Marshaling the Marching Morons: a Note on the Wikipedia Stunt

Jimbo Wales with false modesty is pretending again to be some sort of benefactor of humanity with his stupid and dangerous 19 January stunt: bringing wikipedia down, thereby endangering in an unknown and unpredictable fashion any automated system, anywhere in the world, that includes shells or scripts that assume it’s available, and access a dataset in text form that’s stored on wikipedia.

And from behind computer screens, world wide, the Techie Troglodytes cheer him on with an audible rattling of real chains.

Consider that the unemployed software engineer needs to get off his ass, and sit neither at home nor in Starbucks, and instead haul ass to interviews and live conferences to get a new job. That’s how I got a new job in 2000: I hauled ass to the VSLive conference and the Microsoft Author’s Conference. I worked as an unpaid volunteer at VSLive and took the bus to and from Seattle, to and from Chicago, to get to the Author’s conference.

In a remarkably similar way, #Occupy taught us that we the 99% will only get the attention of the people whom we called the pigs in the 1960s and are referred to today as the 1% by putting the human body on the line.

But, of course, a necessary part of the techie subconscious is a deep shame about and hatred of the human body. To the extent that before 1981, as I slowly became fatter and fatter, I was accounted a great tech: as soon as I started running, despite the fact that running improves learning and concentration, my reputation as a tech suffered.

While Facebook has been a part (but only a part) of true revolutions beginning with Tunisia, note that Facebook is about our ability as bodies to communicate in a capitalist system that in countless ways needs to keep us separate. All other tech ventures have net out to a decline in our ability to meaningfully control our lives.

However, the insiders at Apple, Google and the other ventures seek to enrich only themselves and in this venture, they have found it convenient since 1980 to tell a story of personal liberation through technology that’s completely at odds with the facts.

Stunts like “bringing wikipedia down” merely endanger thousands of systems world wide that include shells and scripts that link to wikipedia, and similar stunts like “bring Google down” magnify this danger.

The tech 1% including Wales are trying to delude the tech 99% by persuading them that by sitting on their fucking ass, eating junk food, and making trouble online will change a god damned thing. This is because conforming to SOPA and PIPA would actually be easy; these laws, which are job creators, apply to foreign sites and would be trumped in the USA by the First Amendment in an obvious way. Under the Constitution, a Chinese pirate has no First Amendment protection.

But despite the fact that such conformance would be easy, tech CEOs hate doing anything not directly related to the bottom line, such as designing a system to discover the origin of content which appears to match a copyrighted document…such a system can rely on IP addresses.

So they marshal marching morons.


22 Responses to “Marshaling the Marching Morons: a Note on the Wikipedia Stunt”

  1. Your entire premise is wrong.

    Google “wikipedia blackout access”.


    The WP blackout was done simply by a javascript redirect, it did not affect automated access, or WAP, etc. You could deactivate javascript and access it from your PC during the blackout. This was noted on the info page linked from the “blackout” page.

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      If any one of thousands of potential scripts link to wikipedia they will be running Javascript, by definition if they themselves are written in Javascript. They won’t have been “preprogrammed to deactivate Javascript” since they would not run. The manual meatspace user can deactivate Javascript, they cannot. They assume that there’s this site called Wikipedia and that its home page will have a certain structure.

      If these hypothetical procedures (hypothetical only in the sense of being probably real) are written by a competent coder such as I have been during my former career, they will carefully parse what they “see” and fail gracefully.

      But if they’re written by a common little “computer programmer” then they will fail gracelessly, or, even worse, continue and produce nonsense.

      Y2K was a non-event because thousands of Cobol programmers did their job and were paid. They anticipated most possible scenarios.

      But the Costco greeters and borderline cases who donate their slave labour to Wales do not appear to have planned for, or cared about the automated impact of a shutdown. And as I have said they set a precedent.

      “Welcome to Costco, I love you. Welcome to Costco, I love you. Welcome to Costco, I love you.”

      – Idiocracy

      Today, it is announced that all Facebook users will be forced to change to the new Timeline view. It probably won’t affect too many automated tasks but it will force people to waste time learning the new view. The precedent? Wales’s idiotic stunt.

      It was a policy at Princeton Information Centers not to do this, as I have said. If you make a facility available in a distributed computing environment you do not control, you are responsible for its use. But, of course, libertarianism, whose culture informs Wikipedia, is based on the adolescent male’s belief that he can pull stunts and act in an uncaring fashion in the name of ape freedom.

      Furthermore, Mr., I find it interesting that unlike me, Edward G. Nilges, wikipedians and fans of Wales are so scared to associate their views with a real name. Only the celebs such as Wales have title to an identity and a biography, and they make it their business to destroy the biography and ultimately the identity of better men like Larry Sanger and Andrew Tanenbaum.

      This is Maoism, as Jaron Lanier has pointed out. Most of us have to live in fear of being named and shamed so that our all-powerful 1% employers won’t can us. Those of us who refuse to live in fear are subject to the reverse operation, for which we’re not grateful: I have been systematically eradicated as a contributor 2004-2006 by anonymous creeps with cute pseudonyms.

      You’re probably the same homophobic little creep that was so offended by my clear domination of the Fight Club on the dysfunctional Lamma site and my paintings since you fabricate an address in Alan’s way. You’re probably not a wikipedia “insider” since all you know is what I know: that yes indeed, on 19 January, one could turn Javascript off to get to wikipedia.

      The problem is that it’s ON if I’m a shell or script.

  2. Web scrapers rarely, if ever, run javascript.

    (I put the “if ever” there in case you do name one, though I’m sure you can’t. Just name one and prove me wrong. More paragraphs of abuse will do the opposite.)

    You don’t need javascript to to read Wikipedia (you do to edit), so it would be simply a waste of resources, and more complex, if nothing else. A “common little program” would just use something like perl and wget. No point in executing any scripts on the page.

    The only people adversely affected might have been link spammers who have bots to insert links in articles; they would need js.

    Anyway, it was a few days ago, so there would have been reports by now if there had been any such issues.

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      I don’t have to name one. We’re not playing a fourteen year old’s game. I am saying that as a matter of normative, ethical policy, you don’t change a resource’s public face.

      Competent programmers, of which there are very, very few, know this. They are able to see the commonality between Wikipedia’s public face and the public declarations of a class, and they don’t change the public face, certainly not to make a childish and ill-considered little point.

      But here I go again. Arguing with irresponsible and half educated little technicians and doing what should be management’s job, a normative computer science, which was only done at Princeton absent the pressure of the market.

      If you’d comprehended the initial post you’d understand that the wikipedia stunt sets a precedent. It seems to have encouraged Facebook to force users onto their crap new “Timeline” interface.

      It seriously violates at the technical level wikipedia’s profession to be neutral.

      There being no reports proves nothing for the most serious bugs are the ones we do not know about.

      The software aspect of the credit crisis was that bullyragged and incompetent little programmers created links between software objects in an unconstrained fashion. At no time did they wonder whether the mathematical tree they were in effect creating was turning into a general graph with cycles. This was because of their incompetence and anti-intellectualism as fostered by a 1% management that’s itching to lay them off anyway.

      This had two results. The first was that no-one, neither the pig bankers nor the little programmers, understood the system and the true value of loan “tranches” which turned out to be close to zero…causing a cascade of failures because these “tranches” had been used as assets for credit ratings.

      The second was the existence of cycles where financial contract A was made dependent on the outcome of B, B of C and so on…back to A. These loops made the tree a graph and meant that it was impossible to value A.

      The same sort of psychology operates because you feel it’s just fine to make a change that violates a principle, that of not changing an expected public interface of a software system, to make a stupid point. The pig bankers and their little programmers thought it was cute to build the links that made the tranche appear valuable. Wikipedia thinks it’s cute and brave to make a radical change to an existing ecosystem to make a stupid point about laws that do not even affect American sites with American-originated content.

      This behavior is directly analogous to coal companies that destroy the environment their pig managers do not understand, because the Internet is a man made ecosystem whose complexity has outrun our ability to understand it, such that a humbler, ethical and ecological outlook is needed…which bans STUNTS.

      This behavior is directly analogous to that of engineers at Chernobyl who deliberately conducted an experiment to see how the reactor would work in circumstances outside of its operational safe limits.

      This behavior is directly analogous to that of NASA engineers who allowed themselves to be bullyragged by managers to “think like a manager”, and approve a launch in which the behavior of O-rings was unknown because of cold temperatures on launch day, and caused the Challenger to explode, murdering its crew.

      This behavior is directly analogous to that of Carnival Cruises who did not train actual mariners to operate lifeboats on board the Costa Concordia last week.

      Dianne Vaughan, the anthropologist who studied “The Challenger Launch Decision”, called it the normalization of deviance: adolescent behavior by childish men such as your posting from a fabricated source.

      Behavior that betrays weakness and fear. Behavior that proves Zizek right: in modern “men”, the superego has been surgically eradicated and replaced by advertising messages.

      Folk thinking is the curse of computer science. It normalizes deviant behavior because it reasons that “things won’t happen, and, if they do, it is not my problem”.

      Why is it that most Wikipedian libertarians would roundly condemn a teacher’s or public transit strike but countenance this fucking stunt? For that’s what it was: a strike.

      Professionals including doctors and lawyers are becoming increasingly reliant on wikipedia’s data bases, not, perhaps, for original research but more for on the job verification of medical and legal information. Automated tools aside, these professionals were locked out on 19 January unless they knew how to turn Javascript off.

      And turning it off would have had unexpected effects in turn. The professional may have left it off, or multitasking procedures, some of them mission critical, might have failed.

      It’s bad enough that in violation of tax law, Jimbo Wales pretends that Wikipedia is a charity and has the goddamn nerve to ask for money on it, because this is in bad faith. Interested to the point of formal ideology only in his financial gain, a man who divorced his wife because she wanted to be an altruistic nurse, Wales is using a charitable foundation to promote his profit making ventures and this is ILLEGAL.

      He now both performs and encourages lockouts in the spirit of Commodore Vanderbilt and the robber barons.

      The public be damned is his song.

  3. “I don’t have to name one.”
    Only if you want to prove your point.

    Actually, unlike you, I did some research to back up my opinions and found to my surprise that some webscrapers do in fact use js.

    However, any scraper targetting WP wouldn’t.

    Anyone who actually needed it would use the APIs WP provides for direct access to its data, and that wasn’t blacked out.

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      I don’t have to “prove” my point to an emotional fourteen year old boy, because you’re stalking and spamming.

      And I submit that basically ignorant people do a lot of pseudo-research whereas guys like me already know the shot. People who stare at screens, play computer games, and watch sports have to do their “homework” and like to run their yap about it. People like me who read books for amusement don’t have to do their “homework”. We did it already in most cases.

      In doing your homework, o wonder of wonders, you found that there are what you call “web scrapers” (an ugly phrase as usual, like some clown trying to scrape off his windshield in the company parking lot) and, I’ll be dipped in shit, they use Javascript. Wow. Thanks for doing my research.

      You then go on to say that “any scraper targeting WP wouldn’t”. Why not? Incompetent programming is the norm.

      Just as we found in the mainframe era that a “printout” was just another file and not a “printout” insofar as we were competent programmers, who rid themselves of folk computing delusions created by social mystification, reification and fetishization, we also realized that a Web page is not just a phenomenological entity, what’s perceived by the human being.

      It is also a text file which can be parsed and we’re responsible for that parsing.

      It doesn’t matter if a Web page which gets a couple of hits per day is brought down. It DOES if it’s a Wikipedia page. Jimbo has created a public utility. It probably should be taken over by the government….nationalized, and I do hope that that very suggestion freaks you out.

      Because … I am serious. Capitalists irresponsibly built the American railroads, with government land grants except for the “Great Northern” railway between Chicago and Seattle. People came to depend upon them. But then the big railroads were allowed to savagely destroy what had been built because the only travelers that really mattered (the sleeping car passengers) could afford jet travel. The result was the immobilization of the working class and the destruction of the central city’s infrastructure of working class hotels and restaurants, and the creation of a behavioral sink, which produced Lee Harvey Oswald and Richard Speck.

      Like Jimbo Wales, Commodore Vanderbilt and the investors of Credit Mobilier which financed the transcontinental railroad were happy to use public support and charge the public to be carried across the Hudson river in the 1830s, or the nation in the 1870s. But when they could no longer make money, it was the public be damned.

      Wikipedia will let the public be damned any time it likes. And when you consider how many ordinary people depend on Yahoo email, you realize that Yahoo’s investors including the Chinese have a power which they will use of shutting this lifeline down. The only solution is nationalization. And this will be fought tooth and nail with loud propaganda. People may get arrested, or be “disappeared” or even killed over this in the near future.

  4. “It is also a text file which can be parsed and we’re responsible for that parsing.”

    And that text remained available. You DO NOT NEED OR WANT JAVASCRIPT to do that.

    And the API was never interrupted at all.

    Anyway, it would be foolish in the extreme to write an application that hooks into another website that fails catastrophically if access is interrupted.

    Websites change their layouts without warning. Sites go down. Connectivity is not guaranteed.

    And it is apparent that no one did that, because NO ONE HAS REPORTED ANY SUCH FAILURES.

    If you’d written this in Wikipedia, it would be tagged:

    “This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.”

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      Folk positivism of the truly incompetent coder. “It can’t happen”. It’s a black swan…a one in a million chance.

      Do the math, chump. One in a million? And how many hits a day does wikipedia get?

      Reread all my responses. Normative computing avoids problems before they occur especially when it is not known how serious their occurrence may be.

      Wow, if the article was written with wikipedia it would receive the Mark of Shame.

      Welcome to Costco, I love you. Welcome to Costco, I love you. Welcome to Costco, I love you.

  5. “Do the math, chump. One in a million? And how many hits a day does wikipedia get?”

    About 200 million.

    How many mission critical scripts scraping Wikipedia that require javascript are there?
    You don’t need to name millions. One would be enough.

  6. spinoza1111 Says:

    Thanks for admitting my point, glad you see the light. “One would be enough”.

  7. If you could NAME ONE, that would be enough to prove it was possible. You haven’t done that.

    Whether it’s moral for WIkipedia to not support such a script is another question.
    According to you, no website can ever change anything and must remain online forever, in case some hack programmer has jury rigged an application that depends on it being always available.

    If you use a free resource, with any formal arrangement or contract, you’re not entitled to any support, and you’re a fool if you depend on it.

    But fortunately, despite your hysterical and virulent prose, no one was that dumb.

  8. spinoza1111 Says:

    Any public interface such as an API or Web site that is heavily used, in part by automated scripts, can of course be changed with advance notice and sufficient warning. While wikipedia provided advance notice (without considering or mentioning the impact on scripts) it made the change for a silly reason.

    The problem I think you’re having is that like most little technicians, your reading skills stop short of the complexity of the above. I start with a metaphorical yet real parallel between an API (or public class) and a public Web site when that Web site is used by automated procedures.

    I then make an evaluative judgement in which I decide, in part but not only because of the weakness of the case agains SOPA and PIPA (which protect jobs and apply only to offshore sites), to change a public interface for this reason is like some little clown of a programmer who makes changes to APIs because he’s a pretentious little shithead. Or something.

    Our writing styles display the reason for our differences. You speak the language of Idiocracy, whereas I talk like a fag whose shit’s all fucked up. The problem is that the very structure of a complex technology is tree-like and like a very complex “sentence diagram” or Chomsky diagram of a complex sentence, with subordinate clauses…and shit.

    But your debased language is why technology is out of control. It normalizes deviance.

    Collective deviance at wikipedia has produced something useful. Slave labor often does. But this only shows that today, multiple Troglodytes and Homunculi must be enslaved to produce a sentence above a low upper bound of complexity. On an individual basis, as you so clearly demonstrate, they cannot even understand one.

    The Troglodyte vomits the Troglodyte’s rage
    But unmoved and serene is the Sage:
    He gazes with something like pity
    On the Homunculus in the dark city
    Who as a slave has constructed but a chunk of
    The Dark Tower that looms above. Love
    Has nothing to do with it.

  9. Clown, troglodyte, debased, idiocracy….

    “Our writing styles display the reason for our differences. You speak the language of Idiocracy, whereas I talk like a fag whose shit’s all fucked up.”

    Or; I speak with logic, you ad hominem.

    You haven’t provided a single example of any script that was broken by WP’s 1-day blackout. You mention the API, but skim over the fact that the API was never blacked out.

    Since you respond to any questioning of your premises with personal attacks, I’ll leave you to your self-congratulatory little blog.

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      Off he goes, old Me dot me
      In a snit, in a rage, in a fury most “twee”
      The stalker, stalked
      Has up and walked.
      He claims to speak with sumpin’ he calls “logic”
      And finds it rawther trah-gic
      That I don’t see his case most “twee”
      And fail with him to quite agree.
      Hey, dude, take comfort in
      The fact that most of the world with you is agree-in’:
      British Petroleum figured, what the f*k
      Might as well drill, and try our luck.
      You cannot prove to our satisfaction
      That the Chernobyl reactor won’t have a reaction
      So get with the program, get skin in the game
      Join with us now or you are just lame
      March with us morons over the cliff
      It’s cool, it’s the rage, it’s studly and spiff
      Jimmy Wales must be right because Jimmy is rich
      Why you are nobody and nobody’s bitch.
      We wanna believe what we wanna believe
      If we fuck your shit up, we never will grieve.

  10. –Stunts like “bringing wikipedia down” merely endanger thousands of systems world wide that include shells and scripts that link to wikipedia —

    “thousands of systems”? Such as? I see someone has asked this before. I don’t see any answer. Please advise if you do find any, let alone “thousands”.

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      Reread what was said: “STUNTs (like ‘bringing wikipedia down’) merely ENDANGER thousands of systems”.

      In Basic English, that’s “tricks endanger”.

      En-dang-er. That is, put in danger without necessarily bringing down.

      It appears to me that as part of their political disempowerment, the educational system makes modal thinking (thinking in terms of our responsibilities for possibility) impossible.

      I have already said that such a script is a “black swan”.

      Responsible, intelligent, thoughtful computer scientists and programmers, as opposed to corporate whores, have long pointed out that the expansion of memory and increase in CPU power makes “black swans” (things that aren’t supposed to happen) more common.

      I gave as an example the financial crash of 2008.

      Common, grubby, greedy little real estate salesmen, like common, grubby little computer programmers, are crude Positivists when there’s money to be made, and to me it’s pathetic when it’s not even your money, but Jimmy Wales’ through his illegal profit-taking based on wikipedia, which is a not for profit and thus tax exempt entity.

      Common, grubby little real estate salesmen in Orange County in 2003 told idiotic couples that house prices would never go down. They did.

      Common, grubby little programmers have long coded crap and when told of the deductive possibilities that their software will fail, have dismissed these possibilities. Oh gee, six digits suffice for dates.

      Nothing happened as a consequence of the 19 January wikipedia shutdown. But it has enabled and encouraged further non-neutral actions on the part of wikipedia which will increase the probability of a black swan.

      Wikipedia has become a public utility through its rapid growth, and the American Southerner Jimmy Wales’ instinct to use slave labor.

      Five years ago, a shutdown didn’t matter. Today it does. It will matter more and more as it is perceived as a resource for automated tools.

      Therefore there should be no more of these goddamn shutdowns.

  11. Name one of the thousands of sites that was “en-dang-er-ed”.

    There’s a difference between a black swan and a flying pig.

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      You boys are dumber than a box of rocks. The previous poster has acknowledged that there are scripts, which cannot by definition turn Javascript off, and all of them were endangered on 19 January.

      I’m afraid, also, that you do not understand logical possibility. It’s scientifically possible that a swan be black (or house prices go down, or a script access wikipedia the next time Jimbo gets a hair up his ass) but if “pig” is defined as “mammal”, and there are no flying mammals save for certain species of bats or monkeys (or “pig” is understood as meaning a “flightless mammal with porcine characteristics”) then “flying pig” is a logical impossibility. But actual programmers usually lack the logical training to understand the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge as you seem to so lack.

      While phyla including rodents can evolve wings and fly, were a pig to evolve wings, we’d create a new species for it.

      It was scientifically possible for wikipedia to cause a script to fail, and this has been acknowledged. Therefore the stunt constituted bad practice.

      It was Dijkstra’s point that because of what he called the “radical novelty” of computation constituted in its expansion of abilities, we need to take responsibility for this power. He did so by thinking deductively and deriving code from deduction that avoided bugs. But this approach is incomprehensible from the point of view of the typical programmer, whom we can detect when he says that unlikely things “cannot” happen, and when he uses idiotic automotive metaphors to refer to a power he has not mastered.

  12. You said “thousands”, but are unable to name one.

    Implementing a script that fell over if it couldn’t contact an external website would be very bad practice. But clearly, even if it is “possible” to create such a thing, no one was actually dumb enough to do so,

    Also not even a hint of why anyone would want to do that.
    Wikipedia isn’t a news site, a stock ticker, a weather station, it doesn’t have any reliable daily updates.

    This isn’t a matter of “likely” or not, it’s now a matter of record that no systems were in fact “en-dang-er-ed”.

    “scripts, which cannot by definition turn Javascript off”?
    If you are scripting a GET, you just “get” the HTML. To execute any scripts that may be in the text is another, more complex, step that you do only if you need to. Which you don’t.

    See for example
    In all of its options you won’t find “javascript” mentioned once.

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      I think you need to look up the meaning of the word “endangered”. If you get drunk and drive with your kids in the car at 90 mph, you’ve “endangered” the kids and are guilty of DUI even if you make it home safely.

      When was the last time you got drunk and drove under the influence?

      I find your pretense tiresome. Wikipedia was brought down for a foolish reason and this EN fucking DANGERED any script that expected it to be there. Your little techie knowledge is purely empirical and for this reason backwards looking.

  13. “If you get drunk and drive with your kids in the car at 90 mph, you’ve “endangered” the kids and are guilty of DUI even if you make it home safely.”

    No children were at risk of death for depending on a script that could not parse Wikipedia for 24 hours.

    Your resort to such a bizarre analogy indicates you really can’t think of any real-world or even hypothetical application that might have been broken. Let alone one that “endangered” (how?) anyone.

    Some kids looking for a paragraph to crib for their homework might have had to go tot the second hit on Google (probably a clone of Wikipedia, there are many) instead of the first for a day. That’s about it.

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      Gee, how do you know? Sounds to me you lack any moral imagination whatsoever. There could indeed be an unlikely chain of events. The power of computers and the size of memory, growing under Moore’s Law, makes black swans more likely every day.

      I’m stating a MORAL RULE, chump: that a programmer or other computer jerk that creates a public utility, from a script to a giant data base such as wikipedia, must NEVER bring that facility down without conscious buy-in from its users, and NEVER because of a personal (in wikipedia terms, non-neutral) opinion.

      Jesus H. jumping Christ in a sidecar, I am so glad today to be an artist, a teacher, an actor, a dancer and no longer a programmer! That’s because I’ve seen good programmers destroyed by little creeps who sit around on “break” and sound like you clowns.

      You fantasized when as corporate employees that you had power to hard code and ride roughshod over users, only to find that your proprietary tools were in most cases replaced by vendor tools and today by cloud tools, and now you’re working aren’t you, at Costco.

      “Welcome to Costco, I love you. Welcome to Costco, I love you. Welcome to Costco, I love you.”

      – Idiocracy

      And on wikipedia you engage in the collective, masturbatory fantasy that you have power to create some silly assed form of shadow rule by goatee’d computer creeps over the bad guys.

      GROW UP.

      It’s insane. When I was encouraged to “be bold” and contributed content, still embedded, on Adorno and the 1401 in 2004, that intellectual production was stolen. Then, in 2006, Jimbo engaged Costco greeters and convenience store clerks with junior college degrees who confused being able to fucking write with being non-neutral, and life experience with original research.

      You apply rules selectively. But I say, to endanger an automated tool by withdrawing a data base or utility was the sort of stunt CREEPS and THUGS of my acquaintance would pull on the old mainframes, the old minicomputers, the old private networks.

      Of course I’d do due diligence were I to use a table of data on wikipedia, of which there are many. I’d know how to parse HTML and find the table, signaling failure if the HTML I expect is not there. That’s because when I was a programmer, I did my job (16 hours a day) and didn’t sit around the break room running my mouth.

      My boss at Princeton would have asked me, “what if wikipedia goes down”. She’d tell me to call Jimmy Wales or some designate up and ask the policy. If they confirmed that it is not guaranteed to be up, she’d ask me to find a proprietary data base.

      You cannot depend on the “cloud”.

      Basically, you guys seem not to have grokked the idea that there are two FORMS OF LANGUAGE: the empirical, what happens (as in “shit happens”) and the forensic language of duties, rights, and promises. That’s because your idiotic operant philosophy, that of libertarianism, has no clear conception of duty: in it, the “rational man” (a creep and thug) does A only to get B in an insane rat race.

      Which is why the poor are disproportionally victimized by software systems as in the case of renter data bases where a false negative is impossible to eradicate. Just as the victims of the Jan 19 shutdown are invisible (including future victims of copycat shutdowns) the poor are invisible to you.

      Go to hell, the lot of you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: