Tuesday, November 19, 2013

A joke about evolutionary biologists

I backslid recently and started uploading comments to YouTube videos regarding atheism versus theism.

Anyway, there's a YouTube video that features the "Top Ten Creationist Arguments," and it has some typical claptrap that supposedly refutes what the video claims to be common "creationist" objections to atheism. I thought I'd have some fun, so I uploaded this comment, with my idea for an eleventh argument.

#11. The 1966 Wistar Symposium.

Prominent mathematicians:
"Using evolutionary biology's own conjectures regarding observed mutation rates, the amount of currently known complex life on Earth, and time allotted by geological estimations, we have come to the conclusion that the diversity and complexity of life as we know it is statistically impossible via evolution by natural selection."

Prominent evolutionary biologists:
"Get over it. Evolution happened, so your math *has* to be incorrect."

Prominent mathematicians (to each other):
"How many evolutionary biologists does it take to screw in a light bulb?"
"1,000,000. One to pretend to see in the dark, and 999,999 to keep adding new switches to the circuit every time the current starts flowing in an undesirable direction."

Thursday, October 24, 2013

One more waste of time

The genuine reason why I have no interest in 'converting' an atheist:

Trying to convince an atheist that God exists is like trying to sell them water when they'd rather purchase beer.

I have this odd propensity to watch YouTube videos by atheists, and debates about atheism versus theism. I already know there's no resolution. I already know that all interested parties have preconceived conclusions (including me, of course) despite their insistence of the verity of their infallible personal logic. I already know that even viewing these intellectualized shenanigans is ultimately a waste of valuable time.

But I just can't help it.

I think the impetus for gawking at them is quite similar to my occasional guilty indulgence in a Jerry Springer episode; the heated spectacle is amusing in its futility. Call it morbid fascination, but there it is. Understand this: by calling attention to this foible of mine, don't imagine that I believe it acceptable. I'm as ashamed of my amusement in this area as I'm entertained by said spectacle.

There is a particular video, starring Mr. Hemant Mehta, that lists the "15 things to NEVER say to an atheist," which I watched this morning. More important than the items I'm about to address, I'd say the two most significant aspects of his video are the sarcastic intonation that accents his delivery, and his overconfidence in his approach to the issue. The issue being, of course, the validation of atheism by theists. Nevermind that for someone truly confident in his belief, that sort of validation is not required.

Here is a link to the video:  Advice from a "friendly" atheist

Because I am weak, and I just can't help but waste more of my time, I will now address each of the 15 things, in the briefest manner I can muster.

1) "Where do you get your MORALITY?" 
Jews and Christians don't assume atheists are lacking morals; they just recognize that the morals of the atheist do not intentionally come from God. The concept that all human beings can effectively follow their own moral codes and still coexist peacefully is wishful thinking and displays a lack of understanding about human proclivities. The believer attempts to follow the moral code as set by God, thus removing the torture of self-doubt regarding the unpredictable nature of individual morality.

2) "Your life must be so EMPTY."
Emptiness in one's life occurs when one believes something is missing. Human beings are not always able to pinpoint the cause of their emptiness. They make assumptions about what causes it, and what can relieve it. The believer in God believes that the big picture questions, such as "What is the purpose of life?" merit at least some effort to try and arrive at an answer. For the atheist, the answer is easy: the world is entirely subjective, so of course the meaning of it all is only that which the individual ascribes.

3) "Why are you MAD at God?"
Atheists, for the most part, can't be mad at something they don't believe exists. If they are mad at anything, it's the annoying concept that they are answerable to an entity placed higher than them in the whole of existence.

4) "You can't DISPROVE God."
Attempting to prove the existence of God is a fool's endeavor. God has deliberately hidden Himself on purpose, and human beings are not supposed to be able to physically qualify His existence. For the atheist, this concept provides much amusement, because they're not interested in exploring the reason God would purposely do such a thing, only in laughing at the alleged ignorance of the believer. Comparing God to Zeus is like an orphan comparing one's unknown biological father to Santa Claus; that's why believers dismiss the idea so easily.

5) "What if you're WRONG?"
According to the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, God would never punish an individual for sincerely seeking the truth about existence. Believers, for the most part, do think about the nature of the god they believe in. Most don't enjoy the prospect of questioning their own beliefs however, and therefore unfortunately don't give much credence to Christ's earnest support of asking the hard questions. Fear is no substitute for the confidence that any genuine truth will withstand all attempts to debunk it. The atheist thinks he or she embraces this challenge by indulging in texts that support the atheist position. The concept of shame is not one atheists (and materialists, for that matter) care to entertain. So, instead of punishment, perhaps the atheist might consider how they may see themselves eventually, if their spiritual worldview just happened to be incorrect. Incorrect in relation to the Being that gave them the greatest gift of all and sustained every beat of their hearts while being scoffed at and relegated to non-importance. Ingratitude of epic proportion.

6) "You just have to have FAITH!"
Having faith in God and using one's mind are not mutually exclusive. Proclaiming that critical thought is the only path to understanding, and that faith is the product of a closed mind, are only logically connected for a person who views a belief in God as ignorant. This is easily rebutted by the existence of great minds in history and in current academic circles that believe God exists. Not completely understanding a mystery is not a cop-out; it's simple honesty (just ask Lawrence Krauss). Indeed, believing in something just "because I want to and it makes me feel good" is a dumb reason to believe in something; and that includes those who feel better about believing that the God of the Hebrews does not exist, in order to be accountable only to themselves.

7) "Just OPEN your HEART."
Aluminum tin foil hats notwithstanding, Hemant is correct. No one is ever going to be able to provide indisputable physical proof of God's existence. The atheist's heart isn't so much closed to God, but open to anything else but God. Hemant's claim to being open to the possibility is a perfunctory lie, as demonstrated by the sarcasm in the video.

8) "You were never REALLY religious."
The claim about "a lot of atheists" coming from "religious" families is more anecdote than fact, but yes, some atheists do emerge from believing families. The same is true for the inverse; some Christians emerge from non-believing families (just ask William Lane Craig). These anomalies are only indicative of the existence of free will in the individual. Religion has never been equal to faith in God; religions are a man-made framework for the formalized worship of God. An atheist's guarantee on these matters is just as reliable or unreliable as a believer's guarantee. One of the most common proclamations of a Jerry Springer guest is, "You don't know me!" Yes, most of the viewers don't know Hemant Mehta personally; does this mean they are incapable of any kind of profiling accuracy? Not necessarily.

9) "What happened in your CHILDHOOD?"
Just like a theist, an atheist's childhood wasn't necessarily traumatic for the individual to believe what he or she believes. However, the simple armchair psychologist's observation that one's relationship with one's father is often similar to how one views God, is often not far off base. The mistake atheists may be making in this regard is that the father-child relationship has to be riddled with trauma. Trauma is not necessary; the true inner intentions of the grown individual are evidence enough.

10) "Have you read the BIBLE?"
At the risk of being arrogant, I must declare Hemant's guarantee in this section of the video to be of very little worth. While it is true that many Christians are unfortunately not curious enough to read the text that their own beliefs are based on, through the years I have personally spoken to several atheists, and their knowledge of the Bible is always lacking in terms of applied knowledge. Most of their information comes not from the actual text of the Bible, but in other texts written about the Bible; texts usually created for the purpose of debunking the Bible, not understanding it.

11) "I will PRAY for you."
Of course prayer to a god that doesn't exist would have very little value to an atheist. However, the atheist's reduction of the prayer to worthless and irritating waste of time is merely indicative of the atheist's typical (and often denied) antagonism toward the value the believer places in his or her belief.

12) "Do you worship the DEVIL?"
The wrong assumptions of the few are not representative of the many. However, as Satan's persona seems to change from tempter to destroyer between the Old and New Testaments, it would be prudent to observe that there could be more involved in one's choices than one's own subjectively flawed logic.

13) "You must be AGNOSTIC."
All I can say in response to this issue is, "who cares?" This particular section of the video sounds oddly similar to the whole debate between homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgender individuals; e.g. the homosexual judgmentally declaring that the bisexual is irritating and not being honest about his or her sexuality.

14) "Isn't atheism a RELIGION?"
Of course atheism is not a religion. Of course it is a rejection of the existence of God. Atheism is a belief system however, based on the materialist ethos that if you can't experience something with the five senses, or physically qualify it in a lab, then it can't possibly exist.

15) "Why are you so ANGRY?"
The truth about atheist ire: they're angry because, for various reasons, they don't want to live in a universe that is created by God of the Hebrew scriptures. Hemant was not being honest with himself; he indeed has a beef with the higher power. That's where the following cognitive dissonance comes in:

  * "People do a lot of crazy things in the name of God"; but what about the vastly greater number of crazy things people do with no connection to God at all?

  * "Passing laws that restrict LGBT rights or women's rights"; these are the actions of the politically conservative, not necessarily the actions of a Jew or Christian, per se. Hemant is confusing conservative political activism with the religious affiliations they use to achieve their legislative goals. In the hands of a politician, religion is just one more useful means to an end.

  * "Bad science curriculum decisions"; this is most likely a reference to the desire to include Intelligent Design as a companion study alongside unguided evolution. This is an entirely different discussion, but suffice it to say that open-mindedness is more claimed than demonstrated by the most adamant evolutionary biologists.

  * "Revisionist history curriculums"; and these would be what? The only blatant revisionist history I'm aware of is the repainting of historical figures and events with the joyless strokes of the pernicious nihilist.

  * Hemant "value[s] the truth, and value[s] people's rights." Of course he values the truth; his subjective version of it, just like everyone else on the planet. Of course he values human rights; this is the rallying squawk of anyone who thinks the way to change people's minds is to scare them with lawyers and pseudo-intellectualizing the real issue, which is who has the freedom to think what.

  * "The Christians in power often don't value human rights"; let's see how that assertion stacks up against the next person who decides to walk into an abortion clinic because the living tissue inside her is not really a human being until a particular group of people declare it so.

  * "Talk to an atheist"; sure, why not? They're as interesting or boring as anyone else. Just don't expect them to look away from the mirror and become interested in the creator of their universe.

  * "Try to get rid of the stereotypes from your mind"; good advice, perhaps Hemant should take it as well.

  * "It's offensive, it's disrespectful in a lot of cases and it shows that you assume a lot of things about us"; I can only speculate the degree of cognitive dissonance present that prevents Hemant from seeing these qualities in his own point of view.

Saturday, September 7, 2013

A revelation

"Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good."

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Pirates of Silicon Valley

What can I say? I'm not sure how a made-for-TV movie (TNT) became my all-time favorite, but it did.

I recently commented to friends how much I enjoy the scene near the end of the movie where Gates finally yells back at Jobs. For me, it's a satisfying climax to a compelling tech legend well told.

A user on YouTube uploaded the scene for all to enjoy:

Gates tells it like it is

In the comment section of the video, I happened to notice a flame war between two users: M Nichols and keenkennyny. I don't often bother reading YouTube comments anymore, as they are mostly immature, glib darts tossed from those emboldened by anonymity. However, due to the subject matter, I couldn't resist taking a quick look.

I ended up sifting through all 157 comments to read the entire war between the two aforementioned users.

What is it about Apple fanatics that keeps them from admitting the obvious? Certainly when the Apple II, Lisa and Macintosh came out, their software/hardware packages were better than those that Microsoft initially cobbled together with IBM... but those glory days are long passed. This ain't 1984 anymore.

Apple ensured their inability to dominate in the long run due to their own shortsighted proprietary hardware restrictions. I've heard many anecdotes from people I know (including my wife) regarding their Apple hardware that failed long before it should have.

How ironic that the former Apple advertising slogan of "Think different" now better applies to Linux users, and that the people who still cling loyally to Apple seem more like lemmings than Windows users.

To save you the hassle of sifting through the entire collection of comments, I've culled the two users' out, in order from first to last, and posted them here. I have to say, they well exemplify the polarized ethos between Apple disciples and PC users. I censored the requisite profanity these arguments seem to generate; other than that, I've reproduced their posts verbatim. keenkennyny apparently had several posts removed due to content, so some of their responses seem unrelated to the preceding posts.

By the way, keenkennyny constantly misrepresents his quoted sales statistics. For example, he seems obsessed with the idea that Mac desktop computers sell more than any other manufacturer's single model, which is extremely misleading, since PC manufacturers are legion, and are constantly creating new models using the same (current) Windows operating system; in addition to that, keenkennyny completely ignores the Do-It-Yourself system builder, which is no small portion of the overall personal computer market, and not an option at all for the Mac user.

I realize I'm exposing my own personal bias by writing this, but I've always been amused by the Mac users who view PC users as inferior for being 'tinkerers' (knowing more about what goes on under the hood, so to speak). I've never been able to figure out how just getting in and turning the ignition key makes a person a better driver than someone who is more familiar with the working parts of his or her car. Or for that matter, how being forced to rely on a garage to repair (or replace!) your car is better than being able to repair it yourself.

M Nichols:
Macs aren't number 1 at anything. Macs are overpriced. Macs are closed systems that stifle innovation. Macs are for pretentious a**holes. Steve Jobs was a dead beat dad. Steve jobs rips off his friends. Steve jobs is an a**hole to everyone. Steve Jobs knowingly takes credit for other people's work. Steve Jobs has NEVER given any money to any charity despite being one of the richest men in the world. Steve Jobs canceled all of Apples philanthropy programs. F*** Apple and F*** you.

And....what are PCs #1 at?

It seems to me like you're very mad. Why not just...don't buy a macbook. Unless you're a fanboy trying to get a meaningless point across thin air.

M Nichols:
That is just simply not true.

More windows based PC's are sold then any other kind by a huge margin? What in the world makes you believe more OSX PC's are sold then Windows PC's?

Why would you straight out lie about such a thing?

Google iMac best selling desktop.

Funny though, you're calling me a liar and yet you provide no facts in support.

M Nichols:
Windows doesn't make laptops. You are comparing Macs to a specific brand and not comparing windows computers to OSX computers. Why?

Because Macs make up about 5-10% of the total desktop market.

The way you present it, everyone would think every other desktop or even laptop is a Mac. That isn't true.

Mac's have a closed hardware and software system. Only a f***ing idiot or someone who doesn't know better would ever buy Apple products.

Nobody said Windows makes laptops. Macbook do sell more than Windows laptops.

If you don't understand, Macbooks sell better than any Windows laptop...

Most desktops bought, or laptops bought in recent years are made by Apple. Corporations, schools are all switching to Mac...I guess everybody is an idiot then. And I guess since even ultrabooks are copying Apple once again with closed hardware (even the Surface has closed hardware) I guess everyone that has Windows or Mac are f***ing idiots.

M Nichols:
More windows systems are sold then OSX systems. More android phones are sold then Iphones.

Mac's are mediocre products at an awful price point.

Macs are the #1 selling desktop, Macbok Pros outsell Windows notebook, same with Macbook Airs. iPhones sell more than Windows phones, iPad sells more than Surface.

And saying that Android sells more than iPhone is like saying Toyota.





Sell more than Ford.

I think the Mac and the Macboook pro has innovated almost as much as the iPhone...

How many all in one destkops have we seen after the Mac? Dell has one,HP, everyone. Ever been to BestBuy? Same with "well built" premium notebooks. Today they call them ultrabooks. Tightly designed, sleek, oversized trackpad, and chiclet keyboard. Add a battery that actually lasts and that's a stand alone product.

PC manufacturer's can't even nail all of those categories down, especially the battery life.

M Nichols:
Apple innovated with the Ipod and Iphone. Neither the Mac or the macbook pro provided any innovation what-so-ever.

M Nichols:
All-in-one PC's make up about 2% of the desktop market.

It's like you're some sort of special ed case or something.

Ultrabooks make up even less in the laptop business. Since all in ones make up only 2% I guess by your definition every single PC manufacturer sucks except for Apple because Macs are selling really well, but their knock offs aren't.

Seems like you tried to spin it some other way, but I can get why you can't since you're some sort of special ed case. Or just really stupid, either or.

M Nichols:
You think OSX systems outsell Windows systems, so you are obviously not grounded in reality.

Macs make up about 5-10% of desktops. That's not guess work or conjecture. That's a fact you stupid f***, deal with it.

Fact: iMacs are the #1 selling desktops. Since you're a fanboy, I guess the word research is gibberish in your vocabulary.

Also, fact: you obviously don't even know what "outsell" means.

One last fact: you know you're the fanboy, when you're the one that's mad about computers.

M Nichols:
You are confusing #1 selling with the most desktops s***head. There are thousands of manufacturer of PC's.

Mac based PC's are not the most numerous. I'm not a fanboy of anything. You are simply wrong here, Macs make up 5-10% of the market total.

Also Iphones are the most popular phone brand, but Android has hundreds of different manufacturers. Androids outnumber the Iphones 3 to 1.

You are f***ing wrong dips***, deal with it.

I'm not confusing anything, it seems like you're in your own internal battle. Fact: Macs have been the best selling desktop in the past few years...deal with it. Seems like you are the fanboy when you're arguing with yourself.

And Android phones outnumber iPhone, so...

What's your point?

M Nichols:
My point is that Macs are for pretentious a**holes. They don't offer the best specs for the best value.

Only an idiot would buy a mac. If you want OSX, just hackintosh a reasonably priced laptop.

Also Steve Jobs was a complete douche.

Everything effect performance. Only a consumer like you would look at the number labeled for a spec and considers a higher number to be good. You just don't understand computers.

The only thing good about PCs is that you can upgrade them easily. This is good for games but it ends there. People don't buy MACs for OSX either....it's the whole package.

M Nichols:
Upgrading only effects games? WTF?

Sure the spec means something. Do you think Apple buys Intel CPU's made in a different factory? You do realize all of these parts are made by the same handful of factories and by the same people right?

Of f***ing course the specs matter. Also upgrading is more then just for games and I promise you I know more about the tech in question then you ever will obviously.

What a dip****.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Tom Green's relentless shame

[Edit (added on December 12, 2018): Yet again Green has tried to erase all traces of his childish mean streak with Jesse James Dupree. I've posted a new blog entry that includes two new working links at Tom Green just doesn't get it.]

Someone commented on an essay from last year, to let me know that the videos I had links to were removed. It seems that once again, Tom Green is attempting to eliminate all evidence of his rotten behavior, just like he did years ago, when the video with Jesse James Dupree first surfaced on the Internet.

Here's the original essay, posted on January 11, 2012. You'll need to read it to understand why access to these videos is worth the effort:

Hypocrisy, Tom Green style

As I stated in my reply to "Anonymous's" comment, because the incident was digitized, it will always be out there. Thus, in this update to that previous blog post, I hereby provide two new links that are currently working.

In addition to providing new, working links, I have also recorded the videos for posterity. I encourage everyone else to record them with FlashGot or DownloadHelper, plugins you can install in Firefox. I'm not sure if they are available for Internet Explorer, but that's irrelevant if you're interested in using a superior browser.

Here are the new links:

Tom Green behaves like a petulant child toward Jesse James Dupree

Andrew Dice Clay makes Tom Green nervous

The video with Andrew Dice Clay is actually on Green's YouTube channel, because they are now good friends, but the video linked here was the first time they met. At one point, Green was actually a little frightened. Spare yourself the bulk of the meandering vulgarity, and just watch from 2:34 to 4:00.

And there you have it, until Green's legal machine does another toothless sweep.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

The dark glass

This morning I was struck by an interesting thought.

The house was still dark, but my son, who is still just a few months old, gets hungry, and he doesn't really notice what time it is. I got up, changed his diaper, and put him in his playpen temporarily so that I could rush off and relieve the pressure in my own bladder.

While in the bathroom, I encountered a wild mouse that had been leaving his or her droppings in places they ought not to be, such as our larder and our son's play mat.

So I killed the mouse.

Some may object to this action, but that is beside the point of this essay. I was willing to endure the occasional nibbling on, and thus spoiling, our food containers and goodies within. I had been keen on doing the live capture thing and releasing him back to his natural habitat.

But he was far too adept at avoiding my traps; he left me little choice when I had to consider things like bacteria and disease that could possibly be introduced to my helpless little boy.

As I fed my son with formula, because my wife was sick in bed, I suddenly had a flash in my head of this passage:

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

And I wondered... here he was: innocent of, and oblivious to, what just occurred in the bathroom. He had no idea how much I disliked having to kill a small furry creature. He had no idea about my thought processes in this regard, especially the part about making sure my son stayed safe from unclean and possibly dangerous exposure.

He had no idea that there was potential danger, he had no idea that the danger was removed, he had no idea that there was remorse experienced during the process.

All he knew was that he was being held by someone familiar, who made him feel safe and comfortable, and his uncomfortable feeling inside of him was going away because of this funny tasting stuff he was swallowing. I say funny tasting because I'm figuring that formula doesn't taste like mother's milk.

Thus I realized there must indeed be things that go on behind the scenes, things I'm not aware of. I often assume that my awareness of being me and being alive allows me to perceive anything relevant that goes on around me.

But unless my arrogance meter starts pushing too far into the red, I've also always been aware that there is more to life than meets the eye.

Something for all of us to consider, especially at times when we confidently assume we've correctly assessed our lives.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Ageless dissonance

The age-old debate about whether or not there is a God is tiresome. When I was a younger lad, I found it fascinating, and was certain there had to be a conclusive answer either way.

I was wrong.

Why is it impossible to resolve to universal satisfaction?

Because the realm of the unknown is just that: unknown. Due to the nature of something unknown, the conclusion regarding it is left to the individual's subjectivity to discern a suitable answer.

After all this time and experience witnessing the futile nature of the debate, ad nauseum, you'd think I'd know better than to watch a YouTube video of an official debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek, that was held on September 9th, 2008:

Does God exist?

Someone in the audience pointed out near the end that everyone attends these debates already comfortable with their own answers, so the debate is reduced to meaningless spectacle, instead of being the edifying event it is allegedly intended to be. I would have to agree.

So yes, as everyone else, I watched the debate already content with my own answers. I watched Turek provide a list of bullet points based on current scientific knowledge to argue the possibility that God exists. I also watched a likely intoxicated Hitchens blather on with the usual simplistic, emotionally charged, manipulative claptrap, instead of honestly addressing the premise of the debate.

Did my personal belief system make Turek's compelling argument based on probability more feasible than it already was?

No. It was a reasonable argument, whether or not it was ultimately defensible.

If I were an atheist, would that make the cliché histrionics of Hitchens any less disappointing for someone who came to watch him emerge triumphant?


The debate was a farce because the question being posed is never answered by reason; it is only 'answered' by a preconceived mindset. Hence the meaninglessness of such a debate.

If one mind can't convince another in these matters, then why ask the question? Regardless of what opponents in this matter may contend, the burden of proof is on both sides, not just one.

Instead of "Does God exist?", I think the question should be:

Should one be free to believe something is true that someone else believes is false?

Your answer to that question reveals not only your mindset, but also your true intentions.

As far as the mindset of the minority of atheists who are defined by their anger and cynicism, I'd say Turek summed it up in his description of Hitchens's book:

"There is no God, and I hate Him."

What a needless waste of time and emotion.

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Ego amplification for profit

Under the clever moniker of "social networking," those who would make money off the unwitting masses are reaping billions of dollars. In the days of "It's all about YOU," what could be more sinister than making a person feel important by ironically diluting their intimacy for large sums of money?

My wife and I have noticed the ever-increasing incidence of people tinkering with their so-called smart phones while participating in a physically face-to-face social gathering. For example, over the holidays, there were several people (not all of them young) who believed they were successfully carrying on conversations with those in the room and simultaneously with those on their phones.

They were wrong.

A conversation, or at least a truly satisfying one, involves talking and listening, not just making oh-so-clever sound-bite commentary to as many people as possible at the same time. Does a performer truly care what the audience has to say?

Imagine for a moment what it means to be "plugged into" all your friends, all the time. No matter where you go, you bring your entire crowd of five hundred friends with you. Any seasoned party host will tell you that it's a fine line to walk when you're trying to keep everyone happy and leave no one out. You can't interact intimately with one individual during the process, otherwise other partygoers will feel left out.

Where does the ego amplification come in?

When people think they're having decent conversations with not only the person in front of them, but also simultaneously with everyone in their friends list, what they're actually doing is becoming the center of attention (or at least it feels that way). Having lower quality conversations with more people is not the best way to maintain genuine friendships.

Human beings, in a normal state, want to be wanted. They want to be interesting to others, they want to be heard. What better way to address this need than to provide the attention of others on electronic tap, twenty-four hours a day?

Okay Mr. Techno-Scrooge, what's wrong with that?

A handful of manipulative human beings are getting insanely rich by abusing the natural inclination of humans to be heard and understood. They do this knowingly, by the way. Don't ever imagine that it's just unfortunate fallout from a technological "blessing." How about you tell me what's wrong with being used like that?

In terms of wanting to be heard, how is this blog any different than using a smart phone?

Well, this blog costs me nothing but time to type, and as far as I know, the people who read it are getting a bit more from it than the following text, culled from textsfromlastnight.com:

I have discovered my latent superpower. If a friend is dating a bi chick they will inevitably try and talk me into a threesome.