Honest talk about the cost of being ugly

[Loren Pechtel]

I can remember the name calling used by kids. Fat , ugly, skinny. Big nose, big ears, too short, too tall. A girl being flat chested. Kids ceiling others queer based on vocal quality.

From a report on education and immigrant kids. Kids from one Asian immigrant group would male fun of kids from another Asian group because their eyes were slanted differently.

It is across all cultures.

Yeah, but it's not equal to all kids.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'll be 70 in October. My wife has a 40-something friend who was visiting the Lab when I took a call from the Red Cross, asking if I could work at a shelter for people displaced by the recent flooding. Unfortunately, it was 200 miles away, so I had to decline. After I walked out, friend says to wife, "That's hot".
What's hot?
"He volunteers for the Red Cross."

After nearly 60 years of wondering what constituted hotness, that was one I never considered, but it's nice to know I still have it.

I remember seeing my husband who, at the time had a scruffy, very unkept b beard and a wardrobe that could have marked him as homeless push out toddler in a grocery cart up and down aisles talking with I’m, engaging him as I went back to pick up something we forgot and I tell you, women were practically drooling.

If you want to attract women, I highly suggest walking a dog, preferably about lab sized and really fluffy helps. Especially if the dog is very well behaved—and you are too. Yes, that means scooping up the poop, But also a pleasant relaxed smile.

There's one thing that our lovelorn incels will never grasp is that good looks will get you on a calendar, but not on a date. There was a time when I employed about a half dozen young women and I could here most of their conversations. When it came to men, coverboy good looks ranked very low and guys who were too good looking were written off as narcissistic or gay.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While I agree with everything you're saying here I don't see how it in any way rebuts my point about looks giving you more chances.

It depends on what chances you want. If you are in sales in any way, being attractive, well groomed, well spoken and knowledgeable and personable are all assets.

You sell yourself to an extent in a job interview. You sell yourself to an extent in dating.

If you are unusually attractive and female and wish to be taken seriously in say, lab sciences: good luck. Sometimes applies to men, but not so much.

Actually, this is the same thing at work. When technical merit matters people get wary of those who had an easy road to get there.

 

[Toni]

While I agree with everything you're saying here I don't see how it in any way rebuts my point about looks giving you more chances.

It depends on what chances you want. If you are in sales in any way, being attractive, well groomed, well spoken and knowledgeable and personable are all assets.

You sell yourself to an extent in a job interview. You sell yourself to an extent in dating.

If you are unusually attractive and female and wish to be taken seriously in say, lab sciences: good luck. Sometimes applies to men, but not so much.

Actually, this is the same thing at work. When technical merit matters people get wary of those who had an easy road to get there.

See, there you go, making an assumption that being a more attractive than average female makes the road easier. Actually, it doesn't. One of the difficulties is that it is assumed that you got ahead by being attractive, flirting with the boss, because you're pretty. Attractive women are assumed to be less intelligent, less accomplished and less qualified and competent.

You did it right there in your post.

This does not seem to happen to very attractive men.

 

[TomC]

If you want to attract women, I highly suggest walking a dog, preferably about lab sized and really fluffy helps. Especially if the dog is very well behaved—and you are too. Yes, that means scooping up the poop, But also a pleasant relaxed smile.

Ha ha
This reminds me of a scene from a TV show, Georgie and Mandy first marriage "
Hot boy Georgie takes the baby for a walk. He comes back at says "You don't know how many women are in this neighborhood until you go out pushing a baby stroller."
Tom

 

[Toni]

I'll be 70 in October. My wife has a 40-something friend who was visiting the Lab when I took a call from the Red Cross, asking if I could work at a shelter for people displaced by the recent flooding. Unfortunately, it was 200 miles away, so I had to decline. After I walked out, friend says to wife, "That's hot".
What's hot?
"He volunteers for the Red Cross."

After nearly 60 years of wondering what constituted hotness, that was one I never considered, but it's nice to know I still have it.

I remember seeing my husband who, at the time had a scruffy, very unkept b beard and a wardrobe that could have marked him as homeless push out toddler in a grocery cart up and down aisles talking with I’m, engaging him as I went back to pick up something we forgot and I tell you, women were practically drooling.

If you want to attract women, I highly suggest walking a dog, preferably about lab sized and really fluffy helps. Especially if the dog is very well behaved—and you are too. Yes, that means scooping up the poop, But also a pleasant relaxed smile.

There's one thing that our lovelorn incels will never grasp is that good looks will get you on a calendar, but not on a date. There was a time when I employed about a half dozen young women and I could here most of their conversations. When it came to men, coverboy good looks ranked very low and guys who were too good looking were written off as narcissistic or gay.

Yeah, it does depend. Once we had a new hire of a young man whose good looks would have put Cary Grant, Gregory Peck or whoever is the currently hottest Helmsworth to shame. He was good enough looking that women from other areas would casually stroll past our work area just to get a glimpse. I kinda felt bad for him. He was intelligent, charming, educated, quite capable and an accomplished cook and carpenter and could even sew curtains. A number of the women asked him flat out if he was gay and nope, he wasn't. If he had asked out any of the women in the building, they would have thought they had died and gone to heaven. (Not me: he was young enough to be my kid and I've been happily married since well before he was born).

Interestingly enough, the men did not resent him. A couple used to try to get him to regale them with tales of his conquests but tbh, he did not seem like that kind of guy. Anyway, his charm and good looks made it much easier for him to move into a different role than lab work and he did and then he left for a different type of work where I assume he is doing extremely well. Also, last I heard married and maybe with a kid or one on the way. Haven't seen him in years but yep, he was really good looking. And in a somewhat rare combination, a truly nice person.

 

[Tigers!]

Haven't seen him in years but yep, he was really good looking. And in a somewhat rare combination, a truly nice person.

Yes it is a blessing to be both good looking and a truly nice man.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And, about aggressive actions against drug smugglers? You realize the more drug enforcement the more drug deaths there are?

The more drug smuglers are caught, the more supply is reduced, which drives up prices, which makes drug smugling more lucrative, so we get more drug smuglers, and more available drugs. No matter how many drug smuglers are caught the amount of available drugs will be at a steady equilibrium. Stopping drug smuggling is a waste of time.

I like the Danish system. They just give drugs to addicts. Offer them rehab if they'd like. But there's no pressure. They started with this in 1999. In 2000 I visited to Copenhagen. Istedgade was a notorius street with heroin addicts everywhere. Prostitutes and sex clubs. Needles littering the street. In 2015 I moved to Copenhagen. Today Istedgade is an uppmarket adress. My favourite area in Copenhagen. I used to live there. But got priced out. They still have the free heroin clinic there. But all the misery around it is gone today. Addict rates are the lowest since they started counting.

This is clearly the way to do it

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well Loren, us humans can rationalize almost any behavior in our new cultural reality. Thee redult of which is increasing mental illness, physical illness, drug and alcohol addiction, and suicide.

If a woman agrees to have somebody piss in her mouth I suppose that is up to her. To me it represents mental and emotional issues.

So what's her say in the matter? Every porn actress I've ever gotten to know, it turns out, sooner or later, that they're autistic, and sex is their special interest.

Admittedtly, the porn actresses I meet, are a self selected group. Because these are all the articulate and curious people who go to sexuality themed special interest events, to learn more, about sex. But these women are all indipendent, proactive who don't fit into mainstream society, and never will. They're intelligent. But just don't have the social skills to make a career doing a normal job.

Prostitution can be great for an autist, because there's no hidden agenda. Everything is negotiated upfront. There's no tacit expectations. They get to have sex with men, and don't have to deal with any of the bullshit from regular dating. And as a bonus, they don't have to keep boring conversations going just to stroke the ego of the man they're dating. I completely understand why an autistic woman might prefer being a prostitute over regular dating.

Just because you can't imagine why someone might be into something you're not, doesn't make it a mental problem, or evidence of something sick. In the 40'ies and 50'ies we tried to cure gays from their homosexuality. We no longer think like that. In the early 90'ies nobody had ever studied sadism and masochism. Nobody. There was not a single study on the psychology of these people. A lot of assumptions were made and policies. Quite quickly it was established that masochists had the same prevalence of mental issues as the general population and for the same reason. There seemed to be no link between trauma and being kinky. In 2010 it was removed as a diagnosis and no longer seen as needing treatment. It was seen as being healthy.

Just because you don't get turned on by getting peed in the mouth, doesn't mean, nobody does.

We really need to stop trying to save people from themselves, when they don't want to be saved. I think you have an outdated and old fashioned way of seeing humanity. People aren't simply divided into normal and sick. There's just a variety of people, who some are into things that you aren't, and that's ok.

Female rape fantasy? I have seen the violent rape sceene in Woman With The Dragon Tattoo. It des nit sghick me, but violent rape is now main stream entertainment.

The expected response is if you don't like it don't watch. But it goes deeper, underage cultural issues.

You're not supposed to like that scene. That's why it's in the movie and book. The scene is designed to make you feel bad. It's to make you cheer for the death of Nils Bjurman. It's the classic "kick the dog" narrative device. It's also intended to give the police a reason to suspect that Lisbeth had strong motives to kill him. Novels like to use extreme narratives to raise the stakes and make it more exciting for the reader.

Your reaction to it just shows why it is in the book. It also emphasizes the pervasive taboo against rape.

If everyone wouldn't reliably react with horror to the rape scene, it wouldn't work as a kick-the-dog narrative device. So your revulsion proves the opposite of what you think it does.

FYI, it's based on a true story. But the Lisbeth Salander from reality didn't get much revenge. The culprit was caught, and jailed. But Elisabeth (which is the code name given to her by the Swedish press) was so emotionally scarred from her experiences that she was permanently institutionalised. She has a team of psyche nurses 24/7 who's job it is to stop her harming herself, or others. The true story couldn't be more tragic. She's still alive. Still locked up. When this story went public, nobody was cheering the perpetrator. Nobody. Which tells you what the norms of Swedish society are.

In the movie Hostel somewhere in Eastern Europe there is place where you can torture and kill for a fee. In one scene there is naked won nagging upside down with her throat cut. Blood dripping on a naked person underneath. Main stream entertainment.

Dehumanizng.

The film hostel is about American fears about Eastern Europe. Horror explores people's fears. The Europe in the film hostel is a complete fantasy. It doesn't exist. That film, on purpose, is about, and only about, exploring American fears about Europeans. As if we're some kind of alien and threatening species.

The dehumanizing part of the film IS the horror. You're supposed to empathise with the victims and be horrified. That's the point. All horror movies is an exploration of our fears. They typically deal with the darkest and most unpleasant aspects of the human psyche. Things we in polite society sweep under the rug. But that which we know is there.

You may not want to open that door to explore your emotional reactions to it. But the film Hostel isn't just gratutitus violence for the hell of it. Horror movies are often accused of being gratuitus violence. But they never are. Nobody wants to see that.

Horror movies explore what Jung calls "the shadow". Every sentence Jung ever wrote has been turned inside out and put on display in at least one horror movie.

Horror movies are a lot smarter than what they're often given credit for. Even mass produced rushed horror b-movies are exploring something deep and interesting about the human psyche.

I was part of the 'cultural revolution' of the 60s 70s. Today my views have changed.

As we socially and politically slip into anarchy the question is whether we can survive with such a cultural reality.

Revolutions rarely end up the way it's revolutionaries expect it to.

I thank you for taking part in cracking open the stifling social norms of the 50'ies and allowing people to explore themselves in the way that suits them the best. The world today couldn't have happened without the revolutionaries of the 60'ies. I think you should be proud. What you call anarchism, I call freedom.

 

[Playball40]

I can remember the name calling used by kids. Fat , ugly, skinny. Big nose, big ears, too short, too tall. A girl being flat chested. Kids ceiling others queer based on vocal quality.

From a report on education and immigrant kids. Kids from one Asian immigrant group would male fun of kids from another Asian group because their eyes were slanted differently.

It is across all cultures.

Yeah, but it's not equal to all kids.

You would be surprised. Most adults, regardless of looks, will tell you they were teased/bullied as youths. If you were a pretty female, you were a 'slut', 'prick tease' or some other name. If you were a handsome male, you were a 'stupid jock' or accused of being gay. It just doesn't matter what your "failing" was/is, other adolescents will exploit it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While I agree with everything you're saying here I don't see how it in any way rebuts my point about looks giving you more chances.

It depends on what chances you want. If you are in sales in any way, being attractive, well groomed, well spoken and knowledgeable and personable are all assets.

You sell yourself to an extent in a job interview. You sell yourself to an extent in dating.

If you are unusually attractive and female and wish to be taken seriously in say, lab sciences: good luck. Sometimes applies to men, but not so much.

Actually, this is the same thing at work. When technical merit matters people get wary of those who had an easy road to get there.

See, there you go, making an assumption that being a more attractive than average female makes the road easier. Actually, it doesn't. One of the difficulties is that it is assumed that you got ahead by being attractive, flirting with the boss, because you're pretty. Attractive women are assumed to be less intelligent, less accomplished and less qualified and competent.

You did it right there in your post.

This does not seem to happen to very attractive men.

Denying it doesn't make it go away.

 

[Toni]

While I agree with everything you're saying here I don't see how it in any way rebuts my point about looks giving you more chances.

It depends on what chances you want. If you are in sales in any way, being attractive, well groomed, well spoken and knowledgeable and personable are all assets.

You sell yourself to an extent in a job interview. You sell yourself to an extent in dating.

If you are unusually attractive and female and wish to be taken seriously in say, lab sciences: good luck. Sometimes applies to men, but not so much.

Actually, this is the same thing at work. When technical merit matters people get wary of those who had an easy road to get there.

See, there you go, making an assumption that being a more attractive than average female makes the road easier. Actually, it doesn't. One of the difficulties is that it is assumed that you got ahead by being attractive, flirting with the boss, because you're pretty. Attractive women are assumed to be less intelligent, less accomplished and less qualified and competent.

You did it right there in your post.

This does not seem to happen to very attractive men.

Denying it doesn't make it go away.

So why not acknowledge that YOU are making assumptions based on YOUR bigotry.

Denying it does not make it go away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And, about aggressive actions against drug smugglers? You realize the more drug enforcement the more drug deaths there are?

The more drug smuglers are caught, the more supply is reduced, which drives up prices, which makes drug smugling more lucrative, so we get more drug smuglers, and more available drugs. No matter how many drug smuglers are caught the amount of available drugs will be at a steady equilibrium. Stopping drug smuggling is a waste of time.

It's not an equilibrium. The more enforcement the more concentrated the stuff on the market and thus the more dangerous.

I like the Danish system. They just give drugs to addicts. Offer them rehab if they'd like. But there's no pressure. They started with this in 1999. In 2000 I visited to Copenhagen. Istedgade was a notorius street with heroin addicts everywhere. Prostitutes and sex clubs. Needles littering the street. In 2015 I moved to Copenhagen. Today Istedgade is an uppmarket adress. My favourite area in Copenhagen. I used to live there. But got priced out. They still have the free heroin clinic there. But all the misery around it is gone today. Addict rates are the lowest since they started counting.

This is clearly the way to do it

You guys are simply too sensible!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can remember the name calling used by kids. Fat , ugly, skinny. Big nose, big ears, too short, too tall. A girl being flat chested. Kids ceiling others queer based on vocal quality.

From a report on education and immigrant kids. Kids from one Asian immigrant group would male fun of kids from another Asian group because their eyes were slanted differently.

It is across all cultures.

Yeah, but it's not equal to all kids.

You would be surprised. Most adults, regardless of looks, will tell you they were teased/bullied as youths. If you were a pretty female, you were a 'slut', 'prick tease' or some other name. If you were a handsome male, you were a 'stupid jock' or accused of being gay. It just doesn't matter what your "failing" was/is, other adolescents will exploit it.

I'm sure everyone got some. The question is how much.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I like the Danish system. They just give drugs to addicts. Offer them rehab if they'd like. But there's no pressure. They started with this in 1999. In 2000 I visited to Copenhagen. Istedgade was a notorius street with heroin addicts everywhere. Prostitutes and sex clubs. Needles littering the street. In 2015 I moved to Copenhagen. Today Istedgade is an uppmarket adress. My favourite area in Copenhagen. I used to live there. But got priced out. They still have the free heroin clinic there. But all the misery around it is gone today. Addict rates are the lowest since they started counting.

This is clearly the way to do it

You guys are simply too sensible!

Its not just us. I think every European country now has some version of this (ie Harm Reduction). Iran and Portugal were first. They've both gotten amazing results with combating addictions. It seems to be the best solution long and short term. No downside really.

And once we start giving the addicts drugs the income is immediately taken away from criminals. That's a good thing. Addicts don't need to sell to pay for the habit.

There's more. HIV and hepatitus rates go down. When they're given the drugs its always administered by a nurse in a clinic. Hygenic. There really is no downside

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a video explaining the business model of OnlyFans. The biggest sex work platform today

 

[Tigers!]

I like the Danish system. They just give drugs to addicts. Offer them rehab if they'd like. But there's no pressure. They started with this in 1999. In 2000 I visited to Copenhagen. Istedgade was a notorius street with heroin addicts everywhere. Prostitutes and sex clubs. Needles littering the street. In 2015 I moved to Copenhagen. Today Istedgade is an uppmarket adress. My favourite area in Copenhagen. I used to live there. But got priced out. They still have the free heroin clinic there. But all the misery around it is gone today. Addict rates are the lowest since they started counting.

This is clearly the way to do it

You guys are simply too sensible!

Its not just us. I think every European country now has some version of this (ie Harm Reduction). Iran and Portugal were first. They've both gotten amazing results with combating addictions. It seems to be the best solution long and short term. No downside really.

Are they really combating addiction? The addicts are still addicted. Now it is just more socially acceptable. Is the aim to reduce addiction rates? Increase addiction rates? Maintain addiction rates?

And once we start giving the addicts drugs the income is immediately taken away from criminals. That's a good thing. Addicts don't need to sell to pay for the habit.

There's more. HIV and hepatitus rates go down. When they're given the drugs its always administered by a nurse in a clinic. Hygenic. There really is no downside

If the addicts remain reliant upon the drugs to function (sic) that would be a downside. It is the diversion of their time, energy, talents to getting to and maintaining a certain level of existence. They certainly could do better for themselves.
There is the relationship costs. The addicts would not be the best possible version of themselves to other people esp. those that know them, love them, work with them.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I like the Danish system. They just give drugs to addicts. Offer them rehab if they'd like. But there's no pressure. They started with this in 1999. In 2000 I visited to Copenhagen. Istedgade was a notorius street with heroin addicts everywhere. Prostitutes and sex clubs. Needles littering the street. In 2015 I moved to Copenhagen. Today Istedgade is an uppmarket adress. My favourite area in Copenhagen. I used to live there. But got priced out. They still have the free heroin clinic there. But all the misery around it is gone today. Addict rates are the lowest since they started counting.

This is clearly the way to do it

You guys are simply too sensible!

Its not just us. I think every European country now has some version of this (ie Harm Reduction). Iran and Portugal were first. They've both gotten amazing results with combating addictions. It seems to be the best solution long and short term. No downside really.

Are they really combating addiction? The addicts are still addicted. Now it is just more socially acceptable. Is the aim to reduce addiction rates? Increase addiction rates? Maintain addiction rates?

Yes, they are combating addiction. More people manage to kick the addiction and go sober through the harm reduction method, than they do through any other paradigm.

The theory goes that being addicted is a mental problem, rather than a naughty lifestyle choice. The theory builds on an assumption that there's a psychological issue at the core of the addiction and if they didn't have this issue, they wouldn't be addicted. The addictive substance or behaviour is employed to crowd out the distressing thoughts triggered by the psychological problem. And if they work on that issue, they will then be able to kick the addiction. And if we force addicts to have to chase drugs we make it harder for them to work on the underlying issue, thus perpetuating the addictive cycle. The goal with harm reduction is to give the addicts less problems, rather than more problems.

Also, making drugs illegal, makes a person who already psychologically vulnerable even more vulnerable. Not only are they addicted to drugs, now they also have a criminal record. We're basically using social tools forcing drug addicts into a criminal world where their only method of survival is to be a criminal, and then we also punish them for being a criminal. It's a pretty cruel method. Like Steve said, we create drug addicts, force them to sell drugs to survive and then "cut their balls off" if they do. It's not nice. And doesn't solve the problem. It perpetuates the addiction.

But most importantly.... the numbers are in. It works. It works very effectively.

The war on drugs paradigm comes from AA. In their parlance, addicts typically only get off drugs if they they first hit "bottom". The drugs is an escape, but when they're so trapped by life, they can't escape, they are forced for face their demons. We basically marginalise and punish them as much as possible, to force them into an iron vice where getting clean is the only option. Which also can work. But this method has some obvious problems. It's cruel. It requires a vast social conspiracy. While the criminal world gives them sanctuary. So we are encouraging the growth of a maffia. The maffia will then start spilling over into other ways to make illicit money. That's bad for everyone. It fills the jails with people that without the addiction wouldn't be there. And finally, it's extremely expensive. Success rates are low and the bill is high.

With the harm reduction method it's perfectly possible for someone to just stay perpetually on drugs within the system and just get their daily fix. We're not forcing anyone to anything. It can happen. But it at least doesn't groom them into a criminal. And that's still a bonus for society. So even that situation is still a win.

And once we start giving the addicts drugs the income is immediately taken away from criminals. That's a good thing. Addicts don't need to sell to pay for the habit.

There's more. HIV and hepatitus rates go down. When they're given the drugs its always administered by a nurse in a clinic. Hygenic. There really is no downside

If the addicts remain reliant upon the drugs to function (sic) that would be a downside. It is the diversion of their time, energy, talents to getting to and maintaining a certain level of existence. They certainly could do better for themselves.
There is the relationship costs. The addicts would not be the best possible version of themselves to other people esp. those that know them, love them, work with them.

But there's an implicit assumption with your statements. That they'd be even better versions of themselves if we don't give them drugs. Ie, they find the drugs themselves, probably through criminal means. So they're still on drugs, but now have their days occupied by the need to chase drugs. How exactly are they better versions of themselves, than they would be if we just gave them the drugs? They're still on drugs. They just have one less problem now.

FYI, in the harm reduction system, they're not given as much drugs as they want. They're given just enough for abstinence to not be unbareable. They're also forced to be in the clinic a while after receiving the drugs. So they can't get their government supplied fix and then go out and top up. Not right away anyway. We also force regular medical check ups onto them. Because drug addicts suck at taking care of themselves. This is great for containing transmissible diseases. Again... sick people are hardly the best version of themselves.

Plenty of addicts repeatedly drift in and out of the system for years before getting clean, if ever. Addictions can be hard to kick.

BTW, This is a simplified version. The reality of drug addiction is not this simple. People are addicts for a variety of reasons, and there's a variety of mechanisms. But these other guys are still better off in the harm reduction paradigm.

 

[bilby]

Are they really combating addiction? The addicts are still addicted. Now it is just more socially acceptable. Is the aim to reduce addiction rates? Increase addiction rates? Maintain addiction rates?

Why would anyone care about addiction rates? The aim is to reduce harm.

Worrying whether or not someone is addicted to something is futile. All that matters is whether their addiction leads to harmful impacts on others. That's why smoking tobacco doesn't force nicotine addicts into prostitution, but does mean we need to put "No Smoking" signs in buses.

Addiction is secondary. We don't let drunks drive cars, but we do let them ride in taxis - because being drunk in a vehicle isn't the problem, being drunk whilst driving is.

Trying to solve a problem by attacking a proxy for that problem is stupid. As long as an addict has access to his alcohol or his nicotine, and is restrained from harming others, his addiction is not a problem for anyone but himself, and it's up to him to ask for help with it - or not.

Lots of people live long, happy and fullfuilling lives while addicted to various things. The reason why thlse addicted to crack cocaine or heroin are more of a problem to others than those addicted to nicotine or ethanol is clear - the latter two are not illegal.

As nicotine is becoming more and more expensive (due solely to government efforts to make it so), organised crime and the whole vile cascade of unintended consequences that it brings is becoming a problem in Australia. The cause isn't addiction to the smokes; It's that they are now artificially priced such that criminals can exploit the addicts. Just like heroin or cocaine are.

Making smoking unattractive is wise. Making it merely expensive is deeply unwise. Making it illegal would be crazy. But that's what has been done with other drugs.

 

[Elixir]

Why would anyone care about addiction rates? The aim is to reduce harm.

I think the closed loop thought is crime prevention. Lock up the junkies and they can’t break into your house, and if you legalize heroin there will be junkies EVERYWHERE.
The public as a body is convinced that consuming illegal drugs is bad, while consuming thousands of dollars worth of legal drugs per capita (less in Au I assume)

“A person is smart. People are an idiot.”
-I forget who said it

@Tigers! - is your prison industry a good place to invest?