My appeal final page comment on disability application appeal.

(typos preserved)

:

You ignored my previous rep and everything I said in my forms. I don’t know why I’m even bothering typing this. I said a thousand times I have memory issues and can’t use the phone and can’t chase down my records but again and again I get the same robotic requests.

I have yet to get a single human from this process to EMAIL ME to explain.

I deeply resent being asked to complete what amounts to back hand springs and a concert to prove I’ve got CP and clinical anxiety.

I can’t even goto the doctor anymore because they moved my drs office to far to walk to.

You keep asking for names and dates and then completely ignore what I give you and tell you.

Why am I even involved??? When you do a background check on someone do you ask THEM to give you the data??? No!

It’s Kafkaesque to demand that I have the ability to complete this process to prove I have a disability when this process is literally harder than having an office job! I know because I had one once!

You refuse to email me so I have to have a hearing to have my first EVER sit down with someone not paid to simply read off a list of questions at me!

I know you’re gonna reject me, but this is about my peace of mind. I’m gonna be honest and blunt at my hearing. I was polite and tried to play along last time and I DEEPLY regret it.

It was bullshit then and it’s bullshit now and I’m gonna CALL bullshit to preserve what’s left of my own sanity.

I love how even here you put a limit on it. 2000 characters?! REALLY?!

Fine here’s the twitter version of my disabilities: CEREBRAL PALSY, CLINICAL ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION, IRRATIONAL PHOBIAS OF DRIVING AND USING THE PHONE.

You tell me what job I can do for more than an hour a day, or at all, that doesn’t require one or all of those being cured.

Why am I even typing. No one is reading this. Email me at (blocked) to prove me wrong. Or TEXT me at (blocked) No one will.

Veteran Suicides

I don’t think we’re gonna be able to solve the problem until we face some hard truths about what’s going on here.

Guilt is a factor. Why?

Because some of these men know what they have done is wrong, and know what the whole system does is wrong, despite being constantly told by superiors, TV, strangers, and the culture at large that it was right.

They know, better than anyone, because they were there, that they were employed by a vast psychopathic empire for ends little better than profit and dominance, at the cost of GREAT human misery, and they know they did it ultimately for money, or worse, the false promise of money.

How many of these soldiers joined up from a position of financial security? How many did it because there was no realistic alternative in their context?

Our hundreds of bases, 10x military spending, growing domestic austerity (which drives recruitment from poverty crushed neighborhoods,) and alliance with virtually every despot and thug calling himself a head of state, (looking at you Saudi Arabia) adds up to a stark, and apparently taboo, fact.

The vast majority of combat veterans of our era are objectively the bad guy by their own criteria, and yours if you stop making excuses.

And after you train someone to die for a good cause as a prelude to using them for your evil one, it’s really not shocking that many of these duped or desperate people kill themselves once they realize the truth or can no longer endure it.

Being a solider entails the courage to die when it’s the right thing to do. The problem is that so many of these men and women have concluded that time is right in front of them. To stop it we must give them the tools they need to make the counter argument.

We must give them real reasons to live for us, rather than die for us.

Solutions:

#BasicIncome to make the military actually voluntary again as opposed to the economic draft it ends up being in far too many cases. And so that the ones that return can find a way to live in dignity.

#SinglePayer so that the ones that need it can get the help they need without catches and strings and hassles.

Infrastructure repair executed by the military. No one sane argues that the national infrastructure is devoid of national security interest. After all, what would we do if we found Chinese agents bombing bridges, or terrorists attacking the power grid? So why not put all that military spending to a purpose that serves both the national security interest and ours? Give these soldiers something to do they can be proud of. As opposed to something that gives them nightmares.

And most of all, End all the empire building. Gut military spending down to global averages. Make being in the military about defending the nation, not the corporations.

Context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Why the Open Source/Reformer Crowd is Payware’s Lapdog

TLDR: If installing Linux and running Windows programs on it were as easy installing windows and running Windows on that, then Linux would drive windows out of the sector. That’s basic economics.

Wanna crush the payware market? Make superior freeware. Superior by the consumer’s definition, not yours.

It’s just like how legalizing drugs would crush the drug cartels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand#Determinants

If Brand X insulin is just as good, available, and free, then selling Brand Y insulin becomes nearly impossible.

Brand X insulin, freeware OSs, just isn’t aren’t as good in this case. Why they arent as good is a catch 22 at this point. The payware market makes real 100% compatibility impossible because of patented code, but patented code is only possible because the OSS community doesn’t threaten the payware it enables. Coders are collectively bought off. The vast majority of them have dreams of being Steve Jobs when they grow up and have no interest in threatening the system that makes that dream a potential reality.

“You don’t understand. Ferengi workers don’t want to stop the exploitation, we want to find a way to become the exploiters.” ~Rom, DS9

Sidenote: I often wonder if this is partly why scientists are never heads of state. Maybe it’s like herding cats, and they can’t rise to power because of their refusal to cooperate vs the organized predators. I mean isn’t that what really put humans on top? Culture? Which is just shorthand for co-operation?

Similarly, the OSS community’s various brains are all eager to be in charge and refuse to admit when it’s time to copy what works and be team players. It’s like the problem of confirmation in science.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33719/title/Science-s-Reproducibility-Problem/

Everyone wants to discover/invent something new, rather than perfect (confirm) what’s already working.

The ownership model on the other hand solves that problem through force. Like how the Manhattan project corralled said cats with the human equivalent of tuna, cages, and squirt guns. Like how scientists have always been managed through out history. Someone is always running them. Same with coders. Some government or corporation owns all of them. Why?

Anyway, the continued success of Windows is often blamed on consumer holdouts. And brand loyalty but that’s not it, or at least not in the way that’s often implied. It’s not mindless cultish devotion. It’s not even really habit. It’s prudent risk aversion. Just imagine a small business switching over and how difficult, costly, and risky that is. Change is inherently dangerous. Though yes it is also an opportunity.

Windows makes cash partly because of vendor lock, true, but mostly because of ease of use. Linux people spend a lot of time telling everyone how easy Linux is, but having to make that argument exposes the contradiction. Plus the argument implies that everyone who disagrees is simply stupid which is both insulting and false. That also isn’t the best way to make converts.

Imagine however if they went even further and made Linux even EASIER than upgrading or reinstalling windows? Like imagine if I could just boot from a Linux USB and it virtualizes or converts my system and I end up with my Windows in Linux? Ease like that costs piles money and the people spending piles of money constantly choose enterprise closed source solutions.

Believing all those people and businesses are fools is pure self serving dogma.

Here’s the mind numbing complexity in play: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Virtualization_Getting_Started_Guide/

The whole existence of Linux forums is evidence of the demand and the problem. They are thick with threads from various users wanting to do things on Linux they did on windows and can’t under Linux. They are so common it’s a chore to even deal with them. Very rarely does the thread end with “Hey thanks! That completely solved my problem!” Most are unanswered, impossible, or TOUSs (Threadnoughts Of Unusual Size.)

Almost always the answer boils down to “stop wanting what you want and want this instead.” Which granted can be a valid response, but market demand isn’t a function of validity. It may simply be that your choice is change things or be right. That’s disturbing of course. But there it is.

In any case it’s clear to me there’s MASSIVE unmet demand for a true windows/mac alternative, something like Linux XP. (Or Linux versions of every MS and Mac OS.)

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

And while I understand why it doesn’t exist from a technical/legal perspective. (Brain drain and active payware sabotage thanks to licensing and patents.) The facts remains that if it came into existence, it would quickly dominate.

If reformers like the the EFF and Falkvinge and The Pirate Party wanted to really effect change, they need only gut demand for payware by losing the greed and ego of the current OSS community. Herd some cats. Make a Windows killer.

This impasse plays right into the biases on both sides, that all Linux people are haughty high tech scoffing hipsters, and that all Windows/Mac users are mindless hive mind drooling vegetable brains. Neither of which are ever completely true.

Mac also thrives because of the fact that Linux is not near as easy as some fans claim. Any time someone says they have tried they get scoffed at for not trying X flavor with Y desktop. Android vs mac teaches this same lesson. There’s 60 million versions of android, but perceptually only 1 iPhone with a straight chain of upgrades.

The old barb has applied for decades: Unix, so many standards to choose from. If all that brain power united

In any case blaming the consumer sector at all for keeping windows alive, when it’s the enterprise/government money and corporate machines that really run the show. Major university computer departments often use proprietary software. They don’t use Microsoft and payware out of ignorance. These are institutions that often train PHDs in computer science. There’s a reason the UK’s nuclear submarines still run their custom version of XP.

Ubuntu overtly dropped the branding “Linux for people” and started banning people from the forum for commenting on the returning elitist attitude. That was the last time I ever saw a Linux distro even momentarily take the right attitude strategically. But rather quickly they started falling back into the same old reinvent the wheel, shame anyone who complains, model.

For contrast imagine what would happen if an open source machine could play major console games at half the price. Imagine the threat Microsoft and Sony would perceive, and how they would respond. That is what Linux seemingly isn’t even trying to be: A real threat to the model.

And it’s clear imo why. Because all those coders live off that same industry. We don’t have a solid windows killer for the same reason we don’t have a plain english coding language.

The Emperor’s New Quantum Mechanics

Let’s make this perfectly clear. You cannot build a gun which you can point at a photodetector, pull the trigger, and get a single click at the photodetector. Hasn’t been done. Can’t be done. There are no pea-shooters for photons. And there are no pea-shooters for electrons either. ~Marty Green

I’ve always had serious doubts about quantum mechanics.

I’m willing to accept that I’m the one in error but it’s very hard to prove to myself when the answers I get boil down to arguments from authority and deeply esoteric detail quibbling.

Let me break down why one famous experiment strikes me as a huge scam. Whether it is or not I leave to you but I’m telling you how I feel and why no amount of googling helps the feeling.

 

First of all notice how there isn’t any critical perspective in that wiki at all. That should strike everyone as extremely suspect. Everything, especially in science, is subject to doubt. Every entry needs a criticism section imo.

Anyway, in order for this experiment to work things have to be assumed.

Like the electron gun is actually firing single electrons. Look what happens when someone questions that.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-scientists-shoot-one-electron-at-a-time

The answer apparently to how this is done is confirmed by a detector.

But the experiment supposedly proves that the whole concept of “single” is questionable. Particles apparently move as waves and interfere with themselves. How is that compatible with the notion of a single electron? If you just attacked singularity itself then doesn’t that attack the experiment since a critical part of it is the assumed ability to fire single things?

And what if the detector is wrong?

What if we’ve basically closed the loop and created a new religion? By that I mean what if our faith in one of the steps is misplaced and the whole system built on it has become faith based?

Like a tower of perfect logic built on a bad premise. What if our assumptions are basically correct by chance but our detection equipment isn’t detecting anything but our own expectations and biases? Hell, QM itself assert that observation produces external real world changes. Doesn’t that negate the whole notion of objective external reality?

If the mere act of seeing changes external reality then in what substantive way are we separate events?

We obviously can’t see the single electron. Indeed if the experiment is true “single” (a concept that requires assumptions in and of itself about the nature of time for example) electrons apparently can’t even exist. So we use a machine to see it for us. What if we’re misunderstanding what the machine is telling us?

The answer usually boils down to “we aren’t, trust me, I’ve got a degree.” That’s insufficient when getting the degree is contingent on accepting the faith based results in the first place. It’s like taking a vote in a monastery. Never mind that a vote doesn’t change reality. Or does it? If one person seeing has an impact then wouldn’t two people seeing have some approximation of twice that impact? I’m reminded of prayer experiments all of the sudden.

Ok so maybe observation effects don’t work that way, but how exactly DO they work and how is it even possible to do experiments if looking changes things?

What if it’s not possible to send out single electrons? How would we ever know if we built the detector assuming it was? If we assume it’s possible, then build a machine to detect what we assume, we’ll only see what we expect.

Until I hear something new I’m going to agree with Marty Green.

There Are No Pea-Shooters for Photons and everything claiming to have been learned from the assumption that there are is suspect.

Update:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132007/quantum-entanglement-an-illusion-based-on-a-wrong-assumption/224262

I love how all the questions which attack these assumptions are “protected” or locked in the various communities. Questions are so much easier to deal with when you ban asking or answering them.

Update:

This one isn’t.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/239455/spdc-and-single-photon-production

Bernie, Third Parties, and The Sham

Context: http://underlore.com/the-electionfraud-is-real/

Why did Bernie think it was best to work within the Democratic Party instead of starting or joining a third party?

I don’t know what is in his mind but the corruption of 2016 only worked because it was hidden and suspected.

There’s a big difference between cynically asserting corruption and knowing for a fact the entire endeavor is totally false.

With the DNC now admitting they rigged the 2016 primary in open federal court, asserting to do so is totally legal because the DNC is actually a private corporation “doing business as” (a DBA) of “DNC Services Corporation,” things have changed from cynical conspiracy theory or logical inference to indisputably official reality.

It’s now literally public record that the DNC believes it had the right to if it so chose arbitrarily choose a candidate and forgo a primary process entirely. The argument for super delegates being legal is presumably the same.

Search the transcript for the word cigar and you find on page 36:

But here, where you have a party that’s saying, We’re gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we’re gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions.

That has massive consequences. Knowing is different from believing.

Consider for example the absurdity of asserting that Russia should be sanctioned for manipulating an election that the DNC is now asserting was legally a total sham. Because the RNC is a DBA as well. They too presumably would have this legal right to elect whoever why ever and dispense with voting.

That means the DNC is saying that the election for president of the United States is as trivial as a joint poll or contest between the Coke and Pepsi corporations.

Now that argument will either fly or it won’t, but either way now that it’s exposed in federal court, we’ll likely demand that reforms be made as a result of this. Regardless of the outcome of what is ultimately a fairly powerless civil suit. (Powerless in the sense that injunctive relief and/or a check is the best that’s possible as a direct outcome. The judge for example literally can’t order a new set of elections, as far as I know.)

Now, they aren’t saying that they rig all the elections, just that it’s legal for them to do so basically because the DNC is a private corporation that can do whatever it wants legally.

But we all know that isn’t true really, as it’s clearly part of our democracy. At some point the private actions of the private corporation becomes public policy and law. They are trying to get the best of both worlds, all the power and none of the oversight, but it’s not going to work that way. Either reforms will happen (either substantive or merely convincing) or turn out is going to drop into the single digits and the first domino will have fallen.

What won’t happen in my opinion is that this admission causes a third party to become viable because then you’re back with the original problem. They’ll just be a private corporation also. Coke vs Pepsi vs Bob’s Cola.

IMO we’re going to force the DNC and RNC to become the official government things everyone expects them to be and all that that entails. Who knows what that’ll look like or how it’ll play out though.

Bernie knows that like it or not we’re a two party system. Single transferable vote would solve that but until its solved third parties will always be spoilers at best. While the DNC primary might be legally a sham, the various local elections for congress are presumably not. (Though of course that now clearly requires confirmation and scrutiny.)

That means that the answer is still imo not letting the DNC do whatever it wants via #demexit, but to siege the castle and replace the ones that do not govern in our interests.

The One Thing “Red Pill” MRAs Apparently Hate Most: Evidence

TLDR: Inside the Red Pill MRA community, asking the ultra basic first order of business question “is this even real” will get you banned and your comments deleted.

Context: I have made exactly two comments on the entire domain of avoiceformen.com. The first got me scolded and the second got me banned. I can fit both in a single screenshot.

The deleted comment, which got me banned and publicly mocked by two of the sites mods reads:

Did I just get scolded by a mod for daring to express perfectly valid skepticism?

Bravo for undermining the credibility of the entire domain…

Exactly no one moved by this is taking it as a “subjective autobiographical opinion piece” but you, and only after citation was requested.

Expressly because of your response I’m even more doubtful of the story’s veracity with your snarky rush to defend it.

Allow me to be equally snarky: It’s only “autobiographical” if the person exists. If they don’t, then the word you’re looking for is “fiction.”

Now, the fact that I’m even reading this domain should objectively prove I have sympathy for the MRA community. And I totally do. I’ve written about it all over in many contexts. What you can’t find is hidden it because MRAs are hated worse than child rapists, when they aren’t simply asserted to be equivalent and I simply don’t have the courage to publish ALL of my opinions. Sue me.

However, it is pretty clear from the above exchange that while the MRA cause absolutely has merit its advocates are just as logically bankrupt and cowardly as their counterparts on the other side.

The post I’m commenting on in the image above is a very well written piece supposedly authored by a trans (female to male) man and essentially asserts that much of the MRA movement has a point which can not be seen until one is male. That may very well be true and I personally agree. (Though I feel that the fight for men’s rights is low priority at the moment, not because it’s fiction based or because it’s unimportant, but because there are larger more pressing issues and the opportunity cost is too high right now and that many of the issues are symptoms of deeper shared issues.)

However, I find it far more likely that the piece was written by a male with no exceptional experience beyond the realization that simply being a man invalidates his comments in the eyes of society. It’s a sad fact that facts don’t matter. What matters (somewhat) is identity. And I feel it’s likely he forged that for attention.

Essentially in the arena of rhetoric I assume people are lying pretty much by default. I feel this is healthy skepticism. And as such, I asked for some citation on this “Steven” so I could be assured that I wasn’t reading invented propaganda.

The response to my question as pictured above is astonishing.

You have been banned either because you have completely ignored the purpose of this site or for a violation of Comment Policy (derailing). [Ref: 10495]

Additional remarks:

I see what you did here. Manipulative shit hole.

So in response to the mod that banned me: “The purpose of this site” is apparently detached from any evidence, to the point that asking such a basic question as “is this even real” will get you banned and your comments deleted. Derailing? This post is 4 YEARS old. How is asking the simple question above not blatantly on topic? I guess if the topic is blind acceptance and cheerleading for what is starting to really look like a flattering lie, then yeah asking if it’s fiction is pretty distracting.

Sidenote: Manipulative? Is this a conspiracy theory now? I wonder exactly what I am being accused of.

So yeah, there you have it. Don’t EVER ask for even the most basic evidence from a red pill. It’ll only get you banned.