I'm just like you guys! Once a week, I like to slip into a deep , existential depression where I lose all my sense of oneness and self worth! Haha! And what I like to do to assure myself that I am unique and not just one of many small, white, indistinguishable, perfectly cylindric checker pieces in Jesus and Satan's Backgammon game is...

♫♫ There's a creepy old man
fishing in the park
and the only problem is ♫♫

♫♫ He tied a candybar
to the end of his line
he's tryin' to catch a kid ♫♫

Bo Burnham again

Here's my Tumblr.


Are you on Tumblr?

Do you like furry smut?

Good, follow me, I update nearly every day so enjoy it.

https://www.tumblr.com/blog/nekkofox

"I want to beat you to death with a blunt object.
I want to grab one of those high end fashion mannequins by the ankles and bash your rib cage in.
I want to sharpen fifty pencils, bind them with a rubber band, stick the lead into your mouth and punch the erasers.
I want to strap you to a bed of nails, then strap that bed of nails to the hood of my car so I can watch you suffer as we drive over speed bumps in a mall parking lot during an earthquake.
I want you to somehow survive a terrible car crash then somehow not survive a small fender bender on the way back from the hospital."

"Dad" by Bo Burnham

I. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
II. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
III. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
IV. Every person has the right to control over their body.
V. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
VI. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
VII. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think
about their perspective.
VIII. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
IX. There is no one right way to live.
X. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

“There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man.”


― Patrick Rothfuss, The Wise Man's Fear

Don't use the term "cultural appropriation" because the word "culture" is from the Latin "cultura" and the word "appropriate" is from the Latin "appropriatus" so if you use those words you're stealing the culture of the Romans kthxbai uwu

If you believe women suffer systemic wage discrimination, read the new American Association of University Women (AAUW) study Graduating to a Pay Gap. Bypass the verbal sleights of hand and take a hard look at the numbers. Women are close to achieving the goal of equal pay for equal work. They may be there already.

How many times have you heard that, for the same work, women receive 77 cents for every dollar a man earns? This alleged unfairness is the basis for the annual Equal Pay Day observed each year about mid-April to symbolize how far into the current year women have to work to catch up with men's earnings from the previous year. If the AAUW is right, Equal Pay Day will now have to be moved to early January.

The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that when you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing. The 23-cent gap is simply the average difference between the earnings of men and women employed "full time." What is important is the "adjusted" wage gap-the figure that controls for all the relevant variables. That is what the new AAUW study explores.

The AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, "We are still trying to figure that out."

One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." In the past, women's groups have ignored or explained away such findings.

"In fact," says the National Women's Law Center, "authoritative studies show that even when all relevant career and family attributes are taken into account, there is still a significant, unexplained gap in men's and women's earnings." Not quite. What the 2009 Labor Department study showed was that when the proper controls are in place, the unexplained (adjusted) wage gap is somewhere between 4.8 and 7 cents. The new AAUW study is consistent with these findings. But isn't the unexplained gap, albeit far less than the endlessly publicized 23 cents, still a serious injustice? Shouldn't we look for ways to compel employers to pay women the extra 5-7 cents? Not before we figure out the cause. The AAUW notes that part of the new 6.6-cent wage-gap may be owed to women's supposedly inferior negotiating skills -- not unscrupulous employers. Furthermore, the AAUW's 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count "social science" as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors.

Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." Says Furchtgott-Roth: "So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That's not a comparison between people who do the same work." With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most.

Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. However, with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination. And as economists frequently remind us, if it were really true that an employer could get away with paying Jill less than Jack for the same work, clever entrepreneurs would fire all their male employees, replace them with females, and enjoy a huge market advantage.

Women's groups will counter that even if most of the wage gap can be explained by women's choices, those choices are not truly free. Women who major in sociology rather than economics, or who choose family-friendly jobs over those that pay better but offer less flexibility, may be compelled by cultural stereotypes. According to the National Organization for Women (NOW), powerful sexist stereotypes "steer" women and men "toward different education, training, and career paths" and family roles. But are American women really as much in thrall to stereotypes as their feminist protectors claim? Aren't women capable of understanding their real preferences and making decisions for themselves? NOW needs to show, not dogmatically assert, that women's choices are not free. And it needs to explain why, by contrast, the life choices it promotes are the authentic ones -- what women truly want, and what will make them happier and more fulfilled.

It will not be not easy for the AAUW and its allies to abandon the idea of systemic gender injustice. AAUW officials are trying mightily to sustain the bad-news-for-women narrative. According to "Graduating to a Pay Gap" publicity materials, "The AAUW today released a new study showing that just one year out of college, millennial women are paid 82 cents for every dollar paid to their male peers. Women are paid less than men even when they do the same work and major in the same field." Many journalists seem to have read and reported on the AAUW's press releases rather than its research.

That is the hype. Look at the numbers.

gr8 b8 m8 im str8 ir8
no h8 i r8 8/8 & congatul8

audemus patriam nostram defendere

we dare to defend our homeland

Though not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use on humans, obsidian is used by some surgeons for scalpel blades, as well-crafted obsidian blades have a cutting edge many times sharper than high-quality steel surgical scalpels, the cutting edge of the blade being only about 3 nanometers thick. Even the sharpest metal knife has a jagged, irregular blade when viewed under a strong enough microscope; when examined even under an electron microscope an obsidian blade is still smooth and even. One study found that obsidian incisions produced fewer inflammatory cells and less granulation tissue at 7 days, in a group of rats. Don Crabtree produced obsidian blades for surgery and other purposes, and has written articles on the subject. Obsidian scalpels may currently be purchased for surgical use on research animals.

Obsidian is neat.

Men, just like women, face issues at home, at work, and in the law. It’s just that whenever they try to raise awareness of a gender-specific problem, many extreme feminists belittle it and sweep it under the rug. It’s a competition of who has the bigger scar, and feminists will always win simply because they paint themselves as the perpetual victim. On a global scale, women most assuredly have it worse. In first world countries like the U.S. and Europe, however, matters of equality have been trivialized with false-rape accusations (squandering court resources, destroying lives, and taking attention away from real victims), sweeping aside male issues (such as laws favoring women), and obfuscating issues with skewed, inaccurate, or false "facts" spread as truth (no, 1 in 4 women are not raped and no, women do not earn only 77 cents to every dollar that a man makes). The aggressive attitude of Tumblr feminism towards, literally, everyone, is diverting attention away from people in countries where women are truly subjugated, oppressed, and treated cruelly.

In the darkness a blind man is the best guide. In an age of Madness look to the madman to show the way.

http://logicd.tumblr.com/post/74762733224

“Gold is for the mistress — silver for the maid —
Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade.”
“Good!” said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
“But Iron — Cold Iron — is master of them all.”
So he made rebellion ‘gainst the King his liege,
Camped before his citadel and summoned it to siege.
“Nay!” said the cannoneer on the castle wall,
“But Iron — Cold Iron — shall be master of you all!”

Woe for the Baron and his knights so strong,
When the cruel cannon-balls laid ‘em all along;
He was taken prisoner, he was cast in thrall,
And Iron — Cold Iron — was master of it all!

Yet his King spake kindly (ah, how kind a Lord!)
“What if I release thee now and give thee back thy sword?”
“Nay!” said the Baron, “mock not at my fall,
For Iron — Cold Iron — is master of men all.”

"Tears are for the craven, prayers are for the clown —
Halters for the silly neck that cannot keep a crown.”
“As my loss is grievous, so my hope is small,
For Iron — Cold Iron — must be master of men all!”

Yet his King made answer (few such Kings there be!)
“Here is Bread and here is Wine — sit and sup with me.
Eat and drink in Mary’s Name, the whiles I do recall
How Iron — Cold Iron — can be master of men all!”

He took the Wine and blessed it. He blessed and brake the Bread.
With His own Hands He served Them, and presently He said:
“See! These Hands they pierced with nails, outside My city wall,
Show Iron — Cold Iron — to be master of men all.”

"Wounds are for the desperate, blows are for the strong.
Balm and oil for weary hearts all cut and bruised with wrong.
I forgive thy treason — I redeem thy fall —
For Iron — Cold Iron — must be master of men all!”

"Crowns are for the valiant — sceptres for the bold!
Thrones and powers for mighty men who dare to take and hold!”
“Nay!” said the Baron, kneeling in his hall,
“But Iron — Cold Iron — is master of men all!
Iron out of Calvary is master of men all!””
— Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)- "Cold Iron"

"Sympathy is irrelevant, as are all other feelings; the facts of the case are, and should be, divorced from emotion. All that matters is that Brown committed a series of crimes, Wilson violated no policies within his local law enforcement regulations, and everything was given a pass by the justice system.

The only reason anyone even cares about this case is because it was hyped up as an injustice by the media. The reason we’re referring to Brown as an “innocent, young boy” and not a “burglary suspect” is that the media is shaping a racially tense narrative in order to generate viewership. Things like this happen multiple times annually, and nobody’s cared until someone found a way to make this a race issue.

Nothing good will come of perpetuating this artificial racial struggle. We need to recognize the facts, stop pretending things are black and white, and move on. It’s that simple."

~Ownnator

Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well.

Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).

She held the tap-dancingly daffy notion that the mountains evidence for smoking being linked to cancer was total bullshit and went on to write myriad poetic descriptions of her two-pack-a--day habit til she was 69 when the doctor showed her an x-ray of her lungs that pretty much was a connect the dots picture of the Specter of Death.

Unlike her fellow founder of American Libertarianism, Isabel Paterson, who chose to die sick and poor rather than even open her Social Security card, Rand spent the rest of her life collecting over $11,000 in government assistance, because principles are all well and good until you get cancer.

Also, Rand is perhaps the only virulently anti-Christian writer that Republicans nonetheless routinely feel comfortable heaping praise upon. In a charming 1964 interview with Playboy, Rand described the crucifixion of Jesus in terms of “mythology,” and submitted that she would feel “indignant” over such a “sacrifice of virtue to vice.” That Christians are called to care for the most vulnerable of God’s people was, to Rand, manifest proof that the religion has nothing constructive to add to human life: After all, in her philosophy, “superiors” have no moral obligations to those weaker or more vulnerable than they. According to Rand, the Christian moral imperative to serve the needy is a “monstrous idea.”

Further on, Her watchwords during her books and during her 'discussions' are “reason,” “logic,” and “objectivity,” but when I scrutinize the ideas for which she has been most influential — her ideas on political economy — I find that they are logically fallacious to the point of unreason.

I see that Rand does not tolerate the philosopher’s patient tarrying with differing points of view but moves in quickly for the rhetorical kill. She seems to be moved by a passion — the libido dominandi, the desire for control — far more than by the gentle art of thinking. It is always astounding to me that some of the most educated members of our intellectual elites should swallow her arguments so gleefully, and I have to believe that it is more a function of their elitism than their intellectual capacities.

Focus your attention on the central flaw in Rand’s reasoning because it parallels, and partially encourages, the confused thinking that is generating some of the impasses in our current governmental debates.

The fallacy that is at the heart of Rand’s political-economic philosophy is the fallacy of mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition. This is elementary logic. A necessary condition is something that is needed in order to make something else happen. A plant must have water, for example, in order to thrive. But a necessary condition is not the same as a sufficient condition — that is, something that provides everything needed for something else to happen. Water is not sufficient to make a plant thrive. Other ingredients are needed, like soil and sunlight.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy is above all a defense of the entrepreneur. The economic value of goods and services that we find on the market is created by entrepreneurs — people who had the idea, pursued the vision, marshaled the resources, managed production, and shepherded products to market.

One can agree with this point by saying that the entrepreneur is a necessary condition for the creation of economic value. But Rand treats the entrepreneur as a sufficient condition. The entrepreneur creates the value of goods and everyone else gets in his way (in Rand the pronoun is always “he,” even when he is a woman). Governments are leeches on the value he creates; organized labor siphons off more of it. Who could blame the hero of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, and his like if they should take their marbles and head off to form their own society, leaving the parasites behind?

But in truth the entrepreneur, though very much a necessary condition for the production of economic value, is not a sufficient condition. An entrepreneur will get nowhere without a capitalist or a government agency in charge of a budget to finance his or her ideas; the production will require a labor force; it will need to make use of public infrastructure and a framework of the rule of law; and the fruits of the production will be of no value if no one wants them. Thus the creators, entrepreneurs, investors, taxpayers, legislators, jurists, workers, and consumers are all necessary conditions for the production of the value that we find in the marketplace; but none of them, including the entrepreneur, is a sufficient condition: none can make it happen alone.

And Objectivism? Please. That can be summarized as:

1) Reality is an objective absolute. Facts trump man's feelings, wishes, hopes, and fears.
2) Reason is the only way to perceive reality and the sole knowledge source. It is man's only guide to action and means to survival.
3) Every man exists for his own sake. Pursuit of his own rational self-interest and his own happiness is his life's moral purpose.
4) The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism.

The problems, though, are that Laissez-Faire capitalism doesn't work. Laissez-Faire capitalism is a utopian fantasy. And like all utopias, it cannot actually exist. Therefore, as a philosophy, it needs to be judged on how it gets implemented in the real world, with all the real world's inherent inconsistencies. After that, we know Reason has real-world limitations. While I'm all for valuing reason over superstition, the notion that one can use reason without emotion is science fiction. Maybe that works on the planet Vulcan, but human beings swim in a vast ocean of emotion. Emotion governs the "why" behind every exercise of reason, determining our choices of interest and intention. In the real world, people use reason as a way to buttress what their emotions desire. On a personal level, Ayn Rand was a emotional nut case. Regardless of what you think of her philosophy and writing, Rand's personal life was a complete shambles. She became involved in an adulterous affair with a disciple (a "reasonable" decision on her part, of course), and then went all "old bat of out hell" when he made the "reasonable" decision to start boinking some younger woman. The resulting emotional pyrotechnics were a perfect example of the impotence of Objectivism as a life creed. This segues nicely into the fact that her philosophy is devoid of gratitude. While individualism has some value, Objectivism largely discounts the fact the every successful person stands on the shoulders of those who have come before. In addition, success always involves an element of luck, often consisting of having had the luck to be born into a rich family with plenty of connections. Success devoid of gratitude and the noblesse oblige to help others brings out the worst in people. And let's not forget that reality is NOT an objective absolute. There's no way to tell whether reality is objective or not because it can only be perceived subjectively. While it could be argued that the consensus of multiple subjective realities equals objective reality, the exact same logic would also assign objective reality to Jung's archetypes, which appear inside every human being's dreams. In any case, measuring something changes the thing measured, so simply perceiving "reality" changes the nature of reality. Therefore, so it can't be absolute. Oh, and the pander about facts and wishes? Rhetoric. Facts do NOT trump feelings, wishes, hopes, and fears. As any sales professional knows, when dealing with human beings, facts ALWAYS run a distant fifth. That's particularly true when dealing with people who are operating under the fantasy that their decisions are based upon "fact." Emotion trumps reason every time, and nobody is easier to influence emotionally than those who are so unaware of that their emotions that they think they're making "reasonable" decisions. Finally, on that note, Every man does NOT exist for his own sake. While Rand believed that pursuit of one's own rational self-interest and one's own happiness is his life's moral purpose, the scientific fact is that man evolved as a communal creature, with bonds of family and community being tightly tied to health, happiness, longevity, and pretty much everything that makes life pleasurable. Objectivism thus runs counter to demonstrable scientific fact.

Hell, even her book characters were failures. If Roark (the hero of Rand's book The Fountainhead) wanted his "vision" to be his alone, he had no business getting other people to bankroll it. Instead, he should have done something like the Watts Towers, where he'd be responsible for every part of the project, including its construction. Large scale architecture is a collaborative venture that involves satisfying the desires and needs of the CLIENT. Good architects are experst at managing client expectations and working through creative differences.

Altogether, she's a dithering pissant who bullied people who disagreed with her skewed philosophical thinking, she hid the fact that she was just as much a government 'leech' as those she professed to hate, and her books are poorly written dreck that, from what I've seen, when read gives people a self-imposed right to act like a selfish idiot. They combine a patina of "reason" over a self-righteous justification of whatever their "id" happens to want at the time and then insist that they're just pursuing their own self-interest

Her very concept completely disregards the "humanity" aspect of humanity and, to be frank, it doesn't wash.