Have you thought about the possibility that our language has been constructed to give people like you more ammunition against others? And given other less ammunition to use against people like you? Words like "bitch", "bossy", etc. Also cultural norms for what kinds of emotions you interpret as "too much" if it’s a woman but “oh crap I should listen” if it’s a man, etc.
I have no idea who you are, so just a question about where you’re at in thinking about this.
And do I understand correctly your proposal? That we should all aspire to be unaffected by the words of others. And if someone is negatively affected by words it is their failure, not the failure of the speaker or the failure of the group they are in together.
|the possibility that our language has been constructed to give people like you more ammunition against others?
The idea that the language was constructed is pretty silly. It's such a twisted hodge-podge of borrowed ideas. Besides, other languages with far different heritages will hold very similar words and terms as ours. As for the idea of having more ammunition, You'd have to actually provide some evidence for the idea that there's more plentiful / harsh language available to 'people like me'. Particularly when I've seen both of the words you cite used plentifully towards a broad swathe of people.
|That we should all aspire to be unaffected by the words of others.
Yes.
|And if someone is negatively affected by words it is their failure, not the failure of the speaker or the failure of the group they are in together.
Not exactly, no. A person being an asshole is an asshole. Your reaction to it doesn't absolve them of that behavior, even if you responded positively for some reason. However, letting some random asshole ruin your day by saying something you don't like is just setting you up for constant failure, as you are so easily driven into a negative emotional state. I'm suggesting a coping strategy, one among many, to guide a person in navigating a world full of adversity.
You should be giving gibberish answers to those anyway. They're probably stored as plaintext, but on the off chance they're not, treat them as a backup password and don't answer the question honestly.
For anything that involves human interaction for the verification, this doesn't really work.
I generate random strings for these and store them in my password manager. On several occasions I've called companies for whatever reason and they've asked these questions to verify my identity. When I say "oh it's a random string let me open my password manager to confirm it" they often reply with "oh it's ok, you're right it's gibberish" and consider me verified.
You can generate a pronouceable password based on dictionary words for such cases and get something that you can say over the phone like `leaf-auto-drunk-horse-zebra`. This is supported by any modern password manager.
Had the same experience with blizzard support a while ago. Now I follow the above poster's advice and use it as a secondary password, but make it pronounceable at least.
Would an attacker know that you're the kind of person to type in gibberish?
Also, you don't need to type gibberish. If your mothers maiden name is Jones, you can enter her maiden name as Steenberger and store that in your password manager.
An attacker wouldn't have to know you are the kind of person who puts gibberish... "oh, shoot... sometimes I make up a fake name but sometimes I put gibberish... I can't remember which I used here"
Driving through airport terminals is possibly one of the most chaotic possible environments, with people almost suicidally throwing themselves in front of you, not to even speak of the cabs, double lane parking, security guards telling you to move and other things. It's probably one of the harder environments to automate for outside of inclement weather.
Some airports have shuttles on private circuits to take you from one wing of an airport to another wing of the airport. The ones I've seen that have this either have a rail system, or a human driver. It would be much cheaper to just throw a bus with some software to track digital route markers and some visual matching for unexpected situations than to build a dedicated point to point system rail/track system (and maybe marginally cheaper than hiring someone, depending on other costs).
As I understand the term 'neo-liberal' it's kind of a hybrid ideology that strides the two US political parties. Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton are both neo-liberals, though ostensibly, opposed to each other. It's basically the worst of the political philosophies espoused by the two parties. Basically it means more authoritarian control and the prosecution of wars all over the planet for the sake of establishing a new world order.
Rather than apply the brakes, barring the person jumping in front of you and braking, it could just stop applying the accelerator. Nice easy slowdown to create the gap without brake-jobbing somebody behind you.
|no one would chime in and say "No way, murder is perfectly fine, you just did it last night!"
No, but they might say: "Why should we listen to you!? MURDERER!" Then proceed to stone you to death, and see who dares get up on the podium to make an announcement about stoning.
If they get the wrong house, there’s always the possibility of them being shot and killed with no recourse. Any lawyer worth their weight in potato chips could get charges lifted from someone who guns down unidentifiable armed intruders entering their home unexpectedly.
Right, but if they gun you down, there's not much that's likely to happen. They might have to get a job in a different city.
*Edit: Also, not every city has stand your ground laws. And there's nothing stopping them from shooting back and killing you. They're expecting a fight anyway. The lawyer might get a settlement for your family, but you'll still be dead. And your dog too; they love shooting dogs.
Granted, it's aspirational.