How to Think Like a Roman Emperor
If you have anger issues, this one is a great tool (h/t mindyourbusiness)
Disclaimer: I’m not your Supervisor. These are my opinions after reading through these books a few times.
This week, I will be going through a “debunking” of Stoicism, thanks to Pie for posting this up.
- According to Stoicism, an individual can achieve a state of peace and contentment by focusing on what they can control with acceptance.
- The principles of Stoicism can help people avoid unnecessary stress and anxiety.
- Stoicism recommends feeling neither negatively nor positively about things one cannot control, which may be unrealistic.
Stoicism is a school of philosophy that originated in ancient Greece. Founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens, it has been practiced for over 2,000 years. In spite of its ancient beginnings, Stoicism continues to be relevant and useful for individuals seeking a fulfilling and meaningful life today. It integrates ideas from both philosophy and psychology.
Stoicism’s core principles
The core principles of Stoicism include the belief that we do not control external events but we do control our reactions to them. According to Stoicism, we can achieve a state of peace and contentment by focusing on what we can control with acceptance. This includes our own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors.
Stoicism can be a powerful tool for individuals seeking to improve their mental health and well-being. By accepting what is outside of your control and focusing on what you can control, you can avoid unnecessary stress and anxiety. You can also cultivate a sense of gratitude and contentment.
Stoicism also offers a perspective on life that can be valuable for many individuals seeking more fulfillment and meaning.
All of this is accurate, but very superficial. This is a little of the history of the school, followed by what you can learn in the first couple of weeks following The Daily Stoic.
6 problems with Stoicism
As the creation of imperfect humans, Stoicism isn’t perfect. Here are some problems that I see with Stoicism:
Stoicism fails to identify the philosophical root of all emotional disturbance: escalating preferences into demands, musts, and shoulds. An example: “It would be great if I could control my partner, therefore I absolutely must be able to when he or she criticizes me.”
The philosophical root of many of my emotional disturbances is a desire to control things outside of my control. The fact my partner criticizes me is not under my control. A Stoic would think, “I can’t control my partner, but I can control how I react when they do criticize me.”
Whether that means not getting angry at the criticism, realizing that they are not doing things intentionally to antagonize me, taking the criticism to heart because it is justified, or even breaking up, all of these choices are under my control.
Stoicism emphasizes the dichotomy of control: those things we control and those things we do not control. It seems to ignore those things on the continuum of what we can influence but not control, e.g., world peace.
Those things we can attempt to influence, but realize that our efforts may be in vain. I can understand getting upset at the state of the world and wishing I had a bigger influence on it, but I have learned not to get stressed about things that are ultimately outside of my control. That doesn’t mean I don’t think about them or learn about them, but I don’t let it disturb my mood, or how I act towards others.
Stoicism unrealistically recommends feeling neither negatively nor positively about those things we don’t control. I don’t control the weather but it makes sense, given my preferences, to feel good about a sunny day and sad about an ice storm.
Preferences are fine, I prefer to live in nice weather and also do not like ice storms. The difference is that getting angry at the weather is a waste of energy and time.
I also prefer to be well off instead of living in poverty. I can control some of the things that lead me to be in one state or the other, but there are events way outside of my control that could make all of my efforts worthless. I am sure I would feel negatively if I lost everything, but if I am a good Stoic, I could get over my sense of unfairness and go about my life without lamenting what is lost, because it was always outside of my control.
Stoicism holds that moral virtue is necessary and sufficient for happiness. Moral virtue does not cure depression.
For people with real mental problems, Stoicism might not be a workable solution. For self-induced manias, Stoicism could work wonders.
I started practicing it when I found myself turning depressed during the height of the lock downs. I had a surgery get infected and I was stuck on the couch for 8 weeks, raging at the unfairness of it all.
I went through The Daily Stoic quickly, then I read Meditations. After that I went through The Daily Stoic again, at a daily pace and wrote a weekly essay here.
My wife has noticed my improved outlook and I have found myself able to work on my truck without yelling about a part not fitting or my inability to find a tool that I used 2 minutes ago.
Stoicism ignores the major influence of genetic predispositions on outlook.
I am not sure what this means. Maybe some people are more likely to overthink things, so if they were to try Stoicism, it would be more difficult. To me, that’s like saying some people have a harder time than others losing weight. Does that mean they shouldn’t do it? Or does that mean they might have to be more focused and dedicated to achieve their goal?
Stoicism omits the importance of the work, practice, and self-discipline most people require to approximate a stoic view of themselves, others, and the conditions of their lives.
It definitely does not omit these things. These things are stressed over and over in all of the Stoic writings. Without all of these things trying to follow Stoicism would end in failure and possibly reinforce bad habits and harmful actions.
If you’re interested in exploring Stoicism further, consider reading the works of Marcus Aurelius and some of the many modern Stoic writers and thinkers.
Marcus Aurelius is a good starting point, but I would recommend The Daily Stoic first, it does an excellent job of breaking Stoicism down into easily understandable bits. I found that I get more out of the ancient writings than I do modern writers on it, but YMMV.
I’m a psychologist, not a philosopher. I welcome your feedback, especially from a philosophical perspective. Thank you for your thoughts.
I was hoping there were comments so I could see how he answered any similar replies to what I think, but there are none, so I don’t know how he would respond to feedback.
Music this week is Metal Church’s new album: Congregation of Annihilation.
It took me a little while to warm up to this one, because I loved the voice of the deceased Mike Howe.
While Marc Lopes isn’t as good IMO, he really fits and this one is a banger.
In a few months, this might be my favorite from them, it is really good.
This makes me want to re-read A Man in Full by Tom Wolfe (which happens to be one of OMWC’s favorite books also). Stoicism is a very prominent feature with two disparate characters who end up meeting because of stoicism (IIRC). One of them is an ex-con who was falsely accused and did hard time.
I kind of like that book, The guy is a really good writer but it was too much like a soap opera.
The only guy in the story I liked was the freezer worker.
He is a good writer because I do remember the tow scene where he was in the office and those people just didn’t care because it wasn’t their fault they were just doing their jobs and the increasing rage and helplessness he was feeling.
Yes, the freezer worker is the one who was falsely imprisoned. I remember so much how his hands were frozen all the time and man, I felt that shit.
And oh, also, re soap opera: I LOVE soap opera books so much I write them.
I know, I love your writing, and am enjoying the 1520 serial you have going, but I can’t get too much into romance books.
You know, if you have enough of them you could build a book fort.
Tape them under your clothes and make yourself some prison armor.
I need a book fort.
Your authority is not recognized in Fort Kickass!
When I worked in a bookstore, there were a few customers who would buy that many in one purchase.
I would recommend a romance author, and women would buy every book by that author at once.
Not even one trial book to see if they liked the author’s work?
Thank you!
I am told, although I don’t know how accurate this is, that I don’t write “romance” as it is generally thought of in popular culture, but I don’t mind saying I write romance, and I’m a little chagrined* that they’re not perceived that way. “Soap opera books” aren’t a genre that I know of. Also, there are mainstream novels are just romances masquerading as literature. As long as it has a happily ever after of a love story, it’s technically a romance.
*So, I say this because if people think I don’t write romance, then I feel as if I failed in my goal. I spent YEARS trying to hit that Harlequin bullseye and almost, but never quite, made it. It’s a thing with me. I’m just a TEENSY bit off of almost everything I do. So, I try to write romance the way I remember it from my adolescence, but I never quite make it. I’m very pleased with what I’ve written, how, and how much. I wrote what I wanted to read. But I’m always just the teensiest bit dismayed that I didn’t hit the target. Again.
I would say that serials would be the forerunners to “soap operas”. As an example, the Count of Monte Cristo. To my knowledge, no one publishes an unabridged version because it would be even more of a doorstopper than the abridged versions are.
Oh, yes, of course. I believe both Dumas and Dickens were paid by the word.
There were a lot of what I would call “soap opera books” back in the 70s and 80s that were just considered plain ol’ “mainstream fiction,” I guess. Lots of it had romance as its core focus, too, so I’m not sure how they decided what was romance and what was not. A trilogy of books I read in my 20s that were originally shelved as “mainstream fiction” were, as of several years ago, shelved in “romance.”
Aside: Now, one thing I really love about self-publishing is that out of print books are coming back into print. However, is it wise to go revisit something you loved so much 30 and 40 years ago? I don’t think so. I know I rec’d a couple of 1970s titles that are on my “most-beloved” shelf to GT and she noped right out. I don’t dare go back and re-read.
I’d already been spoiled on your superior writing (especially the more natural – which is to say MUCH less stilted to my ear – dialogue.)
*blush*
I can’t take credit for that. I’ve been transcribing people speaking since I was 16 years old. I developed an ear for the rhythm of how different people speak English. That may seem to be an odd turn of phrase, but ESLs say things entirely differently depending on their native tongue.
Penguin publishes, or at least used to publish, an unabridged version of “The Count of Monte Christo”. I have it somewhere in my library. I think it is longer than “War and Peace”.
As for the whole literary classification thing, if I could get off my ass and try to write again, I’d rather call them love stories than romances just so I wouldn’t be constrained by the “conventions” of the genre.
…the belief that we do not control external events but we do control our reactions to them.
That sentence struck me as odd because it insinuates that other philosophies or religions disagree with either the first or second half of that statement.
Plants and lower order animals may not control their reactions to external stimuli but I like to think most people are capable of it.
Other than perhaps magic, how would people control events out of their control? Through prayer or sacrifice, a deity might exert some control, but that is a tenuous relationship.
People(myself included) spend way too much time and energy on things that are 100% outside of their control.
One of the core principles of leftism is the idea of activism,which is a way of changing the world. 99% of the time that is BS, but there you go.
Superficial is right.
This person didn’t even bother to learn.
Stoicism holds that moral virtue is necessary and sufficient for happiness. Moral virtue does not cure depression.
What the fuck does that even mean? Cure?
There is absolutely no question that when people achieve control of their desires (sins?) they are happier and more fulfilled.
Stoicism ignores the major influence of genetic predispositions on outlook.
Excuse me? Gloomy Scandis can’t use the tenets of stoicism to achieve a better existence?
Universal truths are universal, dipshit.
This guy reminds me of some atheist trying to explain the mysteries of the Bible after attending a liberal protestant church as a kid. Bleh.
Thanks, Ron. Gonna let the Metal Church cleanse my brain a little after that.
He might have skimmed some books and went from there.
The more I listen to their new album, the more I like it.
I know if Mike Howe was the singer, it would have instantly been my favorite, but I have a mental block about that.
“my inability to find a tool that I used 2 minutes ago.”
This is approximately half the time spent on any job for my. Now where did I put that screw driver…
Stoicism emphasizes the dichotomy of control: those things we control and those things we do not control. It seems to ignore those things on the continuum of what we can influence but not control, e.g., world peace.
Don’t forget the weather.
And Canadian wild fires.
So, in my view, it’s not about whether I can control the weather. It’s about other people who want to control the weather imposing their will (e.g., incandescent light bulbs, gas stoves) on me, thereby taking away my choices. What do I do about these people? Fight? You have to have some passion and will to fight, so to me, that is not stoic. Stoic seems to be calming my tits about everything until I’m in a box built by other people.
My “entry level” Stoic thoughts on this:
Stoicism does not say you can’t be passionate. Just that you shouldn’t let your passions control you. Fight back, but always with the understanding that you may not win and that you will have to find a way to live with the consequences.
And it there is nothing you can do to prevent that box being built around you, then yes, calming your tits is the thing to do. Sitting in the box and raging for rage’s sake isn’t going to help you or change anything for the better. If you can’t change things, Stoicism is making peace with it so you can enjoy life as much as possible.
Living in a box you say?
am disappoint
Stoic seems to be calming my tits about everything until I’m in a box built by other people.
Hah! I like that.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Just downloaded that. Will post to my socials and see what happens.
Shouldn’t that be Epictitus?
Epictitti
Lighting the Q signal?
*wild applause*
EPICTITTIES.
“Stoicism ignores the major influence of genetic predispositions on outlook.”
That is strange. I mean, that’s pretty firmly in the cannot control, so don’t bother worrying about it side of things.
“Stoicism omits the importance of the work, practice, and self-discipline most people require to approximate a stoic view of themselves, others, and the conditions of their lives.”
This has to be the strangest thing to say. Especially if one then recommends Meditations in the next sentence. Self discipline is practically the core of the teaching.
I do think one could claim that recommendations to not feel bad because something terrible that just happened was out of your control are a bit unrealistic. In the end that is the correct response, eventually. Certainly dwelling on that feeling isn’t going to improve the situation which isn’t much different advice than you’re likely to get from a therapist.
Based on what I know of Stoicism (learned mostly here), it doesn’t ignore “the work, practice, and self-discipline most people require to approximate a stoic view”. That’s what it’s largely about.
“it makes sense, given my preferences, to feel good about a sunny day and sad about an ice storm.”
This can be changed as well. I can’t find the blog post, but once Derek Sivers wrote that he takes his son to the park in all kinds of weather. They never refer to it as “bad” weather. They just dress differently. Sometimes they jump in puddles, sometimes they have a snowball fight. But a day out is a day out.
“There is no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing.”
Word.
*looks at 95 degree heat and 100% humidity*
I dunno man.
No clothing?
Speedo?
No man looks good in a Speedo. None. Nada. Zilch.
No Man?
No man. No, not even him.
Not even Burt Reynolds. Naked or GTFO.
I tired that the last time I went for a bike ride and became Internet famous. 🙁
Stoic seems to be calming my tits about everything until I’m in a box built by other people.
But think how peaceful it will be.
Stoicism seems very similar to Buddhism. Right down to their influence on psychology. As far as I know, Buddhism hasn’t been “debunked” either.
I think there’s a lot to that.
The discussion of weather above reminded me of a wedding I went to. At sunrise, on the Lake Erie beach on June 22. It was effing cold and windy, and people were huddled up and whining about it. The Buddhist priest(?) officiating, who as I recall wasn’t wearing any warm clothes to speak of, said something that stuck with me ever since. “Yes, it’s pretty cold this morning. So, be cold.” In somewhat more metaphysical terms – this is your world at this moment, so live in it.
We have developed the means to adjust our environment, let us not throw away the fruits of our cognition.
Yes, these are the same ideas that are taught in Vipassana meditation courses. I would even say that there is some similarity to Ayn Rand, and John Muir (author of How to Keep Your Volkswagen Alive, not the naturalist 😄).
Yes, these are the same ideas that are taught in Vipassana meditation courses. I would even say that there is some similarity to Ayn Rand, and John Muir (author of How to Keep Your Volkswagen Alive, not the naturalist 😄).
New guy?
Sweet van, Tulpa!
Did you just assume their gender?
Why yes, yes I did.
Thanks! I’ve been lurking for a long time, first at Reason, then here.
Re: Poland reparations
“Drake on June 30, 2023 at 10:16 am
They literally gave Prussia to Poland (not by choice). That makes it a deeply unpopular subject in Germany.”
Considering that Germany’s actions caused Poland to lose 1/3 of their population as well as half their land, losing Prussia wasn’t exactly a fair trade. I’m not sure why people here seem to get so worked up about the issue though.
Because Modern Poland is too far west. It’s in the wrong spot!
Fair enough, but at a certain point things become too messy to fix. We’d have to shift a whole lot of borders and people and that would just be one more set of wrongs.
There was a whole series of Glibs articles around this theme of where to draw the line with stolen land.
Apropos of nothing but shifting borders, does anyone make a high-tech world globe – maybe one that projects the maps onto the surface from the inside – that can be updated as countries’ names and/ borders change? A recent discussion of maps and atlases got me idly wondering about that.
It’s not so much that anyone is getting worked up about the moral aspect of German reparations to Poland. I don’t have a dog in that fight.
It’s that German reparations to Poland are incredibly unpopular in Germany and will lead to either the destabilization of the German state or a resurgent German nationalism, when Germany is already bankrupt and being deindustrialized in realtime.
You have to step back and ask yourself WTF is going on here? Is Scholz trying to destroy the SPD? Who’s he actually working for? What could possibly be the motivation for taking that action because it’s politically insane.
My opinion on German reparations is the same as on pretty much every other call for reparations – the people who committed the offenses are (pretty much) all dead as are (pretty much) all their victims. Making people who did nothing wrong pay people who were never victimized is just wrong.
And that’s fine.
The issue is, as always, that there is another agenda here. What is it? This is completely out of left field and counterintuitive.
At the same time that Scholz brought this up, the EU is trying to eliminate the member state veto. That is largely directed at Poland and Hungary, both of which Brussels hate.
Is this an attempt to buy Poland’s acquiescence to that action? I don’t know.
A better idea would be to eliminate the EU. They are clearly bad for Europe and Europeans.
Doesn’t Poland get a ton of money from the EU? Isn’t Germany the biggest contributor to the EU? Consider that reparations. Going a little further, weren’t reparations one of the things that lead to that guy with the funny mustache gaining power?
Not worked up, just commenting on the stupidity of having a fall-out with a neighbor over events 80 years ago. Modern history books gloss it over, but the 1939 Polish government did some stupid and provacative things too.
It wasn’t just Germany. The Soviets also invaded Poland, and then took and kept it after the war. I don’t know how you would tally up the bill for Germany and the Soviets, but some it should be charged to the Soviets.
At least half – if you can find any Soviets willing to pay.
They’re not exactly looking likely to dole out free cash to historically oppressed people. Maybe some lead ala Ukraine. The subject was Germany which was why I stuck with them.
Given the historically bad neighborhood they live in between Germany and Russia, it would behoove the Poles to stay on friendly relations with at least one of them at all times.
There is much to commend in stoicism and the stoic outlook. But daily stoic specifically was in favor of rolling over on the Covid jab.
So I guess the stoic just bakes the cake, flies the flag, bends the knee, accepts kids getting their dock chopped off, supports Zelenskyy unquestioningly and provides pronouns because we can’t change those policies.
Maybe they remain stoic when a Mao or Pol Pot or Hitler murders on an industrial scale. Maybe the shrug when the king goes Prima Nocte on your girl. Can’t fight his whole army yourself after all.
I’m no William Wallace, or even an actual American Hero, despite my handle. But I find it hard to reconcile the collective shrug that stoicism encourages when faced with evil forces beyond your control. Yes, screaming into the wind about it or raging on your loved ones or working yourself into a lather isn’t productive but being ok with Steve Smith teaching you to be stoic when things are beyond your control is a bit much.
Things are only out of your control until they’re not.
I have a friend that posts a Daily Stoic on facebook every day. And in all the years he’s been posting I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything saying you should accept being a slave and don’t rebel.
So, I find your analysis (and similar things that pop up over the years) to be quite annoying.
Note, one of my other facebook friends said that he was encouraging abused wives to just sit there and take it. So, similar vein to your analysis just on a more personal level.
I’ve always read the Stoics to provide path for a free man to negotiate a way through a free life, not as encouraging to accept abusive, controlling environments.
Nothing in the Stoics says you shouldn’t fight for, and die for, freedom if necessary.
The best thing I say say is: Do not let Perfect be the enemy of Good. I don’t even know who said it, I am just the movie guy. The criticism of Stoicism expressed in the article and rebuffed by Ron is from someone who desires perfection. Nothing is ever perfect.
I dropped off the “official daily Stoic” email list when he went all in on the “kids in cages” narrative.
Who cares what 1 also with a website thinks, especially if it goes against the core tenets of what he claims to be espousing?
Right. While Ryan Holiday has some good books, and there is good content on his site, he’s hardly the authoritative voice for over 2,000 years of Stoicism.
I get that just as not every pastor speaks for all Christendom, but a leading voice recommended by this site said bend over. About a week after I started watching his videos.
There seems to be a persistent misunderstanding that Stoicism = passivity. It doesn’t. A Stoic could well conclude that whether he baked the cake, got the shot, bent the knee, had his kid’s dick chopped off, etc. were all things within his control, and thus it is perfectly within his purview to refuse them all.
Nothing in the Stoics says you shouldn’t fight for, and die for, freedom if necessary.
I haven’t seen much in the way of encouragement. Marcus Aurelius, Pillar of Stoicism was a warrior, general and emperor; hardly an career track indicative of resigned passivity, but most of what gets posted seems to be “grin and bear it” acceptance of fate’s curveballs.
I guess you have to read between the lines.
…or read it for yourself and don’t rely on “most of what gets posted”.
…or find a teacher to help you work through it.
This stuff is challenging.
Well, Stoicism says that you shouldn’t let the emotions of some asshole ruin your day. It doesn’t say you can’t wait for the opportune moment and then shank them in the back.
*scribbles notes*
Don’t let some asshole ruin your day.
Be a man.
Ruin it yourself.
Why stop there? Ruin your whole life! 😃
Not even Burt Reynolds.
Not even Frank Zane?
Ronnie.
Billy?
https://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/4462448/billy-zane-owen-wilson-malibu-june-2020-05/
No, no, and no.
Heh heh heh
…or read it for yourself and don’t rely on “most of what gets posted”.
*guffaws, slaps knee*
It’s probably come up already, but I just saw Kagan’s dissent on student loan forgiveness where she imagines a dirty bomb event:
Reminds me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
No, that’s nonsensical.
In the aftermath of such an event, there will be a lot of financial damage which will result in another graft-filled piece of money-printing separate from any existing legislation.
LOL.
Honk Honk.
WTF?
Sotomayor employed similarly strained logic:
A wise Latina, indeed.
And this has what to do with the question before the court? How in the hell is whether anyone would benefit, regardless of how many anyones, at all relevant? At least Kagan makes a gesture to “it’s exactly what Congress provided for” (though again is not relevant to whether they have the constitutional authority to enact that provision – if it actually exists). How can these giants of constitutional scholarship be so damn ignorant of what their job is? I mean obviously they were placed on the court in recognition of their legal and constitutional brilliance, right? It couldn’t have had anything to do with immutable characteristics or political affiliation.
Granted I can’t do anything about it, it’s out of my control, but I’m not going to be stoic about how ridiculous it is that these mental midgets are in any positions of power, let alone the SC. Between Jackson spouting boiler plate post-modernist/cultural-marxist word salad in her dissent on the AA case thinking that passes for reasoning and intelligent thought, and this stupidity… no stoicism for me today.
I would benefit from a mortgage buy out too. What a fucking joke this is
Back in 2008 I made a proposal on TOS.
IF we are going to go ahead with some big buyout, instead of sending the money to the banks or whatever, we should send checks to each citizen in the US.
However, it has strings attached. It must be spent in the following order:
1. Non dischargeable debt. IRS, child support, student loans, etc Probably in that order.
2. Mortgage debt. This was the big issue then, after all. If you are behind, it helps you catch up. Otherwise, its an extra principle payment. However, you could avoid #2 if you chose to turn the house over to the bank and default.
3. Other debt. Credit card, etc. You could avoid #3 by declaring bankruptcy, although your check would probably be used for your creditors anyway.
4. You actually get the remaining cash.
I still don’t like it, but that would have been a better way to deal with the housing crisis than the shit we actually did. Most of the money would have still ended up with the banks, but it would have made the mortgage balance sheet better.
Well, most people pay loans out of income, not by selling assets. Justices really should read the tripe written by their clerks before they sign it.
Plus, what Putrid said.
If I was on the Court, I have the feeling my metier would be writing opinions eviscerating my colleagues when they put up stupid shit like that. Kinda like what Thomas did to Brown.
I guess the obvious question is, in the dirty bomb scenario, what makes student debt any different from any other kind of debt? One would imagine you’d still have to pay the mortgage on the contaminated house. And for credit cards.
Don’t be silly, students don’t own homes, and nobody pays their credit card debt
/progic
Depends if it is a recourse state or not.
In a non-recourse state, you can walk away from the mortgage debt and they can’t come after you for the difference.
Most insurance policies exclude “acts of war”. So everyone’s screwed.
No. It’s not legal.
Pretty simple.
That’s retarded.
Of course, the idea that after such a catastrophe Congress itself would be primarily responsible for dealing with the aftermath never crosses her mind. Student loans, in particular, don’t need an “emergency” response within hours. A relief program that takes weeks or even a few months to hammer out would be perfectly adequate.
So imagine the horrific. A terrorist organization sets off a dirty bomb in Chicago.
A man can dream. Do Washington next, plz thx.
FIFY
Supreme Court to take up major Second Amendment case next term
The Supreme Court on Friday said it will weigh whether a federal ban on gun possession for people under domestic violence restraining orders is constitutional, setting up a major Second Amendment case for the court’s next annual term.
In a brief, unsigned order, the justices agreed to hear the Justice Department’s appeal of a ruling that invalidated the ban.
Not clear that this is good news.
It’s less scary than it would have been with past courts. Remain Stoic! You cannot affect change any decision reached. Unless you intend to file an amicus brief.
I can think of some methods.
It would be dangerous, and difficult, but doable.
Stoicism ignores the major influence of genetic predispositions on outlook.
This thinking annoys me. Some people get math a lot easier than others, but the latter get more if they apply themselves than if they don’t.
I am having a failure of stoicism. I got angry today and then I got even angrier at the fact that I got angry and cant let it go, and no I am more angry at being angry than at the original incident.
also I fucking hate people.
*pats cushion* Here, come sit by me. We can dish.
I a.so hate fucking pigeon as well as people. this shit includes both.
Did a pigeon poop on you?
no
I hate when that happens.
Listen to some good heavy metal and you’ll feel better.*
*Works for me YMMV
Your Mileage May Vary is right.
Heavy metal only amplifies my current mood. If I’m angry, it gets me more worked up. If I’m calm, I mellow.
I’m glad that stoicism works for some folks.
I’m more of a “Screw that noise, I’m shaking things up!” Kind of person. Stoicism stuck me in some situations longer than I should have been there.
I’m more of the Serenity Prayer type.
If I find out I have terminal cancer, I will accept it. Is that stoic? I don’t know. If my boss is a sick and I change jobs, is that less stoic? Perhaps, but I will change shit if I need to.
Stoic Philosophy & The Serenity Prayer
Not sure there’s much difference there.
Stoics definitely shook things up in their day, but had to be able to accept they could come out on the wrong end of it since the conclusion was out of their control.
For Pie
I saved the song about WW III for a future post. Wonderful. I forgot about it.
The song?
How about the album?
How do some people manage to talk loudly for eight hours flat out?
Shut up already woman, find something to do that doesn’t require loudly rambling at someone on the phone!
The girlfriend can talk on the phone for hours.
I wouldn’t mind so much if she didn’t talk so loudly on the phone that I can hear it a floor away.
Sorry if this is a repeat. Serpentine!
Actor Alan Arkin, Oscar winner for ‘Little Miss Sunshine,’ dead at 89
One of the best movies ever. RIP Sheldon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_QCioSGgwU
Do we even export bananas?
The Department of Justice is prepared to seek indictments against multiple figures in former president Donald Trump’s orbit and may yet bring additional charges against the ex-president in the coming weeks, The Independent has learned.
According to sources familiar with the matter, the department has made preparations to bring what is known as a “superseding indictment” — a second set of charges against an already-indicted defendant that could include more serious crimes — against the ex-president in the Southern District of Florida.
No one. Is above. The law.
The Independent understands that prosecutors’ decision on whether to seek additional charges from a grand jury — and where to seek them — will depend in part on whether they feel the Trump-appointed district judge overseeing the case against him in the Southern District of Florida, Aileen Cannon, is giving undue deference to the twice-impeached, now twice-indicted former president.
Innocent until proven guilty, due process, beyond a reasonable doubt. These are all so passe.
The team of federal prosecutors working under Special Counsel Jack Smith is currently prepared to add an “additional 30 to 45 charges” in addition to the 37-count indictment brought against Mr Trump on 8 June, either in a superseding indictment in the same Florida court or in a different federal judicial district. In either case, they would do so using evidence against the ex-president that has not yet been publicly acknowledged by the department, including other recordings prosecutors have obtained which reveal Mr Trump making incriminating statements.
This shit is comically tyrannical.
Additionally, it is understood that Mr Smith’s team is ready to bring charges against several of the attorneys who have worked for Mr Trump, including those who aided the ex-president in his push to ignore the will of voters and remain in the White House despite having lost the 2020 election.
Thou shall not question elections (that Democrats
rigwin).Wait…he ignored the transfer of power? I mean, that’s all ceremony and unless he holed up with armed guards he still…was no longer president as soon as Jan 21 rolled by.
Smith’s a notorious hack who’s cases usually get tossed. That fat asshole Barr was begging for more charges in a better venue a couple of weeks ago.
The team of federal prosecutors working under Special Counsel Jack Smith is currently prepared to add an “additional 30 to 45 charges” in addition to the 37-count indictment brought against Mr Trump on 8 June, either in a superseding indictment in the same Florida court or in a different federal judicial district. In either case, they would do so using evidence against the ex-president that has not yet been publicly acknowledged by the department, including other recordings prosecutors have obtained which reveal Mr Trump making incriminating statements.
Why don’t they just black bag him to Florence? You know they want to.
NERD ALERT!!!!11
The Coveted ‘One Ring’ Card Has Been Found
Throw it in a volcano.
Heck yeah. Sell that thing and get stoic in a lakehouse.
Honk honk.
“Ecocide and environmental destruction is a form of warfare… as Ukrainians by this point know all too well — and so does Russia,” Thunberg said after the meeting, called during a visit to Kyiv as part of an international delegation investigating the environmental consequences of the conflict.
“And that’s why they are deliberately targeting the environment and people’s livelihoods and homes and therefore also destroying lives…”. …
“I do not think that the world reaction to this ecocide is sufficient,” Thunberg continued. “I don’t think any reaction could be sufficient. So I guess we need to make more room for people who are affected by these catastrophes to tell their stories and to share information about what’s happening on the ground.”
Your fifteen minutes are up, chica.
She needs to go protect trees on the front line.
It’s KIEV – there is a perfectly good english toponym for the city.
Also the ultimate tragic irony is if her climate crusading got her killed by russian shelling, proving that there are indeed more urgent matters to attend to than falsified date and the implementation of foul communist systems of oppression.
She needs a good assfucking. I think we know a guy and he’ll pay!
o I guess we need to make more room for people who are affected by these catastrophes to tell their stories and to share information about what’s happening on the ground.
Tell your story walking, toots.
Covid Era showed us that our fellow countrymen are willing to put people in camps and the past two days shows us they mean it
What happened in the past two days?
And?
“This court has gone beyond that. I just find it so out of sorts with the basic value system of the American people… Across the board, the vast majority of the American people don’t agree with a lot of the decisions this court is making.”
Even if that were true it is irrelevant.
Pretty sure most Americans didn’t agree a corporation can do eminent domain yet here we are…
I was going to say most Americans don’t believe growing your own corn falls under the purview of the Federal Government, but I’m not sure about that anymore.
Let’s take a vote on pedo story hours, open borders, and affirmative action.
It’s just a festival of point-missing out there today.
The only instance I’m aware of where a “vast majority” of Americans don’t agree with something was Affirmative Action. I’ve seen references to polls that around 75% of Americans were against it, including majorities of Hispanics and Blacks.
The early referendums on gay marriage and paying benefits to illegal immigrants all when the wrong way and had to be fixed by judges.
Speaking of affirmative action.
In Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissenting opinion in the UNC case, Jackson, who was nominated by President Joe Biden to the Supreme Court in part based on a campaign promise to nominate a black woman, accused the court’s conservative majority of “let-them-eat-cake obliviousness,” proclaiming that the Justices “detached” themselves from “this country’s actual past and present experiences,” while lecturing the “ostrich-like” members about so-called “lived experiences”:
In his concurrence with the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas responded accordingly to Jackson’s dissent.
Maybe she should have been a biologist.
Awkward: Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action With Affirmative Action Hire Sitting Right There
Following a link from that page:
“You sure have a lot to say, for someone who doesn’t know what a woman is.”
while lecturing the “ostrich-like” members about so-called “lived experiences”:
Yes, because lecturing a bunch of elderly people about how they’re wrong always works out so well.
The notion of Ketanji lecturing Thomas about “lived experiences” is laughable, if you know anything about how each of them grew up.
Quote of a quote from This article
The memes are coming in fast and furious
https://twitter.com/xbtGBH/status/1674827456337920082
Nope. Twitter is a hard pass if I have to sign in.
no log in . . . no see meme
That one is a few days old
But still good
Twitter now requires an account to view tweets
If you’re not logged into your Twitter account and try to view a tweet, you’ll be presented with a sign-in screen. And if you don’t want to have an account on the bird app, too bad!
Twitter hasn’t commented on this change, and given how sloppy the platform has been since Elon Musk’s takeover, it might just be a glitch. However, in a time when Twitter is struggling to grow its user base, it’s possible that this is a tactic to force silent lurkers into creating an account.
Like many of Twitter’s recent changes, this could easily backfire. If tweets aren’t publicly accessible, search engine algorithms could rank the site’s content lower, meaning that fewer people would be directed to the site from Google. Also, it’s just kind of annoying.
Musk — who is no longer CEO of Twitter, but still deeply involved in operations — may also be motivated by a desire to prevent AI tools from searching Twitter. Musk has previously admonished Microsoft, which dropped Twitter from its advertising platform, by saying: “They trained illegally using Twitter data. Lawsuit time.”
A pretty good article from strongtowns.org. I like their math-based articles the best.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/6/21/whats-the-sweet-spot-for-building-housing-inexpensively
Interesting. Before I started reading it, I thought “probably townhomes”.
In lower land cost areas, yep, dead on.
In higher land cost areas, mid-to-high rise apartments.
For those not twisting
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
Temporary emergency measure. We were getting data pillaged so much that it was degrading service for normal users!
Fair enough.
Thank goodness. It was looking like we were in for a long weekend of virtue signaling about not signing up for Twitter.
LOL.
Did you just assume my virtue?!
I don’t sign up for much of anything.
Fair enough.
Years ago, I recall one of the cable providers that, through a long(?) series of updates, basically stealth-loaded software into their boxes that they then used to turn off pirated feeds. I wonder of Twitter couldn’t do something similar – normal users wouldn’t get enough of the ICE to trigger it, but data pirates would soon get the whole payload, which would then do something very unpleasant indeed to their systems (unless they were a permitted user, in which case Twitter could switch it off for them).