At the Association for Union Democracy, I write articles on local and national developments in the area of union democracy, elections, and civil rights. I manage intakes and advise union members on their rights and recourses if they have concerns about their treatment by their employers or unions. I do layout design for two bi-monthly newsletters and manage finances.
Date: September 14th, 2011 9:45 AM Author: concupiscible mewling background story dopamine
You should be smart enough to realize that Perez Hilton seeks publicity and wants you to post his name because it makes him money. This girl did not want to be google bombed and certainly did not want you to do what you did. The context of an action is as important as the action itself, and appealing to some nebulous concept of a "public figure" is not convincing. Weirdo
Date: September 14th, 2011 9:51 AM Author: Red spectacular stage
Well, when Miriam Lazewatsky is blogging shit like this, she's kinda WHORING for attention, no?
"Oh, hey, look at that. I get to tell another “liberal” (seriously, you’re not a liberal. You’re a racist, fat-hating douchebag) to go screw themself for for being a mysogynistic, fat-shaming, racist asshole," wrote [n-word blogger http://equity-equality-for-all.blogspot.com/2010/03/racist-blogger-outted-miriam-lazewatsky.html ] Miriam Lazewatsky, "She did nothing to alert suspicion, because, shockingly, “flying while brown” is not actually a suspicious activity and was pulled off a plane, detained for hours, and treated like a criminal and you “have no more fuck to give”? What is WRONG with you?
And what do fat people even have to do with this? Do you just like throwing it out there that you’re a fat hating jerk? I’m sorry natural body diversity “annoys” you. Oh, wait. No I’m not. Because given what you’ve said, I have no idea why anyone should care what you say. Ever.
And purposely misnaming her in your idiodic response isn’t clever. It just makes you look anti-Semitic, too.
Date: September 14th, 2011 9:43 AM Author: glassy impressive people who are hurt reading party
actually googling her shows up two xo threads in the first 20 hits, i'm surprised. but now for me to use her name once and not in :D's obsessive way does minimal harm, alia.
Date: September 14th, 2011 9:47 AM Author: concupiscible mewling background story dopamine
Several men are about to push a boulder of a cliff and kill an innocent person. You cannot stop them in any way shape or form. Even though you cannot change the outcome, it would still be wrong to help them push the boulder off the cliff, as the actions we take define us by their very nature, not merely by the outcome they produce.
Date: September 14th, 2011 9:51 AM Author: glassy impressive people who are hurt reading party
i'll argue and defend that helping the several men is a morally neutral action (assuming you have no other option to stop them, that it's just a binary between help and don't). what ethical standard can you create independent of outcome?
Date: September 14th, 2011 9:53 AM Author: concupiscible mewling background story dopamine
All ethical standards are subjective and dependent upon our judgments. If you really believe helping them push the boulder is morally neutral that we have reached a moral impasse; I will note that your morality repules me totally. It is a shallow and unabashed form of utilitarianism that no one in philosophy tries to defend anymore because it's retarded.
Date: September 14th, 2011 9:55 AM Author: concupiscible mewling background story dopamine
The judgment that morality is irrelevant if it is subjective is itself a subjective one so it is 1. not relevant since i do not share it and 2. self defeating since it says that things that are subjective are irrelevant but is itself subjective
Date: September 14th, 2011 9:54 AM Author: glassy impressive people who are hurt reading party
if it is emotional and based on subjective first principles, who the fuck cares if anyone in philosophy tries to defend it anymore? my innate bias is based on outcome, not on anything soft like "participant-ship"
Date: September 14th, 2011 9:57 AM Author: concupiscible mewling background story dopamine
You don't have to care, I'm just saying that virtually no one would try to defend that sort of view, though you are right to point out that does not make your view wrong per se. My point is about the sort of person that you want to be, and is similar to the virtue ethics championed by the ancient greeks. I have a conception of what the good person and the good life are like, and failing to live up to the standards I set for ethical behavior is not something I would want to do because it would lessen me.
Date: September 14th, 2011 9:59 AM Author: glassy impressive people who are hurt reading party
i'm fine with virtue ethics (i even love a part of it), but based on my emotions, which this system too relies on, i would immediately respect a person who thinks in a utilitarian way. i would hope that i too could divorce myself from most emotion and act.
Date: September 14th, 2011 10:02 AM Author: concupiscible mewling background story dopamine
Simplistic hedonistic utilitarianism has so many problems that the only people that defend it are those adopted it some time ago and are unwilling to admit that they made a serious intellectual mistake. That is the reason why a few discredited philosophers tried to hang onto it in the Post-Rawls/ Nozick world even though no one really cared about what they had to say anymore.
"i would hope that i too could divorce myself from most emotion and act."
This is also a self defeating proposition. You value separating yourself from emotion, but you only value that because of an emotion. So when you seek to accomplish your goal in order to fulfill it you prevent yourself from being able to do so, since you are acting in accordance with your emotions.
Date: September 14th, 2011 10:04 AM Author: glassy impressive people who are hurt reading party
once again i really don't care who still supports it (and furthermore fuck rawls), but what problems are you referencing?
i guess a better term than emotion would have been passion, something overwhelming that makes a person's mental state completely unlike what it would otherwise be
Date: September 14th, 2011 10:09 AM Author: concupiscible mewling background story dopamine
One is that if the only thing that matters it the overall amount of utility, we are led to absurd ethical conclusions that no one really accepts. For example, imagine that when you kill someone another person with exactly the same amount of happiness pops into existence. Under basic utilitarianism killing is morally neutral because it causes no change in the overall amount of utility that exists. The utility monster argument and the repugnant conclusion argument are other ways of making the same point. Hedonistic utilitarianism also fails to account for the equality that we should grant to all individual beings capable of intelligent thought. Different beings can experience different amounts of pleasure so if there is one being who gets unbelievably utility from torturing everyone else it is moral for him to do so. It elevates happiness into this weird numerical concept where all we care about is the aggregate amount, which is absurd.
Date: September 14th, 2011 10:11 AM Author: glassy impressive people who are hurt reading party
see... you can give me all kinds of counter-examples, but they only seek to prove that i don't believe it, not that my reasoning it wrong. because i believe ethics to be dependent upon utility, i accept these things. so what?
Date: September 14th, 2011 10:13 AM Author: concupiscible mewling background story dopamine
I am not trying to convince you per se, I was just giving you example of the sorts of problems people have identified with classic utilitarianism that let people to develop new theories like preference utilitarianism and so on. I understand that you may identify ethics with utility, but such feelings strike me as quite bizzarre and misguided, which I suppose means we are at an impasse. The sorts of conclusions that such views lead us to to me seem just as wrong as the conclusions created by radical Islam and Christianity-it is incomprehensible to me that people could believe such utter nonsense.
Date: September 14th, 2011 10:15 AM Author: Red spectacular stage
and yet, your TTT philosophy 101 ethics leads you to FLAME FLAME FLAME on a shiTTTy XO thread. i'm GLAD i don't subscribe to such an anal-retentive piece of shit masturbatory fanTTTasy.
Date: September 14th, 2011 10:16 AM Author: glassy impressive people who are hurt reading party
you do it a diservice by comparing a purely ethical belief with conclusions that come in part from physical or metaphysical claims, but granted. i get how this could be repugnant to you, but i really do see ethics as the challenge to find what bettering the world would mean and doing it in a significant sense. benthamite utilitarianism is the best conclusion i can come up with.
Date: September 14th, 2011 10:20 AM Author: concupiscible mewling background story dopamine
I'm not comparing them on that level, I'm saying I don't understand how people could believe in either one because I don't personalyl relate to their mindset.
"ut i really do see ethics as the challenge to find what bettering the world would mean and doing it in a significant sense. benthamite utilitarianism is the best conclusion i can come up with."
This only makes sense if you already accept that Bentham was right and that bettering the world means increasing the overall amount of utility.
Date: September 14th, 2011 10:31 AM Author: concupiscible mewling background story dopamine
Consistency is not an ethical virtue, though it is comforting. People are drawn to these views because they are consistent and easy to understand and apply. but that's all they have going for them, which means they have nothing going for them ethically speaking
Date: September 14th, 2011 10:36 AM Author: concupiscible mewling background story dopamine
Would you rather I talk down to you and pretend to think utilitarianism is a valid ethical system? No thanks, I don't think that it is, and I am not going to pretend you. If you were a Muslim I would tell you that your god doesn't exist and was invented by a murderer who married a 9 year old girl without blinking an eye. Same deal.
Date: September 14th, 2011 9:45 AM Author: Red spectacular stage
When the fucking fatass stops encouraging people to bloat to 400 pounds and DEMAND are TAX MONEY to subsidize their fatass lifestyles, THEN it will be "end of fucking story."
Date: September 14th, 2011 10:24 AM Author: Fantasy-prone sound barrier black woman
first of all, your beginning sentence isn't a question, so no need for the question mark. Second, using more than one condom at a time actually reduces the effectiveness of said condom(s). You clearly have issues with intelligence and basic contraception practices.
Date: September 14th, 2011 10:20 AM Author: Indigo immigrant laser beams
I do too. I missed what her crime was that necessitates an XO-style google bomb.
I thought we saved that for dudes who tortured dogs like Alex Atkind the 2007 Cornell graduate who poured bleach on his roommate's dog (among other cruelties).
Date: September 14th, 2011 10:37 AM Author: Indigo immigrant laser beams
So her transgression is being comfortable with her weight? Dude, I think people should not be fat too and I agree she could stand to lose some pounds... but does that really necessitate the vicious online assault you have begun?
Your multiple websites are rather psycho, don't you think?
Date: September 14th, 2011 11:01 AM Author: Red spectacular stage
It's one thing to be "comfortable" with one's weight, and yet another to be of the attitude that "EVERYONE SHOULD TREAT ME PERFECT AND PAY MY FUCKING MEDICAL BILLZ WHEN MY FAT ASS CAUSES MY INEVITABLE HEALTH BREAKDOWN"
Date: September 14th, 2011 11:15 AM Author: Indigo immigrant laser beams
Right, so the XO racism deal can be amusing as can the extreme statements designed to attack/marginalize various groups.
However here a pumo has embarked on a campaign that extends way beyond the confines of our little entertaining cesspool. Looks to me like someone set up multiple pages attacking this girl.
Still confused as to why. "Because she's fat" seems insufficient. I mean, she already has to suffer for that. Why pile on in such a public and cruel way?
Date: September 14th, 2011 11:17 AM Author: Saffron Low-t Chad
Yeah actually that's going a bit far. Way too far. I hate the bloggers as much as the next sane person, but creating websites devoted to stalking them is pretty crazy.
"FUCK YOU ISRAEL!" reasoned Miriam Lazewatsky, "That is all"
"I am actually shaking with anger," blogs Miriam Lazewatsky (danishmodernlady @ tumblr), trumpeting her BIPOLAR PERSONALITY DISORDER, "about this shitastic book that was recommended to me by Amazon when I added Health At Every Size to my Kindle wishlist. TW for fat shaming and ridiculous assumptions about why fat people are fat. This PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT BOOK TELLS ME I SHOULD "EAT LESS" and "EXERCISE MORE" I fucking CANNOT. My weight is not a goddamned lifestyle, nor is it a disease. For some people, it might be, but I’m really fucking tired of blanket statements about why fat people are fat." http://danishmodernlady.tumblr.com/post/15061645115/i-am-actually-shaking-with-anger) [mlazewatsky] lazewatsky
Miriam J. Lazewatsky AGAIN shows her financial IRRESPONSIBILITY: "I just almost broke down crying while on the phone with a Citibank representative. Got a letter today that they’ll increase my monthly fee to $20/month that can only be waved with a FIFTEEN THOUSAND dollar per month minimum balance. They switched me to an account with a $10 monthly fee and a $1500 minimum that can be waved with a monthly direct deposit. Better, but not a permanent solution."
"This makes me want to punch someone. Seriously. Fuck you Maxim. Fuck this patriarchal, condescending, patronizing bullshit," RRRAGES hypocritical cunt Miriam Lazewatsky ...who wonders why she can't get a real job.