Friday, July 29, 2016

Voting With Kindness, Six Degrees Voting

Hi! Zappy Friday!

Hug! Here, have a hug!

Hugs and kindness are not two things we generally associate with politics and voting. It is never to late to start, eh?

Voting has gotten especially mean this election cycle?

Are you a Trump voter? Are the non-Trump voters being nice to you?

Are you a 3rd party voter? Are the non-Trump voters bullying you?

I have stated in a previous blog post that  morally you should always vote your vote. Don't let yourself be bullied.

Bullying is especially troublesome this election because of Trump. Trump voters are getting bullied and non-Clinton voters such as myself are getting bullied. And the irony is that the bullying is being done by the crowd promoting an anti-bullying agenda.

Why aren't people being kind to each other when it comes to politics?

The answer is obvious, plain for all to see. Politics and being mean are human nature. It is who we are. Political meanness is the norm for all cultures. This means political kindness and subsequent voting kindness needs a likewise human nature solution.

Anything that is hard-wired in our human nature can be thought of as systemic. This puts politics and voting square in the sights of Irreni World Scale. Irreni World Scale addresses systemic failures, not policy failures. Irreni uses the very best of human nature and human systems understanding to bring about the outcomes desired by political policy.

Policy politics and systemic politics are the two sides of the coin of politics. One side cannot exist without the other. The reason for the very existence of political systems is only to bear fruit for political policy. Political policy represents our common dreams, our common purpose and our differing liberties. Some people like guns, some don't, differing liberties.

Human systems are not computer systems. We are not designed to do repetitive tasks day-in and day-out the way a 2u web server sits as one of millions in a 42u rack just happily serving along.

Nope. We humans need to give ourselves direction. This, by the way, needs to be the modern definition of free will. Free will as currently defined to mean all decisions are made equally with simply thoughts doesn't exist. Those with mental health and drug addiction problems are being gunned down in the streets of America with impunity by the police. And to me the ugliest and meanest part is are the people who demonize those with mental health and drug problems by calling them thugs, criminals, etc. We are all human. Everyone's will to make decisions is limited, but we all have a craving to give ourselves direction as opposed to being ordered about, tyranny and oppression.

So, if the politics of meanness is baked into our very nature then is it even possible to change political meanness to political kindness???

Sure, because political meanness is a symptom and not a cause. The root cause of the Trump versus Clinton national meanness is the fundamental gap between our evolved empathy. If you met the average Trump supporter or average Clinton supporter under normal settings then the odds are you'd get along with them when not discussing politics. The disconnect is  human empathy not being able to cross tribal boundaries effectively.  Evolution of human empathy to a large scale is too slow to match the pace of technological advancement's imperative of recently requiring global empathy due to global awareness and communication.

So the solution is to recognize that limitations of empathy are the fundamental systemic problem of which political meanness at the large scale is only a symptom. This problem can be further described in terms of moral relativism. A Christian country varies greatly in morals and norms relative to any Muslim or Hindu country. And yet any tragedy of hundreds of innocent people dying sparks universal empathy...some times.


Suspected U.S. coalition strikes kill 56 civilians in IS-held Syrian city: monitor


At least 56 civilians were killed on Tuesday in air strikes north of the besieged Islamic State-held city of Manbij in northern Syria, and residents said they believed the attack was carried out by U.S.-led warplanes, a monitoring group said.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the dead included 11 children, and that dozens more people were wounded. 

Here are a couple of questions for you:
  1. Where is the world empathy for these 56 civilians? 
  2. Where is the US outcry by the media and citizens for civilians being killed by military operations?
The systemic problem with human nature is our empathy doesn't scale. When it does scale then it does so with what appears to be random and capricious manifestation.
 
Irreni World Scale works with the very best understanding of human nature as we know it today to manage human nature, to manage empathy. The science of human nature is then used to create social experiments to be scaled up and out. Irreni experiments require protocols, objectives, observation, data collection and assessment at all points along the way as does any scientific experiment.

Voting with kindness is such an experiment. The voting with kindness initiative is to be conducted like all experiments in science and smaller scale experiments conducted and proven out before larger scale experiments are tried.

So what is voting with kindness? How does voting with kindness optimize our empathy to maximize global empathy to the greatest extent possible?

The answer is a complete revamping of voting founded upon the following principals:

  1. The Device of  Loving Life, or DOLL. Just this week Apple sold its one billionth iPhone. A few years ago the planet Earth had produced more cell phones than people on this planet. The DOLL is a smart phone device required to be given freely to every single Earthling. Everyone should have the right to all the information and education of humanity via the Internet that the world can muster. We owe it to everyone to empower everyone with the best information and education possible.

  2. The Vote Bank. The Vote Bank requires the DOLL. It doesn't work unless everyone has a smart phone. The vote bank turns the concept of voting on its head. Instead of casting a vote at a particular time and that vote disappears forever then the vote bank uses vote deposits. This is the same concept as a bank and your checking account. When you deposit money in your checking account that deposit stays there until you remove it. The same applies to the vote bank. When you deposit your vote in the vote bank then  that vote stays there until you remove it. No more need for primaries. Once any election, like say the Presidential election, is over then the very next day everyone changes their vote to whom they want in the next election. Votes are always on deposit.

  3. Public Voting. The Vote Bank votes on deposit are publicly available for everyone to see. Before you get your back up about your vote being public exposing people to harassment, please read the rest of this post.

  4. Six-Degrees Voting. Originally I was going to call this graph voting. But hey, how many people would relate to that. However, six-degrees voting refers to a movie starring Kevin Bacon. Who doesn't like Bacon? :-). Some Canadian, some Canuck, did research in the 1990s to show that everyone on planet Earth knows any one else on planet Earth via six people association. For example, I had a friend who went to high school with Michele Obama. Michele Obama is married to Barak Obama. Therefore I know Barak Obama through two-degrees: my friend and Michele. Six-degrees is important because the number six squares with our empathy scale. We can all relate to six people, but not 7 billion people. Six-degrees voting then states that you can only vote for people you know. In other words if I wanted to vote for say Barak Obama for President then I do not vote for Barak, but I vote for my friend. My friend votes for Michele Obama, who then votes for Barak. In an election then Barak would would tally all of our votes, or three.

    Six-degrees voting mitigates the possible threats and harassment of public voting because you can only vote for who you know.

    In order to for six-degrees voting to be effective then the graph or connections of the degrees of voting need to be visible to everyone. This way you know which friend to vote for if you want to vote for Trump or Clinton. Who your friends are can be kept secret so no one has to know who you are connected too unless you actually vote for them.

    Experiment protocols should test the number of people one can claim to know needs to be managed so as to avoid celebrities having one million people claiming to know them, like on Twitter or Facebook. The easiest way to do this would be to put a hard cap of like thirty as a maximum number of people known in a six-degrees pool. Another requirement might be that both parties have to claim they know each other and then once they do so this claims one of their six-degrees connection friends.

    Again, Irreni is about experiments. How six-degrees voting plays out will vary much be trial-and-error and will probably vary by culture and society.

     

  5. Corruption Voting. There are two controversial ideas that I always get major push-back from when it comes to discussing voting with kindness; public voting and corruption voting. Corruption voting is the hardest to convince people to accept. Here goes.

    Corruption is a part of human nature. We will never be without corruption until such a time as genetic engineering eliminates it from us. That hasn't happened yet so we must account for corruption.

    John Adams wrote extensively about the importance of managing corruption in is notes on the Constitution of Massachusetts as well as the US Constitution. Adams took Cicero's advice to heart where Cicero stated democracy in Rome fell because the system was contingent on purity and had no room for corruption. Politicians were expected to be perfect humans. Cicero advised any subsequent democracies to allow for corruption but promote the good in all people. Adams take away was to emphasize a system of checks and balances. I think what most people fail to realize what is being checked and balanced in our Federal system, viz-a-viz power corrupted.

    The best way to mitigate corruption is to turn corruption into white noise, or steam to be blown off if you will. Congress can pass all kinds of corrupted laws that can eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court, check and balance.

    It has long be observed as John Adams once said, "whoa be the day the voters realize they can vote themselves money."

    Corruption voting nips voters voting themselves money in the bud by letting the people with money directly buy the votes of voters. Corruption voting enables voters to be paid directly for their vote, rather than indirectly being manipulated via the billions spent on media ads. Wouldn't you rather have the billions being spent on the media ads rather  than be influenced by obnoxious TV ads?

    The way corruption voting undermines corruption and thereby corrupting corruption is by cancelling out vote buys by creating vote bidding wars.

    This is accomplished because Irreni corruption voting very much relies on the Vote Bank, the DOLL and Public Voting. Anyone selling their vote must make the vote buy public, including the amount. This will start a bidding war and especially the closer it gets to election day. The benefit of this type of corruption is that the corruption money is not indirectly voters voting themselves money via candidates and parties, but directly giving money to voters. This is a win-win. A win because voters get paid and who doesn't want money? A win because the bidding war will cancel out competing interests in vote buying. Bidding wars tend to end up the way gas prices do, an even distribution given even money used in bidding. Rich people will have the distinct advantage but won't be rich for long if the spend very much of that money. Today rich people have their cake and eat it too because they can influence millions of people with little cash spent. Try that with vote buying.

    Today voters voting themselves money have to do so in voting blocks. Republican voters have long accused Democratic voters of voting themselves money by voting for Democratic representatives who promise handouts. Political parties then are huge voting blocks and cabals that have real power as a block. But, if the voters voting themselves money do so at the individual level by selling their vote directly then the vote blocks won't matter, the highest bidder will. And there will be a lot of bidders, not just two parties.

    Another corruption of corruption aspect of corruption voting is that the people who allow their votes to be bought will be made public. Those in society who believe such vote casting is immoral have an opportunity to now appeal to those who sell their vote directly, perhaps by creating policies and programs that address the underlying causes. 
All of the above voting changes when taken together represent innovative new voting techniques that optimizes voter turnout and corrupts corruption. Now, can I say this will work for sure? No. What I can say is that the design of the experiment outlined above is based upon the science of our very best understanding of human nature today. And that is the right place to start.

Why does voting with kindness promote kindness and mitigate meanness? Because you vote for who you know. It is much easier to demonize a stranger than it is to demonize a friend or family. This plays into our empathy strength, our evolutionary empathy limits by voting for who you know. You are far more likely to be kind to a friend and family member you vote for. Voting with kindness.

Cheers!

Politics as Science!

Demand Irreni World Scale!

Anti-theism is feminism!  

Think disruption!

Empathy for all!

Moral relativity: think it, breath it!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!

















Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Always Vote Your Vote

Hi! Happy Wednesday!

Let us do some positive thinking, always vote your vote.

What is Democracy? Voting for who you want. Anyone telling to not vote 3rd party is a bully and anti-Democracy. Being a bully and being anti-Democracy is negative thinking. Always voting who you want is Democracy. Easy peasy.

So that is positive thinking. The voters who voted for Ralph Nader in 1999 did not elect Bush. They elected Ralph Nader. This is no different than the people who voted for Bush elected Bush.

The heart and soul of Democracy is your vote. Don't  undermine Democracy voting for someone you do not want to vote for.

Let us examine some of the claims made by the vote bullies.
  1. A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. No, a vote for Nader was a vote for Nader.
  2. The assumption is that Ralph Nader voters would have otherwise voted for Al Gore. The funny thing is, there is no proof of this given, ever. 
  3. Low voter turn out, not Al Gore votes. The US has low voter turn out, even in Presidental election years.  The reason I bring this up is because of the assumption that Ralph Nader voters would have otherwise voted for Al Gore is wrong. In the shaming department who should be shamed more: the people who didn't vote or those who voted? Given this then the Nader voters had two choices: not vote or vote Nader. The voter turn out even in Presidential election years is weak tea and supports a claim that shaming third party voters will only decrease voter turn out and not increase Al Gore votes is every bit as valid as saying Ralph Nader voters elected Al Gore. Neither claim is backed by any evidence whatsoever.
  4. Congress has a 9% approval rating and 90% incumbency rate. There is more than just the President. Studies have show that votes cast for Congress are influenced greatly by who people believe is going to be elected President. 
  5. Life is a feedback loop. If people think Trump is going to win then Congressional votes will lean more Democratic. That is a scientific proven fact. If people think Clinton is going to win them Congressional votes will lean more Republican. 2000 was not just a year the nation elected a Republican president. It was also a year we elected a Republican Congress and Republican President. People were fed up with the Democrats. The Democrats failed miserably and not because Al Gore lost, but because they lost it all. It would take six years for that to change. People who argue about Nader being a vote for Bush never take into account how unpopular the Democrats were in 1999. Republicans won not only the Federal elections, but the State elections as well: governors and legislations. Democrats were the biggest failures last decade. Al Gore was not going to change that. Republicans still hold the vast majority of State governor and legislature offices to this day.
  6. Congress is every bit as important at the President, if not more so. 
  7. No one can predict the future. No one knows how Congress and Al Gore would have responded to 9/11. In fact no one even knew 9/11 was going to happen 1999. No one knows how Trump or Clinton is going to act. No one. Perhaps if Al Gore had been President after 9/11 the war would have been worse because the minority Democrats in Congress would have been more inclined to go along with warmongering Republicans because Al Gore is a Democrat. Perhaps Al Gore would have been defeated in re-election in 2004 and someone much worse than Bush would have been elected, like say Donald Trump. No one can predict the future. 
  8. Parties are not candidates. Voting the lesser of two evil parties has gotten us into this mess.
In a recent post I suggested a Constitutional amendment so as to ban political parties outright from being recognized by the Federal and State governments. But that was just a thought exercise because that's never going to happen  as neither political party would approve of removing their power.

So what can we do to change the 9% approval rating and 90% incumbency rate in Congress?

The solution is easy. Do not vote for either the Democratic or Republican candidate ever again in your lifetime.

Instead just write in a friend's name, someone you know, someone you trust. If only 1% of the US population did this then a movement would begin. If such voting of your friend took off as a thing then perhaps 10%, 20%, 30%, etc would elect friends. Eventually the political party candidates would have to take notice. Of course your friend would not get elected because your friend would only have a couple of votes. But a message loud and clear would be sent to the powers that be, the establishment. We are not happy. And who knows, as the friend votes took off then maybe, just maybe other parties could rise up to challenge the non-Constitutional stranglehold the two parties have on this country for no reason other than we put up with it.

So, always vote your vote. That's Democracy. Anything else is a subversion, perversion and undermining the very idea of Democracy by supporting the oligarchy in control of the two political parties.

There is something else about volunteering to vote for someone other than a Democrat or Republican. It is us, we the people, speaking. It is not an action enforced by an act of law such as a Constitutional amendment banning political parties being recognized by government.  And that is something we need to do. We need to start exercising our power as people without relying on the government. If we did that then the stranglehold the parties and elite have on this country would be broken. We the people could realize our ability to act in unison voluntarily. Grass roots would have a real meaning then.

Politics as Science!

Demand Irreni World Scale!

Anti-theism is feminism!  

Think disruption!

Empathy for all!

Moral relativity: think it, breath it!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!















Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Grace Without God: An Open Letter to Katherine Ozment

Hi! Happy Wednesday!

This blog post is an open letter to Katherine Ozment, author of "Grace Without God: The Search for Meaning, Purpose, and Belonging in a Secular Age". I'm attending your book signing tonight, read your book and have some thoughts to share. All good. No worries. There is nothing angry or hostile. It is all good.

Well met! 


First let me say I really enjoyed the book. Especially the first half that details personal experiences in your life. The first half of this book is a much needed story for any and all into a modern life grappling with being non-religious all the while valuing religion and questioning missing out on those religious benefits. We need a lot more of these stories. Hopefully your book will encourage others to do so.

Second, the second half was not as compelling for me. Well met! with the second half as well but personally the survey of secular institutions is covered ground as I have studied these on my own.

One thing I did note as a gap in secular religious experience is something I call "the one shot", or retreat. I was expecting to find included one of the most highly touted retreats in all of Northern California: Esalen. I've read quite a few secular personal narratives here in California regarding doing the one-week of silence retreat. It is quite the common narrative in secular society to have a religious experience going on such a retreat. Other such retreats are an African safari and travel in general. Perhaps if you come out with a second edition you can include such a section. I know I would appreciate it.

The Title?

Who picked your title? Was it the publisher? I found "Grace Without God" a puzzling choice. First, I doubt most non-religious and religious readers have a definition of grace that is meaningful as to the intent of the title. If it were not for today's book signing in San Jose I would have passed on this book assuming grace was hostile to the secular community.

The use of the word god is also a puzzling choice. First, it smacks of an attitude of  dismissive towards polytheists. Second, it equates or defines god and religion as synonymous. Now there are some rather archaic dictionaries that define religion to be god, but then that excludes Buddism among others and is generally no longer accepted.

Personally I would encourage a more enticing title such as "Culture Without Religion." The main thrust of your book is that religion has a fundamental history with respect to community; making religion synonymous with culture. What happens when religion is no longer synonymous with culture? weddings? funerals? births? I think you'd sell more books with the title "Culture Without Religion".

Finally, I am someone who passingly studies modern anthropology and cognitive sciences. It is common in modern anthropology to equate culture with religion because so much of culture is religion: art, food, dance, tradition, morals, norms and mores.  So, to me "Culture Without Religion" is much more compelling.

The Role of Technology

I'm in the one-tenth of non-religious population looked over in your book: I am a self-proclaimed atheist as well as self-proclaimed anti-theist.

In the words of Spock channelling eons of philosophers in history, "Each according to their own gifts." I have no religious experience. None. I have never had any of the profound questions that you grapple with in the book in regards to religion versus non-religion. Christopher Hitchens is a personal hero of mine, even if he was completely wrong about the war in Iraq.

But, I have no desire to regale you from the anti-theist perspective such as humans existed 200,000 years before the advent of monotheism. That is not my gig.

Daniel Dennet and Steven Pinker? 

 

Something profoundly missing from your book is the role technology has played in the demise of religion. You included Daniel Dennet but not his treatise on the Internet's undermining of religion? I found that odd and striking?

I also found it odd that with your Harvard pedigree and the number of Harvard professors surveyed in your book that you did not include the Canuck? You got something against Canadians? Ha! Just kidding. So where was Steven Pinker? There was no mention of his seminal book, "The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial of Human Nature"?

There is a reason I bring this up. Your entire book smacks of being very religious in its framing: you promote only a single model of human nature in culture. That is now known to be totally inadequate. The very reason religion is on the ropes today is precisely because religion claims the mantle of community with only a single model of humanity; large swaths of the community are left out and even rejected. This fact also undermines all claims about any ongoing efficacy of religion as a desired required mechanism at all.

But then I'm an anti-theist. <3

Automobiles, Telephones, Televisions and Indoor Plumbing

I first started my foray into modern anthropology by taking a class of the same said name at community college. Modern anthropology is a broad discipline that ties together other disciplines such as sociology and cognitive sciences.

One of the first papers that I read is about the role cars, telephones, televisions and indoor plumbing played in ripping asunder the modern community, the modern family. Did you know that the concept of the stranger is one of the most common and important concepts in all of culture everywhere and every time? And yet by the 1960s the concept of a stranger in America had all but been wiped out. Why?

One reason why is that cars allowed men to leave their families. Prior to 1910 the "no fault" divorce did not exist. After 1950 the "no fault" divorce began to be implemented in all the states. Studies showed that men could up and leave their families, typically crossing state lines, and start a new family overnight. This phenomena became so pervasive that judges had to come up with a remedy for the wives left behind: the no fault divorce.

This is just one affect automobiles have had on families.

Telephones and television allowed women to compare notes, it empowered women. Studies showed that men regularly lied to their wives about their subservient duties being common place in every household. The advent of the telephone allowed women to compare notes. The advent of the television allowed for community standards and expectations of the women's role to be established.

There is an absolutely fascinating study done about marriages during and after WWII. Turns out that by the 1940s women in America had already fundamentally begin to shift their expectations to what we think of today. Soldiers were marrying Japanese women with the expectation that the Japanese women would properly behave as bio-slaves, doing chores and things without question. What the study discovered is that on average after seven years of exposure to western culture, telephones and television, then Asian women no longer were so content to be the compliant bio-slaves.

The technology genie is out of the bottle. Many, many studies have been done to show such things as home appliances enabled women to work, freeing them from hours of home duties. This completely erases all religious models of family. Another study showed that the microwave oven contributed greatly to the demise of the family meal and consequently put a huge nail in the family unit coffin in America.

I do not understand how this was all missing from your book? We can never go back. The technology genie is out of the bottle. Religion and its  culture of pre-technology is dead, but not because of any argument that gods may or may not exist, but because religious culture pre-dates technology.

This is another reason why a title, "Culture Without Religion", is so important. The modern culture with all its technology is upon us. Fundamental rifts have been created in the very fabric of culture such as the elimination of the concept of stranger. There is no going back. There is no holding us back.  Wishful thinking about maintaining archaic religious cultures is just that: wishful. Pornography is a phenomena previously unknown to religion and one that religion cannot answer. We need to upgrade. So much of our culture today is unique to our time and unprecedented in human experience that we need to wipe the culture slate clean and have a complete do over.


Politics as Science!

Demand Irreni World Scale!

Anti-theism is feminism!  

Think disruption!

Empathy for all!

Moral relativity: think it, breath it!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!















Trump vs Gay Marriage Acceptance

Hi! Happy Wednesday!

How can the rise of gay marriage acceptance and the rise  of Trump exist in the same country? What's going on? We cannot be both less bigoted and more bigoted can we? The acceptance of gay marriage in this country is a glass-half-full hope for humanity being less-bigoted in America. The public appearance of racism and bigotry during the Trump campaign is a glass half-full. What to think?

It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either.
        --Mark Twain

Welcome to America. Or rather, welcome to humanity. While the specifics of the topic may be American the aspects of human nature are universal.

At the crux of this seeming paradox is identity versus survival.

We do not have the free will but we believe we do and this is problematic when it comes to our identity and survival; who we think we are. Scientifically we know that at least 50% of the human race retains the religion of their birth. And yet by-and-large we believe we freely chose our religion. I bring this up simply to point out that cognitive dissonance is strong in humans and this fact leaves us vulnerable to people who can capitalize on it. We believe our religious choice is free will but in fact our religious choice is simply heritage, culture and upbringing.

Principles have no real force except when one is well-fed.
        --Mark Twain

American cognitive dissonance is being manipulated between voting for being well-fed and voting for principles.  If one reads the history of the Tea Party on Wikipedia then one can trace directly a history where a political party movement started out to vote ones wallet but ended up voting for the likes of Michele Bachman and Mike Pence. What? Is Mike Pence a Tea Party candidate of financial interests or a religious zealot a la Michele Bachman style?

What happened? What happened is that the political parties and the media do not depict the Tea Party as a financial interest movement. No, they depict the Tea Party as a crazy religious movement. Damn the political parties and complicit media for manipulating this.

The lesson here is that political parties and the media are experts at pitting our interests of being well-fed against our interests of principle identity. Political parties do this because they exist to manipulate the interests of the many against the needs of the few in favor of the few.

The political manipulation and cognitive dissonance exploitation doesn't stop at just life-boat ethics; the manipulation of cognitive dissonance is also built on a foundation of the religious cognitive dissonance. Political parties use this dissonance to promote that people of different religions are bad by simply making bad choices as opposed to the reality of a different religion is a childhood upbringing for everyone. People do the right thing in spite of religion applies to all religions. People do the wrong thing because of religion applies to all religions.

Irreni World Scale is about solutions and not punditry. The solution in this case is a scientific answer. The answer to the gay marriage versus Trump apparent conundrum can be scientifically understood in terms of cognitive dissonance; specifically the cognitive dissonances of principles-versus-survival, religious choice versus religious upbringing. Now that you know this then you can check your own cognitive dissonance: are you being manipulated?

America is the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world and yet many feel we are at great risk as a country and that our identity as America is seriously in peril? To whit, the outspoken racists and bigots supporting Trump have always been with us the entire history of this country, but their public voice has not. Therefore it is not a contradiction that we are becoming both less bigoted and more bigoted. No. We are in fact becoming less bigoted as gay marriage shows. However, the bigots we do have are now more vocal publicly because they feel threatened. That public voice is coming to the fore precisely because Trump supporters feel their survival is at risk. Do away with the perceived survival risk and the racists and bigots will go back to being silent in public. If we can make that happen then the rise of acceptance in America will continue for gays, atheists and even Muslims.  Hooray! 

Politics as Science!

Demand Irreni World Scale!

Anti-theism is feminism!  

Think disruption!

Empathy for all!

Moral relativity: think it, breath it!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!















Saturday, July 16, 2016

Political Conventions 2016: The Case for Systemic Change

Hi! Happy Saturday!

It is a nice day here  in Menlo Park, California. The annual Menlo Park Summer Festival is being held this weekend. There is a particular artist I go to every year to acquire this year's shirt. Steve Ripatti is his name and he spends all year coming up with one design for a shirt. Every year I make the trip the Menlo Park Summer Festival to pick up the shirt. The shirts take a year to make because the fabric incorporates up to fifteen different colors and Steve says most fabric makers only do three-or-four, tops. This year's shirt was about Cuba!


Now just hold your horses. We'll get to the topic of politics here in a second.

Cafe Borrone in Meno Park opens at the unusual hour of 7:00am and it is a nice place to grab eggs and a mocha con panna. And a mimosa. Mmmm. There is something I find especially appealing. That is this: now I don't consider myself a particularly pretentious fellow.  I haven't had a hair cut since October and when I do I go to Super Cuts. I'm pretty much both a nerd and a geek. I do make an exception with this one thing about Cafe Borrone. And that exception is that when you order a toasted baguette with butter and jam then you don't get a choice. Not about the baguette, choice about the jam. They serve only one flavor: raspberry. Yeah! Baby! Yeah!

Okay, on to everybody's favorite topic of fun and excitement: politics. But not just any politics, systemic politics. Politics is no fun. The working of systems is not fun. Put these two things together like peanut butter and jelly and you get one big sticky mess of boring. Us nerds find the working of systems quite the hot topic, normal people not so much. On the other hand us nerds are typically not all that and a bag of chips into politics. I'm the exception there. Mostly because I see people as systems. When you view people as systems then they are every bit as interesting as Lenovo T430 I'm writing this here blog post with.

Irreni World Scale is about solutions, not punditry. As such Irreni is about hope because improving the systems of politics, making them work, is what is needed today.

So strap on your best Sunday go-to-meeting frippery and hold on to your flower bonnet hats, cause here we go.

Political parties need to go. Whoever invented the expression, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics" forgot to consider political parties in that equation.  The term was popularised in United States by Mark Twain to most people's thinking, who in turn attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. Those damn British. They should leave these things to us Americans. There are lies, damn lies and political parties. 

As a person who invented a brand spanking new, shiny political system called Irreni World Scale then I do find myself often jabbering on about politics with some kind folks. Lately in the run up to the conventions I've been asking whoever is kind and handy, "what do you think the biggest problem in US politics is today?" You know what the answer is? Fear. Fear. Pick a modern news topic albeit racism, black lives matters, guns, LGBT using bathrooms or President Obama. Fear and the media's fearmongering is what weighs heaviest on my people's minds. 

And guess where the media get their material for fearmongering? Yeah, that's right: political parties. Political parties are the root of all modern political evils and so political parties have to go. 

Real quick: name one benefit political parties bring to the table? Anything? Quick! Guess what? You probably drew a blank. That's because they don't bring any benefits. So why are we the people, of the people and by the people putting up with their utter cussedness? 

Political parties are a system. As such they fall under the preview of Irreni World Scale. As a reminder in case you have forgotten, the mission statement of Irreni World Scale is politics as science for the systems of politics. Irreni World Scale is not about the policy of politics, like say gun control or abortion rights. 

No, Irreni World Scale means [I]nnovation [R]eplaces [R]evolution, [E]ngineering [N]ot [I]deology. Things that Irreni concerns itself with are things like political parties, the electoral college and electronic voting. 

And in this blog post I am making the case that the fundamental problems with all our politics in 2016  are systemic: our systems are failing. Like political parities. I reckon our parents and their parents before them fought about the political issues of their day every bit as vociferously as we are today. Yet somehow our parents managed to get political work done and corruption was contained. Today, our political systems are completely broken and corruption is out of control. As a result our politics is hyper-focused on fear so as to cover up the broken systems and unmitigated corruption. Booo ya! 

Why? By "Why?" I mean why have we allowed our political systems to corrode to the point of no return? Our political systems in 2016 cannot be saved by the people who are elected, people within the political system. We've crossed the point of no return. Time to admit that folks.

Why did we let that happen? Well, I'll tell you why. It is not like one is going to pop on the telly to a political news show to watch a fun, rousing row about whether the number of representatives being 435 is still effective. Because that's just boring. Systems are boring. So boring that those of us who find systems and engineering fun have a nickname: nerds. The taste in one's own mouth when the topic turns to systems of politics, or systems of anything, is like someone dumped a bottle of cayenne pepper on your tongue: yuck, cough, pew, pew, get that stuff off my tongue! 

Remember hanging chads? When I first heard that topic of discussion come up in mid-conversation I remember thinking, "those poor people in Chad, Africa, what did they do so as to deserve a hanging?" *sigh* 

The lesson here is one of human nature. Almost all of humanity finds the topic of systems boring and when it comes to politics anything that is boring can topple the political system due to a want for attention. Ahh, human nature. Aren't forever giving ourselves the fickle finger of fate? ha!

Irreni is about solutions and of course I'm here to bring the solution. Bring it on, bring it on, bring it on. But there is a sermon, a warning, here: we need to learn the lesson of overcoming our shared human nature of ignoring political systems because they are boring or we shall certainly repeat this bit of political history we find ourselves here in 2016.

Anyway, political parties need to go. Political parties may in fact be the only thing in nature where nature will refuse to abhor that vacuum. When we finally toss political parities over the guardrails of our political systems I'm pretty sure nature will celebrate by creating a vacuum there and laugh the laugh of eternal joy.

Hillary Clinton would currently being enjoying the notorious reputation of being the presidential candidate with the highest negative polling in all of history,  except the Republicans were hell bent and glory bound to be number one in the USA on that account. So in walks Donald Trump. That's just how much of a fuck you finger the political parties are waving in our face, and laughing at us, mocking us with a "what are you going to do about it" smile. 

Political parties need to go. The have zero nutritional value and are the root of all evil fear being spread by the media today. 

At this point in the post I'd like to point out that abolishing political parties is not a solution in and of itself. We need better political systems, just getting rid of the bad ones won't suffice. 

As the nerd, as the engineer let me point us in the direction in how we should proceed. We have a rule of thumb in engineering, "Don't re-invent the wheel." Well then, let us survey the history of American politics and various systems already in place or already replaced. Ready? 

Where to begin? Well, we have an intuition based on observation: fear and  media fearmongering are our perceived culprit. So let us start there. 

What media systems have their been that have worked and failed?

First, let us got back to Telecommunications Act of 1999 during the Bill Clinton administration. This was a huge bill, but one of the catastrophic failures in media today was brought about by deregulating  media outlet ownership. Prior to 1999 media companies could not own more than three media outlets in any one market. The use of the word media here meant print, radio and TV broadcast. A company like Comcast could own three radio stations but then nothing else in the same market. Comcast  could own one newspaper, one radio station and one TV station but that's it. 

We removed all restrictions on how many media outlets companies like Comcast could own in a market. Boom! Comcast makes money by generating as little content as possible and re-selling it on all its media outlets. And guess what people will repeat buy over-and-over again seemingly with no end of thirst? Fear. Tabloid journalism. Sensationalism.

So, solution number one is to repeal the 1999 Telecommunications Act. 

Did you know that prior to the Reagan administration that any one on the air, radio or television, had to have a 2nd class FCC license? Why? Because if one acted irresponsibly on the air then one could have one's personal license revoked by the FCC and no longer be on the air. 

These personal FCC licenses didn't just apply to on-air personalities. I was a cameraman. As a cameraman it was your responsibility to point your camera away from fights that broke out at a baseball game or other sporting events. The principle was that people will do anything just to get on TV, including start a brawl. Therefore as a cameraman we were prohibited from pointing our cameras at fights in the crowd. If we did then we could have or FCC license revoked. No more. So now sensationalism has no boundaries except those self-imposed. 

So solution number two is to reinstate 2nd and 3rd class FCC licenses. 

Prior to the Reagan administration the news department for a media outlet had to be a loss department. News was prohibited from being profitable. 

So solution number three is to reinstate news departments are prohibited from being profitable. 

Prior to the Reagan administration the Fairness doctrine meant that newspapers had to carry both Democratic and Republican editorials, not just one party's. 

Solution four is to reinstate the fairness doctrine. 

So yes, Virginia, we have had better media systems in the past. All of the deregulation of media that started and continued unabated since  Reagan has undermined and perverted journalism from holding up its end of the bargain; prevented journalism from being the fourth estate for the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Journalism has been reduced to tabloid-ism, sensationalism and the fearmongering it is today. 

So as a responsible engineer then it is my solemn duty to point out that before we go and experiment with any new systems of unproven worth as promoted by Irreni World Scale or others, then we should probably put things back the way they were when they have been proven to work. 

Political Conventions 2016: The Case for Systemic Change. 

So far I have used the deregulation of media systems we had in the past to illustrate that our fundamental problems of fearmongering in the media are the direct result of deregulation of media systems previously in place that worked.

And what about political parties? Well, they have escaped change by and large since this country was founded. But in our hearts we all know that political parties provide absolutely no value as a system and that we, the people, of the people, and by the people can easily end this systemic abomination. We can pass a constitutional amendment:
Political parties and other factions are hereby prohibited from being recognized by any and all governments within the United States. The only group affiliation to be recognized are the States and other governing bodies themselves. This prohibition includes elections of officials, rules for implementing legislation and any records kept thereof. Representation is to be one of direct democracy by representing all people equally irrespective of political party and faction.
Of course our fourth estate and political parties are not the only egregiously broken political systems of the day. Other examples are:
  1. Campaign finance
  2. Electoral college
  3. Electronic voting
Those are just the ones that have gotten the attention of the media. Irreni World Scale has solutions for all of these.

Warning: the following is a paid for advertisement by Irreni World Scale for Irreni World Scale.

Irreni World Scale is about science and engineering and not ideology. So there are no immediate solutions. This is because science relies on proven experimentation where ideology in politics manifests like Obamacare where a new system is rolled out whole-hog for the entire country without any proven efficacy whatsoever.

Irreni World Scale is anti-ideology: Irreni is pro-science. This means that in future blog posts where new systems are recommended to fix broken systems such as campaign finance then the methodology used is to experiment locally first. Only after proven efficacy at all scale levels between local and national would any new solution every be implemented at the national level.

Irreni World Scale invents new political systems as follows:
  1. Consider new proposals based on the best of observation and the latest science of human nature to date.
  2. Experiment with the protocols and mechanisms of new proposals up to and including admitting failure at any level of scale. New systems only scale-out to the next level of scale when proven an lesser levels first. 
Irreni is politics as science, but only for the systems of politics itself. The other side of the political coin is policy. Politics is a coin with systems on one side and policy on the other. Policy based upon rights, needs and wants of the people is an exercise for the people to carry on as a forever conversation. The science of political systems is the means that provides the effective systems for carrying out the orders of policy.

So the systemic case has been made for this 2016 political convention season. The wants of the people cannot ever be realized if the political systems that are intended to implement the wants are broken. Therefore our fundamental problems with the failure of all politics in the USA are systemic first. Until we fix the systems of politics we can never realize our wants and dreams. 

Politics as Science!

Demand Irreni World Scale!

Anti-theism is feminism!  

Think disruption!

Empathy for all!

Moral relativity: think it, breath it!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!















Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Codes of Silence are Evil

Hi! Happy Sunday!

Is there such a thing as a good, ethical or moral code of silence?

Today the most prominent public attention to a code of silence is with the Blue code of silence of law enforcement. The current moral argument goes that all police are complicit with the murder of unarmed citizens due to the blue code of silence. Therefore the murder of black Americans by law enforcement is not a case of a few bad apples because the Blue code of silence makes all of law enforcement complicit.

Why? Because there is only one reason to have a code of silence in the first place: to cover up. You don't cover up helping kids getting their cats down from a tree. No, cover-up is done for unethical and immoral acts. Codes of silence are always evil because they cover up immoral things. The fact that law enforcement employs a code of silence makes them all complicit with evil. Every single one. Don't want to be evil? Don't subscribe to the code silence. It is that simple.

Most States in the U.S. have felony murder laws. Felony Murder, Wikipedia:

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when an offender kills (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), he/she is guilty of murder.
Felony murder laws make everyone complicit. The advent of body cameras and citizen filming has lately encouraged law enforcement to enact a firing squad in a police shooting so as to ensure it is nigh impossible to pin down who fired the killing shot. The law of unintended consequences founded on a corrupt system created by a code of silence. Under the felony murder law they all should be found guilty. Bruce Springsteen wrote a song about 43 bullets, perhaps a rare occurrence at that time. Today execution by a firing squad cops is one the rise and will continue do so to ensure no one goes to jail or is held accountable, as  a defense against body cameras and citizen filming.

Codes of silence perpetuate immorality and escalate immorality when under threat. The police in this country are becoming more immoral by the day in order to maintain this system.

Of course they are far from the only ones. The Catholic Church and the diddling of young boys by priests is perhaps the second most popular code of silence in the public eye today. Just recently the Catholic Church lobbied and succeeded in keeping the statute of limitations time from being extended for child molestations. What a vile, wicked entity.

 However there is a code of silence every bit as evil as the Blue code of silence and mirrors it perfectly: the Black code silence.

Oakland

I lived in Oakland from 1993 until 2001, mostly while I attended the University of California, Berkeley. During that time I lived at the corner of 42nd and Broadway in Oakland. Yeah, it has a sexy sound to it because of New York and 42nd and Broadway. However, that intersection in Oakland is the home of Oakland Technical High school: a run-down, dilapidated school. While I lived in that neighborhood I was mugged twice at gunpoint. I also witnessed two knife fights on the school lawn. The fights were on the school lawn because the school had metal detectors at the doors. It found it depressing that the paint on the outside of building was so old that it was half-gone and peeling off in chunks. How hard can it be to paint? When I enquired as to the paint being so bad I was told that the paint had lead in it and that the expense of toxic clean-up was too much to justify re-painting so the kids went to a school building painted in lead. There was a sign that said, "Penalties and fines doubled for selling drugs within 500 feet of a school zone." Across the street was a drug dealer with two rottweiler dogs for protection. People came and went 24 hours a day and the dogs barked accordingly. I was mugged twice at gunpoint when I lived there. Both times was at a distance greater than 10 feet and I just threw my wallet at their feet.

Oakland

Shortly after I graduated from college I witnessed a crime in Oakland. It was a hot summer day and I was at my lady friends apartment. The sun was going down and we were hanging on the porch enjoying the cool night air; waiting for the inside to cool down. We were sitting on cheap lawn chairs made of the multicolor polyester fabric strips you see everywhere, sipping lemonade. We were living a stereotype.

Oakland had long ago dealt with the cruising problem in residential neighborhoods by laying down those cheap, nasty speed-bumps that are nothing more than six-inch-high concrete semi-circles. We had three on our block between stop signs. Salt in the wounds of the work class and poor, prematurely wearing down used and old cars people can barely afford.

Anyway, my lady friend and I were enjoying ourselves the night air when BAM! A truck tries to fly by and in pursuit with sirens flashing and lights blaring were the police. Three such bumps. I had to laugh. The whole scene looked like something out of a bad movie. The thief driving the truck didn't stop at the stop sign and was t-boned by the another pick-up coming through the intersection that was only a 2-way stop. The victim truck stopped on impact as it wasn't moving that fast. The thief’s truck came to a stop as the front tire was badly damaged. The thief got out of the truck and proceeded on foot into the nearest neighbor's backyard.

The victim manages to get out of the pick-up truck and collapses onto the street. The police had stopped at the stop sign. They two officers got out and started administering aid to the victim as well as stopping traffic. Shortly other police cars roll up and begin the process of going door-to-door searching for the suspect.

Then I saw something I didn't understand. The neighbors piled out and eventually started yelling at the police. Why? Because the son of a lady who lived on that street corner was being held back from coming through the intersection. The son was on a motorcycle. Soon a bunch of the neighbors were yelling to let the motorcycle through, he just lived right there. Finally her son gunned the bike through the intersection, past the police and the victim and parked his bike on front lawn. The police chose to ignore him. There was no respect for the police or the victim.

What does all this have to do with a Black code of silence? Well, since my lady friend and I witnessed the entire event we walked over to the police and stood in line to give our statements. An officer took our statement but indicated that it was highly unlikely we would be asked down to the precinct for further testimony. First, police officers saw the entire thing, so we would just be back up. Second, the neighbors were not co-operating and the police couldn't find the suspect. The Black code of silence.

The Black code of silence plays out every day in cities like Oakland and Chicago. People die every day because of it no different than with the Blue code of silence.

I experienced another case of black code of silence personally. A few years later I had moved to Mountain View, California. I had moved near Shoreline Ampitheater  and could hear the summer music as I was that close.

One summer KMEL, a local radio station, held a summer JAM concert at the Shoreline. It seemed like half the city of Oakland had come down to Shoreline to go to the concert. A man was murdered at the McDonald’s two blocks from my apartment. I didn't hear it. My neighbor came over to ask me if I had heard anything and let me know. Turns out it was a drive by shooting and the parking lot of McDonald's had been full of witnesses. Not a one came forward.

It is the height of hypocrisy for the black community to call out the complicit nature of the Blue code of silence makes all of law enforcement liable when in fact the Black code of silence is supported and sponsored within that very community.

Codes of silence are immoral and evil because they exist only to cover up wrong doing and pointing out other people's such wrong doings when doing the same damn thing is not right.

Codes of silence are a powerful force that are all too prevalent. Here is a short list of today's more prominent codes:

  1. The Vatican and the Catholic Church. Priests diddling  children makes this code of silence particularly reprehensible and the whole lot of them reprobates. Some things you can't cannot ever redeem. This is one of them. The Catholic Church lost any footing for a discussion of weighing good vs. bad with this. There is no argument. The Catholic Church is just evil and no amount of soup kitchens can walk back their pedofillia. 
  2. The U.S. Security System. Snowden exposed the fact that the security code of silence has nothing to do with protecting us and everything to do with monitoring us. But that's just the latest indictment of our governments evil security code of silence. In 1990, shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, I attended a college conference where Louie Lavoie spoke about the Soviet threat during the cold war. Louie included in his talk a very damning indictment of code black security projects. To hear Louie tell it 99% of the time projects are given black ops status to cover up incompetence and corruption and black out status has nothing to do with security. Of course he had to refrain from spilling details because he was sworn to a code of silence. Louie said that if he were asked as to which would be a bigger threat to our national security: removing 100% of all security clearance from our government or just keeping what we had in 1990 in place, that then  he'd be hard pressed to make the argument for keeping a security system at all. That's how bad it was. That was in 1991 before the Internet. He was a nuclear threat analyst.
  3. Gangs. This is pretty much the same as the black code of silence only much less cultural and more about the drug business.
  4. Fraternities. How long are fraternities even going to be allowed to exist as every year it seems a new video exposes some immoral act that previously went unnoticed due to a code of silence.
Can we really say that there is no good moral case to be made for a code of silence? National security? Majority oppression? Trade secrets?

It is worth pointing out the difference between a secret that is not enforced by a code of silence and a code of silence.

Patents are not the only way of protecting IP. One can simply keep a trade secret hidden from everyone else. Coke, for example, keeps its Coca-Cola formula from potential copiers but does so as a trade secret and not a patent.

A code of silence is different than protecting a secret like Coke's formula or  a surprise birthday party because there is no cover up of ill doing.  Codes of silence exist simply to cover-up what would otherwise be unacceptable, immoral acts.

There is one moral argument to be made for a code of silence: the greater society is evil and the sub-culture wants to be good and in doing so will be persecuted. A classic case of this is religion, where a sub-culture religious group must outwardly adhere to the great culture religion to survive.

Fortunately this moral argument can now be given a modern treatment where such things as secular societies exist.

I was lied too as a child. So were millions of other children children in America growing up in 1960s and 1970s. Specially I was lied to by our Methodist, Sunday school teacher. Specifically we were taught that polytheism lost out to monotheism due to reason: Thor didn't throw lighting bolts and Poseidon did not make storms on the sea. Sure, why not? We are also told God had removed himself from the day-to-day affairs after Jesus rose from the dead and so all activity on the planet was now natural until Jesus' return. What were not told is about the hundreds of years of bloody war between the pagans and Christians. We were not told the Christians won out, but not through reason,  but through killing. We were not told that the Catholic church felt so embolden by its success with religious genocide of the pagans that they tried again with the Islamic faith. Well, Crusades did not go so well as with wiping out the pagans.

So the pagans went underground and employed a code of silence. This didn't prevent the Catholic church from hunting them down to kill them. These hunts eventually became known as witch hunts.

Of course my sympathies lie with the pagans and the countless witches who were butchered alive by being burned at the stake alive. Just for this one fact of burning women alive at the stake then the Christian religion can never by redeemed; the balance of all the good that Christianity has done can never move the scales of justice when weighed against the evil of religious genocide and burning "witches" alive. Christianity is and always will be evil.

So were the pagans moral in their code of silence? The greater society wanted them dead.

In a modern context let us consider a 2x2 matrix comparing moral objectivity with moral relativity. In the following cases is a code of silence moral?

  1. Yes, but.
    Objective morality versus objective morality. This is the case of the pagans above. One religious objective moral system is pitted against another objective religious moral system. Yes, in this case, the code of silence is moral. But it is only made moral by an even greater immoral system: objective morality.
  2. No.
    Objective morality versus relative morality. The answer to the moral question here was best stated by Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death." In this case the moral cause of the relative morality mandates rebelling unto death against objective moral systems.
  3. No.
    Relative morality versus objective morality. This is the case of the U.S. in 1789 and is the case today. This is a case where  moral objective systems of religion compete peacefully in a secular society. Since there is no violent persecution by the greater society then any code of silence is immoral. An objective moral religion is not allowed to cover up immoral acts, like say the priests diddling the children. 
  4. No.
    Relative morality versus relative morality. Clearly in this case a code of silence is simply used to cover up immoral acts. 
Given the above then it can be unequivocally stated that a code of silence in the modern era is always evil. It is true that even today people live in situations covered by case 1. above. Like say a Christian living in a Muslim country. On one hand it is moral to a hide a Christian religious practice with a code of silence covering the practice of your religion. But ultimately all objective moral codes are evil and therein lies the rub: the code of silence is made evil being under the auspices of an evil system: objective morality. All objective morality is evil.

Mmmm. If you...kind reader...have made it this far into this essay then mostly likely your sensibilities have been disturbed by the frequent use of the word "evil".

Good, good. This is not by mistake. First, I use the demonizing words of religion so as to steal their power. But that's not the point here. The second reason I use "evil" is usher forth in your heart your objective moral empathy so as to squash it, git rid of it. Objective moral empathy is no longer valid. The millennials today are coming to grips with moral relativity. The notion of a social justice warrior as well as the excessive, heavy-handed political correctness of the younger generation today moves away from objective moral sensibilities. In a morally relative system then evil and good have different connotations than objective morality where evil and good are states of a person. 

So what is the new relative moral empathy? I created a post about this awhile back. What's important to summarize is that with moral objectivity good and evil are either/or situations about the state of a person. Take, for example, the cases of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Both of these guys are heroes of the American revolution and founding fathers of this country. Are they good or evil? Well, on one-hand they founded this country and so are good. On the other hand they both owned slaves and so are evil. Which is it? People who suffer from moral objectivity must put these guys into only one of the good or evil boxes, not both. If a morally objective person wants to view them as good then cognitive dissonance is created with respect to them both owning slaves. And the reverse is true in that if one wants to see them as evil then cognitive dissonance is created because of the good they did in creating this country.

So, to a moral relativist such as myself and for a system such as Irreni World Scale, people are not in a state of good or evil. People just do good and evil things. The objective is to encourage the good and discourage the bad. Good and evil are supernatural states of a being in an objective moral system. They just describe helpful and harmful acts in a relative moral system.

Love everyone. Moral relativity is about finding a space to love everyone. The language of de-humanizing people by calling them things such as evil, a thug, despicable, degenerate, filthy, etc. must be neutralized.

Well,  we have strayed far away from the main thesis, a code of silence. A code of silence is always immoral and evil. It is always a thing to discourage and work against. But realize when it is said that previously that all of law enforcement is evil and culpable for killing due to the code of silence that this is done in a modern context of moral relativity. Just like I can value George Washington as both good and evil then I can also law enforcement as good and evil both. Because I live using moral relativity and because we all do good and evil acts then social morality is about us being other's keepers and we need to help each other overcome evil, our harmful acts.

So everyone, give up the codes of silence. No good ever comes from them.

Politics as Science!

Demand Irreni World Scale!

Anti-theism is feminism!  

Think disruption!

Empathy for all!

Moral relativity: think it, breath it!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!