Most Recent Change
3 Jul 2020
“Money can’t buy happiness.” 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
“Caring” about a Stranger
“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 three examples: “caring” about a stranger, “have a good day/night/etc.,” and “having/have/has a sense of humor.”
I’ve written my response below as my reaction only toward every American stranger who has used entitlement by criticizing or by disapproving of my apathy toward him/her. To each of these Americans, my not using my apathy to interfere with anything in his/her life wasn’t entirely enough. He/she showed off his/her greed by talking about me as though I owed him/her the mental and emotional investment called “caring.”
Here’s my understanding of the hypocrisy and arrogance of “caring” about a stranger: “I don’t care if you want me to care about you. I assume that you do, so I’ll care about you.” This isn’t completely enough to all of the Americans who do this because they must also show off their insensitivity toward their hypocrisy and arrogance. How do all of these Americans know if a stranger wants to be cared about without asking the stranger if he/she wants to be cared about?
All of these Americans who “care” about a stranger live their lives as though they’re all generic, mass-produced automatons that can’t think for themselves and that treat everyone else also as a generic, mass-produced automaton that’s been preprogrammed to want a stranger to “care” about it. The definition of “generic” that I’ve chosen is “Lacking imagination or individuality; predictable and unoriginal.”
If increasingly more American jobs have been replaced with automatons, then this has been a totally fitting result because why would anyone pay a stranger who acts like an automaton more money to do something that an automaton could do but that would require less money to get it done?
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 twelve parts:
I. “Have” Obsession | ↑
“Have” in this idea represents an obsession in the US society with having something. Some examples of this obsession are “Have a good night,” “Have a great weekend,” and “Have a nice day.” I have zero interest in participating in this obsession.
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. Other than the interaction between a manager/boss and a lower-ranked employee, telling a person to do something is one of the most prevalent 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 if you want to be talked to as though I’m the boss of your life. IAT you do 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.
XI. A Product | ↑
I’ve explained some of my thoughts about this idea if it were a product, and in a way, it’s been given to me as a product because after I paid money, I was given this idea/product in exchange for some of my money.
If this idea were a product, then here’s an example of the information that would be on the front and back labels if total trustworthiness were practiced in explaining this information:
Have a Nice Day!
Because We Care®
100% We Care®*
MINIMALLY PROCESSED**. NO APATHY.
INGREDIENTS: Apathy 1, Apathy 2, Apathy 3, Apathy 4, Apathy 5, …
Below is an explanation of each type of Apathy (NOTE: WDC means We don’t care)***:
1. WDC if you want to be treated as though we’re the bosses of your life.
2. WDC if nice exists to you.
3. WDC if you can have a day.
4. WDC if you want to think about a day.
5. WDC if you want to have a day that’s better than nice (e.g. nicer or nicest).
*The “We Care®” part is false because as shown in the INGREDIENTS list and as explained under this list, we don’t care about you in five different ways.
**This product was MINIMALLY PROCESSED because the mental process that was involved in showing this idea to you was at the minimum level.
***To us, you’re just another generic, mass-produced automaton that has visited our store in the form of a customer and that can’t decide any of the above five things for yourself.
I learned at a public, elementary school in the USA that “better” is more positive than “good” and that “best” is more positive than “better” and “good,” yet at a “professional” level, after I paid to buy one or more products, I’ve been repeatedly told to “have a ‘good’ day/night/etc.” Here’s an unspoken message of this idea: Even though you’ve bought one or more products so that a part my pay/salary will be guaranteed, you’re not worth investing any effort to use elementary-school-level knowledge when I say this idea to you. Who cares if “good” exists to you or if you’ve thought about having a “better” or “best” day? Who cares if you can have a day? Not me because I don’t care, but I’ll show off my pretense of caring about you.
Here’s my reply to the above paragraph to myself: This is 100% understandable. All of these people who have been saying this idea to you have been earning work time that’s been used to calculate their pay/salary. Who wouldn’t want to show off their multiple lower standards when the result will be that they’ll be paid to have done this? Who cares about any higher standards when they can get paid to practice mindless conformity?
To all of the people who have been doing this, I please thank you because you’ve all been providing an abundance of evidence that “You get what you pay for” has been false because I haven’t been shopping at a grocery store so that I could pay for someone to pretend to care about me when he/she didn’t care.
I also please thank you everyone who has had this elementary-school-level knowledge and who told me to “have a good day/night/etc.” after I bought one or more products because you’ve proven that HCL has been, is, and will continue to be true in both ways:
Just because you’ve had elementary-school-level knowledge, this didn’t determine a positive outcome.
Just because the USA contains this abundance of evidence that shows that “You get what you pay for” is false, this won’t determine the positive outcome that multiple Americans will use it to understand that this idea is false.
One more of my thought about this idea is that why have multiple people been hired because they’ve met the requirement of having a high school diploma or equivalent when they can’t even use elementary-school-level knowledge to understand the arrogance, hypocrisy, and insensitivity of this idea? Here’s my reply to my question: In the US society, having matters more than using, so who cares if these people can use it when they have it?
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 don’t understand this idea at an American, “professional” level. Every time that an employee who is a stranger at a workplace has asked me about something in my personal life that hasn’t been and that will continue to be none of the asker’s business . . . was this considered as friendliness? If it was, then why did this happen? A stranger is called a “stranger” because he/she is a stranger, not my friend.
Does a difficulty exist in understanding this? If so, then what’s the difficulty? Does one or more American “professionals” flatter themselves into believing that if they label one of their actions by using a different word (e.g. “friendliness”) instead of calling the action what it is (e.g. asking a question about something that’s none of their business), then by doing this, they somehow magically transform their action into the idea that this word represents?
If this were true, then the arrogance, hypocrisy, self-flattery, and insensitivity of this American, “professional” idea is like when I used my arrogance to flatter myself into thinking that when I called a lady “ma’am” or that when I called a man “sir” that I was showing “respect” when I didn’t ask any of them if they wanted to be called “ma’am/sir.” The results of this were that multiple people proved the existence of my arrogance, hypocrisy, self-flattery, and insensitivity by telling me to not call them “ma’am/sir” or that they didn’t want to be called “ma’am/sir,” and the reason was that my having done this made them feel old. Because of this, I’ve stopped assuming that all other people want to be called “ma’am/sir.”
My having flattered myself into thinking that I was showing “respect” didn’t somehow magically transform my treating others with disrespect into my acts of “respect.”
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 or hold (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 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.” What would be the level of challenge or difficulty in adding “can’t be used” to this idea so that it would match how buying something has been done in practice? It would be at the level of applying elementary-school-level English because “can’t,” “be,” and “used” are all elementary-school-level words, but who cares about adding “can’t be used”? Who cares about using English at multiple elementary-school-level standards in the US society even though English is the official language of the US?
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 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. ↑ Oxford University Press (OUP). “bullshit.” Lexico.com. Lexico.com, 2019. URL. Date of Access 20 Feb 2020.
4. ↑ Oxford University Press (OUP). “get.” Lexico.com. Lexico.com, 2019. URL. Date of Access 20 Feb 2020.
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. ↑ Oxford University Press (OUP). “buy.” Lexico.com. Lexico.com, 2019. URL. Date of Access 20 Feb 2020.
7. ↑ Oxford University Press (OUP). “generic.” Lexico.com. Lexico.com, 2019. URL. Date of Access 17 Mar 2020.
8. ↑ CRS (Congressional Research Service). “English Language Unity Act of 2017.” CONGRESS.GOV. Library of Congress, 9 Feb
2017. URL. Date of Access 2 Jul 2020.