.
186 karma · joined February 13, 2017
They're trying to sell the solution to a problem that they're trying to create in your mind.
1. Adopt a positive attitude.
I'm positive that brings more problems than it solves.
2. Reframe the situation.
"My heart is working harder and my body is mobilizing its energy to get ready for this challenge. I should take a deep breath. My faster breathing means more oxygen is getting to my brain so I can think more clearly. Circulatory changes are allowing more oxygen and nutrients to fuel my muscles. I’m feeling stronger and ready for the challenge ahead." Beep bop beep, I'm reframing myself as a robot, because robots don't feel stress.
5. Face your fears and 9. Inoculate against stress
(they repeated the same thing in different words to make the list reach 10 items)
Following the New York Times journalist's recommendations, I will run a marathon, play in a Scrabble competition, read an original poem at a poetry slam, climb a mountain, sing karaoke, tell a story in front of a crowd, take on a tough project at work, kayak the Colorado rapids, train to scuba dive, and attend a boot camp.
Not only will challenging experiences give me more confidence, but the repeated exposure to poetry slams can also change my body’s biological response to stress.
>Another way is to use this here Shadowban Analyzer (open it in an incognito window). It will test to see if your posts show up for #hashtags cited within their respective captions. (UPDATE: this tool indicates I’m not shadowbanned, which greatly complicates my understanding of what’s happening, since I know that my following still does not growing):
>Coinbase is the safest and most secure online cryptocurrency site. Always start with Coinbase. You can be quite confident your money and personal information is secure.
No, you can't be confident of that. Buyer beware.
That's his personal problem, not ours.
I also mean to say that this is universally true, as it is a fundamental definition of what "white" is -- a cultural identity, and not a skin-color, "race" or ethnicity.
Modern biology doesn't divide humans into races; there is no Caucasian "race", for example.
"White", furthermore, isn't an ethnicity like Caucasian is (because Caucasian simply refers to the ethnic people originally from the Caucus region), but instead is a cultural identity as I described above.
As "white" is a cultural identity, skin-color and ethnicity aren't a determining factor on whether someone is "white". Again, the term "white", when properly defined and understood without confusion with Caucasian or "of European birth or descent", is almost perfectly interchangeable with "Westerner".
What I mean by "black" are the unsuccessful attempts of African-American people of Sahara-region descent to avoid "white" assimilation and distinguish themselves from "white" culture. I say unsuccessful because African-American fundamental values are essentially the same as "white" values -- unlike, say, an African person from Nigeria -- and even as they rebel against institutionalized oppression they do so within the confines of "white" values (ie, they wish to be included in those institutions as equally as Caucasians, but don't wish to fundamentally destroy or alter them like other cultures do).
One can even go further and say that "black" is as much a proper name for ethnic people from the Sahara-region as would be to call people of Middle-Eastern descent "brown people". "Black", in my view, is simply a name adopted specifically by African-American culture, and doesn't refer to dark-skinned people as a whole; the term "black" is only PC in the US; in other languages, it is offensive; the technical name for people of Sahara-region descent is now taboo in the US, and, in my view, this is to help erase the memory of Africa-American cultural history and to further assimilation.
>The inmates impressed the judges by suggesting that if public schools turned the students away, non-governmental organisations or wealthier schools could step in and provide better education to the children in any case.
That's a weak argument, in my view.
The illegal immigrants wouldn't be able to afford private education as it is too expensive even for Americans. Non-gov orgs wouldn't be able to reach to illegal immigrants. Home- and Internet-schooling would be better arguments, but still bad.
Integrating the children of illegal immigrants into public schooling would bring greater benefits not only to them and their parents but to society as a whole.
One can argue that, in the US, European cultural values predominate ("white" is not a synonym for the Caucasian ethnicity but simply an identity that means "holds European cultural values"), and that African-Americans don't have significantly different cultural values from European culture, (ie, they are "white" save for superficial differences like music, food and places of worship, and so on), and that a Syrian Caucasian is not "white" (because they don't hold European cultural values) but an African-American descendant of the people from the Sahara region is a dark-skinned "white".
And therefore African-Americans being dark-skinned "whites" (even if they try to superficially distinguish themselves with the US "black" cultural identity) is an example of the power of assimilation of our public schooling. It would convert, say, a child of Syrian parents with Middle-Eastern values into someone who holds European cultural values and who would work, or rebel, within the cultural rules of the European system.
The children of illegal immigrants should be allowed into public schools not just to neutralize the threat of cultural invaders, but to give us more soft power over a wider portion of the world.
Discuss? ;)
What are elections for in a representative democracy if the people elected don't represent the majority?
They're setting themselves up for a hack so devastating that it will bring down their own country.
If you conveniently "forget" or show heavy reluctance to give your info and papers when buying a new phone, you can get an unregistered SIM. Just promise them you'll give the info "later". The salespeople don't like the hassle and just want to secure the sale.
You can also easily give fake info and "forget" your ID card, since it's not verified, but that's dangerous if you get caught.
Simple social engineering.
It's like my headphones that promise me to "take you places", but my travel agency -- which actually takes me to places -- promises me to "take you into your dreams."
A website could be manufactured if this is part of a clever viral campaign for some dystopian book or film.
Where is reliable proof? Can someone in Japan confirm this?
Does anyone have a link to this "Family Romance" corporation? Where is the proof?
Why would the guy be so ruthlessly candid about his immoral failings? Why does he talk in a carefully manicured, but cruel and amoral way -- why is he dissing his own product? Why would he plaster his face on The Atlantic when he depends on anonymity? They have 800 employees -- that's large; why haven't we heard of this before? Why is he so knowledgeable about what English-speakers don't know about Japan and so able to help us understand -- has he lived and studied extensively abroad? Why is he able to understand what he does is immoral but is unwilling to change even as it affects him so deeply -- why doesn't he get a new job? What would happen to his clients if he decided to stop working for them -- how legally binding would his contract be? Is he legally obligated to keep lying even if he changes his job -- that's impossible, right? No one is legally obligated to lie. Is the business really "booming" when it seems to be so unknown -- and, in fact, relies on keeping a low-profile for maximum effectiveness? How did the clients find them -- and how did everyone else not find them?
Where are other, reliable articles about this? The only other source I find is The Sun and people have mentioned Yahoo! Answers, which aren't reliable sources. Can someone in Japan confirm this?
It screams of fictional writing.
(talking about sociopaths, not Sean Parker)
He talks about it because he feels guilt but knows he won't be punished.
He understood it was immoral. He still did it, because morality doesn't have the power to stop actions. Now he feels guilt for doing evil. But at least now he's ultra-rich and powerful. He understood what he was trying to achieve.
He sees what he and his friends are doing as potentially immoral and, by telling us, his conscience is asking us to stop him and his friends. At the same time, he's gloating about getting away with it and profiting handsomely. He believes he can't be stopped -- even if he tells us all about what they will do.
He won't stop by himself. It's in his self-interest. He enjoys the power and the technological challenge.