Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Why is the social justice ideology so virulent?

For many years I have been watching horrified how far the modern feminist social justice ideology is going, and what kind of negative effects it has on the world as large (such as censorship, limiting basic human freedoms, intimidation, harassment, persecution, sometimes even from officials), but I have been able to largely do this as a distant observer from here Finland. Surely my country is a modern progressive (the right kind of progressive, not the regressive social justice kind) society that just laughs off that madness that's happening at distant lands far away?

Nope. The ideology is so incredibly virulent that it's already metastasizing Finnish education at all levels.

First the ministry of education announced that they will be teaching social justice to grade schoolers, almost directly copied from the same program in Australia. The whole shebang. Whites are privileged, there are like a million different genders, terminology like "cis"... The entire thing.

And now the major university in Finland has officially announced that it's a feminist organization.

The latter has caused controversy because all university students are officially members of said organization, as this is a requirement for them to attend and get a degree. If some students would not want to be part of a "feminist" organization, but are forced to, if they want to graduate, this may be a breach of the Finnish constitution (which quite specifically says that people cannot be forced to join any groups they don't want to, especially to get some kind of public service, which university education arguably is, especially given that it's heavily, even exclusively, funded by the government, making it in essence a governmental entity.)

But why? Why is modern feminist social justice ideology so incredibly virulent? Why do organization after organization, country after country, embrace it, ignoring all the major problems it has, including the trampling of basic human rights and libertarian values?

I guess that it will only be a matter of time before we will see the same kind of censorship, harassment and human rights violations in Finnish universities as we are seeing elsewhere.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Fidel Castro dies, the regressive left praises him as a hero

Fidel Castro was a brutal totalitarian dictator of Cuba who oppressed the citizens of Cuba for almost 60 years. For all that time, consistently, Cuba ranked as one of the countries with most human rights violations. Firing squads, imprisonment of political dissenters and journalists, you name it. Castro's regime impoverished the country, while Castro himself was a multi-millionaire. He ruled the country with an iron fist.

When news of Castro's death surfaced, Cubans who had escaped political persecution to the United States, and pretty much lived in exile there, marched the streets in celebration. They expressed their sincere relief that one of the darkest moments in their country's history was finally, at some level, over, and that perhaps now their country will begin the long and arduous march to human rights and liberty.

Surely world leaders would have sympathized with these political exiles? Certainly a word of hope, a wish for a new brighter era for Cuba was widely expressed?

Of course not. You see, Castro was a communist. And you know how the regressive left, which has pretty much invaded the leadership of most western countries, think about communism.

State leader after state leader published an eulogy praising Castro as a great leader. For example Justin Trudeau's eulogy is so cringeworthy that it's just disgusting. (In fact, it has become a meme to parody his eulogy of Castro by writing similar eulogies of other oppressive mass-murdering totalitarian dictators from history.)

Donald Trump, of all people, seems to be the only head of state who had the balls to criticize Castro, and was he on fire. He described Castro as a "brutal dictator" and described all the injustices and human rights violations he had committed over his long career. He was also the only leader to express the wish that perhaps now libertarian values and freedoms will start in Cuba.

So regressive leftist leaders praise Castro as a great leader, a hero of the people. Donald Trump calls him for what he really was. And then the leftists wonder why Trump is so popular.

A rather easy way to confront the "wage gap" myth

The "big lie" term was coined by Adolf Hitler in is book Mein Kampf, and refers to the propaganda technique of (an authority figure) telling such a huge lie that the audience just accepts it because they cannot fathom such an authority figure telling such a blatant lie, and thus assume that it must be true.

A more popular form of this, put forward by Joseph Goebbels, is that if a lie is repeated enough, it becomes true (in the sense that people at large will simply start accepting it as true without question; it becomes true in their minds, even against evidence of the contrary.)

This is actually understandable from a psychological perspective. We are pretty much hard-wired to believe in things that everybody else believes. If everybody around us believes something, without question and without criticism, without alternative views, we tend to take it for granted as well. This especially if we have been raised in such an environment all our lives. It requires an unusual kind of skeptical mind to doubt that belief. Unfortunately only a small minority of people have this talent, and they are usually ignored (and sometimes even shunned) by the majority.

When that belief is actually accurate and conforming to reality, there's no harm in it. However, the harm may come when the belief is actually not accurate and differs from reality. People may start acting according to the belief, misled by false information.

The infamous "wage gap" is such a big lie. It has been repeated over and over and over during the past decade or two (and in increasing amounts during the last few years), so much that many people just take it for granted, without question, without skepticism. Anybody doubting this self-evident "truth" is ridiculed and shunned, called names and insulted. You see this "fact" being repeated in a very matter-of-fact manner by people, including celebrities and authority figures.

There is, however, a relatively easy way of countering the claim: Just ask for an actual, concrete example. Ask for an example of an actual specific company that pays less hourly salary to women than to men for the exact same job. After all, if the claim is true, there must be thousands and thousands of companies out there doing this. Coming up with one single example shouldn't be that difficult.

Every time this subject has come up, online or offline, I have asked for such an example. So far I have been given zero of them. People just repeat the claim as a self-evident fact, but never have a single actual example of it to give. They just believe it with no factual evidence to support it.

Be aware, though, that as always with these kinds of things, some smart-ass might actually give you a concrete example. It will probably be fabricated (but there's obviously no way to prove that on the spot), or it might even be true, who knows. But there's a perfect answer to it: "Have you reported it to the authorities? Paying women less than men for the exact same job is illegal."

Note that not all types of job are the same. Not every job is that of a factory worker, where the person checks in at 8am, does exactly 8 hours of work, doing some mundane repetitive task at an assembly line, and then goes home. Not every one of them is a desk job. Or cleaning toilets.

Some jobs are creative, and are based on talent and skill. Some people may be more talented and skillful than others, and might be much more proficient and outright better at doing the "exact same" job. There may be "supply and demand" in play here; not of physical goods, but of talent, skills and knowledge.

Sometimes it might not even be a question of talent and skill, but just of fame, when we are talking about a public figure, like an actor, or a speaker. For example, two actors may technically speaking be equally talented and qualified for a role, but one of them is a world-famous celebrity actor who will draw in the masses to movie theaters, while the other is a completely unknown nobody just fresh out of drama school. The world-famous actor (or rather, his agents) will ask for more money than the unknown nobody, and will refuse to take the part otherwise. It's then up to the produces and executives to decide which one they will hire. (In this case, it's actually the "worker" who is demanding a higher salary, and refusing to do the job otherwise, rather than the "employer" just paying less for the "exact same work". It's up to the employer to decide which one they want.)

Fashion modeling is another perfect example of this. And, curiously, an example where the "wage gap" benefits women more than men. Top female models are largely paid vastly larger sums than top male models, technically speaking for the "exact same work". Again, it's a question of supply and demand, and a question of the "workers" demanding a certain salary or refusing to do the work otherwise. The more famous and popular models will get higher sums than the unknowns. The models that draw in customers and viewership will get higher sums than the ones that don't.

Or take another example: Anita Sarkeesian (at least some time ago) had a speaker fee of something like 20 thousand dollars. If I, a completely unknown nobody, were to offer myself to speak at the exact same event, do you honestly think that the organizer would be willing to pay me 20 thousand dollars, even assuming they would even accept me as a speaker? They might be willing to pay me a hundredth of that sum, if even that. Is this a "wage gap"? Or is it a question of supply and demand? A question of which speaker will draw in more listeners (and thus more profits for the organizers.)

Monday, November 21, 2016

What is equality of opportunity?

There was an article written by a social justice warrior (which link I have lost and can't be bothered to google) talking about why the libertarian principle of equality of opportunity is a really bad thing. Even unconstitutional. It proceeded to describe "equality of opportunity" pretty much as "equality of outcome", which is one of the major criticism that egalitarians have about the modern social justice ideology. One example it gave of enforcing "equality of opportunity" was that if a person is born in a rich family, then his money would need to be taken away and distributed equally among the poorer people, to give everybody the same opportunities and not have somebody have an unfair advantage.

This is so wrong at so many levels. For one, that's quite directly what equality of outcome is, not equality of opportunity.

But at the most fundamental level it's a complete misunderstanding of what the principle of "equality of opportunity" means. I don't know if this is a deliberate or a genuine misunderstanding (I wouldn't be surprised if it were the former), but it's completely off the mark. That's not what the concept means at all.

Equality of opportunity is a quasi-legal concept. It means that nobody is socially discriminated based on personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, country of origin, sexual orientation, social status, and other such characteristics. More precisely, nobody is discriminated in things like education, hiring, basic freedoms, public services, and so on and so forth, based on those characteristics.

For example, rich and poor, white or black, man or woman, both have the same opportunity to apply to the same job. The employer ought to give a fair chance to everybody regardless of their external inconsequential characteristics, without discrimination, and hire people based on qualifications and merit, rather than based on things like race or sexual orientation.

Educational institutions (such as universities) should offer the exact same opportunity for enrollment to all qualified people regardless of gender, race, social status and so on. Enrollment should be a question of qualifications, not a question of personal characteristics such as race. While in some cases the question of money may become relevant (as most universities in the world are not free), the discrimination should nevertheless not be based on personal characteristics (such as gender, etc.)

Obviously outcome will not be the same for all people. Not everybody is as qualified as everybody else, not everybody is able or willing to do the same things, not everybody has the same knowledge, experience or skills. The important thing, however, is that they are given the opportunity to pursue whatever path they choose, if they so choose, without being stopped or hindered by personal characteristics, because of discrimination or favoritism.

What this means is that, among other things, hiring quotas are blatantly against this principle of equality of opportunity. Hiring quotas are discrimination based on these personal characteristics, as it's favoritism towards some people with such characteristics, and discrimination against others. Not everybody is given the same opportunity to be hired, based on merit and qualifications. Instead, some people are given preferential treatment based on gender, race, etc. which directly implies that people without those characteristics will be discriminated against.

This is the reason why I, personally, strongly oppose hiring quotas (and other such quotas, eg. in university enrollment). It's discrimination based on gender, race or other such characteristics, which is blatantly against the most fundamental human rights, constitutionalism, and libertarian values.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Half-Life 2 speedrunning is dead

Some time ago a YouTube user nicknamed Apollo Legend made a video about "the death of speedrunning". In this video he's not saying that speedrunning is becoming less and less popular, but that the organization has, in his view, become stagnant, and that there is little progress in terms of organizing speedruns (eg. speedrun races), poor leadership, and so on.

On a rather different tangent, and quite unrelated to that particular topic, I wrote a comment to that video that in my view speedrunning of some particular games seems to be completely dead. And I mentioned Half-Life 2 speedrunning as the quintessential example. What do I mean by this? Well, here's an essay on that subject:

Firstly, we have to define what we mean by "speedrunning". In essence, it's playing a game from beginning to end as fast as possible. To reach the ending of the game in as a minimal time as possible.

Of course it's not that simple. Some ground rules need to be set, by necessity, to better define what we consider a valid completion of the game.

To understand why, let's consider this (deliberately) extreme example: Suppose that after starting the game I alt-tabbed to Windows, launched a hex-editor, proceeded to make some changes to the save file of the game with it, and then went back to the game and loaded the save... which throws me right to the ending of the game. I think you would agree that this is not a legit completion of the game. I didn't actually play the game from beginning to end. Instead, I used an external tool to alter the game's state and jump to the end without actually playing it. I don't think many people would accept this as a valid legit speedrun.

Thus, a line must be drawn. Some techniques must be considered illegit, while others are allowed. And the question is: Where do we draw this line?

One could hastily come up with a rule of thumb like "if it can be done from within the game, without going to the system or any other program, then it's ok." While at first that might sound like a good rule, it's actually not enough. Half-Life 2 itself provides an excellent example: The developer console. Said console can be opened completely from within the game, using only what the game itself provides, and commands can be written to it, such as a command to jump to a particular level (such as the last level of the game). I think you'd agree that this wouldn't be a legit completion of the game either; and the speedrunning community at large also agrees with this. The developer console in Half-Life 2 is banned from speedruns.

Thus not everything can be allowed even if it can be used completely from within the game itself. In other words, the limits must be tighter. So where exactly draw the line?

And here's where my opinion differs from that of the speedrunning community at large.

Let's take another example to illustrate: Would you consider it legit to pause the game, go to the save/load menu, delete a quicksave from there, and then try to load it, causing the game to glitch in some manner and allowing bypassing some obstacle faster?

This wasn't a theoretical example, but an actual technique used in actual Half-Life 2 speedruns.

The speedrunning community at large says yes, it is allowed. I question this. What exactly is the difference between the developer console, and the menu that allows you to delete a save file?

In both cases we are talking about meta-features that the game program offers that are not directly related to playing the game itself, ie. not gameplay proper. Their basic difference is that one is accessible through a developer console popup that accepts written input, the other is a menu usable with the mouse. But those are essentially just a difference in user interface, not in role and functionality. You cannot argue anything (in terms of acceptability in a speedrun) from the difference in user interface alone. Both deal with non-gameplay metafeatures, rather than playing the game proper. Why is one allowed and the other banned?

In fact, when I have discussed this with people online, only one answer tends to pop up at the end: It just has been agreed by the speedrunning community.

I take this as an admission that the distinction between the two is arbitrary, and there isn't actually a good reason why one is allowed and the other isn't.

And do you know what makes it even worse? If you look at any modern Half-Life 2 speedrun, as being run by some speedrunner on a live stream eg. on twitch, you'll see that they spend several minutes of the run just saving and loading (at some points spending a minute or two doing nothing else), and the clock will actually pause when they are doing so. In other words, all that time spent saving and loading (which takes a couple of seconds each time) is not counted towards the time of the run. Essentially they can spend as much time saving and loading as they want, and it won't make the official time of the run any longer. They could spend an hour doing nothing else, and that hour wouldn't be counted. And this is supposed to be the "fastest" completion of the game...

Personally I do not consider abusing any of these meta-features to affect the actual game (eg. to glitch it) to be legit speedrunning. It's not playing the game. As in controlling the playable character, acting upon the game state using the input that the game provides for that purpose. These are meta-features unrelated to actual gameplay, for other purposes. For example, in the case of saving and loading, to be able to suspend playing and resume later where you left off. Saving and loading are not gameplay proper; they are ancillary meta-features.

Remember how we defined "speedrunning" in the first place: To play the game from beginning to end as fast as possible. Emphasis on "play". Saving, loading, deleting savefiles, changing graphical settings, writing commands on the developer console... none of these constitute gameplay. They do not constitute playing the game proper.

Speedrunning used to be more "pure" in this sense (and, in the case of many games, it thankfully still is, although in most cases that's because the game simply doesn't have the sort of bugs that would allow abuse of meta-features to glitch it.) With some games, however, this "purity" of gameplay has been lost. Abuse of non-gameplay meta-features is becoming more and more prevalent and ubiquitous.

Half-Life 2 is the quintessential example because that's the only category of speedrunning that exists there anymore. With some games, which allow similar abuse, some speedrunners may still opt for creating new categories where such glitches are not abused. But unfortunately Half-Life 2 is not such a game.

The last legit Half-Life 2 speedrun was created many years ago. Then they discovered all the save-loading glitches, and deleting-the-savefile glitches and so on, and that's all they have done ever since. That's all you get today. There are no options.

From my perspective, Half-Life 2 speedrunning is dead. It died years ago, after the last "pure" speedrun that didn't abuse non-gameplay meta-features to glitch the game. No legit speedrun has been created since.

Sweden, the mentally retarded family member of the world

If there's one country that has embraced modern feminism, to the most absolutely ridiculous extents, it's Sweden. Other countries like Canada and Australia are working really hard to get there, but Sweden is by far in the lead on this front. That is, the lead on absolutely ridiculous mentally retarded feminist ideas.

Take, for example, the brilliant idea that the way that snow has been ploughed in Stockholm is sexist, and needs to be "gender equal". Why is it sexist? Because ploughing has been prioritized to first plough the busiest and most important roadways. I especially love this part of the article:
Inspired by authorities in the municipality of Karlskoga, Helldén explained that snowploughs in Stockholm typically target areas frequented by men, such as the roads
Such as the roads...

Anyway. They now implemented a more "gender equal" priority to snowploughing, which of course in feminist parlance means that places frequented by women (such as daycare centers) are ploughed first (because, you know, that's what "equality" means in feminist vocabulary).

What happened? Traffic chaos.

You know. The thing that happens when the busy roads of a metropolis are not ploughed in time, and are full of snow. And this surprised how many people? Something like zero, I guess. (At least sane people.)

But of course, as the article says, the new "gender equal" (which means "women first") snow clearing is not to be blamed. Because of course it shouldn't be. It's the morally right thing to do, and the busybodies having the moral high ground enacted it, and thus it's impossible that must be the cause. When you have the moral high ground, you can never be wrong. The cause must be something else.

I bet they'll end up declaring that the cause is the patriarchy. Somehow.

Misconceptions that non-creationists have about evolution

Creationists have all kinds of misconceptions (and distortions, and straw-men, and even outright lies) about the theory of evolution. But this post is not about them. It's about common misconceptions that non-creationists, even those who fully accept the theory, often have about evolution.

The "evolutionary ladder"

This is a very old myth about biology that goes back hundreds of years, well before Darwin. In fact, Darwin's books about evolution argued against this (instead proposing an evolutionary tree, where all species are on an equal level at the ends of the branches.)

The idea is that there are rather discrete "steps" to evolution, and different species are at different levels on this "evolutionary ladder". At the top are, of course, humans. Below them are apes and monkeys, and so on and so forth, neatly classified in terms of complexity and evolutionary progress.

This leads to the thought of "taking the next step" in evolution. We are at a given level in the ladder, and when we "evolve enough" we'll transfer to the next step above it.

While sometimes the expression "the next step in evolution" is used more figuratively, way too often it's used too literally, as if there indeed were discrete steps or jumps that can be distinctly measured or described. That's just not how evolution works in reality. It's a very gradual and much fuzzier process.

The "direction" of evolution

Even more prevalent is the notion that evolution has a direction. Everything is evolving towards being more complex, more "evolved", better in every way. Oftentimes this misconception goes so far as people thinking that given enough time, we'll evolve into energy beings or something. Underlying this thinking is the idea that evolution has a goal and a direction.

That's not how evolution works at all. Evolution has no direction, no goal. It's a completely mindless natural process that just happens due to physical interactions between entities and their components in the physical world. It has no intent, no purpose, no goals, no direction. It just happens. It's like a river that changes shape over time due to erosion and natural phenomena: It has no goal or intent in mind; it just happens due to how the physical elements interact with each other.

Evolution is just the variation that happens from one generation to the next (which is why it's often described as "descent with variation"). Some of those changes may help the species survive better than other changes. The part of the population that has lesser chances of survival due to a particular change may die off more easily, and thus the changes that increase the chances of survival get naturally selected into the species (and natural selection is, once again, just a mindless natural process that simply happens; it's essentially emergent behavior.)

Sometimes the changes may be considered (by a very subjective measure) to have made the species "more complex" or "better", but that's not necessarily always the case. Sometimes a change that makes the species "less complex", simpler, might help it survive a particular environment they find themselves in. Maybe they lose something they had, or something becomes more "primitive", and it just happens in that particular environment to help them survive better. (That's why some species have eg. lost limbs over long periods of time, for instance.)

Descent with modification, with natural selection, simply makes a species adapt to its changing environment. No intent, purpose or goal; it just happens due to blind physical interactions. If a sizeable group of that species moves to another location, or the environment changes for other reasons, it often causes for a different set of changes to be naturally selected (because the part of the species that happens to get such changes has a better survival rate, the rest dying off, essentially becoming "extinct" over a long period of time within the species itself.) If the species does not adapt, eg. because those necessary changes just don't happen, then it may die off completely (which happens quite a lot).

This is closely related to the next point:


This is the notion (especially loved by Hollywood) that a species, or even an individual, can "de-evolve" into a more primitive form, into a past ancestral form.

This is nonsense. There is no "de-evolution". There is only evolution. Evolution is that: Just change in a species over time. It doesn't matter what kind of change, or what "direction" that change may take the species (as there is no "direction" to evolution).

As noted earlier, sometimes the changes might make the species resemble a distant ancestor species. It may even be that some genes that had been deactivated some time along the line become once again activated, and thus something that was changed in the past becomes "unchanged". But this is not "de-evolution"; just evolution. Genes combine, they change, sometimes they mutate, it's all just change.

A closely related concept is that genes somehow have a "memory" of what they were in the past, and this can cause the species (or even an individual) to be able to revert to a previous form. Again, mostly nonsense. If something has changed, it retains no "memory" of anything.

Let's use an analogy using words (which is quite a popular analogy with these subjects). Assume I have the word "CAR". Now we make a random change to it and it becomes "CAT". Does this new word somehow "remember" that it was "CAR" in the past? No. If another random change is done to it, and it just happens to be the right kind of change, it might actually become once again "CAR". But that was just random chance, not because it somehow "remembered" that it was like that in the past.

(Caveat: Genetics is a hugely complex subject, and I'm a complete layman, so I may well be talking out of my ass here. As said, the subject may be made more complicated by the fact that sometimes genes can "turn off", while still being inherited to the next generations, and then perhaps "turned on" again by another random change. In this case the genes kind of "remember" their past because that particular one was never changed, just "turned off". In Hollywood science, however, the notion seems to be more esoteric than this.)

Individuals evolving

This is another favorite of Hollywood, but the fact is that individuals do not evolve! If you understand the theory of evolution at all, you would understand why.

The theory of evolution is a model that describes how a group of living beings (consisting of numerous individuals) that forms a species changes over time, from generation to generation, and how and why some of those changes remain while others disappear. These changes apply pretty much to the entire species (a certain small change may happen to a newborn individual, but over the next generations, if it's a successful change, it will "spread" to the entire species, as all the descendants of this individual pair with other individuals in the species, producing offspring that inherit that particular change.)

Individuals are different from their parents, and this is part of evolution (a very minuscule part, but still part of it). Individuals do not "evolve" during their lifetimes. They especially never experience radical changes like in some Hollywood movies; that's just a physical impossibility. Also, you can't make an individual "evolve", not even in theory, not be any conceivable means, because that's just not how evolution works.

The "intent" of evolution

Sometimes you see misinformed people talk about how this or that was never "intended" by evolution (or nature, or whatever), or that evolution (nature, whatever) "intended" us to do this or that. As a concrete example, I once had a discussion with a person online who thought that evolution never "intended" us to eat meat.

This is absolute nonsense. As mentioned several times, evolution is just a mindless natural process that happens automatically due to the physical interaction between elements and forces. It just happens. It has no mind, goal or intent. Evolution doesn't "intend" us to do or not do anything. It has no purpose, meaning, intent or goal. Saying otherwise is exactly as silly as saying that gravity "intends" us to do something, or electricity, or volcanoes, or the rain. They are just natural phenomena that simply happen; they have no intent, purpose or goal behind them. You wouldn't go around saying "gravity never intended us to fly in airplanes"; that would be just silly. Then why would you go around saying "evolution never intended us to do this"? It's exactly as silly.

It's impossible to "against" nature, or evolution. In this sense there is no such a thing as something "unnatural". Everything is natural, because it happens in the existing universe. Likewise the notion of doing something according to nature or evolution is likewise nonsensical.

Of course some people (including creationists) could interpret that as everything being "permissible". No. That's not what it means at all. We, as a social species, survive when we work together and protect each other. We don't survive if we start harming each other. Harming each other would be simply stupid. (Unfortunately too many people do it anyway. Fortunately we have formed deterrents to avoid it becoming too common.)

Survival of the fittest

This is a notion shared by many creationists, but it is also a notion sometimes believed by non-creationists, sometimes by deranged (or just misinformed) individuals. And it's the notion that the expression "survival of the fittest" means the same as "survival of the strongest", which in turn means that the weakest members of the species should be disposed of.

"Fitness" in this expression is not talking about strength per se. It's talking about being adapted for survival in a particular environment.

With many species, especially social species, including humans, taking care of the weakest members of society is actually what has helped us thrive and survive as a species. Our "fitness" as a species is that we survive and thrive as a large group that takes care of its members. We are not physically very strong compared to other animals (especially predators), but we have something that most of them lack: Intelligence and skill. We are a highly social species that can organize, live in a "hive" of sorts, and have strength in numbers and in organization, with different individuals having different roles.

The misaimed notion that some deranged individuals have that evolution means that the strongest should live and the weakest die, would actually be detrimental for the survival of the human species. It's not how we survived and became so successful.

Friday, November 18, 2016

Toxic femininity

The modern feminist social justice ideology is, at its core, deeply misandrist. In other words, it just hates men. Almost every complaint and claim they make is about something related to men and how they are somehow a problem. At the same time, they will never, ever, acknowledge any fault that's prevalent in women and rare in men.

"Toxic masculinity" is but one of the several such topics they have come up with. It's mostly misaimed, based on exaggerations, fabrications, and barking up the wrong tree.

Well, I could just as well use the same tactics to come up with the concept of "toxic femininity" to attack women as a whole. Like this.

(Note: I obviously don't think like this. I'm making this up as a demonstration of how you can come up with such rhetoric, using facts mixed up with exaggerations, fabrications and fallacious conclusions.)
Toxic femininity is the phenomenon that women, at large, are raised in our society to be overly emotional, dependent and vindictive. Girls in school, especially high school, are most often teased, bullied and harassed by other girls (fact), which only strengthens this detrimental cultural vicious cycle. No wonder that women, when they grow up, are enormously more likely to commit infanticide (fact), and overall engage in emotional and even physical abuse of children (fact). They are also at least as likely to be the aggressor in domestic violence as men (fact). Women are also raised to be dependent on their husband, and thus seek higher-paying jobs much less often than men. Thus many women abuse this situation, often by demanding being housewives, who don't need to go to work, while their husbands will. Women often also enjoy the privilege of getting smaller (or even no) sentences for the same crimes as men (fact), and most often win custody battles (fact).
Toxic femininity can also be seen in their day-to-day behavior, especially among themselves. They are prone to gossip and to slander people behind their backs. A cultural behavior that's only reinforced by the media, TV and movies. They are also often very emotional, taking even the slightest offenses or remarks very seriously, and are very vindictive about it. These are often things that men would just shove off as trash talk or humor. Because of these cultural norms, women are very prone to become depressed, anxious, and even hysterical. Where men typically remain calm, collected and reasonable, women will often react emotionally and aggressively.
See, when you start making stuff up, it can go both ways. Basically nothing of what I wrote above is exactly false (and I have marked everything that's a hard fact), but the message that the text is conveying is quite unfair and fallacious, full of exaggeration and bias.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

When you have the moral high ground, everything is permissible (including murder)

Donald Trump's election as the next president of the United States, and the reaction by the regressive left to it, has really shown how completely devious and abhorrent the regressive leftist ideology is.

A reporter of the CNN network said in a televised interview that at some point at the beginning of the presidential campaign, CNN showed full unedited speeches by Trump. And that this was a "mistake".

It's quite public knowledge, and has been for quite a long time, that biased journalists will often engage in censorship and even dishonest editing in order to drive a certain agenda (eg. a political one.) Of course journalists seldom want to admit to using such underhanded dishonest tactics. Except, apparently, when the subject is an undesirable person. Then it seems to be completely ok to censor and edit. Then it seems that the honest showing of full unedited footage is a "mistake". And they don't seem to have any qualms about openly stating so.

More blatantly, many anti-Trump protesters are openly rooting for his assassination. They are openly saying on live TV that they hope that he gets murdered.

Of course this is, somehow, completely different from totalitarian regimes assassinating political dissenters and undesirable people. Because, you know, these protesters have the moral high ground, and when you have the moral high ground, everything becomes permissible, including murder. And because it's the current year.

Monday, November 14, 2016

Why did Trump win?

After Trump's victory in the American presidential elections, blogs and YouTube were filled with crying social justice warriors. Some of these videos are just hilarious. Others are really scary (such as the one by the infamous Anita Sarkeesian, where she talks exactly like a dangerous cult leader. It's astonishingly dark and scary.)

One of the most infamous YouTube feminists, Laci Green, also made such a video. She says in that video: "We let this happen."

No. You didn't "let this happen." You made this happen. It didn't happen regardless of your efforts. It happened precisely because of your efforts. (And by "you" I'm referring to the entire regressive leftist cult.)

The Democratic Party (ie. the "liberals", ie. the "left") in the United States has been largely appropriated by the modern feminist social justice ideology. Not all supporters of said party are social justice warriors, but quite a significant portion of its politicians, its head figures, are at the very least sympathetic to the ideology, and parrot much of its rhetoric.

One of the major problems with the so-called "regressive left" is that it tries to inculcate its policies into people via shaming. It shames people, it accuses people, it insults people. According to them, the vast majority of the citizens are racists, sexists, misogynists, even Nazis. Which is highly ironic and hypocritical, given how racist the regressive left ideology itself is. This ideology absolutely hates and detests white people, and can't stop denigrating, insulting and shaming them. According to them white people are the cause of all the problems in our society. They are scum. They are racists and sexists. They are "deplorables". White people are being constantly accused of all kinds of horrible things, and shamed into obedience.

This ideology does not listen to people. It shames people. It looks and feels like a totalitarian ideology that does not work for the people, for the citizens. It's an ideology that promulgates being morally superior. To know better. It's a smug and condescending ideology.

When year after year after year people have been subjected to this kind of abuse, when year after year they have been insulted and attacked simply because of the color of their skin, when their worries are not heard but instead laughed at and dismissed, is it any wonder that when somebody comes with an alternative message, the people will listen to him? When somebody comes and treats them with respect, and wants to raise them once again to the status of normalcy, is it any wonder that people will listen to him? When people have been emotionally abused for so long, they will pay attention to somebody giving a better alternative.

So no. You did not let this happen. You made this happen. You can call them racists and Nazis all you like, but the real culprit can be found in the mirror. The citizens are not racists and Nazis; they are normal people. Normal people who are fed up with your constant authoritarian abuse. Most of these people did not vote for Trump. They voted against you.

Some journalists understand this perfectly. (That article is amazing. I recommend reading it.)

Is it bad that Trump was elected? Probably not. In fact, it's probably much better that he was elected than if Clinton had, especially from the perspective of global politics. Tensions between the United States and Russia have been increasing over the years, especially due to the economic sanctions that the former has imposed on the latter. Russia has become more and more desperate over the years, even talking about drastic measures (up to nuclear strikes.)

Clinton did not show any signs of wanting to amend, or even ease, the relationship with Russia. On the contrary. Trump, however, is likely to want to ease the economic sanctions, and come to better terms with Russia. If this ends up happening (which it likely will), that will be good for the entire world, but especially Europe, and the United States itself. We really don't want a nuclear superpower to feel cornered, for it to feel like the entire rest of the world is against them. That's not good for anybody.

Of course this is complex world-wide politics, and I am in no way an expert. However, I do think that, globally, Trump's victory will end up doing more good than Clinton's victory would have. (I also doubt that Trump will do any of the things that the regressive left is envisioning him doing. Maybe he'll do a few minor things within the United States itself, but other than that, I don't think there will be much harm to the rest of the world. Maybe it will be a bit of the opposite, in fact.)

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Why Trump's victory was important and significant

Whether Trump's victory of the presidential election of the United States will end up in a global catastrophe will remain to be seen. Personally I highly, highly doubt it; all that fear-mongering is just complete bullshit. Anyway, that's not the point of this post.

Trump's victory was important and significant for other reasons.

The leftist media, both in the United States and in the rest of the world, was highly biased and partisan in this election. It reached rather outrageous levels within the United States itself. It was basically a constant barrage against Trump, while largely downplaying and even ignoring any fault that Clinton may have had. The leftist media really, really pushed Clinton to become the president. The smearing campaign against Trump was so global in scale that it might even be unprecedented in the history of American (and even world-wide) press.

Yet, they lost. And that's why this result was so incredibly important.

This loss signals to them that they do not control the narrative anymore. They do not elect presidents anymore. They do not control the people anymore. They do not form the de facto oligarchy that they thought they would. They were, essentially, stripped of their powers. The people rebelled against them.

This loss tells to them that smearing campaigns do not work anymore. That being highly biased and partisan does not work anymore. It tells them that people have become tired of being told who they have to vote for. It tells them that people have become tired of being smeared and insulted because they hold the "wrong" opinions. It tells to them that people have stopped caring if they are called names, like "racists", "sexists" or "misogynists".

The leftist media in the United States, and largely elsewhere in the world, is now throwing a hissy-fit. They are really sore losers. And this is, I must say, a joy to watch. It just fills me with glee and satisfaction. Take that. You are not controlling the narrative anymore. You are not controlling politics anymore. You deserved this. Now cry some more, like the little babies you are.

Regardless of what happens in the next years, this was a really important victory because of that, and I'm really, really glad that it happened. The leftist media really needed a wakeup call. They really needed a smack in the face. And now they are crying, and I'm enjoying every second of it.

Thursday, November 3, 2016

Politically correct language

Can you tell what is the difference between these terms? One of them is not like the others:
  • "Non-white people"
  • "Colored people"
  • "People of color"
To the average person they might sound like pretty much synonymous, just three different ways of saying the same thing. But they are not! Two of them are racist, while the remaining one is the "politically correct" term.

More specifically, the third one is ok, while the other ones are offensive. At least at this moment. Why? Who knows. The phase of the Moon, maybe?

Let's see how long before the third one becomes inappropriate as well. I'm really wondering if social justice warriors will then go back to their old YouTube videos where they use the term and remove them.

As with all political correctness, it's pretty much arbitrary and ever-shifting. Again and again I encounter that yet another word is, somehow, "racist", or at the very least "inappropriate". Like the word "oriental". It's somehow inappropriate. Because reasons. (How long before "Asian" becomes inappropriate? A couple of years, I bet.)