Tagged: ethics Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • James 21:08 on January 1, 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: 2018, Advance to Mayfair, , cheating, ethics, , , , , , , , , new year, , , , , , Sorry!, The Old Kent Road - a nice little earner   

    Just being psychopathic 

    So, New Year’s Day, 2018. I spent it in the company of my mother for the most part, playing board games. It was nice to reconnect, nice to not have anything else to do but play a few games and enjoy spending time with the woman who birthed and raised me. It’s not often that there’s literally nothing else I’d rather be doing than what I’m currently doing, or that there’s nothing else that really has to be done.

    The way my mind works, it’s goal-oriented. Win this. Get that. Do such and such. Beat him. And when I have a goal, everything I do, every bit of effort is put into achieving that goal. You could say I have a sort of tunnel vision, a razor sharp focus on the prize, outside of which nothing else matters. When I’m trying to achieve a goal is when other people are most likely to be adversely affected. This single-mindedness is what causes me to manipulate and use people like tools. You see, people who have been hurt by psychopaths get it all wrong. They take everything personally. They act like there was always a plan on the part of the psychopath to ruin their life or to make them unhappy. This is rarely the case. The psychopath was just doing what he or she needed to do to get what he or she wanted. You just got unlucky, by being in the way or by being the key to achieving his or her goal.

    Sometimes, I am accused of deliberately hurting someone or of setting out to cause them harm. This is fair enough; people are inclined to take things personally, as they love to imagine themselves as more important than they really are, being at the centre of their own universe. I don’t blame people for feeling like shit when they’ve been cheated or taken an emotional battering. It’s not a good place to be in. But it’s when they call me cruel or sadistic, they’re wrong. I’m not cruel. I’m not sadistic. I don’t wish anybody harm. On the other hand, I am single-minded. I am selfish. I am ruthless.

    But not today. Today, there was nothing to do but play games and enjoy being with my mother. I suppose that was a sort of goal, and could be reimagined as an objective: ‘spend time with Mum and enjoy self’, which would require of me such behaviour as ‘be polite’, ‘be charming’, ‘be loving’, ‘be upbeat’ (yes, that is really how I think). However, there was nothing beyond this simplistic ‘goal’, no detailed planning or second-guessing required!

    And it was enjoyable. We both had a good time. We drank cups of tea, and later glasses of beaujolais. We played ‘Monopoly’ and ‘Sorry’, and I won four out of five games. I was probably thinking more strategically than Mum, because she was just having fun with her son, while I can never really ‘switch off’ one hundred percent. I manipulated and cheated my way into winning four times, but always with a cheeky smile, playful banter and a joke to make my parent laugh. She could see what I was doing most of the time, both when I was giving ‘advice’ on what move she should take next, and when I tried to bribe her with 500 Monopoly money, but she didn’t hold it against me because she loves me, and because I was on top social form. I like that kind of interaction. Being charming and having someone hang on to your every word – it’s a good feeling, even when it’s with someone who is pretty much biologically-programmed to love you.

    Still, the way I look at it is although my Mum can’t help but love me, the fact that she also likes me must count for something, and says something about our relationship.

    New Year’s Day 2018 – it was simple, but fulfilling.

    Advertisements
     
    • nowve666 09:22 on January 2, 2018 Permalink | Reply

      How does someone bribe another player in Monopoly? Give her the $500 to let you go twice? Have her buy a property she wasn’t going to buy? Fun game.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Amaterasu Solar 11:39 on January 7, 2018 Permalink | Reply

      James, You fascinate Me, and I do like You. Thanks for sharing this! I will surely not be trusting You, but I can grasp why Your mom likes You.

      Like

  • GeneticPsychosMom (Tina) 08:21 on December 15, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ethics, , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Kakistocracy: You Asked for It 

    Ajit Pai Unmasked Psychopath?

    FCC Chair Ajit Pai Unmasked Psychopath?

    Many have accused FCC Chairman Ajit Pai of being a telecom shill between his background as a former Verizon lawyer and his determination to ignore all public input (not to mention complaints about comment bots) as he kills net neutrality. And apparently, his attempts at joking about it are only reinforcing those views. Gizmodo has obtained video of Pai trying to roast himself at the Federal Communications Bar Association’s annual event, including a pre-recorded skit where an actual Verizon executive (senior VP Kathy Grillo) talks about wanting to “brainwash and groom a Verizon puppet” to become the FCC chairman, with Pai responding that it sounds like an “awesome” idea.

    Aside from the jokes falling flat, there are all kinds of problems with the routine. To start, FCC officials shouldn’t be joking about being shills. Whether or not they have industry backgrounds (like former Chairman Tom Wheeler), they’re supposed to take corruption allegations seriously instead of turning them into comedy sketches. The humor fails in part because there’s a painful degree of truth to it — it wouldn’t have come up if Pai weren’t pursuing the exact deregulation policies that major telecoms want. And crucially, telecom executives shouldn’t ever be involved. If anything, Grillo’s inclusion in the skit supports accusations that Pai is on the take, since he’s clearly cozy enough with Verizon to recruit one of its VPs for a gag.

    For that matter, why would a Verizon executive agree to appear in a skit that makes light of corruption, especially knowing that the video might become public and damage the company’s reputation?

    Excerpt from “FCC Chairman Ajit Pai ‘jokes’ about being a Verizon shill” by Joe Fingas, December 9, 2017

     

    Psychopath TEST Politicians
    DomesticEnemies.Org

    .

    .

     
    • nowve666 10:15 on December 15, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      What an arrogant little pup! But that’s life under Trump. You probably think Ajit is acting like a typical psychopath. To which, I would reply not all bad behavior is indicative of psychopathy. This whole regime is like an alternate “reality,” a dystopian nightmare (or is that a double negative). Thank gods, we still have recourse to legal challenges. That can delay implementation long enough for a new government. Jones’ election in Alabama is a sign the tables are turning. And that arrogant pup, Moore, refusing to concede has got to be for the purpose of letting McConnell delay seating Jones so he can push through that dreadful tax bill before he is seated. I read that a sizeable group of Trump supporters are evangelicals who think Trump was chosen by “God” to bring about Armageddon. So the worse Trump does, the happier they are. They want the world to end. If that isn’t psychotic, it’s pretty damned close. Which is an excellent opportunity for me to point out that people who aren’t psychopaths can do things politically that are as bad if not worse than what a psychopath could do. Instead of testing politicians for psychopathy, maybe we should be testing voters for insanity. (I say this tongue-in-cheek as I know what an impossibly bad idea it would be to test voters. I haven’t forgotten the literacy tests under Jim Crow. I wish I could really think of a way to protect ourselves from crazy voters but, as someone said, “Democracy is a bad form of government but all the others are so much worse.”)

      Liked by 1 person

      • GeneticPsychosMom (Tina) 10:22 on December 15, 2017 Permalink | Reply

        Anyone can be antisocial and corrupt. It is not necessarily the antisocial political moves that raise my suspicion of psychopathy. It is Ajit Pai’s gloating and glee over his foul actions that appear to be psychopathic.

        Like

        • James 13:26 on December 19, 2017 Permalink | Reply

          You’re probably right there. Non-psychopathic politicians tend to be embarrassed by their own destructive actions. Makes you question what embarrassment / guilt is for when it doesn’t prevent moral shittery.

          Happy Christmas to you both and / or happy hanukkah to Fran.

          Liked by 1 person

        • TypicalCritter 11:01 on December 27, 2017 Permalink | Reply

          I agree.

          Non-psychopathic politicians often see a world that’s heavily colored by their own ideology, then add the fact that people who are good at lying, are also often even better at believing the lies they tell themselves. Behavioral brakes like embarrassment / guilt can be useful to have, but they are even more useful if people take the time to reflect over their own actions sometimes.

          Liked by 1 person

          • GeneticPsychosMom (Tina) 17:54 on December 27, 2017 Permalink | Reply

            I think that the atmosphere of the political parties makes it into a gang or mafia type of expected loyalty situation. Nobody wants to be outcast, because they will be minimized and their voice will not be heard. The worst people then gain control of the best people in groups like that.

            Like

  • GeneticPsychosMom (Tina) 22:54 on December 11, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ethics, , , , ,   

    Kakistocracy: “Government by the worst people.” 

    If we were watching a satirical TV series in which the President of the USA re-tweeted deeply offensive messages without checking their veracity or source, the ability to switch off the screen or choose a different programme might make the events seem like a poorly written script. Because the show would have been poking fun at the so called leader of the free world in an extremely far-fetched manner, some of us might enjoy the programme despite its absurdity. If the programme gained enough popularity, the real life President might even be asked if he had ever been tempted to tweet something outrageous and no doubt the real President would turn that into a joke and move on to the much more important issues such as how to deal with poverty and healthcare, how to ensure that all US citizens feel equal despite the colour of the skin or their gender and how to deal with matters across the rest of the free world.

    The fact that this is not satire and Trump has chosen to defend himself by suggesting he is not the problem and has called on his press team to claim the real problem is the rest of the world shows just how weird life has become. This is particularly disturbing when in real life, men and women in various positions have lost their jobs for the unprofessional use of social media. Meanwhile back in the UK the recently resigned Secretary of State for International Development has just proposed improving our prospects of a clean Brexit by telling the rest of the EU to “sod off”. This sort of language in public from a leader in virtually any other profession would at the very least bring a reprimand to the person concerned, however the voters in Witham are in no position to challenge Ms Patels words, even though she is paid to represent them. Elsewhere in our country a previous leader of the Conservative Party who was Home Secretary for 4 years and is qualified as a QC has just had a conviction quashed for failing to complete a form correctly, even though he did not fill it out as he should. While he did not design the form himself, it is one of the documents that his old department were responsible for creating. The numbers of people who have been denied justice or benefits because they have failed to complete badly designed forms properly, runs into tens of thousands. Their position in life and wealth however mean that unlike Michael Howard, most simply had to take such matters on the chin.

    The truth is that the behaviour of a select group of our political leaders has reached a level that is so low, it is hard to imagine that things could get any worse. A recent analysis of the House of Lords identified around 90 Peers who had voted or asked questions less than 5 times in the year, yet between them had claimed over £500,000, so along with the privilege of being a member of the upper House they have each benefited from an average of £6,000 of public money for their attendance and other expenses. Along with the examples above there are numerous cases such as those of Boris Johnson, Michael Fallon, Damien Green etc who have brought their previously high office into disrepute. Yet behind these people or perhaps above them, there are many MPs, Peers, Councillors and MEPs whose hard work on our account barely gets a mention on TV or in the newspapers. It seems as though we need some way of truly holding our representatives to account and rewarding those who distinguish themselves by working hard in their roles. One person whose name comes to my mind is Frank Field who was elected in 1979 so he has been an MP for 38 years which is a huge length of time. Although I have disagreed with him on many occasions, he has achieved a huge amount of good. The same could be said for the current group of MPs in our City who between them have served a mere 10 years as MPs but all seem to work hard for our city. At a more local level, Tracey Hill is an extremely hard working Councillor in my ward and peers such as Tanni Grey-Thompson and Janet Whitaker do a stirling job on the red benches. They are of course not alone and many others could be listed. It seems that we need to find a way of applauding their hard work, just as we need a way of dismissing those who take unreasonable advantage of their position in our nation and bring the roles into disrepute.

    Like

    ianchisnall

    TrumpIf we were watching a satirical TV series in which the President of the USA re-tweeted deeply offensive messages without checking their veracity or source, the ability to switch off the screen or choose a different programme might make the events seem like a poorly written script. Because the show would have been poking fun at the so called leader of the free world in an extremely far-fetched manner, some of us might enjoy the programme despite its absurdity. If the programme gained enough popularity, the real life President might even be asked if he had ever been tempted to tweet something outrageous and no doubt the real President would turn that into a joke and move on to the much more important issues such as how to deal with poverty and healthcare, how to ensure that all US citizens feel equal despite the colour of the skin or their…

    View original post 636 more words

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: