Through the vagaries of the Internet, this article proposing new punctuation marks floated across my section of the aether. While the article is satire, the underlying issue of miscommunication is very real. In the spirit of which, I’d like to propose three useful signifiers of my own. …
Society is a system of compromises and balances. Fundamentally, it exists because a group accepts the benefits of scale outweigh the loss of individual freedoms. However, the balance sometimes appears off, and proposed solutions can seem to tilt it the wrong way. This often leads to two sides – each of which can justify their stance – arguing over which set of ethical rules is “more” ethical and an eventual “losing” side. Perhaps, instead of trying to rank these competing arguments, we should be looking not at the imbalance itself, but at the factors that feed into it. …
Part of dealing with the toxic areas of society is accepting that weakness or doubt isn’t immoral. That saying we aren’t perfect can be a greater display of strength than donning a mask of false functionality. Another part is to celebrate our commonality. Which is why In Music We Trust‘s fusion of supportive messages and love of music resonates with me.
I’m not being compensated for this; in fact, as someone who got through some dark times in their youth by playing some tunes a little louder than usual, this could be seen as paying it on.
As everyone other than the US Government has at the moment, I’ve been discussing solutions to the continuing spree murders in the United States. During one thread, someone who espoused the view that gun ownership isn’t even a contributing factor asked what they were supposed to do to stay safe if they didn’t have guns. The answer to me seemed rather clear. …
I’m fortunate enough not to have any allergies or intolerances that might kill me. However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t just someone else’s problem. …
Earlier this morning, there was a thread in one of my social media digests about trespassing to save a pet. As is common on the internet, the conversation shifted back and forth, becoming more complex and diffuse as opinions on the reasonableness of certain behaviours mixed with opinions on their legality, and with opinions on how reasonableness affect legality. While the answers were valid in themselves, they suffered from the implied (or in a few case explicit) presumption that crimes are a single question: either you are innocent or you are guilty. While this might be true in one sense, courts treat getting to that point as a process rather than a single question, with responsibility for parts of the process shifting between parties to the case. As I believe it’s useful for everyone to have a clearer understanding of how legal systems work, I set an overview below. …
Found this an interesting introduction to one theory of how the mind forms our response to a situation. Ironically for something that talks about prior experience causing flawed assumptions, my initial disagreement was due to Feldman Barrett using certain terms differently from how I would without defining them first.
Following each new story of a famous person feeling harassed or a person feeling harassed by a famous person*, a new wave of claims that the calls for improvement will make it next to impossible for people to have physical contact with each other. Fortunately, it is not only possible but relatively easy to both respect other people’s boundaries and express closeness. …
It’s the start of another arbitrary division of a time dimension, so there are plenty of posts from people committing to do something or suggesting ways others might have a higher chance of succeeding at achieving that something. And plenty of people asking whether others have made any resolutions and what they are.
In the spirit of efficiency – for is not a great way to find time for a new adventure to save time in other areas – I shall endeavour to address everything in a single post.
This year, as previously, I aspire to pulling off “…a track that’ll result in everyone getting exactly the kind of world they want. Everyone including the enemy.” (King Mob to the Marquis de Sade’, Arcadia #4′, The Invisibles)
Not the brutal revolution of the Wheel of Fortune where the rich and powerful are torn down to be replaced by a new group of powerful and rich revolutionaries, but the natural revolution of time perceived emotionally as a flow between states that will come again.
And of course, because it’s inspired by post-realisation King Mob, I’ll be seeking to do it with style.
One of the common battle lines in the (not)war for equality, is ‘privilege’: on one side the division of society into equality haves and equality have-nots; on the other the stories of white men who are stuck in a poverty not of their own making. The arguments of both sides can be compelling, yet they can’t both be true. Or can they …?
