JFC Cult DeProgramming Help Thread

[Ron Mexico]

I’m not sure I agree that this solution is any simpler than what gay marriage advocates were fighting for. Seems to me that allowing any two consenting adults to marry is pretty ****ing simple.

I agree with mr toilet. I dont think the simpler solution is not having marriage licenses through the state. The Government doesn't need to decide who is married or not. Two adults should be able to marry and make that choice without the government and without having to pay them for a certificate.

 

[babe]

I did a rather long bit here, but deleted it. I should write a book....

Well, as I take it, the federal government per the Constitution, does not have establishment privileges to specify morals or educational materials. Really.

Not a good idea to let folks use guvmint force in matters of the soul or mind. Build the post roads, yes.

 

[One Brow]

Apparently you do since you are taking an accusative stance with "still broken". Of course, we all know society determines on social issues by definition. And most of us realize that society has a tendency to go off the rails quite often.

I was echoing back to your invocation of 'if it an't broke don't fix it', unless you are saying nothing has ever been broken on society, which seeing as you followed up with the opposite, seems unlikely. You feeling OK?

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

I’m not sure I agree that this solution is any simpler than what gay marriage advocates were fighting for. Seems to me that allowing any two consenting adults to marry is pretty ****ing simple.

Yeah, but you seem to be unwilling to account for the concerns that various groups have and come up with an amicable solution.

@One Brow I'm not following you so if I'm missing something then tell me. You're a Mitch smarter person than me so maybe I'm not reading right or catching something.

 

[One Brow]

I'm not following you so if I'm missing something then tell me. You're a Mitch smarter person than me so maybe I'm not reading right or catching something.

Mac, I won't try to con or yell.

What do you think is an example of "... progress for progress sake in exchange of the old mantra if it isn't broke don't fix it."?

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Mac, I won't try to con or yell.

What do you think is an example of "... progress for progress sake in exchange of the old mantra if it isn't broke don't fix it."?

Lawyers in leadership positions in government are well known to try and make a name for themselves. What actually happens is they waste everyone's time, spend a whole lot of money, have no clue the nature and reality of the jobs those underneath them entail, take credit under their new initiative for things the employees were already doing, and instal compex, custom built software for tracking purposes when things are already tracked just fine, easier and better in excel. I wish I could give detailed personal examples but I shouldnt. The mantra from many old timers is they've seen these things come and go over and over again whenever a new boss comes in and asks "How can we make things better". They tell them to quit wasting their time and let them do their jobs. The new leadership have no clue what it entails but have the hubris that they can improve something they don't understand.

Websites changing formats that overly complicate things and take away usability. Yahoo seems to do this a lot with their finance site. I don't use it anywhere near what I did 5 years ago.

 

[One Brow]

Lawyers in leadership positions in government are well known to try and make a name for themselves. What actually happens is they waste everyone's time, spend a whole lot of money, have no clue the nature and reality of the jobs those underneath them entail, take credit under their new initiative for things the employees were already doing, and instal compex, custom built software for tracking purposes when things are already tracked just fine, easier and better in excel. I wish I could give detailed personal examples but I shouldnt. The mantra from many old timers is they've seen these things come and go over and over again whenever a new boss comes in and asks "How can we make things better". They tell them to quit wasting their time and let them do their jobs. The new leadership have no clue what it entails but have the hubris that they can improve something they don't understand.

Websites changing formats that overly complicate things and take away usability. Yahoo seems to do this a lot with their finance site. I don't use it anywhere near what I did 5 years ago.

I had thought you were going in a different place. My apologies.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

I had thought you were going in a different place. My apologies.

I was but couldn't think of anything specifically in an activist. I'm the type who goes on general impressions and often don't tend to remember specifics. I don't tend to dwell on something so, for example, if you asked me why I like or dislike a person I would give an impression but it would take me a long time to think remember specific reasons. My impression of people with a tendency to be highly activist is that they're always searching for problems and get creative inventing things that aren't actual problems. I like to example the great myth that Americans don't manufacture anything anymore and we need to do something about it. This couldn't be further from the truth, but people need a problem to solve and causes to fight for in my opinion. So if someone is searching for a meaning in life they will find one.

 

[babe]

So......

no outright confessed cult victims needing my help here..... hmmmm.....

idtt looks like a guvmint employee, though.... although I'm sure the management/worker rift exists in corporate, too.

The new manager who wants to make things better would generally be some kind of Trumpian hustler, the employees more or less comparable to the DeepStaters. This problem is as old as the hills, too. Backwoods magazine had an article many years ago about China. Did you know that at one point China had some very successful traders, merchants, who sailed the seas in huge ships, going all over....to Africa even, bringing home all kinds of stuff. But it was unsettling to the old money, the ruling class, and the bureaucracy to have their neat little ways of doing stuff, and their social order, disturbed. So they had the merchants beheaded and burned the ships.

idtt would have been on board, it seems, with that solution.

Therein lies the understanding which our founding fathers had of human nature, which prompted them to try to create a guvmint with checks and balances to power, and a tenth amendment that purported to limit the Federal Guvmint to only those specifically delegated powers plainly writ into the Constitution.

Not to say that we shouldn't fear the do-gooder Charlatan class of elected officials generally, and that the bureaucracy does not in some ways help us in the great cause of inertial guvmint that cannot be changed by restive voters. All in all, I'd write a Constitution that limits guvmint employment to five year, once in a lifetime, stints on the public payroll.

Limited government cannot be achieved with a government employee class of "holer than thou" Brahmins.

 

[babe]

I agree with mr toilet. I dont think the simpler solution is not having marriage licenses through the state. The Government doesn't need to decide who is married or not. Two adults should be able to marry and make that choice without the government and without having to pay them for a certificate.

I guess I didn't actually post my reply to Ron's remarks above.... or it was deemed unacceptable perhaps for some good-sounding reason.

We have a Constitutional Republic sort of government on the books, per the Constitution, which supposedly has a few justified and specified purposes. To collect tariffs on the Federal level and bar interstate tariffs, so no foreign power such as Britain can insert conflicts between states over international trade. To provide for the common defense. To protect citizen's rights. To build post roads between population centers, interstate roads generally. To deliver the mail. I think that is about it. What other stuff did the Constitution stipulate as the business of the Federal Government?

Well, we built canals as well as roads, port facilities as well. Then we began herding the natives around, to provide for lieberstraum for the Europeans. yep. We've been fascist ever since the Trail of Tears.

The Supreme Court tried to tell Andrew Jackson he couldn't do it, but Jackson said, in essence.... "My army trumps your ruling". It was just good politics. Gold had been discovered in Cherokee Country, and neither Hell nor High Water was gonna stand in the way of white folks getting it.

Our government has been the dog wagged by the tail of human caprice ever since.

 

[babe]

In response to Ron's remarks on religion, I'd like to do a little essay. Please don't delete this, mods.

All cults are fundamentally religious. I don't make an exception for either Marxism, or Socialism, or Progressivism. In fact, Ron's remarks are fundamentally religious assertions about the value of traditional religions, or problems therewith. It does not require having a specific God to be religious. We have every right, and every capacity, to believe what we want, and to be pious about it, and to try to use government force to compel compliance with what we believe is right. That is the intrinsic value of freedom, of individual freedoms like the right to speak, publish, or assemble in our various interests or causes.

There is a kind of piety in being a Jazz Fan, as well. In fact, we have the right to decry phony Jazz Fans, or non-compliant fans, for all their manifold sins. I don't care who you are or what you believe, if you cheer for the Jazz...or even try to make the Jazz an Established State Team, I am right there for you. The State of Utah does not have a constitutional clause that prohibits us from have a State Team in any sport.

Any human belief, any human ideology or belief set, whether science-based, politically-based, or emotionally-based, that purports to have fundamental truth in it, is a "religion".

Anyone who holds such a belief is, by human nature, inclined to teach it and enforce it in the community as an essential "good".

In that context, Ron, your remarks about specific..... I'd call them "consequential" rituals or practices..... shiboleths arising from "religion" are addressing more or less the nonsense necessarily entailed in believing anything. If you believe something, human logic just runs down a bunch of rabbit trails in the woods of human reason. If you're a progressive, a modern secularist, or a practical enthusiast for good management, you've got all kinds of stuff entailed in your good vision of the world, that makes about as much sense to outsiders who don't share your specific belief.....

And immediately, we all rally around the nonsense as the obvious proof of our belief......

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

So......

no outright confessed cult victims needing my help here..... hmmmm.....

idtt looks like a guvmint employee, though.... although I'm sure the management/worker rift exists in corporate, too.

The new manager who wants to make things better would generally be some kind of Trumpian hustler, the employees more or less comparable to the DeepStaters. This problem is as old as the hills, too. Backwoods magazine had an article many years ago about China. Did you know that at one point China had some very successful traders, merchants, who sailed the seas in huge ships, going all over....to Africa even, bringing home all kinds of stuff. But it was unsettling to the old money, the ruling class, and the bureaucracy to have their neat little ways of doing stuff, and their social order, disturbed. So they had the merchants beheaded and burned the ships.

idtt would have been on board, it seems, with that solution.

Therein lies the understanding which our founding fathers had of human nature, which prompted them to try to create a guvmint with checks and balances to power, and a tenth amendment that purported to limit the Federal Guvmint to only those specifically delegated powers plainly writ into the Constitution.

Not to say that we shouldn't fear the do-gooder Charlatan class of elected officials generally, and that the bureaucracy does not in some ways help us in the great cause of inertial guvmint that cannot be changed by restive voters. All in all, I'd write a Constitution that limits guvmint employment to five year, once in a lifetime, stints on the public payroll.

Limited government cannot be achieved with a government employee class of "holer than thou" Brahmins.

And how exactly do you plan on replacing government workers' knowledge of the history behind their jobs? I can't even replace my superiors' after being where I'm at for a very long time.

I simply don't understand any of the reasoning behind this form of thinking that pairs up with the term limit folk. We need competent folk who have knowledge of history behind regulations and situations.

There is no practical argument otherwise, and, since you are prone to worshipping The Founding, you should understand that they were all career politicians. The establishment is a necessity despite its faults and draining the swamp mantra.

So tell me how you are going to have this proposed 5 year turnover and retain valuable knowlege.