The problem of standards

Tuesday, 24 March, Year 12 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

It has been said before that

[...] if you select a subgroup from the population that meets some high standard, for example the entry requirements of a university course, or fails some low standard, for example performs an act that is both stupid and criminal, then the vast majority of those selected will only barely meet the standard.

This does not apply universally, of course. If you go into your medicine cabinet, jam pantry, or liquor shelf and sort recipients by how full they are (as a percentage of total capacity), whatever standard you may choose, high or low, and whatever approach you may take, exclusive or inclusive, nevertheless most of the selected vessels will not be full anywhere close to the standard. If you pick only liquor bottles that are more than half full, a good chunk of them will be completely full, plenty will be two thirds or three quarters, it's not like out of thirteen or sixty-nine or whateveri you'll get twelve or sixty-six or somesuch all of which mere shades and ever barely distinguishable traces over (or under) your standard.ii Similarily If you pick only jam jars that are at least half empty odds are most of them will be almost entirely empty except for one spoonfull left on the bottom -- at least, if you share quarters with a lot of youngiii women, that is. I dunno what your life's like, really, so I'm going by my own as best I can over here.

The foregoing notwithstanding and be all that as it may, if you pick a dozen girls no shorter than 175 centimeters for whatever purposes (such as for instance populating your bitch kennels or whatever it is you do withiv women -- as I was saying, doing my best as I can with my limited means over here) you'll end up with like five that are 175 centimeters exactly, and a couple more 176. If you put up a large antenna array and select, among the particles it's seen over some sufficient interval, those with energies over 1GeV or whatever such threshold, the vast majority will be very close to the arbitrary threshold you picked. It's a physical reality this, not "something people do". Everything works like this, and consequently using high standards is a very cheap (intellectually)v but expensive (in terms of raw materials) method to ensure similarity. There's always going to be a lot of common basis among they who've all just made a very high standard by the very nature of how things work -- not "how people work", either, but how things work, the very things altogether!

Now this given, here's the problem of standards : standards either do not exist (in the sense they are not maintained), or else they do exist and they are maintained. That's it and that's all, there's no way outside of this dilemma.

If standards aren't maintained (and therefore -- do not exist), then the only possible name for whatever's going on is decay. You can try other coats of paint on the rust, you can try dressing up the corpse see maybe it does something for you -- but at the end of the day, dressed as you wish and painted how you please, you're still fucking a corpse. It's what it is.

If standards are maintained, and thereby exist, most people they're enforced upon barely just meet whatever threshold. They can then perennialy bring the Irigaray argument : the enforcement of standards oppresses their feminity! In which they wanted to live darkly and richly and not be the leader because they refuse to be the leader etcetera.vi Which... well of course it fucking does. It's specifically what it's even here for : to oppress their feminity. The whole goal of civilisation, from the invention of the first pointed stickvii onwards, was exactly that : the organized and systematic (with a view to successful) oppression of feminity. What the fuck more ? And what the hell else ?!

"Feminity" doesn't fucking work ; if it worked, as Diogenes said -- we'd all be sitting around rubbing parts all day long. Not that I envy anyone the attempt, either. But... and here's the doozy : It. Doesn't. Fucking. Work.

The problem of standards is that nothing else works, while at the same time nothing else hurts quite as much.

———
  1. I'm going by my own experience, your numbers may vary (and if we have to bet on it, I bet they "vary" under not over). []
  2. I mean... I guess it's possible, if you have a very neurotic drinking problem ; but for good biological reasons these tend to be somewhat rare. []
  3. I can apparently bait with that (entirely true and absolutely factual, as it happens!) story until I fucking fall over from old age over here, the woke, awareness-raised tards will never, not ever, not until they fall over from old age, perceive any need whatsoever to address their own inadequacy to this world. He'd way the fuck rather declare me divine in nature, substance and representation than even remotely, howsoever vaguely consider the possible remedial of his own subhumanity. Nuts.

    PS. Isn't it great how the proper selection mechanism also works as in-place adnotation ? Something like "from the article titled An Examination Of Conflict select from where it says 'the genetically male' up to where it says 'portion of the loser unit' and see what's between" makes for a pretty passible description in the first place, doesn't it. I'd have made a footnote of this observation, but, well... []

  4. How much is there in a word. My "you do with women" doesn't resolve to anything like your notion of togetherness. It resolves to my notion of togetherness, which translates the "with" much closer to an "of" than to a "for". "You do with women" like you do with jam, which is to say spread it on toast. In no case is it anything like what you do with [mental health] nurses, where you lean on them, god help us all. The Little Differences, you know ? Because back in Yurp they don't even know what a quarterpounder with cheese even is -- they got the metric system there, they don't fuck or anything.

    Yeah, that's right, I just made a joke with nacho cheese. Or is it taco cheese in your private symbol table ? Or what is it, what do you call it ?

    And don't fucking tell me yours wash, or any such ridiculous, self-obviously avoidant nonsense, either. We're talking of fresh meat, which is to say before you've taught them to wash. Du'uh ?! What, virginity without virginity, what are you doing here, deluding yourself ? Who taught your girly how to hose the nacho, huh ? Huh ?

    Btw, I have more philosophical questions of that ilk for when you're good and ready. And since we're doing footnotes -- good god, a thousand words and thirty billion references in, and I've not even gotten remotely to the point yet! I love to write! []

  5. Hey, remember the whole "fit in head" theory & heuristic approach ? Well, there's a fundamental problem with all things that are intellectually cheap (which is what this is) : they're going to be materially expensive. If you select only women over such a height as you can comfortably fuck like beasts, you're also stuck throwing out most women. Depending on specifics (namely how rich you are) this is therefore a doomed strategy. It is indubitably a doomed strategy in any situation where self-sustainability is anything even remotely like a goal. This'd be why, even if you might've heard of the historical fortress of Oxford, nevertheless you couldn't have possibly ever heard of the kingdom of Oxford : because no such kingdom did ever exist, because no such kingdom could ever exist (outside, of course, of Plato's feverish dream mind). This is also why all attempts at utopia, "building the city of god" or whatever nonsense always decay in psychosis (ie, severe derealisation) : there's exactly one way to make the impossible seem possible, and it doesn't involve manipulating the outside. []
  6. I don't know how familiar you are with that particular quote, but (going again by my own life) I suspect a good fifth of the girlies "into BDSM" will brandish it at some point or other.

    What, you thought I was kidding with that nacho cheese ? If only... []

  7. There's little doubt in my mind that the first and foremost human invention, which is the pointed stick, comes to us from a man who had had enough of the female wail, and discovered the first, and in any serious analysis the definitive, technology. "It puts the lotion on or it gets the stick again" is, inescapably, the basis of human civilisation, and I suppose en passant a somewhat unfashionable and definitely unpleasant reminder of just how strictly male human technology, human civilisation, and ultimately humanity altogether actually is. []
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

One Response

  1. [...] is quite very simply put that while standards are always abstract, whatever they're applied to is always [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.