So, this is actually pretty impressive

Rummaging in the Debian repositories.
Found an application called QTM which is essentially an application for writing/publishing blog posts “offline” (IE: without having to use the “post to my blog” applet).

This is actually pretty cool, because I genuinely like the minimalism of the interface, and also the fact that I can compose/edit posts in a thorough fashion.

Don’t get me wrong: I’ve concluded that approximately 90% of the content on most blogs (and the vast majority of “websites”/social media in general), is fluff. Nobody gives a shit what you had for breakfast 3 days ago.

To be honest, this goes for my own efforts at blogging as well.

I mean, seriously: how many times can I blog about the “geography of religion”, or Karl’s idiocy, or how much my “blood-kin” suck – and still expect it to be at all interesting?

Not as often as you’d think.

Worse yet, the fact that I blog about the above issues doesn’t translate into anything actually chainging, about them:

1. 99% of the global population will still continue to merely ape and parrot their religious “beliefs” and “practices” from others – as opposed to actually bothering to think them through rationally. (Regrettably, Emotional blackmail “works”, far too frequently.)

2. If my “blood”-kin actually gave a shit aboutt my views/values, (or even just about me as a person), they wouldn’t have mistreated me they way they did, in the first place.

3. Same goes for Karl: if he was either willing – or able – to be better, then he would do so – without me complaining about it on the blog.

So, what the hell am I doing, exactly?

Same objections obtain in relation to broader sociopoligical issues: Trump voters are stupid/gullible/racist/xenophobic/sexist etc. – and nothing I post to this blog (or anywhere else) will magically change that.

So, there’s the ironic thing:

I’ve simultaneously figured out how to make the process of “blogging” easier – and also realized that most of what I’ve been “blogging” about was utterly pointless.

On some level, I guess my reasoning with this blog has to do with it being a “cautionary tale”: about the perils of mindlessness and enabling one’s own destroyers.

Thing is: no matter who this blog manages to ‘reacdh”, it will NEVER be those who caused the problems in the first place.

“Conservatism” keeps getting stupider

So, I’ve taken to periodically visiting this site calling itself “chicks on the right”.

From what I can gather, it is what happens when Right-wingers attempt to be “relevant”.  I’ve never been able to take the whole “generation gap” thing seriously: bigoted, racist, sexist, would-be-theocrat trash have existed in every “generation” – as have their cognitive and moral betters (those who at least attempt to be less sexist/racist/theocratic, etc.)

so, strictly speaking, it’s not a “generational” thing: there may be a (slightly) different distribution-curve among various “generations”, but ignorance/bigotry itself is entirely possible – even to “millenials”.

Here’s what I find so laughably infuriating about when self-described “Conservatives” try to disguise the fact that they are reactionary idiots:

“Conservatism” isn’t a coherent ideological position.  It is merely an attempt to ‘defend” whatever social/political/economic structures happen to have become “traditional” in a given area, at a given point in time.

As such, “Conservatism” can pretend to be about “individualism”, or “personal responsibility” or suchlike buzz-words, but so long as it insists on attempting to defend “traditional” roles/structures, the “individualist” pose will continue to be that – a pose.

It will also always ring hollow to anyone capable of even minimal honesty.

For example: you can’t claim to be for “individualism”, if you attempt to enforce (for example) “gender”-roles on any segment of the population.

I’m going to be blunt here: it might be (comparatively) rare, but it is entirely possible for (say) females to enjoy/be good at stuff outside their “traditional” gender-role.  For example: STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_scientists_before_the_20th_century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_in_mathematics

So, “Conservative” (read: reactionary/sexist) twaddle attempting to “enforce” women’s traditional role (domestic drudge/breeding machine) is utterly indefensible.

Exceptions CANNOT “prove” a rule – they can merely DISPROVE it.

(Yes, I am fully aware that the “prove a rule” phrase is widely misused.  The “original meaning” – where “prove” is essentially synonymous with “to test”, has essentially been lost over time, to the point where in daily parlance, the expressions “means” something exactly opposite to its original “true” meaning.)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

At any rate, when bigoted filth resort to psychological pressure (or physical force) to get others to “keep their place” – their antics are utterly indefensible.

Which brings me to “Conservative hipster” bullshit like “chicks on the right”.

Any attempt by “Conservative” women to be anything other than mere domestic drudges/breeding machines, is a tacit repudiation – and DISPROOF – of the “traditional” gender-role Conservatives want to enforce on women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly

 

At any rate, it is amusing when Right-wing women (who self-describe as “chicks”, no less) – are permitted by their husbands/fathers, to deviate from the Kinder, Küche, Kirche”  “gender”-ghetto, to engage in “social” commentary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder,_K%C3%BCche,_Kirche

In among the typical Right-wing whining about how “Western Civilization” is (purportedly) “collapsing”, you very occasionally find instances which conclusively demonstrate the fact that the vast majority of “Conservatives” are both ignorant and bigoted.

Here are two of the most obvious examples:

http://www.chicksontheright.com/police-officers-ordered-remove-bible-verse-police-cars/

(TL;DR: one of the “Chicks” is whining about the fact that police officers somewhere in Flyover country have been ordered to remove decals containing a bible verse from their police vehicles.  As per usual, the precious little JesusFlake gets all petulant about this – although she does manage to actually avoid claiming that this is an instance of “persecution” of Christians – which has basically become the “go-to” whine for special little JesusFlakes, since the Supreme Court decision on marriage equality):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis

Now, the beautiful part is: this whiny little article (and all such “Conservative” whimpering) was neatly “chick”-slapped by the first commenter, as follows:

I know this will bring flack but they are completely correct in having them removed… at least the verse reference. Law enforcement works for the state. Having a bible quote on an official vehicle used by officers of the state implies that the state endorses a religion which in turn implies establishment. The only two remedies are either to remove it or include quotes from every religion which is impractical.
I know Christians don’t like or accept this but what would you say if instead they used “God defends those who are true – The Quran 22:38 (Surah al-Haj)” on their cars? Be careful how you answer.

Now, here’s the beautiful thing about the above:

“Conservatives” are stuck in an insoluble bind with the above-quote — if they’re honest.

Either:

  1. They admit that they would find the Quranic verse offensive – simultaneously conceding BOTH the virtue of “separation of church and state” AND tacitly coming out as would-be theocrats (Because some “sacred” texts are “more sacred than others”, doncha know)

Oh wait, there’s really no other alternative to the above course, my mistake. 🙂

See, this is the blatant double-standard: They want to be able to SHOVE their religion – and its associated texts – down everyone else’s throats.  At the same time, they would SHIT THEMSELVES EN MASSE, if (say) a Muslim group engaged in EXACTLY their tactics.

(“Whaaat?   An Imam came to the school, had an explicitly religious assembly which the students were FORCED to attend -and then handed out free copies of the Qu’ran?  How DARE they?”)

https://www.au.org/church-state/may-2012-church-state/people-events/%E2%80%98junkyard-prophet%E2%80%99-brings-fundamentalist-rant-to

(Repeat after me: “Four legs good! Two legs BAAAAD!”)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm

So anyway, Hags on the right fail, on that count. 🙂

 

Another abysmally stupid “article” concerns some guy in England who is currently cohabiting with two women.  They consider themselves  a “throuple” (three-couple).

Now, predictably, Ignorant hags on the right is utterly apoplectic, because “The Bible” (or was it Leave it to Beaver) tells us that “traditional” marriage involves “one man” and “one woman”.

Anyway, someone in the comments section (correctly) pointed out that polygamy (one man, several wives) is infinitely more “traditional” than the (purportedly) “traditional” marriage the “Chicks” where whining about – even being mentioned repeatedly in what is (supposedly) Right-wingers’ total-fave book, “The” Bible.

predictably, this didn’t go well – because “Conservatives” are genuinely too stupid to actually think through the implications of whatever they happen to be culture-warring about at any given millisecond.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/10/the-myth-of-traditional-marriage

The “Chick”-slap in the Reason article is THIS gem:

America has always been trailblazer of the future, not custodian of the past. So opposing same-sex marriage on grounds of tradition is a chancy proposition.

But this approach has another major flaw: What conservatives regard as traditional marriage is not very traditional at all. It’s radically different from what prevailed a century or two centuries ago. And if you want to talk about “thousands of years,” you’ll find that almost everything about marriage has changed.

The biblical King Solomon, after all, was a dedicated polygamist, with 700 wives. Monogamy has always been the norm in Christianity, but not as part of a marriage of equals.

The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone explained, “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law; that is, the very being or legal existence of a woman is suspended, or at least incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection, or cover she performs everything.”

Women generally couldn’t enter into contracts without permission from their husbands. In legal status, they were a notch above sheep and goats. In America, it was not until well into the 19th century that states began to grant married women something resembling full property rights.

Even then, marriage had attributes that traditionalists would like to forget. Husbands who forced themselves on their wives were not guilty of rape, since they were legally entitled to sexual access. Contraception was forbidden in many states. Only in 1965 did the Supreme Court decide that such laws “violate the right of marital privacy.”

The ideal of marriage enshrined in the 1950s reflects a myopic nostalgia for a phase that didn’t last. The 1960s brought no-fault divorce, which allowed wives as well as husbands to dissolve their bonds without proving some terrible transgression by the spouse.

This was an earthquake, causing unprecedented numbers of unions to collapse. A writer for the conservative Family Research Council said that under no-fault divorce laws, marriage became “nothing more than notarized dating.” Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage said their effect was nothing less than “the abolition of marriage.”

In a sense, she’s right. But you don’t see many conservatives trying to repeal no-fault laws in the name of “traditional marriage.” Gallagher misses the more fundamental point: This institution is not something passed down unaltered from generation to generation, like the family silver. It is continually in flux, taking forms that would surprise our forebears.

So, no: “Conservatives” don’t give two liquidy shit about “tradition” OR “Individualism”.

Polygamy is way more “traditional” than either monogamy-in-general or the Leave it To Beaver caricature of monogamy that gets Right-wingers all misty-eyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

So, no.  whatever passes for “Conservatism” at any given point in time is nothing but the (futile) attempt to cobble together an “ideology”, to cover up a mix of distorted “nostalgia” and total ignorance.

The above observation goes a long way toward explaining why the (modern) “Conservative movement” began with folks like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater, and is ending with barely-verbal wreckage like Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Michelle Bachman, Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, etc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/the-birth-of-the-stupid-p_b_10127988.html

So, yeah: Chicks on the right is definitely giving Conservatism “a makeover” – making it look even more ignorant and panic-stricken than it already does.

 

My “mother” manages to combine stupidity and narcissism. The results are predictable:

Back when I used to pretend to “respect” my “mother”, she tended to say blatantly stupid things, and then get offended when we didn’t all just nod and smile, and pretend to “respect” her views.

A perfect example of this was when she talked about having visited a World War II museum, where she encountered some of the anti-“Jap” propaganda from that era.

Her comments on this demonstrate just exactly how lacking in self-awareness she has always been:

  1. She remembered the propaganda from her childhood.
  2. She (grudgingly) admitted that the racist caricatures etc.  were “exaggerated”.
  3. She also talked about some relative who had married a guy who happens to have “oriental” ancestry of some kind.  Mom pretends to be courteous to the guy – to his face.  (Part of her “keeping up appearances” schtick.)
  4. She not only talked shit about the aforementioned “oriental” behind his back (and about his wife), but chastised herself for doing so – on the grounds that “God” was probably “confronting” her with her own bigotry toward “orientals”, by having that relative marry an individual of that ancestry.

In other words, the (unnamed) relative and her “oriental” husband were both reduced to mere means whereby “God” could (unsuccessfully) attempt to “teach” my mother some sort of “lesson”.

You think I’m reading too much into this?  I don’t think so — not given the fact that my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother has always espoused virulently racist and vicious bullshit.  My “mother” is the proximate cause of his racism.

Of course, she fails to comprehend this fact – because she is unwilling to admit that there is any similarity to her bigoted opinion of “orientals” and the (equally bigoted) rantings of my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother with regard to ‘niggers” and “kikes”.

The only real “difference” between my idiot, heron-addict half-brother and my “mother” is:

  1. He is either too honest (or too stupid) to be able to CONCEAL his racism
  2. He happens to be bigoted against different demographic collectives.

That’s it: SHE (and my other relatives), systematically trained him to become the racist pig he became

Yet another reason why I am incapable of “respecting” her: she systematically trained her Special Little junkie psychopath to become racist trash – and is incapable of acknowledging that fact.

 

 

 

Another reason I find racism incomprehensible:

Here’s the thing about racism (specifically, the uniquely “American” variant, involving Blacks being “owned” by Whites):

The fundamental conceit “justifying” the enslavement of Blacks was the notion that they were basically sub-human.  Basically, all “Racialist” rhetoric tends to treat Blacks as a sort of near-human ape, which just happens to be more trainable than, say, chimps.

Hence all the fucked-up pseudo-science about brow-ridges, and “racialist” humor where Black women are called “She-boons”, and other ass-hattery of that same kind.

So anyway, Blacks were systematically dehumanized, and explicitly viewed as a non-human animal.

Now, here’s the truly idiotic part: by the “logic” of their own socioeconomic system, whenever a “White” owner raped a female piece of “property”, he was doing the equivalent of FUCKING A SHEEP.

This is what has always boggled my mind about racist trash: their entire ideology revolves around implicitly – or explicitly – viewing Non-Whites as essentially subhuman — but a significant amount of them somehow can’t hamage to refrain from committing the equivalent of bestiality.

Hence, the “need” for bullshit like the “one-drop” rule, and the “brown bag” test, and suchlike.

I don’t get it: slave “owners” were (at least by their own “logic”), basically fucking a beast of burden.

And yet, modern-day “White Power” pukes pretend to be morally upstanding?

I could maybe take modern-day racist trash more seriously, if they’re (ideological and/or physical) ancestors had been able to keep it zipped.

Quite frankly, I hope this post is “offensive” (to racists).  I am incapable of anything other than contempt for them.   I guess a fairly significant amount of it derives from my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother, but you know what they say: if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen ’em all.

Right, Goober?

Karl’s *true* motivation behind the “computer museum”:

Karl has been fantasizing about a “computer museum” as long as I’ve known him.

At first I thought that this was merely a particularly flimsy rationalization for compulsive hoarding.   Now, I’m beginning to think his motivations are both more complex, and infinitely uglier:

The story and metaphor of The Dog in the Manger derives from an old Greek fable which has been transmitted in several different versions. Interpreted variously over the centuries, the metaphor is now used to speak of those who spitefully prevent others from having something that they themselves have no use for. Although the story was ascribed to Aesop’s Fables in the 15th century, there is no ancient source that does so.

……..

The short form of the fable as cited by Laura Gibbs is: “There was a dog lying in a manger who did not eat the grain but who nevertheless prevented the horse from being able to eat anything either.”[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_in_the_Manger

Where does Karl fit into this?

Well, for starters, he knows that the “computer museum” will never happen (barring a string of outright miraculous events).  His rickety shit-bucket of a jeep is barely drivable, so he cannot even get over to the storage units to sift through the “collection” – even if he wanted to do so.

Karl is stupid, but even he can’t help but recognize the fact that he will never be in a position to do anything with the “collection”.

A sane person would use the (few) good items from the “collection” to generate seed-funding to get him the hell out of that area.  Purportedly, Karl can “just walk into” pretty much any tech-related job – if he could manage to escape Pennsylvania.

Therefore, a sane person would have come to regard the storage-units as a stone around his neck, in that he can neither organize or transport the contents.

At this point, Karl’s motivation amounts to “I can’t do anything with the stuff – but at least I *have* it!!!“.

IN other words, he continues to hoard the stuff NOT because he actually believes that the “computer museum” will ever happen – but merely to prevent anyone else from getting access to the hoard.

If he really gave a shit about “educating people about the history of microcomputers” or suchlike, he could donate the collection to one of several computer museums which actually exist. (Assuming, of course, that any of the stuff is actually good – which is exceedingly unlikely, given Karl’s tendency toward negligence and anti-effort.  (e.g. the rusty tube-tester, the Yaesu Vx-7 which ended up damaged because he “accidentally” forgot to remove the batteries, the boxes of water-damaged textbooks, etc.)

Karl is a half-wit who has most likely managed to damage or destroy the contents of his “collection”.  The worst part is: he would rather do so, than have LEGITIMATE collectors/museums gain access to the hoard.

In principle, Karl’s antics are no different from the following video:

The only real “difference” between Karl’s antics and the above video is: at least the guys in the video had FUN destroying the machine.

Karl’s destruction is by way of mere negligence.

 

Goober the bigot thinks I’m “anti-family” because I refuse to continue being victimized

I’ll put this out here:  My problem isn’t (primarily) with the SOCIAL CONSTRUCT known as “family”.  My main problem is with CONSANGUINITY.

(Sorry, Goober: I just can’t help using polysyllabic  – er, I mean “Big” – words.)  Sadly, there’s just no way to “dumb it down” enough for you to understand it.

Let me make it easier for any bigoted trash who might be reading this blog:

Your “blood”-fetish is ridiculous.  I have more respect for  people who pretend to be “vampires” IRL, and drink each other’s blood – because at least they are openly idiotic.

Your particular brand of idiocy is common enough (albeit in an attenuated form), to be – at least somewhat – socially acceptable.

Quite frankly, If I took your “blood”-related superstition seriously, I would have no choice but to experience both acute and chronic embarrassment because of my “blood” relatives back in PA:

My (drunken, woman-chasing) “father”

My (enabling/emotionally-abusive, manipulative) “mother”

My idiot, heroin-addict half-brother

The gaggle of “half-siblings” in Virginia)…..

You get the idea.

IF I took your idiotic superstition seriously, I would have no choice about whether or not to continue to allow the aforementioned individuals’ antics to impact me, negatively.

Guess what?  Among many other reasons, I live several States away from them, so as to keep DISTANCE from their idiotic bullshit.

Now, I can understand why people would buy  into your idiotic little “blood”-fetish; it allows – hell, ACTIVELY ENCOURAGES – vicious semi-human filth to fuck up their OWN lives, and never face the consequences, because they can rest secure in the fact that they’ll be able to manipulate/badger/cajole/guilt-trip their “blood-kin” into suffering the consequences.

(This is also the gimmick at the base of so-called “unconditional” love)

At any rate, were I to take your “blood”-fetish seriously, that would necessarily involve reducing myself to the status of perpetual victim/prey   – to the most negligent and predatory of my “blood-kin”.   (Specifically, my idiot, heroin-addict half-brother, and his primary Enabler/apologist, my ‘mother’).

But guess what?  THEY DON’T DESERVE it.

My ‘mother’ was particularly brazen in her double-standards.  She was always obsessed (to the point of absurdity) with what they “neighbors” might think – so she went to ridiculous lengths to put up a good “front”.

The thing that i can’t wrap my mind around is: if you’re going to put up a good “front”, why not just DO SOMETHING TO ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM?

If she had simply kicked the junkie psychopath to the curb, the constant stream of tantrums, theft, lying, physical/emotional abuse, threats etc. would have ceased.  He would have actually had to confront the fact that he was a morbidly-obese, chainsmoking heroin-addict, who could just barely manage to read at a 4th grade level.

But, no.  That wasn’t what happened.  Instead, the worthless anthropoid continued to guilt us all into continuing to be victimized by him, by means of exactly the line of “reasoning” you tried (ineptly) to invoke in the comment(s) I deleted.

The thing is: if “but, we’re ‘blood-kin'” is your only ‘argument’ – you have none.”

“But, we’re family!” is nothing more, less or other than the desperate shriek – the tantrum – of an individual who is (otherwise) irremediably fucked (typically, because their own stupidity has finally “come home to roost”), is unwilling to actually get his or her shit together, knows that none of their “friends” would actually tolerate their antics – and is counting on the (regrettable) fact that it is still possible to “cash in” on the fact that most people are still too stupid as to privilege “kin” other others – no matter their antics.

So, no.  to paraphrase a well-worn truism, “family” is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I refuse to play that game.

I am also resolved never the stop foot within 100 miles of a certain section of PA – specifically for that reason.

That particular shit-stain can find other victims.