Jo S Wun's Blog

The Last Post

Jo S Wun — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:39:08 +0000

This will be my last post on this WordPress blog.

I’ve been using Posterous for some while now and have also been using their automatic system for reposting here, the posts I write there. But it’s not working very well!

So, if you want to continue reading my posts, you can do so at:

http://joswun.posterous.com

Or, you can subscribe to the RSS feed:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/JoSWun

Or, you can subscribe by email:

http://joswun.posterous.com/members/add_subscription/?site=2170494

Thanks!

Strange Days

Jo S Wun — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:06:29 +0000

Some days the words don’t flow. Bummer, eh?

Music sometimes helps.

3 Strange Days by School Of Fish Listen on Posterous

School of Fish at Amazon

On The Importance Of Having A Trustworthy Confidente

Jo S Wun — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:17:49 +0000

I don’t believe there is any ‘afterlife’ – when I die, that’s it; I cease to exist. So why should I care about what sort of funeral I’m given? I won’t know anything about it, right? So what does it matter?

Well, it matters because although I won’t be aware of it, it will have an influence on others who are still living. Regardless of whether there is an ‘afterlife’, there sure as hell (forgive my lame humour) will be an ‘afterMYlife’, or at least I have reason to think there’ll still be some people about after I die. It’s also very likely that those of you who survive me (rather an odd expression – I hope it isn’t as painful as it sounds), some of whom I know, but most of whom I don’t, will continue to talk amongst yourselves. And that’s why it is important to me that my funeral not be hijacked by those who do not share my views, as a means to promote and perpetuate theirs.

Sadly, in my experience, that’s all too often what happens. Proponents of an ‘afterlife’ seem to view a funeral, no matter what the stated beliefs of the dead person, as a window of opportunity through which they can crash, launching their missals willy-nilly as they go. Like a smash and grab raid in reverse, they seek to implant a ‘soul’, only to claim it’s gone off somewhere in the very next moment. The odd part is that a lot people seem to think it’s pretty much okay for them to do that, even though they don’t really share their beliefs or, if they do, only in a half-hearted, token way. They just go along with it because, perhaps, they don’t want to create a scene. They simply close their ears to the sound of breaking glass.

I wrote a few days ago about the genital mutilation of babies who, due to their physical state, are unable to voice objections, which is conveniently construed, by the advocates of ritual mutilation, as there having been no objections. It bears an uncanny similarity to the situation where a dead person, due to their physical state, is unable to voice objections to the hijacking of their funeral by proponents of an ‘afterlife’. Fortunately, for a dead person there is no direct personal consequence from this lack of respect, a lack of respect which is so often proudly displayed by the perpetrators, as if it is a virtue. It’s that lack of respect, the complete disregard for others, which royally pisses me off. If you happen to be at my funeral, and some knobhead decides to start on about an ‘afterlife’ (or any of that stuff), please ask them to stop immediately, because I specifically asked you to do that very thing. Thanks.

And then there’s the deathbed conversion. I don’t doubt that it happens, particularly if the unfortunate soon-to-be-dead person has some arsehole stimulating their fear receptors in their final days and hours, but I also suspect that, on occasion, the alleged conversion never actually happened. Of course, I have no direct evidence of that. How could I? But why should I think that the type of thinking which allows people to abuse babies and hijack funerals is limited to those events only?

So here’s the conundrum – how to prevent a false claim of your own deathbed conversion?

Achieving this requires some setting up in advance. Yes, you have to do it now to be sure it will work. I mean, you could be dead tomorrow, right? So here’s what you have to do.

Firstly, you will need someone who you trust with your life, and who is also likely to outlive you. It could well be that a daughter or son would fit that profile.

Then, in secret, you and that person must agree upon a phrase that nobody else is likely to be able to guess. Something random and made up, like, “I didn’t kick your kneecap when you were fourteen and three quarters”, but whatever, it must be something that you will be able to remember word for word. So make it fun!

Next you put the agreed phrase in writing to your confidente, together with a statement that if you should happen to decide at, or near, the time of your death to alter your view (that there is no ‘afterlife’, or whatever best describes your view), the very first thing you will do, before you confide to them that you have converted, is ask the person who will witness your conversion to learn the agreed phrase (as proof of your conversion). Your confidente must keep the document, either paper or digital, in a safe place away from prying eyes, and not even reveal its existence, unless circumstances, such as an alleged deathbed conversion, make it necessary to do so.

In the event of a claim of deathbed conversion, your confidente only has to ask the claimant if you asked him, or her, to learn a phrase and, if so, to repeat that phrase. Bingo! It’s revelation time.

It’s not foolproof – for example, you might lose your marbles and inadvertently reveal the scheme – but if you think there is any chance of someone falsely claiming you underwent a deathbed conversion, then it might just catch them out (assuming your confidente has the courage to call them on it, which is a very good reason to choose your confidente wisely).

An additional benefit of this scheme is this: If you do decide to convert in your last moments, you have a means of confirming it beyond reasonable doubt.

Think I’m paranoid? I like to think it’s the ‘boy scout’ in me – being prepared for all eventualities – even though I never was a boy scout!

Pretty Pictures

Jo S Wun — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:53:55 +0000

I was digging around on Wikimedia Commons, looking for a picture to illustrate another post, when I saw a link to Picture of the Year 2010. The winner is certainly worthy, but looking through the finalists entries, these two caught my eye. I love the colours.

By Dmitry A. Mottl (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

By Dan Molter [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Potentially The Best Crap Filter Ever

Jo S Wun — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:54:26 +0000

This seems like a great idea to me. Watch the video to find out more…

…and then, if you like what you’ve seen, head on over to http://hypothes.is/ and claim your username. There is a lot more detail on the site too.

I won’t re-hash here what you can read there. Suffice to say that it gets my thumbs up.

Yes, joswun@hypothes.is already taken. By me.

Just Another Surgical Procedure

Jo S Wun — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:18:47 +0000

Circumcision. It sounds so much more acceptable to call it that rather than genital mutilation. Actually, I don’t have a major problem with it. If a bloke wants to cut off part of his penis, well that’s up to him. I might think he’s as bat shit crazy to do that as the guy who drilled a hole in his own head, but hey, people do weird stuff to their bodies. You could say that it’s part of what makes us human.

What I’m not at all ambivalent about is people doing it to other people without their consent – just strap ‘em down and slice it off. Try doing that to an adult and you risk serious punishment through the legal system, but how about if the victim was not yet an adult – say 14? Nope. Not okay. Some would probably consider it worse. You’ll be off to jail for sure. So at what age is it acceptable to just strap ‘em down and slice it off? Seven? Nope. Two? Nope. You can see where this is going, can’t you.

I don’t think it’s really an age thing. The main criteria for acceptability seems to be that the victim must not have verbally expressed dissent. The fact that babies can’t talk is probably just a coincidence, right?

Here’s a documentary about it in all its ‘glory’. I’ll warn you in advance that there are scenes which I had to turn away from, but that’s part of the reason it should be watched.

Among the comments on the YouTube page is this one from SuperMare54: ”So get the baby drunk….. then cut off part of his penis….. and then laugh and celebrate. What is wrong with this picture???”

I noticed another part where the guy in the suit, sitting in the swivel chair, was wriggling and squirming as he talked, and had that ‘almost laughing’ expression crawling all over his face for a large part of the time. I think that’s what people do when they know that they are wrong, but don’t want to admit it.

To my mind, if circumcision is a ‘just another surgical procedure’ then rape is merely ‘unwanted attention’.

The unabridged version of Cut can be bought on DVD at: www.CutTheFilm.com

Latin Lover?

Jo S Wun — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:23:01 +0000

If you are familiar with layout and design, either in print or the digital variety, then the following paragraph will need no introduction. Others may have come across similar paragraphs on websites which are ‘under construction’, or on those rather sad sites which were never completed and have been left as forlorn relics of good intentions.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisici elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

It looks like Latin, although in fact it’s gibberish. It’s used by designers as a place-holder, an indicator of what a block of text will look like big-picture-wise. If you want the infra inferius infimus (that’s Latin for ‘low down’, according to InterTran) then where else would you expect me to point you than the Wikipedia article.

Recognise this moth… er … geezer?

Yes, it’s that rather nice chap, Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson), famous for several unforgettable scenes in Pulp Fiction, including the one below in which my favourite part is when he says to Brett, just after he shoots the guy on the couch: “I’m sorry, did I break your concentration? I didn’t mean to do that. Please, continue, you were saying something about best intentions. What’s the matter? Oh, you were finished! Well, allow me to retort. What does Marsellus Wallace look like?”

It always cracks me up every time I hear him say, “Well, allow me to retort.”

(NSFW)

No place-holders in that. Which raises the question why Paul Maloney, who says of himself, “I’m a Freelance Web Designer & Front End Developer and I make AWESOME Websites”, was prompted to create the Samuel L. Ipsum alternative Lorem Ipsum generator. Perhaps he just has a similar sense of humour to mine. But before you click the link below, be warned, it’s no more safe for work than the video clip…

http://slipsum.com/

Twit Or Tweet?

Jo S Wun — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:26:15 +0000

Talking of ‘Trick or Treat’, which I know I wasn’t (but nonetheless realising that it will soon be upon us was part of the chain of thought that resulted in the title of this post, which is probably evidence of my lowbrow mentality, and also evidence of a tendency to get distracted by trivial linguistic things which I find amusing – like the fact that I have to tweezer the hairs from between my eyebrows to avoid the Neanderthal ‘onebrow’ look and whether tweezer is a legitimate verb – a consequence of which is that I tend to forget what my objectives were, and, oh, errrm…where was I? Oh yes…’Trick or Treat’), I wanted to say something about false dichotomies.

At this point, you’ve got two options. You can either continue reading this awesome article, or stop right now and miss out on the experience of a lifetime.

Okay..daft example and rather easy to spot. Obviously you have more than just those two options. You could, for example, read it later, then put up link to it as a Facebook status update because you think it is either interesting or amusing (which is, of course, another false dichotomy, right? Well, technically no, although it uses a similar method to achieve a desired outcome).

False dichotomies are used to manipulate people’s thinking processes by presenting only two exclusive choices when in fact there are other possibilities. Heaven, or Hell? A fine example if ever there was one. But wait! You’re forgetting about purgatory (I hear the Catholics say). That’s a third possibility. Well, disregarding the fact that I’ve never heard of anyone choosing purgatory (or even having it offered as a choice), the addition of other choices, over and above the two of a true false dichotomy, does not mean that the manipulative technique of a false dichotomy is not being used.

Think of those multiple choice surveys commissioned by companies supposedly to elicit feedback. You know, the kind that goes something like this:

Please select one answer.

a) I have used XYZ and it is the only company I will consider using.

b) I have used XYZ and it is my first choice, although I might consider others.

c) I have used XYZ and it is one of several companies I would consider.

d) I have not used XYZ but would consider doing so.

e) I have not used XYZ.

I doubt they really fool anyone. I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks there should be at least one more option:

f) I won’t use XYZ because they’ve got their head up their corporate arse.

Unfortunately, false dichotomies (or false dilemmas, as the multi-choice versions are sometimes called) are often used perniciously, for more serious objectives than XYZ’s self-aggrandisement. “You’re either with us, or against us!” can have terrible consequences when the one, or ones, uttering those words don’t hesitate to use violence to achieve their aims. In such situations it would probably not be wise to challenge the use of a false dichotomy!

In other, more normal situations, that’s exactly what we should do. Me, I discard that survey. I don’t submit it. Those few loyalty points, or whatever the bribe may be, is not something I’ll compromise my integrity for. When we hear someone using the technique, we should call them out on it:

“Hey! That’s a false dichotomy!”

Not feeling that assertive? At the very least, ask questions:

“Are you saying there are no other options?”

“Can you think of no other options other than those you’ve presented?”

Fight back. That’s what us or’nary folk can do. It doesn’t hurt to be a little ornery, in the right circumstances.

In the words of someone who I will allegedly spend time with after my death (according to at least one of the Heaven Or Hell False Dichotomy Brigade):

“Be the change you want to see in the world.”

It’ll be too late after you’re dead.

Charlie Sheen image based on one at 9xb, who describe themselves as a Full Service Digital Agency. The original image can be found in this blog article.

Who Goes There!!?

Jo S Wun — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:46:09 +0000

I remember watching old black and white feature films on TV, about life in France during the second world war. There was often a scene where one of the characters had to get past a check point, using forged documents. The tension would build as I sat on the edge of my seat, hoping the guards would be fooled by their false papers, and would let them pass. In most cases, the deception worked and I could inwardly cheer. The notion that the deception was unacceptable, that they were morally wrong to attempt to conceal their true identity never entered my head. After all, they were the good guys, so none of that mattered.

There’s been a lot of discussion on the net of late about the issue of anonymity and real names. Google+, in particular, has been at the centre of debate because of their policy of requiring real names from users. Some supporters claim that it helps to keep people civilised in their interactions if they are identifiable, while detractors claim that it can prevent people from speaking their minds in an open and honest way.

I find myself agreeing with both sides, but that’s because I think the two sides are talking about different things. Anonymity comes in different flavours, one of which is typified by the anonymous ‘drive by’ commenter who leaves a racist, sexist, or other obnoxious comment (on a blog, for example). Another is characterised by someone who uses a pseudonym, such as an author who uses a pen-name or an internet gamer who uses a ‘handle’.

The unwelcome input from anonymous ‘drive by’ commenters is an unfortunate by-product of making commenting as easy as possible for legitimate commenters (ie. no registration, login or what have you). It’s like snipers taking pot shots and disappearing. However, people who use a pseudonym to identify themselves fall into a completely different category.

And that’s the point. For the most part*, they are using their pseudonym to identify themselves. It means they have a history. What they say has a connection to what they have previously said. They have a reputation based on what they have said. They are accessible through their pseudonym and accept responsibility for what they say. In my book, that’s a legitimate mode of operation.

By way of example, let’s suppose that my name is not really Jo, that Jo S Wun is not the name on my birth certificate. Would that be the same thing as Jo S Wun not existing? Of course not. I undoubtedly do exist – I am writing these words. And the “I” that is writing these words is known as Jo S Wun. If I secretly changed my name by deed poll to John Doe, but continued to write as Jo S Wun, would it make a difference to the value of what I write? Could you tell just by reading what I write?

There are numerous legitimate reasons for using a pseudonym, not least of which is protecting a person from physical harm. It is a sad fact, but some people resort to violence to silence those who do not share their opinions, rather than engage in debate.

Anonymity in itself is just a tool which can be used for both good and bad objectives. Not much different from a scalpel, which in the hands of a murderer is one thing, but in the hands of a surgeon, another. Anonymity can be used as a cloak for nefarious purposes, or as an invitation to open discourse. It’s a matter of perspective.

* I say ‘for the most part’ because there are those that do use pseudonyms to hide behind. Internet ‘trolls’, the bane of forums and blogs, adopt pseudonyms to hide their real identity while they cause trouble. However, they view a pseudonym as a temporary means to achieve their ends, frequently adopting a new one when their current one is banned, and sometimes using several at the same time, including some which are operated as sockpuppets.

The Female Form

Jo S Wun — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:09:37 +0000

I was looking at an example of,
A beautiful female form.
You could say it ticked all the right boxes,
It was so gracefully adorned.

I’d seen no other like it,
Exquisite in every way.
‘Full bodied’ best described it,
So far from workaday.

No mention of ‘vital statistics’,
Nor the colour of the eyes.
No height in feet and inches,
And all that that implies.

The part that really caught my eye,
Was entitled ‘About Me’.
She wrote of dreams (not fantasies),
And finding liberty.

The deed was done right there and then,
There was no other choice.
I knew I’d offer her the job,
Even ‘fore I’d heard her voice.

The others, for the most part, said,
How wonderful they were,
How astonishingly full of cred,
How much they would deliver.

One hundred plus percent they claimed
They’d bring it to my table.
Team players, extra miles they’d go,
(Hmmm…sheep clothed in shiny sable?)

Oh leave it out, you pudden-heads!
Who d’ya think you’re trying to kid?
It’s not about your super-ego,
The truth lies in your id.

[Disclaimer: Please note that I use Freud's concepts of super-ego and id as convenient shorthand for the human characteristics loosely described by those concepts (and because id rhymes with kid!). Freud has been fairly comprehensively debunked by Frederick Crews in his book "Follies of the Wise" in which he concludes that Freud was indeed making it up as he went along.]