Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
stanky's laborious venting, part 17-J
#1
one thing I've noticed about human toil, over the years, is how incredibly stupid it is.

Yet, our morality holds physical effort in high regard.

I began to notice this when I was doing stone masonry.
One house I built had 500 tons of stone in it.
On average, I lifted everyone of them 8 times.

That's gross tonnage.

At that scale, one begins to ask themselves:

How might I have done this differently?
More efficiently?

Maybe cut it down to only 7 lifts per stone?
Maybe saved 500 tons of lifting rocks?

In most small jobs and endeavors, it's not worth considering such things.

But on industrial scales, it sure as hell is.

We'd want to optimize every procedure, as if we were dealing with a billion tons of rocks.
Obviously, eliminating one step in that equation would translate to awesome savings...and an edge in the market.

as i began to ponder all of this, I couldn't help but notice...almost everything we do is absurdly inefficient.

The paradigm of modernity comes down to this:

Try to look busy.

And then have meetings in the boardroom to discuss the possible problem of the 'look busy' zeitgeist, and how it could be optimized for greater profits.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in our military budget.

The idea there is that the stupider we get, the more money for the sociopathic lying fucks.
To keep money flowing in the right direction, smart and evil people work day and night to come up with ever more stupid approaches to problems...so that it will be as inefficient as possible.

Radical stupidity means money in the bank for the people that run your life.

At their board meetings, the power-brokers discuss how they could make shit even stupider, to extract more wealth, in a way that won't seem too obvious to the poor fucks.

To assume that there is a different, more wholesome agenda, is a lovely media blitz.

Just buy the new wash-day miracle and watch the stupid soap opera on tv.
And if gets depressing, ask your doctor about new Prozac.
Or ask your drug dealer about new 'meth'.

hardly matters.

money wins.

Lawyers and judges get paid. Prison wardens have a decent job.

any ideas about cutting through the underlying insanity are absolutely off limits.

Kindly liberals are indistinguishable from nasty right wingers, except that the liberals tend to kill more innocent brown people. And they punish whistle blowers more harshly. And spend more money on surveillance, and so on.

This is difficult to digest.
But we do have facts at our disposal.

so,

what to do about the overwhelming stupid?
what to do about the overwhelming hatefulness?
assuming we can even see past the overwhelming propaganda of the media?

(i might return to clarify some of this.)
Reply
#2
Quote:Stanky wrote:

....

so,


what to do about the overwhelming stupid?

It's only stupid to those who don't benefit from the situation. 
The people who do think it's a pretty smart deal.

Find a way that what you deem stupid is no longer rewarded and you'll stand a chance of changing the course of human nature.  ... good luck with that.

what to do about the overwhelming hatefulness?

Who are the haters?  Huh  What common factors characterize them?

Depending on what media you read or what forum you look in on that varies between 'those nazi pricks' and those 'fuckwit Antifa thugs' and between them 'the redneck Trumpsters' and 'dope smokin' hippie liberal fuckwits'  ... are there figures yet on who hates who the most?

Seems a tad presumptive to allocate the title to any one group without the researched facts being available on which to base the result.



From observation it looks to me as though all the longest term, dedicated haters come from the same economic strata. 
i.e. skint.
Broke, busted, depressed, just struggling by.  Enough to pay the rent and buy a new gun or a better brand of dope but not well off enough to really hold much status.  

Not all people from that situation are haters, but most of the haters come from that demographic.
It's perhaps not even hate, just plain envy frosted with resentment.

I may have missed it but how many millionaires are marching about with the great unwashed to declare their loyalty to a political ideology and demand that "his side's" voters get their fair share??


Hold on a moment ... no jumping!   .. how many 'spokespersons' crusaders and politicians attached to the ideology of the 'Far' anything are out there?  Unprotected, and incognito, joining the ranks of those protesting in their favour??  ... Far Left/Right/Up/ or Down ... I'm looking for examples from any of them!
e.g. Has anyone spotted Di Niro in the middle of a 1percenter protest without his camera crew in tow? 
Anyone seen Hillary dragging out nazis and screaming at them on the street?

We see the 'high profile' crusaders standing with a microphone shoved up their noses on a stage out of reach of plebian contact and surrounded by minders.

We see them doing their Hollywood best to express their 100% support for people they wouldn't share counter space in Maccas with.
 
We hear the 'weasel words' from billionaire politicians who earn more billions by pretending to represent the people they're lying to.  ... and their loyal voters cheer them roundly for the great favour of this doyen of political righteousness deigning to speak to them at all.

.. no one finds it illogical to believe that a billionaire politician has no other agenda than to improve the lives of the people he rips off to sustain his billionaire status??   Sounds legit??

Di Niro doesn't have vested interest in playing the "Trump's a punk" card to prop up his fading 'star' status?
Does he hate Trump?  really?  why?  What did Trump do to stop Di Niro doing all that great work for the poor??  Did Trump stop him donating his obscene salary to abortion clinics or something?  so why the sudden very public 'outrage'?

How much of Di Niro's dinero is given to the victims of Trump?

(couldn't let that dinero pun opp pass .. sorry.  Blush )

Are the high profile noisy class from both sides of the "haters"? 

or the poorer  people who voted?
or the people who didn't bother to vote at all and are looking to blame those who did bother, for their situation? 
 
Do Trump haters actually believe that those who did bother to vote should have voted to support their interests rather than their own???   faaiiir dinkum?  sorry.. seriously?  
Ummm, that's not how democracy works. 
You do actually have to get up off your arse to lodge that vote for what you want, not expect others to give up what they want to accommodate yours.

The peoplel who did vote, and got the POTUS they deserve hate the people who hate them for voting .. and... round it goes.

... figures aren't in yet on the socio/economic status and ideological bias of the hating class ?



assuming we can even see past the overwhelming propaganda of the media?

OOOoh yes,  they have their share of freebie riders on the 'hate train', never take your eye off 'em!

(i might return to clarify some of this.)


No need, I've sorted it all out for ya.  Angel Big GrinHeart
Reply
#3
The haters that come to my mind are more like the war profiteers. The hate expressed by the down-trodden is less relevant. Bank fraud and other sociopathic behavior at the top is the precursor to the small h hate.
Reply
#4
not to excuse bad behavior, but it is worth noting that the pipe-bomb dude was a victim of the most insidious level of bank fraud.
He got royally fucked by these pricks...some still in high offices. Mnuchin comes to mind.

When people get ripped off to that degree, it's not surprising that some will snap.

It becomes a breeding ground for radical reactions.

The bank frauds left a shit-ton of people with nothing.
The liberal president's response to it?

Bail out the banks that are too big to fail...and make the tax-payers pay for it.
And send none of these epic thieves to prison. None.

In fact, let them have huge bonuses. Keep them in business. Decrease the regulations so they can do it again. Which, of course they are doing again.

anyway, this is a formula for pissing off some people, big time.

It's called "blow back".

It's all quite predictable, really.
Although, because we are unable to address it, even on our 'liberal' media, well... we can expect some blow-back.
Reply
#5
(10-27-2018, 09:57 AM)stanky Wrote:  The haters that come to my mind are more like the war profiteers. The hate expressed by the down-trodden is less relevant. Bank fraud and other sociopathic behavior at the top is the precursor to the small h hate.

Go out and take a breath of that fresh cool air and have good think about that statement!

If you honestly believe that the munitions and banking industries are driven by 'hate' you are definitely smoking too much of that 'kale'.

They're driven solely by profit, it's those they rip off who have no other form of retaliation than 'hate'.  

(10-27-2018, 04:44 PM)stanky Wrote:  not to excuse bad behavior, but it is worth noting that the pipe-bomb dude was a victim of the most insidious level of bank fraud.
He got royally fucked by these pricks...some still in high offices. Mnuchin comes to mind.

When people get ripped off to that degree, it's not surprising that some will snap.

It becomes a breeding ground for radical reactions.

The bank frauds left a shit-ton of people with nothing.
The liberal president's response to it?

Bail out the banks that are too big to fail...and make the tax-payers pay for it.
And send none of these epic thieves to prison. None.

In fact, let them have huge bonuses. Keep them in business. Decrease the regulations so they can do it again. Which, of course they are doing again.

anyway, this is a formula for pissing off some people, big time.

It's called "blow back".


It's all quite predictable, really.
Although, because we are unable to address it, even on our 'liberal' media, well... we can expect some blow-back.

Blow back, resentment, vengeance, retaliation ... yes absolutely it is. 

But what no one seems to be considering is that different sectors resent different changes to different rules.
This is where the danger lies, in the fracturing of society into the factions which hold resentment over different issues.

If everyone was only pissed off at banks, they'd still be smouldering.  If everyone saw guns as the profit makers not the 'gifts' of the munition industry the people profiting now would all be panhandling on 5th Ave, not living on it.

There is a gobsmacking 'finding' here that I'll get to later about how the thinking processes work.

The polarisation and 'hate' is based on individual perceptions of the threat level to their personal safety, or lifestyle.

Simply placing the blame on the easy  basic cause, (banks, NRA) of unrest in one sector doesn't solve the problem.  Not for that sector nor for those who see the threat in those trying to destroy said banks and NRA because that sector sees them as 'security' not threat.   
As crazy as it may seem it is a mindset that has to be addressed and not simply forced into silence.

You can't negotiate a peace by taking a stance for only one side and arguing only their policies. 

You have to at least understand why they differ in opinion, really understand, not just write them off as idiots, before you can really begin to persuade them down from those defensive walls.

... bugger this, waste of time anyway. Sad    just carry on smugly confident that everyone but you liberals is retarded and watch the circus.  (and hope it's not the Circus Maximus)
Reply
#6
"The liberal president's response to it?"

Obama did the only thing he could do.



The Western World was at stake. Would you have preferred it fall into ruin? Good Christ on a fucking popsicle stick, it's 10 years on now, and if we hadn't bailed the bastards out, we'd still be picking up the pieces. Those of us who were unfortunate enough to live through it.

Now then, agreed: It's a bloody damned mess to have done the bailout in the first place, but just imagine the state of The World without it.

And remember this, the safeguards (Dodd Frank) put in place to prevent such nonsense in the future have already been fucked up by the goddamned Rethuglicunt Congress.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#7
Agreeing with Sparky is a novelty but he's right. Bailing them out was the only logical move at the time.

What should have been done, decades before, is preventing the bastards from getting themselves into that bind in the first place!

I thought our banking industry was stitched up much tighter and better controlled than what it actually is. It's still not allowed to run as loose as American banks but our 'banking industry' is nowhere near as controlled legally as the public believed.

A Royal Commission into their practices has revealed that the laws governing banking and investment instutution policies are seen as polite suggestions to be ignored with impunity!

Would you believe that the practice of charging customers for "financial advice" that they never received is such a widespread fraud, and massive source of ripped off profit, that its even done by Superannuation/'Retirement funds which are legally labelled "non profit" ??

Proof arrived in my mailbox a couple of weeks back. A letter of "apology" for the "oversight" of having charged my account a fee for an "annual financial review" interview with one of their "advisors".

WTF? ... attached was the schedule of "fees" and the instances where I had been wrongly charged.

3 years I had no appoiintments for a "review" as I didn't need to change anything about how and where the funds were invested.

All the other years, that I did have a half hour meeting with some dork had been charged for though, in spades! .

NO mention of additional charge was ever mentioned, no one else knew that this wasn't covered by the normal annual fees deducted from everyone's accounts for "administration costs."

But the bit that still sends me groping for a ciggy and a coffee is the amount charged!

They informed me that they had "reinvested" a sum over $4,000 back into my account for the 3 missed 'reviews' fee plus interest.

WTF ... My maths are shite but the calculator works ... They take over $1,200 for half an hour of talking shit to dozy clients. That's not a bad earner eh??

There are a lot of very surprised retirees who contributed around 9% of their wages and salaries throughout our working lives to these funds in order to support themselves with annuities in later life.
It's now mandatory for all workers to contribute, so the institutions don't even have entice customers.

None of us considered that we were sacrificing income when we were working to ensure that we were so "wealthy" after retirement that we'd be employing some number monkey dick at the rate of $2,400 per hour!

Christ divorce lawyers wouldn't be game to charge at that rate outside of Hollywood!

The salt in the wound revealed by this investigation if that there is no intention to refund the overcharging for 'reviews' that did happen. Nor is there any indication whatever that further 'reviews' won't be charged at the same or bigger hourly rate!

This is not a bank. This is an industry based, non profit superannuation fund!

The attitude is the same though. Fuck you, catch us once but we'll just pay the fine and continue to catch you annually!

The ball is in the politician's court to not only "tighten up the rules" but POLICE the bloody rules! We've had a conga line of big time CEOs blushingly apologising for getting caught, but none of them will do time. A couple resigned ... and got paid out a bonus!

If we WE don't insist that our reps force the bastards into line then we'll continue to have to 'bail them out' to protect ourselves as much as them ..

... shit I'm annoyed about those phony fees. .. going out for a ciggy.. grrrrrrr
Reply
#8
"What should have been done, decades before, is preventing the bastards from getting themselves into that bind in the first place! "

Goddamned right.

It's called "regulation".
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#9
Shit. 'Regulation' was the word I was looking for mid rant. Thanks.

The current laws couldn't regulate a friggin toaster.
Reply
#10
I can't argue with Di anymore...at least for the time being.
And not because her arguments are so compelling to me...
No.

It's because they're way too stupid for me.

I'm ok with her being pissed off at me for being whatever sort of hippy welfare cheat she needs me to be...but, this new level of stupid debate will go nowhere good.
It's a repeat of what ran off Shiner and O.G.

and there's no way I'm apologizing for any of that.
If anything, I'm waiting for you to step up to the plate.
Or, simply declare yourself to be what you are.

And that is unlikely to happen.
In the extreme.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)