Mexicans are taking over everything.
You used to have this tape and you’d put it in that general electric portable cassette player you kept in your jansport bookbag and play it on the bus ride home from school. You were a Duran Duran kid so you always sat at the back of the bus.
just for the fact that aristotle (or ‘big stot’) said that, would such a statement become a germ so deeply embedded in western intellectualism that it’d take upwards of three thousand years to call it for what it is: bullshit. aristotle was a major authority you didn’t fuck with. but back then, when there were still philosophical questions, a lot of what he said was true. niggas couldn’t figure shit out when they had to labor all day. but today, there are no more questions, and a janitor would make as good a politician as a harvard graduate. even a better politician, because the harvard graduate is gonna try to use his intellect to avoid having to work (no doubt because he read that quote above somewhere)… so everything he defines as ‘virtuous’ is going to be modeled off that ulterior motive. the difference between him and aristotle is that aristotle didn’t have four centuries of finished philosophy to depend on while figuring shit out… so he naturally thought doing philosophy was a special kind of task, special kind of quest, and that only a select few could do it. the janitor, on the other hand, need only to read the sparknotes to W’s ‘philosophical investigations’ and he’s done. back to doing real work like mopping floors.
so we can’t blame the old philosophers for thinking like they did. but tolerating that kind of bullshit today, when philosophy has been over for at least a hundred years, is inexcusable.
Don’t you dare bad mouth the band Bush, I like that band! 
That look you’re sporting in appearance however is very 90s grunge. 
You look like a sunglasses wearing stoner. 
No the band is okay. It’s the singer that pisses me off. Why do all the 90s grunge vocalists gotta be tough guys?
…
i just received the following text:
“because it is raining most of you won’t have work for tomorrow but at 12 o’clock we’ll have lunch at buffalo wild wings and i’ll have some gift cards for everyone”
i will most certainly not be going, and i’ll tell ya why. to do so would create an ethically perverse situation which would lead him to believe he is doing me a favor… which would then count against me in the future. for example, if i ask for a raise, one of the things that will cross his mind when he begins rummaging around for reasons to refuse would be something like this: ‘but i just bought him lunch and gave him a gift card.’ see how that works? you never give your employer a reason to believe he’s done something for you, because he has not.
and this lunch is a prime example. in reality, it would be him buying me lunch and giving me a gift card with money i’ve made him… which amounts to giving back to me what was already mine. and here is where it gets perverse; while he isn’t obligated to do this for me, and will perceive doing so as a ‘gift’, he would be misguided to expect appreciation from me since he is in fact buying these things with money i’ve made him. i therefore cannot allow him to be under the impression that he is doing anything for me… and it would be doubly absurd to put myself into debt by accepting the offer. he isn’t doing anything for me, and he sure as shit can’t be allowed to believe he is, since that would come back and bite me in the ass later on.
that and i couldn’t possibly ‘socialize’ with this guy. i can’t stand him, and i’ll not pretend to enjoy his company.
I wouldn’t go either, and not because of all the paranoid shit.
I, like you, cannot pretend to like someone if I despise them. My eyes give me away, and my ego cannot be swallowed for me to pull it off.
Never went to any work-party, when I was working…because I could not socialize with people I had nothing ni common with just because I could easily make them laugh and make them like me during the eight hours of work.
They mistook my work personae as the real me.
Because the 90s and early 2000s was the last epoch where white men could express masculinity without it being criminalized.
Makes sense, at my job there is a yearly employee barbeque.
No, fuck you guys, I want a fucking raise in wages god damn it!
Did I mention that attendance is compulsory and mandatory concerning the yearly barbeque? 
“We care about our employees, here’s a fucking hotdog you ungrateful ingrates.”
no that can’t be it because rock bands were already feminized in the 80s, and those clowns still tried to be tough guys. observe.
now i will make an exception for a couple rock vocalists from the 90s that didn’t have to try to sound like tough guys. that’s the sound garden guy and the pearl jam guy. although the pearl jam guy is really pushing it and comes dangerously close to being a cornball.
See how it’s done?
Smarmy, cynical, patronizing, ridiculing…with some pop-culture references, and presto….nullification achieved.
This dude has been honing his talent for decades. You can tell.
This is performance art.
here’s one i sing at work with the mexicans when it comes on the radio all day during the festive holiday season. i can’t tell if the reason why they haven’t attacked me yet is because they have a sense of humor, or because they don’t speak fluent english.
In light of the recent gang activity here at ILP, my crew has asked me to come forward and represent the westside stirnerite anarcho-nihilists.
When ILP gets gangsta, the question must be asked; will these muthafuckas ride or die?
promethean75 decides to work less during the winter months and begins negotiation process with the enemy.
order of conversation subjects:
-
company owner, ignorant of the job circumstances, interferes with worker’s plan for the job, changes it, and costs himself three hours as a result. perfect example of the company owner not only doing nothing in the chain of production, but also interfering and slowing progress down even more.
-
what jobs to take, and what jobs to avoid; company owner picks up a job jacking up a floor system underneath a house with a two foot crawl space full of mud and cobwebs. who the fuck does shit work like that? not promethean75. take it or leave it, haus.
-
after the negotiation process in which the worker speaks politely and banters and jokes to appease the enemy (killing him softly) rather than just seizing his business and throwing him in the gulag, the enemy must accept the worker’s terms because the worker is that valuable to him.
the hardest thing to do is pretend not to have absolute contempt for someone who is useful to you. that’s the dilemma. this guy is a completely unproductive parasite who only gets in the way, but is also very useful to me, so i have to fake a degree of friendliness in order to manipulate him in my favor so i can continue to use him.
^^^ another unnecessary conflict the owner creates is exemplified in that bit about my refusing to do that shit job. see what happened? he had to take another guy off a job and put him on the job i refused to do. the worker then becomes angry at me rather than the owner for taking that shit job in the first place. the environment created by the owner is one in which the workers, who should be united against the parasite, turn on each other and compete against one another. this is one of the factors that contributes to the workers remaining distracted from the real situation and therefore unable to become collectively aware of what’s going on. the owner plays the workers against each other further preventing their unity.
of course, the shit job needed to get done, and nothing is wrong with that per se. but it’s the circumstances caused in a capitalist system that originate all the conflicts and problems that follow. why would a worker do a job like that if he knows he’s valuable enough to the owner to refuse without jeopardizing his employment? see the tension? rather than the forces of production being modeled in a way in which everyone involved willingly enters into democratic agreement on who is to do what, the forces of production begin to function like a sport where everyone involved is competing to avoid the hardest shit and do the least amount of work for the most amount of money. it becomes cunning and underhanded. they call this the natural competition of the free market, and actually praise such a thing! but such competition isn’t inherent to all market forms… only the capitalist form. if the parasite were removed from this equation, this specific element of competition wouldn’t exist. why not? because jairo doesn’t have a problem with doing the shit job. what he has a problem with is how much he gets paid to do it… but more so, the fact that somebody else (owner) is getting 90 percent of the money made off his work. because of this, he becomes angry at me. but wait, he doesn’t want to do the shit job either, so why is he angry at me? see that? the competition of the market pits those who produce against each other. there is something profoundly ugly with that. it’s how the parasite paralyzes the host so that it can’t shake it off.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/
bro. all you need to do is read this to discover how dumb you (and me) truly are. now normally the dumb ones will come up with a list of excuses for neither wanting or having to learn this shit… and the bad news is, they’d be right, or at least partially justified in doing so. they’d be right in claiming they don’t have to learn it insofar as this kind of knowledge isn’t really usable outside of its own domain; is recognizing and being able to understand the ‘rules of propositional logic’ really applicable to settling political problems or putting a space station in orbit around the moon, for example. but here’s the thing. these philosopher dummies who happen to be right here don’t realize that when they, themselves, enter into philosophy, they are entering into this domain they know nothing about. and as a consequence of this, what they do philosophically will be at the mercy of this thing they don’t understand. the result; unbridled buffoonery.
how amusing is it to hear an amateur philosopher accidentally get correct the claim that the thing he knows nothing about is useful only in revealing his own idiocy when he tries to practice it… something he’s too stupid to recognize. did ya get that? it’s splendiferously ironic. the dummy is actually right, see, but he becomes wrong when he tries to do the things that can’t be done right without understanding how any of it is to be done.
thank the gods that wittgenstein was right. without him, we’d have never known that it’s perfectly okay to be the idiots that we are. it doesn’t matter that we don’t know what we’re doing, because what we’re doing - ‘philosophy’ - is rarely done right in the first place, and when it is, it tells us very little about the world and reflects only its own internal rules of grammar. the world is the case. logic mirrors the world and presents the image in the form of language. but the question for philosophy is not ‘what is the world’ (that belongs to science), but rather ‘what to do with and in it’. and the rules/facts of logic cannot help us here. this is one helluva predicament, folks.
… and i should add that this is the basis of our nihilism (biggses and mine). we know this, we can feel it in our bones, and yet we obviously want and wonder about the same things you do. only difference is, we recognize an impasse when we see it and only want you, too, to see it clearly. our problem is, we can’t pretend to do what you do. not anymore, anyway. and this is our suffering; having to watch it all.
c’mon, biggs. let’s go cruisin’ for burgers.