MAKE MONEY TELLING STUPID PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR, SRSLY.

[Doktor Howl]

I have no idea what the fuck either one of you is talking about.   

I'm not going to try to speak for Nigel.  But to me, calling someone, or a group of people "sheep", is satisfying but doesn't address their behaviour or robotic responses in any positive way which is likely to elicit change.  There have been more rants/riffs lately which don't discriminate between the actor and the action, and while it's not always desirable to precisely delineate between the two, the danger of becoming unbalanced in this regard is to get trapped in ones own rhetoric.

Meh.  I just find it grating.  People won't change at all, so there's no point shrieking about it, or feeling superior about it.

But I don't distinguish between the actor and the action.  Stupid things are done - at least on any consistent level - by stupid people.  Asshole things are usually done by assholes. <--- I am an expert on this last one.  Crooked things are usually done by crooked people.  If that "traps me in my rhetoric", I'll just have to live with it.

On the other hand, I really, really don't like people, especially right now.

[Captain Utopia]

Ah - but you forget, Doktor Howl, I believe that the monkeys can be changed for the better.  This is pretty much why I pined for the loss of the "one-sentence meme-bomb" thread.

[Doktor Howl]

Ah - but you forget, Doktor Howl, I believe that the monkeys can be changed for the better.  This is pretty much why I pined for the loss of the "one-sentence meme-bomb" thread.

1.  The thread is still there.

2.  People haven't changed in 2 million years.  While it is possible that they will change, I am not holding my breath.

[Captain Utopia]

2.  People haven't changed in 2 million years.  While it is possible that they will change, I am not holding my breath.

I pretty much agree, which is why I'm not proselytizing at you.  It's a long shot for a short cut, but if the last few years of "The Devious Plot" project ever come to fruition, there may be an alternative to debate.

[Lies]

And don't claim to respect me when the words you're typing reflect the opposite.

If I didn't respect you Nigel, I wouldn't have taken the time to write out a proper response trying to reason with you.

It seems though, you've made up your mind about what I've had to say about this all and it doesn't take the ability to read minds to know I'm not going to change your mind anytime soon, despite the fact that I truly feel that you judge me wrongly, and it hurts a little that it does but I'm not going to throw a tantrum about it, I'm trying to be as reasonable and respectful of what you say in the most mature way I can muster right now.

If I truly didn't have respect for you, I'd have called you a lot of nasty things would probably try and start a new thread trying to piss you off, and I'm sure I could easily find a lot of ways to start pushing your buttons if I were so inclined to disrespect you.

I'm sorry for equating your response to this having something to do with you not being well as of late, but I was just trying to figure out what the real beef here is.
Because no one else but you seems to think what I'm doing is "sociopathic", and that shit really hurts to hear, considering how many *real* sociopaths I've met who have hurt people I care about, I find it extremely insulting to know that's what you consider me.

In any case, think what you want, I don't feel guilty, I feel hurt, but not guilty, because I'm not a bad person. Eccentric, egotistical and an attention whore, yes, but a sociopath... give me a break.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Don't talk about "trying to reason with you", then, as that also comes across poorly. I have only addressed how your language strikes me. You do not seem interested in changing or defending your language, but rather in changing how I perceive it. I think there is a disconnect there. Maybe it can be remedied, maybe not.

[SuperNull]

Are you capable of understanding the difference between a holy man who builds a congregation around his own belief that he has been granted sacred knowledge by God Himself, and a cult leader who claims to believe they have been granted sacred knowledge to build a congregation for personal gain?

Both may be wrong, but only one is unethical, by virtue of their insincerity.

Call me a cynic, but to me the world makes more sense if you stop making the distinction between these two.
People want to hear convenient stories that make them feel good and are willing to suspend disbelief for those stories to make sense.
Others are compelled to provide those stories.

You can be a sceptical consumer of those stories, knowing that what you are told is not true, but still like the entertainment. You do that when you go watch a stage magician or an SF movie.
You can be a believing consumer. You are that if you believe the fortune teller is really has magic powers.
You can be an exploitive provider. You tell lies just because you hope to profit from it.
You can be a believing provider. You really believe your stories to be true and will help people.

However, reality it is usually a grayzone between these extremes.

The SF movie makers are in it for the money, but they prefer to make something they can be proud of.
The fortune teller may be bullshitting you, but knows it is good for business if his actions really help people.
The politician may actually believe his own words, but knows he has to add some bullshit to spice things up.

The SF movie inspires you because you believe that SOME of what is shown COULD happen in the future.
The fortune made you fell better so you stop being sceptical.
The bullshit politician made people discuss, form groups and rally. This causes people to socialise, exchange ideas and feel purpose.


I used to really REALY hate this effect. If nothing anyone tells in public is bullshit-free  and everyone is fine with self-deception then society can go fuck itself, right?
I guess I still fell like this a bit, but I see that there is no point in arguing with how evolution made us.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Are you capable of understanding the difference between a holy man who builds a congregation around his own belief that he has been granted sacred knowledge by God Himself, and a cult leader who claims to believe they have been granted sacred knowledge to build a congregation for personal gain?

Both may be wrong, but only one is unethical, by virtue of their insincerity.

Call me a cynic, but to me the world makes more sense if you stop making the distinction between these two.
People want to hear convenient stories that make them feel good and are willing to suspend disbelief for those stories to make sense.
Others are compelled to provide those stories.

You can be a sceptical consumer of those stories, knowing that what you are told is not true, but still like the entertainment. You do that when you go watch a stage magician or an SF movie.
You can be a believing consumer. You are that if you believe the fortune teller is really has magic powers.
You can be an exploitive provider. You tell lies just because you hope to profit from it.
You can be a believing provider. You really believe your stories to be true and will help people.

However, reality it is usually a grayzone between these extremes.

The SF movie makers are in it for the money, but they prefer to make something they can be proud of.
The fortune teller may be bullshitting you, but knows it is good for business if his actions really help people.
The politician may actually believe his own words, but knows he has to add some bullshit to spice things up.

The SF movie inspires you because you believe that SOME of what is shown COULD happen in the future.
The fortune made you fell better so you stop being sceptical.
The bullshit politician made people discuss, form groups and rally. This causes people to socialise, exchange ideas and feel purpose.


I used to really REALY hate this effect. If nothing anyone tells in public is bullshit-free  and everyone is fine with self-deception then society can go fuck itself, right?
I guess I still fell like this a bit, but I see that there is no point in arguing with how evolution made us.

I like this new poster!

[The_Professor]

I was a telephone psychic for a month, did tarrot reading and everything, went to the class even got the cert. I had a typical call ratio of 45 minutes (people were paying 300 bucks at 5 bucks a minute to talk to me, I got 1.25 a minute) I assume most of em were hospice workers (think about it) or people living in other people's houses, yeah you can earn a lot of money doing it... but nothing would ever make me want to go back... talking to the most dim people on earth, 8+ hrs a day... I didnt care what they were paying any more, nothing was going to get me back on that phone with them, nothing...  its like they were mind raping me and I had to pretend how excited I was about it.

[Telarus]

Corporate Demonology ITT.