Monday, 20 July 2009

Judging Men By Their Shoes

Dumb people think that shoes say a lot about someone. They use the "sole profile" to assess someone's entire personality.

Women are the prime culprits in this ridiculous evaluation process. It is one of the weakest, and yet most embraced, means women have to evaluate men.

For example, a woman might judge a man's ability in bed based on the type of shoes he wears, and how he puts them on. Apparently this gives her all the information she needs to decide what kind of lover he is.

You think it would make more sense to just talk to someone, or better yet get "involved" with them, to find out the truth of the matter. But that's what smart people would do, and that's not what we're talking about here.

And what if someone doesn't care that much about making shoes a priority, because he has better things to worry about? So you can't really judge one aspect of their lives to make conclusions about a different aspect because they are not weighted with the same importance.

Another possibility is that a man will learn about "proper footwear" to fool the ladies, just to get his foot in the door, and to their dismay they find out that he doesn't measure up. You see, there's this thing called lying and misrepresentation which many men have used to fool many women.

But dumb women won't acknowledge this because in their narrow field of view they are always right. They have a habit of judging things based on limited information and only on what they can directly see in front of them.

So not only are they dumb, but lazy too.

So why do some women put so much emphasis on footwear? Probably because it's related to fashion, and because they themselves have a thing for footwear. Therefore, they project the importance they place on footwear on to the importance men should place on footwear. So in their minds they are justified in judging someone based on what they would be thinking when that person does something shoe related.

Just think, there are some women who become dating coaches, teaching women all they need to know about men based on their shoes and shoe habits. These women are experts at finding patterns where there are none.

A person with such entrenched dumb-ness will (when proven wrong) twist and distort the facts in an effort to validate what they're already thinking.

So you see, women who habitually judge men by their shoes are impossible to reason with, and are quite incurable. They are simply so in love with their (selective) powers of observation that they would never entertain the existence of real data that proves them wrong.

Tuesday, 23 June 2009

Moderating Internet Forums

Dumb people love to feel powerful with little or no accountability, and the internet gives them plenty of opportunity to do this. This is unlike the real world, where incompetence is harder to hide.

Just having the title of moderator is enough for any dumb person to drool with delight.

However, smart people know that having power online means shit. But dumb people see it as a way to "flex" muscles they don't actually have.

Hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, dumb people can cause all sorts of problems. And when people complain about their actions they immediately adopt a classic defensive posture; you'd think you were making fun of their breast or dick size.

Not knowing how to rationally explain themselves, dumb moderators hide behind nonsensical forum policies and address complaints by referring people to these policies — it's easier to do this than explain themselves in a way that makes sense.

With no checks and balances in place, some go on to become very heavy-handed, banning people based on a whim.

Plentyoffish (POF) is one of the worst places for moderator abuse of power. POF moderators are comprised of social rejects, insecure retards, and all sorts of individuals with personality issues, who use the internet medium as carte blanche for their recklessness. The moderators on POF love to delete forum threads that don't follow certain narrow and retarded standards, calling it "democratic" with the stipulation that the only vote that counts is theirs. They also love to ban "problem members" for ridiculous periods of time, such as until 2020, or even 2050 (if they're having a particularly bad day).

Even calling them on their dumbness won't work, as they'll just delete you for being a nuisance. Drunk on having this kind of power, this is no doubt met with extreme satisfaction on their end, probably accompanied with copious amounts of drooling plus cackling.

The problem is compounded if a group of dumb moderators are working together, who police the forum like retarded nazis who don't have the intelligence to be nazis in real life.

So how do dumb people become forum moderators in the first place? It's because smart people normally don't care to do it, as they've got better things to do. This leaves mostly dumb people who are left to take on the role. It's an opening for people who are not deriving satisfaction from their own lives in the real world, but finally have a chance to show who's boss in the virtual world.

Behind every shit head moderator online is a fucking idiot in real life.

They frequently use "intelligence boosting" tools to make themselves appear smarter online than they actually are; tools such as a thesaurus, which can fool others into thinking that they know their shit and are therefore well suited to the title of "moderator".

Another virtual advantage is that they can avoid real-time responses. Dumb forum moderators usually don't respond to grievances or complaints right away (since their mental capacity is limited). They can take their time to cut-and-paste "intelligent" sounding phrases from various sources (in addition to using a thesaurus). This will enhance the "abstractive" quality of their responses to make it seem like they know what they're talking about.

Furthermore, you will never get a personalized (direct) response from these moderators. They will always veil their response in "forum policy" snippets, and if you question it they'll just tell you that the "rules" apply to everyone (meaning that everyone gets screwed equally).

The best way to avoid these types of moderators is to only use forums that have a limited and select number of users. This keeps the number of required moderators low, and makes it more likely that the moderators will be a select group, chosen by the webmaster, who himself is (hopefully) not a dummy.

Friday, 5 June 2009

40 Year Mortgages

This one doesn't need a lot of explanation. One only needs to know that the interest paid for a 40 year mortgage is huge. With a standard interest rate of 6% you're paying close to three times the original value of the house after all the payments have been added up over the 40 years.

Ah, but all that matters to some people is being able to make that monthly payment. And the banks are laughing all the way to the, well... bank.

Wednesday, 3 June 2009

Helicopter Parenting

These days, colleges and universities are struggling with ways to deal with dumb parents who watch their kids a little too closely.

This relatively new phenomenon arose as the kids of the baby boomers started coming of age and going to college. And because the "Me" generation is inherently selfish they have a hard time letting go of "possessions", and tend to get involved in every aspect of their kids lives.

The original "Me" generation has created the Mini-Me generation.

They want "Johnny" to do well in school so they "hover" and check up to make sure he doesn't make mistakes. It's as if they fear that their kid's mistakes will be a poor reflection on them. So they check up on them, smother them with assistance in their daily matters, and even call (harass) the instructors when their kids don't get the grades they want.

The cell phone has become the worlds longest umbilical, allowing daily contact between parents and kids to resolve issues such as money, laundry, choosing classes, and dealing with roommates.

Dumb baby boomers treat their kids as an extension of themselves, not as unique individuals who need to find their own way.

They are not allowing their kids to fend for themselves, preferring to coddle them to bolster their own self-image. The Me generation knows no bounds. The latest addition to their (mis)deeds is this helicopter phenomenon in which they micro-manage their kids lives, preferring not to let them experience life directly, and making sure they perform as well as they would like because they are "my kids and I want to be proud!" It's the latest screw-up dumb baby boomers have added to their list of fuck ups (e.g. the Social Security fiasco).

This delusional self-worth will also be the reason why many baby boomers won't want to retire from their workplace when the time comes, feeling they are needed too much, even when they are fervently encouraged to leave!

Wanting Casual Sex And Calling Women "Sluts"

Some men sabotage their own efforts to get laid. They complain that it's difficult to get sex on demand, but at the same time they refer to "easy" women as sluts. It's a disturbing combination but quite common.

And of course, this confuses some women into not having sex right away else they be called a slut. But this introduces another issue, the possibility of being called a prude -- which men also hate.

This points to the internal conflict some men experience, and don't have the mental capacity to resolve. Sexual frustration is apparently no cure for stupidity.

Doomsday Predictions

The end of the world is something dumb people love to worry about. It's always a few years away from the present time. But so far the projected day has always come and gone. But that doesn't discourage dumb people. Their thinking is, we'll get it right one of these times.

Sounding the doomsday alarm sort of made sense around the time of the new millennium (since it's a nice round number). But now that we are well past it you get doomsdayers pulling dates out of their ass. It seems the next due date for Armageddon is 2012.

The most popular doomsday predictions are those substantiated with marginal historical facts, maybe related to some obscure lunar cycle, or tied to some old relic found in some ruins somewhere, or the most popular -- an old Mayan calendar that alludes to 2012 as the end-of-world date; the justification being that they really knew their shit when it came to mathematics and astronomy, which apparently implies the ability to predict the future.

If you want to get rich fast, now is probably the time to start cashing in. Go into the generator selling business, or start making Armageddon survival kits. You can probably even make T-shirts, "End of Days 2012", a great way to help dumb people build comradery as the big day approaches.

Fox News

One of the most biased sources of anti-news is hugely popular with dumb people. It is ideologically skewed to the right and appeals to the rotting underbelly of American politics. The Fox news website, under the guise of being "fair and balanced" is the counterweight for lowering awareness and intelligence. If you find yourself asking too many questions or thinking critically about the world then Fox news is where you go to dumb down.

Reader comments on the website often consist of nonsensical half-witted grammatically challenged diatribes against Obama, and anything to the left of Bush policies.

The site is frequented by religious types who love to quote scripture when trying to prove a point. Fox news is in fact a media outlet for fanatical Americanism. It attracts patriotic dumb Americans like moths to a flame.

The site attracts certain kinds of dummies; whose dangerous bigotry is (fortunately) mitigated only by their outright stupidity.

If you teach a monkey how to use the internet he'll leave a comment on the Fox news website.

Friday, 22 May 2009

Following The Shiny Thing

Also known as stimulus hopping. This occurs when certain members of the population (stimulus junkies) are transfixed on chasing after stimulus. Coincidently, these people also form the basis of any strong economy since they are most prone to the constant buying of shit they don't need. The current recession is actually a downturn in the activities of stimulus junkies.

One hallmark of a stimulus junkie is the constant fiddling of a cell phone. They take it out even when they are not using it and just start playing with it. Its no surprise that there's a large market for empty cell phone cases which look like real cell phones.

Stimulus junkies treat the cell phone the same way a sick person would carry around an oxygen tank. For them it's a matter of life and death.

Little gadgets with bright blinking lights and cute ringtones are the shiny things that dumb people can't do without. It prevents the unimaginable fear from ever coming true - the fear of having nothing to do. Imagine being stuck somewhere with only your thoughts to keep you company. The horror!

The nice thing about little gadgets is that they are portable, so anytime you feel the reality of your surroundings start to set in, you just take out your shiny thing.

However, following the shiny thing isn't just about small gadgets. It permeates into other areas of life such as human relations.

Entire bodies of knowledge have been developed to exploit the follow-the-shiny-thing tendency in the opposite sex. Take for example, the popular book known as "The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women Into Bed". The book teaches basic strategies such as Bait-Hook-Reel-Release and Cat String Theory to capture and keep a woman's attention. It is said that the more attractive a woman is the more these techniques will work on her. And it's true, but it can be restated somewhat: The more time and effort a woman spends on looking good, the more invested she is in getting male attention, and is therefore the most insecure and vulnerable when exposed to the sting of possible rejection (also known as the stimulus of rejection). The premise is that you give these women a taste of something and make her work for more. As an analogy, it's basically like taking away her cell phone and then giving it back periodically, in exchange for a kiss, blow job, sex etc.

Another example is a book created for women known as "The Rules". It teaches women the same basic strategy of playing hard-to-get using similar techniques of manipulation and withdrawal. It's also a very effective means to garner male attention from those men who are the most neurotic and get off on the chase. In this case the shiny thing is the woman's lack of attention which the man desperately tries to win over. And of course, the attention is strategically doled out in prescribed amounts to get the man to go crazy for you. The techniques are not as well codified as those in "The Mystery Method", but nevertheless can be very effective in attracting the most neurotic Don Juans who confuse high price with high quality, and who chase after the name brand, not the person.

It is interesting to note that the authors of both books frame the techniques in a rather positive light. They call it making yourself a "challenge" so that the person doesn't lose interest. But nowhere do they say that people who respond to such things are among the least socially savvy of anyone. It's basically smart marketing for dumb people. Their approach is, don't fix the deficiency, use it to your advantage.

The basic root of the problem is the consumerist mindset, where even human relations are treated as disposable. If there is a slight flaw in the packaging the "product" is overlooked, and if the price of the product goes up (or it's threatened to go up) they want it more. As long as there is room for people to become even dumber this trend will continue unchecked.

It's a downward spiral for fools. And those who seek to make money off these fools will be pulled down after them.

One can only hope that the day will soon come when people will start leaving the shiny things at home.

Thursday, 21 May 2009

Putting Their Kids Pictures on Facebook

Dummies everywhere are putting details of their kid's birthdays, doctor's visits, first swimming lessons, and other details they would never share with a stranger in public, on Facebook. All someone has to do to see it all is add them as a friend (and sometimes not even that). Women are the most guilty of this. They like to expose details of their personal lives for all the world to see. Too bad they fail to see the mixed message behind this.

The mixed message is that, on the one hand you shouldn't talk to strangers, but on the other hand it's okay for strangers to read about you on the internet.

"Gee I don't know this person but I'll add them as a friend anyway. I already have hundreds so what can it hurt".

To dumb people, an anonymous threat is apparently not as bad as a threat in broad daylight (i.e. strangers). If anything, dumb people are not consistent.

But the kids will no doubt have serious questions when they see themselves plastered online.

"Mommy, why am I on Facebook?"

"Because I'm an idiot dear. Now run outside and play. And don't talk to strangers."

Of course, this spells trouble in the event that something bad does happen. And it will, sooner or later. There are just too many dummies posting details of their kid's lives, so an incident is bound to occur eventually. And once it does, the dummies will be up in arms demanding that Facebook be taken down. There may even be a movement that forms: Mothers Against Facebook, or something similar.

But I have a feeling, the most that will come of it is some sort of change to Facebook's terms of service, which may include a disclaimer saying something like: "If you have kids and are stupid enough to post details of their private lives, don't blame us if something bad happens".

Friday, 15 May 2009

Acting Like Social Retards In Social Settings

One of the truly great ironies in life is how people will deliberately place themselves in social situations and then do everything in their power to avoid connecting with other people.

Bars and clubs are a good example.

Men and women both frequent these environments on a regular basis. But strangely, there are relatively few connections taking place in these environments. Many men just stand around looking at the women all night, while others aggressively try to pick women up. And the women, on the other hand, are generally closed off to being approached at all (with some notable exceptions).

However, a double standard is also at work. If a man shows unwillingness to talk he is encouraged to be social (e.g. "smile" more). But if a woman shows unwillingness to talk it is assumed that the men are inadequate or they need to rise to the occasion.

While this may have a positive effect on getting men to become more extroverted, it also has the effect of encouraging and reinforcing antisocial female behavior. Typically, this positive reinforcement goes unchecked through a woman's formative years, and a social retard is born.

To better understand this, consider the following analogy. A great many women complain that they never meet anyone because of lack of "chemistry". And this premise generally goes unchallenged in popular culture. As a result, many females adopt a passive ignorance and inability to look at themselves. So anytime things don't work out they can point to the "lack" of something outside their control. And this is conveniently called chemistry because it sounds romantic enough to be believable. But in reality, what is often lacking is inside them. They expect the fireplace to give them heat before they give it wood, and things never seem to work out.

Nowhere in the chemistry manual does it say that women need to look at themselves and make the effort, and that is the problem.

This same sort of passive ignorance occurs in bars and clubs. Bitchy, cold women adopt the social retard mindset and screw up their chances to meet anyone nice. Granted, sometimes it's a defense mechanism to avoid certain men, but too often it is universal unreceptiveness. Unfortunately, this unreceptiveness is rewarded and encouraged by guys who approach them anyway and who are so caught up in thinking with their smaller heads that they never pause to reflect on the sanity of the situation. So you have aggressive social retards (the men) trying to win over the passive social retards (the women), usually by using lame pickup lines, bragging, etc.

But an interesting phenomenon occurs when these socially retarded females see a man they like. They genuinely want to get to know him but since their frame of mind is so deeply immersed in the antisocial mindset, they actually sabotage their own efforts to make a connection. They may stand near him and hover in his proximity while simultaneously avoiding eye contact at all cost. And sometimes the guy will approach her, but then she will either bolt or her friends will cockblock.

In other cases, these women will make eye contact with a guy they like but from a "safe" distance. And if by chance he moves in to talk to her, she will bolt like before. Other times these women will make eye contact with the guy but will always keep a minimum (safe) distance no matter what. Other times they will pinch the guy's ass while walking by, and when the guy looks around to see who it is, all he sees is a girl walking away really fast. But usually they do this while with a group of friends, since it's better cover.

And of course, dumb men (especially those in the seduction community) will feel that this sort of behaviour is simply women's way of testing for the strongest males, and not a symptom of deeper psychological problems.

The truth is that socially retarded behaviour can only be overcome by marginalizing. Men who observe females exhibiting this behaviour should avoid them, such as not bothering to talk to them, and in some cases positioning themselves far away from them. It is only this way, that social retardedness can start to come apart, and the sting of introspection start to set in.

It's harder to be a social retard if it gets you ignored.

Wednesday, 6 May 2009

Attacking Dissenting Movie Reviews on Rotten Tomatoes

Fanboys are up in arms when one of their beloved movies gets a negative review by a critic. It doesn't matter if the criticism has merit. All that matters to dumb fanboys is that the object of their (geek) infatuation is not embraced by everyone with the same love they have.

Dumb fanboys lurk the rottentomatoes site ready to pounce on critics that have dissenting views.

For instance, the latest movie Star Trek, which looks to be an excellent movie, has had very positive reviews for the most part. But the fanboys, in their geek-like determination to have 100% approval, mercilessly attack the intelligence, integrity, affiliations, and anything else they can think of to vilify those who dare to speak against the objects of their fantasy (and t-shirt collections).

Apparently, getting only 2 or 3 bad reviews out of 100 is enough to ruin any serious fanboy's day.

Of course, it's all ego-based. They identify themselves with something with geek-like passion and use their keyboards as weapons to snuff out any dissenters. It's not too different from how the flat-earth society once demonized round-earth believers.

Interestingly, there is a strong correlation between the level of hatred spewed and the nature of the screen name chosen by the fanboys, which is usually something from a video game or role-playing fantasy character, such as "Alien-spawn-galactic-hunter". Watch out for the venom from these guys.

It's funny, dumb fanboys will even go so far as calling movie reviewers bigots that hate those things that are different from them. And yet, these same fanboys display the same zero-tolerance towards alternate viewpoints. A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Tuesday, 28 April 2009

Hating On Dimitri The Lover and Paul Janka

When dumb people are against what someone has to say they find all sorts of ways to rant about it. But what they don't realize is that they are giving these people a lot of publicity, and therefore the means to spread their word even more.

Controversial characters in the seduction community, such as Dimitri The Lover and Paul Janka have generated a firestorm of criticism and outrage, mostly among dumb jaded women and dumb (whipped) men. Most of this is in the form of irrational attempts at character assassination, which do nothing to diminish the messages delivered by these men. Instead, they are thriving with all the extra attention. It's like throwing gasoline on a fire trying to put it out.

If you're a dumb person who goes out on a limb trying to defame others who may offend you, know this, you must have a pretty boring life. Otherwise, why would you go out of your way and create so much drama making personal attacks. You're not even going after what these people represent. You're just going after them personally, and that's lame. All someone has to do is say that the only reason you are making personal attacks is because what they say is true, and you have less of a leg to stand on (which is often true).

If you want to be taken seriously, critique the message, not the messenger.

And if you're just looking for a reason to vent, go outside and kick stones around. Or get a punching bag.

Not Questioning Obvious Grammar And Spelling Mistakes

For example:

• Saying "pwned" instead of "owned"

• Saying "could care less" instead of "couldn't care less"

• Saying "I could give a shit" instead of "I couldn't give a shit"

It's amazing how verbal and grammatical mistakes, as long as they are catchy, can become part of the language.

It would probably be okay if someone was aware of the error but chose to speak that way regardless. But too often the blinders are on and people say it just because other people say it.

If someone says "I got krunk last night!" and sounds convincing enough, it may end up in the urban dictionary. At this point the usage will have become common enough so that anytime someone drinks excessively, they will proclaim: "I'm krunk!"

Apparently no mistake is too big for the sheep among us to embrace.

Monday, 20 April 2009

Criticizing Obama For Bowing To Saudi King And Greeting Chavez

There's a lot of controversy over President Obama's apparent bow to the king of Saudi Arabia. Some people consider it an act of treason and a display of subservience. And the same sort of criticism arose when Obama shook hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. But that was more a matter of risking "national security" in the minds of some, since Chavez had made some very anti-American comments in the past. But the truth is that these weren't actually anti-American comments. They were more anti-Bush comments.

Criticisms like this are just examples of the reflexive fear-based responses dumb people have, and which the GOP propaganda machine tries to exploit whenever it can.

Obama said it best when he said that he doesn't think that having a polite exchange with Mr. Chavez would endanger the strategic interests of the United States.

The first line of defense against people who hate you is to stop being an asshole towards them. And by engaging in diplomacy and friendliness you go a long way towards achieving that.

Of course, dummies would argue that you should get bigger guns and impose greater aggression to minimize threats. Anything less is deemed "risky". In other words, if I'm an asshole then I must become an even bigger asshole to protect myself.

Of course you could also try not being an asshole. Then maybe you won't need bigger guns.

Tuesday, 7 April 2009

Abstinence-Only Sex Education

From Wikipedia: "proponents of abstinence-only sex education object to curricula that fail to teach their standard of moral behavior; they maintain that a morality based on sex only within the bounds of marriage is "healthy and constructive" and that value-free knowledge of the body may lead to immoral, unhealthy, and harmful practices."

This is a well-written statement by a conservative dumb person. They throw in words like "morality" and "harmful" and don't back it up with evidence, and expect people to fall in line.

To dumb people sex is bad because:

• God says so

• It's a form of lust

• It corrupts mind and body

• It involves the male sticking his "thang" into the females "thang". How... dirty!

Furthermore, sex should only happen within marriage. This is what god wants. It's amazing how only dumb people are god's messengers!

And what if someone doesn't want to get married, or they only marry when they are much older? Should they abstain from sex then? Maybe it's much easier to follow this guideline if you get married when you're really young (like in the past), but it's generally not a reasonable expectation nowadays.

And yet, our very existence is due to the fornicating ways of our caveman ancestors, who by the way, didn't marry! The social construct of marriage didn't come about until someone decided that it was time to listen to god's word and not sin anymore. So all that sex out of wedlock that our ancestors had... I guess god is willing to overlook that dark period of human history because now we "know better".

Sex feels good for everyone involved. So why should something feel good so that you can feel bad about it after? Oh, what a sinner I am! This type of thinking reeks of ultra low-awareness. It comes from someone who just hasn't connected the dots and asked enough questions to get to the truth of the matter.

The fact is that the U.S. has the highest teen birth rate and one of the highest rates of STI's among teens in the industrialized world (despite its many efforts to teach abstinence-only sex education). And in contrast, many European countries teach sex education in an open manner and therefore have some of the lowest incidents of teen pregnancy and STI's.

The problem is not "messed up teens", as some would say. The problem is with dumb adults who have trouble coping with human sexuality. So they try to marginalize it to make it go away. It's also an ownership issue. They can't stand the thought of their kids fucking other people. Result: the kids do it anyway but minus the knowledge of how to prevent STI's and unwanted pregnancy. The truth is that this fundamental aspect of human behavior cannot simply be repressed by conservative groups who are themselves sexually and intellectually repressed. Attempts to do this result in people developing messed up views with regards to sex. So instead of having healthy outlets for sex, it gets pushed into strange corners. For example, many people use lame excuses to avoid feeling ashamed about sex; such as "I was drunk", or they get into boring relationships just to feel good about having sex. Or sometimes, they only have casual sex when they're so frustrated with societies restrictions that they reach a boiling point, and just want to "get laid" with the first available person. So in many instances casual sex correlates with a neurotic state of mind. The person has sex with someone but under less than ideal conditions, and with a chip on their shoulder the whole time.

Thursday, 2 April 2009

Working For The Man

Dumb people are attracted to the concept of being an employee and working for a company. It gives them a sense of satisfaction knowing they are working for The Man.

The powerful lie that has been rammed down people's throat is that getting a J-O-B is the way to go if you want stability and purpose in life.

But the fact is that widget factories can’t run themselves. It takes willing employees to keep them going.

Think of it as a big wheel that must be kept turning at all costs, a wheel that mostly produces things people don't need.

But someone must be benefiting greatly from this. And if it's not the employees, who is it?

It's the employers. Also known as the company executives. The CEOs. The big bosses. These are the ones at the top. These are the ones who can fire you in a heartbeat if you don't adhere to company policy in the way they want. These are the ones who can fire you in a heartbeat if the company is experiencing economic problems and needs to downsize. And it doesn't matter if you've been there a long time and worked your ass off for them. From your vantage point all the levers of power are on their side. So even if the company goes under they still come out winners. Early and very generous retirement packages are all the rage for CEOs in these difficult economic times.

Here's food for thought: You, the employee, gets the shaft and the CEO(s) walk away with a fat payout (*cough* Rick Wagoner).

However, it is these CEOs and high-level executives that you, the employee, helped sustain. Remember, although the company paid you, they got more out of the deal than you did. That's why companies make profits. Profits mean that there's still money left over after you (and the rest of the employees) get paid. And where do you think that money goes? Profit sharing? Maybe, but usually in token amounts. For the most part it goes towards making the company bigger, and stronger, as well as going towards inflated CEO and executive salaries. But they are the owners, you might be thinking. The company couldn't run without them. Wrong. If they were gone for a week the company would still be producing as long as the employees are still there. But if the employees were to take off for a week what would the company produce then? Zilch. Therefore, who makes up the essentials of the company? You see, employees as a group don't actually need the company as much as the company needs them. But those at the top make it seem like the opposite is true. And dumb people are sucked right in.

But you're just exchanging value right? You give them something, and they give you something in return. True, but consider this. What you give them has more staying power than what they give you. With the profit the company makes they can invest in equipment and infrastructure, which means they can grow. And as a result they can hire even more people and make even more profit. So basically you are helping the company sustain itself in the present and the future, while they are only helping sustain you for the present. Does the term "living paycheck-to-paycheck" sound familiar?

Why do you think typical companies, especially North American ones, give so little vacation time per year? It's not because they don't want to pay you when you're not working. It's because, if everyone had a long vacation time their production would decrease and they would make less money. So in general, more time off is good for you but bad for the company. But you might be thinking, what if they don't have to pay you when you're on vacation? You just take a leave of absence. That might be better but the problem is that they would still make less money because they wouldn't produce as much. So they usually don’t allow that either.

For the sake of the company it's important the employees are there as much as possible.

Look at it this way. How many people are forced to be at work even though they spend many hours not working? They sit at their desks eight hours a day, five days a week, and for most of that time they shuffle papers around, or scribble things on pieces of paper, trying to look busy. They may also habitually minimize the Internet Explorer window when the boss walks by. I have a word for this type of thing. It's not called "work". It's called "doing nothing". I can stay at home and do that, thank you very much. But the thing is, it's part of company structure. Machines need structure and companies are like machines. They need all the "parts" to be in attendance even when they are not being used. So you have many people sitting at their jobs, on standby most of the time, and bored out of their minds. Imagine how much potential innovation is lost just by all the time people spend sitting idle at their jobs. Office and corporate jobs are the absolute worst for this. It’s a huge waste of brainpower.

The brilliance of this whole scheme is that the longer an employee works at a company the less likely he or she will leave. They become "wage slaves", and (not to mention) slaves to Tim Horton's coffee which by the way would go under without the existence of employees.

These wage slaves slowly become more brain dead as the years go by, losing the creative energy of their youth. Coffee becomes one of their main inspirations. They lose the ability to do anything constructive besides go to work. They are unable to be productive anywhere but the workplace. And if they become jobless they become depressed and feel like their sense of purpose has been taken from them. And even now, in the face of an economic downturn, most employees are that much more grateful to have a job. Personally I think that the economic situation should serve as a wakeup call as to how unstable jobs really are. They can cut you off at any time and your years of dedication and service is no guarantee of continued employment.

What is one definition of a good employee? A dumb person who unquestioningly helps a company prosper, and helps CEOs like Rick Wagoner walk away rich after the company collapses.

Highly educated employees are especially valued in companies. Not only can they help the company prosper but they can do so intelligently, putting all their education to good work. They make great cogs in the machine, these highly educated employees do.

But without jobs, how would anything get made? How could society function? Civilizations got built by people in jobs, didn't they?

As a matter of fact, innovation is never a result of someone working a job, per se. It is always a result of someone thinking outside the box, and then implementing his or her ideas. Microsoft founder Bill Gates started a company based on an idea he had. Markus Frind, the owner of is rich because he built his own website. Both these men never intended to work as employees and both men are rich.

Jobs don't foster innovation. Jobs are simply social constructs, which in some ways are borderline psychotic institutions, which have enslaved many people using money and "purpose" as bait.

"But a job gives you valuable experience."

This is true only if you want to work another similar job. I personally value enjoyable experiences, not painful ones. Pain and boredom are not good experiences.

"You have to work a job if you want to be a productive member of society."

Being productive has nothing to do necessarily with being in a job. Work comes in many forms. I can be far more productive taking a few months off, and work on my own hobbies, than I can at a job where they prescribe me tasks.

"But my family expects this of me. All my friends are doing this!"

That's the sheep in you talking. Look at this as an opportunity to lead by example. When you're at a club do you wait for other people to hit the dance floor before you go? Or do you wait until you hear a good song and then go, regardless of what anyone else does?

"What about lost income? The time you spend not working at a job and making steady income is the same as money lost!"

What about lost opportunity to follow your interests? What about lost opportunities to invest time in something you are passionate about, and which could give you financial independence one day?

"If you don't work at a job you're a wimp!"

Most people are followers. Most people aren't very courageous. And most people are in jobs. It takes more guts to go against the grain.

Besides, do you really want to work for someone called "your boss" whom you have to obey just because he's the guy who signs your paycheck? You may as well ask me to obey someone because he has a whip or is carrying a gun. This premise is fear-based and is generally not rational. How could you work under someone if there comes a time when you don't agree with the way they are doing things, but you are still "obliged" to do things their way? In this case it's not about doing the correct thing. It's about keeping your job. Cowards use this line on fellow co-workers all the time: "If you want to keep your job you better do as the boss says". They relish holding the word "fired" over your head like some sort of nose-ring.

The more prestigious the company the bigger the nose-ring. Working for a prestigious company in some ways is like passing obedience training with flying colors. Other companies may want you more but for the wrong reasons.

It’s fine to do work for someone else, such as freelancing or contract work. But where the power dynamic is boss/subordinate that truly sucks!

"But I have bills to pay! A mortgage! A car!"

If this is the case, why didn't you take preventive steps before locking yourself into a difficult financial situation? It makes no sense to complain about your situation when it is so clearly happening to other people around you. All you have to do is say: "Uh-uh... that's not gonna happen to me". It's like sheep going to slaughter, and knowing about it!

"I'm climbing the corporate ladder, and it's slowly paying off."

Climbing the corporate ladder is like a carrot and stick. The higher up you go the worse it will feel if you get cut off. So all the work it took to get to that point will be for nothing. Risk actually increases the further up you go. And the "top" is only an illusion. It's just a lure to keep people employed. The true people at the top have to know someone or be incredibly lucky.

"You can become recognized and well-known."

Maybe at the company Christmas party, but to the rest of the world you don't exist. Look at the pyramids in Egypt. After thousands of years the only people getting credit for their construction are the pharaohs. It was their "vision". The thousands of people who actually built them don't get mentioned at all. Maybe there's a tablet somewhere with all their names listed, but I don't think so. Think about your legacy as an employee. As a modern example, consider the Airbus A380. Despite all the different contributions by all the people involved, the only people who get recognition in the media are the handful of CEOs and executives at the top (who didn’t so much as screw on a bolt). Although I'm not one to get caught up in prestige for its own sake, this does add evidence to the fact that when working for a company as an employee, you are behind the scenes.

"But you can pursue your hobbies and passions on your free time, when you're not working at your job."

Great. So I have to use my leftover energy to do what I really want. And the best part of my day should be spent doing what I don't really enjoy. This is the brilliant solution dumb people have come up with to address the hobbies issue.

It's much better to invest a larger portion of your time and energy in something that belongs to YOU, even if you aren't making money. This investment will produce tangible results and will not be like gas through a funnel (like money). It will have staying power. It can be nurtured. It can grow. And it all belongs to you. And best of all it can't be cut off by anyone.

But the dumb person would argue that it's stupid to work on something you love if you're not making money. This is just more evidence of brainwashing. All that money gives you is the means to pay off bills and buy things. Now, if you can invest that money for a rainy day so that you can take time off and do what you like that's a better approach. But most people are too dumb to do this. They prefer to rack up debt when they have more money to spend. Even squirrels are smarter than this. They don't let extra nuts go to waste. They eat some and stash away the rest for the future.

The education system caters to this mentality. This is why so many graduates jump headfirst into jobs after they're done school. Gotta put that schooling to good use and make my parents proud! God forbid you take some time to discover where your true passions and interests lie.

"But how many people who actually follow their passions get rich?"

The more important question to ask is: How many people who don't do this get rich?

It makes absolutely no sense to spend all this time and energy at a job and have little or no energy left over for your own interests. The typical pattern is, when you get home you're too tired to do anything else, and your creative potential is drained. And weekends are just recovery time. It's utter foolishness!

Oh sure, technically speaking there are many hours outside of the 40 hour work week, in which you can pursue your interests. It's a great idea if you don't need sleep. I relish the idea of working 80 hours a week between a job and my own interests. It's not like I would burn out or anything! Great solution. But unfortunately, the traditional 40 hour work week as it stands, is the time window in which people have the most energy and are the most productive in general.

But I'll admit, not everyone can just quit their jobs and follow their dreams.

The solution is to take part time jobs. This allows you the opportunity to pay your bills and invest serious time in your interests.

But what if you can't even do this?

You got me there. But I have to wonder what could be so important to you and worth keeping that you can't even make time for you. Are the shackles really on that tight? Or do you have some limiting beliefs about what you can and can't do?

If you've never had the opportunity to follow your passions and have always been too busy with work, why the heck is that? If you can't take time off because you might get fired and replaced doesn't that make you a slave? If you have to keep yourself working in order to keep yourself working doesn't that make you a slave? Just how smart are you for doing this? That degree probably doesn't seem so great now, does it? It's more a certification to serve as a cog – “I am hereby certified to be a cog. I will perform this function flawlessly according to my specifications.”

At least Europe is sort of on the right track with their much longer vacation time per year. And in many ways they do seem smarter and more forward thinking than North Americans in general.

But at least you're making lots of money right? The funny thing is that money is not really a measure of anything tangible, especially given that someone (*cough* Rick Wagoner) can make more money in a day than a hard working Joe makes in a year. So using money as a justification for all your hard work is nonsense. It's an irrelevant measuring stick.

But doing something for yourself, investing in something for you, something that has staying power, that isn't like gas through a funnel. It doesn't belong to anyone else. No one else has ownership over it.

But you might be thinking, I do get to be creative at my job. Great, but who owns the copyright to your work? I'll give you a hint. It's not you! Your company has all claims over your work. This way, after you're gone it belongs to them. Nice huh! And some companies even go so far as legislating limits on the jobs you can do right after you leave. We wouldn't want the competition benefiting would we? So the only thing you can leave with is the knowledge in your head, and even that gets censored by some. And god forbid you go into business for yourself after having worked for a company, using what you learned. You might face a lawsuit for stealing clients from them!

To finish this off I want to address the common trap that many people get caught up in. The trap is: If I give this up now I am a failure, and all that effort I put in up to now will be for nothing. So I can't just quit!

My response: Would you rather live a lie and be unhappy just to save face?? What's that I hear? It’s a clock. Tick-tick-tick-tick-tick.

But it's never too late to get your soul back! It's never too late to break out of the line leading to slaughter. And with luck others will follow.

Sunday, 8 March 2009

Thinking Science Is "Man Made"

Apparently, in the minds of some, science is just another viewpoint, like politics or philosophy. To them, the laws of physics are man made. People made them up in order to satisfy their agenda. Therefore, when someone says that you can't create energy out of nothing, they are brainwashed by science.

I love how gravity just seems to behave exactly the way I want. I predict that when I let go of something, it will fall. And it does. Every time.

In the same vein, I love how my car always runs the same way no matter which day of the week it is, and regardless of the whims of the laws of physics (created by man). Now that's a "religion" I can fully support, one that actually proves its existence.

If you haven't heard of perpetual motion or overunity devices, you're out of the loop. These things are said to create more energy than they consume. The same goes for cars that run on water. Free energy baby! The universe has a lot of explaining to do. Why oh why spend so much energy creating galaxies, stars, and planets when you can tap into the free energy that's all around us. They must not have gotten the memo that fateful day 14 billion years ago, when it all began.

If you ask a dummy how come overunity devices aren't invented yet, they will almost always say that they are "close". There are just some fine details that need to be sorted out. And besides, there are conspiracies trying to prevent such devices from ever seeing the light of day.

As a general rule, all overunity devices produce very little "extra" energy. So little in fact that you might even think they are slightly under-unity. But potential margins of error pale in comparison to the prospect of having free energy.

Furthermore, all "plausible" overunity devices look suspiciously like highly conservative systems, where there is very little friction loss; meaning they appear to run "forever". And what overunity device would be complete without the use of magnets or some form of electromagnetism where dials are turned and switches flipped. Apparently it's harder to prove (or disprove) something when you can't see the forces and interactions at work. If you tried to make an overunity device using cables and pulleys you would quickly be SOL.

Using A Thesaurus When Beliefs Are Challenged

Nothing beats a thesaurus when faced with the possibility of being wrong. Dumb people are well aware of its usefulness in silencing the "opposition". And nowhere is a thesaurus more handy than when trying to win arguments over the internet. Unlike real time where you have to think on the fly, on the internet you can grab the 'ol thesaurus and flip through it until you come across words that make you sound "smart". You then fire off a response.

Don't say "use". Say "utilize".

Don't say "prove". Say "substantiate".

As the tempers flare up so do words like "proclivity" and "diatribe". And when dummies really mean business they take out the big guns: "De facto" and "banality". The Rant & Rave on Craigs List is a goldmine for words like this. If you want to see dummies in full thesaurus-mode, that's where you go.

Extremism In The Name Of Liberty

There's a class of dumb people that thinks any form of regulation is a violation of their basic freedom. These dummies give the impression of standing up for liberty, but they do so at the expense of enlightenment and doing things better. Better to breathe foul air in a "free market" than introduce regulations that would clean things up.

The problem is one of color-blindness. They only see things as black and white. They cannot distinguish between a nazi-police state and government intervention for the greater good. Any intervention is "bad" in their point of view. Therefore checks and balances for Wall Street are bad. Therefore salary caps for CEOs (bailed out with government money) are bad. Therefore a balanced tax system is bad. Let the chips fall where they may, these dummies argue. And if there's corruption that's unfortunate but the system must not be compromised. Even in the face of an economic downturn which in many ways proves that the system is faulty, the "freedom fighters" don't want the "land of the free" to change.

The Republican party of the United States is the poster boy for how too much liberty can go wrong. Of course, they are staying the course. The Republican Party, the GOP, has its fair share of dummies. One only has to read the comments on the Fox News website to see how much hate, bile and ignorance Conservatism for its own sake can generate.

Time to change your ways GOP dummies. The sun stopped revolving around the earth a long time ago. A degree of regulation is not the same as Communism. If it weren't for the recklessness of people like you, regulation wouldn't even be necessary. But we see now that we must "toilet-train" you so that we don't have to deal with you making a mess whenever you feel like it.

Monday, 26 January 2009

Thinking Men "Use" Women For Sex

There are many people who believe that men habitually "use" women for sex. It's a common belief held by some (not just women) that sexual intercourse is in essence taking something from a woman if not done in a way that's considered "right".

And apparently, what's considered "wrong" is not related to sex itself, but in the feelings that arise afterwards, because of "expectations" that were not met along the way.

"I enjoyed the sex but I didn't get a relationship out of it sooo.... (I guess that means) I was used!"

And if, as a guy, you don't want a relationship (but want sex) that means you just want to use women.

Some women think that men only view women in one of two ways: relationship material or "fuck and dump" material. Yes, it can feel very empowering for some women to view things through this black and white filter.

Typically, people who see things this way are unable to enjoy sex by itself. It has to be a stepping-stone, prerequisite, or bargaining chip for something else.

Otherwise it's the same thing as picking up a rag, cleaning something off with it, and discarding it.

Now, given that some guys really don't want a relationship, but want to get laid, they are prepared to lie to women in order to get what they want. The problem with this is that afterwards they quickly get bored (or they realize the games aren't worth it), and move on. Result: she feels used.

Given that the typical societal expectations for having sex are so abnormal and difficult to live up to, the end result will always be women who feel used.

However, intelligence is key.

One must screen for intelligence in sexual matters. And the easiest way to do this and waste no time dealing with dummies, is to tell people upfront that you only want to be friends with benefits, with no strings attached. This will automatically disqualify 99% of all the dumb people who have sexual hang-ups.

The reason this works so well is because only someone who has gone though the process of questioning the status quo will realize that FWB can be a great thing. And even if you actually prefer a relationship it's much more healthy to develop one with a FWB than with a sexually repressed dumb person who would make you go through a bunch of hoops and bullshit exercises.

Sunday, 25 January 2009

Denying Global Warming Because It's Winter

Now that it's the middle of winter and it's cold outside, dumb people are up in arms denouncing the threat of global warming and climate change.

It seems that now is the perfect time to view the scientists warnings (and satellite images of polar ice melting) as one big hoax designed to scare people.

The attacks are many and reminiscent of something from the "let's hate on something" bandwagon. Not to mention they are bored and don't have much to do this time of year, so why not.

Here's one of the first things a dumb person will say with regards to global warming:

"But 2008 was one of the coldest years!"

This is true, but only in the last 8 years or so. One has to consider that the general trend has been upward. Climate change doesn't follow smooth linear trends; the kind that dumb people can follow.

Dumb people also have short memories. Back in the 1980s the 2008 temperatures would have been considered warmer than normal.

Facts can be a bitch but in an effort to stand their ground dumb people will say things like:

"I'm so sick of hearing about this!"

Which is unavoidably followed by:

"Guys like that scam artist Al Gore are making a ton of money off this!"

If someone is making a living and maybe even getting rich then it must be false right? In that case let's denounce religious establishments as well since they are also in a way spreading "fear" and making lots of money in the process. And they are doing it all based on beliefs, and not at all based on facts.

But surely, anyone can understand that releasing many billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year will eventually have negative results.

Furthermore, pollution and global warming is something you can feel, and over time measure. And shouldn't an upward temperature trend over the last hundred plus years at least make the idea plausible? And what if the rate of temperature increase closely matches the rate of increase of global carbon emissions, especially in the last 60 years. Shouldn't that at least make the idea plausible? Not according to some.

Have a look at the chart that "proves" global warming is not real. I pretended I was a dumb person and added the note you see on the bottom right. The original chart is courtesy of the UK Meteorological Office. NASA also has a similar chart (

Click on image for larger view

There you go. Over the last 100 years there are at least eight distinct regions that "prove" global warming is fake. Somebody send me a cheque.

Sunday, 18 January 2009

Writing Mediocre Personal Ads And Expecting Quality Responses

Many people write online personal ads that have little in the way of unique personal content. They write things that are very generic, with little substance and which don't offer anything insightful to the reader. And the reader, usually having nothing to work with, can only send a simple one-liner like: "I like your profile. Let's chat." The person then reads this and deletes the message because it's "too boring" and shows "no effort" on their part to get to know them. Well duh, it's because they have nothing to work with!

The overwhelming majority of the time this scenario plays out with women. So let's focus on that.

There are many dumb women who put up superficial personal ads and are swamped with responses, only to reject all of them because they lack substance. Most of the women who do this are the ones who spend a lot of time on makeup and clothes in order to attract a "mate". They then take pictures of themselves, upload them, throw in a sub par profile, and assume that's enough.

But ironically, given that the bulk of the profile is contained in the pictures, it cannot be the basis for a response - it would be chastised as "superficial" and quickly discarded. So the only alternative is to base a response on the sub par profile itself.

But really, how can someone write something of substance in response to:

"I'm 28. Very successful. I'm looking for a guy with a great sense of humor and who likes dogs. I'm very laid back and like things like camping, candlelight dinners and walks on the beach. I enjoy life and am looking for that special someone who will give me butterflies. I'm looking for someone who is interested in the same things as me. If you think we might be a match send me a message."

Now, what the heck can a guy write in response to that?

"Hi, I'm very successful too, and I like dogs. Let's talk"

"Hi, I also like camping and walks on the beach. I think we might have a lot in common! P.S. luv the profile!"

"The fact that I enjoy life too means we are probably meant for each other."

Now, in her mind these will sound fake. And it's true, they are fake. They are attempts by guys reaching out to women using any means they can think of. But because the women are giving them nothing to work with they are in fact over-reaching. And it makes them appear needy.

So here's the result of this. There are only two possibilities:

1. Receive boring lame responses from men. Result: delete and no hook up.

2. Receive no responses because the men are smart enough to know it's a dead end (unlikely since there are way too many needy guys online). Result: no hook up.

It's a lose-lose situation. No matter what happens, these women will never meet anyone, and will never understand why. All they'll have to show for it is frustration that there's no "good men", and some version of carpal tunnel; the result of being a serial message-deleter.

Saturday, 17 January 2009

Getting Stressed Planning Vacations

Vacations are meant to relieve stress and gain a fresh perspective. So it is very odd that this activity stresses so many people out, both in the planning stage and during the vacation itself.

Dumb people see vacations as big to-do lists. Gotta do this. Gotta do that. They get hung up on the details of how to have the "perfect vacation". But they never really enjoy themselves because they are too busy dragging themselves through the motions of what they feel they have to do to make the most of it.

Can't stay at home. Too boring.

Can't go somewhere local. Too easy.

Can't go somewhere that isn't super-crowded. Too unpopular. As a member of the herd you have to all be doing the same things in order to feel good about it.

Afterwards it's funny to hear a dumb person say how they can't wait to get back to work because of how stressful the "vacation" was.

And the next time around they are compelled to top it. This adds to the sense of restlessness and unease, and keeps the momentum going the next time they want to get away from it all.

Tuesday, 13 January 2009

Criticizing Prince Harry For 'Offensive' Remarks Caught On Video

Prince Harry is having to deal with criticism resulting from a video of him made three years ago, in which he said certain things which are not considered "appropriate".

While it is understandable that certain statements can be interpreted as offensive to someone, somewhere, they are hardly a rare occurrence. People say crap all the time. So why is this getting as much attention (if not more) than that meteorite which landed in western Canada a few months ago? Now that was actually a rare occurrence worth mentioning.

It seems that the problem is this:

I can call someone a "ho" but I just can't get caught on video saying that, or be third in line to the British throne and get caught saying that.

Such things are only offensive if caught on video.

But here's food for thought: Context. What if Harry's so-called racist and crude remarks were just part of relieving the group tension commonly found in groups of young males. And what if his comrades were saying equally "sinister" things in turn, but those weren't included. I know I've said some pretty nasty stuff in the past but it was generally superficial, and letting off steam, not meant to hate on anyone. You tend to outgrow such juvenile outbursts, but once in a while something comes out which encroaches on political correctness territory.

Can't be serious all the time can we?

But amazingly, such comments, when coming from celebrities and politicians, are very offensive for some. And yet people say them all the time. And dumb people especially, who rarely think before they speak, are the first to call the kettle black. It's a sign of hypocrisy and a double standard between what goes on in our private lives and what is expected from those in the public eye.

And now, as expected, Harry has to apologize for it. In the words of his spokesman:

"Prince Harry fully understands how offensive this term can be, and is extremely sorry for any offence his words might cause."

Yeah, I'd be pretty sorry too, for all the mentally challenged people out there who think this is a big deal when there are other bigger problems in the world to deal with.

Friday, 9 January 2009

Bashing Vegetarians and Vegans

"If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did He make them out of meat?"

A priceless Homer Simpson moment, and equally hilarious. Except that there are those that actually think this statement is valid.

A dumb person will never question the wisdom behind eating a big juicy hamburger. After all, it came from meat. Never mind the fact that the cow itself was not raised on meat.

"But humans are carnivores."

In that case we are different from every other carnivore on the planet. We don't have sharp teeth, claws, and the strong stomach acid necessary to digest raw meat. As well, we have long intestines designed for plant matter primarily, whereas carnivores have short intestines - a necessity because rotting meat must be quickly expelled to avoid the toxins.

Furthermore, we are the only carnivore that has to cook meat in order to make it digestible.

This will no doubt give a dumb person pause. But they won't give up that easy. They'll just bring out the big guns; namely statements beginning with "If God didn't..."

"If God didn't want us to eat animals he would not have made them taste so good."

"If God didn't intend man to eat beast, then why did he make them furry, and killable?"

"My dad says, if God didn't want us to eat meat he wouldn’t have invented steak sauce."

Apparently the relationship between God and dumb people is a close one.

Dumb people are sickened by the fact that Vegetarians and Vegans are denying themselves meat - one of the best things in the world. For them, it's equivalent to saying: "I don't breathe." In their mind both these things are vital for survival.

Furthermore, if it's part of a balanced diet it's perfectly healthy. This is actually true to an extent. Meat does provide some nutritional value, but then, why do dieticians always tell us to eat vegetables with meat. It must be hard to digest or something.

This will usually bring another wave of responses in the form of fabrications and anecdotes.

"Vegetarians are pale and skinny."

"Vegetarians don't get enough protein, calcium, etc."

"Vegetarian diets cause people to emit more gas. All those beans and roughage makes people fart!"

"Vegetarian is a North American Indian word for bad hunter."

"Vegetarians are not less violent. They are more critical of others who don't follow their ways. Hitler was a vegetarian. I can't stress that enough."

This last one is clearly a not so subtle attempt at vilification by association.

And then there's the personal accounts:

"He told me that he had been a Vegan for 7 years. Later on he had to ask me to pull down his wife's suitcase from the overhead compartment. Poor guy just didn't have the strength. I had no problems lifting that suitcase."

If there's any overlap between physical weakness and not eating meat, that's all the proof you need.

Heck, let's throw in "Obama is a muslim" as well. Off topic, but on the same level.

When anger rises the dumb comments flow freely:

"Plants are just as alive as animals. It is no more wrong to kill/eat an animal than to kill/eat a plant. Vegetarians who think it's okay to slay plants, but not animals, are like other racists who think it is okay to kill blacks, but not whites. This reveals vegetarians as hypocrites, too."

But I agree that killing carrots may be wrong.

However, plants are not sentient beings and have no nervous system, so they don't feel pain.

In the wild, it's true that many animals become food for other animals. But the difference is that they are not born into captivity and made to endure what farm animals typically go through.

And on that note,

"Humans are at the top of the food chain so it's justified."

In that case, let's put you in a cage unarmed with a polar bear. If it eats you it's justified.

And then there's the defensive strawman arguments:

"Humans ARE superior to animals. That is the way God and /or Mother nature planned it. And there is a very BIG difference between beating a child or fellow human and slaughtering an animal. You just proved what all the meat eaters have been saying about vegans. Humans just aren't important to you."

God + ego + capital letters = dangerous tool for dumb people.

And as if dumb wasn't enough. Let's upgrade to just plain stupid:

"Those who think we should not eat meat because all life is sacred are naive. Would they be happy allowing mosquitoes to spread malaria, or having rats run loose in their home? Not all creatures are equal. There are natural hierarchies in the food chain."

Apparently tolerating pests and malaria are in the same camp as wanting to spare farm animals. Being Vegetarian means you would gladly allow the spread of disease.

Another hilarious reason on why eating meat is better:

"Vegetarians are not more moral because they are killing plants to survive and many animals die from wheat thrashers. And those animals are left to rot and suffer in the fields and are not eaten."

This one is like condemning wind turbines because they occasionally kill birds, while overlooking the fact that bird deaths from cats, vehicles, and windows are far, far greater.

However, since this one is based on a shred of truth it must be addressed. Animals raised for food consume 10 times the amount of energy in plant matter than the meat they provide. So with no livestock there would be much less land needed for growing the wheat/grains to feed them. So in fact, less animals would die from "wheat thrashers", as Earl so aptly stated.

In addition to freeing up land it also takes about 100 times as much water to produce meat than to produce wheat.

Food and water shortages would be much less of a concern.

And we would also not have to deal with all the animal waste and runoff into rivers/streams etc.

The American Dietetic Association and the World Health Organization, among other groups, point out that vegetarian and vegan diets provide all the nutrients people need to be healthy. And it cuts down on a lot of the things that are bad for us, which contribute to obesity, disease, etc.

Many people are vegetarian/vegan and have lived happy healthy lives for many years, including celebrities, scientists, and prominent people from the past such as Leonardo DaVinci and Albert Einstein.

I could go on but this post is about dumb people bashing vegetarians and vegans, not the reasons to switch.

Wednesday, 7 January 2009

Dating And Relationship Books That Teach Manipulation

Due to mass appeal, certain types of dating and relationship books have become very popular. These books typically teach strategies that involve the use of deception and manipulation in order to get the men (or women) you desire. For most individuals they are an affront to intelligence and individuality but for dumb desperate people they appear as a godsend.

In addition to feeding off insecurities, these books also play on the ego; especially the books for women.

For example, dumb women with big egos love hearing:

"It's okay to want a guy to call you everyday. Because you're awesome and you deserve it!"

Anything less is, of course: "He's just not that into you" - which is actually the name of a dating book.

Using junk science, rhetoric and attacks on the self-esteem, the authors of such books manage to convince their dumb readers that they should follow certain guidelines to have any chance of succeeding in romantic relationships. These guidelines are essentially "scripts" which involve deception and leading the other person into believing you are something you are not. Apparently, this is the key to having happy and fulfilling relationships. If you can't get someone by being yourself than be someone else.

The dangerous aspect of these books is that they can in fact work, but only on the most insecure, hedonistic, and emotionally unregulated individuals. The fact is, the techniques rely heavily on there being people out there who will get sucked in by them. It's like banking on the worst traits that some people have and then calling that the method of choice.

There are two books I'm going to focus on for the remainder of this post. They are "The Rules" - the dating book for women, and "The Mystery Method" - the dating (pick-up) book for men.

Dysfunctional Dating For Dummies

Dumb, hurt, jaded women will have plenty to celebrate when they manage to reel in the most neurotic of Don Juans who get off on the chase (and lose interest soon after). This will cause them to brag to their girlfriends that the material works! Some of them will then log on to and under Book Reviews, will proclaim how wonderful The Rules is because it landed them a man (sometimes accompanied by tons of grammar and spelling mistakes). And in a predictable manner (as if to diffuse potential criticism), they will also repeat/parrot what the authors wrote by saying that the only men who are turned off by this are "jerks" because they refuse to appreciate a "real" woman and put in "the time" to get her.


Dumb, hurt, desperate men will have plenty to celebrate when they finally reel in the most insecure, hedonistic women who respond most favorably to men who give the impression of not wanting them. The self-esteem bait really works, they will say. You keep it just within their reach and eventually lead them to the bedroom (which is usually the main intent). And legions of men will follow suit, hooking up with the same type of women, and reinforcing the belief that "all women are like that", so it must be justified to do this stuff because it's the "only thing that works".

The problem is that the authors of these books never attempt to instill any rational thought into the mind of the hapless reader. They communicate that insecure thoughts are okay to have, no matter how infantile, and they can be resolved by getting "something" external. But no effort is made to get to the bottom of those bad feelings and deal with the core confidence (and intelligence) issues. Instead, they feed those fears and amplify them. For example, in The Rules this is done using shock value, such as:

"It's not fun to break The Rules. You could easily end up alone."

And in "The Mystery Method":

"If you don't learn how to attract a beautiful woman, nature will mercilessly weed your genes out of existence."

And now that the fear is primed, a solution is offered.

And any success that follows (if it follows) makes the authors appear to be geniuses.

If someone is truly so clueless about dating and relationships, any improvement, no matter how obscene, can be seen as salvation.

But holding on to a life raft is not the same thing as being on solid land.

Of course, the methods used tend to raise ethical concerns. But the authors, in order to shield themselves from rational scrutiny (and sleep better at night), do some very clever and cult-like things. For example, from the book "The Rules", the author tells the readers:

• Don't discuss The Rules with your therapist

• Do The Rules even when your friends and parents think it's nuts

• Don't read books that advise against The Rules

• The only guys who will be turned off by this are the guys who weren't really interested in the first place

• Men have a biological need to pursue, so don't make things easy for them

• The authors were once skeptical too, but it works

All these points are written to discourage independent fact finding, leaving the female followers with a certainty that the book is right and, by process of elimination, removing all those men who could cast doubt on the usefulness of the methods.

Now, from "The Mystery Method", the author says things like:

• Don't listen to what women say. What they say they want is the opposite of what they actually want

• Don't try to think about this logically. Women are illogical creatures and logic doesn't apply to them

• Women enjoy "the process". You are giving her the emotions she craves

These dogma are a bit more clever, which is why this book gets higher reviews. So the points need to be addressed separately:

The first and second point: Translation - don't listen to what women say because (god forbid) you may get a different perspective. And don't try and think about this stuff logically because it might result in you looking elsewhere for information.

The third point: This is basically the same as "Men have a biological need to pursue, so don't make things easy for them". You're just giving them what they want, after all. So it's okay to do it.

A subtle point to make is that insecure people on the receiving end would never tell you that these techniques would work on them. The reason for this is because no one (men and women) likes to admit to a weakness in character. Weak people generally don't admit they are weak. And dumb people don't generally admit they're dumb. This is why it's a common belief that people behave differently than how they say they will behave (when asked), especially if those people are susceptible to manipulation.

Books like these are written by, and feed into, a result-oriented class of people with large egos who are determined to do anything to achieve their goals. Never mind the PR campaign saying that the focus is on "self-improvement" and "setting boundaries". It's a masquerade and smokescreen for justifying a lot of bad advice.

Following these practices, it is only by accident that anyone will meet someone worthwhile. But unfortunately, dumb people won't know the difference between meeting someone worthwhile when the odds are against it, and meeting someone worthwhile "because of".

Tuesday, 6 January 2009


The path to renewable energy use is steadily catching on. As people slowly begin to realize that we can't just keep burning fossil fuels indefinitely, the obvious alternative becomes utilizing energy available from nature.

But this is where Not-In-My-Backyard thinking, or NIMBY'ism, becomes a source of protest from dumb people.

The best example of this is for wind turbines. Certain people do not like the idea of having large wind turbines located near to where they live, even if they are small dots in the distance. They fear that it will lower property value, or kill birds, to name a few of the main concerns. Now, there is a degree of truth to this, but what is usually missing is one major thing.


What is perspective? Perspective is seeing the big picture. Seeing what the major factors are, and what we're doing now in comparison. There is currently:

High levels of pollution from coal-fired and other fossil fuel power plants.

Hazardous high-level waste from nuclear power plants.

On the other hand let's consider wind turbines.

Do birds get killed by wind turbines? Unfortunately yes. But it's something like 1-2 birds per year for each large turbine. If all the United States generated all of its electricity from wind turbines the resulting annual bird deaths would be around one to two million. A lot yes, but...

Vehicles, cats, transmission lines, and especially windows, kill (in combination) hundreds of millions of birds a year in the U.S.

Wind turbine fatalities would be much less than one percent of this.

But vehicles, cats, transmission lines, and windows form part of an established structure which dumb people don't question.

However, dumb people want electricity but at the same time would hate the idea of breathing polluted air or dealing with hazardous waste. But wait, that’s already happening… So let me rephrase, they want electricity but they don’t want “eyesores” like wind turbines dotting the landscape. Um... sure... that’s much worse.

And what about property value and the threat of it decreasing? This is only a problem if you plan on selling to dummies.

The other bit of fodder used in fueling NIMBY'ism is the intermittency factor. It is said by some (i.e. those in the coal and nuclear industry) that wind turbines only operate when the wind is blowing and so they are unreliable. The first part is obviously true. They only produce power in the presence of wind. But, if you network different wind farms together the intermittency reduces due to the statistical fact that the wind is always blowing somewhere.

Besides, any intermittency problem can be solved by the use of fossil fuel power plants (especially peaker plants), which can quickly come online when the power from renewables falls short, and go offline when the power returns. These plants are currently in place and are being used to deliver peak power when required, such as in the summer when people are cranking their A/C. Peaker plants can easily switch their function to that of supplying backup power when energy from renewables temporarily falls short.

It's a really simple concept that anyone (and I do mean anyone) can understand: Any power that is produced by a clean renewable source means less power that has to be produced by burning something.

Sunday, 4 January 2009

Criticizing Steve Pavlina For Deciding To Try Polyamory

Steve Pavlina, the well known personal development blogger, has decided to try polyamory as a way to explore intimate relationships with other people (in addition to his wife). He still wants to keep his family together but wants to explore intimate relationships beyond the realm of monogamy.

While most readers of his blog are in full support of his decision, there is a small but very vocal group of dumb people who are adamantly opposed. I should mention that these people are not dumb because they don't agree with him; they are dumb because of the arguments they use. For example,

"You can't have your cake and eat it too!"

This is a common phrase used by dumb people when it comes to intimate relationships that don't involve 100% undying loyalty.

Dumb people honestly believe that just because they have sex with someone, that person automatically can't be intimate and have sex with anyone else. They believe that this entitles them to complete ownership over that person's sexual expression. They believe this so strongly that they are willing to go so far to say that it is "disrespectful" to them and in some cases, "emotionally abusive".

Other ridiculous arguments put forth are:

"If they are having sex with someone else it means that I'm not good enough for them!"

"Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?!"

This last one usually draws strong cheers from other like-minded dummies, especially when preceded by: "My mamma always taught me..."

Worn out phrases like these are part and parcel with how dummies view sexuality. They are catchy, which is why they like to parrot them when attempting to prove a point.

Dummies judge situations only based on what they have been taught and directly exposed to, not based on their own ethical insight. And they fear change, or the threat of it. Do they ever.

Another interesting notion thrown around is that of "zero sum game".

"If you are with someone else there is less for me".

Only for orgies, perhaps. But seriously, this assumes that you need to spend all your time with someone. Is it reasonable for a child to complain that he doesn't get enough attention because he has brothers and sisters?

Think of how ridiculous that is.

Monogamy, which admittedly is the best choice for some based on personal/rational grounds, is also a means for dumb people to flex their ego muscles. When a doctrine happens to align with the ego, dumb people are the first to get on board. The book called "The Rules" is a good example of this, teaching women that the man must chase endlessly or else he "doesn't care enough".

Similarly, the monogamy concept is the doctrine that dumb people like to use to rationalize having something all to themselves. For them it's vehemently justified to be selfish about something when society promotes that particular model.

The formula:

Social construct + ego = dangerous tool for dumb people

If toilet seats were considered sacred every dumb person would demand their own personal throne at public restrooms, because "sharing" would be disrespectful to them.

However, having sex with different people involves much less ass than that.

Now, in the case of Steve Pavlina, he is married with kids, so dumb people will try especially hard to use that as ammunition against him. They will say things like: "He is being selfish and it could screw up the family".

Even though the monogamy and marriage model has been proven to have many faults.

Even though they don't know Steve personally.

Even though they don't know his wife and kids personally.

They assume that Steve's family would suffer because their own family and kids could suffer. They say this while not considering the fact that their own family and kids (and possibly others they know of) were raised according to the "monogamy" social model, and as a result would likely rebel against any deviation from that. So really, they may as well say:

"Other biased people would be against this if it happened to them"

The fact is, Steve's family is not like the typical family so it makes no sense for anyone to project beliefs onto them if they come from different worlds. His posts on this subject are very clear, and he covers all potential areas of concern. He is honest about it, open about it, and wants to experiment. And above all, he is on the road to personal development, and should be allowed to do so. So dumb people should at least try to back off.

Friday, 2 January 2009


If it's rotten on the inside, who cares. Sweet on the outside is what matters.

Got to put on a good show. Got to make it look good. It doesn't bother them that beneath the surface there may be something very different going on. This satisfies the cognitive dissonance dumb people are content living with throughout their lives.

Pleasantries. Niceties. Valentine's Day gifts. All symbols for the heart but not necessarily symbols from the heart.

Your boss might know you dislike him but as long as you don't show it then you can keep your job. Like a bad smell covered up with air fresheners. No wonder they are so popular.

Everyone knows that gas guzzlers pollute, but when commercials show someone happily driving through a forest in the countryside, it makes dumb people feel better about purchasing an SUV.

The packaging on some egg cartons show cartoon chickens smiling and happy, even though they were raised in battery cages. It makes them "feel good" about the purchase.

It's important to show up at the company Christmas party to show that you are a team member even though you don't enjoy working with members of the team. And the funny thing is, some of them may be feeling the same way. But here you all are, pretending to be happy to be there, working in a company you are pretending to enjoy working for.

When it comes to sugarcoating, formalities in the public eye are the sweetest icing of all. Some people are very critical of the slightest step down from rich sugary sweetness when it comes from someone in the public eye. And yet these same people have no trouble saying the same things in their home, or to their friends. To them, you just can't say something that is politically incorrect when in the public eye. But when it's just you and the boys (or girls) then the gloves can come off with no repercussions. And the true irony (and double standard) is that, if public figures were to say those politically incorrect things away from the media spotlight (such as at an informal get together with buddies), they would not be judged nearly as harshly. In fact, they would probably receive compliments and pats on the back for telling it like it is.

Being Right

Dumb people love the feeling of being right. They get off on it. They are good at giving unsolicited advice in an effort to prove how knowledgeable they are.

When they aren't listened to they get defensive and resort to guilt tripping; presenting (imagined) scenarios of what will happen if they are not listened to.

"I have a friend who did this and then got screwed over for not listening!" is a well rehearsed defense in case things go awry.

Dumb people especially like being right about controversial subjects. When it comes to emotionally charged subjects such as religion, politics, dating, sex, all dumb people are experts. When it comes to giving advice related to something that is influenced by their ego they are the first to dispense with the wisdom.

The more emotionally invested they are the more certain they are right. The more they can find people who agree with them (and ignore the ones that don't) the more certain they are right.

When it comes to discussing subjects that cannot be proved or disproved, such as the existence of God or aliens, dumb people are the authority. No one else can speak with such certainty on something that doesn't have a factual basis. Dumb people love thinking they are right if they can't be proven wrong. Unfortunately, the fact that they can't be proven right either doesn't register with them.

The same goes for opinion based views. For example, dumb people are very certain that their favorite movie or band is the best and that other preferences are wrong. All effort is made to convince others of their preferences using reasons that are, by themselves, based on other personal preferences. For example,

"It's the best because there are these parts in it which are freaking awesome!"

When faced with the possibility of being wrong dumb people do a very clever thing. They interpret wrong answers as if they were right all along. In their mind they weren't wrong. The question was wrong.