Category Archives: conscience

MacGuffin Proto-psychopaths

The axis of human rights at the moment, always in motion.

Macguffins have provided a valuable tool forming and perpetuating authoritarianism in all it’s forms, including most recently, both communism and fascism. They are used to move the Overton window away from natural law and naturally forming social norms.  Society and government can then be centrally molded creating a top down master/slave system that psychopaths better understand and prefer. By understanding the tells of a person repeating a narrative you much more easily identify and help block the move away from citizen consensus on society.

There is an old unnamed idea, of imbuing an object or event (1) with critical status to a narrative. Macguffins are used in storytelling as an object that must be obtained in order to move the story forward. The more difficult they are to obtain the more they move the story. They are such a powerful literary device that they can forgo nearly all other literary devices. Such as character development, character arcs, exposition, and even death. Entertaining in fiction, and horrifying in real life.

It is widely thought humans have been listening to oral stories or narratives as long as man has had access to fire. Receptiveness to oral tradition likely predates the civilization gene (the birth of villages and cities) for example. Today in the United States people spend 6% of their income on entertainment. A majority of that is story driven. Narratives come to the fore as whole societies, and even single fields of study, complexify further away from a plausible classic renaissance man or comprehensive understanding of all fields. Pop culture permeates all skill levels of conversation. Archetypes cling to their highest bandwidth placeholders, normalizing conceptual fiction in philosophy. Pressing forward, but dulling their sense of normal.

Authoritarians must move public sentiment away from the acceptable center of human behavior, usually characterized by natural law (law based on how most people attempt to ‘act fairly’ without the force of law in place.) Authoritarian MacGuffins typically depict an idealic world of near anarchy. Where human rights are impossibly not trampled by exercise of others rights, and the resources those rights imbue, at the same scope. A fantasy that only exists in fiction and is the practical opposite of the daily mechanics of strangling centralized regulation.

For example ‘Might makes right’ depicts pure natural selection with no civilization as an ideal civilization. “Camelot” is one MacGuffin for dark age feudalism presented as a solution for an impossible level of both financial success through conquest and security and as an answer to the lies of ‘might makes right’ with new lies of ‘success needs might.’

More recently Communism unironicly depicts peaceful, charitable, anarchy as only possible through a top down system. That system pours on centrally managed genocide and has no formal incentive structure other than patriotism and the MacGuffin itself. Meanwhile fascism in a jest directly to communism made patriotism it’s MacGuffin, while it also flattens all reward structures to a single government run system, enforced again through genocide. It’s a strange but instructive MacGuffin since patriotism is achievable in a natural Overton window, but fascists fictionalize it to impossible extents. You can never be patriotic enough. Patriotism must be perused to barbarism (might makes right) Which demonstrates the true purpose of narratives, they are a carrot, on a stick, before the donkey. They are not meant to be reached.

The real damage… Focusing attention on goals that are untested and likely impossible, results in a population perpetually distracted from improving the society around them through realistic and natural means. Removing this distraction by design would result in local, specialized, and therefore different conclusions.

Being aware of this gives free minded humans an advantage in spotting these fictional narratives.

Narcissists think they live in their own grand story, like the Truman show. Since it’s a story, your story, and you are always the lead, you only need to declare someone good or bad and that’s their role in your movie forever. It’s their movie and we’re all just living in it.

A non-psychopath can be exclusively narcissistic, and indistinguishable at a distance. All humans retain the full scope of behaviors of the psychopath, but many display additional behaviors that negate and better their overall performance and contribution to society. Brainwashing (extreme repetition and symbol substitution) can form a protopsychopath from a healthy adult who’s conscience has effectively become their jailer, oblivious to it’s original purpose as a risk engine. This is as plainly true as parents program their children, as a normal and socially acceptable way to keep them from harm until they mature. Plainly, parents brainwash their empathic children as a temporary measure, until their brains absorb their own observations and grow to match the complexity of the world around them. All brainwashing hijacks these potentially beneficial mechanisms, and the narrative keeps them imprisoned in a fantasy.

Narcissism IS the mark of fantasy. Only in fiction is a strangers status, like ‘racist,’ or ‘sexist,’ last for the duration of the narrative (in the real world, their entire life). Fiction defines characters with their first interaction, This is part of the structure of an entertaining fiction. To streamline the story and shorten it. To ONLY present key information and turning points. But people in control of their own faculties, make decisions continuously after a long series of interactions. This is what the conscience, not acting on prejudice, is for. (Anti-prejudice narratives are actually functional prejudice!)

People should be given room to improve as much of emotional growth comes as learning from serious errors. Mistakes regretted, form morality. This is where the unstoppable force(the conscience) meets the immovable object(the narrative.)

MacGuffins are narratives that threaten civilization. Replacing locally sourced interaction with top down psychopathic work alikes with no centralized, structured path to success. If followed long enough, they ruin economies and societies, and inevitably end in collapse.

 

(1) Wikipedea 5/31/2021

Edit 6/10: typos, grammar

Video intro to Civgene

CIvgene can be complex and confusing, but if you’ve got an hour, I lay out the basics in a simple way.   Good way to get started.

 

The death of facts

trusted

 

Them’s the facts jack. Facts are facts. Or are they. Fact checkers love to write their own checks, but who checks them? Other fact checkers? That’s a tangled web, and at any scale sovereignty, and then authority, begins with you. As always the most important question isn’t who, but how. How we determine what the facts are, determines the quality of our reactions.

Many people care about facts as weapons. A way to zing their enemies. The repugnant selfish theater better known as politics. They don’t contemplate broader risks. Absurdities enable atrocities. The fields of facts are filled with Pyrrhic victories. Battles won at cost of humanity’s common war against risk. The truth and the broad shield it provides us is damaged. What does truth shield us from? Many interim horrors, but ultimately, mistakes we can not come back from.

Inherently, there can be no greater risk than irreconcilable error, should facts go awry. All risk ends there. Facts are important, possibly the most important to a shared social system. The only thing that can correct irreconcilable error is externalities. Waiting for some black swan to save you is inherent failure. Not because saviors don’t exist, but because you learn nothing and therefore accomplish nothing if you strictly wait for them. Trying and failing to understand still often makes progress. You need to act even if the facts do not favor action.

Unknown unknowns

How do you act without or in the face of apparent facts? The temptation may be to vette the facts further. It seems like a positive action, and it could be. But as the earliest politician showed, fact finding can become a fool’s errand. If your premise, or other contributing facts are flawed your result will be skewed, possibly multiplicatively. A trace of poison can ruin the whole water supply. Finding facts objectively, at a glance, seems improbable.

There are a few structures by which to find facts. Only in rationalism can facts be found objectively through strictly logical constructs. Empirical evidence depends to a degree on perspective, and attributes and quality of the senses. A rubber ruler at best. Skepticism can never create a test it can pass, because it’s nature is to doubt everything, including the test itself. You can’t create a useful system of rules, you inherently can’t trust. Determinism can indicate there are immutable facts, but you can’t measure inevitability, only likelihoods approaching inevitability. It may be true, but we can’t measure it completely, so we can’t create a fact with it. So rationalism it is.

Determinism while maddening can be useful. There are no determinists. There are only people who think determinism is the most likely explanation for events and attributes, by a very wide margin. They can’t know every quantum outcome at the sub-atomic level that create the molecules in their brain cells, they can only imagine the parts at that scale working together on an impossible to simulate universal scale. It’s too big for simulation or calculation. Which reveals our final opponent to rationalism, pragmatism.

While many people treat facts as deterministic, they can be, and are pragmatic.  What actually performs and gets good results?  Based in an incalculable world, all things deterministic are in fact an odds game and actually pragmatic. This presents a problem for rationalism. Scope. Just like determinism can only approach the probability that it is true, rationalism can only approach the totality of relevant facts. It may, and mathematically will, miss facts. But don’t just take my word for it, rationalism died with the renaissance man. Once humanities best minds determined the entirety of human knowledge is not knowable to any one person  more than a century ago, it follows that nobody can have or even honestly claim to have, all the facts. The concept of incontrovertible facts died, when the scope of human knowledge exceeded one very smart person.

As this is Civgene, I can’t help but present a second argument. The real way I knew to look for the death of facts. I know all the most intelligent human behavior is partly driven by rationalizing subconscious impulse. Our conscience, indicated by our lack of psychopathy, is a probability engine. Churning out likely answers to puzzles by comparing unlike things in our memories and nudging us. We then in turn rationalize or externally explain these insights. Reason without conscionable  impulse is just rationalism, and that psychopathic fashion of seeking truth is, incomplete at best.

Known unknowns

So we know facts can be false, and can’t be proven completely true, but we have to act. What to do? We should use facts, but we should encourage competing facts. How can they compete? By shrinking the scope of society so that sets of competing facts can play out. Experiments when possible, but predictions when not, can scientifically vette facts. It is healthier to act, than to simply wait for a system of incorrect facts to grow large enough to induce a catastrophic failure. By letting people choose their own results, you prevent moral hazard to truth, or disintegration of the idea of objective truth. Whether it’s distortions originate from gaslighting or subtle errors, top down facts chip away at the viability of approaching objective truth.

An idea oriented fact finding process should be encouraged, not a blame based one. Since all people with imagination have ideas, consensus facts should be shared. Consensus is when the vast majority of people see a fact as true, not only people whom you agree with. Some ideas may conflict. To progress materially or spiritually, you may need to limit the scope of people who are considered for your consensus. People outside this technocracy’s scope should not be considered when achieving a local consensus, but also should not be indoctrinated by the technocracy. Attempting to achieve broader consensus through ideas can expand your scope, but if blame encourages a faux consensus, it damages the viability of objective truth. Smashing anyone, much less your political enemies, in the face with truths they can’t understand hurts the viability of future consensus, and creates castes or classes, the quick road to oppression, oligarchy, and massive inefficiency.

Again as this is Civgene, I must point out civgene had predicted this. Behavioral pairs (consionable humans compared to the animal kingdom) indicate that human rights originate from the differences between humans and all (possibly most) other animals and psychopaths. Primarily adding a time component, future, present, and past to current animal social structures. Property, investment, freedom, friendship, currency and their derivatives, money, markets, specialization, and economy of scale all indicate a right to fork. Allowing hierarchies, like oligarchy and technocracy to interfere with these rights, denies people the opportunity to act naturally human, and benefit maximally from it. Faulty (or false) facts compete with and even eliminate these behaviors. Bringing us closer to psychopathic simple animal behaviors as cumulative distortions grow.

Known knowns

If faced with opponents to your facts, approach them with ideas of process for resolution (ideally scientific), or don’t approach them at all. If a fact is rejected, the blame lay with the explainers understanding of the fact, not the challenger. Many things can be, and have been wrong with specialized and local consensus facts. Deception or defection for power or political gain, scope errors or missing information, empirical errors, or simply low intelligence actors may have forced superficial consensus before a broader population could be brought in through understanding. The highest orders of industry, government, science, and other hierarchies have been disastrously wrong about facts for centuries, before. Destroying public trust. Pushing a fact you can’t explain can have subversive results on our very ability to agree on anything, and possibly our health and safety. An obscure fact is safer for the social fabric than a profound distortion. An obeyed dictate, posing as fact, is possible, but comes at difficult to reverse cost. Destruction of trust.

Much good has been done by small groups of technocrats using a common base of facts to discover new truths. Find like minds. Mankind’s greatest discoveries languished for decades in obscurity, even when in common use, or while enjoying tremendous financial success. All based on facts that still to this day do not share a public consensus. Who, what, when, why, and especially how, can all be wildly changed by the tiniest change in the underlying facts. The truth does not suffer from a lack of attention. Only you do. You can not conquer this problem alone, so seek like minds to build on your facts and compare your performance to other societies technocrats, with different assumptions, I mean ‘facts.’ The public mind is a contest of ideas, and the only sure way lose it is to attack the contest itself.

Cult deplaforms, uncult replatforms

replaformed-4-f

What is a cult? It is a faith based organization that disallows exit. The open secret is that faith need not be supernatural, but can easily be theoretically provable, and yet still be just faith. Since human science controls are typically unethical, political organizations are faith based. Even worse, fundamentalist political organizations that are both corrupt and more focused on rules than identity may make exit impossible, becoming a stealthy cult.

The human conscience grows stronger to recognising risk as it is exposed. In some cases opponents may be few, but unanimous political support at scale indicates oppression. People then carry the flag of their faith based organization as though it gives them wizardly powers of truth, joyous in their lack of opposition. In reality they are supporting an organization that limits opportunities for external criticism and has removed the opportunity of exit of their perceived opponents. There are always externalities, a lack of their observers indicates the absence of freedom.

When a rule focused hierarchy faces opposition of it’s procedures or plans, it’s mechanizations slow. Warnings elicit groans and frustration from committees and meetings as the cost of ordinary business begins to rise. Risk/impact analysis can elude even well meaning actors and resources are squandered. If a hierarchies leaders are flawed through incompetence, naivete, or actively defecting, the hierarchy can suffer and ultimately fail.

If they hear every risk, resources are squandered, but if they miss even one high impact risk, the result is the same. Hierarchies need to get this right. High frequency risks have high currency(social or monetary) rewards for discovery, a feedback loop is naturally created. The low frequency risks are the ones that pose typical systemic threats.

Cults are dangerous because the low frequency risk examination is blocked with ultimate authority, or in other words, physical force. Just like any hierarchy it blocks the disruptions caused by low frequency risks to cut costs (or something worse from corrupt psychopathic defectors) You have been deplatformed, so you can not repair the system, and because it is an ultimate authority, you can not exit it. Traditionally, all non mainstream thinkers are trapped in cult.

This systemic risk has been accepted because of a lack of resources to correct it. Books and widely distributed publications, and the freedom of speech that protected them, have been the only externalities. These publications require enormous resources to utilize them. A lifetime can be spent popularizing a single externality enough that public pressure forces the review of it’s risk. Thanks to technology, this limitation is no longer the case.

The Internet has the power to be the uncult. It can identify the intent of ‘cost cutting’ to ignore or externalize low frequency risks. Risks without feedback loops no longer need to be deplatformed, they can be replatformed. Hierarchies can no longer hide behind natural resource limits. A simple address, redirecting people to low frequency risk resource sites can be employed for no cost, rather than cutting them off all together.  Use their old platform to point to their new one. Allowing people to explore the risk for themselves, possibly leading to a failure avoiding fork.

The only coherent argument against this policy in general, is the lack of people’s ability to govern themselves in democracy, which I wholly reject. Democracy works because hierarchy attracts psychopaths and their behavioural spectrum, and the furthest people from that center are the least likely to harbour opportunistic ill intent. Make a personal change, absent clear and present danger, only accept the uncult. Hierarchies that replaform instead of deplatforming. It’s free, so anything less is a rejection of the viability of democracy itself.

Who gets the benefits from the doubts?

self-mutilation(tasteful self mutilation)

If faith is rationalized knowledge you can’t prove, and forgiveness emotional resolution to avoid manipulation, who are you really doubting?

Truth telling is a regular affair. If empathy is the engine, spoken truth is the grease of civilization. Most of the time, the benefit of the doubt is not only implicit, but entirely unvisited. Analysis of every statement, every gesture, every promise would undo civilization. Investment would be exhausting and a terrible trade.

When a flash of insight presents a doubt, the temptation is to ignore it. Civilization is a big machine, and the wise human knows the gears must turn to perpetuate the economy of scale. Down time for repairs will have a non linear cost, but the conscience is first and foremost is a risk engine. The dilemma is usually treated as such, ‘is your conscience groaning more loudly about the risk of a lie, or the risk of addressing it’. This can work but introduces a new risk, gaslighting.

Gaslighting seems silly at first but can be the flat edge to a long wedge. First the lies are subtle and inconsequential to the operation of your society, with one exception, you. You learn to NOT trust your gut and ignore insight.

If a high EQ empath is faced with a single dishonest threat, the dishonest actor eventually becomes silhouetted against their more honest context. Your risk engine retunes itself with it’s flow of higher quality data, and they stand out. The problem is addressed and civilization’s machine chugs on.

There is systemic risk, the risk the conscience is poor at managing a flurry of lies. The intelligent and psychopathic defector WILL notice this golden opportunity. Instead of identifying a narrow pattern of doubt, the conscience is too noisy to be useful. Doubt is aimed inward. ‘I must be the problem.’ Without warnings of risk the conscience becomes a liability.

If you are untrained in proposing and rationalizing conspiracies, you can be taught to throw away your conscience or even program it against your own interests. Not just you. Everyone. Flooding people with enough lies to disable their conscience requires a conspiracy. Those that discourage conspiracy theory are likely in the institutional gaslighting business, better known as propaganda.

Who benefits from the doubts? The institutions people are directly involved in. The hierarchies that are riskiest to fork or otherwise defect from. Today that is their governments, their schools, their employers. Those wise to history know finding a criminal conspiracy can be as simple as asking who benefits? Cui Bono.

Doubts are yours, and no good comes from throwing them away. Rationalize them. Not because the conscience is never wrong, but if you don’t use your risk manager, you lose it. Researching, fact checking, and setting traps for the unscrupulous benefits you. Detect reality. Accept no lies, not even the small ones. Painful honesty keeps your conscience active, well tuned, and in a position to defend the economies of scale that afford us the luxury of leisure, and it’s prosperous civilization.

Your empathy, and it’s outrage, IS the machine. The top priority must be keeping the context honest. Demand people with high EQs. Always observant, tough as nails, and a zest for learning. Test their empathy. Protect the machine with vigorous curation. Reject the benefit of the doubt. Doubt people. Doubt systems. Doubt away.

Insight and Faith

Spilled milk on an old wooden floor

I have erred. I have been conflating two important definitions, which in turn, made the civilization gene more confusing and abrasive to peoples unrelated personal politics. I was conflating faith and insight into one role.  My view of the concepts remain but it should be easier to explain new ideas now.
Here are the new definitions.

  • Metamind – The conscience and the subconscious as one.  Organizes unlike things via emotional content.  A risk engine.  The source of the imagination.  A passively driven relational database that groups memories by emotional likeness.  Produces insights on matches.  The mental structure psychopaths lack.
  • Insight – A flash of information from the metamind.  Sometimes a risk warning.  Not always correct, but faster than rational thought.  Can be supernatural or provable.
  • Rational thought – A traceable waking thought process. Typically thought of as a provable thought process, but rarely including enough variables to live up to that.  The rational thought process can be used to prove, disprove, or carry insights.
  • Rationalization – Rationally discerning the logical meaning of an emotional signal from the metamind. Determining if insight is correct, incorrect, or currently un-knowable.  Searchable via complex emotions
  • Faith – A carried insight. A failure to rationalize. Knowing something you can not prove.  It can be supernatural (unprovable) or plausibly provable.
  • Reason – How empaths (non-psychopaths) think. The combination of insights, faiths and rational thoughts.
  • Belief – Wishing something is true.  Possibly an unchallenged (un-rationalized) insight, possibly a rationally contrived fantasy.  A common, inferior, substitute for reason.

Here is a simple explanation of how a faith is created from insight.

  • Metamind signals an [insight].
  • The rational mind works the insight over and decides true/untrue/unknown. [rationalization]
  • The human decides the insight is unknown. [faith creation]
  • Then depending on if they ‘know their self’ and ‘trust their instincts’  They may store the faith and consider it in future decisions. [incorporation]

I have a long road ahead updating all articles discussing faith with the new terminology. I will be proceeding from newest to oldest. I’ll drop another post when the work is done.  Please refer to the Glossary in the menu bar as authoritative, and then articles from newest to oldest.

If you find this or any error please let me know. All assistance and feedback is appreciated.

Edit 12/29/18:  Added in an explanation of how faiths are created.

Edit 1/4/18:  Improved definitions.  Less muddy.

Faith: genius vs talent

genius-vs-talent

Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see.” — Arthur Schopenhauer

A society that can’t allow faith disallows genius. Talent may be the most visible worker, but genius is the scaffolding of progress. A social mode that allows genius also allows external saviours. They are the same archetype and have the same elements.

This can be measured by a societies ability to separate accommodation from validation. If you must categorize and measure ideas to allow them, you disallow those that produce ideas from the edge of periphery. In simple terms you suffer when you can’t accommodate people who are smarter than you. I’m not saying a civilizations success is measured by seeking external saviours, that’s a setup for cult, but don’t count them out either.

Usually societies discard genius when they misunderstand faith. Faith is an insight that can’t be proven or dis-proven. It’s a game of likelihoods and successful predictions. The genius may not be able to convey their whole ideas in their lifetime, but they can apply their right ideas to the practical world of the now. This is done to build credibility, a simpler language more people and sometimes many people can understand.

Credibility of prediction is pragmatism. Pragmatism is systemically successful because it recognizes exceptional performance of prediction. While it may seem to cherry pick from disciplines, it is actually recognizing genius. Refusing to make social systems more simple than possible to protect the egos of their lower intelligence observers.

The process of the less intelligent synchronizing with genius requires acceptance based on performance. Inevitably this manifests as faith. Subconsciously acknowledging the significance of predictive performance without understanding all the details at once. Faith is not some blind allegiance, but a pathway for the conscience to drive the expensive investment of rationalization. The more understandable details of a difficult to grasp idea can be carefully vetted, the more opportunity the subconscious has to model the idea to apply it in total.

Protect high quality ideas and their vessels, insist your society be both sceptical and coherent with humility. It’s no accident genius is marked by prediction, the metamind’s (the conscience’s) speciality. Rewarding only talent is psychopathic and rejects humanities most exceptional behaviours. Behaviours that form civilization itself.

This water is hot, I’m jumping out of the pot.

 

frog

 

I have just spent six months on Facebook.  It has been painful, but I’m stubborn.  Now I understand why it makes people fight. It’s simple.  You are shown ‘friends’ ‘likes’ against your will.  Problem is. Sometimes I ‘like’ posts I disagree with.  Encouragement and giving space to grow are attributes of actual (not simulated) friendship.  Facebook’s ‘Share’ is pointless.  Further you can’t respect or even note another’s point of interest without endorsing it to random friends who in turn may be hurt.

To less of a degree the same derisive formula applies to comments in your stream.  This is better because at least the words are the authors, but the framework of those comments is broken into tiny chunks at best.  Both a bibliographic and emotionally contextual nightmare of distortion.

How does this relate to Civgene?  Social nuance is destroyed.  It turns people’s empathy against them.  Making them regret kindnesses, curiosity and sharing their feelings.  That is prejudice inspiring insanity and I don’t respect or endorse it.  By detaching sincerity from each individuals context, growth is damaged, then retarded, then reversed.

If you understand both software and marketing you’d understand how deliberate this must be. Other social media only shares ‘shared’ media by default.  Further it is trivial for software authors add a checkbox to block others ‘likes’ or comments from your feed.  There used to be such a feature on Facebook and it was removed.  Requests to reinstate it were ignored.  The result?  Facebook is dividing people and making them fight, and they must be doing it intentionally.  I think this level of incompetence is impossible.

https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=10202806006764439

If for some reason your extended family or a group of trusted friends is expecting you to participate in facebook I recommend spending some time studying narcissistic psychopaths.  Once the conscience is masked by facebooks technology, they lose access to subtlety of emotional expression. At first this impacts facebook relationships, reducing legitimate friendships to the lowest common denominator.  The subconscious mind is like a muscle so eventually it will atrophy.  Animal work alikes for human conscionable behaviours begin.  Essentially persistant visitors will become more psychopathic.  For sure more so than you would be on the level stable ground of consistent emotional context.

The good news is your conscience isn’t optional.  You have one or you don’t.  Since it is antifragile exercising it on other platforms should help you to spring back from being psychopathic. Abit in a 2d, low bandwidth text format saved from constant unintentional inference by emoticons and memes.  Anything based in text is still a narrow pipe.  Emote often.

From now on I’ll be treating Facebook how it treats others, a resource to be cultivated.  A contacts library of allies.  I have a group to tend to, and I’ll check for private messages from my contacts.  Folks who know me understand this is not just some anecdote.  One day I would be proud to play a role in replacing that pile of junk with something to free the people trapped there.  It’s destructive, and it makes me a little angry.

Here is how I will be handling it. Limited contact.  A familiar phrase to anyone who has coped with psychopaths.  Here is what meatspace friends should expect from my facebook facade.

  • I treat all received emotion on Facebook like drunken babble
  • I will only post material sourced from external sites.
  • I will be posting primarily as a promotional tool.
  • Don’t expect any interaction from me.  I reject their blinders to emotional nuance.
  • Assume I will read nothing there.  I may look at, like or share something against my better judgement.  It’s random and means nothing to our relationship. Very possibly a calculated marketing action.
  • Any ‘friends’ I have may not be someone I know or actually trust.
  • I will now have ‘friends’ unknown to me.  This poses technical risks, as friends of friends have privileges.  They could be robots, super villains, law enforcement, wants stage psychopaths(aka:ASPD the ones that end up in jail for attempted murder), whatever.
  • Please unfriend me if you don’t want all your candour public.  You have a day.  I won’t be offended.  Facebook owns the worst use of the word ‘friend’ ever.
  • Check my links for other social media to interact.  I’ll keep it up to date.
  • ‘Message’ me your private contact info (email, etc) if you think I don’t have it and want me to.
  • Even if they did fix this, their intentions are suspect.  This can’t be idiocy.  It is very doubtful I would revert relaxation and revelry.

I recommend everyone treat facebook this way for their well being.  Please feel free to use this article to let your friends know, how and why you are treating facebook differently.  That you appreciate them more than facebook will let you.  That you will interact with them somewhere else, but not there.

I look forward to spending time with all my friends back in the real world.