Sunday, November 29, 2015

Why men do not want women in their playgroups and teams

Feminist answer: Because men are misogynists.

Actual answer: Because men respect women.

That answer might sound completely nonsensical at first, but let me explain.

(Also, I'm not saying that there exist no men who don't want women in their playgroups because of very sexist reasons. Of course there are. However, I'd argue that those are a minority. In the majority of cases where this happens, the reason is rather different, which I'll explain below.)

Think of it what you want, but on average men's psychology is different from women's. Men do not get easily offended, and are rather stoic. When men who are close friends are engaged in a hobby, they often like to trashtalk. This trashtalk may sometimes even sound highly offensive and insulting to an outsider. Some of it might even be technically speaking "sexist", even though the men aren't actually sexist in the least. That's just trashtalk. And that's just how men's brains work. It's a form of male bonding. It may sound like a cliche, but that's just how it is.

However, immediately when a woman enters the picture, things change completely. Now all the men have to be careful about what they say and do. They have to tread very carefully, so as to not be offensive to the woman and hurt her feelings.

They do not do this out of misogyny. They do this out of respect. They do not want their typical trashtalk to offend the woman.

But the thing is, this sucks the fun out of the whole experience. They cannot let loose. They cannot "take a break" from social norms, and have a fun session of whatever, and of male bonding. Suddenly they have to be serious and respectful... and boring. It's just not fun. Many men do not want this. It just kills the playgroup, the whole idea.

(Of course some men keep trashtalking regardless, often offending the woman in question. But that's usually a minority of cases. Also, I'm not saying that all male playgroups are like that, but many of them are. And of course there are really tomboyish women who are "one of the boys", so to speak, and trashtalk as much as any of the men. Sadly they are also a very, very small minority.)

Of course feminists love to twist the narrative and accuse men of misogyny. Even though it's the exact opposite: Not misogyny, but respect.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

The irony of constitutional freedom

Freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom to peacefully congregate to express opinions and so on and so forth are some of the most fundamental core values of a modern free society, most often, in most countries, expressed in the most fundamental guiding document of the government, ie. the so-called "constitution".

The constitution is an attempt to guide and limit the government in order to protect individual rights, freedoms and equality, and stop the government from trampling over and infringing its citizens' fundamental rights.

There's a great irony in this, however. You see, dissemination of anti-constitutional ideologies, ie. ideologies that seek to limit or even annul the country's constitution itself, is, quite ironically, protected by the constitution. (It would indeed be quite contradictory and even hypocritical for a constitution to say, essentially, "all speech is protected, except anti-constitutional speech.")

These basic freedoms allow, for example, muslim extremists in the west to rally their people against constitutional freedoms. They allow social justice warriors to indoctrinate people into thinking that things like freedom of speech and freedom of congregation should be limited. In other words, they are using the very freedoms that the constitution grants them to speak against those freedoms.

And what worries me is that those ideologies are highly "infectious" and "virulent". More and more people are being indoctrinated into them. Especially social justice warriors are appropriating schools and universities, where most of the future leaders, judges, congresspeople and the press are studying, and are indoctrinating them into believing a totalitarian anti-constitutional racist ideology. And more and more people are converted every day.

It's like the constitution is working against itself. It protects the freedom for people to work against the constitution.

It makes me think of how the Nazi part rose to power in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's. They were, after all, a political party elected to the parliament using the regular democratic process.

This attack against the constitution, however, is happening at an even more fundamental level.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

The Paris attacks: You reap what you sow

On the 18th of September 2015, ie. almost exactly two months ago (as of writing this blog post), I made a comment on Facebook about the European mass refugee immigration, and how Europe has finally lost its mind, pretty much opening its borders to anybody who just wants to come in. I predicted that within six months there will be the first terrorist attack by "refugees" (either actual refugees, or islamic terrorists pretending to be ones.)

Well, it took only two months for my prediction to become true. To the surprise of nobody. (The exact time and place of the attack was of course unpredictable, but not the fact that a terrorist attack in the very near future is inevitable. And what do you know.)

The attack didn't surprise me in the least. However, it does anger me quite a lot. I feel anger for the fact that people have to pay with their lives for this European madness. Citizens whose opinion on the subject of opening the borders was not asked. Citizens whose tax money is used for all this. Now they are dead.

Today it was Paris. Where will the next attack be? How many more people will have to die because of this madness? I'll renew my prediction and say that within the next six months there will be another terrorist attack somewhere in Europe. (And this estimate is cautiously optimistic. I fear that the attack will come much, much sooner than that.)

Yes, open your borders, Europe. Then reap what you sow. We, the regular citizens, have to pay, both with our tax money and our lives.

I'm really angry right now.


Edit: And it took 4 months. I was right once again.

At this point is probably useless to make any more predictions. Terrorist attacks at semi-regular intervals are here to stay. And people have to pay with their lives because of it.

Congratulations Europe, you are completely retarded. And unfortunately I have to live here.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Is constitutional free speech coming to an end?

As I wrote in a previous blog post, modern "progressive" feminism is highly authoritarian, and seeks to control, censor, silence, ban and even criminalize dissenting opinion. It is, in fact, becoming more and more frequent for such social justice warriors to outright openly say that free speech is a bad thing, an antiquated concept, and that it should be limited. Many of them aren't even beating around the bush about it, but just outright state it.

The frightening thing is that this exact branch of "progressive" feminism, the highly authoritarian and anti-constitutional kind, is extremely virulent, and extremely powerful. It is represented not only by regular citizens, but all the way to high-ranking officials, politicians, members of the press, university professors, and so on. And in an alarmingly increasing manner.

Feminism, the wrong authoritarian kind, appropriates and invades everything. It's like Scientology: Infiltrate every major branch of our society, including the press, politics, and universities.

At this moment there is, effectively, an "invasion" happening at Yale University. "Progressive" social justice warriors are organizing protests for the slightest of excuses, and demanding for the president of the university to resign. Even though said president has done absolutely nothing wrong. He is not even accused of having done anything concrete. He's just being demanded to resign, because reasons.

Now, I'm not saying that most of them are doing it deliberately, but there is probably a major hidden reasons why they are demanding it: To have him replaced with a more "progressive" feminist.

If and when they reach their goals, it is surely to end up with Yale University spending more and more time and resources in, well, indoctrinating their students into authoritarian "progressive" feminism. Even more than it currently does. (There is, in fact, an amazing amount of "gender studies" and "critical race theory" courses currently at Yale. And these are the major reason why so many of their students see racism and sexism in every little thing, and are absolutely crazy about feminist theory and rhetoric, and why the university has become effectively a totalitarian hellhole. You wouldn't believe how much concepts like "white privilege", "microaggression", "safe spaces" and all kinds of other feminist buzzwords are thrown around there. And you wouldn't believe how much bullying is happening from the part of the feminists against anybody who dares to present a dissenting opinion.)

This is actually scary. Why? Well, consider this description of Yale University from Wikipedia: "Yale has graduated many notable alumni, including five U.S. Presidents, 19 U.S. Supreme Court Justices, 13 living billionaires, and many foreign heads of state. In addition, Yale has graduated hundreds of members of Congress and many high-level U.S. diplomats, including former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Secretary of State John Kerry. Fifty-two Nobel laureates have been affiliated with the University as students, faculty, or staff, and 230 Rhodes Scholars graduated from the University."

If you want to conquer a country, infiltrate its leaders, its richest and most influential people, and the media. Control everything.

When the new generation of presidents, congressmen, supreme court justices and so on has been indoctrinated into this feminist "progressive" authoritarianism, an ideology that abhors constitutional freedom of speech and considers it dangerous, what exactly do you think will happen?

I predict now, on November 2015, that in the not-so-distant future more and more acts of free speech and free expression will be criminalized, especially those critical of progressive feminism and subjects closely related to it, in the United States, the United Kingdom, and some other western countries. More and more authoritarian measures will be implemented to combat opinions that they do not like, including technological measures to censor the internet, and implementing laws against people who would express such opinions. And the things which will be criminalized will be more and more mundane and trivial as more laws are passed. People will be incarcerated simply for objecting to this.

Constitutional "free speech" will not be abolished de jure, but it will pretty much de facto. It will be held in name only. Everything that they will criminalize will be declared as "not falling under constitutional free speech". Thus they will keep the charade of upholding the constitution, while still going blatantly against it.

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Hatred of the std:: prefix in C++

Among many C++ programmers, there's an extremely strange aversion to using the std:: prefix for names in the standard library (which is why you see C++ code out there littered with the "using namespace std;" statement, and a complete avoidance of the std:: prefix.) There is a common sentiment among these people that the prefix makes the code more unreadable.

This notion is extremely prevalent all the way from complete beginners to university professors teaching C++. Yet I have never seen an actual rational argument for this. It seems to me that these people are just repeating the notion simply because they were taught it, and everybody else is saying it. It's like a form of cargo-cult programming: Hating something for no good reason, simply because everybody else hates it too.

And the thing is, many of these people will defend that notion vehemently, even aggressively. No matter what kind of logical counter-arguments you make, they won't budge.

There is, however, a school of thought that's the polar opposite, and I am a big adherent and promoter of it: Completely avoiding "using namespace std;" and always using the std:: prefix for all standard library names actually makes the code more readable! It also avoids problems.

There are several reasons why this is a good idea.

Firstly, using the std:: prefix for standard library names makes the code more readable for the same reason as code coloring does. You can see at a quick glance where standard library names are being used, and you can more easily see which names are being thus used because they have been "marked" in this manner. Standard library names are thus visually distinct from custom names.

Decades ago I followed the misguided principle of avoiding the prefix, but changed my mind later. And the more I started coding using the prefix, the more I started liking it, and the clearer the code that I wrote became. The "std::" markers really are a very useful visual cue about where and how standard library names are being used, and they distinguish it clearly from my custom names. The more you do this, the more you start liking it, as it really makes the code more readable (which is the exact opposite of the claim.)

Secondly, the prefix actually carries useful information with it. It might not be immediately apparent why, but it really is so. Consider, for instance, this lone line of code:
if ( equal(a, b, c) )
What does this line of code tell us? Not much really. There's a conditional yes, but other than that we have no idea. The "equal()" function could be anything, and we don't know anything about those three parameters. Maybe it's some custom function that compares if three values are equal?

However, contrast it to this:
if ( std::equal(a, b, c) )
Now this is a completely different beast. With the simple addition of the prefix we now know a lot more about this line. Not only do we know now that this is a standard library function, but now we also know that the three parameters are iterators, and we know what this line of code is doing. And even if we didn't know what std::equal() does, we know where to look for that info (rather than going into a wild goose chase in the source code of the program, especially if we are not using an IDE that tells us where that function is declared.)

Thirdly, "using namespace std;" can be problematic because it exposes everything from the standard libraries into the global namespace. This has the danger of causing name collisions. The program might compile now, but just an update to the compiler or its libraries may break it.

POV-Ray is an actual real-life example of this. Prior to C++11, it adhered to the principle of avoiding the prefix, and it used extensively the shared_ptr class from the Boost library. The source code files were littered with these two statements:
using namespace std;
using boost::shared_ptr;
If you are a C++ programmer, you might immediately see what the problem is here.

Somewhere around 2009 or 2010 people started complaining that they couldn't compile POV-Ray from its source code using the latest compilers because of the name collisions between the two versions of shared_ptr. And of course once the C++11 standard was published, it settled the problem for good. Bringing the same name from two different namespaces to the global namespace, just to avoid having to write the prefixes, is a really bad idea.

Yet the hatred of the std:: prefix still prevails to this day. The misinformation and bad practices are being passed from teachers to pupils, and thus they will probably eventually pass this misinformation further, and thus it will be forever perpetuated. This mind virus really needs to stop.