For the record, I’m feeling quite a bit more positive lately. I think taking classes that don’t point spotlights at the nasty unpleasant sides of humanity is generally beneficial for my outlook on things … something which I’ll bear in mind when selecting classes to take in the future…

You know … I think I’m becoming progressively more cynical and pessimistic. I find myself examining the motivations for the things I see a bit more often, and I am perceiving a lot more stuff as either meaningless hand-waving for the sake of funding, or just shameless self-promotion. I see less hope for change in the bad things that I see, and I see more of the bad things in my areas of interest.

Take 5 examples (because I say so!): computers, psychology, philosophy, politics, and relationships.

I used to have good hopes for what future incarnations of Windows would bring. I even entertained thoughts that maybe Microsoft was warming up to not being evil. And then, Microsoft installs Windows Genuine Advantage components on my system, as part of automatically-downloaded updates, even on volume-licensed copies of windows. Yeah, that’s right. My whole lab is now running the basic WGA components, and they got there without me interacting with the systems at all. Fortunately, vanilla dell boxes seem to get along with it just fine, but this new “feature” annoys the daylights out of me, and reminds me that Microsoft is, in fact, a corporate entity, and that as a corporate entity, the only ethical thing to do is discard common courtesy and basic regard for best practices for the sake of the bottom line, because as a corporation “ethical” means “strives to achieve the best possible profitability in order to protect the interests of the investors”.

And MS isn’t alone in this — since Google’s IPO, they’ve changed their stance from “don’t be evil” to “ehh, evil’s fine, as long as it’s profitable and doesn’t get people killed”. I recently got into a discussion with my roommate (that he very much didn’t want to have), because he felt compelled to respond when I insinuated that the moral codes which people hold to and the set of ethics by which Walmart governs itself are only concurrent when both of them involve maximum profit flowing into Walmart — which is to say, Walmart, like any publicly traded company, is not “moral” or “ethical” in the sense that people are. Something about the way I said it triggered his “but walmart has a corporate culture that …” response… I dunno.

See what I’m saying? Sweeping, nearly universal cynicism.

Back on computers, I’ve found that I passionately dislike the numerous flaws in every operating system that exists today, and have little hope that any of those flaws will be significantly improved upon in the near future (say … next 5 years). Linux sucks for ui usability, gui stability, dependence on the shell, ui consistency, and the best candidates for most apps in it are feature-poor, or are simply dirty hacks. Windows xp is mostly good, but MS seems to be pushing to make the next version of windows worse in almost every conceivable way while not actually addressing the numerous problems that XP could be better on. OS-X just … lacks good apps too, because the best apps (in many cases, the only apps) for a vast majority of tasks are either ports from linux, or ports from linux that run on X11. And the stuff that isn’t in that category is prefixed with “i” and will cost you $100-$200 or more to buy.

Now, none of that is saying that there’s not good in all of them. Windows is reasonably fast and very usable, and home to some excellent apps. Linux can be lightweight and powerful, and has some decent apps, even if they lack the features you’d expect. OS-X has a lot of great ui features. However, what I’m noticing about myself is that I’m gravitating towards the shortcomings, the sense of limitation, the sense of clumsiness and slowness that I get from trying to use them in ways that seem reasonable to me.

Even more, you could say something like “well, in a lot of those cases, you have the source, you could fix those problems” (since most of the apps I use on any platform tend to be open source anyway). But when you see the code output of one rusty, mediocre programmer … if you gave me a year and paid me a full-time salary to do it, I could maybe knock down some small number of the smaller annoyances on one platform. Software development isn’t a place for cowboys to ride in and shoot up the villains and ride back out, it’s a place for teams of engineers to converge on a set of problems and generate a solution. Because of that, I’m finding myself falling into a pessimistic mindset about the fixability of a lot of the problems I see. Rhythmbox won’t get any better at what it sucks at, because it’s wrapped up in gnome politics. xchat won’t get a frame model, because that’s not what xchat does. Nautilus will eventually get an svn plugin like tortoise, thanks to the NaughtySvn project, but … who knows when? I mean, who has that as a priority?

Psychology is another good example of the pervasive cynicism I’m feeling these days. The impression a lot of psych classes have given me in the past is a sense of “this is how things are” or “we know how this mechanism works” or “this is scientifically testable, at least”. Social psych changed all that. Looking at these various studies, I found the social psych research community to be fundamentally divided across every topic I looked at that was less than 100 years old. There’s half a dozen incompatible theories to explain one behavior pattern, and each of them stands up to the experimental verification of the effects that they predict, to varying degrees. They all differ by small nuances, and overlap in the fundamental (basic, objective) conditions, and where they overlap in other areas, they get “interaction effects” that aren’t isolated by research and aren’t consistently reproduced by other researchers … so you end up with a core set of truths and mechanisms, surrounded by a giant floating cloud of bullshit.

See, cynicism!

And philosophy? Taking a modern philosophy class (phil 303, intro to modern) taught me a valuable lesson: if you let half a dozen philosophers to independently explain the nature of something (anything, doesn’t matter what), and someone else has written about it before, those philosophers can each find some point at which they can say “I disagree with X’s assumption of Y, this isn’t self evident”. But rather than submitting their own work to the same degree of scrutiny, they’ll simply assert “however, this IS self-evident” and rattle off their own baseless and completely untestable assumptions, and build complex theories on that. And this has been going on since Aristotle got his hands on Plato. The net result is that philosophy (read: metaphysics) doesn’t explain anything and doesn’t accomplish anything meaningful, except to the extent that it finds the need for testable conclusions, at which point it gives way to science. Except, as we saw with social psych (and other social sciences, and some “hard” sciences), the mechanisms that scientists propose are often built on very little more basis in experimentally verifiable hypothesis than philosophy.

cyn-i-cism.

Politics, politics, politics. Polisci 130 is a horrible class for someone in the throes of a multi-semester-long cynical funk, because it’s taught with a strong emphasis on political perspectives, and tends to really go after the “realist” perspective and its consequences. At least, it has in the first two weeks. That’d be fine, except that “political realism” is precisely the same as cynicism. The idea behind the whole paradigm is that human nature is inherently greedy and territorial, and that as a result global anarchy and perpetual war is the natural, inescapable conclusion to world politics. Then you start looking at things like … political strategies and maneuvers. We just got an introduction to Machiavelli, as a core influence of some foundational American ideals (like, separation of church and state — that apparently is the direct consequence of Machiavelli’s philosophy). As a side note, I find it ironic and a little skewed that the “political realist” perspective is cynicism in a nutshell.

But even without the influence of the polisci class, I find my beliefs about politics in general largely aligned with Jon Stewart’s: I’m finding a lot of what goes on in the world to be pretty absurd. But not just in politics, not just in news. Even in daily life, even in science, even in academia … everything I see just smacks of absurdity, of failures of insight, of boring tedium, of greed and corruption.

So I’ve covered cynicism in computers and IT, psychology, philosophy, politics. I’ve saved the best for last: relationships.

I dunno, lately, I feel like the whole dating world is half “thrill of the hunt” and half “stupid power games”. You see sites like intellectual whores, with its characterization of women, and the whole “ladder” system… see how true it seems. That, coupled with my compelling lack of success in the relationship realm, which makes me pretty jaded and pessimistic there too…

So there you have it. Several good examples of my newfound pervasive, virulent cynicism.

But why is it that way? Am I just noticing for cynicism the way I’ve always been? Or is it actually progressing, getting worse? Is there a way to change it? To stem the tide? To drag myself out of the pits of relentless negativity? If so, what are they?

So, I got to thinking about the warm fuzzy feeling that science fiction usually gives … and the images it conjures up. Just one of those random trains of thought …

For some reason, I was thinking about names, which led to roses. “A rose by any other name smells just as sweet” … and the counter “but if it were named smelly-shitflower, you probably wouldn’t give it to your girlfriend.” But then, I don’t particularly care about roses … they get way too much attention, and they’re not very interesting as flowers go. Except for Rose Tyler … that Billie Piper is damned hot. Shame that Doctor Who is going to be without her … it’s just not going to be the same.

But that got me thinking … Doctor Who is characteristic of modern pop sci-fi. Not saying like, sci-fi literature (which is just a majorly broad realm), but in particular TV and movie sci-fi. What’s interesting is that, while it roots in some intrinsic sci-fi elements (alien races, time travel, dimension shifts and alternate universes, etc), it’s also got one of those specifically counter-scientific elements: psychic powers.

Now, in the universe as it seems to be, psychic powers make no sense, but that doesn’t stop the show from laying out the idea that humanity is in fact absolutely capable of attaining those powers, and using and recognizing them, etc. Which is why the “psychic paper” trick failed in the last episode of the 2006 season: “everyone at the institute has at least basic psychic training.”

Now, there’s nothing wrong with entertaining fantastic powers or anything, but it got me thinking … there’s another element to video sci-fi. There’s almost always a “mad scientist.” Someone who’s devoted his life to some insane cause that doesn’t make any sense to pursue, discarding what would be considered sane human values to do so. Always a guy working in his basement evil lab. Either that, or the science side of it is so far out of reach it’s simply not attainable.

Could it be possible that sci-fi fulfills people’s need for cognition, enabling them not to pursue real science? Maybe the sci-fi channel’s influence is helping to drive people away from scientific pursuits and polarize society into “sciency types” and “normal people” …

Some context: I was living in linux at home, after getting pissed off at powerdvd and vlc being uniformly unable to handle playing a dvd reasonably. Had been working in gentoo for about a month, and was taking Pol 130. Between working ~40 hours a week for the last couple months and coming home to deal with linux some more, I had about gotten my fill of sysadminning, and declared that I was going to have a “not-sysadminning evening” to somewhat compensate for the fact. Not that that really worked <_<. It seems like I'm really bad at not doing what I do.

Anyway, here’s the conversation. It’s … very random. Good fun though… if you’re into that sort of thing.

@Manick nothing can beat the awesome power of just going to the site and typing it into the search box
@Manick gotta love the format too
complich8 ….. got a problem with groff? =D
complich8 FUCK
@Manick wha?!
complich8 even when I’m explicitly not sysadminning
complich8 saying “I WILL NOT SYSADMIN”
complich8 i still get suckered into it
complich8 fucking hell
@Manick geez, scared the shit out of me
@Manick you never say fuck in caps lock, i thought the world was ending
complich8 I think the only way I’m going to be able to get away from it is to fucking turn off my computer
complich8 or maybe just boot back to fucking windows
@Manick something tells me there’s more to this
complich8 not really
complich8 but I’m going to start charging people when they ask me to fix their computers or be phone tech support or whatever
complich8 I swear
@Manick ah, i know that feeling.
complich8 you, at least, don’t already do it 40 hours a week <_<
@Manick yea, i started avoiding people that always asked computer questions…
@Manick at least stupid ones
complich8 I swear, the only damned conversations I have these days degrade to technobabble in minutes
@Manick :-/
complich8 it’s depressing
@Manick how about that plato? he was some guy wasn’t he
complich8 nah, plato was a fucking tool
@Manick lol
complich8 he wouldn’t speak his own mind, he had to put words into the mouth of socrates
complich8 no fucking balls at all
@Manick think he made most of socrates stories up?
complich8 historically unclear. However, nearly the whole body of his work is expressed in dialogues involving socrates and some poor sap that gets suckered by the arguments
complich8 which means that one of two things is the case
@Manick i know, i love reading plato…
@Manick it’s kinda funny
complich8 either plato had no original ideas at all, and it was all socrates
complich8 or socrates didn’t do much, just caused trouble, and plato was just deflecting criticism of his ideas onto a guy who was already dead
complich8 saying “I’m just repeating what this guy said”
complich8 ie: no fucking balls
@Manick :-/
@Manick he wrote the books.. in those days that took balls
@tw Hammering your cock with a mallet takes balls. Writing a book… not so much.
complich8 you could be thrown to the lions at the whim of the emperor of rome. you could be crucified for being a subversive for questioning the status quo. such is the great greek model of democracy
@tw That sounded like something lighttaker would say >.> I’m ashamed of myself.
@Manick lol tw
complich8 it’s true though
@Manick well
complich8 takes a bit more in the testicular fortitude department to actually publish it …
complich8 but even then, when you live in a world where your life can be ended at any moment at the whim of any around you with not even the real threat of consequences for them …
@Manick you get used to it?
complich8 I’d think so
@tw I would think you would learn to be cordial and how to use a sword.
@Manick lol tw
complich8 granted, there’s a certain element of the psychology of despair and desperation to be understood there …
complich8 yeah, exactly …
complich8 speak softly, and carry a sharpened lump of bronze
complich8 <_<
complich8 but yeah, I have a lot of disdain for Plato’s approach
* complich8 fires up “Jambi” for a bit of driving guitar
complich8 any other philosophers for me to explain my hatred for?
complich8 =D
@Manick lol
@Manick uhhhh
@Manick kant
complich8 hah
complich8 you don’t want to get me started on Kant
@Manick XD
complich8 fucker COULD NOT WRITE
complich8 SHOULD NOT WRITE
@Manick i didn’t like him either
complich8 SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS HANDS BROKEN, SO THAT HE WOULD BE PREVENTED FROM WRITING
complich8 sorry, just … he’s horrible
@Manick haha
complich8 also, his ideas are fucked
complich8 “Synthetic a priori knowledge” … ok, that’s well and good, and I get it
complich8 but …. terminology?
complich8 I mean … yikes
@Manick what like
@Manick a priori and a posteriori
@Manick or whatever
@Manick and synthetic?
@Manick yea…
complich8 and the fact that it took him 45 pages to explain an idea that should have taken two sentences
complich8 ok, synthetic a priori knowledge is 3 things put together
complich8 knowledge needs no explanation
complich8 a priori is stuff that can be derived from itself, from the self-evident truths of logic
complich8 and synthetic is basically Kant’s term for “meaningful”
complich8 it means that the knowledge means something, has real enlightening capacity and significance
@tw Sounds redundant
complich8 so synthetic as opposed to analytic
complich8 not really
complich8 he spent a lot of time on whether it was possible to have synthetic a priori cognition — that is, given the rules of the logic and nothing else, was it possible to get meaningful new information out of it
complich8 it’s really just a question of are there new ways to combine the basic building blocks, or is the number of possible meaningful combinations of them finite …
complich8 he built this complex argument about how it was possible, because formal logic hadn’t changed between Aristotle’s original formulation of it and his writing
complich8 but then new rules were derived about some cases of formal logic, which somewhat invalidated his conclusion that logic was a “complete” discipline
complich8 pretty much tore the foundation out from under his argument
complich8 anyway, he was too hung up on the whole a priori thing, like all Christian philosophers of the early modern period
complich8 he couldn’t accept any worldview which didn’t strictly anchor the universe in an absolute God-derived … somethingness
@Manick hmm
complich8 what that somethingness was … well … varied by philosopher
@Manick yea.. i didn’t like that god-derived thing
@Manick the moral thing
complich8 that’d be the reason I hate Catholicism =D
complich8 because for ~1000 years, the roman catholic empire enforced what amounted to the most destructive time in the history of intellectualism since the birth of written language
@Manick heh
complich8 an anti-intellectualism which, I might add, is STILL prevalent in the modern world, even nearly 500 years after the end of what we call the “dark ages”
@Manick because they’re holier than thou
complich8 we’re still IN the dark ages, it’s just that there’s a vigilant resistance fighting, holding candles up and trying to stave back that darkness
@anonymous_object …
@anonymous_object we are not in a “dark age”
@Manick compy, if you don’t write a book in at least 20 years for now, i will kill you.
complich8 heh
complich8 got a reaction at least =D
complich8 why do you say non, anonymous_object
complich8 just because the resistance has had a good century or two?”
@Manick isn’t anti-intellectualism a post industrial theory
@anonymous_object we live in times of never before seen rate of growth in many areas… science, social structures, religious views, etc…
@Manick i was just thinking of that
complich8 that’s true
@tw quantum mechanics, welfare, pastafarianism…
complich8 but that benefits what … 20% of the world’s population, roughly
@anonymous_object well, china has what percent of the world’s people?
complich8 meanwhile the life expectancy in a lot of the “third world” (or “global south”) is roughly what it was 500 years ago
@anonymous_object and even they are making great advances in science
complich8 china has about 1 billion people, about 1/6 of the world’s population
complich8 and their great advances in science benefit the upper class, and slowly grow the middle class, but the poor in china are no better off now than they were under the Ming or any other old dynasty
complich8 except that now they’ve got toxic groundwater
complich8 <_<
@tw I don’t think it’s fair to expect the entire world to be affected by a societal movement, or at least not to use that expectation to classify the world as being in a “dark age”.
@tw Otherwise we’ve never not been in a dark age.
complich8 I’m not saying it’s not getting better or there’s not hope
complich8 but if you look at the attitude of the upper class towards the very things that make them (or I guess, us?) the upper class …
complich8 there’s an incredible preponderence of the opinion “I don’t even want to know how it works”
@Manick so
@Manick that theory i was talking about…
@Manick we’re all going to regress is what you’re saying?
complich8 nope
complich8 I think we’re going to be fine
complich8 as long as intellectuals keep holding candles
complich8 and as long as the people who would see them stop don’t find ways to make them
@tw Hmm, is there no way to ensure knowledge is retained?
complich8 think of alexandria
complich8 how much knowledge, how much history and technology was burned there?
@tw Burned sacked and burned. Yay crusades?
@tw Or punic wars? I can’t remember.
@tw In any case, far too much.
complich8 wiki points to 4 possible times …
complich8 now let’s get a little tinfoil-hat action going on
complich8 say congress hands over control of the internet to telecom companies, in typical congressional style
complich8 and say the telecoms decide that it’s not profitable enough and they’re not realizing enough real revenue off of it … say in 50 years
@tw So they break it up into small shards and global communication dies with it.
@anonymous_object nah, other companies would pick up the slack
@anonymous_object and congress would never let the internet die
complich8 congress now wouldn’t, but they would damage it, and they would hand it over to the people who pay for their campaigns
@anonymous_object look at google… buying miles of fiber…
@anonymous_object the internet isn’t something that can be so easily controlled as such
@tw Uh, does google peer with anyone or is that a private link?
@anonymous_object and it’s important enough to the people that they wouldn’t let it happen
complich8 I don’t necessarily think that’s true
complich8 other countries segment the network heavily already
complich8 “the great firewall” stuff, etc …
@tw can’t you push encrypted traffic through most firewalls?
complich8 and how about india’s democratic government banning blogging …
complich8 if the firewalls let it happen, yes
@anonymous_object well, we may have small problems with congress and the internet… like allowing at&t to tap connections… but I really dount anything as severe as the internet dying or becoming truly segmented would ever happen
complich8 you know iptables, you know you can do protocol-level filtering pretty easily :p
@anonymous_object most people don’t care too much about the NSA tapping their connections
@Manick hopefully EFF gets to the bottom of that one anon
complich8 the thing is, it doesn’t have to happen now
@tw Well yeah, I know I can *do* it, but most people need that functionality.
complich8 the other piece isn’t in place now
@anonymous_object but if they lose internet connectivity altogether, they will take action
complich8 most people just want entertainment
complich8 and convenience
complich8 I’m not saying it’s going to happen, I did say “tinfoil-hat” up there :-p
@tw All you have to do is give the wrong people control of a few key resources and you can make a huge mess of things.
complich8 but let’s say it does. let’s say there’s the remotest possibility, that in the times that constantly change, in the changing worldviews that we have, that the Internet is basically broken down
@anonymous_object well, then I guess we’ll go back to smaller localized networks like the BBS days
complich8 and let’s say that intellectual property gets worse, that the protections of the copyright act become further eroded, such that it becomes illegal to access copyrighted information without paying for it
@anonymous_object those days were fun
complich8 ie: libraries are shut down, and you have to purchase information from official channels if you want to learn things
@tw smaller networks mean fragmentation of knowledge and replication of effort. =/
@tw life without wikipedia/google/etc would suck.
@anonymous_object that’s true, but people are able to effectivly communicate without the internet
@anonymous_object there are many other means
complich8 sure
complich8 but does that mean the knowledge will be retained?
@anonymous_object sure
complich8 life without google/wikipedia/etc would suck
complich8 but life without google/wikipedia/etc, and without libraries?
@anonymous_object it may not be as easily assesible
@anonymous_object well, I honestly cannot ever see the demise of libraries
complich8 I think it’s definitely a stretch to say that the world would go that far
@anonymous_object that would require such a giant step back it’s almost not possible
@tw A lot of important OSS projects would die.
complich8 but I don’t think it’s truly impossible
complich8 just hard
complich8 very very hard
@Manick what if they figure out how to make perfect 3d (where it looks and feels like you’re moving around like we are…) in a computer simulation, and then they put the library in there
@tw We could enter a new regime and start over with the book burning.
@Manick >:)
complich8 I think that the presence of the Internet as an open medium, and the presence of good, well-maintained libraries puts a definite block in the gates, propping them open
complich8 but I don’t think it’s _really_ impossible that they could be closed
complich8 just pretty damned hard
complich8 again, it’s hard to see the sea change that 50 or 100 years can bring though
complich8 will your kids see the value of libraries, growing up with the convenience of the Internet?
complich8 will their kids, with ubiquitous computing?
@anonymous_object heh
@anonymous_object kids already don’t care about libraries
complich8 exactly :-p
@anonymous_object well, libraries in the b&m sense
@Manick i used to rent movies there….
@anonymous_object not the access of knowledge sense
complich8 but in the absence of a functioning Internet, the B&M sense IS the access to knowledge sense
@anonymous_object people would never willingly give that… that could only happen through force… i.e. a dictatorship or something
complich8 again, is that such a hard thing to imagine?
@anonymous_object and for a country like the US, that is hard to imagine
@anonymous_object sure, we have problems with copyrigths and IP, but that’s a far cry from removing libraries
complich8 I think people will continue to devalue libraries though
complich8 in a couple generations, we might see public funding of libraries dry up
@anonymous_object well, that would just be the result of moving our storage of knowledge from books to computers
@tw That’s dangerous.
@anonymous_object true
complich8 I don’t think the IP front will kill libraries, and I like to think that people are not so shortsighted that they wouldn’t see the value of physical libraries enough to keep them around
complich8 but on the same token, it’s already hard for a lot of libraries to even get operating costs from their governments
@anonymous_object yeah… that is becoming a problem
complich8 I think people are putting other things first to a greater and greater extent …
@anonymous_object I don’t think so
complich8 people would rather see a half a million dollars thrown at resurfacing a moderately travelled road than seeing half a million dollars thrown at a library expansion
@anonymous_object they are just changing where they obtain the desired information
complich8 you’re giving a lot of people a lot more credit than I would …
complich8 a lot of “the proles” if you will aren’t looking for “desired information”
@tw Maybe. Or maybe the kind of information they desire has changed? or that they no longer care about that information?
@anonymous_object yes, people read less books now…
@anonymous_object but does that mean people are less knowledgable now?
@tw “the internet is for porn =P”
complich8 haha!
complich8 that’s MY kind of desired information >_>
complich8 err ….
@anonymous_object >_<
@anonymous_object well… yeah…. people are very busy… and have less time for leisure reading…. something that used to be common
@tw I don’t think we’re as knowledgable as we were some time ago… Easy access to information has made me much better at finding the information and less talented at retaining it… at least from the internet.
complich8 anonymous_object: I disagree
complich8 it’s not that they have less time for leisure reading
complich8 it’s that they choose to spend their leisure time doing things that aren’t reading
@tw It’s all the Wowcrack’s fault.
complich8 sure, there are a lot of people putting in more hours at work
complich8 but hell, my grandparents put in their 70 hour workweeks farming, and they still made time to read things
complich8 what people do for entertainment has shifted
complich8 and shifted very deeply
@anonymous_object yes, that’s true
complich8 I mean … look at average TV-viewing times and you see that pattern pretty clearly … it’s not for lack of time
@anonymous_object exchange of information has become much easier and faster though
complich8 the same is true of a lot of family and community detachment
@anonymous_object what would require reading a whole book 20 years ago can be obtained by a quick search online
complich8 it’s easy to live a happy life if you’re low in need for cognition …
@tw ie, ignorance is bliss… but that doesn’t make you better off.
complich8 and I would argue that the combination of assembly-line education and ease of acquiring answers erodes need for cognition
complich8 hell, a couple minutes ago I wiki-searched the library of alexandria
@anonymous_object yes, I can see that
complich8 and now I know enough about it to talk about it
complich8 there’s no deep knowledge there, no evaluation, no real thought …
@anonymous_object people obtained very specific information now….
@anonymous_object *obtain
complich8 just … here’s a fact-byte that supports my claim
complich8 and I’m someone who’s extremely high in need for cognition … I’m extremely cerebral, spending countless hours thinking about random stupid shit
complich8 (as anyone who reads my blog can readily determine :-p)
complich8 I’d argue that you guys are about the same as me, or you wouldn’t be in this conversation …
complich8 but we all do that … convenience truncates what could be depth …
@tw I’m well on my way to being just-another-prole >_>
complich8 hah
complich8 don’t worry, we all are =D
@tw I give thought but I don’t have the breadth of knowledge I need to make accurate decisions on a variety of things.
@anonymous_object 12:30… I should go to bed
complich8 bah
@tw I should waste more of my life watching anime.
@anonymous_object :: Yoko Kanno – Raj Ramayya / Strangers (Wolf’s Rain) (k a w a i i – r a d i o | sr1 anime/japanese radio | http://kawaii-radio.net ) :: http://server3.kawaii-radio.net:8000 :: 17:49 ::
complich8 but this could be an awesome neverending conversation! =D
@anonymous_object that’s what I’m afraid of
@tw We’ll be the old men talking about how things might change when they already have =p
@anonymous_object
complich8 anyway, yeah …. what I’m saying is that it’s possible, just possible, that the darkness hasn’t been completely beaten back
complich8 and you see that creeping back out, trying to strangle a candle here or there
@tw Knowledge is a form of order. By the second law of thermodynamics, it requires energy to maintain XD
complich8 man … Manick ducked out of this like half an hour ago too
@tw Yeah he did.
complich8 fucking lazy prole
@anonymous_object he’s a n00b
complich8 anyway, I should probably just let it go for now too … I’ve got like 30 more pages of my polisci text to skim for a quiz tomorrow
complich8 mostly about the IMF and globalization <_<