Blam

I realized partway through Obama’s presidency that what he really cared about most was getting very, very rich post-office. That explains nearly all of his actions: why he was so soft on corporations, friendly to bankers, and even did not challenge Trump in the least when he left office.

It wasn’t about being gentlemanly or doing what’s best for the country. No, none of that. It was about making sure the money train was going stop at Cashing In Station reliably and for a very long time.

Shelving

On being an autodidact.

The obvious risk involved in adhering strictly to autodidacticism is waywardness. We require the friction of other minds to buff away self-generated roughness. Few of us can polish ourselves. We are likelier to grow cranky and conspiracy-minded, mistaking brainstorms for insight while rediscovering what the rest of the world already knows. Had I read only the books assigned in class, I would today be only nominally literate. Had I read only the books that confirmed the thoughts I already possessed, I would remain marginally illiterate.

I solved this problem by just reading every book. Pick a shelf and get started!

Hanging Up

For a while, I worked a job that involved doing high-level support for Exchange and Outlook issues for a major bank. We were the support tier when all the other support tiers (including Microsoft’s) could not find a solution. So, if you want to think of it in the normal three-tier support model, we were like fifth-tier support.

Since our time was very valuable, we were also not compelled to put up with any customer bullshit. If a customer abused us, or cursed at us, we were required to give one warning, but then we could hang up. We used this power quite a lot because we dealt with executives and many of them were terrible people. The women particularly were the most abusive and the most angry. I have no idea why, but any woman executive there was just a bundle of entitlement and extreme aggression. Even the other women on the team just cringed when another woman from that bank called for help as they knew what was going to happen.

This is one call that I particularly remember (condensed).

Me: “Hello, this is Exchange/Outlook Elite Support. How may I help you?”

Woman Exec: “Why are you laughing at me? Are you going to help with my problem or not?”

Me: “Uh, ma’am, I wasn’t laughing. I just answered the phone. I will be glad to help but I will need to know what the problem is.”

Woman Exec: “Well, it sounded like you were laughing and I am tempted to tell your supervisor. But my problem is [insert problem here].

(Now anyone who has heard me speak knows what my voice is not one of those that can really be mistaken for laughter.)

Me: “Ok, it seems like you have called before, and I do remember telling you that this is not an Outlook or Exchange issue, and instead is an issue with your network adapter or laptop itself. It’ll have to be directed to another department as we explained last time.”

Woman Exec: “You fucking piece of shit, you are just attempting to get out of doing your fucking job! I demand you fix this problem with my email right fucking now! I demand you get your manager on the phone right now, goddammit!”

Me: “I’d be glad to get my boss, but I also have to warn you that this is not a department that you can just abuse at will. I am permitted to hang up on you and I will if you keep at it.”

Woman Exec: “You fucking asshole, do you know who I am? I am [some inconsequential role I don’t care about.] You cannot just hang up on me, you little shithead!”

Me, while she’s still screaming at 100DB into the phone: “Yes, I really can.” (click).

Later on, a tech called me after seeing my name in the ticket to tell me that I was right, it was not an Exchange issue, and they replaced her entire laptop, and that he wished he could also have hung up on that “complete and utter mega-bitch from Hell.”

Couldn’t be Prouder

I’m still very proud that I got shadow-banned from all of Reddit (not just a sub-Reddit) for discussing how Firefox was harming itself, and for pointing out Mozilla’s lack of understanding of data analysis or what their users really want, and exactly how the organization would kill itself.

I didn’t insult anyone, didn’t curse, didn’t really do anything untoward that violated any rules — I just made a point again and again that pissed someone off.

Every day, nearly, I think about this and chuckle.

Will be emailing those comments to Mozilla people when the company tanks, which it will soon enough.

While We’re Banning

While we’re banning words and phrases like “you guys,” here’s some more we might want to ban given their offensive history. Note that I am not making these up. This is not satire.

divest: original fully parallel meaning was “to remove one’s clothes.”

basket case: originally referred to a WWI soldier who had lost all four limbs, thus needing to be carried around in a basket. (Note: the etymology itself is probably based on a rumor or a myth, in that no one ever used it to refer to this in real life, but everyone thought someone had [including the OED, which is wrong] so it became cemented with this “pseudo-false” etymology.)

to drink the Kool-Aid: refers to mass suicide by the Jim Jones cult using cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.

peanut galleries: refers to the upper balconies where (mostly) black people were forced to sit in segregated theaters.

grandfathered in: designed to exclude black voters, the phrase originates with the practice of allowing voters in Southern states to vote if their grandfather had voted before 1867.

bugger: originally an offensive term for a Bulgarian.

fuzzy wuzzy: used originally as a slur by British soldiers for an East African tribe due to the tribe’s dark skin and curly hair.

nice: originally meant “silly” or “ignorant” or “foolish.”

fizzle: originally meant “a silent fart.”

quell: originally meant “to kill.”

villain: original meaning was a “laborer” or “farmer.”

luxury: lechery or lust.

pumpernickel: means “the devil’s fart” in German.

avocado: originated partially from the Nahuatl word for “testicle.”

reduce: an original meaning of the word was to conquer or subdue a town, as in war.

travel: by way of Old French back to Latin, the original word “trepalium” was a torture device made of three stakes.

hip hip hooray: a rallying cry German citizens used while hunting Jewish people in the ghettoes. (This is not its origin, but as with the swastika become associated in this way.)

abandon: in Middle English, it means to subjugate or subdue something.

addict: Romans referred to those given as slaves as “addicts.”

dork: used to mean “penis.”

punk: original meaning was harlot or prostitute, also referred to a catamite (young boy used for sex), or the passive partner in anal sex.

boy: originally referred (only) to a servant, originally from old French meaning “one fettered.” In other words, a slave.

bedlam: a corruption of the name “Bethlem Royal Hospital” where mentally ill people were housed.

blockbuster: originally referred to a bomb powerful enough to destroy a city block.

treadmill: originally a prison punishment/torture device.

robot: from the Czech word for “forced labor”, aka, a slave.

When are the weirdo leftists going to demand we ban these words as well?

Hunting for a Clue

I know modern liberals will be shocked and appalled to hear it, but I came to environmentalism via fishing and hunting, as many people from rural areas did and still do.

All this may be surprising for some readers, particularly for those who view hunting and hunting culture with distaste. Environmentally-conscious liberals are indeed often repulsed by the idea of forming political coalitions with people who, they may argue, are interested in animals only because they want to kill them. โ€œIf a person believes it is immoral to shoot and kill an innocent wild animal,โ€ Dray observes, โ€œno counterargument about hunting as a means of maintaining wildlife population levels or people getting back in touch with nature is likely to resonate.โ€ But, as Dray also pointedly notes, the anti-hunting public has often proved unwilling to pick up the conservation slack: Attempts to extend Pittman-Robertson-style taxes to other outdoors gear, like hiking supplies, have all failed.

I remember talking with my grandfather when I was 5 or 6 about how we had to preserve the river and the forest so that other people would be able to enjoy them in the future, and how when we’d catch catfish we’d check to see if the fish was gravid and then if was, we’d release it rather than eat it. My grandfather, by the way, was an extremely staunch conservative. Yet even he recognized that the land and the water were held in trust for the future, and explained to me when I was that age how the Native Americans had lived there on that river for thousands of years without destroying it all, and we could too, if we tried.

Yes, that brand of conservatism really did exist once. It’s almost all gone now.

Fuzzy Outlook

I don’t remember which sf story it was, and the idea has probably appeared in more than one, but in some novel or story I read years ago, a super-intelligence had the ability to commandeer a person’s mind in short order by fuzzing the human subject.

At the time I thought, this makes a nice story but by necessity, a human mind is extremely resilient to this sort of hijack. Now, I am not so sure; I think the story only got the time scale wrong. The AI could complete the task in seconds, while now it’s possible in a few months. As much is compressed and elided in stories of any type, I now realize that essentially, the tale was correct, and we can see that evidence all over and have been able to for a while.

The fossil fuel industry fuzzed billions of humans for years to make them believe global climate change was not real. The tobacco industry did the same thing. Other industries are now undertaking similar tasks, and have been for many years.

Oh, sure, it doesn’t work on all humans all the time, but in the real world it works on enough of them enough of the time (and partially works on everyone all the time) that the long-ago sf story was more accurate than not. A fuzzing-based brain hijack is possible, and can wreak great destruction. We can see the results of that all around us now.

Culture Club

I was thinking today about how in roughly 10 years Joss Whedon has gone from being seen as a fairly feminist person who was at the forefront of representing fleshed-out women characters on screen to a patriarchal evil mansplainer who wants to tell stories about women so he can somehow exploit them.

I don’t intend to make this about Joss Whedon and his flaws or even his successes, but rather to explore what caused this severe transition.

The central cause is not that Joss Whedon suddenly started hating women, but rather that we changed so much since the late 90s and early 2000s (Whedon’s TV heyday) that the shows made then feel completely foreign to our sensibilities — especially when you consider that Whedon’s formative years and thus TV shows were really originating socioculturally in the late 80s/early 90s period when more open personalities were prevalent.

So, watching a show of his from the late 90s is a completely different world, before identity politics had taken over the discourse and when there was nothing morally wrong about a man being interested in how girls or women live their lives. And when I say a “completely different world,” we no longer live there any longer so it’s very hard to understand. The Tumblrites who weren’t even born then simply can’t comprehend it at all.

Now, under current mores, a magic-adept librarian who mentors a 16-year-old girl would automatically be seen as an abuser (just as a man who writes a TV show about teenage girls is seen as the same). These days, even a woman might be under suspicion in the same position. It is getting worse, in other words. There is no space for nuance, for people to be their full human selves — only authoritarianism and suspicion.

I am not sure how this benefits, anyone, exactly. But it seems to make a lot of people happy.