Fact of the matter is - political correctness determines economic viability at some level, because the market prices in politics :
We just pick the level of correctness which optimises for our respective portfolios and mandates. Hahaha
I'll let you in a on a little secret. If you're trying to make alcohol-free drinks competitive with alcoholic drinks, then you need to provide qualitative and quantitative substitution for alcohol. What does alcohol taste like? What does it do to the body?
- spicy, sharp, intense, nostril-shocking, throat-burning
- warm, sweet, fragrant, tummy-comforting
- cheerful, bright, vasodilating
- bitter, thought-provoking, risk-affirming, fight-or-flighting
OK, just focus on that set of things. You can find MANY non-alcoholic substitutes to provide these, but you MUST DO SO in order to provide LOVELY alcoholic substitutes.
( ad hoc civ-soc issue this morning )
I would create and enforce the following guidelines :
1.
group members should not make claims of CRIMINAL / potentially criminal activity by any member of the public, without offering accountability
- accountability may take the form of :
(a) citation in a publication of repute ( go figure haha, of course it's a slippery slope between National Newspaper and ABC's blog of 100 readers )
(b) police report NUMBER, DATE, and STATION ( so that anyone can make an inquiry with the station about potentially threatening individuals without undue gossiping ); or other mention / case ID number under any other law enforcement agency; not sure if it is sufficient to name an arbitrary NGO, but sure a case ID under a registered NGO would be better than nothing
(c) willing to respond further, to inquiry about the claim, whether it is in the group, or via other investigative channels such as : NGOs, law enforcement agencies, informal civil society initiatives ( though a bunch of volunteer investigators is also a cause for concern )
- lack of accountability may take the form of :
(c) saying someone did something, but "won't respond to further inquiry about the legitimacy of the claim"
(d) "will not accept assistance to lodge a police report if a police report has not already been lodged" / "will not produce evidence of the existence of a police report / other entity case ID"
2.
group members should not make claims of NON-CRIMINAL disagreeable activity by any member of the public, unless they are also willing to respond further, to inquiry about the claim, whether it is in the group, or via other investigative channels
example : if the claim is queried by another group member, then the claimant should be able to structure a response which provides more information; and if no further information is forth-coming, the guideline should be that the claim must be reviewed by admins via "report to admin : other" ( the reporting mechanism has no annotations, so admins may require a comment to accompany such reports of damaging claims of questionable veracity )
Trauma is real, for a subset of the population. For the others, it is a mnemonic. For some, the mnemonics are entertaining. Regardless, the mnemonics are sufficient for the administration of control over a population. What hurts you?
Calculated mediocrity. I was praising a young athlete on their luck with calorific discipline at a young age. I only cleared it up around the age of 40. I wonder, was my calculated mediocrity in that horizontal for 20 years, a mistake? For the sake of quality, best to assume it was a mistake. Err always on the harsh side.
689 square feet. The only reason I have such a massive residence is due to my financial situation of not considering myself rich enough to rent perpetually ... and because a bunch of my accumulated projects over the past decade have been hardware oriented, so now this flat is a garage in the sky. Also, I had to figure out how to make it nice enough to not piss of people whom I see.
Anyway, a strange balance of form and function. Sometimes when I wake up on an ordinary study day without company, I am quite convinced that I have overcapitalised, as I need none of the things I see. This puts me in a bad mood and reduces the efficiency of my studies. So, I have studied the problem.
Hormonal control systems requires that I draw pleasure from the sight of the physical appearance of this flat as a thing in itself. The phenomenological dynamic then improves memory functions, and my affinity for studies. However, risk management is appropriate. I must also bear in mind, at the same time, the tail risks which would incur expenses or a write-down of the asset.
When I was in college, I lived in dorms : co-living, with public showers, and 100+ square feet of private space. If my lovers were not to be offended by this, I would only need as much for personal life. As an extrovert, my heart is never at home.
TIL a critical pivot in the history of the verbiage around "narcissism". The contemporary ( early 21st century, pop-psychological ) trending use of the term is described on Wikipedia as stemming from "The Culture of Narcissism" (Larsch, 1979). You may read about the history of the term "narcissism", here
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism
The clinical framework about "narcissistic personality disorder" cannot be considered final, though a mature practice is documented in the DSM, for example. The taxonomical/diagnostic approach to "narcissism" stems from a broader tradition of Social pre-Science, i.e. attempts to establish new domains for scientific method, through the quantified testing of (a) critical theory from the Humanities, (b) natural language or base literature at any spatio-temporal point in history.
For an in-flight example of such meandering culture, look no further than ( or do read further from ) these Wikipedia articles which you may remember with the heuristic "DT & DD".
Trolling is simply a projection of power, to
(a) ( unilaterally ) identify carriers of traits,
(b) ( unilaterally ) induce carriers to reduce their
- (b1) carriage of traits, or
- (b2) trait detectability
(c) ( bilaterally ) engage in negotiations regarding (a) and (b).
Trolling is simply a security mechanism. It is efficient for (a, b), but for (c) it may not be the ideal method. It can be argued that (b) is more effectively approached as a bilateral activity, and hence should be regarded as a group (b, c) instead of as a group (a, b).
Decisions are left to the individual actor, about whether to project power more unilaterally, or more discursively.
Pro-social cultures regard a-social approaches as anti-social, and thus immature.They would argue that there is no such thing as an a-social culture, as no culture arises between less than two actors.
Pro-social cultures may mistake trolls for "attention seekers" - whereas the latter are a differently motivated species of actors, and thus the behaviour of attention seekers may be classified differently from that of trolls.
Trolling is kin selection.
Sending children and adults to war, is sending them to face uncertain death. It is the same with capital. Wars are only begun when there is an abundance of capital - wars end when capital is exhausted. The beginning of a business venture, or an adventure of time, brims with a sense of opportunity ... but any commander would be foolish not to gird it with an appropriate sense of gloom. While contemplating their uncertain ends, it would also be mistaken to momentarily succumb to the notion that the ends are not worth the means. If you are a pacifist, you do not take the same risks that a violent person will. You do not go to war, you do not got to commerce, you sit at home. The leadership of capital is simply its allocation to partial probabilities of doom. You do it with gravitas and joy in right proportion.
My friend said, I lacked common sense and manners. I said, I have limited interest in common sense, and less interest in manners. They said, I lacked empathy, and broadly I agreed.
They also said, I am not worthy of board level roles - aha, this was a more interesting claim. I believe, that governance works best with aligned values. Not all organisations will value what you value.
Generally, people work together because they have a common goal.
Time for church. The anthropological approach is, you want to test your understanding of a culture by trying to be able to teach the culture. When you think faster than the teacher, then you know you can move on to another teacher. You don't need to identify with what the teacher teaches, but you can learn all available variables about the teacher.
You're a lump of a meat, crawling on a rock, whizzing through space. A lump that tells itself stories, and trades them with other lumps of meat. Aside from the trade in stories, you have some notion that your meat is valuable beyond your lifetime so you seek to propagate it. You devote a life, or some fraction of your life to this. What are you? Merely normal, nothing to see here.
And yet this political reality drives much of the world economy at any point in time.
---
I was once on a date with a drop-out consultant who had become fairly successful as an entrepreneur. At some point I mentioned that I enjoy developing people, and they asked what sort of development I meant.
There is no external reward for investments in development. A portion of development funds will never be recognised as productive by anyone but the portfolio manager.
Development is fraught with political interest ... and the manager's role involves balancing the rates of failure against the elasticities of satisfaction, such that the net result is positive.
Once developed, a subject may choose to maliciously enrich itself at the expense of the developer. That is a common, and ordinary risk. So the developer must be prepared for this also.
Such is the parenting of our peers.
Pavel Durov was arrested on Friday, 24 August, by French authorities. You can read more about him, here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Durov
Broadly, he is being arrested by government agencies seeking to de-privatise ( surveil ) communications between parties on Telegram, one of his technology projects.
My own thoughts on this, below.
--
Heavy sigh. I don't have a preference between legality/illegality of nation-state-supervision over citizen communications.
I would say, for practical reasons, the legality never matters. Whether something is legal, or illegal, the individual will always be incentivised to make private decisions about whether to do it or not to do it. It is a matter of jungle law - might makes right, so nation states can make any laws they want, and individuals will always work around those.
For example, if it becomes well known that the Post Office opens and reads every envelope that passes through the Post Office, then anyone who wishes to keep secrets will simply establish a private network which bypasses the Post Office. This economic fact undergirds all discussion about how much of any public infrastructure ( a Commons ) is made available to activities deemed unwanted by those paying for the Commons. It is precisely the same sort of argument about how many cars to let on the roads, and whether their locations are being tracked by the police at all times, or not.
Related : the only purpose of cryptocurrency technology is to hedge ( derisk ) the control that nation states have over currencies. It's fundamentally governance de-centralisation technology. It is only logical for governments which prefer central control, to oppose this.
