like that has ever stopped ME

Please don't go into debt to support Hubski. The best way to support Hubski is to continue to be here to provide your perspective. Leave the monetary supporting to those of us who are dumber but richer. Be you, and be you on here; no donation can hold a candle to that.

Edit: I just threw down $20 for you. Happy New Year :)

Humility is fine. Shame is not. Resist shame.

"These people" are "us people" under poorer circumstances. There's a real tendency for people to think that poverty reflects a moral or intellectual failing but it's a shamefully dismissive way to view the problem.

A perfect solution for the average human.

I agree, 100%. Without the cynicism.

So here's the deal. Whether you want to admit it or not, we are all in our own ways painfully average. In comparison to the whole, we're all in the middle of the pack. The things that make us as individuals unique and successful, be they intelligence, athleticism, skill sets, or character, are meaningless when we stop focusing on individuals.

Everyone always wants to point out places like Facebook and say "Look at it. It's full of idiots." Shit, if we're being honest, I've done it from time to time and though I try not to, I'll probably do it again down the future. But, well, yeah. Duh. If intelligence is the metric you want to focus on, the majority of Facebook is going to fall short. Know what? Facebook is full of unathletic chumps too. It's full of morally questionable people. It's full of people who don't have one iota of musical talent. It's full of people who don't know the first thing about fixing a computer or wrenching on a car. But that's because you're looking at Facebook as a whole. Stop. Look at each, individual person on there, and look at them seriously, and you'll see that Facebook, like Hubski, like Reddit, like 4Chan, like your local bar, like any place that people decide to congregate, is full of amazing, fascinating, wonderful people. You might not like certain groups of people as a collective whole, but if you take them away from that group, view them in the lense of an individual, you'll see that maybe they're not so bad.

So let's look at Facebook, let's look at this "solidarity" shit that they pull. It's so easy to point at them, to criticise them, and say "Ha. They're showing solidarity by clicking a button. It does nothing." However, you're wrong.

For one, it does show solidarity. It shows that we understand that horrible things happen in the world and that we as a collective whole are saddened by it and don't condone it one bit. Look at all those countries with their citizens waving tiny little American flags after 9/11. It was the world saying "America, we don't always love your government but we love your people." It's a small gesture individually, but when enough people do it as a collective whole, it becomes something big and has the potential for good. Think of charity. Your individual dollars are near useless (unless you're a big giver like Bill Gates). However, the collective dollars of a whole community suddenly has the power to bring about results.

Two, it brings awareness to issues and creates dialog. Awareness and dialog are two big keys towards education. Education is one of the most important keys to bringing about change. If you're looking at seeing the whole world overnight change on a single issue, you're going to be sadly disappointed. However, every time people rally around something, enough individuals change to start having a ripple effect. Look at the polls focusing on gay marriage between the early 2000s and now. People change as individuals and that individual change can eventually change the world.

Three, it allows people who in situations like these would normally feel powerless and helpless to at least feel something. Let's face it. What have any single one of us on Hubski done to help out in Paris? Nothing. The events still affect us though. They cause us to feel worry, sadness, shame. The people on Facebook aren't any different. They're feeling the same thing. Clicking that button though, for them, let's them feel they're doing something, however small. You wanna say it's meaningless? I say it makes them feel a little bit better and all of that collective betterness, as a whole, has meaning and purpose.

We're focusing on the wrong thing. Stop focusing on what Facebook does poorly and instead focus on what it can do well. Facebook is full of average people. If we want to look at it in hopes of finding shining examples of exceptionalism, we're going to have a bad time. However, as a platform of the masses, if steered in the right direction by chance, it could easily have a large impact. Hubski on the other hand has a different set of flaws. It's full of great, intelligent people. It's very small though. Think a crazy donation drive to combat global hunger would get very far from Hubski's support? No. Of course not.

We need to stop focusing on what makes groups shitty in an effort to make ourselves feel superior. These people are our neighbors and they need our love and encouragement. We should stop saying "They did something good because they're selfish." We're all selfish. We're animals. It's part of how we get by in the world. The thing is though good deeds, large or small, even if done for selfish reasons, are still good deeds and they can bring about good things. Finally, we should stop saying that something is useless because it has no discernible, immediate effect, whether it's prayer, a solidarity button, or what have you. The fact is, those acts come from a good place in the human heart and promoting that kind of behavior promotes thoughts that encourage us to be better people.

Let's face it. We're all shitty people. Anything we can do, to be slightly less shitty, shouldn't be shat upon.

'Sitting quiet' is boring only if you never taken the time to fully experience sitting quietly. There is more value and meaning to be found in considered silence than forced noise.

What is gained by reinforcing to everyone here that you do in fact exist?

Can you make some examples of how feminists have tried to improve the lives of men?

Because of feminism, women have been able to get more jobs. Occasionally these jobs are well-paying. Even at 77% of what men make (Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/equal-pay/career), these jobs allow women to contribute to feeding their families. Men don't have to feel totally responsible for supporting their families. Women can help.

Without feminism, women would be stuck in the 19th century.

Are you familiar with The Declaration of Rights and Sentiments produced for the Woman's Rights Convention, Held at Seneca Falls, N.Y., July 19th and 20th, 1848. Here's a bit of it. I think you'll find it interesting.

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.

He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.

He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men—both natives and foreigners.

Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.

He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.

He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.

He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce; in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women—the law, in all cases, going upon the false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.

After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.

He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.

He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.

He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education—all colleges being closed against her.

He allows her in Church as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.

He has created a false public sentiment, by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.

He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.

He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation,—in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.

Meanwhile, it's obvious that you feel aggrieved and you probably have good reason.

In the first comment:

Yes, there have been many times throughout the course of history when the consensus has been incorrect - the earth revolving around the sun, for example. However, Just because we have examples of Consensus being incorrect, does not mean we should continually dismiss it as being incorrect.

The important thing to remember is that consensus is not enough. Consensus has to be something that you use as a first step, but can then back up with evidence. If the evidence doesn't match up, the Consensus is wrong, but this also depends on what evidence the consensus had to go on at the time. New evidence will change the consensus.

I think it is better to say "There is no such thing as science by consensus" rather than "There is no such thing as Consensus Science".

In the second comment:

Well that depends on what someone is trying to use his argument to say. If one is trying to say "Consensus isn't enough", then of course I agree. If someone is trying to say "Disagree just because it's the consensus", then I have to disagree, because that doesn't follow Crichton's argument.

If someone is saying "There's no such thing as a scientific consensus", then I also have to disagree because that's not really the point of what Crichton is saying. What he is saying, fundamentally is that "Just because something is a consensus doesn't mean it's correct, and so using consensus alone is insufficient evidence." Furthermore, he goes on to say that one person with verifiable evidence can "overrule" a consensus opinion. He's not wrong, but as they say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The reality is that this very rarely happens, and it is even rarer for new evidence to be found to actually be in contradiction of the consensus. Consensus changes very little in science because it is based on evidence.

There's your argument. It's a different interpretation of the quote. I'm going to make an assumption here (because you haven't made an argument of your own) and say that you're using the quote to say something like "Consensus in science doesn't work and should never be trusted". The gist of what I think coffeesp00ns is arguing is something like "Consensus science shouldn't always be trusted, but also not always be distrusted."

How's that?

I don't trust people, because I know myself.

I personally disagree that these issues surrounding pregnancy constitutes discrimination, as it is a matter complicated by many aspects, including (among others) the reality that the mother must carry the child, the gestation time being quite short in legal terms, and different moral and religious positions regarding abortion. But, as b_b commented below, the father's rights do not effectively end at conception. There are legal options regarding disputes of custody, and judicial discretion allows for consideration of individual circumstances. No doubt, some judges will undervalue the father's position, but in every aspect of law there are unfair outcomes. I don't see this area as particularly skewed, although it is one fraught with bias and divergent morals.

As for the selective service, I feel that it should either be phased out, or include woman as well. However, it did start in 1917, and was created by an all-male congress, so this could be seen as a self-imposed discrimination.

In fact, in both cases, IMO the current structures exist in large part due to a long-standing view of maleness that includes "manning up" and taking care of the baby, or defending one's country. I wouldn't consider these to be modern views, but those inherited from a time when to 'be a man' meant something that was defined largely by men, apart from ideas of sexual equality. We can change these laws to make them more fair, but I don't see their origins as anti-male, but rather in an out-dated view of maleness in large part defined by males of yesteryear.

Being a MRA basically means recognising that men are human beings and their rights are systematically being violated in Western countries.

This is probably the fourth most insulting thing I've read on the internet. I mean, I know you didn't mean it, but still. Damn.

As a matter of fact, the biggest MRA community in the world

The Internet, FTFY

I haven't even watched this film, and I'm a little mad about it.

This is dumb. You're being dumb. Stop being dumb.

The most that "feminism" - and those air quotes could have their own airport, they're so large - touches this movie is that it says "sex slave is bad, and freeing sex slaves is good."

Literally.

Like, that's it. You'd know if you watched the fucking movie.

I mean I guess you could say that part of it is Charlize Theron being a badass, but she was already in Aeon Flux so that's a moot point.

I remember reading that the director, George Miller, had invited the author of The vagina monologues on the set to indoctrinate the actors on the issue of violence against women - and I remember thinking "what the fuck?"

First of all, indoctrinate holy shit I'm dying. Second of all, they brought her on as a consultant for scenes where the actors would play sex slaves and rape victims.

Because she did work on that sort of thing.

In the Congo.

3 days.

Out of a six month shoot.

This is not the first time a director has ever done this.

Not only is your lack of self-reflection in regards to "Men's Rights" disturbing, but if you're going to shit on something, at LEAST do your research first.

Oh, but wait, if you did that you'd probably realize that being part of the MRA "movement" is fucking stupid neeeever mind~

This article has been bugging me for seven years.

See this pretty picture?

That's the JJ Puig room at Ocean Way... or it was. He pulled out about four years ago.

Buddy of mine? Yeah, he put it in.

___________________________________________________

For the record: this was an article about the Loudness Wars written in 2008, before Spotify, before anyone gave a shit about Youtube, before iTunes bought Beats, before Google Music, back when people still listened to the radio. And it had some points. Yes, production had gotten batshit. But back then, people still thought there was a hope in hell that the giant studios would somehow take things over again, thus the slavish "love the gear, want the gear, be the gear" rant . The author, by the way, sells overpriced, ringy shit at tradeshows that mostly appeal to kids that were four when the ADAT came out.

(I owned two)

The thing of it is, popular music has ALWAYS sounded the same. It's been so formulaic that those whacky kids from the KLF wrote a book about it.

#1 hits made by bands that explicitly admit they were literally following the book:

So quit blaming the technology. People write forgettable hits because people listen to forgettable hits and it doesn't matter if they're doing it on a wire recorder or a hit-shit Pro Tools system. Garbage In, Garbage Out and it isn't the fault of the shit that plugs into the wall if the people who plug into the stream have no goddamn taste.

And I can't quite explain why it all sounds the same... with no meaning...

And I don't understand why we throw up our hands without thinking

Cell phone in my pocket do you like it's the latest on the market

Heyyy how's it goin are you feelin' the love are you in the moment

Gotta keep movin' mustn't relax am I doin' this right?

Hair slicked with body and shine I don't eat much but I feel just fine

Every day the 14th

And one more for funsies (these were all for funsies but still.)

You're the Most Beautiful Girl (In the Room)

flagamuffin is correct: invite systems work where there is incentive to get behind the wall. With Facebook it was exclusivity. With Gmail it was functionality. With trackers it's content. With Hubski it's... what?

This is a solution looking for a problem. You end up with Google Glass this way.

It seems like the real question is "Who does Hubski want to attract?" and "invites" are suggested on the presumption that current users will be better able to affect that answer positively than Google will. However, there's nothing quite so silly as an invite-only club that offers zero benefits to its members.

The real real question is What does Hubski want to be? and I get the real sense that Team Hubski is attempting to answer this question iteratively.

Look at Hubski 3 years ago. Look at Hubski now. Project forward 3 years - do you like what you see? Great. Leave it alone. Do you notice some disturbing trends? 'K, brainstorm about how to address that. Do you sense an opportunity for improvement or expansion? Great. Maximize that.

There are cool tools in the world. I don't own a lot of them because I don't need them. Going invite-only seems a lot like buying a tool and then trying to find something to fix with it. Great fun for the handyman but everyone else has to deal with their leaky pipes being repaired with an air nailer.

(side note: I'm editing this like, all day long dudes, stay tuned)

My advice in the form of "I" statements.

I would read a lot of it. I would ignore a lot of what I read. I would make sure not to erroneously believe that all poetry is Wordsworth and Byron, aka I would read some Bukowski and Ferlinghetti for good measure. I would know that poetry does not have to rhyme. I would experiment. I would have fun. I would go out on a limb and write weird things that don't make sense. I would go for stream-of-consciousness. I wouldn't worry too much about reading too much poetry - but like I said, I'd try to read it if I was trying to get good at it.

I don't know. Pen to paper. You don't need a plot for a poem. Poems with plots are special kinds of poems; "narratives." A poem can just describe something.

I would read Frost and Dickinson. I would try to figure out what poets I hate, and then why. That is as much value as figuring out what you love in poetry and why and it has the benefit of being easier.

I would not embrace making mistakes, I would simply try not to quantify what I was writing in terms of "mistake" or "not a mistake." I would try and simply write to write and approach what I produced and its potential quality after the fact, maybe way after the fact. Don't worry about "good." Worry about - is it fulfilling? Is it enjoyable? Do you, maybe, learn new things about language or yourself while doing it? Are you pushing boundaries? Are you breaking every "rule"? (Don't expect things where you break all rules to be good, by any means, but break them anyway - to see what happens when you do.)

I would use the internet for prompts if I needed them. I would veer away from basing poems too much on one thing, like my internal emotions and whether or not I was feeling stable. I would not lie to myself about inspiration.

I would write a lot of list poems because list poems are fun.

I would read Lana Turner Has Collapsed!

Word to the wise: Miss things you can revisit. Cherish the memories of the things you can't.

This is why I miss the migas at the Portage Bay Cafe, the old growth cedars of Shadow of Sentinels, and the view of a sunset over Bellingham Bay. But I do not miss bouncing the floorboards at a club that no longer exists, the aching, impotent potential of 23 years old or the girl in Portland that just didn't work out.

TNG is right. The more you focus on that which is gone, the more you blind yourself to that which remains. Mourn, grieve, wallow and move on.