Today I saw two posts on FML that I just knew would have an epic comments section.
One was on feminism
One was on homosexuality
If this kind of shit usually upsets you then I suggest you leave now.
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
on jesus
I will clarify my position on Jesus.
Firstly, I really am not qualified to make any judgments (and neither should anyone else feel they are) unless the entire Bible has been read. Merely because picking and choosing relevant verses is known as "confirmation bias". Which is, of course, not objective and a terrible way to approach "evidence".
Now, here are a few dotpoints on my personal beliefs gathered thus far:
This post is pretty long so I'll chuck a break here for reading pleasure.
Firstly, I really am not qualified to make any judgments (and neither should anyone else feel they are) unless the entire Bible has been read. Merely because picking and choosing relevant verses is known as "confirmation bias". Which is, of course, not objective and a terrible way to approach "evidence".
Now, here are a few dotpoints on my personal beliefs gathered thus far:
- I am almost certain Jesus existed. However the reasoning I use pretty much disproves young Earth creationism - we use the BC / AD system. I don't know how much of the world Jesus was rumoured to have travelled, but such widespread adoption of his birth year cannot be purely attributed to hearsay. Like the whole freaking world uses it. In contrast, if young Earth creationism was actually true, why aren't we just in year ~6000? It's not that big a number and it seems illogical to not start from there if it were true.
- While I believe he existed, I don't believe that he was as magical as the legends have him be. Humans have a tendency to glorify greats and to brown-nose awesome people. Jesus, no doubt, would've been a very influential man with great charisma as well as very good ideas. I can't say for sure he never did those awesome things, but I can't bring myself to accept it.
We have a modern version of taking something good and glorifying it and making it seem better - it's called fan fiction. Plus, we humans have the ability to make up crazy shit like Chuck Norris jokes. - To me, proof that Jesus existed does not prove that Jesus did all the things the Bible said he did. That is a fallacy of the worst kind. Just because one fact is true (Jesus is real) doesn't mean that all the other facts are true (virgin mother, water into wine, walking on water, healing blind people, etc).
- Extra note - where are all the awesome magical things like angels and shit today? Why doesn't God just send one down? I think I actually would be converted to Christianity in one fell swoop if an angel came down from Heaven and told me the truth of the Gospel. Until that happens I'm only listening to other humans who really have no claim that they actually know any more than I do.
This post is pretty long so I'll chuck a break here for reading pleasure.
knife in right hand, fork in left hand
I have three types of eating behaviours that are inexplicable to me, and maybe someone could clarify so my tolerance of such behaviours could be raised. I thank those enlightened minds in advance.
What I find irksome is when you're eating something large(r than your mouth), like prawn crackers or certain Doritos. Now, usually when it's too big, you put your lips on it to absorb the shock, and make an incision with your teeth (obviously and hopefully, your teeth are within your lips), so as to minimise spillage. Like a sir.
What I find astounding are those people that don't stop at ONLY separating the food at the point roughly equalling a mouthful, but to smash their teeth against the crunchy food as if to motherfucking shatter the whole biscuit/chip/cracker/I don't give a fuck as long as its crunchy. And hopefully somewhere along in the process, some fragments might end up in their mouth (the primary concern was getting those dB's up). And hey, it works, because your jaw is kind of capable of producing the most force out of any body part. It is not impressive at all if your teeth (we have established your cookie destroying jaws were actually designed to bite stuff) are capable of shattering abovementioned foods, because it takes no skill at all. If it were logically possible, it takes negative skill. When babies grow up, they stop wasting food. I would be impressed, say, if you were 100 and you wanted to show off that somehow your teeth were still intact and capable of this. Fine. But we are not yet so old.
Plus it drops a shitload of crumbs. If this is at camps, this makes ourplanned gay orgy midnight walkabouts a lot more disgusting. We're barefoot. If its like at school or some shit, it's just uncomfortable watching people drop shattered food remains everywhere. On white shirts. It's unsightly.
It can't be the fact that you actually have food, because TI not A, and we are lucky enough to have access to food whenever we feel like. And if I can see you we're probably at recess or lunch, where everyone else has food anyway. Or maybe you're in class and you enjoy detentions or listening to threats of having to clean tables with your tongue. (I wonder if actually making someone do that is as illegal as we hope it is...)
If anything it shows off the fact you can substitute the primary source of aural annoyances (talking like an idiot) with your secondary sound-based weapon (chewing like a fish) because you can't even give us a break when you're stuffing your face.
So whatever point you're trying to make - we don't care.
A simple solution is to chew with your mouth closed - unless you practise it's really hard to make that clicking noise. Trust me I tried just then. You can trust yourself too because chances are you tried it just then too.
All hail the annoying cries: It's a baklava! It's a baklava! It's a tiramisu! It's a tiramisu! It's a creme brulee! It's a creme brulee!
There is only one reason that I can think of why a roomful of people wouldn't mind you naming stuff. That reason is: when they asked.
Like if we were at a camp, and then I was some distance behind a friend, and wondering what version of gruel we were being served, I would ask. And they would project their voice rearward, heralding (hope that is a word) the good news of "some chicken looking stuff with corn and papier mache. Dessert is some cake shit." They would not shout out "chicken breast schnitzel with a side of golden fried potato wedges, assorted vegetables, papier mache, and don't forget the delightful dessert of tiramisu!"
Because nobody gives a fuck if you can name food when it's at a volume slightly above conversation level. If your private conversation rolls that way, sure, go ahead. But for the rest of the room - did not ask, did not care. I'd give a fuck if you could name something interesting like species of unicorns. Yeah, why don't you name us some unicorn species. And only unicorn species. Pegasus is kinda pushing it.
Like they'd serve us something with a cool name at a fucking camp anyway. Except papier mache. That just rrrrolls off the tongue.
I kid, they wouldn't serve us papier mache.
Why put in glue when you can just as easily not? So it's just paper and water.
Just so you know, these are not necessarily observed from people at school. I could've seen these behaviours at Cadets, (family) social gatherings, or even at restaurants, and then attached it to a school environment so my target audience (you!) could relate =P
If you think you are the target of this, go through this model
1) It's probably not you. No offence is directed at anyone.
2) Stop insisting it's you, I maintain it's not.
3) For the last time it's very unlikely that it is you.
4) Okay it actually is you. Go hang yourself with your own intestines.
1. People who chomp their crunchy shit like they're fucking dinosaurs. rawr.
Like I know you can't avoid making a loud noise when eating crisps when they're already in your mouth. I forgive that. You cannot avoid that unless you suck on it, which defeats the whole purpose of the name "crisps". As well as "who the fuck likes soggy chips".What I find irksome is when you're eating something large(r than your mouth), like prawn crackers or certain Doritos. Now, usually when it's too big, you put your lips on it to absorb the shock, and make an incision with your teeth (obviously and hopefully, your teeth are within your lips), so as to minimise spillage. Like a sir.
What I find astounding are those people that don't stop at ONLY separating the food at the point roughly equalling a mouthful, but to smash their teeth against the crunchy food as if to motherfucking shatter the whole biscuit/chip/cracker/I don't give a fuck as long as its crunchy. And hopefully somewhere along in the process, some fragments might end up in their mouth (the primary concern was getting those dB's up). And hey, it works, because your jaw is kind of capable of producing the most force out of any body part. It is not impressive at all if your teeth (we have established your cookie destroying jaws were actually designed to bite stuff) are capable of shattering abovementioned foods, because it takes no skill at all. If it were logically possible, it takes negative skill. When babies grow up, they stop wasting food. I would be impressed, say, if you were 100 and you wanted to show off that somehow your teeth were still intact and capable of this. Fine. But we are not yet so old.
Plus it drops a shitload of crumbs. If this is at camps, this makes our
2. People who smack their lips while eating as if someone wanted an aural aid to count how many times they chew.
I can't describe the noise. You know when we tut at someone, and we kinda click the tongue against the roof of the mouth? Yeah, that noise. When you're eating, that is unnecessary. I think it's to demonstrate you're eating nice food. There's more effective ways of showing that off, like maybe people could passively pick up the smell of the delicious aromas. Maybe it looks delicious because you have some nicely marinated chicken and it's all glisteny and awesome looking. Or maybe you can shove it up your rectum and eat it afterwards to prove how even that does not tarnish its edibility - so powerful is the nice taste. Okay don't do the last one you'll probably get arrested for indecent exposure. I won't stop you from doing it at home, if that floats your boat.It can't be the fact that you actually have food, because TI not A, and we are lucky enough to have access to food whenever we feel like. And if I can see you we're probably at recess or lunch, where everyone else has food anyway. Or maybe you're in class and you enjoy detentions or listening to threats of having to clean tables with your tongue. (I wonder if actually making someone do that is as illegal as we hope it is...)
If anything it shows off the fact you can substitute the primary source of aural annoyances (talking like an idiot) with your secondary sound-based weapon (chewing like a fish) because you can't even give us a break when you're stuffing your face.
So whatever point you're trying to make - we don't care.
A simple solution is to chew with your mouth closed - unless you practise it's really hard to make that clicking noise. Trust me I tried just then. You can trust yourself too because chances are you tried it just then too.
3. People who have the intrinsic need to name foodstuff in hopes of being Carl Linnaeus v2 - Food Taxonomist
All hail the annoying cries: It's a baklava! It's a baklava! It's a tiramisu! It's a tiramisu! It's a creme brulee! It's a creme brulee!
There is only one reason that I can think of why a roomful of people wouldn't mind you naming stuff. That reason is: when they asked.
Like if we were at a camp, and then I was some distance behind a friend, and wondering what version of gruel we were being served, I would ask. And they would project their voice rearward, heralding (hope that is a word) the good news of "some chicken looking stuff with corn and papier mache. Dessert is some cake shit." They would not shout out "chicken breast schnitzel with a side of golden fried potato wedges, assorted vegetables, papier mache, and don't forget the delightful dessert of tiramisu!"
Because nobody gives a fuck if you can name food when it's at a volume slightly above conversation level. If your private conversation rolls that way, sure, go ahead. But for the rest of the room - did not ask, did not care. I'd give a fuck if you could name something interesting like species of unicorns. Yeah, why don't you name us some unicorn species. And only unicorn species. Pegasus is kinda pushing it.
Like they'd serve us something with a cool name at a fucking camp anyway. Except papier mache. That just rrrrolls off the tongue.
I kid, they wouldn't serve us papier mache.
Why put in glue when you can just as easily not? So it's just paper and water.
Just so you know, these are not necessarily observed from people at school. I could've seen these behaviours at Cadets, (family) social gatherings, or even at restaurants, and then attached it to a school environment so my target audience (you!) could relate =P
If you think you are the target of this, go through this model
1) It's probably not you. No offence is directed at anyone.
2) Stop insisting it's you, I maintain it's not.
3) For the last time it's very unlikely that it is you.
4) Okay it actually is you. Go hang yourself with your own intestines.
atheism is impossible
Premise:
Theism is based on the universal truth that there is a god.
Atheism is based on the universal truth that there is no god.
We cannot prove that a god exists.
We cannot disprove that a god exists.
Argument:
Atheism challenges theism in its claim of an unprovable universal truth.
This implies that atheism believes it is impossible to claim an unprovable universal truth.
The assertion that "a god cannot exist" is an unprovable universal truth.
By atheism's logic, atheism cannot exist.
In contrast, theism does not assert that claims of unprovable universal truths are impossible, hence logically can exist.
Conclusion:
Theism is more logical than atheism
Extra:
This, by no means, proves that theism is correct in any way. It shows that it is more correct than pure atheism (but if you believe in something you already "knew" that anyway).
As an analogy, proving the box isn't white does not make it black.There are various possible shades of grey (agnosticism), not to mention colours (other religions!) And maybe it appears black but it's reflecting ultraviolet, infrared, microwaves - beyond our powers of perception.
More crap ahead. The good part's over though.
Theism is based on the universal truth that there is a god.
Atheism is based on the universal truth that there is no god.
We cannot prove that a god exists.
We cannot disprove that a god exists.
Argument:
Atheism challenges theism in its claim of an unprovable universal truth.
This implies that atheism believes it is impossible to claim an unprovable universal truth.
The assertion that "a god cannot exist" is an unprovable universal truth.
By atheism's logic, atheism cannot exist.
In contrast, theism does not assert that claims of unprovable universal truths are impossible, hence logically can exist.
Conclusion:
Theism is more logical than atheism
Extra:
This, by no means, proves that theism is correct in any way. It shows that it is more correct than pure atheism (but if you believe in something you already "knew" that anyway).
As an analogy, proving the box isn't white does not make it black.There are various possible shades of grey (agnosticism), not to mention colours (other religions!) And maybe it appears black but it's reflecting ultraviolet, infrared, microwaves - beyond our powers of perception.
More crap ahead. The good part's over though.
social dilemmas
I have a couple of social dilemmas that I want to share with you and I don't want to Formspring because there are retards who either like misinterpreting information or actually do not make logical deductions :L
1) When you get a gift that you don't really need.
I think there are a couple of factors that come together
a. What relation this person is to you
b. The cost of the present
c. On what occasion this present was gifted to you.
What brought this up was that my cousin + her boyfriend brought/bought (both apply omfg!) iPod nanos for me and my brother. As you may know, I own an iPod touch 3 and now an iPhone. My brother has a iPod touch 4.
If we were by ourselves, we woud never gawk at a Nano on display and say "WE NEED THIS" because an iPod touch can do everything a Nano can except "be small".
But seeing as they're like the only Gen Y's in our area of extended family with which we interact with, option a. is greatly filled. Next, an iPod nano in China costs... 900RMB? Which comes in between 50-100 hours of work for an average wage. But it's okay I think my cousin's boyfriend comes from a very affluent family. There is also the added factor that they brought it all the way from China, and that they'll be spending time with us and it'd be awkies if they just remained unopened.
For this particular conundrum, we started off by giving thankyou's profusely like all Asian kids to are forced to by their parents. I did indeed open it, and found its pedometer function quite fun in a trivial way. It's amazingly accurate. And I like how the interface is still so slick even though its screen is stupidly small and still touch. Plus it's like <30g which is very convenient. The clip is good for being a poser.
2) Being a guest and trying to help
Nextly - as houseguests, how do you help? It's a weird topic. How much should you do, when do you start, and how do you insist?
It's customary(?) to offer to help around the house as a guest. Think for Asians it's respectable to steal the jobs from under their noses to prove how willing you are to be a maid[citation needed].
This isn't something that applies to our household but it's a more compelling sccenario than anything I can recall anecdotally - let's say as a houseguest you offer to do the dishes because you've been there a week already. So you wash it, use dishwashing liquid, and leave it on the rack to dry.
The hosts, however, out of habit, prefer that you use the towel to wipe down the plates before you put them on the rack. There is no disadvantage of air-drying, but out of sheer habit the hosts feel uncomfortable seeing the plates slowly drip into the sink.
It's weird to say "thanks for doing the dishes, but please wipe them down", because you didn't ask them to do it, they did it out of good intentions. It's also weird to go in afterwards and do it yourself, as if to mock their work.
The only solution is to steal the job from their noses again, under the guise of "you're the guest, you're not working", as opposed to "you cannot do this properly".
3) Being a houseguest and spotting a terrible habit.
Okay another quickly invented scenario - lets say at home I really need coasters because watermarks are hideous.
I, as a guest, am invited to a friend's new house. He has new furniture too! He invites me for a drink, pours me an ice-cold beverage, and sets it down on the table. No coasters are in sight. A bead of sweat trickles down my forehead as the condensation trickles down the glass. I ask for a coaster but he says he doesn't believe in them. I diligently wipe up my water ring after I am done, but notice that my friend does not. He leaves the water there. Horrible images of watermarks flash into my brain, but I bite my tongue - is it my place to criticise how he treats his own furniture?
Food for thought. I don't know if all these follow logical or grammatical sense, so please tell me. This was done late :L
1) When you get a gift that you don't really need.
I think there are a couple of factors that come together
a. What relation this person is to you
b. The cost of the present
c. On what occasion this present was gifted to you.
What brought this up was that my cousin + her boyfriend brought/bought (both apply omfg!) iPod nanos for me and my brother. As you may know, I own an iPod touch 3 and now an iPhone. My brother has a iPod touch 4.
If we were by ourselves, we woud never gawk at a Nano on display and say "WE NEED THIS" because an iPod touch can do everything a Nano can except "be small".
But seeing as they're like the only Gen Y's in our area of extended family with which we interact with, option a. is greatly filled. Next, an iPod nano in China costs... 900RMB? Which comes in between 50-100 hours of work for an average wage. But it's okay I think my cousin's boyfriend comes from a very affluent family. There is also the added factor that they brought it all the way from China, and that they'll be spending time with us and it'd be awkies if they just remained unopened.
For this particular conundrum, we started off by giving thankyou's profusely like all Asian kids to are forced to by their parents. I did indeed open it, and found its pedometer function quite fun in a trivial way. It's amazingly accurate. And I like how the interface is still so slick even though its screen is stupidly small and still touch. Plus it's like <30g which is very convenient. The clip is good for being a poser.
2) Being a guest and trying to help
Nextly - as houseguests, how do you help? It's a weird topic. How much should you do, when do you start, and how do you insist?
It's customary(?) to offer to help around the house as a guest. Think for Asians it's respectable to steal the jobs from under their noses to prove how willing you are to be a maid[citation needed].
This isn't something that applies to our household but it's a more compelling sccenario than anything I can recall anecdotally - let's say as a houseguest you offer to do the dishes because you've been there a week already. So you wash it, use dishwashing liquid, and leave it on the rack to dry.
The hosts, however, out of habit, prefer that you use the towel to wipe down the plates before you put them on the rack. There is no disadvantage of air-drying, but out of sheer habit the hosts feel uncomfortable seeing the plates slowly drip into the sink.
It's weird to say "thanks for doing the dishes, but please wipe them down", because you didn't ask them to do it, they did it out of good intentions. It's also weird to go in afterwards and do it yourself, as if to mock their work.
The only solution is to steal the job from their noses again, under the guise of "you're the guest, you're not working", as opposed to "you cannot do this properly".
3) Being a houseguest and spotting a terrible habit.
Okay another quickly invented scenario - lets say at home I really need coasters because watermarks are hideous.
I, as a guest, am invited to a friend's new house. He has new furniture too! He invites me for a drink, pours me an ice-cold beverage, and sets it down on the table. No coasters are in sight. A bead of sweat trickles down my forehead as the condensation trickles down the glass. I ask for a coaster but he says he doesn't believe in them. I diligently wipe up my water ring after I am done, but notice that my friend does not. He leaves the water there. Horrible images of watermarks flash into my brain, but I bite my tongue - is it my place to criticise how he treats his own furniture?
Food for thought. I don't know if all these follow logical or grammatical sense, so please tell me. This was done late :L
because they're not us
Why are people who believe in Scientology deemed "obviously insane" but believing in God is a-okay? Or, if you want to be picky about my words - why is Christianity more acceptable to you than Scientology or some other cult-y belief? What's the key difference?
What is fundamentally retarded about Xenu that can't be said of the same of other gods and deities?
I'm not advocating Scientology or anything, but I am just interested why Scientology is harder to swallow than other figures of worship (of which any in-depth historical documentation is contained within a single book).
Is it just because it's new?
What is fundamentally retarded about Xenu that can't be said of the same of other gods and deities?
I'm not advocating Scientology or anything, but I am just interested why Scientology is harder to swallow than other figures of worship (of which any in-depth historical documentation is contained within a single book).
Is it just because it's new?
oh you, 9gag
This is pretty awesome. Not everything I agree with, but a penis is no "get out of jail free card", as some netizens have sweepingly asserted.
Obviously a very one-sided post but whatever, stereotypes all came from somewhere. Some of them are downright unfair
OOH reminds me. Stereotyping =/= sexism or racism and shit. Like Asian people have small eyes. That's not racism, it's an observed, physical fact. And stereotypes are true - they're just not true for EVERYONE. But if they exist (eg men will refuse to stop for directions), just because an INDIVIDUAL may not conform and object and lah di dah, a good deal of the male population would conform to that fact. Because nobody made this up for fun.
Or if we said women can't read maps or can't park their cars, there will be plenty of women who can, obviously, read maps and park well. But I am certain that there is a good deal of the female population who would rather use a GPS or get someone to teach the route, or would rather search the whole carpark for a wider spot than reverse park between the car and the pole.
I would pull a huge list of male/female stereotypes and shit but I can't be bothered so that's all you get today. Basically - stereotypes didn't appear from nowhere. Just because they're not nice or they don't apply to you, doesn't necessarily mean they're untrue.
Obviously a very one-sided post but whatever, stereotypes all came from somewhere. Some of them are downright unfair
OOH reminds me. Stereotyping =/= sexism or racism and shit. Like Asian people have small eyes. That's not racism, it's an observed, physical fact. And stereotypes are true - they're just not true for EVERYONE. But if they exist (eg men will refuse to stop for directions), just because an INDIVIDUAL may not conform and object and lah di dah, a good deal of the male population would conform to that fact. Because nobody made this up for fun.
Or if we said women can't read maps or can't park their cars, there will be plenty of women who can, obviously, read maps and park well. But I am certain that there is a good deal of the female population who would rather use a GPS or get someone to teach the route, or would rather search the whole carpark for a wider spot than reverse park between the car and the pole.
I would pull a huge list of male/female stereotypes and shit but I can't be bothered so that's all you get today. Basically - stereotypes didn't appear from nowhere. Just because they're not nice or they don't apply to you, doesn't necessarily mean they're untrue.
disrespect
As I have mentioned previously, I am saddened by those who own smartphones/DSLRs but clearly have no idea how to use them.
Linking on from that, I have a similar feeling for people who do subjects, but are against a key element of said subject. I can speak for my sciences:
Physics and Chemistry usually have people complaining about either concepts or calculations, but whatever, they can be hard.
Biology, however. Why would you complain about seeing blood, seeing guts, seeing bugs, dissecting organs, etc, if you chose to do Biology?! What did you think we were going to do? That is obviously inevitable in Biology - deal with it in advance please.
I can't be bothered being eloquent anymore, I'm tired :L
Linking on from that, I have a similar feeling for people who do subjects, but are against a key element of said subject. I can speak for my sciences:
Physics and Chemistry usually have people complaining about either concepts or calculations, but whatever, they can be hard.
Biology, however. Why would you complain about seeing blood, seeing guts, seeing bugs, dissecting organs, etc, if you chose to do Biology?! What did you think we were going to do? That is obviously inevitable in Biology - deal with it in advance please.
I can't be bothered being eloquent anymore, I'm tired :L
learn to fly
I was talking to Yip today, about stuff like selective test and primary school and stuff like that.
Remember when we read books on dinosaurs and aeroplanes and the Universe and forests and bugs and electricity and on and on and on? Not because we were going to be tested on it, but because we were curious? Because we wanted to?
We no longer learn because we like to. We learn to succeed in exams. We don't give a shit about what's outside our syllabus.
If in Chemistry, the teacher dares to stray off and explains the chemical composition of say, Ziegler-Natta catalyst in any detail, there's bound to be at least one student going "what the fuck are we learning this for? Follow the syllabus, bitch".
Hence we don't learn to learn, we learn for marks, QED.
Remember when we read books on dinosaurs and aeroplanes and the Universe and forests and bugs and electricity and on and on and on? Not because we were going to be tested on it, but because we were curious? Because we wanted to?
We no longer learn because we like to. We learn to succeed in exams. We don't give a shit about what's outside our syllabus.
If in Chemistry, the teacher dares to stray off and explains the chemical composition of say, Ziegler-Natta catalyst in any detail, there's bound to be at least one student going "what the fuck are we learning this for? Follow the syllabus, bitch".
Hence we don't learn to learn, we learn for marks, QED.
i like it - i'm not gonna crack
I miss you - I'm not gonna crack
I love you - I'm not gonna crack
I killed you - I'm not gonna crack
I love the way Nirvana makes me feel xP
Anyhoos I was interested in how to apologise. I asked a question on Formspring - You are talking to someone and you say something and they get really pissed off. You can see why they are annoyed, but you feel that what you said was not offensive at all. You can see, however, that they are really annoyed. How do you apologise?
Usually this happens with girls because between genders, words mean two different things, and it asplodes.
And I suppose intergender has the potential to have a little thing called feelings which amplify everything.
Anyways yeah often I do shit and am like "awesombeans". But I see a pissed a face and I'm like "uhh holy shit what did I do".
Them: "Herp blah derp you did this"
Me: "That?!"
Them: "Omfg *insert rant*"
So I sit there and go "why is anyone flaming me for this?" without saying anything back because then I wouldn't be respecting women and their opinions because guys are chauvinist pigs.
Usually I say "sorry" and even if it doesn't actually resolve the problem, I can hope it won't be pressed.
Because every time I try to defend myself it gets dismissed as an excuse and I'm like: Yes... these excuses are exactly why I feel like I didn't do anything wrong.
But yeah is there supposed to be some way where we can communicate what the fuck is going on in some way that isn't so inefficient? =P
Formspring's answers are either "fuck apologising if you aint done nothing wrong", or my preferred answer: Apologise for the offence that it caused you, but assert that I don't and won't feel bad about the actual act because I felt the act was acceptable, just not around you.
But sometimes it's so much easier and effort saved if you just admit defeat to a girl. Cos honestly, who's really going to remember :L
And to the concerned anon who asked (hopefully you read this) - No it wasn't that incident, thanks for caring =)
Hi anyone who likes Harry Potter:
I love you - I'm not gonna crack
I killed you - I'm not gonna crack
I love the way Nirvana makes me feel xP
Anyhoos I was interested in how to apologise. I asked a question on Formspring - You are talking to someone and you say something and they get really pissed off. You can see why they are annoyed, but you feel that what you said was not offensive at all. You can see, however, that they are really annoyed. How do you apologise?
Usually this happens with girls because between genders, words mean two different things, and it asplodes.
And I suppose intergender has the potential to have a little thing called feelings which amplify everything.
Anyways yeah often I do shit and am like "awesombeans". But I see a pissed a face and I'm like "uhh holy shit what did I do".
Them: "Herp blah derp you did this"
Me: "That?!"
Them: "Omfg *insert rant*"
So I sit there and go "why is anyone flaming me for this?" without saying anything back because then I wouldn't be respecting women and their opinions because guys are chauvinist pigs.
Usually I say "sorry" and even if it doesn't actually resolve the problem, I can hope it won't be pressed.
Because every time I try to defend myself it gets dismissed as an excuse and I'm like: Yes... these excuses are exactly why I feel like I didn't do anything wrong.
But yeah is there supposed to be some way where we can communicate what the fuck is going on in some way that isn't so inefficient? =P
Formspring's answers are either "fuck apologising if you aint done nothing wrong", or my preferred answer: Apologise for the offence that it caused you, but assert that I don't and won't feel bad about the actual act because I felt the act was acceptable, just not around you.
But sometimes it's so much easier and effort saved if you just admit defeat to a girl. Cos honestly, who's really going to remember :L
And to the concerned anon who asked (hopefully you read this) - No it wasn't that incident, thanks for caring =)
Hi anyone who likes Harry Potter:
word neutering
It's amazing how douchebag the general population is. This particular aspect is an everlasting tradition that has been passed down from generation. Take the number of medical terms used to mean "intellectual disability" in the past. Then consider how they have been turned into "you're stupid" slurs. Then consider how overused those slurs were that it became "uncool" to use that word.
Btw all smart-sounding historical facts I quote are from Wiki unless linked otherwise.
This is has a much lower potential to be upsetting as the last one. If you were fine with the last post, you'll be great with this post, and I welcome you. If you were not, you're entering at your own risk.
Don't pretend that this post exists in full somewhere other than after you click "Read More". It doesn't exist in my blog homepage, it doesn't exist in Google Reader, it doesn't exist on your Dashboard cos I changed the feed settings.
In the case of technological fuck-up, you can still turn away because I've waffled on for 2 paragraphs (and 1 to come) that you have the opportunity to leave. (And then tell me how you found the whole post so I can fix that.)
So a break here where you can rethink your life choices and decide if you want to quit while you're ahead (and go somewhere else), or continue and agree not to complain (complain =/= discuss btw. Discuss is fine.) later if you regret your choice.
Btw all smart-sounding historical facts I quote are from Wiki unless linked otherwise.
This is has a much lower potential to be upsetting as the last one. If you were fine with the last post, you'll be great with this post, and I welcome you. If you were not, you're entering at your own risk.
Don't pretend that this post exists in full somewhere other than after you click "Read More". It doesn't exist in my blog homepage, it doesn't exist in Google Reader, it doesn't exist on your Dashboard cos I changed the feed settings.
In the case of technological fuck-up, you can still turn away because I've waffled on for 2 paragraphs (and 1 to come) that you have the opportunity to leave. (And then tell me how you found the whole post so I can fix that.)
So a break here where you can rethink your life choices and decide if you want to quit while you're ahead (and go somewhere else), or continue and agree not to complain (complain =/= discuss btw. Discuss is fine.) later if you regret your choice.
got your back, jack. bitches be crazy
3 parts for you today. All based on the quote "Got your back, Jack. Bitches be CRAZY!". Brownie points for recognising xP.
Table of Contents
Part 1 - Saj being awesome
Part 2 - My attempt at being awesome
Part 3 - The controversial part that people might get pissed off at but read anyway, just so they can get pissed off and express their views.
Saj (disgusted tone): And those chicks, I swear they all either wear short shorts or yoga pants
Jeff: What's so bad about yoga pants?
Saj: They're pretty bad when you can tell they obviously do not do yoga
Jeff: *respect*
I wastrying to be witty on Formspring when I answered a question:
Wow guys think about girls a lot.
All the bloody songs are like really positive like "my girl's the best oooh yeah never wanna let her go, I want this to never end, just like a mobius strip woooo. She should strip like a mobius strip because she's also very hot. Let's have sex now!" or some angry emo shit like "fuck you bitch, it hurts so bad, like a sharp stick stuck into my foot, and then I stacked it and the sharp stick also stabbed into my chest. It hurts so bad in my heart."
Anyways this is the first time since forever that I've actually had no-one on my mind. It's been such a long time. You know how it's "don't miss the water till the well runs dry", but like the other way. It's like "never realised how thirsty you are until you reach a well". And even then it's not correct. It's not like it's not fun being involved or trying to get involved with someone. It's just different.
So the correct saying would be "Didn't realise how good Sprite tastes after you've been drinking lots of Coke." And vice versa when you switch back again.
Why does the argument "swear words are directed at women" even exist?
TRIGGER ALERT if swearing, especially ones targeting men, women, LGBT, racial slurs, offend you. Read more to continue.
Table of Contents
Part 1 - Saj being awesome
Part 2 - My attempt at being awesome
Part 3 - The controversial part that people might get pissed off at but read anyway, just so they can get pissed off and express their views.
Part 1
Saj (disgusted tone): And those chicks, I swear they all either wear short shorts or yoga pants
Jeff: What's so bad about yoga pants?
Saj: They're pretty bad when you can tell they obviously do not do yoga
Jeff: *respect*
Part 2
I was
What inspires you and why?And I answered that,
Girls at their best and worst inspire lots of stuff.
The piddly amount of songs not about girls is a tribute to this.
Wow guys think about girls a lot.
All the bloody songs are like really positive like "my girl's the best oooh yeah never wanna let her go, I want this to never end, just like a mobius strip woooo. She should strip like a mobius strip because she's also very hot. Let's have sex now!" or some angry emo shit like "fuck you bitch, it hurts so bad, like a sharp stick stuck into my foot, and then I stacked it and the sharp stick also stabbed into my chest. It hurts so bad in my heart."
Anyways this is the first time since forever that I've actually had no-one on my mind. It's been such a long time. You know how it's "don't miss the water till the well runs dry", but like the other way. It's like "never realised how thirsty you are until you reach a well". And even then it's not correct. It's not like it's not fun being involved or trying to get involved with someone. It's just different.
So the correct saying would be "Didn't realise how good Sprite tastes after you've been drinking lots of Coke." And vice versa when you switch back again.
Part 3
Why does the argument "swear words are directed at women" even exist?
TRIGGER ALERT if swearing, especially ones targeting men, women, LGBT, racial slurs, offend you. Read more to continue.
differentiation
I hear lots of people using the word "derive" to mean "take the derivative of" or "differentiate". I personally don't like this term.
While I cannot definitively say that the usage of "derive" to mean "differentiate" is incorrect, I can definitely say I have never seen a textbook or a teacher use "derive" to mean "dy/dx".
I feel the need to differentiate (haw haw) between the two, and explain the usage of the two in mathematics.
Differentiate
This means to take the derivative of. This means dy/dx. This means "kick the power down, subtract one from the power".
Derive
This means "prove" or "find". This means if "a + b = c", then we can derive that "a = c - b". If a question says "derive this function", it will always mean "look at the diagram and the information given, and use LHS = RHS to prove that the function given is correct". It will never mean "differentiate this function".
While I cannot definitively say that the usage of "derive" to mean "differentiate" is incorrect, I can definitely say I have never seen a textbook or a teacher use "derive" to mean "dy/dx".
I feel the need to differentiate (haw haw) between the two, and explain the usage of the two in mathematics.
Differentiate
This means to take the derivative of. This means dy/dx. This means "kick the power down, subtract one from the power".
Derive
This means "prove" or "find". This means if "a + b = c", then we can derive that "a = c - b". If a question says "derive this function", it will always mean "look at the diagram and the information given, and use LHS = RHS to prove that the function given is correct". It will never mean "differentiate this function".
moral dilemma
I asked on Formspring the question of how these rank in importance: a person's intention, their method of achieving that intention, and the end result of everything they've done.
I have issues with every choice, which I will propose to you right now.
Before I do so, I should define each
Intention - This is what the person wants. It is an idea, and it is not represented by any physical means. A "good" intention is one that agrees with current social paradigms; a "bad" intention does not.
Method - This is they physical form of one's intentions. A "good" method is one that successfully and efficiently carries out one's intention. A "bad" method is one that either doesn't achieve the intention, or is just a morally incorrect way of achieving one's intention (eg intention to own a car - steal a car is a morally incorrect method)
Result - The final snapshot of the situation after all's been done and said. It ignores what has been done during the Method if the Result does satisfy the Intention.
Click "Read More" to start!
I have issues with every choice, which I will propose to you right now.
Before I do so, I should define each
Intention - This is what the person wants. It is an idea, and it is not represented by any physical means. A "good" intention is one that agrees with current social paradigms; a "bad" intention does not.
Method - This is they physical form of one's intentions. A "good" method is one that successfully and efficiently carries out one's intention. A "bad" method is one that either doesn't achieve the intention, or is just a morally incorrect way of achieving one's intention (eg intention to own a car - steal a car is a morally incorrect method)
Result - The final snapshot of the situation after all's been done and said. It ignores what has been done during the Method if the Result does satisfy the Intention.
Click "Read More" to start!
follow the leader
While we're on AFX stories...
On AFX I had a tacit disagreement with the adult officers about my role as a Cadet Under Officer.
I was a Syndicate Coordinator. Don't worry about what it means, except that it's just not the top job within our Course of 93 cadets, and I was responsible for 29 cadets (Y).
I led the way I liked, and they wanted me to conform to the CUO they liked. So you can see what went wrong there.
The way I interpreted my role was that I would plan stuff, find out what needs to be done, find ways to lift morale, and then pass it down to a Sergeant to actually get down and dirty with the cadets.
The way they interpreted my role was to go around and shout at the cadets myself, and give direct orders to the cadets. Now I didn't believe this was correct, and hence didn't engage in this properly, and ended up ostracising myself from the adult officers and instead developing better relations with my cadets (the other CUOs who conformed to the adult officer's views obviously ended up doing the exact opposite).
Now I'd like to mention that CUO Gao (Brian) led in the way that I intended to (that is, not much shouting at the troops. Instead, officers should be planning stuff and finding out things to fix, then passing it down to someone else to shout about). He ended up winning the Best Coy award (a Coy is a Company, a group of 60-80 cadets). He is a smug douchebag and you should punch him when you next see him kkthnx ;)
Here is the time to point out that, in Cadets at least, there is no such thing as a single good leader. There is only such thing as a good command team. There needs to be some magical chemistry from CUO to Warrant Officers to Sergeants to Corporal to the Cadets. If any of those links have bad chemistry in between them, then it all falls apart and no matter how epic the CUO is, it'll be difficult to run it spectacularly.
Even though Brian is smug forever that his Charlie Company won Best Coy award (don't forget to punch him), he knows that he couldn't have done it if his CSM and SGTs weren't also capable (except for a certain SGT who we won't mention here xP)
In that respect, being a "good leader" means firstly knowing how to make good decisions, knowing your role, then being able to connect with many types of other leaders (inferior or superior). There exists not a universally good leader, but only a leader that has the potential to lead well under as many circumstances as possible.Even the "best" leaders will find someone who they don't get along with, and things won't run as smoothly as desired.
Nextly, semi-relatedly, there's what I call "immediate" leadership and then there's "sustainable" leadership. In my mind, "immediate" leadership is the intimidating, rawrblargh in your face type, where shit gets done, and it getes done quickly, at the compromise of the happiness of your inferiors. It is effective in the short term, but it sacrifices morale, and in the end your troops will end up tired of your shit.
"Sustainable" leadership takes a while to get started, but it develops better rapport with the inferiors. In the beginning, the inferiors might think you soft and may not obey you. Also, without being rawblargh in your face, sometimes the message gets lost. But once it gets going, your inferiors will respect you (assuming that your actions and decisions to date have been good ones), and shit will get done with minimal input.
As Inception kindly pointed out, "positive emotion trumps negative emotion every time."
Here's my model atm for my interpretation of effectiveness:
- Don't say anything unless you are sure of what you want. When giving directions they should be clear cut and be completely unambiguous. Umm's and ahh's also make the inferiors doubt the solidness of your decisions, and hence get done with less conviction.
- Never let your inferiors know that you are flaming them because someone else flamed yourself first. Let's say it was because of rubbish. The CUO would wtf at the Warrant Officer, and the Warrant Officer will wtf at the Sergeant. Now the Warrant Officer should flame the Sergeant because letting cadets leave rubbish around is wrong (not because the CUO flamed the Warrant Officer).
- Don't deny comforts unless there is a good reason to, and you can justify to your inferiors. If cadets are cold and they ask "Can I putz on a jumperz lol?", it's bad for morale if you say "no." You instead say "Don't put on a jumper unless you don't think you're going to survive. The sun's not down yet and it's yet to get colder."
- It's okay if there is a gap in your own knowledge. You just have to know how to find out. For instance, all I knew about asthma was that people can't breathe and they should puff from their reliever. I had the fortune of having a cadet say "Sir, I can't breathe." I knew very little about asthma, but I made sure she was holding her reliever while I sat her down. Note that this was during the abseiling activity, where no adult officers were present yet, and the St John's standby team was yet to arrive. If there are any cadets here, want to take a guess as to how I obtained the knowledge of how I knew how to deal with this attack?
- There needs to be a balance between being close enough with your inferiors so that they can trust you, yet be distant enough that you can give them orders.
Now I asked on Formspring for people to rate in order of importance - Results, Intention, Method. Here again I come back to this to evaluate a situation. I believe that the officers rated my performance valuing method over results and intention. I also noticed on Formspring that almost nobody (only 2 out of 33 people) chose Method as the most important result. My personal view on the rank of importance is [lol jokes you can find out in the next post when I go into this in detail].
In the eyes of the adult officers, my Method was shithole, my Intention was assumed to be good, but it was undeniable that the Results were better than they expected.
The Cook-Off wasn't due to any input from leadership, but the mini Chief of Army Challenge was! Each platoon (~30 cadets) was split up into sections of 9-10 cadets. They went around to various activities as a "test of objectives" to confirm that the week's training was successful and they remember how to do their shit. Out of the 12 sections that participated, first place and third place went to sections in my platoon (3PLT cheer! Lol jokes nobody from 3PLT is reading this).
Due to the nature of leadership that I stated before, it's impossible to claim my cadets victories throughout the week in my name alone - I could only make sure my Corporals were happy enough to keep the cadets happy motivated enough to learn and participate. As cheesy as it sounds, it was a team effort.
Anyways, storytelling aside - what do you think is the most important and least important out of Results, Intention and Method? Remember your answer because my next post will be quite the epic if I do say so myself.
On AFX I had a tacit disagreement with the adult officers about my role as a Cadet Under Officer.
I was a Syndicate Coordinator. Don't worry about what it means, except that it's just not the top job within our Course of 93 cadets, and I was responsible for 29 cadets (Y).
I led the way I liked, and they wanted me to conform to the CUO they liked. So you can see what went wrong there.
The way I interpreted my role was that I would plan stuff, find out what needs to be done, find ways to lift morale, and then pass it down to a Sergeant to actually get down and dirty with the cadets.
The way they interpreted my role was to go around and shout at the cadets myself, and give direct orders to the cadets. Now I didn't believe this was correct, and hence didn't engage in this properly, and ended up ostracising myself from the adult officers and instead developing better relations with my cadets (the other CUOs who conformed to the adult officer's views obviously ended up doing the exact opposite).
Now I'd like to mention that CUO Gao (Brian) led in the way that I intended to (that is, not much shouting at the troops. Instead, officers should be planning stuff and finding out things to fix, then passing it down to someone else to shout about). He ended up winning the Best Coy award (a Coy is a Company, a group of 60-80 cadets). He is a smug douchebag and you should punch him when you next see him kkthnx ;)
Here is the time to point out that, in Cadets at least, there is no such thing as a single good leader. There is only such thing as a good command team. There needs to be some magical chemistry from CUO to Warrant Officers to Sergeants to Corporal to the Cadets. If any of those links have bad chemistry in between them, then it all falls apart and no matter how epic the CUO is, it'll be difficult to run it spectacularly.
Even though Brian is smug forever that his Charlie Company won Best Coy award (don't forget to punch him), he knows that he couldn't have done it if his CSM and SGTs weren't also capable (except for a certain SGT who we won't mention here xP)
In that respect, being a "good leader" means firstly knowing how to make good decisions, knowing your role, then being able to connect with many types of other leaders (inferior or superior). There exists not a universally good leader, but only a leader that has the potential to lead well under as many circumstances as possible.Even the "best" leaders will find someone who they don't get along with, and things won't run as smoothly as desired.
Nextly, semi-relatedly, there's what I call "immediate" leadership and then there's "sustainable" leadership. In my mind, "immediate" leadership is the intimidating, rawrblargh in your face type, where shit gets done, and it getes done quickly, at the compromise of the happiness of your inferiors. It is effective in the short term, but it sacrifices morale, and in the end your troops will end up tired of your shit.
"Sustainable" leadership takes a while to get started, but it develops better rapport with the inferiors. In the beginning, the inferiors might think you soft and may not obey you. Also, without being rawblargh in your face, sometimes the message gets lost. But once it gets going, your inferiors will respect you (assuming that your actions and decisions to date have been good ones), and shit will get done with minimal input.
As Inception kindly pointed out, "positive emotion trumps negative emotion every time."
Here's my model atm for my interpretation of effectiveness:
- Don't say anything unless you are sure of what you want. When giving directions they should be clear cut and be completely unambiguous. Umm's and ahh's also make the inferiors doubt the solidness of your decisions, and hence get done with less conviction.
- Never let your inferiors know that you are flaming them because someone else flamed yourself first. Let's say it was because of rubbish. The CUO would wtf at the Warrant Officer, and the Warrant Officer will wtf at the Sergeant. Now the Warrant Officer should flame the Sergeant because letting cadets leave rubbish around is wrong (not because the CUO flamed the Warrant Officer).
- Don't deny comforts unless there is a good reason to, and you can justify to your inferiors. If cadets are cold and they ask "Can I putz on a jumperz lol?", it's bad for morale if you say "no." You instead say "Don't put on a jumper unless you don't think you're going to survive. The sun's not down yet and it's yet to get colder."
- It's okay if there is a gap in your own knowledge. You just have to know how to find out. For instance, all I knew about asthma was that people can't breathe and they should puff from their reliever. I had the fortune of having a cadet say "Sir, I can't breathe." I knew very little about asthma, but I made sure she was holding her reliever while I sat her down. Note that this was during the abseiling activity, where no adult officers were present yet, and the St John's standby team was yet to arrive. If there are any cadets here, want to take a guess as to how I obtained the knowledge of how I knew how to deal with this attack?
- There needs to be a balance between being close enough with your inferiors so that they can trust you, yet be distant enough that you can give them orders.
Now I asked on Formspring for people to rate in order of importance - Results, Intention, Method. Here again I come back to this to evaluate a situation. I believe that the officers rated my performance valuing method over results and intention. I also noticed on Formspring that almost nobody (only 2 out of 33 people) chose Method as the most important result. My personal view on the rank of importance is [lol jokes you can find out in the next post when I go into this in detail].
In the eyes of the adult officers, my Method was shithole, my Intention was assumed to be good, but it was undeniable that the Results were better than they expected.
The Cook-Off wasn't due to any input from leadership, but the mini Chief of Army Challenge was! Each platoon (~30 cadets) was split up into sections of 9-10 cadets. They went around to various activities as a "test of objectives" to confirm that the week's training was successful and they remember how to do their shit. Out of the 12 sections that participated, first place and third place went to sections in my platoon (3PLT cheer! Lol jokes nobody from 3PLT is reading this).
Due to the nature of leadership that I stated before, it's impossible to claim my cadets victories throughout the week in my name alone - I could only make sure my Corporals were happy enough to keep the cadets happy motivated enough to learn and participate. As cheesy as it sounds, it was a team effort.
Anyways, storytelling aside - what do you think is the most important and least important out of Results, Intention and Method? Remember your answer because my next post will be quite the epic if I do say so myself.
happiness is relative
What makes people happy? Is it purely based on what situation they are in right now?
How do you explain those people living in the cities in apartments, with more than enough food and water to sustain a balanced diet, with access to the internet and mobile phones, who are more down with life?
And compare these people to the islanders who only eat whatever the fuck they can find but are happy anyway?
It's all about frames of reference, and if you do physics, this would help a lot.
Now when people say they have a "need for speed", I find this quite inaccurate. They actually have a "need for acceleration". There is no thrill in travelling at a constant velocity of 100km/h. It feels just as thrilling as not travelling at all. Like, if you've sat on a subway before (hopefully a line that doesn't have many turns), there is no thrill of shooting around underground at 60km/h. Because travelling at a constant velocity exerts no force on the body, and hence you don't feel a thing.
Now the true thrill is when acceleration is experienced, ie when taking a sharp corner or when just straight out mashing the accelerator. The acceleration experienced by the body will cause the thrill.
Now I think the same works for happiness. An improvement in one's current situation will result in happiness. If one's situation is good for an extended period of time, it starts to "travel at a constant velocity", and hence they feel nothing. They can feel satisfied, but it's much harder to feel happy.
What you need to feel happy is a massive change in perspective or frame of reference. Going on AFX was just the thing for me. We lived in hootchies (click to see a pic of one that looks much like the one I set up myself), lived on ration packs for 7 days, constantly got rained on and blown around by the wind, had to deal with pricky officers (I did, at least - Brian had cool officers =C). We didn't have any resources to wash clothes, bodies, or even properly wash our hands. We also had to constantly work to keep our cadets happy despite all this.
This was my frame of reference. And now here's the "acceleration".
Brian and I, on the last day of AFX, when battalion allowed us to chill and sleep with our own home units, set up a hootchie that was spacious (ie, large enough so we could comfortably sit up in). We ate a dinner portion about twice of what the meal plan suggests, and I had a can of Sprite. We brushed our teeth properly and took a dump.
We were, after 6 days, in contact with other Ruse kids. We could do whatever the fuck we liked for about 4 hours.
To us, that was luxury.
Reflecting on this, it's actually in quite poor conditions on the grand scale of things. We weren't clean, we were in a fucking tent (no matter how big), we only had dying torches and glowsticks, we had to walk about 300m to the toilet. But we were smug as hell and happy beyond belief. It's not because we were good on the grand scale of things. But the improvement in conditions was what made it so enjoyable.
So the analogy is:
Where almost dying is 0km/h
Where living in a small hootchie etc etc on the first 6 days of AFX was 20km/h.
Where the last day of AFX with larger hootchie and taking a dump, brushing teeth, etc was 40km/h.
And most of our current living conditions with ample access to running water, internet, etc is 80km/h
Most of us are cruising at 80km/h, and we don't feel a thing. Because a constant velocity has no thrill, and it actually feels the same as sitting in the same place. Now us cadets quickly decelerated to 20km/h (which was thrilling nonetheless, as deceleration is just negative acceleration). While this deceleration didn't make us happy, it did make us somewhat excited. So we cruised at 20km/h, feeling alright but not overjoyed, and when the speed bumped up to 25km/h (the sun was out YAY), there was distinct happiness. Then on the last day, we were bumped up to 40km/h very quickly, and that was a massive moment of joy (as happiness and acceleration are directly analogous).
The stop by McDonald's was a bump for the cadets up to 60km/h (but for Brian and me it was terrible because we weren't meant to stop), but you can tell how happy they were for the unexpected change in situation in such a short time.
So an increase in situation is analogous to an increase in velocity. And so acceleration is analogous to happiness.
Mathematically, if you differentiate distance (strictly displacement) wrt time, you get velocity. If you differentiate wrt time again, you get acceleration.
Similarly if you integrate acceleration wrt time, you get velocity, integrate again and you get displacement.
Now there is no suitable analogy for distance (situation is measured wrt time as well!), but velocity can be analogous to one's situation. If you differentiate the situation wrt time, you get happiness.
Similarly if you integrate the measure of happiness wrt time, you get the situation,
Hence happiness is defined by the measure of change in situation over time.
How do you explain those people living in the cities in apartments, with more than enough food and water to sustain a balanced diet, with access to the internet and mobile phones, who are more down with life?
And compare these people to the islanders who only eat whatever the fuck they can find but are happy anyway?
It's all about frames of reference, and if you do physics, this would help a lot.
Now when people say they have a "need for speed", I find this quite inaccurate. They actually have a "need for acceleration". There is no thrill in travelling at a constant velocity of 100km/h. It feels just as thrilling as not travelling at all. Like, if you've sat on a subway before (hopefully a line that doesn't have many turns), there is no thrill of shooting around underground at 60km/h. Because travelling at a constant velocity exerts no force on the body, and hence you don't feel a thing.
Now the true thrill is when acceleration is experienced, ie when taking a sharp corner or when just straight out mashing the accelerator. The acceleration experienced by the body will cause the thrill.
Now I think the same works for happiness. An improvement in one's current situation will result in happiness. If one's situation is good for an extended period of time, it starts to "travel at a constant velocity", and hence they feel nothing. They can feel satisfied, but it's much harder to feel happy.
What you need to feel happy is a massive change in perspective or frame of reference. Going on AFX was just the thing for me. We lived in hootchies (click to see a pic of one that looks much like the one I set up myself), lived on ration packs for 7 days, constantly got rained on and blown around by the wind, had to deal with pricky officers (I did, at least - Brian had cool officers =C). We didn't have any resources to wash clothes, bodies, or even properly wash our hands. We also had to constantly work to keep our cadets happy despite all this.
This was my frame of reference. And now here's the "acceleration".
Brian and I, on the last day of AFX, when battalion allowed us to chill and sleep with our own home units, set up a hootchie that was spacious (ie, large enough so we could comfortably sit up in). We ate a dinner portion about twice of what the meal plan suggests, and I had a can of Sprite. We brushed our teeth properly and took a dump.
We were, after 6 days, in contact with other Ruse kids. We could do whatever the fuck we liked for about 4 hours.
To us, that was luxury.
Reflecting on this, it's actually in quite poor conditions on the grand scale of things. We weren't clean, we were in a fucking tent (no matter how big), we only had dying torches and glowsticks, we had to walk about 300m to the toilet. But we were smug as hell and happy beyond belief. It's not because we were good on the grand scale of things. But the improvement in conditions was what made it so enjoyable.
So the analogy is:
Where almost dying is 0km/h
Where living in a small hootchie etc etc on the first 6 days of AFX was 20km/h.
Where the last day of AFX with larger hootchie and taking a dump, brushing teeth, etc was 40km/h.
And most of our current living conditions with ample access to running water, internet, etc is 80km/h
Most of us are cruising at 80km/h, and we don't feel a thing. Because a constant velocity has no thrill, and it actually feels the same as sitting in the same place. Now us cadets quickly decelerated to 20km/h (which was thrilling nonetheless, as deceleration is just negative acceleration). While this deceleration didn't make us happy, it did make us somewhat excited. So we cruised at 20km/h, feeling alright but not overjoyed, and when the speed bumped up to 25km/h (the sun was out YAY), there was distinct happiness. Then on the last day, we were bumped up to 40km/h very quickly, and that was a massive moment of joy (as happiness and acceleration are directly analogous).
The stop by McDonald's was a bump for the cadets up to 60km/h (but for Brian and me it was terrible because we weren't meant to stop), but you can tell how happy they were for the unexpected change in situation in such a short time.
So an increase in situation is analogous to an increase in velocity. And so acceleration is analogous to happiness.
Mathematically, if you differentiate distance (strictly displacement) wrt time, you get velocity. If you differentiate wrt time again, you get acceleration.
Similarly if you integrate acceleration wrt time, you get velocity, integrate again and you get displacement.
Now there is no suitable analogy for distance (situation is measured wrt time as well!), but velocity can be analogous to one's situation. If you differentiate the situation wrt time, you get happiness.
Similarly if you integrate the measure of happiness wrt time, you get the situation,
Hence happiness is defined by the measure of change in situation over time.
a compliment accomplishment
Giving compliments is harder than it is given credit for. Sometimes it seems like it's out of pity, sometimes it seems even seems condescending.
I want to post my 2U Representation of Women essay's comment:
I know that this, in fact, is the equivalent of a glowing review. But it sure doesn't feel like it. Like the bit at the beginning, I'm not going to discuss cos it's a not a compliment. It is indeed constructive criticism because my essay did drop in quality after I got tired :L
But the additional word "mercifully", combined with me seeing everyone else's essays, makes it feel like a cheap moment of satisfaction. So in actuality the compliment was made stupid by implying that everyone else's essays sucked. So I didn't really enjoy that comment :L
Compliments are also always about timing. The subject of the compliment and the time it is given are subtly intertwined.
Like, if you're making out and then you say "Damn you're pretty", it would have less effect than if you said it while taking a walk through the park.
Because whether you intended to or not, because you're a dude and you're always wanting sex and you're a dick, if you give compliments during moments of intimacy you just want more sex. Truefact.
Certain praises during certain times can be described as "strings attached compliments".
So do comments about work. Like, a certain member of staff always gives unnecessariliy long speeches during assemblies that are tangent. But for the first time on Year 11 info night, I heard something useful. It went something along the lines of:
"Don't wait until after the results come back to praise them on their hard work. Don't even wait until after the exam to praise them on their hard work. Do it before the exam, where your compliment is completely unbiased by the actual occurence of the test"
And I found this a good idea. Giving praise/compliments as they are deserved is much more effective than a "Oh you got 30%? Well, you worked hard and you tried your best." No matter how you say it, it will always sound like either pity or condescension.
And if its a good result, it's like "Oh, 98%, son? Good, I see you worked hard enough.". And that is even worse than a "Wow 98% is a really good score. Good work". It's like, avoiding the actual compliment, which is the topic at hand, the mark. It's like the parent is just encouraging the kid to study more through that pseudo-compliment.
But if the praise was given before the actual test, the kid will know that they did indeed work hard, and regardless of the result, it will be true, even if their parents try to rescind that later xP.
So the unconditional nature of a compliment lends to its sincerity and any compliments with ulterior motives just feel cheap. And it's true. And remember it. Give them for the sake of complimenting and not for the sake of trying to please them or gain something from them (Y).
Semi-related topic. AC electricity can be shaped into many pick up lines. Take these key points and combine them at will 8D
I feel a spark/tingle/shock
Feels like a sine
I can't let go!
Solenoid + bar magnet to generate AC electricity. LET YOUR IMAGINATION RUN WILD.
Back and forth, back and forth motion of particles.
OH BEST EUPHEMISM FOR SEX THAT I HEARD IN AS YOU LIKE IT: "You just want to have a man in your belly"
I want to post my 2U Representation of Women essay's comment:
"Starts well but becomes a bit incoherent at the end. However you do answer the question & show extensive knowledge of the text. You also (mercifully) desmonstrate sophisticated control of language in readable writing"
I know that this, in fact, is the equivalent of a glowing review. But it sure doesn't feel like it. Like the bit at the beginning, I'm not going to discuss cos it's a not a compliment. It is indeed constructive criticism because my essay did drop in quality after I got tired :L
But the additional word "mercifully", combined with me seeing everyone else's essays, makes it feel like a cheap moment of satisfaction. So in actuality the compliment was made stupid by implying that everyone else's essays sucked. So I didn't really enjoy that comment :L
Compliments are also always about timing. The subject of the compliment and the time it is given are subtly intertwined.
Like, if you're making out and then you say "Damn you're pretty", it would have less effect than if you said it while taking a walk through the park.
Because whether you intended to or not, because you're a dude and you're always wanting sex and you're a dick, if you give compliments during moments of intimacy you just want more sex. Truefact.
Certain praises during certain times can be described as "strings attached compliments".
So do comments about work. Like, a certain member of staff always gives unnecessariliy long speeches during assemblies that are tangent. But for the first time on Year 11 info night, I heard something useful. It went something along the lines of:
"Don't wait until after the results come back to praise them on their hard work. Don't even wait until after the exam to praise them on their hard work. Do it before the exam, where your compliment is completely unbiased by the actual occurence of the test"
And I found this a good idea. Giving praise/compliments as they are deserved is much more effective than a "Oh you got 30%? Well, you worked hard and you tried your best." No matter how you say it, it will always sound like either pity or condescension.
And if its a good result, it's like "Oh, 98%, son? Good, I see you worked hard enough.". And that is even worse than a "Wow 98% is a really good score. Good work". It's like, avoiding the actual compliment, which is the topic at hand, the mark. It's like the parent is just encouraging the kid to study more through that pseudo-compliment.
But if the praise was given before the actual test, the kid will know that they did indeed work hard, and regardless of the result, it will be true, even if their parents try to rescind that later xP.
So the unconditional nature of a compliment lends to its sincerity and any compliments with ulterior motives just feel cheap. And it's true. And remember it. Give them for the sake of complimenting and not for the sake of trying to please them or gain something from them (Y).
Semi-related topic. AC electricity can be shaped into many pick up lines. Take these key points and combine them at will 8D
I feel a spark/tingle/shock
Feels like a sine
I can't let go!
Solenoid + bar magnet to generate AC electricity. LET YOUR IMAGINATION RUN WILD.
Back and forth, back and forth motion of particles.
OH BEST EUPHEMISM FOR SEX THAT I HEARD IN AS YOU LIKE IT: "You just want to have a man in your belly"
stationery
Ehh screw the feminism talks for now. Not because they're not important, but more because at this point in time I'm more likely to be an ass about it.
So, meaningless trivial posts for the time being, yah? =P
As you know I'm kinda anal about my stationery.
I usually only like to use one side of my rubber, and I never use the rubber on my pacer.
Now the first one is, as far as I'm aware, unique to me, but the second one, I swear nobody uses their pacer rubber. It's like. What you take out to put more lead in. When the rubber's a stump you can't take it out, and you're stuck with putting lead through the tip, which often breaks the lead. Plus the rubber looks ugly as fuck when it's been used.
The annoying thing is when people lose their morals regarding pacers just because it isn't their own pacer. It is so disheartening when I observe someone who doesn't use the rubber on the own pacer, but when I lend them one and I get my pacer back, and the rubber is all fucking deformed from being used. It wouldn't be as annoying if you just asked to use a normal rubber or something. It's not like the pacer rubbers were designed to erase - they just smudge and pretend to be cool.
Now back to the first one, about using one side of my rubber. This leaves one side of my rubber rounded off and dirty. The other part is PURE WHITE and still has crisp edges. What in the fucking world possesses you to think that I kept it in this condition just so you could use it?
When I was little my parents taught me to "Treat my own possessions carefully - but treat other's possessions even better."
Which means that I observe borrowed stationery for patterns of wear before using it =D. Because if I'm anal about my own stuff, then I ought to be anal about others too.
In conclusion
-Never use my pacer rubber
-My normal eraser will usually have a bias in wear and tear. One side (the larger bias) is when I use it, the other side (the very small bias) is when people charge ahead and use the nice part of the eraser and manage to use it for a few seconds before I rip their face off.
But atm I'm using an eraser that wasn't broken in by me, so it's like almost circular and I have no OCD attached to it. But when I get a new one... all beware!
-Also, never fold the casing on my iPod touch backwards, just let it hang.
So, meaningless trivial posts for the time being, yah? =P
As you know I'm kinda anal about my stationery.
I usually only like to use one side of my rubber, and I never use the rubber on my pacer.
Now the first one is, as far as I'm aware, unique to me, but the second one, I swear nobody uses their pacer rubber. It's like. What you take out to put more lead in. When the rubber's a stump you can't take it out, and you're stuck with putting lead through the tip, which often breaks the lead. Plus the rubber looks ugly as fuck when it's been used.
The annoying thing is when people lose their morals regarding pacers just because it isn't their own pacer. It is so disheartening when I observe someone who doesn't use the rubber on the own pacer, but when I lend them one and I get my pacer back, and the rubber is all fucking deformed from being used. It wouldn't be as annoying if you just asked to use a normal rubber or something. It's not like the pacer rubbers were designed to erase - they just smudge and pretend to be cool.
Now back to the first one, about using one side of my rubber. This leaves one side of my rubber rounded off and dirty. The other part is PURE WHITE and still has crisp edges. What in the fucking world possesses you to think that I kept it in this condition just so you could use it?
When I was little my parents taught me to "Treat my own possessions carefully - but treat other's possessions even better."
Which means that I observe borrowed stationery for patterns of wear before using it =D. Because if I'm anal about my own stuff, then I ought to be anal about others too.
In conclusion
-Never use my pacer rubber
-My normal eraser will usually have a bias in wear and tear. One side (the larger bias) is when I use it, the other side (the very small bias) is when people charge ahead and use the nice part of the eraser and manage to use it for a few seconds before I rip their face off.
But atm I'm using an eraser that wasn't broken in by me, so it's like almost circular and I have no OCD attached to it. But when I get a new one... all beware!
-Also, never fold the casing on my iPod touch backwards, just let it hang.
question time
The discussion on feminism was interesting and I did gain a new perspective.
But through the comments I also thought I saw some underlying accusations that were concerning - but I will have to confirm them through this post.
To clarify, honestly I am not passionate either way. I do not think feminism is retarded, nor can I call myself a diehard supporter. I am on the side of accepting that there are problems with society with regards to sexism. As one from "the outside" I have a good idea of why men aren't responding the way you'd want them to. But I am one (almost) man and the world is many.
And it is difficult to convince someone more passionate than I am of my views.
And hence my standing on feminism is "yeahp society is fucked but I cbf cos I can't do it myself. And I can't get more people because they aren't gonna listen to me."
So all seriousness I do agree that society is sexist, and there is a great problem with it. However I also do have a problem with how people are seeking to change it.
This is mainly to Amanda and Claudia, and to some extent Emily.
Oh yes I also need to mention I am very heartened to see that
a) People are not afraid of placing a name behind their words
b) People care about this enough to warrant part a)
I am going to be asking some neutral (as in minimal presumptions made) questions, and then asking another question based on your answer
The big question is:
Do you view feminism as a fight? (I would prefer a simple yes or no answer but I have a feeling I will be getting a lot of elaboration :L)
Trigger warning: Many of these links are about rape
Some links to responses to my initial post, "carded":
Amanda's and Kerrie's.
Kerrie linked this, which is an interesting "look from the bottom not the top" view. It is, however, written by a man. Though I still think it's worth a read, because I think it's pretty tactful.
Claudia linked, in one of her comments to my post, this post about rape culture which I found exceptionally eye-opening.
Interesting link if you have any views at all about the situation with women in higher corporate positions. Linked to me by Claudia. It's a very lengthy article and in honesty I'm only through 3/4 of it. But it provides a woman's view of the corporate world, and discusses issues such as "old boys groups", differences in corporate drive, the presence of women in exec boards, etc etc. What I read was an extremely interesting read (Y)
But through the comments I also thought I saw some underlying accusations that were concerning - but I will have to confirm them through this post.
To clarify, honestly I am not passionate either way. I do not think feminism is retarded, nor can I call myself a diehard supporter. I am on the side of accepting that there are problems with society with regards to sexism. As one from "the outside" I have a good idea of why men aren't responding the way you'd want them to. But I am one (almost) man and the world is many.
And it is difficult to convince someone more passionate than I am of my views.
And hence my standing on feminism is "yeahp society is fucked but I cbf cos I can't do it myself. And I can't get more people because they aren't gonna listen to me."
So all seriousness I do agree that society is sexist, and there is a great problem with it. However I also do have a problem with how people are seeking to change it.
This is mainly to Amanda and Claudia, and to some extent Emily.
Oh yes I also need to mention I am very heartened to see that
a) People are not afraid of placing a name behind their words
b) People care about this enough to warrant part a)
I am going to be asking some neutral (as in minimal presumptions made) questions, and then asking another question based on your answer
The big question is:
Do you view feminism as a fight? (I would prefer a simple yes or no answer but I have a feeling I will be getting a lot of elaboration :L)
Trigger warning: Many of these links are about rape
Some links to responses to my initial post, "carded":
Amanda's and Kerrie's.
Kerrie linked this, which is an interesting "look from the bottom not the top" view. It is, however, written by a man. Though I still think it's worth a read, because I think it's pretty tactful.
Claudia linked, in one of her comments to my post, this post about rape culture which I found exceptionally eye-opening.
Interesting link if you have any views at all about the situation with women in higher corporate positions. Linked to me by Claudia. It's a very lengthy article and in honesty I'm only through 3/4 of it. But it provides a woman's view of the corporate world, and discusses issues such as "old boys groups", differences in corporate drive, the presence of women in exec boards, etc etc. What I read was an extremely interesting read (Y)
carded
My personal view on feminism is that I will treat women in general equally, but with no more courtesy than I would treat a guy of the same social circle. So I will treat close friends poorly xP. Obviously I'll treat a girlfriend a little like a goddess on dates (and probably in between too), or let minor arguments slide (esp. during undesirable days of the month). But socially and economically they should be treated equally on all levels. I know this doesn't happen in 100% of men - but if you're seeking to make EVERY MAN think that women are equal, you're just plain deluded. There are people out there - at least one group of people hating on any other given group of people. I bet there is an anti-Jew movement. I bet there is an anti-Asian movement. I bet there is an anti-disabled people movement. I bet there is an anti-hamster movement. There are loons that hate on things, and you're wasting your time trying to change them.
There is no way in the fucking world that everyone will agree with you. You have to settle with "good enough". The unfortunate thing is that everyone's idea of "good enough" is different.
The word "feminist" means about as much to me as the word "Christian". It's massive umbrella term that doesn't really mean shit. Feminists range from "If we both work at Maccas, we both deserve minimum wage, isn't that fair?" to "YOU ASSHOLE DO YOU THINK I DON'T EARN MONEY? DO YOU SEEK TO PATRONISE ME WITH YOUR CHARITY? I AM CAPABLE OF PROVIDING FOR MYSELF."
This is just like how Christians range from "I kind of believe in God and I want to go to Heaven" to "I go to Church every Sunday and I pray 3 hours per day on other days."
I swear I posted before about a biological reason why there are less female CEO's atm, but I can't find it so I may put up a new one. It may not explain the still massive disparity, but I think it does make sense. It will come after this.
I see a card pulled out very often to make a point; I do believe that this is not a valid reason for thinking "our society is fucked, men are still more powerful":
Please don't continue if you will be offended by discussions of rape.
There is no way in the fucking world that everyone will agree with you. You have to settle with "good enough". The unfortunate thing is that everyone's idea of "good enough" is different.
The word "feminist" means about as much to me as the word "Christian". It's massive umbrella term that doesn't really mean shit. Feminists range from "If we both work at Maccas, we both deserve minimum wage, isn't that fair?" to "YOU ASSHOLE DO YOU THINK I DON'T EARN MONEY? DO YOU SEEK TO PATRONISE ME WITH YOUR CHARITY? I AM CAPABLE OF PROVIDING FOR MYSELF."
This is just like how Christians range from "I kind of believe in God and I want to go to Heaven" to "I go to Church every Sunday and I pray 3 hours per day on other days."
I swear I posted before about a biological reason why there are less female CEO's atm, but I can't find it so I may put up a new one. It may not explain the still massive disparity, but I think it does make sense. It will come after this.
I see a card pulled out very often to make a point; I do believe that this is not a valid reason for thinking "our society is fucked, men are still more powerful":
Please don't continue if you will be offended by discussions of rape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)