gulliver
gulliver's JournalI hate haters
I even hate haters of hatred. I had a hard time typing this post because I kept punching myself.
Closing "religion loopholes"
Religion needs to be completely irrelevant when deciding issues of law, ethics, and morality. People shouldn't be able to hide behind what they say their religion is. Whatever it is, it should simply be ignored. All that matters is what their atoms are doing and what they say their atoms will do. We don't care what they believe.
For example, if someone says their religion requires them to annoy other people or threaten them or even injure them, they should simply be charged with annoyance, threatening people, and conspiracy to commit violent crime.
"Booga Booga the Mighty" told you you have to spit on the sidewalk to cleanse your spirit every Saturday and Wednesday at Dr. Pepper time? It's in the "holy book" of Boogism? No one cares, Sweetie. If you spit on the sidewalk, you get the fine that goes with it.
Is the Islamic Republic run by extreme bigots?
I think the answer is obviously yes. If one were to compile a list of the most bigoted regimes in the world, the Islamic Republic (currently in power in Iran) should be right there at the top. But I'm interested in what others think. Is there some reason a right-thinking progressive or liberal wouldn't consider the Islamic Republic to be among the most despicable of bigots?
It doesn't mean we should attack them just because they are bigots. That's a separate question.
How do we maintain and protect social programs?
I don't think anyone would argue that social programs are unimportant. They are very important. Given that, how do we protect them from deliberate fraudsters and abusers? How do we protect them from well-meaning incompetents who don't design and administer them properly?
I don't know how much would be saved by eliminating fraud. It's probably quite a bit. But there would be two big wins if fraud were drastically reduced or eliminated. First, obviously, the social programs would have more money to serve those who need and deserve them according to law. Second, it would undercut politicians trying to dismantle and politically undermine social programs as "rife with fraud."
Fraud probably has the simplest solution of the problem of defending social programs. Drastically increase the risk reward ratio. Any fraud against a social program, for example, could be punishable by ten times the current punishment. A fine of $1,000 becomes a fine of $10,000. A jail term of two years becomes a term of twenty. It may seem harsh to some, but it wouldn't take that many fraudsters experiencing harsh sentences and fines for them to realize it's just not worth it trying to defraud social programs.
But, what is there to do about waste and abuse? I think those are caused mostly by incompetence and, like fraud, greed. I think the solution boils down to increasing competence. For that, we may need something like AI. AI can review large amounts of data, unlike people. Also, unlike people, AI is not vulnerable to greed or social pressure. AI might, for example, detect overuse of non-generic medications by some companies or excessive billing. It could flag the problems, and people could then take over to resolve them.
Anyway, my two cents. I really see social programs as fundamentally important. If anything, they are becoming more important. We have to be serious about them.
Did Iran get Trump elected?
Iran is the probably the main state backer of Hamas. They probably even knew about or even backed the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7th. That produced Israel's response, which Hamas obviously was trying to provoke.
I remember some usually key Dem constituencies saying they were going to sit out the election. Also, there were "less-than-helpful people" anti-selling the Palestinian cause by blocking traffic, taking over buildings, bullying Jews, etc. Those two things hurt Harris and Walz (who I voted for) pretty badly I would argue. It might have been enough to elect Trump.
(In my crazy way, I saw the whole thing as Putin working through Iran to try to help himself with his aggression against Ukraine. I posted about that. But I digress.)
It would be ironic if the Iranian tyrant Ayatollahs' own attempts to destabilize the United States resulted in them putting Trump in office.
Hate speech at the dentist's office
Long story short, I walked into my new dentist's office. My old dentist and I had a parting of the ways. Unfortunately, my new dentist had MS Now on the TV.
Unbelievable.
"Turn that off or I'm leaving," I told the receptionist, "It's TDS-brained hate speech. I hate hate speech! It's illegal. Or it should be."
"Sir, " he said, "some of our patients like that channel. It's Joe Scarborough and his wife Mika. They, um, met with Trump you know. I'll change the channel if it bothers you though. Here's Fox News."
He changed the channel.
Unbelievable.
"No, I'm leaving," I told him. "Fox News is hate speech in case you didn't know. It's Nazi, lying hate speech."
"Sorry, he said. "I assumed...the other gentleman over there with the earbuds said he wanted Fox News. I thought you..."
"...were a Nazi hate speech lover? I hate hate speech. I told you! It's illegal. Or it should be. Look, I'm leaving... Cancel my appointment."
"How about if we just turn the TV off?"
Unbelievable.
"They tried that one on me at the Jiffy Lube waiting room yesterday. Silence is violence. Hate silence is illegal. Or it should be."
The receptionist, obviously not one of the sharper tacks in the barrel, looked confused. Everyone I've talked to lately has been an idiot. I know, right?
Anyway, he ended up rescheduling me. He even had a couple of polite, clean-cut men help me find my car. I feel better now. Excuse me for a few minutes...I need to get to the optometrist.
(Satire)
Trans has been undermined by overreaching
Trans is a social construct, largely because everything is, even science. Since trans is both a social construct and a people grouping label, it suffers from the usual vulnerabilities. How do you decide who is in the group and who isn't? How do you decide who represents the group?
I don't think those who consider themselves trans have the luxury of being able to determine who gets into their group. Anyone can just say they are in the group, even if the current members of the group would rather not have them.
Worse, those who group themselves as trans don't have the luxury of being represented by legitimate voices. There are no democratic votes to determine, for example, who will stand for the trans and speak for their interests. It's all self-selected, presumptuous volunteers. These are people the trans either would rather speak for them or people the trans wish would just shut up, because they make things worse. But there's no way of knowing which.
Imo, ultimately, the nation's democracy and legal system are probably going to have to weigh in. Competing social constructs should be balanced, as best we Americans can, using the will of the majority. If the majority decides, for example, that the definition of "woman" (as a social construct and for legal purposes) is "having no Y chromosome," (or whatever else), the matter is effectively settled, imo. Democracy overrides. It's all we have, our individual voices expressed through democracy.
The distinction trans remains regardless of the decision by the democracy. And rights for people who consider themselves trans would not be diminished as long as they receive equal treatment under the law in accordance with their observable behavior, not their group identification.
Blue pencil note on the term "middle class"
I don't know whether it was an oversight, but I've seen at least one Dem or Dem-aligned spokesperson leave "middle-class" out of the correct phrase, "working- and middle-class."
My new ideology religion is Gaslight-ism
Fellow Gaslight-ists,
Thanks to your determination, your courage, etc., the "Gaslight-ists" are now officially an ideology religion. As everyone knows, an organization can't be restricted from declaring itself an ideology, a religion, or both. It's been in the Constitution since before Adam and Eve.
Our dedicated team has filed with the IRS as a religion. From now on, your empathic, angry, mystical, loving, and otherwise religious donations will be tax deductible. Please remember to put one of these reasons in your check memo.
Donations to our education and information initiatives are not tax deductible. It is very important that you note these as "ideology" in your check memos. This allows us to put up displays in public places as well as teach Gaslight-ist "ideological" ideas in tax-funded schools. We can't, of course, teach and promote religious ideas in these venues, and we would never do that. That has been our policy since our organization was founded in Etruscan times.
Side note: if you do happen to put religious reasons in your check memo, no one will check (pun intended).
Thanks again, for your hard work. There is nothing wrong going on here. You are the best, and it's important that you not think any of this is crazy or money-grubbing. Only crazy people think that!
Your Buddies,
The Gaslight-ists
(Satire)
I notice Narendra Modi is talking about AI watermarks and source verification
...over on X.
My question, "Why aren't we talking about it?"
We shouldn't have to question whether something is from a human or an AI. Just look for a human (digital) signature or a watermark. If it's there, it's human. You could even have your apps automatically validate it.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleMember since: 2001
Number of posts: 13,985