man scores higher on the threat level scale than Man with the Cockroach Tattoos.

For an Email, once every two weeks?? Are you serious? Lady, you have a problem. I knew one girl that got 80 texts in one day. That’s an eight and a zero. THAT’S a threat. This guy is just confused. Probably because you went out on date with him and now you wont answer his email and you think it’s HIS job to figure out what you mean without you saying it.

Of course if you were as clear in your one response as you claim to have been then it is indeed his problem and you should simply block him having said your piece.

It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone.

Your right to be left alone is not synonymous with your desire to be left alone, see above with the subway conversation, women often reward intruders, and so, we intrude. You can always say go away, and if they don’t THEN you have right to complain.

When the guy behind me in line at Wal-Mart strikes up a conversation I don’t turn around and snap at him “Can’t you see I’m not interested in talking to you?? Respect my boundaries!” If I don’t feel like talking I just don’t respond. If he persists to the point of annoying me I’ll say I don’t feel like talking. Why can’t you do the same?

The fifth and last point: Don’t rape.

Again, see my first line. How many rapists saw that and went “You know what I was totally going to rape a girl today but now that you told me not too, I’m not going to.”

Come on.

In conclusion, I seriously think this woman has a serious problem, perhaps its PTSD, but at the very least a phobia or two is involved. I sincerely doubt that the majority of women walk around threat assessing for rape, frat parties alone would just never happen if that were the case.

If women were as threat aware as she seems to think the rape rate would be about a 15th what it actually is.