Recent posts by Ungeziefer on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Russell Brand: New disinformationist?

Russell Brand started out as a stand up comedian and found fame fronting a Big Brother spin-off, which just about sums up his intellectual level.

I actually quite disagree. I find him generally quite insightful, well read, and very potently aware of his status as a celebrity. But I’ve been a fan ever since he referenced Baudelaire in his stand up. Ultimately he’s a utopian socialist, but nothing terribly fringe. I’d suggest he gives a quite solid interview here. Well worth the watch in my opinion.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Womyn: noble effourt or heroic cause

Be warned, owning a slave is a lot of work. Especially if you don’t wish to be walked all over by the slave. Being a slavemaster takes a certain mindset and hefty measure of self control. But yea, it can be very, very rewarding for all parties concerned if the Dominant knows what they’re doing.

Damnit Vika, I spend like five minutes lurking on a blue moon and now I can’t resist chiming in with a chuckle.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should medical crystal meth be legalized?

I’m just joining this discussion, but I see no good reason meth should be legalized.

I would suggest because it makes criminals out of responsible users, producers and distributors. That it further enforce the government’s presumption to dictate drug use.

And how often have we seen or heard of hyponatremia deaths, compared to those due to drug use?

They’re quite common. But I wouldn’t want the government dictating what I do on the basis of how other people manage to kill themselves.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should medical crystal meth be legalized?

Crystal meth has many medical benefits such as weight loss. Also it cures cancer and AIDS. So, should medical crystal meth be legalized?

Virtually is already, unless you’re poor. (Sounding more like Urine every day….) There’s no shortage of powerful amphetamines in the contemporary legal drug market. From diet pills for the white picket fence type, to powerful stimulants for the airforce, potent amphetamines remain readily accessible so long as they retain a price tag and privatized, legally protected, revenue for big pharmaceutical businesses and their partners in legal arbitration and enforcement.

Although nod to Online for beating me to that punch.

And while I agree with greg’s sentiment I would have to add a codicil:- It’s your body, put into it / do unto it as you see fit – do not expect me (or society more generally – and I’m aware this is more relevant in countries with ‘socialised’ healthcare, etc) to pay for any medical condition arising therefrom, or to support you if (extreme example) you decide to have amputated both arms, etc.

I have to agree with you. Although most people with dangerous vices generally cost public health less money. Everyone dies. Protracted, intensive care without possible resolution until inevitable death tends to be the largest financial burden. Healthy people tend to draw that out. The vice ridden generally get to it sooner, and get out of it sooner. Only they have to front the moral outrage at the cost of their audacity to die.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism: Does Sexual Exploitation Empower Women?

It’s a generally frowned upon profession and for her to say it is empowering is very ignorant.

So it is important for women to fulfill social expectations constructed for them? Regardless of their personal views. So we have a vote for socially constructed biased paradigms, none for personal agency.

If she wishes to empower women, set a good example. Be the woman you want other women to be.

Which, conditioned by your previous statement, is openly -“Set a good example, be the woman I want women to be.” That you would even frame such a statement under the suggestion that it is her agency, volition, and authority at work is frankly staggering.

Successful, respectful, powerful women should lead the movement.

Who defines success? Who defines respect? Who defines power (arguable that one, really)? Gendered social constructs made by separate, self appointed, authoritarian structures, desperately trying to supplant individual identity with sexist super ego? “It’s not important that you respect yourself, it’s important that you are are respected (by society, men, myself)”

So here’s something I think would be interesting to revive the thread with.

I think coercion is a very different bag then physical force or spontaneous aggressive moves without consent. I don’t find the numbers on “Coercive” “sexual behaviors” leading to things very startling or that bothersome. I’ve had enough of the dreaded “unwanted sexual contact”, and speaking from my male perspective (Where, my physical supremacy and ultimately final arbitration of a conflict situation is generally assumed) I find the most bothersome thing being the privilege and assumption of consent.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Prostitution

You have to retain the fine. If you don’t, you will get people trying to wiggle their way out of any punishment whatsoever.

I suppose an only tally system would have no immediate punishment, but there would be the looming threat of escalating.

If they truly cannot afford it, the court will take this into consideration, and choose to waive the fine, in lieu of penalty another way. Community service most likely.

Or, they might not. Summary sentencing by rote based upon approved non differentiating standards seems more likely. Mostly how things work now. Although, you’ve brought to mind an interesting notion. Time based sentencing. I think a case could be made for the rich having more time then the poor, but not that much. A certain number of requisite hours seems fairly equitable across the board.

The fine IS a good idea, because if a person cannot pay it and has an honest reason why they cannot, then the form of punishment is changed.

Even supposing they can pay it, it still remains more punishing of the Poorer then the Richer.

What they are meant to do is cover the legal administration costs. I’ve no problem with the fines being raised, so long as they’re still waived for those who cannot afford to pay them. In the long run they will have to be raised, to cover the costs of the numbers being prosecuted who cannot afford to pay them.

Sort of? Most mass ticketable offenses (Speeding) are employed directly as a revenue generator. Which covers costs, yes, but for the most part nothing directly associated with the offense itself. Also large or troubled cases do not see an increase in fines to cover their more extensive cost.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Prostitution

Lawyers typically do not have passion. They are essentially professionally trained liars and con artists, not people seeking to push the boundaries and explore new heights. Typically they’re in it for the money, occasionally for the pleasure of seeing others suffer. So it is a very tightly tied to money profession.

I must disagree with you there. I find most lawyers very interested in law (if not, justice) and pretty ready to push the boundaries and explore. I don’t disagree they are in it for the money, especially so at inception. But what I am trying to suggest is that there are many very capable, very dedicated agents in that profession and it is precisely because of the money.

No shortage of chemical engineers is something I’m surprised by. There is a chronic shortage of engineers generally. Chronic shortage across the sciences that is only getting worse.

Well fresh out of a bachelor’s around here you can expect to make a little shy of a hundred grand yearly with total employment confidence. Which is pretty sexy when compared to a half dozen fine art’s graduates I know making just blush of minimum wage.

Although, I do agree that there is a shortage of sciences. I’m in a petrochem city, so anything oil and gas tends to have gold rain down on it and one can really, really, see the effect that has on profession and education spreads.

It is however, absolutely essential for someone willing to go into R&D. No passion, no researcher. They become a lawyer or a financier instead. No matter how much money someonte threw at you, they would not instill in you an all-consuming passion to push boundaries, push your very limits, and spend every waking moment dreaming about this passion. Such things can only be nurtured from an initial seed and grown over time, not created by dropping say fifty million dollars in a person’s lap and telling them they are now a biomedical researcher. Their life is to revolve around that passion now.

I disagree with the suggestion that various non RD jobs are bereft of passion and that those within are expressly born of it. Look at R&D for Big Pharma, I’m not convinced everyone of them crawled up from the playground and shouted to the heavens “I shall synthesize designer drugs and privatized cures for the wealthy!” but there they are, in spades, being quite well compensated.

Now I will give you that there are the rare and exceptional for whom finances don’t hold much draw, dangerous torchbearers with lightning in a bottle. But anything with sufficient pay scale is going to see a swathe of very capable, very ardent workers. I also agree with your emphasis on it being an organic process nurtured, encouraged, enabled and educated but I don’t see that as at odds with high paying positions – one hand washes the other.

But backtracking a little. My main emphasis and original point was that our local Wunderkind, or even a handful of capable people, will not be able to achieve the requisite education, study, training, without a certain amount of capital.

Providing the conductor can be bothered to check it. Or that the train service is even still using them and hasn’t gone totally automated.

Generally at the stop four or so rookie cops will come aboard, check everyone trying to leave, and check everyone remaining. But nope, no automation around here.

you may consider it semantics, but I have to absolutely disagree with you. It’s the land that accounts for most of it, and the house, and the fixtures and fittings I inherited with it. It’s hard to use dirt as readily available capital, or to shop with a house as payment.

One could sell it. It is by your own estimation you have multiple millions of dollars in assets, and liquid or not I must again say that would seem to qualify you as a multimillionaire. Which, much as it sounds, is well out of the scope of what most people consider the middle class and is a hundred fold the average american.

My actual available finances are far, far short of the million. I have property which I can sell if required (assuming anyone wishes to buy at the time) but to do so also means I have to go without that property. A range is one of the things I inherited with the house when my grandmother passed on. I could sell it in theory, and go through all the palava of having it disconnected, dragged out of the house, and buy something else to cook food on. But it’s hardly easily accessible money. Plus then I wouldn’t have access to it anymore. This turbine which is in my thoughts a lot atm, is going to set us back £150k. If I were really the multimillionaire you assume I am, I would have the ready capital to purchase it relatively worry-free. Instead, that is a sizable chunk of change. Absolutely worth it, as we spent several days without power last December. My fault there; I forgot to buy more fuel for the generators. I knew we were low, but not that low, and then the winds hit, and the powerlines decided they wished to lay on the ground for a while…

Yes, selling things is inconvenient. But it does operate under the assumption that one owns a thing. So, there is that. Also, I did not assume you were a multimillionaire; You told us you had a net worth of about three million. I’m sitting at about thirty five thousand personally in the interest of reciprocity.

It’s also why I’m so steadfastly against thijser’s idea of fining people not in money, but in terms of a percentage of their property, for minor breaches of the law – such as prostitution or your dog fowling the verge. I’ve got some inkling of the utter hell it would be, liquidating your home, and trying to keep assets whole as opposed to partitioned, just to pay what would for anyone else, be a minor fine.

I’m not sure I follow why for anyone else it would be a minor fine if we are operating under the assumption of a total stake in finances. Last time I got a ticket I was in net debt though, so I suppose operating under a percentage fine I would have been awarded a small sum of money, heh. What I don’t follow is your suggesting that you would have less solvency or control per dollar. It would be inconvenient to sell a home and buy another, certainly. But alternatively having the bank foreclose and minimum house values out of reach would leave one homeless. Which seems worse.

A better way to handle it would be something more in line with the driving lisence points system, where you get X points per offense along with a fine. Get enough points and you’re off the road, regardless of how much money you have. Do it with sex trafficing, and if you get caught enough times you’re in jail, regardless of what financial means you have. It’s a much fairer way of dealing with the potential for inequal finances, by taking them out of the equation.

Except that you suggest they retain the fine, which keeps the legal system de facto more punishing of the poor. I’m not against the idea of a tallying system, but beyond simple misdemeanors the impact a percent fine could have on the behavior of the ultra rich would be interesting.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Prostitution

No, I don’t. We have a solid public education system as it is. It doesn’t need more money. What it needs is better management of the existing resources it has.
What we really lack are qualified, exuberant individuals willing to explore. There’s a dearth of those right aross the sciences. We don’t need the problem fixing 20 years after the education minister stops playing ’let’s radically change the curriculum every other week’, we need it fixing now.

I meant less money within the education system and money in the hands of potential students.

Money’s a bit player at best. You can’t pay someone to create a lifelong passion for a subject. It doesn’t work that way. You have to instill it, and let it grow. That doesn’t mean throwing pounds at them, that means nurturing their passion from a teaching perspective.
It’s policy that’s wrong, not the money.

One also cannot pay their bills with passion for a subject. I think I also disagree with the assertion that money alone can’t create passion for a subject, there’s no shortage of lawyers or chemical engineers in my neck of the woods. But back to, passion for a subject does not create the means for serious study and mastery. I’d say the level of financial risk, or total impossibility, may have a great deal to do with the absence of qualified individuals.

Fare dodgers are a rife issue across the public transport services. Probably all comes down to body language and fitting in. Bypass the station and just slip onto the train at the platform. For many of them that likely boils down to just boosting over the access gate to the side.

Around here it’s more of a train system. Everyone aboard has to provide a ticket.

It really isn’t. This used to be a working farmstead, and its normal for farmers to have that sort of money. Plus a mill only looks good on paper. It goes a lot less far than you’d think.

Absolutely disagree with you. Arguing what financial ‘class’ that fits will break down to semantics, but objectively you’re a multimillionaire. As for how far that would go, I think I have a very fine idea how far. I run a pretty tight budget and I assure you I could live the rest of my life quite comfortably on that sum. A single million would pay rent for the next 83 years.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Prostitution

What’s needed is qualified, passionate researchers and time. It all falls back to time.

Don’t see undereducation as largely a financial societal problem Vika? Given my run of things, I’d have to beg to differ.

But, I fear we are needing to show how this socio-econ situation still ties to prostitution.

I would suggest, how many prostitutes are so employed due to their preference within their abilities? I’d imagine not very many. Or phrased differently, how many prostitutes could, and would, find alternative careers given the means?

But hey, if someone is to poor to even own a car….lucky them…no costly insurances and speeding ticket and gassing up and oil changes.

Heh. While entirely destitute I once got aboard public transit without fare (a long, tragic, story of unfortunate coincidence), got a ticket for that. Never paid it.

Add it all up, and I doubt it would come to much more than about three mill.

That is well above middle class.

Interestingly enough that makes you exactly around 10 times as rich as the median american (who has a beth worth of a 38 000$

About 100 fold actually.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Free speech vs. discrimination -- where do we draw the line?


So my question to everyone is—are her opinions appropriate and protected under free speech? Or are they out of line, and reflecting poorly on the college she represents? Are they discriminatory, and if so, should her military students be eligible for reparations and grades they feel they may have been awarded unfairly?

I think her opinions are quite appropriate, despite it being unwise to voice them in a public forum. I don’t think her employer is beholden to retain her as a liability, but I don’t think any of the comments I saw merit her dismissal beyond the media fall out. They reflect poorly on the college only in so far as they don’t maintain the status quo, and keep everyone happy. I would also suggest that her opinions are incapable of being discriminatory. She could go saying all sorts of awful things, but none of it would really be discrimination in practice. The only thing that would be discriminatory would be unfair grades, which is a separate matter entirely. If, she was engaging in unfair marking then yes those who feel they were treated unfairly should certainly be able to send their work for review and have it regraded. Which is pretty simple and par for the course for any campus.

Looking at some of the stuff around this she does seem a little like a bitch. But eh, they get to speak their mind too. I certainly can’t say I advocate silencing her.


There are some screen grabs of her verbatim on the left hand of the first link and on the second.


Everyone is allowed to express their opinions, no matter how unpopular they are. That goes to hate speech too. People can say whatever they want. That’s what freedom of speech means. It would be pointless if we censored things we didn’t agree with.

Well I can’t speak for the States, but here in Canada Hate Speech is actually specifically forbidden. Even if the things you say are objectively true, which is more then a little intimidating. Obscenity, which really boils down legally to ‘things your neighbour’s don’t like’, is also not protected.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Prostitution

Most misdemeanor crime is just typically “given a ticket”….a fine; not jail time. The misdemeanor laws have that jail-time clause to fall back on in case they “need” it.

There’s something laughably inane about giving a prostitute a fine for being a prostitute. Gee, how do you think they’re going to get the money?

Although financial punishments do represent a loss of freedom, and depending ones finances can directly lead to imprisonment.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Prostitution

in a patriarchal society, it furthers the comodification of women, treating them (and their sexuality) as a product to be bought and traded as desired. consent factors nowhere into capitalist patriarchal prostitution. In an ideal world, only those who wanted to have sex in exchange for money would be prostitutes, and it would be equal between men and women. As it stands, prostitution enslaves the most disadvantaged of women and (in every sense but legally) subjects them to rape.

Sexuality is desired, and as such, will always be bought be traded. From one corner of the globe to the other, since the beginning of recorded time. No economic or societal model presents exceptions. It being tied to the body itself it remains a pretty inalienable form of work, sexual activity and manual labour always remaining an option for the healthy no matter how untrained.

I question your suggestion that women are forced to work within the sex industry through financial desperation. -Especially those without a drug habit. It also fails to address the role of the financially stable within the sex industry. I also question how far you’re pushing the impetus to work for survival as exploitation. If I were to set a starving man down in front of an apple tree, and expect him to do the work of taking apples, is that exploitation?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why american soldiers should not be allowed in ukraine?

There is always a solid majority of Russian speakers, and I think exclusive Russian speakers. Massive Russian cultural ties certain, nevertheless Crimea formerly did not have a majority accord to separate and join. Which if I was to venture to guess would be the old “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it” mentality. It would be a lot of fuss to swap sovereignty, and I think the citizenry was mostly content with the status quo.

Not so much anymore. Both parties have shown some pretty ugly faces, the world is watching, information is tight, in short everything is all fucked up. What that has done to their allegiances I dare say is anyone’s guess.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Spanking: yea or nay. -- Now expanded to include: How humanity uses physical force to ensure desired compliant behavior.


I don’t understand how ‘non-corporal’ induced compliance can’t be accomplished without the USE of physical force. I do agree that, in its most basic sense, non-corporal compliance is ultimately obtained because of the obvious or implied threat of corporal physical force/punishment. But, as all of this applies to spanking, I don’t think it does.
This is Kasic’s & my point. It is inherent in the use of psychological methods….the ABSENCE of such threats and, obviously, the utter lack of corporal punishments.

Sorry, to clarify. Many punishments which do no not rely on inflicting physical pain/harm, do still rely on physical supremacy and force. As an example, say a Time Out. The goal of the time out is not to inflict pain, but to remove the child from the problem area/thing and also to curtail his sensory options. But in order to accomplish that one has to be capable of hauling that child about.

But, as all of this applies to spanking, I don’t think it does. This is Kasic’s & my point. It is inherent in the use of psychological methods….the ABSENCE of such threats and, obviously, the utter lack of corporal punishments.

Yes, I agree that there should ideally be no threats of physical harm, and no actions of physical harm. But, would add that the physical force disparity between the parent and child sets the groundwork for all sorts of psychological actions – and also may be the line upon which they no longer function.


The way it is enforced is different. A policeman resorts to force when his authority is not accepted. A thug has to use violence to assert his wishes. And even when the policeman resorts to force, it is not excessive or brutal (legally).

I am sorry but ‘resorting to force when his authority is not acccepted’ and ‘using violence to assert his wishes’ as anything but repackaging of the same relationship. Both utilize force as a means to ensure capitulation. You also suggest that when a policeman resorts to force (legally) it is neither excessive or brutal. Absolutely disagree. When they utilize a legal amount of force, it is merely legal, meeting a criteria of brutality as approved by the legal body. Legal methods absolutely may still be excessive or brutal. Also the inverse, illegal methods are not inherently excessive or brutal.

In the end, if someone won’t listen to words, the only option is force. That’s an inherent trait of physical matter. Arguing that the law is sanctioned mob rule is like arguing that teachers are sanctioned brain-washers and prison task masters. It’s not the same thing even if they share traits.

I agree, if someone will not ;listen to words’ (capitulation, really) then the only option is force. I also agree it is pretty much inherent. Law is sanctioned use of force a populace – there can be no law without force. The teachers example I feel is just substituting more colorful words. There is nothing hyperbolic or vitriolic in suggesting that Physical Force is the presumption that drives Law, it’s arguably necessary, arguably positive. But still inherently present. Law is often framed without that consideration as it adds another moral vector, but it’s still there.

A side point: I don’t believe capital punishment is a civilized means of punishment for crimes. We should not have an organized group of people deciding who dies and who lives.

I have no problem with it in theory myself, I’m not a proponent of the inherent value of human life. It all comes down to a matter of application for my approval. But, capital punishment wasn’t what I was trying to touch upon.

Everything can be boiled down to a physical action since we live in a physical universe. There’s a reason the word “enforce” has “force” in it. Police officers enforce the law. They make sure everyone follows the law, because if no one enforced it, no one would have a reason to follow it. You are correct in saying that at the root both come down to the use of force. However, the method that force is applied with and the reasoning behind it are so different it would take multiple paragraphs to scratch the surface of. Civil accords, the nature of society, selfishness and impulsiveness, etc…

I’m glad we agree on that. I think the method of how that force is applied depends a great deal on the culture in question, and the degree of personal risk for the actor. I don’t think the reasoning behind it is all that different. I don’t think the need for a democratic society to maintain law and order and their reasoning behind it is very different from a criminal enterprise. Power dynamics and attempts to manage them exist between all individuals, all groups, all peoples, great and small form corner to corner.

Tying this all back into spanking once more…spanking is violence for the sake of violence in hopes to bring a child directly under your power. Whereas discipline comes from asserting authority. Although it might involve physical force it does not involve physical punishment. There is a very big difference between being carried to a room for a time out and the child staying in the room because they know if they leave they’ll get another punishment, and a child being smacked across the bottom and receiving pain.

As over dramatic as it sounds, I’d suggest that spanking is very analogous to torture, it’s using physical pain and domination as a means to elicit capitulation. But yes I agree with your view of non punishment discipline.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Spanking: yea or nay. -- Now expanded to include: How humanity uses physical force to ensure desired compliant behavior.

Please expand. I don’t fully grasp.

In regards to my “That position is pure illusion, it’s all just mob and force sanction.” You referred to his Position, and Authority, in overseeing a realm of law and social conduct. At it’s base level it simply a popular accord granting him the right to select force in select circumstances. The “Mob Tough” referenced before doesn’t have that. Nevertheless, both expect capitulation and both operate force as a means to ensure that. A policeman’s Position, his Authority, does not mitigate or remove the implicit use of physical force in well, enforcing, his dictates.

First: law & order is hardly “mob & force sanction”. I’m guessing ya’re in some obtuse way using the anti-capital punishment group’s line of: it is simply legal killing by the state.

Disagree. Law and Order is precisely the sanction of Force. It is all, top to bottom, a function of force which serves as the irreducible basic means of its action. I don’t follow you on the capital punishment thing.

Second: the chase scenario is very confusing. The Rodney King incident is rare. It is illegal. Officers ARE NOT empowered to mete out such “punishment justice”. Their legally mandated methods are quite clear on what kind & amount of physical force can be used.

I am not trying to refer to concepts of Punishment, or Justice, with this. But the use of force in such instance is neither, illegal nor rare. The kind and amount of physical force they can use is within guidelines. But resisting arrest does warrant it.

Third: Ignoring that it IS NOT the officer that is “penalizing” you, but rather the law…I need to point out that what the law is doing there is very far removed from the “penalty” of losing your money (being mugged?) by any other person’s ability to demand money from you. I remind that when an entity LEGALLY demands that you fulfill a contractual agreement…this is different than a mugging.

The Law is merely an idea set – it can’t accomplish physical actions of its own accord, it does require physical agents to do things. How is it very far removed for The Law to demand money from me, as opposed to an individual? It’s Legal Authorization is merely a blanket authorization of select force to elicit it from me. In either case, both remain predicated upon the use of force.

Fourth: I really don’t understand how you (last sentence in above quote) include material destruction, physical displacement, what have you as being part of what you rightly can equate your: physical threat = personal harm.
Yes, being fined (physical money), physical displacement (being put in jail?), & what have you certainly seem to me to be separated by the same line of demarcation that the OP of this thread is seeking to “establish” on how non-corporal (not spanking) methods clearly don’t use a “physical threat” to back them up.

They all share being pretty much impossible to accomplish without physical capitulation, and impossible to resist without physical escalation. The threat of violence is in implicit in achieving that. If I am holding a dollar, how do you gain that – and assuming I don’t want you to, how do I prevent you? Short of cartoonish running around, or physical barriers, it operates on the physical power of the two parties involved.

I would not equate physical threat with personal harm, as you suggest. What makes a threat a threat is the absence of harm while invoking it as a potential outcome.

But yes I still see many non corporal punishments are still predicated upon physical force; not threat, as you suggest. They cannot be accomplished without physical compliance or the use of physical force, and exist predicated upon that.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Spanking: yea or nay. -- Now expanded to include: How humanity uses physical force to ensure desired compliant behavior.

Authority you listen to because they have the ability to impose restrictions and standards. You submit to someone who’s stronger because they can hurt you.

And what is that ability to impose based upon? I’d suggest physical violence. Non capitulation will escalate inevitably to the use of force. Can’t just decide to not be arrested.

For example, a police officer telling you to drive slower vs a huge muscled guy telling you to drive slower or else. Authority carries power by virtue of position. Whereas being submissive to a bigger power is due to threat. Yes, the policeman can punish you (and he will) if you don’t drive slower, but he’s not going to crush your face in. He has the ability to penalize you in a non-harmful way which you have to comply with or face larger penalties. The only way the huge guy can control you is through violence (unless he goes to the policeman, whereupon it’s not actually the huge guy who’s doing anything).

I don’t really see a difference in their means, motive maybe but I still see both examples dependent upon the implicit use of force. That position is pure illusion, it’s all just mob and force sanction. So, if we are non capitulating with the officer, we would not be slowing down the vehicle, which would become a chase, ignoring that we get away, we then get arrested, if we do not capitulate with the arrest and resist, then you get your ass beat. His ability to penalize me in a “non harmful” (non physical violence?) is no different then any other persons ability to demand money from me. The only way the police, or any authority, can control you directly is through physical threat. Whether that be personal harm, material destruction, physical displacement, what have you.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Spanking: yea or nay. -- Now expanded to include: How humanity uses physical force to ensure desired compliant behavior.

Couldn’t you separate the child and the dog? I’m not arguing that it was a great disaster or anything, and really it could have had net benefit especially in consideration of other people’s experience. Hell, I’ve been musing if “Obey authority or be ready to get your ass paddled” isn’t a fair enough and important lesson in it’s own regard. But still, I do see spanking as the absence of a greater learning experience. Although you’re right in suggesting that you can’t really force that upon someone.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Spanking: yea or nay. -- Now expanded to include: How humanity uses physical force to ensure desired compliant behavior.

If a child learns not to repeat a behaviour because of a spanking, then he/she has learned something…

As you suggest, they learn the consequences. But I’d hasten to point out they’re superficial, imposed consequences not inherent to the action – but to their supervision. They didn’t learn “Don’t bother the puppy, because it will bite you, or you will make it sad – or whatever” which stand as lessons on how to treat any dog and are founded upon the nature of dogs and of various behaviors. Instead they learned “Do what Flabby tells you, or Flabby will hit you.” Which is a fairly different paradigm.

There is a difference between following authority and being submissive to a bigger power.

I’m a little skeptical of that one as well. Care to expound?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Is that… sarcastic? Because, no, super not. I feel like I’m missing something here.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism: Does Sexual Exploitation Empower Women?

But, of course, it feeds into the women as sex objects issue.

I disagree. A sexual object is a question of perception not of action. The perfect chaste nun can be perceived as a sexual object, or so could the local strippers. I’d say the problem is not in associating women with sexuality – but exclusively, and passively, with sexuality and one stripped of any particular character or identity of their person hood.

So, I’d say sexual behavior in no way exacerbates problems of sexual objectification. It is stripping female sexuality of any personhood and rendering it wholly as a function of the male-self that is the problem. The assumption that the male, whether personal or societal, approval or disapproval forms the raison d’etre of female sexuality which exists predicated upon that. At least in the context of feminism, to my ken. Really though sexual objectification runs well beyond that, from kinks, to the various queers, and how we interrelate with one another sexually or based upon sexuality.

Also, allowing oneself to become sexually objectified is usually bad for business. Repeat customers, big tips, generally thrive on a sense of the intimate. Unless you’re seeing enough by just grinding out a quota, forming interpersonal bonds is good acumen. How constructed that persona potentially is, and how weirdly that effects power dynamics is another consideration.

Different point: when I think about it, aren’t sites actually more matriarchal. Sure, the audience is most likely predominantly male, but the models decide what they show, who gets to see it and what price they have to pay. If anyone is getting exploited there, it’s the audience. XD

I’m not sure if matriarchal is quite the right word, but there is certainly a great deal more personal agency involved. It’s probably one of the reasons it has grown pretty popular. Self empowered, discreet, world wide it’s the 21st century.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why american soldiers should not be allowed in ukraine?

Well Canada, is already threatening economic sanctions which is good.

I also hope should push comes to shove and Putin hardballs the pipelines closed, that would be the end of his reign. Hopefully the citizenry would not allow that to happen on their watch, as it would be taking money out of their hands. Pity they’ve allowed everything else.

Why should we bear the brunt of any repercussions, and why should we start a trade war with our third biggest trading partner?

Because they’re all but openly invading sovereign nations that pose them no military threat? Again?

The Russians lease Sevastapol harbour as a base for its Black Sea Fleet, it’s no wonder they’re getting twitchy when the entire Ukraine is descending into chaos.

Chaos deliberately orchestrated on the most apparent level by trade relations bullying, and likely exacerbated by agent provocateurs to turn a peaceful rally a bloody riot. Exactly like they were caught doing with Georgia.

It’s just another fledgling democracy which hasn’t yet worked out that political arguement is supposed to be instead of physical confrontation, not as well as.

It was totally non violent for like six months until the government started seeking advice, training and intervention from the Russians and started attacking protestors.

Not to mention that so called good guys are not so much of good guys after all
at-least this eliminates the moral high ground USA would like to take.

I’m curious as to what evidence is suggesting that the Maidan Rep’s are responsible for the snipers. I’m pleased the information is coming from Estonia, they’re an incredibly reliable source. Still, firing on both sides immediately suggests to me the Russians who have the most to gain from political destabilization.

Also, as Estonia’s follow up confirmation suggests, it is not a coincidence that this phone call was intercepted and leaked to the Russian internet sources. They are actively involved in political espionage and media manipulation to discredit and villainize their opposition.

Crimea now demanding a referendum next week with a view to leaving Ukraine altogether and joining the Russian Federation

It’s a little suspect. What with them being hip deep in aggro Russian soldiers who have already decided it belongs to them. That said, a sincere majority decision by Crimea to join Russia wouldn’t surprise me either. Except for the fact that Russian soldiers are denying unarmed journalists, shutting down radio stations, shutting down news stations, shutting down all links and lines of communication. Almost like they don’t want people to know.

So, if that is the case, why doesn’t the Ukraine simply lease/sell those resource rights to a powerful block of nations that would then have a clear vested interest in kicking Putin’s ass?

Er they tried, more or less. Then Russia invaded them and here we are. Just like what happened when Georgia tried to join in.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism: Does Sexual Exploitation Empower Women?

Shoot, I closed down my computer without posting my post.

So I’d say the male gaze comes into play here, that your view point is definitive of gender relations or expectations. Also sexual shame, in that shame intrinsically is part of a sexual display, or sexual commerce. And yes, as pointed out by Tacket Exploitation is a weasel word already assuming a negative stance.

Exploitation can only exist in an ownership society. She is in a position of being exploited in our capitalist society, the only way for feminism to advance is as a part of a larger marxist revolution.

What? So, to go to a cliche, a pedophile egging on some pre teen isn’t exploitive so long as he doesn’t offer them money? Emotional manipulation against one’s own interests is impossible in marxism? Cultural assumptive stereotypes are impossible in marxism? I think that is very assumptive.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why american soldiers should not be allowed in ukraine?

Well, somebody oughta play World Police to my mind. I was actually disappointed to how left out to dry Georgia was when Russia decided to move in. You had the head of state personally begging for Western Intervention. Not that I want to see us reigniting the Cold War, but, I feel there is a moral imperative at work nestled along with some other problems.

I don’t see the US trying to set up a vassal kingdom with Ukraine as the newest state. It’s ludicrous. I’m sure they’re happy to seed some amicable trade, but I think the US knows it is having a shitty enough time trying to get domestic affairs in order without invading eastern Europe.

Russia playing bully has gotten disturbingly open handed. Hopefully that sort of behavior can be curbed as another generation kicks the bucket. If instilling law and order is the real goal, and no single party can be trusted, then send international peace keeping in. It’s identical tactics they used in Georgia. Intimidate out of Western Coops, if that fails, create domestic security problems, show up with soldiers claiming to be the big damn heroes.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Apparently the government could wreck SD


NSA for instance, is doing their best to expand the surveillance on the private citizen.

I agree JHCO, but the legal framework and cultural mindset that is allowing it is one hundred percent accountable to the Bush administration. They were expressly, culturally and legally, forbidden from domestic surveillance until the expanded legislative powers for National Security reacting to Terrorism.

Terrorism itself being so widely defined as to contain virtually any criminal enterprise, and Reasonable Suspicion being so widely defined as to encompass ‘well if we look at everything, we’ll probably find something.’ Which, to be fair, is true enough.

Next year all cars made in America are required to have GPS hard wired into the computers. This is being mandated by Homeland Security giving access to the tracking device for individual tracking.

I’m not familiar with that. Mandatory seems a bit steep, could you cite this?

Apple just got busted for having code in their OS allowing a back door to the NSA. While being discussed on radio Apple released a fix for it, or so they say. Think about the phones or computers you use, are they safe from manipulation by the government? No, they can turn your computer on after you have shut it down and gone to bed…and nary a light will come on. You might not know that they can turn the cameras on without a light flickering. This and much more are not only available, but being used as we speak. This is not conspiracy, it is fact.

Yes, just about all major hardware and software for the consumer market has been either covertly or overtly compromised with backdoors. This includes virtually all Routers, Apple OS, Microsoft OS, Telecom infrastructure, Mobile Phone software and hardware. The fact that the new generation XBOX came with a mandatory eye is likely not just a commercial concern but surveillance gerrymandering.

This my friends is past Socialism and into full blown tyranny.

I can’t agree to that. Not the way it is playing out currently. It’s spooky, damned spooky. One can see the anvil, but I don’t think they’ve brought down the hammer. Ultimately I don’t see them thought policing, but threat sniffing. Does that end justify the means? Arguable. But all the people bitching and moaning about it haven’t exactly been black bagged in the middle of the night just yet.

What is all of this about? It’s about control of the citizenry. It is not just this administration, but all who come before have striven for. It has been held back until this administration though, now it has become open and fast.

I’m still not convinced they’re out to Control everyone, just painting targets, identifying concerns. I also question whether it has become anymore open. What we know is not self disclosed, it was stolen.

If the government isn’t interested in our everyday routines or who we talk to on our phones, then why the large data dumps of all our calls? Who are they afraid of, the people they are supposed to represent?

I feel you’re falling into something of a catch 22. I’d suggest the basic idea is to know you. Maybe you’re a terrorist, maybe you’re not. How can they get a general idea of who you are without collecting general data to form that picture? One of the things they’re doing is the old Six Degrees Of Separation as well. Do a lot of calls to Suspect International Elements? Or, someone else who does. Or, someone else, who calls someone else who does. It creates not only a loose of knowledge but basic cells of communication expanding out from sure hits. Also, I’d say they damn well should be afraid of the people they represent. That’s healthy, fair and wise. There are legitimate domestic threats, certainly.

Suffice it to say, they are after this information and are bypassing not only the constitution but laws themselves to get it.

I would again assert that every indication seems to suggest that this is being done legally. It is precisely the reason so many people called Foul when Domestic Securities abilities massively ballooned post 911.


A) No tracking of GPS data permissible (or admissible) without a warrant (which shouldn’t be granted absent other evidence of wrongdoing),

Except that NSA has a secret warrant committee with a near 100% approval rate and no fact checking. It’s been alleged as nothing more then a rubber stamping farce.

If you really think the government would be interested in your weekly trip to Walmart a tinfoil hat may be in order

I absolutely think they would be. Why… wouldn’t they be? This sort of stuff doesn’t require a great deal of effort or expense, is nigh permanent, and potentially incredibly useful. Purchase history would provide a general location, movement patterns, loose psychological suggestion, immediate presence confirmation, banking information, ect. Without going into corporate concerns which are even more immediate. The idea is to cast a wide net. It’s to have anything you might need available on hand.


Ung, I’m somewhat confused by the tone of your post.
As it stands you’ve made the below quote appear to be of MY words.
When in reality, they are merely from a link I provided and made that quote from it.
AND, even that part has been taken out of context.

Sorry Karma, I thought you were presenting the quote as an example of your thinking. I should have included your quotation italics or some acknowledgement of it’s seperarate source, that was just lazy quoting on my part. Reading your response, we seem to be on the same page now.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Apparently the government could wreck SD

And why is it nobody except you and Edward Snowden have done anything about this? Or is it because THE MAN grinds their face into the ground with his merciless bootheel daily and prevents them from doing anything.

If we’re talking free speech protection I’d say there is a long list of educators, artists and journalists who have had constant and serious attempts. As something relatively small and immediate consider the RIAA censorship and scandal.

The conspiratorial alliance of business and government, a growing tyranny intended to disenfranchise, disarm, and exploit ordinary citizens, secret pacts to overthrow the constitution, etc.

Easy now Karma. I’d say take a deep breath and a step back, does it not seem true? I don’t think the suggestion that government and big business are working against the rights and empowerment of the citizenry as that outlandish of a suggestion. Nor do I think it is something out of line with things you have suggested yourself.

Now how that message is packaged, to what ends it is being leveraged, I can see taking some issue with.

I don’t think Jhco’s message, beyond a particular emphasis on the current administration (which I personally see as pretty inconsequential and more just the public face of what was forced into law in the post 9-11 climate of the previous administration) is all that different from anything I’ve suggested myself.

On Topic, those rich folks will only want control of SD if it has some significant impact on their wealth….either improving it or hurting it. Hint: they can’t nor are interested in controlling everything. And, another hint: they quite easily & readily use govt. as their means for their interests.

Public opinion is a pretty valuable asset. Most ‘rich folk’ spend many millions on controlling and influencing it. I remember after the big BP oil spill they had a trailer before a movie I was watching advertising how lovable and do goodery they were. I’m not saying SD is a big mover and shaker. But Reddit? You better believe Reddit is taken pretty seriously at this point. The President himself went on to field questions. I think political intrusion/manipulation into the public communication sphere is going to be a given over as wide of an area as they can cast. Wikipedia right now is going through some scandals over the paid editors mangling information.

The great mass is always poised to hurt the wealthy, all they’ve got to do is want it. I’m not even suggesting it’s in their interest. But Progressive Tax With A Vengeance, is a scary enough concept.

Although reading through that COINTELPRO link, it seems pretty laughable, I can’t say it seems legitimate.
Something like that stands as pretty vetted and pretty damn spooky. While remaining amusingly goofball.