Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: government employees

Posted by alexandra_k on June 20, 2018, at 22:57:06

In reply to Re: government employees, posted by alexandra_k on June 20, 2018, at 3:09:55

oh please. prove me wrong. show me different.

where are the poor kids who have been identified as gifted / talented and thereby been *allowed* to focus on their education (if that is what the kid chooses to do)?


i'm looking...

maybe they've been hidden because people will kill them with their jealousy.

but probably, there aren't any.

prove me wrong.

go on nz. land of opportunity.

where are the poor kids who were allowed to succeed to better help poor people contribute as productive members of society? instead of being promoted into a position of power over them to reinforce the powerlessness of the dispised 'other'. i mean.

i know i need to be careful not to idealise the poor. poor people are just as capbale of being nasty horrid things as most everyone else.

but some won't play that game.

there is something pascal's wager about it all. but then people who have decided the universe is funademantally unfair at bse and so you are given lisense to screw people over if you get opportunity... those people... don't want to believe any different. because that's the choice they made.

the student union lawyer lady who believes that the only way oyu get to do anything / have any kind of job is to 'join them'. who believed that the only way she would get a job (e.g., as her job with the student union) was to basically do her part in ensuring the students didn't get adequate legal respresentation for anything at all. not for substandard housing, not for being drunkenly abused physically or sexually. not for anything, at all. buts he believed that that was life.

so... what if she was wrong. what if she didn't sell out in order to get a job... what if she didn't take a job where she felt that she couldnl't actually do anything to make a positive difference. what if she didn't play the game she chose to play with the job she had (what if she set about trying to help the students get adequate legal representation instead of, for example, seemingly trying to undermine any sort of legitimate claim any of them might actually have had)?


to even conceive of this...

makes her out ot be a pretty... horrid person, i guess. points out that she actually chose to... uh... do evil. i guess. when she need not have.

that's probabhly not something she would / could face.

'oh no, dear, you did everything you could'.

i know i need to be careful. you don't want to set people up to be the villian... i don't think i'm particularly righteous. but i am getting to the point of thinking that i have assumed people were far too nice for quite some time now. then i thought they were stupid. they didn't see the harm they did. i only reluctantly came to think of them as psychopathic - seeing but not caring. seeing but choosing themsevles first.

its just a game that peole like to play. like puppies jostling for a place on a hierarchy. people choose, they buy in to playing that game. this is the world that they have made.

it's not at all pleasant for the rest of us.

i don't know. little pockets.. little pockets... i suppose i shuold be, uh, i don't know...

i know they sold out Christchurch with the 'Acts of God' bombing or whatever it was. under ground explosives testing or whatever it was. Military national emergency whatever it was. A bunch of stuff getting done (laws being passed under urgency) whatever it was.

but Wellington will have public health if anybody does. The civil servants were quite attached to 'blanket man' a sort of homeless icon who had his blanket and his street corner. They liked him because he presented a idealised picture of homelessness. He was a natural wanderer who preferred to be homeless. And he was fairly clean and well-ish spoken. ANd it's all very nice, really. So we don't feel bad when we hear people are homless. They are like blanket-man or banbi frollicking on the village green.

But Wellington even has a 'free ambulance'. Apparently because some visiting politician had a heart attack at one point and a local politician couldn't get an amulance on the street for him or some such. SO there is a free ambulance service in Wellington, YOu know, where people can't afford it. It's around $700 for a St Johns (multi-million dollar charity monopoly) everywhere else. Only of course it's not, really, it's helecopter service (or not).

Anyway... The poeople in Wellington know how to look after themselves - right? ANd so why wouldn't you live in that environment if you could? You would be crazy to live anywhere else...

But for all their money... Why do they need to spend so very much of it on alcohol? And they do get out and about... And what do they make of the poor? A lot of them came from that.

They despise little them. They are murderous towards it rather than protective. Ist hat the difference?

I don't know




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:1096433