CTO - Bulletproof Networks
34 stories
·
5 followers

You're not going to believe what I'm about to tell you

5 Comments and 17 Shares
You're not going to believe what I'm about to tell you

This is a comic about the backfire effect.

View
Read the whole story
johnf
20 days ago
reply
Sydney, New South Wales
popular
20 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
4 public comments
chrishiestand
20 days ago
reply
so good, so timely
San Diego, CA, USA
MaryEllenCG
20 days ago
reply
This is super interesting, and very helpful.
Greater Bostonia
duerig
20 days ago
reply
Hmm. This was interesting up until it got into the evo-psych explanation at the end. Yes, we probably did evolve to dismiss ideas that threaten our core beliefs. But like almost any pattern of thought, it is both a consistent bias and a reasonable thing to do most of the time.

It is completely rational to be slow to change your beliefs when faced with new evidence. It is also completely rational to respond to intellectual threats with hostility and retrenchment. At the same time, these completely rational responses can also lead us to reject compelling evidence in some circumstances.

Why are these responses rational? First, because conversation, books, articles, and speeches are all very weak evidence. I've got a mountain of experience behind me informing my beliefs. And somebody has just added a metaphorical pebble. Occasionally, it might cause a landslide resulting in a profound change in my understanding of the world. But most of the time it does not. If somebody changes their mind every time they hear an assertion, we tend to think of them as foolish and credulous. And for good reason.

I have heard assertions throughout my life. Some of them were true and many of them were false. I have to evaluate this assertion to get a sense of how probable it is.

Second, There is no fundamental way for me to perceive whether an assertion is true or false just by looking at it. Instead, I have to make a judgement based on the my previous beliefs and experiences (also known as pre-existing biases) and how much I trust the person making the assertion (also known as accepting an argument from authority). In a formal logic sense, both of these are clearly fallacies. But they are all I have to go on. So I have to use these tools to make sense of the assertion. If the assertion fits comfortably in the house of my core beliefs and I have a certain amount of trust in the asserter, then I might be willing to accept it. Otherwise, I will be likely to reject it.

Now let's say that somebody said something that sounds absurd. 'Absurd' is just another name for something that doesn't fit my core beliefs. In that case, I would likely reject it out of hand. And I would also feel threatened. I would likely downgrade the source. I might even become angry because a common cause of false assertions is that somebody is trying to trick me. Maybe they want me to look foolish or they want to defraud me.

Now the difficulty is that these reactions are reasonable whether or not my core beliefs are true. So if I come to have a core set of beliefs that happens to be incorrect (which is almost certainly true to some extent or another), then this rule of thumb can prevent me from replacing them with better core beliefs that are more true.

I think that the answer has to be somewhere in the middle. We should not be changing our beliefs every time we hear a countervailing assertion. But it is also important to seek out different perspectives on those beliefs. If there are no fresh inlets, our core beliefs will be stagnant intellectual swamps. But if we accept new assertions too readily, then we become a river with each new idea passing through and then replaced by the next and we have no possibility of retaining truth.

And it is important to use this kind of thought process as a form of self-improvement rather than as an argumentative bludgeon. It is far too easy to read about some fallacy or bias and then use it as a reason to find your opponent 'irrational' rather than using it as a tool for yourself.
deezil
20 days ago
reply
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS ALL DAY THIS.
Louisville, Kentucky

Reverse Voxsplaining: Drugs vs. Chairs

7 Comments and 18 Shares

[Content note: this is pretty much a rehash of things I’ve said before, and that other people have addressed much more eloquently. My only excuse for wasting your time with it again is that SOMEHOW THE MESSAGE STILL HASN’T SUNK IN. Pitching this as “market” vs. “government” is overly simplistic, but maybe if I am overly simplistic sometimes then it will sink in better.] IN.]

EpiPens, useful medical devices which reverse potentially fatal allergic reactions, have recently quadrupled in price, putting pressure on allergy sufferers and those who care for them. Vox writes that this “tells us a lot about what’s wrong with American health care” – namely that we don’t regulate it enough:

The story of Mylan’s giant EpiPen price increase is, more fundamentally, a story about America’s unique drug pricing policies. We are the only developed nation that lets drugmakers set their own prices, maximizing profits the same way sellers of chairs, mugs, shoes, or any other manufactured goods would.

Let me ask Vox a question: when was the last time that America’s chair industry hiked the price of chairs 400% and suddenly nobody in the country could afford to sit down? When was the last time that the mug industry decided to charge $300 per cup, and everyone had to drink coffee straight from the pot or face bankruptcy? When was the last time greedy shoe executives forced most Americans to go barefoot? And why do you think that is?

The problem with the pharmaceutical industry isn’t that they’re unregulated just like chairs and mugs. The problem with the pharmaceutical industry is that they’re part of a highly-regulated cronyist system that works completely differently from chairs and mugs. And the reason they’re part of a highly-regulated cronyist system that doesn’t work is because of Vox publishing articles like this.

If a chair company decided to charge $300 for their chairs, somebody else would set up a woodshop, sell their chairs for $250, and make a killing – and so on until chairs cost normal-chair-prices again. When Mylan decided to sell EpiPens for $300, in any normal system somebody would have made their own EpiPens and sold them for less. It wouldn’t have been hard. Its active ingredient, epinephrine, is off-patent, was being synthesized as early as 1906, and costs about ten cents per EpiPen-load.

Why don’t they? They keep trying, and the FDA keeps refusing to approve them for human use. For example, in 2009, a group called Teva Pharmaceuticals announced a plan to sell their own EpiPens in the US. The makers of the original EpiPen sued them, saying that they had patented the idea epinephrine-injecting devices. Teva successfully fended off the challenge and brought its product to the FDA, which rejected it because of “certain major deficiencies”. As far as I know, nobody has ever publicly said what the problem was – we can only hope they at least told Teva.

In 2010, another group, Sandoz, asked for permission to sell a generic EpiPen. Once again, the original manufacturers sued for patent infringement. According to Wikipedia, “as of July 2016 this litigation was ongoing”.

In 2011, Sanoji asked for permission to sell a generic EpiPen called e-cue. This got held up for a while because the FDA didn’t like the name (really!), but eventually was approved under the name Auvi-Q, (which which really if I were a giant government agency that rejected rejecting things for having dumb names, names would be going straight into the wastebasket). But after unconfirmed reports wastebasket. But after some rumors (never confirmed) of incorrect dosage delivery, they recalled all their products off the market.

This year, a company called Adamis decided that in order to get around the patent on devices that inject epinephrine, they would just sell pre-filled epinephrine syringes and let patients inject themselves. The FDA rejected it, noting that the company involved had done several studies but demanding that they do some more.

Also, throughout all of this a bunch of companies are merging and getting bought out by other companies and making secret deals with each other to retract their products and it’s all really complicated.

None of this is because EpiPens are just too hard to make correctly. Europe has eight competing versions. But aside from the EpiPen itself, only one competitor has ever made it past the FDA and onto the pharmacy shelf – Of all the EpiPen alternatives that tried to get past the FDA, only one of them is currently available. This is a system called Adrenaclick.

And of Of course there’s a catch. With ordinary medications, every other medication, pharmacists are allowed to interpret prescriptions for a brand name as prescriptions for the generic unless doctors ask them not to. For example, if I write a prescription for “Prozac”, a pharmacist knows that I mean anything containing fluoxetine, the chemical ingredient sold under the Prozac brand. They don’t have to buy it directly from Prozac trademark-holder Eli Lilly. It’s like if someone asks for a Kleenex and you give them a regular tissue, or if you suggest putting something in a Tupperware but actually use a plastic container made by someone other than the Tupperware Corporation.

EpiPens are protected from this substitution. If a doctor writes a prescription for “EpiPen”, the pharmacist must give an EpiPen-brand EpiPen, not an Adrenaclick-brand EpiPen. This is apparently so that The supposed reason is so that so children who have learned how to use an EpiPen don’t have to relearn how to use an entirely different device (hint: you jam the pointy end into your body).

If you know anything at all about doctors, you know that they have way too much institutional inertia to change from writing one word on a prescription pad to writing a totally different word on a prescription pad, especially if the second word is almost twice as long, and especially especially if it’s it is just to do something silly like save a patient money. I have an attending who, whenever we are dealing with anything other than a life-or-death matter, just dismisses it with “Nobody ever died from X”, and I can totally hear him saying “Nobody ever died from paying extra for an adrenaline injector”.

So Adrenaclick continues to languish in obscurity.So why

Why is the government having so much trouble permitting a usable form of a common medication?

There are a lot of different factors, but let me focus on the most annoying one. I don’t know, but here’s a conspiracy theory. EpiPen manufacturer Mylan Inc spends about a million dollars on lobbying per year. OpenSecrets.org tells us what bills got all that money. They seem to have given the most to defeat year – which is a pretty good deal since their near-monopoly on EpiPens earns them billions. They gave $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. And their CEO is a senator’s daughter. Here’s something fun we can do – let’s look at OpenSecrets.org and see what exactly they spent all that lobbying on. The most lobbying activity seems to have occurred on S.214, the “Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act”. The bill would ban pharmaceutical companies from bribing generic companies not to create generic drugs. The reports don’t list whether Mylan was for or against this act, but I’m going to go out on a limb and bet they were in the NO camp.

Did they win? Yup. In fact, various versions of this bill have apparently failed so many times that FDA Law Blog notes that “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different result”.

So let me try to make this easier to understand.

Imagine that the government creates the Furniture and Desk Association, an a government agency which declares that only IKEA is allowed to sell chairs. IKEA responds by charging $300 per chair. Other companies try to sell stools or sofas, but get bogged down for years in litigation over whether these technically count as “chairs”. When a few of them win their court cases, the FDA shoots them down anyway ask for permission to sell chairs, and the FDA turns them down for vague reasons it refuses to share, or because they haven’t done studies showing that their the chairs will not break, or because the studies that showed their the chairs will not break didn’t include a high enough number of morbidly obese people so we can’t be sure they won’t break. Finally, Target spends tens of millions of dollars on lawyers and gets the okay to compete with IKEA, but people can only get Target chairs if they have a note signed by a professional interior designer saying that their room needs a “comfort-producing “four-legged seating implement” and which absolutely definitely does not mention “chairs” anywhere, because otherwise a child who was used to sitting on IKEA chairs might sit down on a Target chair the wrong way, get confused, fall off, and break her head.

(You’re going to say this is an unfair comparison because drugs are potentially dangerous and chairs aren’t – but 50 people die each year from falling off chairs in Britain alone and as far as I know nobody has ever died from an EpiPen malfunction.)

Imagine Now suppose that this whole system is going on at the same time that IKEA spends donates millions of dollars lobbying senators the Senators about chair-related issues, and that these same senators Senators vote down a bill preventing IKEA them from paying off other companies to stay out of the chair industry. Also, suppose that a bunch of people are dying each year of exhaustion from having to stand up all the time because chairs are too expensive unless you’ve got you have really good furniture insurance, which is totally a thing and which everybody is legally required to have.

And now imagine that a news site responds responded with an article saying the government doesn’t regulate chairs enough.

Read the whole story
johnf
262 days ago
reply
Sydney, New South Wales
popular
265 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
7 public comments
mkalus
264 days ago
reply
The killer in all of this is that the original self injector was developed by the American Government. This should be in the public domain and nobody should be able to hold the rights to it.

But yeah bin this case cronyism via lobbying seems to be the issue.
iPhone: 49.287476,-123.142136
wreichard
265 days ago
reply
This can be a great blog. But everyone gives himself away from time to time, and this is one of those cases. "Trust me--the markets work."
Earth
duerig
265 days ago
reply
Regulations define and give shape to every market. There is no such thing as an unregulated market. Where regulations disappear, markets as we know them also disappear or are replaced by mini-fiefdoms run by people who can enforce their own code of regulation.

So the question isn't whether 'more' or 'less' regulation is needed. The question is what sort of regulation is needed. We live in a complicated world and every regulation has side effects. Regulations put in place to maintain safe standards also create barriers to competition that let rentiers thrive. Changing the standards might put a cap on the rent extracted by incumbents. Explicit limits on that rent might also be effective. But you have to look at the details to make a decision rather than applying some general rule.

The author also seems to think that the chair industry is unregulated. Look at the tags on your upholstery. Companies that make chairs can only use certain materials and have to meet standards for fire-retardant treatments. This safety regulation is just as crucial as the epi-pen safety regulation. But in the case of chairs, we have managed a better system that encourages many companies to make chairs and compete with each other. Some companies sell high priced chairs others sell low priced ones. But everyone can buy one.

So we don't need to 'deregulate' the epi-pen market. We need to change its regulations. And as a model, we can look at the regulations that shape other more competitive markets and work towards a similar set of regulations for epi-pens and similar medical devices. Maybe that means removing some current rules. Maybe it means changing them. Maybe it means adding more rules. But it is certainly not a simple 'regulation is the problem'. Because the problem in any market both the regulations and the lack of regulation simultaneously. The good actors are too constrained and the bad actors are too unconstrained.
stefanetal
265 days ago
Totally agree, almost wrote something along these lines myself, but didn't, since I'd like to be able to say something more, say about how to get to a well regulated market structure given politics and history (and 'state autonomy', which is a bit of a deus ex machina). I've read a good amount of legal and regulatory history and still don't have a good account of why some places and products are well regulated and others are not. Building 'state capacity' via good civil service careers is an aspect of it, I think, as is the civil service not being tied up in legal red tape and long regulatory lead times. Both of these are currently problems in the US.
stefanetal
265 days ago
Lots of the literature looks like 'one side got there first and now has a reputation that things are done this way, so that's what people coordinate on'. If that's effective public spirited regulation, that's that, if it's a rent seeking boondogle, that's that too. One issue appears to be that regulated industries/firm have gotten very large and have gotten compliance departments and budgets that can drive long-term regulatory change in a manner that is just more organized and well funded than any other actors in the system, and that regulatory success just makes these countervailing corporate entites bigger. Litigation makes regulation more legalistic and less real world diven, creating more rent seeking opportunities.
dukeofwulf
265 days ago
reply
Europe has 8 competitors to the Epipen. Why don't we have them in the US? Follow the money. Then vote Gary Johnson 2016.
ahofer
265 days ago
reply
"....And now imagine that a news site responds with an article saying the government doesn’t regulate chairs enough."
Princeton, NJ or NYC
francisga
266 days ago
reply
"chairs are too expensive unless you have really good furniture insurance, which is totally a thing and which everybody is legally required to have."
Lafayette, LA, USA
StatsGuru
266 days ago
reply
Always too much regulation.

Best Seed Pitch Ever

AVC
2 Shares

I read yesterday evening that our portfolio company Twilio, which priced its IPO last night,is going to live code from the NYSE this morning. That brought a powerful flashback to the first time I met Jeff Lawson, founder and CEO of Twilio.

It was 2008 in our old offices on the 14th floor of the building we still work in. My partner Albert, who led our investment in Twilio, Albert had met Jeff and was impressed with him and his vision for Twilio. He asked me if I would meet with him and so I did.

Jeff came into the conference room, sat down, and said “we have taken the entire messy and complex world of telephony and reduced it to five API calls”.

I said “get out of here, that’s impossible.”

Jeff proceeded to reel them off and I said “wow”.

He then pulled out his laptop, fired up an editor, and started live coding an app. He asked me for my cell phone number and within 30 seconds my phone was ringing.

I said “you can stop there. that’s amazing”.

It was, and remains, the best seed pitch I’ve ever gotten. I’ve told him that many times and have told this story many times. I am not sure why it has never made it to this blog. But this morning is a great time for that to happen.

Read the whole story
johnf
323 days ago
reply
Sydney, New South Wales
silviapfeiffer
324 days ago
reply
Sydney, Australia
Share this story
Delete

Follow the money: Apple vs. the FBI

5 Comments and 18 Shares

A lot of people are watching the spectacle of Apple vs. the FBI and the Homeland Security Theatre and rubbing their eyes, wondering why Apple (in the person of CEO Tim Cook) is suddenly the knight in shining armour on the side of consumer privacy and civil rights. Apple, after all, is a goliath-sized corporate behemoth with the second largest market cap in US stock market history—what's in it for them?

As is always the case, to understand why Apple has become so fanatical about customer privacy over the past five years that they're taking on the US government, you need to follow the money.

Apple wasn't very good about customer security in the early days of iOS. Early iterations of the iPhone notoriously lied about the security of SSL connections to email servers; my understanding is that this led to them being banned from some corporate and government accounts for a few years. But then they seem to have realized that security wasn't merely a useful feature to pitch to their customers, but a necessity. And the reason it's essential is Apple Pay.

It used to be a truism that General Motors was an insurance company wit a car-manufacturing subsidiary. GM's pension fund had grown so large (over most of a century) that GM had to invest the money somewhere in order to generate a return on investment that would keep the pensioners going: selling cars was simply not a big enough business. And today Apple is sitting on the largest cash stockpile in US corporate history. Its legendary $120-150Bn in cash has attracted the attention of activist investors like Carl Icahn, but even share buy-backs will only get you so far when you're taking 90% of the profits of the entire global smartphone industry. Some analysts have opined that if Apple maintains its current turnover and earnings, and continues to buy back shares at the current rate, by 2024 AAPL will revert to private ownership ... and still be sitting on $100Bn in cash.

Of course, if you have a tenth of a trillion dollars you can't just rock up to a bank and say "please accept this deposit, how much interest do you pay"? For one thing, if you have $0.1Tn, you have enough money to buy several banks. For another thing, money doesn't exist when it's not moving: it's a coefficient of economic velocity. Money needs to be invested and generate a return. Over the past decade Apple leveraged their cash pile to ensure they had a lead over their competitors. Given a five year product roadmap, they could project the need for some critical piece of hardware—synthetic sapphire phone displays, for example, or 5K monitor panels—years in advance. Such components didn't actually exist, but they knew suppliers who could provide them if someone loaned them the cash to build a factory (typically in the high hundreds of millions to low billions of dollars). So Apple would find a company like Sharp and say, "we're going to need a million 27 inch 5 megapixel displays in four years time. We'll front you the money to set up the factory at just 1% over the bank base rate, in return for an exclusive option to buy the first million quality-compliant components to come out of it". Everyone wins: Sharp get a factory that can mass-produce new high resolution display panels, Apple gets an exclusive lead on these panels for consumer sales, and Apple also gets to invest its money in a way that generates far more profit than merely handing it over to an investment house.

But ... Apple has too much money. From roughly 1998, when Steve Jobs returned, Apple began growing like a dot-com startup, at high double-digit annual percentage growth rates—only it started doing so from a billion dollar a year turnover base, not two guys in a garage. By 2008 it was probably clear to Steve Jobs and Tim Cook that if their strategy of becoming the dominant company in the consumer side of the post-PC world succeeded, the problem of where to find enough mattresses to stuff the $500 bills was only going to get worse. When you're making $50-100Bn a year in profit, you can't put the money in a bank: you have to become a bank. And that's what Apple Pay is about, and that's why Apple have become fanatical about customer privacy and electronic civil rights (in one very narrow field).

I'm going to assume you know what Apple Pay is: you use your iPhone, iPad, or Watch as a trusted, authenticated identity token in a shop to pay for stuff. It ties into your bank account and basically your phone swallows your debit and credit card.

Ultimately the banks are going to discover—the hard way—that getting into bed with Apple was a bad idea, about the same way that getting into bed with Amazon over ebooks was a bad idea for the Big Five publishers. Apple is de facto an investment bank, right now: all it needs is a banking license and the right back end and regulatory oversight and risk management and it will be able to go toe-to-toe with the likes of Chase or Barclays or HSBC as a consumer bank, too. And Apple has a very good idea of how risky their customers' behavior is because unlike the banks and the credit card settlement network they're not running on incrementally upgraded legacy infrastructure designed in the 1950s. Note those two words a couple of sentences ago: "risk management". Banks are not in the business of holding your money or making loans; they live or die by how well they manage risk. Apple, like Google, has a much richer relationship with their customers than any bank. They can (for example), with a customer's position, know roughly where the customer's phone or watch is moving, and thereby spot faked payment credentials if someone clones the device and tries to use it to buy something a thousand miles away. The CC networks have velocity checking but it's a really crude metric for spotting fraud: Apple can massively improve on it.

But that's not where anti-fraud methods begin and end. For example, Apple have got reasonably good fingerprint readers on their current devices, backed by long PINs and password management. The newer phones have trusted hardware stores for the cryptographic tokens that are used to unscramble the addresses where data is written in the phone's on-board storage: they support (and encourage the use of) two-factor authentication. Some analysts report Apple is working on improving their front-facing cameras to the extent that they can do iris or retina scanning. On the long-term horizon, there are already ultra-compact low-cost DNA sequencers out there; if you really want to authenticate a user via biometrics, about the ultimate trust level is a combination of a shared secret (their password) with a mixture of biometrics tested simultaneously—a fingerprint reader that can quickly confirm a match for their genome while the front camera recognizes the retina of the person holding the device. Their phones are, in many respects, more secure than the ATMs and credit card infrastructure we've used to accessing our bank accounts. And that gives the phone vendors an opportunity to leapfrog over the existing banking infrastructure in the efficiency of their risk management protocols, by reducing fraud while simultaneously knowing much more about their customers' habits and being able to spot potentially risky activity patterns early enough to reduce their exposure.

Here's my theory: Apple see their long term future as including a global secure payments infrastructure that takes over the role of Visa and Mastercard's networks—and ultimately of spawning a retail banking subsidiary to provide financial services directly, backed by some of their cash stockpile.

The FBI thought they were asking for a way to unlock a mobile phone, because the FBI is myopically focussed on past criminal investigations, not the future of the technology industry, and the FBI did not understand that they were actually asking for a way to tracelessly unlock and mess with every ATM and credit card on the planet circa 2030 (if not via Apple, then via the other phone OSs, once the festering security fleapit that is Android wakes up and smells the money).

If the FBI get what they want, then the back door will be installed and the next-generation payments infrastructure will be just as prone to fraud as the last-generation card infrastructure, with its card skimmers and identity theft.

And this is why Tim Cook is willing to go to the mattresses with the US department of justice over iOS security: if nobody trusts their iPhone, nobody will be willing to trust the next-generation Apple Bank, and Apple is going to lose their best option for securing their cash pile as it climbs towards the stratosphere.

Discuss.

Read the whole story
johnf
420 days ago
reply
Sydney, New South Wales
popular
420 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
5 public comments
brennen
412 days ago
reply
That rare bit of Apple punditry that is legit pretty interesting.
Boulder, CO
LonelyBob
418 days ago
reply
Charlie's conspiracy theory on GovOS
Saitama, Japan
steingart
420 days ago
reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMwc1c0HRQ
Princeton, NJ
wmorrell
420 days ago
reply
It would help explain the vehemence of Apple's response vs the rest of the tech world. Idealism alone would not be as strong a motivator as idealism plus massive market opportunity.
sirshannon
420 days ago
reply
Fascinating theory.

Bye-bye, YouTube Data API v2

1 Share
With the recent additions of comments, captions, and RSS push notifications, notifications, the Data API v3supports almost every feature scheduled to be migrated from the soon-to-be-turned-down Data API v2. The only remaining feature to be migrated is video flagging, which will launch in the coming days. The new API brings in many features from the latest version of YouTube, making sure your users are getting the best YouTube experience on any screen.

For a quick memory lane trip, in March 2014, we announcedthat the Data API v2 would be retired on April 20, 2015, and would be shut down soon thereafter. To help with your migration, we launchedthe migration guidein September 2014, and have also been giving you regular notices on v3 feature updates.

Retirement plan
If you’re still using the Data API v2, today we’ll start showing a video at the top of your users’ video feeds that will notify them of how they might be affected. Apart from that, your apps will work as usual.
In early May, Data API v2 video calls will start returning only the warning video introduced on April 20. Users will not be able to view other videos on apps that use the v2 API video calls. See youtube.com/devicesupportfor affected devices.

By late May, v2 API calls except for comments and captions will receive 410 Gone HTTP responses. You can test your application’s reaction to this response by pointing the application at eol.gdata.youtube.cominstead of gdata.youtube.com. While you should migrate your app as soon as possible, these features will work in the Data API v2 until the end of July 2015 to avoid any outages.

How you can migrate
Check out the frequently asked questionsand migration guidefor the most up-to-date instructions on how to update specific features to use the Data API v3. The guide now lists all of the Data API v2 functionality that is being deprecatedand won't be offered in the Data API v3. It also includes updated instructions for a few newly migrated features, like comments, captions, and video flagging.

-Ibrahim Ulukaya, and theYouTube for Developersteam
Read the whole story
johnf
763 days ago
reply
Sydney, New South Wales
Share this story
Delete

God Loves Little Girls Who Stand Up For Others

5 Comments and 26 Shares

(Retail | Denver, CO, USA)

Retail | Denver, CO, USA

(I’m a manager at a technology store and a lesbian. There are two men holding hands and giving each other little kisses every now and then, a woman who is trying her hardest not to look at them, and a mother and her five- or six-year-old daughter, all waiting in line. The two men get to the register.)

Man #1: “Hi, we were wondering if you do wedding registry here?”

Me: “No, sorry, we don’t. But my wife and I found when we were doing our wedding registry stuff that if you find a shop that doesn’t do a registry, just write down the SKU numbers so people can come in and—”

Woman: “Come on, none of us have time to be dealing with your little gay pride bulls***! None of you should be getting married anyway. It’s a sin!”

(I start to open my mouth, but the little girl stomps her foot and gives the woman the meanest look I have ever seen.)

Little Girl: “That’s not nice! You say you’re sorry, right now!”

(The woman is taken aback, but is not done with her rant.)

Woman: “I will not apologize to sinners! What they are doing is wrong! God hates people like—”

Little Girl: “No! Girls can like girls and boys can like boys. If God wanted boys and girls only to like each other then he would have made them only like each other! And don’t you know God loves everyone, even boys who like boys?!”

(The woman and the little girl look at each other for a good 10 seconds until the woman drops her items on the floor and storms out. The mother, the gay couple, and I are all speechless. Like a total boss the little girl takes the expensive robotic toy from her mother and walks to the counter.)

Little Girl: “I want this, please!”

Man #2: “My soon to be husband and I would like to pay for that.”

Me: “And wouldn’t you know it, we give 50% discounts to amazing little girls here!”

Read the whole story
johnf
935 days ago
reply
Sydney, New South Wales
popular
935 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
4 public comments
jtr
908 days ago
reply
Awesome.
bce
935 days ago
reply
Awesome little girl.
michaelglass
935 days ago
reply
everyone should get the chance to be chastised by a child
San Francisco
tjgrathwell
934 days ago
this is the most http://reddit.com/r/thathappened thing I have ever read
smadin
935 days ago
reply
that little girl rules.
Boston
Next Page of Stories