Tuesday, January 30, 2018

My little Jedi, friendship is magic.

So there's a mutiny in The Last Jedi, and so there should be.  It's about time we stopped portraying Imperial officers as soulless wimps who will take anything for fear... what it's in the Rebellion Resistance?  WTF? 

Ok to understand why that is so utterly stupid imagine that you control a space military and that much of it's work is guerrilla warfare.  You deploy fighter squadrons and even individual fighters halfway across the galaxy and assume they will do their job, even though they could run at any time and there's no way to stop them.  You even send them on what most of them think is a futile attack against a battlestation with literally trillions of times their firepower.  None of them ever desert even though they believe the attack is probably futile suicide.  Only an naive farm-boy thinks he can make the shot, experienced combat pilots don't.  Sounds like a pretty loyal bunch right?  So why are they revolting and not the Imperials who god knows have just cause to throw their superiors down a reactor shaft?

Well simply because the new trilogy doesn't get the fundamental dynamic of Star Wars, which is expressed in two aphorisms.  Good people have good relationships that lead to good results.  Bad people have bad relationships that lead to bad results.

Think about how many times the main three characters in the original trilogy saved each other.  Luke and Han save Leia.  Han saves Luke and therefore allows him to destroy the Death Star, saving Leia.  Luke tries to save Han and Leia but has to be saved by Leia instead.  How this happens relates to the second aphorisms but more on that later. Luke and Leia team up to save Han.  Every single main character, and most of the minor ones on the good side, would be dead without the main three having each other's back.

So let's look at the other team, do they play well with others?  Well frankly no.  I've worked in some pretty dysfunctional organizations but I've never had the boss intervene to stop someone strangling someone in a business meeting.  Nor have I seen anyone provoke such behavior by openly mocking someone's religion.  But that's just the start of the dysfunction junction that is Imperial "leadership".  It's an open question whether Vader saying "This ones mine" gave Han the few extra seconds he needed to line up his attack run on Vader and the other two TIE fighters.  What we do know is that it could have, so Vader was endangering literally millions of lives,  trillions of credits worth of supplies and the most powerful military device in the galaxy to paint another icon on his fighter.  What a dick.  With Tarkin dead Vader seems to get off the leash, choking whoever he wants and punishing people for not knowing smuggler tactics that the Imperial academies obviously never trained anyone in.  The fact that Vader has no idea where Han and the Falcon went doesn't stop him from blaming his subordinates.  It really improved morale you can tell.

But Vader's real crowning achievement in relationship incompetence comes down to a simple sentence.  He has altered the deal you seen and you should pray that he doesn't alter it any further.  Now this is a bad thing to say to anyone because it indicates that you're unilaterally abandoning your commitments, while still expecting others to honor theirs.  After all the deal is "altered" not abolished.  But who would it be really bad to say that to?  Perhaps someone who doesn't trust you or your organization to start with, only agreed to help you to protect those under him, has experience with people screwing them over and knows they always do it twice if you let them, is smart and tough.  You know like that Lando guy.  The guy who runs an illegal city and therefore obviously knows how to deal with people both in a good way and a "I've dealt with the guy who tried to back-stab us" way.

But doesn't take the award for bad interpersonal skills in the original trilogy.  The envelope please.  The winner is Emperor Palpatine for his performance as "The gloating moron" on the second Death Star.  Yes why just sit back and watch the most powerful light side force user turn when you can laugh about it and totally destroy your chance to win.  Yes behaving like a complete dick feels so good it's worth risking Death and the destruction of your legacy.  Bonus points for turning your back on the guy whose impending death you just gloated about as you try to kill the son who expressed respect for him.

So why was there a constant theme of good gets relationships (mostly) right and bad gets them (constantly) wrong?  Because the good guys actually tried to build relationships.  Not always competently but they were always trying.  They did things for each other because they had a genuine wish to have a productive and happy relationship.  The bad guys didn't.  They did what they were told because the other guy had more power, for the moment.  They neither desired nor pursued an understanding with their superiors, their subordinates or their piers.  This is because they didn't want to give anyone the respect or trust necessary to do that because they were evil and only related to others via domination.  Star Wars was a story in part about these two approaches to other people and how they work out.  And I emphasize WAS.  The new trilogy is about Mary Sues and not bothering to give people a reason to like you.  Which is why I won't be watching it.  Well one of the reasons anyway.

The Jedi are childless weirdos and TLJ should have been about that.

Firstly I'd like to say there's nothing wrong with being childless or a weirdo, but there's a reason neither is the normal position.  Most people form good relationships by NOT being these.

I have been reading and listening to people talk about "The Last Jedi" the latest Star Wars flick.  In it there is a lot of talk about learning from failure, and absolutely no actual learning from failure.  For instance Yoda says that she has all the wisdom in the old books, not telling Luke that's because she has the books. Those would be the books that have the Jedi "wisdom" that is part of why they failed in the first place.  Luke is the only one who actually managed to beat the Sith, but he teaches her almost nothing because he failed and he's depressed.  So what should he have taught her?

Well he should have pointed out that the Sith were beaten by people with good relationships because they had good relationships. The Sith were bitter, angry, obsessive freaks with power, and so they stuffed up every relationship they ever had.  They were able to manipulate people but not handle a genuine relationship.  The only people worse at relationships were the Jedi, so don't listen to them about beating the Sith.  When a man talks about how he keeps getting prophetic dreams about his loved ones dying you don't tell him death is great and you should be glad when it happens.  Palapatine didn't win Anarkin's loyalty, the Jedi lost it.

A good argument could be made that Luke, not Anarkin brought balance to the force.  He went full berserker homicide mode on his dad and didn't fall to the dark side.  He brought himself back from being absolutely full of hate, something the Jedi can't really do.  Could he have done this if he had abandoned his friends who were suffering because of him?   I don't know but probably not.  Luke is about hope and loyalty, and not going to his friends would have split his soul in a critical way.  Long story short, following Yoda's advice would have got Luke and possibly even Leia turned to the dark side.  Against the dark side you really need to know who you are, "I am a Jedi like my father before me.".  Bear in mind that Luke barely came back from the dark side as it is.  Without his friends...

But Luke forgets that's how he won.  He listens to Yoda.  Why?  Yoda is the old thinking that got the Jedi defeated.  Luke is the new thinking that destroyed the Sith (or at least those Sith that were visible).TLJ should have been about the power of normal relationships that aren't based on monkish obsession.  But SJWs hate normal relationships so that was never going to happen.

Monday, November 21, 2016

The State _is_ hate speech.

Recently I viewed a video about the Palace Cinemas canceling the documentary "The Red Pill".  The fact that some potential visitors to Australia "spread hate" was mentioned and it was taken for granted that such should be banned.  The problem is that the organizaton banning these people in the fountain of hate speech, the mother lode, the cornucopia.  Think about what the government does.  It says that some people are so bad force, even lethal force, should be used against them.  Not only that but they are so bad that if you refuse to fund using force against them, or even fail to tell them where these people are so they can use that force, force should be used against you.  Again, depending on how much resistance is encountered this includes lethal force.

So before they ban anyone for hate speech they should immediately deport the entire government.

The defeat and betrayal of Eddie Mabo.

Non-Australians might need an explanation of who Mr. Mabo is, Australians will not, that's how famous he is.  People who don't know the name of their Prime Minister* know who Mr. Mabo is and that he won one of the most significant cases in land rights law.  Except he didn't. He lost.  So how is that I've never met anyone who thinks he lost?  Is everybody in Australia wrong but me?  Is it simply my massive ego combined with a refusal to admit error?  I don't think so because I know what Eddie Mabo wanted, and I know what he got.  I will explain the difference.

To start with understand that Mr. Mabo was not an "Australian Aboriginal" although he is from an Australian territory and is a native of that territory.  He is a "Torres Strait Islander" from the islands north of Australia.  The culture on these islands is different from that of mainland Australia.  They even have different flags to represent their people,   Mainland Aboriginals were hunter-gatherers** without land ownership as traditionally understood in Europe.  There were territories, belonging to particular tribes, but an individual person referring to "his" land would not make sense.  His people's land of course he'd know well and there would be no confusion.  Torres Straight Islanders on the other hand farmed and their land law was very different.

An example of the sort of way land was managed was this extract from a letter from Mr. Mabo to Mr. Dipoma.

"Your letters are full of what normally drops off in your toilet after a good feed. My adoptive parents claim me alone as their son. You have no claim for that land. Now I'm telling you to move out or you'll be thrown out by force. "
This is an extreme example of course but it shows the basis of Torres Strait Islander land law.  This is my land, get off it or I'll hurt you.  There's no mention of traditional ceremonial purposes, only of a) inheritance, b) ownership and c) potential violence if a) and b) aren't respected.  Eddie Mabo wanted something that is indistinguishable from free hold title. He didn't get this.  He never owned the land the should rightfully have inherited and his children didn't get it either after his death.  Instead tribes, mainly not Torres Strait Islander tribes, acquired completely novel and bizarre rights to some land.  These included a "right to negotiate" over development, not a right to veto it, or even be paid to allow it,  This was a fundamental betrayal of what Eddie Mabo was and wanted.  If he had been a white man his descendants would have had freehold title to his land.  He was betrayed in the most racist way possible.

*  Well it changes a lot so it's not a good test.

** With the exception of one possible aquaculture setup, the only example of a culture developing aquaculture before agriculture.  

Thursday, June 16, 2016

To Mary Emily O'hara during this trying (not for her but for others) time.

At this trying time of distress I have to say, "Boo-fucking hoo bitch".

You don't feel safe?  Really?  You're a woman.  Just by being born without a penis you halved the chance you would be murdered and took your chance of being physically assaulted down by a third.  

The attack that makes you so afraid overwhelmingly hit males.  Get over your intense self-involvement and realize THIS is why misogyny happens.  When women can't even comment on MEN being killed without the subject being how THEY feel it's as callous as you can get.  Reading your article was like a black woman in 1950s America listening to a white woman saying how afraid she is of being raped.  CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE.  You are safe because you are a Western, white woman.  if any of those categories changed, then you'd have cause for worry.

My sympathies go out to the ACTUAL victims.  

Friday, April 01, 2016

Eric Zorn comes out for pushing journalists around, ironically he is one.

"The behavior of University of Missouri assistant professor Melissa Click on Nov. 9 was disgraceful.
You've probably seen the viral video. It was shot by student journalist Mark Schierbecker, who was covering a campus protest over the administration's response to alleged incidents of racism, a protest being closely watched by the national media because it also involved a boycott by the Mizzou football team.
The video, shot from Schierbecker's perspective, shows him slipping inside a perimeter established by students on a university lawn,"
Which they had no right to establish.
approaching Click and identifying himself as a member of the media.
" "You need to get out! You need to get out!" she says, moving the lens of his camera away from her face with her hand."
Which is illegal by itself, an infringement of his civil right to record public events.

" After he refuses to leave, she loudly calls for "some muscle" to help her eject him from the area, then mocks his assertion that he has a right to occupy a public space.
Click's lack of respect for or apparent understanding of Schierbecker's press freedoms under the First Amendment was not only disgraceful given her position in the school's communications department, but it was also embarrassing for the university and counterproductive for the protesters, whose tactics, not their complaints, quickly became the focus of the national media narrative.
But it wasn't criminal."
Well the judge disagreed, as did the prosecutor. It was plainly illegal to forcibly remove someone from a public space or incite others to do so.

"At least that's what we all assumed as the weeks went by without a peep from prosecutors about Schierbecker's bleat that he'd been the victim of an assault."
Firstly why would the lack of prosecutitorial action mean something is legal? Secondly charges often take a while to file, why is it a surprise that she was charged now.
"Monday, however, 2 1/2 months after the fact, Columbia, Mo., city prosecutor Steve Richey charged Click with misdemeanor assault in the third degree.
It's a minor offense as such things go — the maximum penalty is 15 days in jail and a $300 fine but overkill nevertheless given that the students who came to Click's aid barely touched Schierbecker as they led him outside the protective ring of students with locked arms, where he continued filming."
No it's not overkill, as you yourself acknowledge she broke the law and used force. How is one of the most mild charges available overkill?
"Technically, yes, you can make the argument that Click broke the law."
As I said, you acknowledge that she broke the law. So why is it "overkill" to charge her?
"Under Missouri law, "A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if … the person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury or … the person knowingly causes physical contact with another person knowing the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."
It would be an assault, in other words, if the diminutive Click's call for "muscle" was an appeal for a group of protesters to come and administer a beating or some other kind of physical abuse to the student with the video camera. But was it?"
Well yes, because that's exactly what they did and Click didn't object. They literally pushed him around.

"Given the nonviolent nature of the protests to that point and the subsequent gentle bum's rush Schierbecker received"
The "bum's rush" is the use of force, it is physical abuse, so given the subsequent "gentle" bum's rush we can say she was doing exactly what the law prohibited.

" — students were calling him "bro" "
So what?

"as they tried to block his camera with their hands"
And also AS YOU ADMIT pushing him away.
" — that contention is dubious."
Actually it's confirmed.

"It would also be an assault if Click's efforts to get Schierbecker's camera out of her face, which seems to have included touching his hand judging from the images, was deliberately "offensive or provocative." "
Which they were. He was not being intrusive the camera was NOT "in her face".
"But were they? A fair viewing of the video suggests that, while Click was acting like a presumptuous ninny,"
No he was acting like a competent journalist.
" gently pushing aside the camera was more a defensive than aggressive act."
How? He was not beating people up with his camera. It is not "defensive" to use force to prevent recording public events.

"Click later apologized to Schierbecker for her "actions, language, strategies and behavior," but he did not accept the apology because, he said, "she did not seem entirely sincere."
"Laws against assault are meant to protect us from hostile, threatening, intimidating behavior that falls just short of physical violence, known as battery."
And that's exactly what Click did, if not more.

" They're not meant to protect us from every person who looks as us cross-eyed or warns us to get a move on or else."
Move on or else? What the fuck asshole, how is that not a fucking threat?
"They are certainly not meant to be used as bludgeons in political fights."
Which isn't happening here.
"Click's criminal offense, if any, was so minor that, in any other context — imagine similar circumstances but instead she was trying to escort a nosy interloper away from an outdoor wedding police wouldn't even file a report."
Firstly you don't know this. Secondly if you can't see why judges might view using threats and force to stop recording of a political protest more serious than to prevent filming a wedding you're an idiot. Do you really think that deliberate intimidation of the press isn't more serious than other offences.
"The "victim" would be told to get over himself."
Citation needed and so what?
"Here, the charges landed well after the fact and in the middle of a controversy over Click's professional fate that has split the campus and the state legislature, where Republicans are calling for her ouster.
And they resulted, Wednesday, in an emergency meeting of the university's board of curators that concluded with the announcement that Click "is suspended pending further investigation." "
What investigation needs to be done? She used force on the press, she should get the fuck out.

"As uncomfortable as I am with the idea of a communications department assistant professor creating controversy by displaying an arrogant disregard for the freedom of the press, I'm even less comfortable with the idea of a prosecutor using the cold letter of the law to play a role in resolving that controversy."

So you're admitting that she did break the law right? So why should she not be charged, because it has a political effect? So what? She is guilty and you basically acknowledge this.  

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Why Hanlon's Razor fails.

From rationalwiki:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

"Hanlon's razor is essentially a special case of Occam's razor. Occam's razor states that, assuming equal explanatory power, the simplest solution (formally, the one with fewest assumptions) should be preferred. Assuming intent is a pretty big assumption, but we all know that (other) people are idiots. "

The thing is that Hanlon's Razor ISN'T a special case of Occam's razor.  There is no actual evidence given that you need LESS assumptions to believe in stupidity than bad intent as a general principle.  Assuming intent isn't a really big assumption in all circumstances, in fact people have intent for all of their actions.  We do know that other people are idiots but we also aware that they act badly for their own benefit.  In fact we could reverse the rule and say "Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice.".  What does "adequately" mean in this context?  Well if it means "in a way that explains all facts better than any competing explanation" then the aphorism is redundant.  If it means something else it's simply wrong.  The fact that you can give an explanation based on stupidity that somewhat fits the facts isn't convincing if another explanation fits the facts better.

Say for instance we're trying to figure out the reason for a particular disastrous government policy.  Suppose that this policy was disastrous for poor working black people but relatively good for white, unionized, relatively well off workers.  Either the people who passed it didn't realize that this or they didn't care as long as it benefited white unionized workers.  Now Hanlon's Razor would have you believe the former as long as it was an "adequate" explanation.  But how would that be determined?  Unless we have full details of the IQs, education and training of all the people making the decision how would we know how stupid they're likely to be?  It would be one thing if legislation were made only by those who were utterly ignorant, but it's not .  We do know that legislation is however made by people who want the support of various groups, including white, unionized workers.  So they might well try to gain that support whether or not it was bad for poor blacks.  And this leads to another problem with Hanlon's Razor, it assumes stupidity isn't the result of motivation.  But we know that how much thought people people put into a subject depends on what they are motivated by.  Therefore a policy that harms somebody could well be the result of malice because their interest was ignored in the formation of the policy.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Explanation for flat earther. This is as simple as I think I can make it.

Ok, so the black circle is the earth.  The yellow line is the light coming from the sun.  The green line is a line from the centre of the Earth to a point currently in nightime and continuing on.  The blue line is a similar line, but futher away from the point where it's the sun still only just hits the earth.  Notice how is you continue the line upwards from the Point where the green line hits surface you get to a place where you can see the sun.  Notice that the same thing happens with the blue line, but you have to go further from the surface of the earth.  This is why things high above the surface of the earth still recieve sunlight after thing things at sea level stop recieving sunlight.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Apparently the guy calling himself Kirk Tingblad on youtube is the same guy calling himself Kirk Tingblad on facebook and therefore probably the "real" one.

Which means he's been lying for months about not getting my message that I left on his facebook page.  So wow, apparently you can be an Emmy winner and still a pathetic loser.

The guy on youtube was the real Kirk Tingblad he could post his facebook page. Like I just did.