Virtue-signalling tip

[attofishpi]

The ONLY people that deserve praise are the blokes\lasses at the coal face.

Praise for what? For being needy? I hardly think that destitution valourizes anyone. Rather, I would suggest they deserve our personal sympathy and, if we can do it rightly, our practical support, don't you?

No U womble, I am talking about the selfless volunteers and the paid firefighters that are attempting to quelch the incessant fire.

But make no mistake: behind all this is nothing but petty human greed.

A_greed.


CO2

A star
from afar
or so close
this one i boast
does power my car
i run afar
places never guilt
now it's coated in silt
aeons of fury
nature my judge and jury
but i feel so fine
it's running all the time
to take me nowhere
why should i care
noone ever does
whats all the fuss?
fuck it any way
the Earth can suck it all day
milenia of energy
stored up and exhaled
in a spliff of a century
someone said to me
take your foot off the peddle
with the balance you've meddled
but we say back
fuck nature, fuck that
fuck everything we're a new breed
i'm human i need
oh planet?
we never planned it!

GREED IS THE POWER NOW

(from www.andrewseas.com)

[Immanuel Can]

The ONLY people that deserve praise are the blokes\lasses at the coal face.

Praise for what? For being needy? I hardly think that destitution valourizes anyone. Rather, I would suggest they deserve our personal sympathy and, if we can do it rightly, our practical support, don't you?

I am talking about the selfless volunteers and the paid firefighters that are attempting to quelch the incessant fire.

Ah.

I thought you were maybe talking about the people whose houses had been destroyed, or the families of those who had lost their lives...the sufferers, not the rescuers.

I apologize for the mistake. It was a product of the fact that there's plenty of rhetoric around these days to the effect that simply having been a "victim" or an "oppressed" entity makes one morally superior -- which of course, is twaddle. It does nothing either way. Good people can be "victims," and bad ones can be "victims." The "oppressed" includes both good and bad folks as well. It is not the case that their humanity is different from that of the rich: they are just as capable of love and hatred, of selflessness and of greed.

And that's part of the problem. Social justice types think that being oppressed is a morally-elevating condition. But it's not, anymore than being rich is. But neither is either a morally-depraving condition, in itself. Everything depends on one's reaction to the circumstances, not on the circumstances themselves.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It was a product of the fact that there's plenty of rhetoric around these days to the effect that simply having been a "victim" or an "oppressed" entity makes one morally superior

Could you cite some examples? Having empathy for someone in dire straits is hardly the same thing as saying they are 'morally superior'.

[Impenitent]

It was a product of the fact that there's plenty of rhetoric around these days to the effect that simply having been a "victim" or an "oppressed" entity makes one morally superior

Could you cite some examples? Having empathy for someone in dire straits is hardly the same thing as saying they are 'morally superior'.

Mark Knopfler needs as much empathy as the Pope...

Imp

[vegetariantaxidermy]

[Immanuel Can]

It was a product of the fact that there's plenty of rhetoric around these days to the effect that simply having been a "victim" or an "oppressed" entity makes one morally superior

Could you cite some examples? Having empathy for someone in dire straits is hardly the same thing as saying they are 'morally superior'.

Sure. Read something like "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," by Franz Fanon, and you'll find a classic example of it. There's a whole "academic" cottage industry built on those ideas: practitioners of "alternative lifestyles" are morally superior to "heteronormatives," aboriginal peoples are morally superior to "colonizers," women are morally superior to men..and so on.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It was a product of the fact that there's plenty of rhetoric around these days to the effect that simply having been a "victim" or an "oppressed" entity makes one morally superior

Could you cite some examples? Having empathy for someone in dire straits is hardly the same thing as saying they are 'morally superior'.

Sure. Read something like "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," by Franz Fanon, and you'll find a classic example of it. There's a whole "academic" cottage industry built on those ideas: practitioners of "alternative lifestyles" are morally superior to "heteronormatives," aboriginal peoples are morally superior to "colonizers," women are morally superior to men..and so on.

"Pedagogy of the Oppressed'' doesn't appear to have been written by the person you quoted. That said, don't you think that those who want to oppress others are not the most morally sound of human beings? Are they not arseholes by default?

[Immanuel Can]

Could you cite some examples? Having empathy for someone in dire straits is hardly the same thing as saying they are 'morally superior'.

Sure. Read something like "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," by Franz Fanon, and you'll find a classic example of it. There's a whole "academic" cottage industry built on those ideas: practitioners of "alternative lifestyles" are morally superior to "heteronormatives," aboriginal peoples are morally superior to "colonizers," women are morally superior to men..and so on.

"Pedagogy of the Oppressed'' doesn't appear to have been written by the person you quoted.

Oh, sorry...you're right. It's Paolo Freire. I misspoke: my apologies. I should have looked it up. But Franz Fanon has his own battery of such writings, so I just got one politically-correct author mixed up with another. They all sound the same anyway. Edward Said would be another. They're a club. And there's a ton of feminists who play the same sad songs, with some "victim" group being posited as inherently virtuous relative to their wicked "oppressors."

That said, don't you think that those who want to oppress others are not the most morally sound of human beings? Are they not arseholes by default?

If they're oppressors, sure. But being rich, or white, or male, or heterosexual, or tall, or athletic, or intelligent... doesn't make one automatically an oppressor...at least, not in the eyes of any sane person.

And even in those cases in which there is a real jerk, their being jerks does nothing to justify an "oppressed" (so-called) person also being a jerk. One doesn't get genuine moral superiority by behaving like a jerk, ain't that right?

[gaffo]

He's a mining CEO ffs.

Which might be a bad thing, and might be a good thing -- we don't know. So I'm not defending him or judging him.

I'm talking about ourselves: about our attitude, our reactions, our own view of life.

Why do we focus on how much money the man has, instead of saying, "Oh, good...somebody's giving help to people who need it." Meanwhile, most of us are giving a lot less, or more likely, nothing? But somehow, we want to obsess over the fact that somebody has more money than we do, and we feel as though that entitles us hate him/her, to feel aggrieved, and to demand he/she give it up.

What makes us deserving of that?

Sure. Why didn't this guy chuck his $2 in and make it anonymous. OR if he wants to build up the following for OZI donations by going public - fair enough - then make the amount ($2) discrete\hidden - NAH - he was bathing in glory as if he was a hero.

Like I said in a roundabout way, there is reason for going public about your contributions - to revel the rest of the money hoardering scum to also chuck in their equivalent $2 - ....this guy was on national TV like a hero - FFS.

The ONLY people that deserve praise are the blokes\lasses at the coal face.

Good point sir. Charity (the good lexicon for Social Justice - though the same thing symantically), is always good, but better if IMO if the doner does so via moral reasons rather than egocentic ones.

I guess if you were a puritan you would deny the charity if it is by a donor who does so out of ego, rather than out of humble motives.

then denying the $$ because you think the donor is giving for his ego and not those in need, make you a dick for not allowing the other dick to give you money to help others.

ya, the world is complex/gray and there are many motives and actions by all the players.

[gaffo]

Getting into the billions is pretty fucking ridiculous--it indicates that the person is a hoarder, obsessed with increasing their wealth for no purpose other than to feed their mental illness. Freeing these greedy mental-defectives from the burden of their obsession is doing them a favour.

I couldn't live with myself if I had that kind of money while there are so many with nothing, or children who need operations their parents can't afford. Either they are mentally ill or they are the biggest kunts imaginable. Take your pick.

Maybe. And let all that be true: but does it justify our hatred?

Does it make us good people that we are full of spite and jealousy? And why aren't we even a little bit happy for the people who have received help from their giving? Why are we looking at the portion they have in hand, rather than the portion they gave away -- which after all, they were under no obligation to give?

When we look at them, we need to look in the mirror, too. What kind of people are we becoming? Are the emotions we are experiencing spite, rage, venom, greed, injury, contempt...and so on? And does that make us good people?

Do we not ourselves have enough, and more than most of the world? How much of our own income have we donated? If he is in the 1% in our country, are we not also in the 1% worldwide?

Pure wisdom! i thank you, and YES "globalism = bad" mentality if from the butt-hurt Detriot ex factory workers making much 30 yrs ago and now unembloyed, and similar (and i understand the grevance - just think its ignorant too - for the 100's millions on earth that were starving - literally - under that same globalism 30s yrs ago are now not dying from lack of food - while you lost your job (but are not starving to death! - so be thankfull!).

so ya, thanks for your global view, it mine, and thanks for your humanity.

and wisdom, your above post shows you are a wise man (though wrong in your Christian views - per they are needed for men to become wise/moral - but understand since you are a christian, why you would think it so - though dissagree thousand percent).

[gaffo]

Getting into the billions is pretty fucking ridiculous--it indicates that the person is a hoarder, obsessed with increasing their wealth for no purpose other than to feed their mental illness. Freeing these greedy mental-defectives from the burden of their obsession is doing them a favour.

I couldn't live with myself if I had that kind of money while there are so many with nothing, or children who need operations their parents can't afford. Either they are mentally ill or they are the biggest kunts imaginable. Take your pick.

Maybe. And let all that be true: but does it justify our hatred?

Does it make us good people that we are full of spite and jealousy? And why aren't we even a little bit happy for the people who have received help from their giving? Why are we looking at the portion they have in hand, rather than the portion they gave away -- which after all, they were under no obligation to give?

When we look at them, we need to look in the mirror, too. What kind of people are we becoming? Are the emotions we are experiencing spite, rage, venom, greed, injury, contempt...and so on? And does that make us good people?

Do we not ourselves have enough, and more than most of the world? How much of our own income have we donated? If he is in the 1% in our country, are we not also in the 1% worldwide? (If we have an income of $32K American/annum, we are!) How is it that we've lost sight of our own blessings, and can think of nothing but the advantages held by others -- whether those advantages are legitimate or not?

And there is such a thing as being legitimately wealthy. I have known such people. I am not one of them. But they do not harm me, and it would only be a stroke against my character if their hard work and good results spawned in me nothing but envy, no? Is it not better simply to be glad for them, and to attend to my duty to be a better person myself?

There's quite a difference between being wealthy in a normal way and being a multi billionaire. There's no point in having billions unless you do give most of it away, because it would be impossible to spend that amount just on yourself. As I said--they are hoarders. Giving the bulk of it away to those who made you mega-rich would be a good start. No one does it on their own. The only things that made them stand out are greed and the kind of brain that's good at business dealings.

billionaire are irrelivent though since there are 2000 or so anyway..............just sayin.

[gaffo]

There's quite a difference between being wealthy in a normal way and being a multi billionaire.

It's all "scale," though.

I've stood in an open field in which 4 million people were trying to live on less than $1 a day. I saw how they live. I've entered their homes, partaken of their hospitality and felt the vast sea of human suffering washing up against my feet.

To them, I AM the billionaire. I'm certainly in the 1% of the world's population...but when I go home, I'm an ordinary guy with an ordinary income. I can forgive myself if I'm selfish, because I can see others around me likewise being selfish, and they are at my scale. But the truth is that I own lots of stuff I don't need. I eat better than most of the world ever will, and sleep securely at night. Should they hate me for that?

I've also been to Hollywood. I've stayed with friends who are millionaires. But among their peers, they're totally ordinary. Now, they worked hard for what they got, took risks I wouldn't have with their own futures, and they managed to win. It's never occurred to me for a second to be jealous of them, though they have far more than I do. Would it make me righteous or better than them if I were jealous? Would it make me good if I wanted them to give me their stuff, or worse -- started to hate them just because they had stuff I didn't?

There's no point in having billions unless you do give most of it away, because it would be impossible to spend that amount just on yourself. As I said--they are hoarders.

I don't know if I'd call Bill and Melinda Gates "hoarders." At one time, they were the world's richest people, but nowadays they seem preoccupied with giving it away. Now, I'm sure they still live much better than I do, but I know for a fact they've done a ton of good...much more than I can do with my very average income. Why would I hate them?

No one does it on their own.

The Gates did. Nobody strong-armed them into anything, so far as I know. Bill was sharp, and made money inventing and selling things people really, really wanted to buy. We're communicating on one right now, as a matter of fact. So he became very successful. And now he's being very kind.

But here we are focusing on them. What about us? What about you and me? How much have we given to the relief of the underprivileged? And what on earth could ever justify our hatred?

What you are waxing lyrical about has nothing to do with anything I've said. Gates is still a multi-billionaire. He also stole his ideas from IBM. I'm not going to get into a pointless non-argument about individual billionaires and what they do with a teensy (tax deductible) portion of it.
Who said anything about 'hate'? Or 'jealousy'? How conceited (and very American) to assume everyone sees great wealth as the be all and end all of existence and that everyone else is just 'jealous'. Pathetic.
Please spare me the 'good kristian' act.
4 million people is an awful lot of people to squeeze onto one field

Gates took Tim Paterson''s DOS for a pitance, and the other gay - employ of DEC - did not show up to meet with IBM so no CP/M adoption by IBM.

Gates was/is a dick, but others in the hinsight of history were enablers, and he just was the opportunists.

[gaffo]

There's quite a difference between being wealthy in a normal way and being a multi billionaire.

It's all "scale," though.

I've stood in an open field in which 4 million people were trying to live on less than $1 a day. I saw how they live. I've entered their homes, partaken of their hospitality and felt the vast sea of human suffering washing up against my feet.

To them, I AM the billionaire. I'm certainly in the 1% of the world's population...but when I go home, I'm an ordinary guy with an ordinary income. I can forgive myself if I'm selfish, because I can see others around me likewise being selfish, and they are at my scale. But the truth is that I own lots of stuff I don't need. I eat better than most of the world ever will, and sleep securely at night. Should they hate me for that?

I've also been to Hollywood. I've stayed with friends who are millionaires. But among their peers, they're totally ordinary. Now, they worked hard for what they got, took risks I wouldn't have with their own futures, and they managed to win. It's never occurred to me for a second to be jealous of them, though they have far more than I do. Would it make me righteous or better than them if I were jealous? Would it make me good if I wanted them to give me their stuff, or worse -- started to hate them just because they had stuff I didn't?

There's no point in having billions unless you do give most of it away, because it would be impossible to spend that amount just on yourself. As I said--they are hoarders.

I don't know if I'd call Bill and Melinda Gates "hoarders." At one time, they were the world's richest people, but nowadays they seem preoccupied with giving it away. Now, I'm sure they still live much better than I do, but I know for a fact they've done a ton of good...much more than I can do with my very average income. Why would I hate them?

No one does it on their own.

The Gates did. Nobody strong-armed them into anything, so far as I know. Bill was sharp, and made money inventing and selling things people really, really wanted to buy. We're communicating on one right now, as a matter of fact. So he became very successful. And now he's being very kind.

But here we are focusing on them. What about us? What about you and me? How much have we given to the relief of the underprivileged? And what on earth could ever justify our hatred?

I suspect Gates has become a better man than he used to be (via his wife), but he invented nothing (he had no intelligence to invent, only to exploit - which he did via Patterson - who i assume had more of a qift to invent, but less to exploit - so was "Taken")

Gates was never a visionary, just a solely opportunist.

we suffered under "Windows" a near decade - from 1990-2000, when there are the better operating system - OS/2 (under IBM) - but former won out, and the latter - being a dinosaur corporation had no ability to move fast enough to kill Gates windows and allow OS/2 to win the war even though it was orders of magnitude better.

i had a PC in the 90's when OS/.2 Warp was out, with Gate's Windows 95 and his better window's NT 4.0 - (i had an early Linux Slackware 2.0 installed too).

ie i had a multi stall of all 4 OS'es on my pentium 133 in the mid 90's, and Warp ran circles around windows NT, and windows 95. Linux at that time was fast but religated to the command line, (predated KDE (which was great! but it did not exist at this time).

Gates is a "hack" IMO, he is a wolf and so knows how to take from clowns (maybe Patterson was a clown - i know IBM was for being too slow to make OS/2 the mainstream OS we should have had instead of what we ended up with). but never "invented" shit.


note/addemdum, i upgraded my 133 pent with a 240 winchip2 (one of 5 intel compatible chips in the day - Centaur/IDT(integrated dev tech)-when running os/2 warp vs the other "multitasking" OS rival windows NT 4, the former was twice as fast per my person experience).

and windoz 95 was not even in the running..............

[gaffo]

. One doesn't get genuine moral superiority by behaving like a jerk, ain't that right?

right.

[attofishpi]

I suspect Gates has become a better man than he used to be (via his wife), but he invented nothing (he had no intelligence to invent, only to exploit - which he did via Patterson - who i assume had more of a qift to invent, but less to exploit - so was "Taken")

Gates was never a visionary, just a solely opportunist.

Gates is a "hack" IMO, he is a wolf and so knows how to take from clowns

What a load of rubbish!! Bill Gates was and still is a genius.