Most Recent Change
28 Jan 2020
“Can’t we all just get along?” was edited.
Everything that I’ve posted on this page doesn’t apply to anyone who has been a part of my personal life. If you haven’t been a part of my personal life, please be aware that if you were to please read any of the ideas and my thoughts about it that I’ve posted on this page, then you could begin to feel more self-conscious about yourself.
TOPICS (↑T) in Ideas | The Meaning of Life | Cosmic Laws | Negative Things| Me
On this page, I’ve posted multiple ideas that I’ve heard and/or read, and then I’ve posted some of my reactions to each of them.
“All the time,” “Everywhere,” and “Forever”
Arrogance, Hypocrisy, and Insensitivity
“Have a Good Day/Night/etc.”
“Having/Have/Has a Sense of Humor”
“Can’t we all just get along?”
“Honesty Is the Best Policy”
“Money can’t buy happiness.”
“You Get What You Pay For”
One-Dimensional But Value Is Multi-Dimensional
Zero Reliability in Practice
Every time that I’ve heard someone else in the US society say “all the time,” “everywhere,” and/or “forever”, “all the time” has never meant all of the time, “everywhere” never everywhere, and “forever” never forever. “All the time” always meant sometimes, “everywhere” always meant in some places, and “forever” always meant an amount of time that’s less than 100 years.
Here’s an example of how I’ve heard and seen “all the time” used:
A Stranger: I do it all the time. *says a stranger who isn’t doing it while talking about it*
The USA has a culture of arrogance, hypocrisy, and insensitivity. Here are two examples: “have a good day/night/etc.” and “having/have/has a sense of humor.”
At a workplace, I was asked why I’ve replied with “no sir” when I’ve been told, “have a good night.” I replied with my honesty and respect because I thought that was the best thing to do, but I’ve decided to use less respect by answering the question in ten parts:
I. “Have” Obsession | ↑
“Have” in this idea represents a type of lower-standard conformity in the US society with the obsession of having something as though just because a person has something, then this would guarantee a positive outcome. Some examples of this obsession are “Have a good night,” “Have a great weekend,” and “Have a nice day.” This conformity isn’t positive because my only having something doesn’t guarantee a positive outcome, so why say this to me?
II. Telling Someone to “Have” | ↑
“Have” is a verb in this idea, and I’ve learned that to start a phrase or a sentence with a verb is to tell someone to do a task, and if I’m told to do anything, then my reaction is to please avoid doing it. Telling a person to do something is one of the top-trending types of arrogance in the US society because the speaker treats me as though he/she is my commander, and I’m a soldier; he/she is a pet owner, and I’m his/her pet; or I’m a robot that can’t think or feel. I’m not fighting in a war; I’m not someone’s pet; and I’m not a lifeless machine.
III. “a . . . day/night” | ↑
If to some people, they can “have a good night,” then this to me would be completely valid, but every second of my life that has passed wasn’t an amount of time that I have now, so I can’t have an entire “day/night.” I have zero interest in having something that I can’t have.
IV. “Good” | ↑
Good doesn’t exist in my world, so this idea is like saying “Have a non-existent night,” but I can’t have a non-existent night/day/etc. because I can’t have anything that doesn’t exist.
V. Intended Meaning | ↑
I was told once that the intended meaning of this idea was that I was being wished “well,” but the meaning of “well” as an adverb doesn’t exist in my world, so to wish me well is like saying “I wish you non-existently,” which is also nonsense.
VI. Distraction/Irrelevance | ↑
As I said on my Negative Things page, “in every situation, only the most relevant, existing results matter,” so I have zero interest in adding a distraction/irrelevance to my mind by thinking about something that I don’t have, that I can’t have, and that I don’t want or need.
VII. Zero Practicality | ↑
I’ve been going to work so that I could earn money, not because I’ve been wanting and/or needing to listen to any nonsense. This idea has zero practicality in relation to my reason for having been going to work because every time that I’ve paid to buy anything, I haven’t seen an option called “Please Type in Nonsense (e.g. Have a good night)” as a form of payment.
1) “IDC if good/great/nice/etc. exists to you. IAT it does by talking to you as though it does.”
2) “IDC that I’m not the boss of your life. IAT I am by talking to you as though I am.”
3) “IDC if you can have a day/night/etc. IAT you can by talking to you as though you can.”
4) “IDC if you want to think about a day/night/etc. IAT you do by talking to you as though you do.”
5) “IDC if you want to have a day/night/etc. that’s better than good/great/nice/etc. IAT you don’t by talking to you as though you don’t.”
Here’s my interpretation of this idea: “I told you this idea as though I care about you, but I’ve proven to you that I don’t care about you in five different ways.” I’ll please respond to this idea and to my interpretation of it by using some reactions that I’ve learned from having lived in the US society: “What the f*ck are you talking about? It made no sense whatsoever. That was a load of bullsh*t. If you don’t care, then why the f*ck would you talk to me like you care?”
IX. Hypocrisy | ↑
This idea seems to represent that anyone who says it to me cares about a part of my life, but this is false because the hypocrisy of this is that if the speaker does care, then he/she would ask me if I would want to “have a good day/night” instead of assuming that good exists in my world and then telling me to “have a good day/night.”
X. Insensitivity | ↑
This idea is like garbage because my interest in getting it by listening to anyone say it to me doesn’t exist, so repeatedly dumping this verbal garbage into my mind as though my mind is a garbage can is a type of insensitivity.
In the USA, both honesty and “having a sense of humor” are valued, but these two values conflict with each other because all of the people except one person whom I’ve heard or read doing one or more of the following five things seemed to have flattered themselves into thinking that they were funny or that they “had a sense of humor” (The one person who didn’t seem to have flattered himself was me because I flattered myself. I didn’t seem to have done it. I did it, and I did it repeatedly.):
1. Lied about something or knowingly said something that was false and then said something such as “It’s a joke”
2. Faked a reaction of anger
3. Asked a question and then admitted knowing the answer (e.g. someone asked if water was moonshine but when given
the answer, the asker admitted to knowing that it wasn’t moonshine)
4. Said something that was false to tease another person
5. Smiled while and/or after doing one of the above
A person can’t show that he/she values honesty and “having a sense of humor” without involving hypocrisy because honesty conflicts with lying, with knowingly saying something that’s false, with faking a reaction, and with pretending to not know something. If anyone were to start doing any of the above five things while talking to me without having been invited to do it, then this person wouldn’t “have a sense of humor”; it would be a demonstration of arrogance by showing his/her conformity to some of the lower standards in the culture of the USA.
Anytime that I did one of the above five things without having been invited to do it, I was also showing my insensitivity toward my own arrogance, hypocrisy, and self-flattery.
One other thing about this idea of “having a sense of humor” is that, based on my understanding of HCL, just because a person “has” a sense of humor, this doesn’t result in a positive outcome as some of the people in the USA seem to believe.
“Bullsh*t” | ↑T
“Bullsh*t” is defined as “Stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense,” but not even once has anyone used this word while talking to me to say anything about any existing amount of sh*t that came from a bull. This means that every time someone has said this word while talking to me was using “untrue talk.”
The hypocrisy of using this word to talk about one or more things that aren’t any existing amount of sh*t that comes from a bull is that “bullsh*t” is bullsh*t.
I’ve used my sardonicism with zero intended humor to answer this question: Yes because the meaning of my life is that I become increasingly more stupid by lowering all of my standards. I would do this by getting along with all lower-standard show-offs (LSSs) who flatter themselves into thinking that they know something about me by regurgitating one or more ideas such as “You Get What You Pay For.” How could anyone not completely love listening to one or more LSSs dump their verbal regurgitation into his/her mind as though it’s a trash can, a toilet, or a vomit bag? To not completely love this is totally impossible because the meaning of life is that all people become increasingly more stupid.
I was asked about friendliness at a workplace by the same man (M) who repeatedly told me to “have a good night.” I please thank M because I’ve been suppressing my darkness/cruelty (D/C) side from answering any of M’s questions about some things that haven’t been any of his responsibility, but after he asked me about “friendliness,” I’ve felt less need to suppress my D/C side. Please note that my D/C side has written the following three answers to M’s questions about friendliness with the goal of causing M to feel the maximum amount of mental and emotional stress and/or pain:
Your, or M’s, asking me about something that isn’t any of your responsibility isn’t “friendliness.” It’s called “your asking me about something that isn’t any of your responsibility.” Your using “friendliness” as a euphemism doesn’t change this fact to “friendliness.” If you flatter yourself into thinking that your “friendliness” is about not keeping your mouth shut about something that isn’t any of your responsibility, then this is “self-flattery,” not “friendliness.”
I’ve been doing stocking work, and if I were to answer a question about something that isn’t any of your responsibility, my work won’t magically do itself because I would be answering a question rather than doing my work. What’s the difficulty in understanding this? Multiple products won’t magically come to life, and they won’t begin a conversation such as this (I typed the following imaginary conversation by combining my condescending attitude and my sarcasm):
Product 1 (P1): Hey Product 2, did you notice that Wei is involved in talking about something that isn’t any of the responsibility of the person who asked him about it?
Product 2 (P2): GEE GOLLY WHIZ OF THE GOLLY GEE WHIZ! REALLY?! OMG WOW! ISN’T THAT JUST SPECIAL TO THE POWER OF NEAT-OHNESS?!
P1: WHY YES IT IS! *laughs like Goofy from Disney* How about we please do the work of stocking ourselves because of the specialness of what Wei is doing?
P2: Yes please, let’s please do it!
P1 and P2: Skippity doo wah tralalalalaaa~! *Both products prance with cheerfulness to the assigned shelf or shelves, and then they stock themselves. Magically feeling more inspired and more motivated by the positive attitudes of P1 and P2, all of the other products stock themselves onto the assigned shelves.*
I was asked a question about “friendliness” and about where I come from. Here’s my answer: It’s none of your fucking business. You haven’t needed to know, you don’t need to know now, and you’ll continue to not need to know, so why don’t you shut the fuck up and mind your own fucking business?
If you have any other questions about something in my life that hasn’t been, that isn’t, and that will continue to not be any of your responsibility that you would want to ask, then could you please ask it/them? If this were to happen, then I would please post multiple other thoughts that I’ve written with the goal of causing you to feel the maximum amount of mental and emotional stress and/or pain.
4) My Promise | ↑
I please thank you, sir, for asking me about something that wasn’t any of your responsibility again because now I can please fulfill my promise by posting multiple other thoughts that I’ve written:
Some time ago, I was requested to please leave work at an earlier time, but the amount of work that I needed to do wasn’t reduced, so I couldn’t get all of my work done. You told me that you finished the last part my work, and your reaction to your needing to do this was negative, which was completely understandable to me.
I said that I would please finish the last part of my work, and I’ve been doing this, but after I started to do this, you’ve sometimes wanted more from me: You wanted to get information from me about some things that weren’t any of your business by asking me about them. Did you think that I would finish the last part of my work while having extra time to talk to you about something that wasn’t any of your business?
Did you think that I would somehow magically create more time because I said that I would please finish the last part of my work? If I was able to do this, then I would’ve finished it by telling myself that I would please finish it, magically created more time for myself, and then finished the last part of my work so that no one else needed to do any of it. What level of stupidity do you need to be at to not understand this?
I’ve realized that the cruelest thing that I can please do is to please avoid posting any of my other thoughts under this topic, so this is my last post under this topic.
The US society is obsessed with four ideas: one, “have” one thing; two, using “have/had” to talk about eating and/or drinking; three, using “have/had” to talk or to write about a need/necessity/requirement; and four, a person only “having” something guarantees that this person will use it to get a positive outcome. Here are five examples:
II. What did you “have” for breakfast (or lunch, etc.)? | ↑
The purpose of this question is about asking someone if he/she ate and/or drank anything, but instead of using two words that mean eat and drink—“eat” and “drink”—“have” or “had” is used; however, just because I “had” food, this didn’t guarantee that I ate or that I drank it because I sometimes “had” food without eating or drinking it by carrying it in a bag.
III. (1) Do you “have” to . . . ? (2) You “have” to . . . (3) I “had” to. (4) “has/have got” (5) “have to have” | ↑
In the first three examples, rather than using any of the three words—need, must, or require—that means something is needed, is a necessity, or is a requirement, “have” or “had” is used. In the fourth example, instead of saying that something “needs to be” done, that it “must be” done, or that it’s “a requirement,” someone sends the message that something “has/have got” to be done. This “have” obsession is doubled because “got” is the past tense of “get,” which is defined as “Come to have (something) . . . ” In the fifth example, this “have” obsession is again doubled when someone says “have to have” rather than “need to have,” “must have,” or “required to have.”
This double “have” obsession also exists when someone does the following two things:
1) Combines a pronoun, such as “he” or “they,” with “has” or “have” to form a contraction (e.g. “he’s” or “they’ve”)
2) Adds “got” after this contraction (e.g. “he’s got” or “they’ve got”)
IV. “Having” a sense of humor | ↑
Here are two assumptions of this idea:
1) Just because a person “has” a sense of humor, then this guarantees a positive outcome
2) A person did something that was perceived as positive because he/she “has” a sense of humor
In both assumptions, it’s not about how someone uses his/her sense of humor or about how this person uses one or more words and/or gestures to express his/her sense of humor. It’s about this obsession with “having” a sense of humor. I please disagree with both of these assumptions, and I’ve explained some of my thoughts under “Having/Have/Has a Sense of Humor.”
V. “Have” Yourself a Merry Little Christmas. | ↑
This idea is the name of a song, but, as I’ve explained under “Have a Good Day/Night/etc.,” “every second of my life that has passed wasn’t an amount of time that I have now,” so I can’t “have” a Christmas, which lasts longer than one second. Also, “merry” and “little” don’t exist in my world, so to me, this idea means “Have yourself a non-existent non-existent Christmas,” which is nonsense.
Honesty is used in this idea without any mention of compassion or sensitivity, and without them, my honesty has always involved a negative thing called harshness. Here’s an example of an answer in bold font, that involves profanity, that’s based on my honesty, and that my darkness/cruelty side has thought about saying to someone who hasn’t been a part of my personal life but who has asked me about it:
It’s none of your fucking business. You haven’t needed to know, you don’t need to know now, and you’ll continue to not need to know, so why don’t you shut the fuck up and mind your own fucking business?
My darkness/cruelty side has written three more examples under Zero Reliability in Practice that show the harshness of my honesty by combining profanity with the disgust and disdain that I’ve sometimes been feeling toward some of the people in this world.
If anyone who says this idea is implying that money can buy some things, but not happiness, then this idea is false. It’s also nonsense because none of my money has ever bought anything in my life. Every time that I’ve bought something, such as water, I was the one—not my money—who did all of the actions of buying the water. I’ve shown an example of this in the following three pictures about how I bought water every time that I bought it:
1. Each arrow symbolizes “had,” so as the buyer, I had my money, and the seller had the water.
2. I started the process of buying the water by giving my money to the seller.
3. At the end of this process, I had the water, and the seller had the money.
A definition of “buy” is “Obtain in exchange for payment,” so every time that I bought some water, my “buying” it completely fit this definition of “buy” because I obtained the water in exchange for my money. However, if money could “buy” something, such as water, then by definition, money would “obtain” the water “in exchange for payment.” Here’s a picture that shows in three parts how this idea would be put into practice:
1. The money is ready to buy water from a seller. Each arrow symbolizes “has,” so the seller has water.
2. The money starts the process of buying water by giving itself to the seller, so the seller has the money.
3. After it finishes the buying process, the money has water, and the seller has the money, so the seller has both water and the money.
In this imaginary situation, an “exchange” didn’t exist, so the buying that happened didn’t fit the definition of “buy” that I mentioned earlier: “Obtain in exchange for payment.” This is an example of the nonsense that this idea combined with the implied message represents.
Two principles that exist in the US society are (1) caring about one or more strangers, and (2) being humble or displaying humility. The opposites of these two principles are (1) treating one or more strangers with apathy, and (2) being arrogant or displaying arrogance. However, I’ve noticed that one of the most apathetic ways combined with one of the most arrogant ways of communicating with one or more strangers in the US society is to assume that one or multiple opinions that aren’t based on any facts exist to one or more strangers.
Here’s an example: “good for you.” This is my understanding of the apathy and the arrogance that are displayed in this example: “I don’t care if good exists to you. I assume that it does, and I’ll talk to you as though it does.” Here’s a list of 50 opinion-based words that aren’t based on any facts and that exist in the US society: good, bad, nice, mean, big, small, huge, tiny, fast, slow, high, low, beautiful, ugly, fat, skinny, rich, poor, smart, stupid, heavy, light, smooth, rough, thick, thin, strong, weak, bright, dark, young, old, hard, soft, far, near, deep, shallow, expensive, cheap, complex, simple, long, short, loose, tight, happy, unhappy, hot, and cold.
I’ve read the belief (B) that “You get what you pay for,” which implies that the value and quality of something are determined by its price, so the lower its price, the lower its value and quality. Lower quality results in lower reliability, so if B was true when I didn’t pay anything to read it, then the value of B was $0 because I paid nothing—or $0—to read it. This means that its reliability was also zero, so B was false if it was true.
The irony of B when I paid $0 to read it was that it was true but only when it was applied to itself because I paid nothing to read it, and this nothingness fully matches the zero value, zero quality, and zero reliability of B.
B is one-dimensional (1D) because it implies that the value and quality of a product are determined by its price, which is only one aspect of any product, but value is multi-dimensional. I’ll explain my reasoning:
If I buy a $10 product, and I use it once, then its value would equal $10 per use; two uses = $5/use, 10 uses = $1/use, etc. In this example, the product has two types of value: its price and the number of times that I use it. The more times that I use it, the higher that its value of reusability becomes to me, but its monetary value that I think of as price-per-use becomes lower. This idea about anything that I buy having two values is 2D, which doesn’t fit the 1D idea of B.
On 9 Jan 2014, I started to work as a janitor at a grocery store. I met the hiring manager only once, and I was told that she lived in another city that was about 60 miles from the store, so I didn’t see her again after I met her. Because of this freedom, I decided to test this idea, “You get what you pay for,” to see if it was true, and after testing it more than 140 times/days, I’ve proven to myself that it has zero reliability in practice.
I worked from 9 Jan to sometime between 15 Aug and 22 Aug of the same year. My pay was $10/hour, and I was told that my work hours were between 6A and 10A. In the first two or three days, I worked from about 6A to 10A, but I wasn’t 100% satisfied with all of the results of my work, so I began to work from 6A to 2P, and sometimes past 2P, so that I could finish all of my work without lowering any of my standards.
This meant that I was paid about $5 or less an hour. The minimum wage in Florida at that time was $7.93. I worked five days a week, and to please avoid any mistakes, I’ve counted only my work days between 16 Jan (seven days after I started my job) and 8 Aug (seven days or more before I ended my job), so the total number of work days that I’ve counted equals 145. Here’s the math:
Total number of work weeks = [(31 – 16) + 28 + 31 + 30 + 31 + 30 + 31 + 8] / 7
= 204 / 7
= 29 weeks rounded down to the nearest whole number
Total number of work days = 29 x 5 days
= 145 days
I was about $4000 in debt before I started this janitorial job, and I went further into debt so that I could finish all of my tests. At this time—18 Sep 2018, I’m still in debt from having done all of these tests, but every test was 100% worth all of my efforts because I’ve learned five things (please be warned that everything in bold under this topic was written by my darkness/cruelty side):
1. The reliability of this idea is zero in practice
2. It’s better that I please think for myself by doing my own tests
3. An assumption based on arrogance and self-flattery of this idea is that the target reader or listener has one or
more standards that are stuck at the lower fucking level(s) of the person who regurgitates this idea
4. I’ve confirmed the existence of “lower-fucking-standard show-offs” (LFSSs)
5. LFSSs are the dumbest fucking people whom I’ve met in this lifetime, and some of them show off their
shallowness by regurgitating fake knowledge that they haven’t done any work to prove is true when it actually
has zero reliability in practice
1. ↑ Some of the information were from two other people, but to please protect their privacies, I’ll please avoid saying
anything else about them.
2. ↑ McKenna, Edmund J. “Florida’s minimum wage to increase on January 1, 2015.” LEXOLOGY®. 27 Oct 2014.
URL. Date of Access 16 Sep 2018.
3. ↑ “bullshit.” Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, 2018. URL. Date of Access 25 Sep 2018.
4. ↑ “get.” Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, 2019. URL. Date of Access 10 May 2019.
5. ↑ Witter, Brad. “How Judy Garland’s Influence Changed the Lyrics to ‘Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas.’”
Biography.com. 19 Dec 2018. URL. Date of Access 12 May 2019.
6. ↑ “buy.” Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, 2019. URL. Date of Access 23 May 2019.