(Part 3) Top products from r/PublicFreakout

If you're interested, there's a great book about how the Chinese people in San Francisco during the Bubonic Plague. It was eye opening and beautifully written.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Barbary-Plague-Victorian-Francisco/dp/0375757082

Ha ha! You went that far back in my profile? Now who’s living in who’s head? Hilarious.

Everybody Poops:

Everyone Poops (Turtleback Binding Edition) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0613685725/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_dtzBDb4NPFDJ8

Have your parents get it.

Looks like Amazon actually has some used copies for only $25 right now. https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0670867446/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

I assure you it is worth the money. Some of the reviews here will give you a preview of what's in store:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/294403.Kinski_Uncut?from_search=true

> Every thing else is an exception to the rule and exceptions are always run through management.

I suggest you read a book.

I understand your point of view now. Your family has employees that are not at all empowered. That leads to poor employee moral and a business that doesn't perform as well as it could. If any business runs such that every employee has to ask permission to do anything that isn't outlined in a policy, then the business is poorly managed. That includes you, sorry.

But don't worry, I am here to help. Read the Milkshake Moment. Read this. Both are very high level and easy. Focus on guidelines and not rules. Ensure employees understand the mission and strategy and then coach them to execute towards those.

You sound like a tyrant. And if you require apologies from your employees it probably means that you want them to show their submission and/or you are taking business decisions personally.

Be better.

I get that, funny joke har har religeen, but seriously Christian churches that hold these stances are really not understanding their own faith. These are the people who take the King James translation of the Bible as the literal word of god except they gloss over a few really key problems with doing that.

1. Christianity got along just fine for about 400 years before we had the Bible, different churches would read the stories they had on hand written down in scrolls some of which landed in the Bible
   
   
2. It's a library of different texts not one cover-to-cover story. It wouldn't make sense as one, there is even two different creation stories contained within that contradict each other. It was not meant to be scientific or a be-all-end-all sort of thing.
   
   
3. Churches like this one treat the bible like a magic 8-ball. Looking up random passages either for yourself or for someone else and trying to do mental gymnastics to apply it to them is wrong and not helpful. The Bible was intended to be challenged and interpreted, not force fed to you (which is why the Lutherans broke up the old Catholic Church - Catholics don't read the bible at home and get all their religion from sermons so it was easy to warp them to the Papacy's goals which Martin Luther thought was bullshit and anti-Christian).
   
   Bonus fact: If you re-translate the original Hebrew text that makes up the bible it is possible to re-phrase some of the more famous passages to totally change the meaning. Like that one liner that says homosexuality is an abomination and a sin? Well you could translate it as something that is a bad thing that should be avoided but isn't actually a sin which you'd think is a big fucking difference.
   
   Source

I would also recommend a copy of the gift of fear

Great, this post ruined what my presumptions of the word "Snog", which only existed because of this.
https://www.amazon.com/Snog-Puppys-Guide-Rachael-Hale/dp/031600295X

You should read this book, it's pretty informative on this topic

Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307277194/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_chthDbB4MT26E

I've read books on it, here's a new comprehensive one you can buy right now!
https://www.amazon.com/This-Vast-Southern-Empire-Slaveholders/dp/0674737253

Well, that's a step up from their most recent top google result.

i read it in blink


i can't find the actual quote because i don't have the book with me, though. i promise it's a real thing that i'm not just pulling out of my ass. here's a law enforcement forum discussing pros and cons of 1 man vs 2 man cars and someone else mentions the same source there, too:


>Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Blink, talks about how officers in one man cars use better, safter tactics than officers in two man cars. Reason being (and it's probably obvious to everyone here) is that when you're alone, you're more careful. When you have someone with you, you have a false sense of security and tend to let your guard down a little. I don't recall the specifics of the study, but it's towards the end of the book.

You make some good points about our nature that I will have to read up on. Have you read The Moral Animal? I picked it up a few years ago, but have not gotten around to reading it.

You need to read some books then. Hitler and Stalin were both massive pieces of shit but the nature and the motivation was always different.

Snyder is a quality historian on this subject

I just finished reading this: Hold On to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More Than Peers https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0307361969/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_NeG4Bb70SHNNX

Thing is, its not just inner city culture but across all levels of society today...

Not familiar with the way this works?- https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081

That's the name of a book on Borderline Personality Disorder.

Don't fall for the ignorance of stigmatized mental health.

People with schizophrenia are more often victims of violence than perpetrators.

A person with well managed schizophrenia is statistically 0% more dangerous than the total general populace.

People with depression have a higher statistical chance of violence than schizophrenics.


According to most psychologists. For example the authors of Schizophrenia For Dummies

Which is a great and easy to understand book, on a very difficult to understand topic.

I am really sorry to double-post. I won't blame you if this is too much to read and respond to. But I'm about to start on 3 days of working 13-hour night shifts as well as taking care of a lot of other errands and work, and I'm probably not going to have the time to continue this discussion for the rest of this week. I would rather go back and forth on this, but I'm going to just post it. I do promise to read any response you have, even if I don't take the time to reply.

When thinking about why it is wrong to kill a dog for sexual pleasure, you likely are experiencing something along the following lines: why am I engaging in this rhetorical practice? Why do I need to put it in words? I know-- in fact, we all know-- that this is deeply morally wrong. Look at the gore. Look at the innocence of the puppy. Look at how disturbing and gross and just obviously, gut-level wrong this is! It may seem like this issue has virtually nothing in common with the perfectly normal practice of eating animals.

That, my friend, is nothing more than your socialization. Remember, throughout much of history, people could literally have their throats slit or be STONED TO DEATH by a crowd of angry people because they kissed each other. That scene-- one man kissing another man-- could produce so much righteous indignation and anger that they would literally throw stones at the men's heads until their skulls were crushed, they bled from every orifice, etc. The idea that it is okay for one man to kiss another man is a modern idea, but once we made the shift, it's almost impossible to identify with those backwards views from another era.

Now think about this: there are literally assembly lines where animals are walked in, blasted through the head with a metal bolt, strung up on a wire, chopped to little pieces, and shipped all over the world in trucks to be roasted and eaten.

That seems normal to you? That seems acceptable?

I am absolutely certain that there will come a time when virtually everyone, because of different socialization from that of today, will look at this practice and feel sick to their stomach. They will have a gut-wrenching reaction to the idea of literally hacking the limbs off of previously living breathing animals just so we can shove their muscles in our mouths with A1 steak sauce on top. They won't need specific logical wording to have it explained why this is wrong-- it will just be obvious from the start that this is horrific and wrong.

And by the way, as far as correlations with criminality-- slaughterhouse workers have been shown to experience decreased empathy and end up being more likely to commit crimes than average. In the same way that masturbating to dead puppies may be correlated with other immoral behavior, you'd better believe that spending all day slaughtering and chopping up animals makes you more likely to commit other crimes.

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=15+Geo.+J.+Poverty+Law+%26+Pol%27y+391&key=fecb3544d4c0cf90c3055109af5431d9

http://vetdergi.kafkas.edu.tr/extdocs/2012_2/319-322.pdf

https://scholars.opb.msu.edu/en/publications/slaughterhouses-and-increased-crime-rates-an-empirical-analysis-o-3

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2008617

https://www.amazon.com/Perpetration-Induced-Traumatic-Stress-Psychological-Consequences/dp/0595347649

Your suggestion that the father should have that conversation with the daughter (that people may do or say things to hurt her and that she is not responsible for their behavior but she is responsible for her reaction) is a great suggestion. And for all we know, he had that conversation with her before going up to the store to confront the clerk.

If the clerk were a "250 lb guy" the father might have reconsidered approaching him because if he becomes aggressive he might get injured. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the father was justified in wanting to confront the clerk in the first place. The clerk, whether he realized it or not, was sexually harassing those girls - literally making fun of their puberty. He should be called out on his bad behavior. The dad was not using this as an excuse to "go off" on someone. He was nothing except calm and collected the whole time. Of course he was angry, but did we ever see him act on that anger? No. Your hypothetical situation of the clerk not being able to defend himself makes no sense. Hell, the other guy in line with him seemed more agitated about the situation than he was.

And regarding your opinion on this whole thing; I wouldn't call you a loser but you certainly are far from a normal opinion on this kind of a situation, whatever that might imply.

Also, I highly recommend this book (having read it, myself).