This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “How come people ignore the mathematical proof of God, even when it is so obvious? How did humanity convince itself that the One cannot be proved mathematically?”
A general rule of thumb is when something seems “so obvious” to you, but the rest of the world fails to see what you see, it is incumbent upon you to do what you can to make what is evident to you obvious to others.
You may understand something so thoroughly that it’s evident to you, but you should have no difficulty explaining your observations in ways that will help others see them as you do.
There is one caveat, however, that sometimes things appear apparent only within the context of a misinformed and misperceived delusion.
For example, it may seem obvious that the world is flat because you see a horizon, but your conclusion would be flawed because you haven’t availed yourself of all the evidence that disproves a conclusion you formed in ignorance.
I say this to you because the entire world, believers and non-believers alike, have searched for evidence for thousands of years, yet no one has found any. To make such a claim as to consider obvious the proof that only you see is also to claim you’re more intelligent than most of humanity throughout the centuries. That’s a tall order of intelligence. Your claim of the proof you see as obvious also means you’re claiming to be more intelligent than Plato, Aristotle, Da Vinci, Kant, Socrates, Locke, Aquinas, Nietzsche, Descartes, Newton, Einstein, Galilei, Sartre, Copernicus, Lao Tzu, and thousands of other massive intellects throughout history.
You’re either a supremely knowledgeable human capable of solving numerous issues for humanity, or you’re just being arrogantly delusional.
Consider that whenever you stake a claim on understanding something that no one else does.
If you were that intelligent, you wouldn’t waste your energy making fantastical claims on social media. You would have already been recognized as a keen intellect through whatever writings you composed that show your intellect.
If you were that intelligent, you would already have the answer to your question.
The general rule of thumb for people online encountering such fantastical claims as what you pretend to have great insight into is that you’re a crackpot and will be considered a crackpot until you can prove otherwise.
Considering all of this, it might help you (and possibly others) avoid the public embarrassment one would experience when they soil themselves.
Your claim of the “mathematical proof being so obvious” is roughly the equivalent of peeing your pants in public and claiming it’s liquid gold.
Within a capitalist system, one sells either one’s body or mind, which is called employment.
The only alternative to that is to pay people to use their minds and their bodies to create products that other people buy to generate revenue for them.
That’s right… either you’re a plutocrat with wealth galore and never have to sell yourself to anyone, or you’re a servant for someone else.
Women selling their bodies in today’s society is a very smart economic move because a great deal of money can be made in a very short time that can propel one from being a seller of their body to being a capitalist paying others to make money for them.
Women selling their bodies in today’s society are very pragmatic and have a clear advantage over men in generating revenue.
If you can earn upwards of six figures for a couple of hours per day of on-camera nudity, the problem isn’t women selling their bodies but your disconnect with the capitalist system you’re living within.
IOW, you may want to shame women for making that choice, but it is a choice because men have made it one. It’s not a bad choice because of women. Women choose to benefit financially in ways no longer available to most working-class people.
Perhaps if we paid school teachers more than hedge fund managers, we’d find people aligning their economic decisions more closely with moral values. In a society that steadily strips away economic choice, you can’t complain about the people who choose options you find uncomfortable. After all, they’re chosen as options because living wages no longer are.
What’s truly sad about all of this is how little people comprehend implications that stretch far past the ones that immediately impact them… and that’s not a phenomenon limited to the little people; the captains of industry we rely on for leadership in society are just as bad at failing to see past their navel… possibly even worse than the majority, although, from my biased perspective, they have a greater responsibility to rise to their status.
“To whom much is given, much is asked of in return.”
Stop crapping on the women getting rich from their birth lottery winning because benefitting from birth lotteries is the world we have created.
If you need to crap on something, crap on that.
The women getting rich by making horny incels happy are not the problem in society.
This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “What does the left mean by freedom? When ever I see lefties passing around rankings of the “freeist” countries, inevitably the countries at the top are the type with heavy regulation, heavy taxation, low economic freedom.”
One of the hallmarks of a lack of freedom is ideological thinking that colours one’s perceptions in ways that interfere with one’s apprehension of reality to impede one’s critical thinking skills.
For example, the flawed presumption in this question presumes higher taxation equals less economic freedom when the obvious comparison between the U.S.’s health exploitation system is far more destructive to one’s financial freedom than the taxed version of universal health care offered by every other nation that has succeeded in providing higher quality care at a lower price.
There is no economic freedom when medical bankruptcies destroy lives.
There is no economic freedom for people who pay over one thousand dollars per month for insulin when the rest of the world pays only tens of dollars.
There is no freedom when one is murdered for profit.
There is no cognitive freedom for anyone who divides the world into ideological camps, just as there is no freedom from the mind-destroying forms of bigotry polluting this world.
Within the context of this question, the definition of freedom that addresses it is clarity of thinking, in which the querent proves their mind is so trapped within a toxic paradigm they can’t understand freedom when it’s presented to them in the most unambiguous of terms.
I fully expect this answer to whoosh past the querent’s mind and trigger them into an ideological quandary where they will dismiss these words as an ideological irrelevancy in much the same way that the people who think Donald Trump is an intelligent man are utter idiots.
This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Could taxing Elon Musk and other people with massive fortunes 80% be the solution to paying down the national debt in the USA?”
The answer is quite simple and beyond evident to anyone with eyes and a mind that’s capable of connecting simple dots from a simple table of numbers:
Here are a few points to address regarding regurgitated soporifics routinely employed by the enablers in the crowd.
Taxing the billionaires won’t be enough money. — Well… DUHHH!!!! That’s not the point. The point is multifold, but let’s cover some leading characteristics. a. Force Multiplier and b. Speed of Money
A healthily functioning economy is highly contingent upon “the speed of money flowing” through the system — like arteries in a human body. The more plaque there is that obstructs the flow, the less healthy the system is and the more prone to systemic collapse it becomes. The low tax rates that we have now and that we had leading up to the Great Depression encourage hoarding and are a leading cause of numerous social issues guaranteed to result in a dramatic economic collapse — mainly as automation speeds up.
The more money the bottom end of the economy has, the more demand for goods and services, and the more businesses grow in a feedback loop. Even more beneficial to the economy is that when more people have more resources to invest in themselves and their futures, more innovation is introduced into a system that feeds on innovation to grow.
These two concepts alone, together, make up for what the useful idiots who defend the hoarding billionaires who lack imagination for humanity’s future beyond building space penises fail to account for. It is bloody disheartening that trickle-down stars can so thoroughly blind people and make them so addicted to the taste of billionaire orifices to understand how their misanthropic stupidity is the equivalent of suicidal ideation for humanity.
The graphic above screams the economic solution in our faces.
The lower the taxes =, the more unimaginative parasites and predators horde = the more sociopathically stupid they become =, and the more of a threat to our future as a species they become.
We create laws to mitigate the impact of excessive behaviours because we understand the destructive effects of unrestrained freedom on society. We know that if laws don’t exist to prohibit murder, many more murders would occur. The laws don’t end murder, but they function as a valve on society to mitigate and minimize the impact of widespread murder on society.
We create laws to restrain an entire host of issues resulting from the toxic extremes of human behaviour. Still, for some reason, the notion of building dynasties to rule humanity isn’t viewed as the threat that it is… even when the numbers add up to our extinction.
The main reason the billionaires should be taxed isn’t even economic, at least not quite directly the most important. The main reason they need to be restrained is that if they are not, they will destroy human civilization, and they don’t care because they have enough to build bunkers to ride out the apocalypse.
The people answering this question who are defending the atrocities of unrestrained wealth are as guilty of crimes against humanity as the MAGAts who are guilty of treason against the United States.
An astute argument was raised in response to this post that I’ve included here:
One point I would make is that taxing income and taxing wealth are two completely different things. Elon Musk may be worth $300 billion but that’s his wealth, not his income. If we start taxing wealth, be prepared to start paying taxes on the increased value of your house every time it appreciates in value. Politicians that tell you they would set a minimum of $100 million before taxing are telling half truths. They may set a limit initially but over time that can change. The original income tax was 0.5% of incomes over $1 million. How’s that working out for everyone ?
That argument sounds much like the fearmongering cynicism against raising the minimum wage — inflation will go up, or robots will replace jobs.
The reality is that property ownership is not the same thing as stock wealth, and there’s a fix for that — eliminate the corporate ownership of residential real estate.
Furthermore, the number of tax brackets that exist today is an unrealistic reflection of the historic levels of wealth disparity. For example, there are only seven tax brackets today. I checked to see how many existed during more realistic tax assessments. It was strange that learning how many tax brackets existed historically took more effort to identify than my bias believes it should.
This link below shows that in 1952, there were 28 tax brackets. Eliminating tax brackets benefits only the wealthiest in the land. The more tax brackets, the more granular the taxation rates and the less discriminatory tax rates are to the lower classes, and the more progressive taxes become — as they have always been intended to be. As it stands, the radical reduction of tax brackets has just been a means of waging a class war against the little people by allowing them to skip responsibilities that are inherently theirs while redistributing tax responsibility downward.
This is a leading question. Lumping all “social expectations” into a “freedom bag” produces only “freedumb” — the inability to distinguish between regulating destructive behaviour and encouraging positive behaviour to support the social contract.
Laws against murder can conceivably be considered restrictions on freedom, but they’re also a means of protecting freedom for the victims of predators in society.
There is no universal single-size-fits-all means of parsing this question. It’s just a nonsense question designed to appeal to those who already perceive society as children complaining about having to clean their rooms.
Here’s a counter-intuitive example for people who don’t quite understand the nuances of laws and social expectations.
It can be argued that in a Mad Max dystopia, one has the greatest “amount of freedom” possible because there are no such “restrictions” (parameters) as those in a world where anything goes. The harsh reality in such a case is that what constitutes freedom for some (the powerful) constitutes enslavement for the rest of “society” to a persistent fear of having one’s life snuffed out on a whim.
Sometimes, restrictions produce greater freedoms than would otherwise be the case.
In the art world, for example, the greatest creativity can be produced simply by putting parameters on one’s work and approach to doing one’s work. In a personal case, I restricted my palette to black and white for about half of a semester after being told by an instructor that my colours looked like Disney had barfed them up and onto my canvas.
I struggled with colour and all the many nuances of colour, so I had not developed the nuance of understanding how colours work in balance, just as shapes do in a composition. Removing colour from my palette allowed me to focus on developing harmonies between shapes and finding ways to establish compositional balance without the added complexity of colour as a dimension to throw me off.
That restriction allowed me to understand my work from an entirely different and much more free perspective. I discovered freedoms I did not know existed before my self-imposed colour restrictions.
Society is much like that because it has become so complex it’s difficult to parse which aspect is beneficial and which is toxic. We can no longer live with the simplistic view of the world we once nurtured through symbologies like a difference between white hats and black hats. We live in a world of anti-heroes, and that makes demands on our ability to apprehend nuance through developing critical thinking skills. We must learn to be capable of adequately parsing subtle distinctions that can threaten to transform freedom into subjugation within the slimmest of margins.
People find the freedom to be themselves within their tribal associations but can also find their freedoms stripped by the dogmatic application of tribal expectations.
Another example I’ll take from Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series (which I applied — or interpreted as Japan in the 1980s) was the planet Terminus. Hari Seldon’s group was consigned to a planet that was slim on resources to mitigate the potentiality of becoming a threat. Instead, what happened was that scarcity of resources encouraged their creativity such that over time, they produced faster and more powerful ships that were smaller than the Empire’s massive vehicles.
This means that freedom cannot be measured by its constraints but by the results of the limitations (or parameters) placed upon a society. Those constraints can facilitate freedom when they are balanced between the needs of the many and the individual’s desires.
The mythological free society in a harmonious state of anarchy is a pipe dream founded upon a delusional presumption that all humans value the social good above one’s benefit.
The U.S. is a case study for the ages over just how toxic extreme individualism is. For a nation that pretends to value freedom, its privatized prison population screams to the world how subjugated and servile its society is. The U.S. is so “free” that they allow children to be gunned down in schools, not just once but repeatedly. The U.S. is so “free” that people are killed for profit.
A football game with rules is a dynamic tension that draws engagement from an audience, while football without rules, for example, becomes a chaotic bloodbath that disperses an audience.
This question is a testament to how badly butchered the concept of freedom has become within this modern dystopia.
Perhaps this question should be reworded as “What is freedom?”
Bonus Question and Answer: To regulate and control human behaviour, what do you understand by that?
I understand that too many people think a valid strategy for accomplishing this is imposition and subordination to power under the threat of subjugation.
The positive, proactive, and ultimately democratic means of accomplishing the goals of regulation and control are through the development of a human capacity for self-regulation by encouraging the improvement of emotional management skills bolstered by critical thinking skills while addressing fundamental threats to personhood such as living insecurities and forms of persecution through the repression of rights and freedoms.
Showing people how to achieve their potential is a far more effective means of proactive regulation than the barbarism of reactionary punitive measures. This approach also leads to far more long-term stability in society and a much more engaged citizenry actively working toward supporting the social contract by choice.
We can achieve our potential as a species only by helping all of us to be better rather than forcing conformity to myopic structures made vulnerable by their inflexibility and inability to adapt to an ever-changing universe.
Happy New Year! — Here’s hoping your 2025 is a good one. Thanks for reading.
Well, that’s easy… none of them are (or were) “geniuses.”
All have been sharks in a tank filled with small fish they overpowered and incorporated their value into their own.
In Europe, people are — or were still somewhat considered “people” whose lives held something approximating value — at least enough to not worship greed above their welfare.
The U.S. is unique in that it places profit above human life.
The U.S. is this century’s Rome, while the capitalist system is the equivalent of a gladiatorial pen where the biggest and strongest gladiators suited up with armour mow down victims by the thousands and the crowds cheer all the destruction.
Hell, the crowds get pissed when one of the little people manages to strike back and give the mighty gladiators a humiliating bloody nose. That riles them up and incentivizes them to hate the little people even more while they add more armour and weaponry to the gladiator’s outfits so that they can do more damage.
All three, with some slight exception of Gates, were just smart enough to spot people smart enough to make them rich, and they added them to their gladiator arena to dominate the competition. At the same time, they did everything they could through legal manipulations to weaken their competition.
Ask yourself how it is that an alleged “genius” would forego cancer treatment in favour of new age woo to address a medical condition and die from it. That’s not very “genius-like.”
Meanwhile, Musk proves every day how much of an egotistical buffoon he is while spending $44 billion on the world’s most enormous megaphone to devalue it to such a degree that it’s now worth less than a quarter of its purchase price. Meanwhile, the competition is heating up over which alternative will replace his Xitter.
Of the three, at least Gates puts some effort into helping the most disenfranchised in the world, even if he’s mainly motivated by the potential of new technologies that can become ubiquitous. (His toilet redesign initiative, for example, can potentially transform the world if he succeeds. That’s a level of billions in profit to rival what he got through Microsoft, and it’s also an initiative he’s relying on the genius of others to make manifest. He’s just financing their efforts.)
Even Jobs understood how his “genius” was not “being a genius” but was not getting in the way of real geniuses he hired to profit from.
Musk, on the other hand, is an absolute idiot by contrast because his ego has blinded him to his shortcomings, and he believes, because of his wealth, that he truly is a genius. At the same time, gullible people lap that nonsense up like ice cream.
This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Why are GOP voters suddenly alarmed about Ramaswamy’s and Musk’s stances about H1-B workers compared to locally sourced ones? Weren’t they supporting them and voting knowing that these men would be involved in policy-making directly or indirectly?”
None of their supporters were interested in the sausages their leaders intended to make. All of them have been more wrapped up in being enamoured by the superficial trappings of personality politics.
They voted for Trump because they admire him as a human being, even though he is beyond apparent in his overtly abusive and criminal behaviour.
They believed the only people that Trump, Musk, and their entourage of parasitic human slugs were going to victimize were the people in their imagination that they hated.
They shut their eyes, ears, and minds off to the realities of their words and promises.
I doubt even one of them made the slightest effort to peruse Project 2025 as they dismissed complaints about it as fake news and propaganda.
It’s the same intellectual laziness at play that we see when they make vague references to The Constitution that show they’ve never read it themselves.
They operate purely on instinct, and their instincts tell them to hate the world because they are in pain. Meanwhile, the exploitative parasites in our midst that they trust point out to them who they should hate, and they mindlessly go forth hating the people who are fighting on their behalf to make this a better world for everyone, including them.
They are so lost in the throes of their hatred cult that many will not stop hating their fellow citizens even after significant damage has been done to the nation. They will insist on some nefarious entities, conspiracies, and machinations by their political “enemies within” who are responsible for their policy failures.
If kids get hauled off in cages again, they’re going to rationalize that as a public good in the name of national security. If those kids get sold off to wealthy couples for a profit, they will rationalize that as being a better solution for those kids than being raised by their “filthy illegal parents.”
They will destroy families and lives all over again because they operate on instincts tweaked by paranoia over manufactured fear because the things they should fear are just too overwhelming for them to grasp. It’s much easier to fear and hate defenceless people than to hate the powerful, particularly when they’re all focused on developing sycophantic relationships and worshipping the ground they walk on in the hopes that they, too, will be blessed with unfathomable wealth.
This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Why don’t they outright ban loopholes in modern law? I get how humans are, and how literal laws can be, but still it’s like it doesn’t account for human nature and the laws written for robots.”
This question is like asking why can’t every bluish-coloured pebble of sand on a massive beach be removed.
Loopholes in law are bits of legal logic in which the language can be interpreted in multiple ways. At the same time, some of those interpretations constitute an escape from consequences, also known as a “technicality.”
The only things that can be done are to write laws in such ways as to make their interpretations as unbiased, neutral, and clearly defined as possible and to ensure the spirit of those laws is adequately conveyed within their construct.
Sadly, in a distorted environment where power imbalances influence the construction, application, enforcement, and rendering of decisions based on established statutes, loopholes are a feature, not a bug.
In the corporatocracy known as the U.S., loopholes are intentionally incorporated into laws to allow those with means an ability to access technicalities and avoid accountability for their actions. The highest court in the land has been deliberately shaped to serve the interests of power over and above the interests of the people. The Citizens United ruling would have been much different if that had not happened. The same is true of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
With an organization like the American Legislative Exchange Council, laws are written specifically to benefit the wealthy and disenfranchise everyone else.
Unbiased and neutral laws are impossible to write and enforce within such a toxic and anti-justice environment.
You may get “how humans are,” but few Americans truly understand how dire their circumstances are. With this level of corruption throughout their “justice” system, Americans have no hope of restoring justice without the people mobilizing and “pulling an Iceland manoeuvre in the extreme.” Americans are now well past the point of achieving justice in a just society without severe chaos ruling the land long enough to cull the monsters responsible for the corruption.
In short, Luigi was just the first shot back across the bow by the little people quickly reaching their breaking point. There will likely be riots nationwide before Trump’s term has run its course. Sadly, he’s not the problem, but a symptom of the problem and attacking him won’t solve the core problems. In some ways, he’ll be doing the nation a favour by making it impossible for the people to ignore just how prevalent the corruption issue is.
The MAGAts intuit this on a visceral level, and they voted for the symptom of the problem to deal with the situation. Still, their support is very much like pouring gasoline on a fire to make the apathetic among the nation wake TF up and pay attention to the freedoms they’re allowing to erode and be taken from them.
It is mind-boggling, for example, to outsiders to see a nation struggle to rein in mass murders and establish universal health care. You’ve had movies indulging in revenge fantasies against the corruption, but few of you seem willing to commit yourselves to fixing it. You seem to have settled in with having your children attend school while fearing for their lives and pretending there’s nothing horrifically surreal about that.
Americans are way, way, way past the point of fixing a few loopholes to restore sanity to your nation.
This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Religious books are a lost cause. I’m an atheist, but I’m wondering which religion do you think is the most convincing? Don’t say none of them please.”
As others have pointed out, you’re not an atheist because you think like a believer does when they interpret their “spiritual journey” as a gym membership where their responsibility is limited to picking the right gym.
This is the sort of thinking that doesn’t care about physical health and fitness, nor about whatever benefits might be derived from an adequately customized routine fitting their personal needs in a way that optimally contributes to their development.
This is the sort of thinking that wants to take a pill to get the benefits of heavy lifting without having to do the work.
An atheist will have already sorted through this nonsense to arrive at a point where they understand that picking a religion doesn’t have anything to do with whatever one’s “spiritual journey” might be.
Picking a religion is like choosing between clown costumes to attend a formal affair.
If you were an atheist, you would be interested in the concepts defining the differences between belief systems rather than viewing them as package deals in which to immerse oneself.
If you were an atheist, you would want to know why it is that the “least spiritual” and most blatantly hypocritical and brutally violent religions are three of the most dominant religions on the planet and are entirely products of toxic patriarchy.
Many other religions demonstrate far more respect for life like Buddhism does and without dogmas rooted in barbaric violence.
If you were an atheist, you would not care about “which religion” but about which religious practices and ideals are beneficial and which are toxic to your growth. The notion of joining a team to achieve “spiritual growth” would send chills down the spine of an atheist who is otherwise clear on how utterly destructive such tribalistic thinking is to one’s mental health and personal growth.
The fact that so many believers feel compelled to address their issues through fraudulent representations of themselves is just proof that believers don’t sincerely believe their delusions. They struggle with their doubts, so they feel compelled to overcompensate through fraudulent behaviours. Sadly, they don’t know how to escape their mental prison and see no alternative but to indulge in sinful betrayals of the tenets in their scriptures.
This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Why does the right wing complain about the left wing far more on the internet than the left complains about the right on internet podcasts, etc.?”
I haven’t performed any surveys, nor am I aware of any statistics on the matter. I have, however, noticed a distinct difference between the nature and characteristics of the criticisms levelled.
The “left” generally identifies toxic characteristics from the right that erode or betray the social contract through blatant forms of bigotry, hypocrisy, projections, generic hatred, and unfocused rage.
The “criticisms” from the “right” are generally simplistic accusations one would expect from grade-school children. Very little thought is put into their concerns while choosing to wield broad brushes of hatred that are often confessions disguised as accusations.
I’ve used a broad brush to describe these general differences but am hard-pressed to think of criticisms from the right that are not embarrassments to the concept of critical thinking. It’s not that they don’t exist. They’re so rare that one has to focus on dredging up examples through a mountainous garbage heap of blatantly childish spite that they appear almost entirely non-existent.
Another salient difference between the two polarities is the concern for the victims of horrifically bad policy expressed by the left and a maddening sociopathic disdain and even Machiavellian pleasure taken in the notion of victims of bad policy justified through a lens of righteous indignity.
At almost every step and instance, whenever conservatives talk about the victims of bad policy, they seem to gloat their pleasure over the thought of people suffering needlessly.
Another characteristic that distinguishes political polarities is how willing and eager the right is when defending the 1% responsible for trillions in theft and the destruction of the middle-class quality of life. The right seems entirely oblivious to the causes of their anger and prefers to victimize further the victims of those responsible for their misery. One can only conclude that another characteristic common to conservatives is intellectual cowardice.
They would rather crap on the weakened and easy victims than hold the people responsible for their misery accountable. It’s like watching someone beat up on the victim of a mugging rather than go after the mugger because they’re too afraid of the mugger and would rather cozy up to them while hoping to have a few pennies thrown their way for how well they lubricate their anuses.
The reason why that would be the case is quite simple and referred to as “overcompensating behaviour.” It’s a widespread psychological phenomenon when someone subliminally recognizes the implications of their behaviour and instinctively reacts to mitigate the consequences of their actions.
thotbag 