AccuTron

Some aspects of what you describe remind me strongly of myself in past years. A process of years of self healing, great therapist, alas the other people were causing trouble, not helping. If you have good guidance, you're on the way, and here you'll have more help. More specifically, I am now a person ​who I LITERALLY could not even imagine at the beginning of my journey. You may have fantastic reward awaiting you, but you cannot yet see ahead on the trail that far. Tho' some of your remarks suggest that you are seeing pretty well. In darkest times, I discovered the difference between faith and hope. When things seem hopeless, no possible vision of goodness, still have faith that it's there ahead, you just can't see or imagine it. We aren't omniscient. At a practical level, I put it as "No matter how down you feel, keep brushing and flossing, for the future that may lie ahead." I spend much time on my Mac. At times of very great distress, it's been a welcome self medication, but at that point, a nap is usually better. Mostly, it's a search for...what? Some kind of improvement. I am using and refining my mind constantly, I look at grand old movies online and feel grandly amused and relaxed. I ferociously online game, and the way I do it, it's a full body workout. (Keep the wrists relaxed.) I learn huge amounts of stuff. No cat pix, but I like Ten Cats Comic. You're not wasting time, you're cogitating. Just move around now and then.

Succinct, spot on, high value presentation. With what I already know about my past, it is a very good gap filler.

Curious proposition. Yet, I note that elephant and human lifespans are similar. Are elephants less active in general compared to humans? I think of elephants just standing around, and humans are often whacking on something..

I'm sorry for all of you, this is a very tough situation. I'm not an expert, just some guy, but it strikes me that your mother's outbursts were a very human reaction to the unbearable. Can you sit quietly and focus on all the times in between that she had to be functionally heroic to care for your brother? Either way, suffering alone is worse than suffering with sharing, so it's good you wrote your well crafted message.

This intrigues me from an other angle, regarding the heart attack gun. In the gigantic money and power scheme called AGW...easily a trillion dollar crime, more if political power is included...there was one canary that could sing...Ken Lay of Enron, a major player in the fraud, and that canary died of a heart attack on a golf course after being convicted of 11 counts of fraud, awaiting sentencing of 10-20 years. Ten years is enough to get a canary to sing.

Eventually, no place....Imgur:

I learn something new every day....

As he gets into point 2, all through, and a bit past, he's listing ways that self-indulgent irresponsible behavior, mostly lying in this case, is reducing protection for women overall. It corrosively seeps into the culture. Behavior >> Perception/Expectation >> Reaction.

What a gigantic case of no one being able to say that the emperor is wearing no clothes. Even Exxon can't say so, or it'll get a huge boycott from the uninformed.

Thanks, great info. That's what I was wondering about. It suggests that the word grew in meaning, as the home lands grew in size. "Land of the free and home of the farmer."--has a different flavor to it. Now, that's "funny." How the heck did that change happen?? Ship of state? It gives me even more respect for competent human language translators.

I only saw this movie in adulthood a few years ago, and was very impressed. For those of you who apparently already know the movie, you might enjoy this comic takeoff: Sid Caesar - "A Streetcar Named ???" April 5, 1952 - YouTube

Do you speak these languages?

I was looking at Magnificent Seven movie posters, and found this Czech site: THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN II. | Czech Poster Gallery The name of the movie becomes (Czech or Polish?) Sedm Statecnych, with some letters being European variants. Sedm seems seven, and for the other word, I Googled it, and Statenik (I'm now morphing the word ending to how I was used to seeing it in newspapers when talking about Russians) means "brave." (The word came from a Czech site, but Google Translate said it was Polish.) I sure didn't see that coming. State means brave. Are there any central Europeans out there who can enlighten us on how these words are actually perceived in those countries?

More rapes equals more data, resulting in more conviction that mass immigration is a bad idea.

Looks really good as this way. 1973, I innocently (along with some fellow innocent travelers) stumbled into the Atlanta HQ (arguably a regional HQ) of the #3 largest religious cult, called Children Of God (this name has been used by innumerable spinoffs). That resulted in three scary days of tug of war for a person's life. One of the most chilling was being inside (bathroom break with escort) and at maybe exactly 6:00pm, some signal, everyone stopped right in their tracks and said together a chant. The line I recall, the one that got me, was "The family, right or wrong." This was an outfit engaged primarily in kidnapping.

I'd read it. I don't understand, can you be more specific?

Professor Stephen Hawking, who cited “... global warming,.." Somebody has clay feet. Taking that path first. To know AGW is fraud, a person only has to sit and honestly look, and not just at the fraudulent sites!!! This tells me Hawking is willing to make statements about which he is 100% clueless. Careful of trusting the smart guys, who aren't infallible. Which reminds me of those bumper stickers with a quote by Einstein, something like "You cannot simultaneously prepare for peace and war." Uhhh, he's a mathematician (which is what physics is). Not a political scientist. JFK, who may have simply been quoting somebody for brownie points at the moment, and Julius Caesar (translated) and some other figure I can't recall, possibly Churchill, all said something like "To preserve peace, you must prepare for war." England was damn glad Churchill pushed for increased fighter plane production when the Germans hit (before the actual attacks, many Brits, including some military, were dissing Churchill and his fighters). Bumper stickers are wishful thinking. ----- One thing I've seen is the notion, which I suspect is at least partly true, that some sort of elites, if that's even a valid word, are big on reducing the total planet population, specifically for the purpose of not completely trashing it with overuse. Staying right here. grithin's point #2 is powerful; seems a deal killer right there. The only people who could afford (with much of other people's labor/money) to build and staff such things to begin with, are elites. And how many people, thousands? Enough for breeding stock I suppose...and there would or would not be Muslims? Genetic defect sorting? -- it would be irresponsible to not do that in a seed population. Scratch some Jewish sub-populations with MS genes. If masses of people learned that elites are building arks, probably most wouldn't even care...notice how zilch notice Fukushima gets. I mean, a non-stop triple China Syndrome can't get even the notice of a celebrity butt. Others might riot, and we know how that usually goes. If it's just a guy in a wheelchair venting his feelings, then bless him for doing so.

If there is a difference, and it's not scanner observable, how is it detected? Conversation? Anything else would be seen by the scanner. Do you know for sure that 100% of women you've talked to in various past times are not prostitutes, where you didn't assume it so, or even have it cross your mind? It's not like there's only one personality or look. What's a prostitute look like off hours filling gas in her car? Normal? I'm not saying I can't tell the difference, or that I can. Heck, how would I know if it isn't blatant, (talking canned goods aisle at Safeway, not a bar)? I'm saying in the first place, that the line of distinction between the two groups has been considerably moved to where it's blurry. Then what I'm trying to say, is to examine the expectations of protection. The occurrence of a mass attack, like the occurrence of mass looting, can be examined from many angles. I'm simply choosing one angle. A big fire might lead to a discussion about fire alarms. A big rape might lead to a discussion about perceptions and expectations. Doesn't make me an arsonist, doesn't mean I favor the rapists. Rapists are bad bad bad bad bad. Got it? Can we let that one go? The woman reporter who was attacked tho' she didn't jiggle. Okay, what point? Was my "theory" that all rapes are only from jiggles? Hardly. For one thing, I'm not proposing a theory per se. I'm asking questions. I mention the jiggles because to jiggle is to assume it's okay. Which assumes protection. Which leads to who is doing the protecting. Which leads to the larger issue of how the protected are behaving. Not every dang woman born is misbehaving, but plenty enough. There is a large societal change re radical feminism for big example. Not wishing to go to yet another trail, but the point is, an attitude of irresponsibility has pervaded at least the US, however it is elsewhere. Yeah, any Swedes at that attack could have left for Starbucks, or McDonalds. Two points: One, it went thru the minds of every male there, however much or little, what should he do, should he risk personal injury? Recognize that exists. Discuss. Point two: I don't know Sweden, maybe it's pretty together in many ways, I get that impression. But using this specific event to remind us of the general case, how many male Swedes "went to Starbucks" in their minds, instead of considering assistance? Probably impossible to analyze in detail with this event, but presents the general question: Was the number of males present, who made "the Starbucks decision," a larger percentage than might have occurred thirty years ago? This is what I'm trying to say. Are the large changes elsewhere in society having a deleterious effect on general male protective instinct? Someone here might be fine with saying how they protected a woman they were with, and kudos for it. I'm talking about the big numbers. A perceptual shift in men at large, asking whether it's worth it. It's a question. We do questions here.

Lotta good points there.

The contract is described in the post before yours, maybe it wasn't yet posted at that time. Enslave, in the sense that the expectation exists. Perhaps too strong a word. Are you saying that if you saw a German woman being attacked, even by only one assailant, you'd just say "Oh heck, she's German, I'm off to Starbucks?" I doubt it, because of the unspoken contract, social and/or genetic, to defend the woman. The festival event is an opportunity to explore that under larger, more strained, and changing, circumstances. That's mostly what I'm trying to say. My path from there is about my perception that this expectation of defense is or is not recognized. The lady of the castle in St. Julien's story, or in any castle, is well aware that the men at arms in the castle are the reason she isn't meat to the next biggest castle. No mystery, no denial. The lady of a castle is not likely to run over the drawbridge in a negligee and expect a happy time unless it's a very secure province, secured by men at arms. Social contracts. What irks me, and I see this very much, is the entitlement attitude of many women, without any responsibility for honesty in return. (I'm aware of the problem of labeling large groups, yet at least once in these very forums, and from LOL Feminism online, women have said as much, that women who are self aware and self controlled are, if I recall correctly, "less than one percent" and "I can count them on one hand." Ain't just me.) Wanna' feel entitled in general? Otay, just do it someplace else. Expect me to put myself in harms way when it gets out of hand? Nope. That is me, I'm telling you my data, how I feel. No way I'm the only one. That's a social change of note. Yes, it is voluntary for me to "Go to Starbucks." (Begging the question of how many white feathers may follow.) Those ladies in castles, or villages, know there are bad guys, probably rapists. And the local males protect them. Not historically denied or deniable. Yet there's an existing attitude which strikes me as pervasive, that those men at arms aren't really necessary today, they're just kept around because they look good. The other end of the contract, the self control of the protected subject, is being neglected. This is a problem. I put it to you that it is corrosive over the long haul. MGTOW is a gigantic change. Men in general are distancing from women in general. The generalized reason is an imbalance in social contracts. When a man is expected to risk himself, and the protected person is not expected to be honest, the change is going to get worse. Yes, plenty of women have parties no problem, goes on all the time. Plenty of women are behaving well. But the social flavor is changing. It doesn't have to be everyone, just enough.

I never said they shouldn't be able to wear what they want, or that grabbing is okay. (I'd have to dig to find the understandable usage.) I'm saying that given the women's feeling of safety in doing so, they are using an unwritten contract that applies to all males in proximity, no matter what. The contract states that males in general should protect a woman, no matter her own behavior. This is really most of what I'm trying to get at. This claiming that I'm defending the rapists is poor reading comprehension. This festival event didn't mean that the women were supposed to be attacked; how many times do I say that? I'm saying that such an event highlights the need for immediate response to the situation, and in the general case, with police not present -- or there probably wouldn't be a trouble to begin with -- every male in proximity is sort of socially conscripted to fill in. It's voluntary to act, of course, but I'm just pointing out the existence of that protective structure, which by the way, nobody else seems to even recognize. And how is that structure going to be strained by social change?

I didn't say that a MGTOW (nonsense on the surface since it's not a defined category other than people who don't want something) couldn't figure it out. I said that a spaceman's scanner couldn't, that it was a pure data observation. I made that clear. It's prepping the topic. Frankly, what you said is nonsense. It's not about a person's inability to discern. Clearly the rapists aren't doing so because they don't even care. It's about the mixed signals, and how they interact with unspoken expected social contract. How many times do I have to repeat myself? -- I'm not defending the rapists. And as to your line about a man not being able to discern between good and ruin...what the heck is that? The internet is overstuffed with tales of men being not able to do that, and it's not about how they/we start, virtually nobody starts a MGTOW, it's about the deceit we encounter, and the profound lack of (undistorted) education on the topic. Which wasn't my primary intention, it was about the hidden social contracts inside the festival/societal structure as a whole, upon which the festival event simply put the spotlight. Right, not jiggly. Not at a festival either, for what that's worth, which isn't much. Rapists and attackers, bad people. Plenty of it all over. Perhaps I've generalized too much, but it's a general condition -- The rapists are bad; the women are victims. Got it. Now...let's take this as a general science problem, like it was soil dynamics or building failures or chemistry. Let us call the festival, or the festival embedded within the larger state, The System. (Physics talk, not political talk.) The System is known to run for a long time within normally understood variation, with no damaging events (not counting somebody stubs a toe). Introduce Material A. (Let this be the immigrants.) The System has a large negative event. Why? To analyze a chemical reaction, one studies ALL of it, not just the favorite parts, unless that's specifically the task. To understand a building collapse, one must completely investigate, to see what underlying causes may have led to the overt cause. To analyze ground for special development, one must honestly know all the structures many meters down, not just a few feet. We may first note that Material A is not homogenous. Rapist molecules are a minority; non-rapists are the majority. The "chemical reaction" occurred anyway, and this is one path for investigation. Keeping with the chemical metaphor, one would have to know the composition of the system, the substrate, all that stuff, to really claim to understand the chemical reaction. Otherwise, it's just "we put stuff on it, and it fizzed a bit." I'm analyzing the substrate. That is more or less what I've been struggling to say. In historical warfare, one first sees the armies, but that's just the beginning. The underlying social strata are going to be heavily affected. When those rapists crashed into that festival, what are the unspoken social contracts that they also crashed into? Not the women, it's well stated elsewhere the women were primarily crashed into, got that. What else, is the question?

Never said otherwise. I never once defended the actions of the rapist, that was one of my initial statements. Should I have used a bigger font, it seems so ignored? It was an attack, I get it. Really I do, it's not that difficult. I just took the opportunity of an event to look more deeply into it. It's not about whether I like anyone acting like that, it's about the results. (You did that too, shot the messenger to avoid the message). It's about the unspoken contract embedded in the whole structure, a contract which would, by my proximity, want to enslave me to it's content. And I'm not defending the confusion! It's confused! Defending confusion is what happens when one refuses to look at aspects of it. You think somebody hired me to point out the obvious??? It's merely an opportunity to look further. Like if you go to an honest doc for one thing, say AHH, and find something else. This news story is a big AHHH if you want to look into it. And by the way, my very first brief response was because of a statement by a public official within the story, so it's hardly off topic.

Firstly, it's not just my experiences. It's in the millions, or tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, of men. I see that wayyyyyyyy too often, and it's usually a female doing it: "It's just you and I'll ignore the gigantic evidence otherwise." It's very female to attack the messenger and thus ignore the actual message content. I'm shocked if I don't see it. That's just the facts, ma'am. As to MGTOW in general, I said the topic was covered endlessly elsewhere. Derailing the thread? From what? It's ten times saying the same thing: Rape is bad. It was true the first stated time, no more true the tenth. This thread could use either a steering wheel or a parking brake. My point was, and I did say this, that once we're all here...clapping our hands in unison and saying rape is bad as if we didn't already know...that we can further investigate. There are two parts to this immediate story, the rapist and the raped. But I stated up front that I wanted to look at the larger picture. I totally get that Damascus is a bigger city, and people everywhere will vary as to character. I'm trying to put a spotlight on this: Why do the women in a generalized sexual display feel that they can get away with it? (And I don't want to confuse with topless dancing Zulu women who are clearly empowered by their strength.) I've been around this and that festival over the years, yeah, looks fun, check the buns, etc. The actual dress and movements of these generalized female revelers is what millions of years of evolution, with the tens of thousands for primates, CLEARLY states, "Come drag me into the bushes, I'm ready." Shh. Pretend it's not true. Now, why do they get away with it? Because there's a substantial social contract, involving primarily white* males, that the women will be protected. Those jiggly girls out there are completely, silently, assuming that unnamed white males will put their/our own lives at risk to prevent any of these females from assault, even while in maximum tease mode. That's a hell of a contract, and no I didn't vote for it. [*White just means the color of the males who are already there; it could be polka dots.] Isn't there something a little fishy in all this? I, a male, am expected to initiate or counteract violence because some stupid broad...which is how it will be seen...makes a fool of herself. I, a male, am expected to get my face slashed or whatever because some ditz can't behave. Wrong!!! This forum is all about results of actions. Seeing who is responsible for what, see how the money or power trails go. I'm saying, back up the zoom lens and look at the larger societal picture. Where are the unspoken contracts and expectations? And then ask, if the existent white male structure, however imperfect, is weakened by social dissolution, what happens? Will these festivities end up being less frequent? I'm not suggesting that black skin means bad character. I'm asking to look at the invisible social contract that these women take for granted. It may not be there some day.

First, the word jobless vs homeless. A woman I know who had ended up shopping cart living after trying very hard to find work, insisted she was jobless, not homeless. I understand her proper insistence of seeing the initial condition, not the result. Any thoughts on that word usage? This surely varies by neighborhood: McDonald's is known as a haven, an oasis, for people who are jobless and homeless. It's essentially a shelter, with a minimum bit of cash flow for use, probably with far better security than many actual (underfunded) shelters. Today the weather was good, and when I dropped into my local McD for coffee, I could see a solitary possibly jobless woman trying to talk about fries to two uninterested fellows with laptops, her only audience. I don't think she really cared about fries. I walked over to tell her she probably would like to be listened to, and after a few minutes of her surprisingly optimistic truisms, pleased to be listened to, she thanked me for stopping by. Can't get that kind of human interest story in a whole range of other restaurants, or not easily, is my guess. I guess other fast food places fill the same function, I really don't know. McD, when in this role, almost seems like it could have been written in as a necessary social element of a 1930's foreboding future sci-fi story that came true. Your thoughts or experiences?