"be right back" take 2

recently, when down in sd with friends and visiting other friends, i rewatched black mirror's "be right back" episode. my friends and i ended up arguing a bit about it, so i thought i'd write a post. as i started, i thought i'd see if i'd written a post about it before, and, me being me, it turns out that i had! that post is here.

it's interesting to see that i basically feel the same way as i did seven years ago. the only thing that's changed is that i now DO think it's disrespectful to "upgrade" your person, but i'm still not sure if it's ethically wrong to do so. i think that may depend on the consent of the original person, and probably your motives for doing so. giving something to someone they always wanted seems fine, giving them something they never cared about also seems fine. but giving them traits they never wanted, and would find insulting if changed, seems morally dubious. but i wonder sometimes if motives should affect morality as much as we want it to, but i dunno, so imma leave that part "blank."

anyway, back to now. my friends seem to think that this is terrible tech and should never be implemented because 1. people should move on and 2. relationships with real people are better than relationships with fake ones. another fear of theirs is that by 3. not moving on, one will disregard all real relationships and become a non-contributing member of society, which is bad.

i had a lot of issues with pretty much all aspects of this.

1. people should move on.
i already addressed this in my previous post so i'm not going to get into it again, but while i agree that people should move on, i don't think it's as necessary as my friends seem to think it is. i also don't think it's a moral imperative that people do move on, especially if not moving on doesn't really hurt anyone else.

2. relationships with real people are better than relationships with fake ones and
3. one will disregard all real relationships and become a non-contributing member of society, which is bad.
my friends seemed to stress that you can't have a real relationship with a non-sentient being, and especially not if you can control that being. the show seems to indicate that you can alter the personality of the android thing more to your liking, and less what the person would have really done/said/been. let's accept that premise. my friends seem to think that if you can now create a "perfect relationship," you will, and that that will negatively affect your relationship with others since, presumably, you won't have prefect relationships with others, so you'll cast aside all other real relationships and only up keep only the perfect one.

firstly. why are real relationships better than ones you create?
normally, reality matters. i'm thinking about celebrity stalkers here. but if this isn't even a real person, the relationship isn't really reciprocal, so you're not misinterpreting something to someone else's deficit.

second. would that many people want to create a "perfect relationship" if they could? let's say that yes, they do. but would that negatively affect your relationship and interactions with others? i don't really think it would. and if it did, would it so terribly affect your relationship with others that you would give up on all interactions with the real world? my friends seem to think so, but i really don't. i don't see that happening hardly ever. in the show, the main character seems ashamed of the android so she hides him away, but would people do that if this tech were mainstream? i can imagine going to a friend's house where her andriod husband is there and we all hang out as real humans do. he can't come to my place, sure (in the show, they have to remain within ~30m of their activation point), but i imagine she would have a normal life outside of her home. she still has to go to work, and grocery shop, and such. it's not like her whole life would revolve around this android. and if it did, it would no more or less a problem that if her whole home life revolved around a huma. also, many people have pets that are exclusively confined to the house and that doesn't seem to be an issue. in fact, you don't even have to feed or potty break an android, so maybe it'll less of an inconvenience than a housebound dog with no yard.

also, i don't think that being a contributing member of society is so important. we have a lot of people who don't particularity "contribute" to society but we're okay with them. (i'm thinking people in comas, people in prison for life, severely mentally or physically disabled people, the list goes on.) we don't complain about these people not giving back to society, and in fact, they may actually "take up" resources in ways that an android wouldn't.

actually, what does contributing to society mean anyway? having a job, volunteering, spending money which grows the economy and keeps people employed, being part of a community which enriches people's lives, creating something long lasting, making at least one person happy?

ultimately, i'm not saying that i'm for this kind of tech. i just don't think it's as bad as some others seem to think it is. i'm generally a "you do you, and i'll do me" person. if it makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone else (feel free to hurt just yourself), then go right on ahead. i think A LOT about morality and i try to form my judgements based on morals, not just what feels right or wrong. i think that's why i'm a lot more accepting of things and people. ...which i think is good, lol.

lie better

in the last couple weeks I've had two people tell me blatantly incorrect things. 

1: last week I was on the phone with a time share salesman (my parents called me during their meeting and had him speak to me). my parents said two years ago they paid for product A with his company. he said they didn't. I asked if could print out a copy of the contract from two years ago so that I could review it when they got home. he said that they were not allowed a copy of their contract. ...I asked him to clarify. indeed, he said my parents were not allowed to have a copy of the contact they signed with his company. I said that made no legal sense, especially since they had a copy at home anyway. I asked if it wasn't instead that he didn't have access to it? he said no, they just couldn't have it. we would have to call a different number to get permission for them to get us a copy.

2: I was on the phone with my financial advisor whom I have never communicated with but with whom my parents have had a relationship for well over a decade. he manages two accounts under my name and has for many years. I'm finally wanting to start learning about financial markets and my investments, etc. so I emailed him last week, introduced myself, the situation, and asked 3 general questions about my accounts. he emailed back with a phone number inviting me to call him. I was annoyed cause, like, email is easier and I don't know much so this way I can go look terms and stuff up later. but fine, whatever, I'll call this time. a couple days ago my dad mentioned that he had talked to the financial advisor who said that he doesn't prefer to email with clients because his company reads all his emails. I said, that's fine. I don't want to be doing anything illegal, so I'm glad his company is reading our emails and screening for that sort of thing. 

today I get on phone with him and he says that he prefers phone calls, to which I said I prefer email because this way I can look stuff up later since I don't know anything about stocks, etc. he said that his company didn't allow for FAs to email with their clients about their accounts. ...what? he clarified that, yeah, his company doesn't allow FAs to email clients answering questions from clients about what their FA was doing with the money we pay them to manage. I asked if he could find that policy in writing and send that to me because that seemed super weird. he said that no, he wouldn't, but that I could switch FAs. I said, okay, I might, but if he could send me a copy of the policy anyway because if this is a company-wide policy I would be in the same position with the next FA anyway. I want to know what the rules are so I don't keep breaking them, you know? he said no, and that my new FA may or may not comply and send me the policy themselves.

we moved on. but later in the conversation he says that technically he shouldn't have ever signed me on because 1. he's never actually communicated directly with me, just my parents, and that 2. one of my accounts was too small for his company to handle. I put two and two together and realized THAT'S why he lied about this ridiculous "company policy" about emails. he later also mentioned later that he's old so isn't good at computers, doesn't like email, and has an assistant handle this type of thing.

WHY DO PEOPLE LIE ABOUT THE DUMBEST MOST OBVIOUS SHIT?! first, you should never assume that people are idiots and don't know basic fucking things. second, don't double down on your dumbshit lie when I ask you to clarify, when I repeat to you in an incredulous tone your own stupid words. like, backtrack man, I obviously don't believe you. you're just digging yourself into a deeper hole by cementing to me that you're a liar. 

is this what it's like now in our "post-truth" world? did donald trump and his constant and consistent denial of basic verifiable facts break people's brains leading them to think that this type of behavior is okay? well, it's fucking not, people, wth. 

4x

taken from theskimm on Oct 8th:

A new report shows that LGBTQ+ diversity on TV is at an all-time high. Last year, the advocacy group GLAAD called on the TV industry to do better when incorporating LGBTQ+ diversity. And called for 10% representation on screen by 2020. Yesterday, it released a report saying the industry delivered with 10.2%.
The study also shows that LGBTQ+ women characters outnumbered LGBTQ+ men on broadcast TV for the first time ever... There was also an increase in the number of transgender characters. But GLAAD doesn't want to stop there.
It's challenging the TV world to get to 20% by 2025. And that within the next two years, all platforms should make sure at least half of the LGBTQ+ characters in shows are people of color.

I'm definitely not against representation, but how much representation is "fair"? a gallup poll in 2017 "concluded that 4.5% of adult Americans identified as LGBT." so at 20%, GLAAD wants a major over representation of a minority group, which seems kind of uncool.

of course, 20% is still very small compared to 80%, but with any over representation you're in a sense discrimination against the other. I don't care if there are fewer straight characters on tv, but what if we were to request the same representation of other minorities?

asians make up about 6% of the general population of america; should we ask for 1 in 4 of characters in media to be asian? that may not be a problem, but hispanics make up 16.7%, so 4 times that would be nearly 67%. we're out of percentages if we add all up all the non-whites in america and multiplied that by four, so there would be negative caucasians on tv.

looks don't matter

The problem with calling Harvey Weinstein ugly
Body-shaming men is deeply unprogressive — even if they’re accused of sex crimes.

this! yes! does being ugly give the excuse to sexually assault someone? no, of course not. and if it doesn't matter what the victim looked/dressed like, how would the aggressor's looks matter?

"Why should we care about someone like Weinstein (or Rose) being body-shamed? ... It also distracts from the problem with what he did, which has nothing to do with his looks. What made these acts abusive is the lack of consent, not the appearance of the predators. And that perpetuates rape culture. As long as we keep acting as if sexual abuse is wrong because the abuser is physically unattractive or sexually deviant, abusers deemed attractive and “normal” will be more likely to get away with it."

also, "One unfortunate effect of this is that we consider conventionally unattractive people less credible victims of sexual assault or harassment." and that's equally fucked up.

sexual assault and harassment aren't always about the sex itself, or even about attraction. it often has nothing to do with one's physical appearance. of either party. that's why people who could "get some anyway" are sometimes rapists.

the magic of santa

A Battle Over Santa Claus Is Blowing Up a Facebook Group for New York Moms

i figured out the truth about santa claus pretty early on. i very clearly remember going downstairs one christmas morning to find santa's present not neatly wrapped under the tree, but unwrapped and sitting in our fireplace. i think that's all it took for me to figure out that santa wasn't real.

my parents are both immigrants from a place / culture which didn't celebrate christmas and had no santa. my parents had probably asked their coworkers and friends about who he was and his background story but of they still got a few things wrong. either way, i'm glad they tried their best and played along.

as such, i would do the same for my kids, at least until they figured it out. who does it hurt? as an atheiest, christmas isn't even something i particularly participate in, but you can be damn sure my kids will be getting presents from me at christmas! having personal beliefs which run counter to general society are fine and well but your kids shouldn't have to go without a little holiday magic just because you don't personally celebrate a national holiday that our culture is crazy invested in. my kids'll figure out santa when they do. and if they catch on earlier than the other kids, i'll tell them to not ruin it for the believers out there. no need to be a grinch!

"the entire history of you"

black mirror season 1, episode 3 - the entire history of you

if you could record everything, would you? there's a quotation that goes something like "memories aren't what happened. they're what you remember." that's really true. but anyway, if you could record everything then your memories would be the truth, right? lol, no, of course not.

there's a quotation from a map of the world, a novel by jane hamilton, that i used to think about a lot, but that i can't remember or find, but it was something about how the thoughts in my head are *mine* and how horrible it was that some people wanted to know them all. they're my private thoughts, and even though they may be about you, they're mine and mine alone. this was a bit of a thing with rip and me. i would think things, and he knew it, and he would ask and i would refuse to tell him, especially if they were silly non sequitur nothings, tho often times they were serious things too. anyway, it drove him (and me) nuts.

j's different. he can see me thinking things and when he asks and i say "nothing" he doesn't press. he waits for me to want to tell him. i appreciate that. tho it also means that i let a lot of things go. i see him too, thinking, and i often times won't even ask.

overthinking is poison. thankfully i don't do it very often. i'm generally able to stop thinking about what i don't want to think about. ...which is also bad because it makes procrastinating and not confronting the truth really easy, too easy. in other words, i wouldn't be liam (from black mirror). i could never be liam. but, at the same time, isn't it maybe better to be liam? he suspects something and it turns out that he was right: jonas meant more to fi than she admitted, she did cheat with him, and the child's paternity is unclear. the episode got to me because i felt like rip would totally identify with liam. he wouldn't break into jonas' house or anything crazy, but he would "make" me tell him stuff. but again, that's maybe not a bad thing. the truth may not always be pretty, but it is important. and you may not be entitled to my thoughts, but you most likely are to the truth, especially if it affects you.

"be right back"

do you watch black mirror? well, you fucking should. i watched two episodes a couple years ago. i loved the first episode and hated the second so i stopped. there's too much good tv to waste time on shows you don't love, you know? anyway, R convinced me to start watching again and damn am i glad i did.

season 2, episode 1 - be right back
my main question wasn't "would i?" (since i definitely wouldn't [and yes i am sure]) but "is it wrong?" is it so bad if you don't move on? you are still a functioning and productive member of society; you just have this... organic robot replica of your ex lover (or child, parent, best friend, whomever). that's creepy, sure, but is it wrong? i don't think so.

having a surrogate thing means you probably won't ever move on, but why do we need to move on anyway? i think it's because not doing so denies you the possibility of having something else, and hopefully, something better. unless that person is your parent. in which case, since you usually only get two anyway, why even bother moving on? and, like, so what if you deny yourself the opportunity to meet someone better? it's not like it's a guarantee you'll find someone and be happier. nothing is actually lost, you know?

something else I wondered was, like, is it disrespectful (for lack of a better word) to "improve" your person? bigger dick, kinder person, better cook, non-smoker, more athletic, less selfish, taller, cuter, smarter, blond, whatever you want because the list is literally endless. and would these upgrades / modifications be unethical? probably not either, since it's not a sentient being and they have no will. it's like upgrading a computer.

anyway, simple questions are usually easier to answer. so, would you?

what we all want

What Guys Really Want In A Partner Is Super Depressing

numbers aside, what it comes down to is this. men want wives to be nothing like daughters. which is, in case you didn't get it, an impossibility. in general, men prefer daughters to be smarter, stronger, and more independent than their own wives. good thing for wives tho, we're supposed to be pretty in a way our daughters are not encouraged to be. lol.

the article does a weird guy bashing thing where it tells men to "get over it." that's rude. i imagine women feel much the same way about their husbands and sons. no one wants the short end of the stick. and most of us would prefer a spouse to be successful enough to make enough money so that we can loaf around at home all day. but you wouldn't want your son (or daughter) to marry a lazy gold digger. even tho you'd like to dig right alongside of them!

fyi, the article this article talks about is also worth a read: an insight into the 21st century man

no bread no fish

stuff like this is just so sad: man is arrested for feeding the homeless.

i get that we have to have laws and ordinances regarding public spaces and food safety to protect us from the bad, stupid, or careless people. but this man is obviously not one of them.

as someone who makes some of the rules for an organization, i understand that any good policy needs to be practical and easy to enforce. this means that sometimes sweeping measures work better than separate rules for every situation. still, i wonder if there isn't a better way to govern...

food for the... soul?

in life group we talked about local vs global church. they were talking about how great it is that missionaries go to spread the word of god to third world countries. they talked about how crazy it is that we have so much yet also complain about so much when many others have barely anything at all, not even food. and how great is it that all these people are now saved! they may not have a second pair of pants, but it's so inspiring how when even two weeks ago they hadn't even heard about god, now they're singing worship songs!

i'm of course sitting there thinking "are you serious? who cares about god when you're starving?!" they're talking about how important it is that we donate money so they can buy bibles, bibles for god's sake. "a bible can help 10s of people. they pass it around so everyone can hear about god." um... yeah... i get that maybe sending money so starving people can buy food is maybe a waste since you can only eat it once but...

i guess our priorities are really different. one's afterlife is forever. human life, especially if you die young from starvation, is temporal. yet... how can you love, honor, worship, and respect a god who doesn't save people who don't know about him, and give them pretty terrible lives to boot? it's different if i go to hell, having heard about god but not believing him in anyway. (tho i would argue that it's also not fair since one cannot command belief) but these people who are dying from diseases that we just don't have in 1st world countries because we have basic medical treatment and sanitation, these people who haven't heard about god because the missionaries haven't gotten there yet, these people people have to spend an eternity in hell? why?

most christians ask, at some point or another, about the people who haven't heard about god yet. or the ones born in china a thousand years ago, or the egyptians from even before that, you know, before christianity was even "invented." somehow they don't think to blame god or question his omnibenevolence. he has a plan, they say, we just don't understand it.

well, no, i don't understand it. i can't understand it. i can't understand why you think giving someone a bible is better than giving them a well so they can have clean water. i understand that christians do both on missionary trips, but to place a higher value on your afterlife rather than your current one is surely a sign of arrogance. you know you're leaving india in a week, to come back to your wifi and $4 cups of coffee. when they don't even have 50cents to protect themselves from NTDs.

some christians have told me that they think god doesn't send people who don't know about him to hell. they're not sure what happens, but surely he wouldn't punish them for something out of their control. he is omnibenevolent, after all. if this is the case, which i'm inclined to agree with, wouldn't it be more humane for missionaries to save lives than to save souls? instead of sending missionaries to spread the word of god, send money, food, shoes, doctors, whatever it takes to make life livable! if you were choking, would you prefer someone to give you the heimlich or to read passages from the koran? i think it's clear.

facts

“You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.” – Daniel Patrick Moynihan

we're all delusional!

a must read. seriously. it's hilarious! Men and Women Can't Be "Just Friends"

"...men’s estimates of how attractive they were to their female friends had virtually nothing to do with how these women actually felt, and almost everything to do with how the men themselves felt... men consistently overestimated the level of attraction felt by their female friends and women consistently underestimated the level of attraction felt by their male friends." i can't tell you how true this rings to me. haHA! rip thinks almost every girl likes him that way. even my friends. friends with whom i have confirmed that they have never liked him at all. he thinks they're lying. it's madness! i almost never think it anymore. maybe i'm too self-absorbed to notice the "signals"? and when the occasional guy does express attraction, i'm always like "what?! where did this come from?"

"Although men were equally as likely to desire “romantic dates” with “taken” friends as with single ones, women were sensitive to their male friends’ relationship status and uninterested in pursuing those who were already involved with someone else." this one is really interesting. i've had a couple guys tell me that they would "wait for me" or something nutty like that. i've never felt even vaguely inclined to say that to someone. i've never even thought it. he's taken. i'm moving on. duh.

"These results suggest that men, relative to women, have a particularly hard time being “just friends.”" which is why rip pretty much hates every new guy friend i make because he thinks they're all attracted to me. and i am always shocked when they actually are! and also why i've always been right about those couple girl friends of his i was worried about. though apparently i should have been worried about all of them!

"Males were significantly more likely than females to list romantic attraction as a benefit of opposite-sex friendships." not sure what to think about this one. probably because i wouldn't list it as a benefit, lol. we are our stereotypes!!

re-writing

Why Are People Still Having Weddings at Plantations Slaves Built?

this reminds me of the huckleberry finn controversy. and i wonder if people aren't a bit too sensitive about this? yes slavery is bad, most everyone recognizes that. but it's not as though if you have a wedding at a slave-built plantation, you're celebrating slavery. and if that were actually the case, we probably shouldn't have anyone living in the whitehouse either, cause that too was built by slaves.

slavery is an ugly part of our history. but it's not as if we can (or even should) forget that it happened. our country and culture is better for the contributions of the people who came over as slaves, or who are descended from. and no, you idiot, i'm not saying saying slavery was awesome or that only good things came out of it. but it did happen. so short of tearing down everything that was built by slaves, erasing all the music that stemmed from spirituals, actually re-writing all our history books, and everything else crazy, let's just agree that it was terrible and that we'll never do anything like it again.

as that saying from george santaya goes: those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.

asking for it?

Shanghai Subway Publishes Photo Of Sexily Dressed Woman, Tells Her To Expect Sexual Harassment


this brings up the age of debate of "did she deserve it." and while i think that no person deserves to be raped, robbed, or whatever, you do have do wonder why a scantily dressed woman was walking alone in a shiesty area at night. just because others shouldn't infringe upon your rights doesn't mean that they won't. so you should really be more careful.

personally, i wear semi-sheer tops pretty frequently. tho never sheer bottoms. i do have some standards! in any case, i agree with the sentiment of the comment "Dressing like that, it would be unusual for a lady not be harassed. There can be perverts on the subway and it's hard to get rid of them. Please have self respect, ladies." while you certainly do have the right to wear whatever you want, you have to understand that dressing in a certain way will get others to treat you in a reciprocative manner (which is why we dress so nice for job interviews).

it's not to say that you should therefore only wear clothing that covers you from head to toe, but there's nothing wrong with modesty.

bigger isn't always better

cord jefferson - with 5.6 million people and counting, the 'move your money' campaign worked

i think this is so awesome, and partly because i also changed banks. i was with wells fargo and now i'm with onewest bank, which isn't the smallest bank, but it's still a lot more personable than wells fargo. it doesn't even have those bulletproof windows separating you from the tellers. and they always have coffee and cookies. :)

i switched from wells fargo for a few reasons, but mostly because they were going to start charging me a fee because i don't have direct deposit or a mortgage payment. i get that banks are business so they do need to make money. but it seems like they are making the most off of the people who can't afford it. tons of people (especially in this economy) can't afford to buy a house. and even if you do have a job, lots of places, including most small businesses, don't offer direct deposit. i also understand that they can / should reward their best customers (people paying loans (cause of the interest), those with lots and money invested...) with higher interest rates and waived fees, but the inverse is that you have the people with less money paying for the services provided for free to those probably have more money. which, duh, seems really unnfair.

bloody shame

yashar ali: if men had periods, women would all know about it (btw, i love it that the author is male)


this reminds me of that kotex commercial about covert tactics: "no one can see me with tampons." ha! i think it's weird that so many people are embarrassed by menstruation since every healthy fertile un-pregnant woman has them. i did the math once and figured that at any given moment 10% of the human population is bleeding out their vag. so why pretend it doesn't exist?

i haven't ever needed rip to buy me tampons but i asked him about it and he said that yeah, he would. (yay!!) then he immediately ruined it by saying:

rip: yea, if anyone asks id jus say i get crazy nosebleeds

Neurp: or you could just say your girlfriend has her period

rip: gross

Neurp: why? it's natural...

rip: yea but no one needs to know

tho honestly, this doesn't surprise me. i talk about my period all the time and i don't care if people are uncomfortable hearing about it. i sometimes say "i have cramps" but i'll more likely say "my uterus hurts." mostly because it's more specific. i could have leg cramps from running. anyway, rip once commented how weird it was i said that in public. he said the next time i did, he would make me stop by asking me detailed questions about it. i was very enthused to take him up on his little "dare". you can't shame me about my period. you want to know specifics? i'll bloody tell you and everyone who cares to eavesdrop.

 

women get their periods. that's life. and men who don't want children should be DAMN HAPPY every time their lady gets it. maybe happy to the point of telling their buddies that "hey! my girlfriend got her period today, drinks on me!"

sex vs "violence"

anti-porn groups boycott new nbc show "the playboy club"

"I can say without hesitation that every episode of "Law & Order: SVU" is more "adult" than the pilot of "The Playboy Club." And KSL has aired almost 300 episodes of that show."

this is a crazy bad analogy. in all those crime shows, the bad guy is punished. but "the playboy club" will glorify porn. the behaviors being rewarded on "law & order" are honesty (in cops), tenacity (in detectives), courage (in victims), perseverance (in law enforcers)... you get my point.

"the playboy club" will show... what? probably lots of married men having dubious relations with pretty young women who take off their clothes for money. and what will the moral be? as a man you should work hard so you can afford these women whose only job it is to satisfy you sexually. and a woman's aspirations should probably be to get lucky enough to be born beautiful so you can take off your clothes for money from men who want to sleep with, but not respect (or love, talk to, marry) you. well, no, that's probably too harsh. i'm sure the occasional bunny will have real goals. like, using playboy as a stepping stone to bigger and better things: fame as a singer / dancer / performer / sex object. ...

yeah, i can't believe they let "law & order" on tv.

bad doesn't = good

some people savor negative attention because they think it says something positive about them.

"if you’re not pissing somebody off, you’re not doing it right"
"if you're not offending someone, you're doing something wrong"

while these statements may sometimes be true, that doesn't mean they are always true. and their opposites are always true either. as in, just because you're pissing someone off, doesn't mean you're doing something correctly. or just because you are offending someone, doesn't mean you're doing something right. you might be doing something wrong and just pissing people off in the meanwhile.

an example: "if you’re not pissing somebody off, you’re not doing it right" -> "if you're not pissing someone off, you're not driving lawfully." so if i am driving lawfully, i am making people angry? well obviously, we get mad at idiots who drive poorly, not those who drive well (unless you have anger issues or if you're trying to do something illegal and people driving correctly are getting in your way. in which case, you have problems this logic set can't help you with.)

something else i've read recently:

well clearly those can't be the only three reasons someone hates you. maybe you just fucking suck. for instance, hitler. i don't dislike him because i want to be him, i don't dislike him because i hate myself, and i certainly don't dislike him because i see him as a threat. i mean, he's dead and it's pretty much universally agreed upon that he was wrong. i do hate him because he was a freaking tool who killed millions of people in god awful ways because of his prejudiced thinking. now, you're probably nothing like hitler, but that doesn't mean i can't dislike you too for other also pretty legitimate reasons. maybe you're a cheater, a sexist, a polluter, or a narcissist.

instead of thinking that you're doing right cause people hate you, maybe you can focus on how to do things right without attracting haters. i wouldn't say the two are mutually exclusive but one certainly doesn't have to follow the other in every instance. gandhi and mother teresa, for instance. they did a hell of a lot of great things, and most people like them for it. a few crazies dislike them, but that's cause they're nuts. and you can tell because nearly everyone hates them. so if the only people who hate you have a shit ton of people who hate them, you're probably doing a pretty good job. but if most of the people who hate you are otherwise decent people, you're definitely doing something wrong.

emergency kit

taken from ready america.

When preparing for a possible emergency situation, it's best to think first about the basics of survival: fresh water, food, clean air and warmth.

Recommended Items to Include in a Basic Emergency Supply Kit:

• Water, one gallon of water per person per day for at least three days, for drinking and sanitation
• Food, at least a three-day supply of non-perishable food
• Battery-powered or hand crank radio and a NOAA Weather Radio with tone alert and extra batteries for both
• Flashlight and extra batteries
• First aid kit
• Whistle to signal for help
• Dust mask, to help filter contaminated air and plastic sheeting and duct tape to shelter-in-place
• Moist towelettes, garbage bags and plastic ties for personal sanitation
• Wrench or pliers to turn off utilities
• Can opener for food (if kit contains canned food)
• Local maps
• Cell phone with chargers

Additional Items to Consider Adding to an Emergency Supply Kit:

• Prescription medications and glasses
• Infant formula and diapers
• Pet food and extra water for your pet
• Important family documents such as copies of insurance policies, identification and bank account records in a waterproof, portable container
• Cash or traveler's checks and change
• Emergency reference material such as a first aid book or information from www.ready.gov
• Sleeping bag or warm blanket for each person. Consider additional bedding if you live in a cold-weather climate.
• Complete change of clothing including a long sleeved shirt, long pants and sturdy shoes. Consider additional clothing if you live in a cold-weather climate.
• Household chlorine bleach and medicine dropper – When diluted nine parts water to one part bleach, bleach can be used as a disinfectant. Or in an emergency, you can use it to treat water by using 16 drops of regular household liquid bleach per gallon of water. Do not use scented, color safe or bleaches with added cleaners.
• Fire Extinguisher
• Matches in a waterproof container
• Feminine supplies and personal hygiene items
• Mess kits, paper cups, plates and plastic utensils, paper towels
• Paper and pencil
• Books, games, puzzles or other activities for children    

emotions vs facts

Father Brendan Flynn (philip seymour hoffman) in Doubt - "even if you feel certainty, it is an emotion, not a fact"