Kiva Bay’s Feminist Deck

Very quick one.

Anyone remember the Feminist Deck/ It was a Kickstarter by a self-promoting talent-poor artist called Kiva Bay, who wanted to pander to SJWs for money to draw some playing cards of her favourite Feminists?

I do. She was approaching the stage where she was going to reach her target. I saw all the usual candidates fawning all over her. It was pretty distasteful. I decided to give them a little poke in the eye.

She at that stage was promoting that she was going to give $150 payment to the people she was drawing pictures of on her cards and most of them were refusing, to which she replied that she would give the money to charity.

I happened to notice the rules on it said:

“Projects can’t fundraise for charity, offer financial incentives, or involve prohibited items.

We’re all in favor of charity and investment, but they’re not permitted on Kickstarter. Projects can’t promise to donate funds raised to a charity or cause, and they can’t offer financial incentives like equity or repayment. We also can’t allow any of these prohibited things.”

Funny stuff so I wrote about it and reported it to Kickstarter. She freaked out. She removed that stipulation.

For me it was no biggie. If NOTHING happened it would have been worth it to try for a reaction. If her Kickstarter Project was removed, that would have been hilarious BUT the next best thing was her being forced to kowtow and go back on her own conditions to do what she was getting paid for. Which is what happened.

Then to spite me, idiot SJWs started giving her more and more money to show me up and that “my plan did not work”. I loved it. She was forced to change things as to my demands and then more people I loathe were wasting their money and throwing money at a stupid project, because of me.

I laughed my arse off.

That was a year ago.

I just found out that she scammed them all. $30 000 GONE!!!

She is naturally like all victim peddlers claiming sickness, harassment, mental illness and whatever she can.

Her supporters? Rather than cave to the rather logical but humiliating conclusion that they were scammed again, are all wishing her well and the brave girl can keep the money .

I am a very happy man. I so hope the SJWs keep throwing good money after bad into unconstructive projects that go nowhere and scam them. I want them to lose all their money at a bare minimum. What do they say about fools and money?

 

 

 

Advertisements

The Ideologically driven social parasites called “The Progressive Left”.

I talked at length about Feminists https://gamergating.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/the-lie-you-have-been-told-for-decades/ there I touched on these Social Progressives and mentioned that the line between the two is pretty thin.They are both pretty terrible.

But there is a few things I want to mention about the Progressive Left (“Regressive Left”). I will set the stage to exactly how to look behind the curtain at these ideologically driven social parasites.

You see a black person in the street, you meet a gay person at a party, you work with a female colleague, or you sit next to a Muslim on the bus, what do you know about: them, their hopes, dreams, upbringing, ideologies, taste in music, favourite sports teams, prejudices, fears or…..anything? If you say “Nothing”, congratulations, you have proved you are the majority of us. If you say that race, gender, sexual preference or the like have very little unto themselves to inform us about who someone is or is not, then personally, I believe you do not met the definition of a bigot. So if a person is a person and a blank slate for you until you form some kind of knowledge of them as individuals, then great.

This is NOT the default position of the Regressive Left. To these people everything is sexist and homophobic and everyone is stack on a rigid Progressive Stack. Can anyone see how insidious this mindset is? You see a black person, you are not seeing a person but a black person and as such a category of person with specific designated social baggage that they MUST own, inform their being and identity and NEED you to defend IF you are to considered a decent person. Same goes with a gay person, a Muslim person, transgendered person and so on. IF you are deemed higher on the Progressive Stack, you damn well better be willing to supplicate yourself and not risk upsetting or offending this person.

THIS IS BIGOTRY. Before you blow this off as anything less than bigotry, remember we have all agreed that we know NOTHING about the person. The only thing we have is this one detail. We still don’t know if they are nice or nasty or whether their opinions are good, bad or indifferent, or even whether they share any opinions or experiences with us or not. So in fact at this stage our liking or disliking of this person is going to be based on what our impression is from here. IF you find they are an asshat then why not dislike them and how does that make you a horrible person or a bigot? IF you like them an have a connection with them then that does not make you a moral person, that is simply two people connecting.

So why the confusion? Why do these social parasites called the Progressive Left, think that you must pander and supplicate to all people deemed as less privileged (or is it more oppressed? I have trouble following this ideology)? Are people all equal and all people and can you respect them in people to treat them the same irrespective of things such as their genitals, who they are attracted to, or colour of their skin? IF so, you are NOT a Progressive Leftist (Social Justice Warrior) and not a bigot. If you feel you must, then you are bigoted. Hate someone for their personality or their actions but not their skin colour, religion, age, sexual preference or gender or whatever else.

The Regressives can’t have that. You must be willing to treat all people in a particular way but not only that (and here is the kicker) all positions emulating from this ideological position of social pandering and social activism to cater to their imaginary Progressive Stack, MUST be completely uniform. All people in these categories are to be viewed in the same way and all positions in respect to these people MUST be the same. Conformity and uniformity are the requirements and any deviation will be suppressed.

It is all moral virtue signalling. “I am so moral and intellectual that I know the Progressive Stack and where different people exist on my abstract concept of Oppressive Hierarchy and who has what Privilege and treat people accordingly”

It is neither moral nor intellectual. It also shuts down any sense of examination of issues, if you feel morally obligated to never consider any other facts than what your rigid ideology has prescribed. For example, gay marriage, is a topic that can be more complicated than first impressions. It is not so simple as a moral or intellectual gay people should have the same rights and if non-gay people have the right to marry then so must gay people. That was always my default position. Who gives a damn if gay people get married, how would it affect me one way or another? But I am open to other opinions and I WANT to hear them. I have heard three alternative positions on gay marriage which would be against gay marriage and none of them are homophobic (which is the default position of the Regressive Left “You MUST agree 100% without deviation to the ideological narrative…..or you are a bigot AND therefore I am morally superior and your intellectual better”).

The first position I heard that was anti-gay marriage was “Marriage is a religious ceremony. Religion has been instrumental at condemning gay people. Why seek a religious ceremony as a gay person?”

The second position I heard was “Marriage is a crap institution and no one should get married”.

The third was from Milo “Marriage is the dull, domesticated conformity that is expected of heterosexuals and that being gay allows a present a licence to be non-conformist that heterosexual people do not have. Marriage for gay people would make gay people conform to social mores they do not have at the moment.”

I do not believe ANY of these positions are bigoted nor hateful. I just do not agree with them. That is okay. I want these things to be discussed. I do not care for exclusionary, close-minded totalitarian approach the Regressive Left has in social critique.

Transgenderism I have already discussed here https://gamergating.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/jesse-singal-is-an-idiot-but/ and again it is not so simple.

It is the irony with these Social Activists and “Progressive” people is that they are not intellectual and have not the intellectual rigour to examine alternative positions and see anything more than black or white on issues. Complexities are lost on them.

For all their moral signalling, they lose the high ground here because of their willingness to identify people and treat them according to their race, sex, sexual preference or whatever, rather than treating each person as a human. (Of course to pile hypocrisy on top of hypocrisy, IF you are one of these people on the Progressive Stack that allows you a “greater voice” due to your deemed oppressive non-privileged status, and you choose to actively denounce their positions, you are treated as an apostate.

These people are neither morally nor intellectually superior and I would say that to a person they are the exact opposite. In fact I will go further, scratch below the surface on each of these people (and the louder and more prominent the more likely you will find this) and you will find broken and morally bankrupt people. Alison Rapp? Sarah Nyberg? Hannibal The Victor? Varis77? Nafedude? Hey the truth is out there on each of these people and I do not need to spin anything or make anything up. I could keep going too. But shake the closet and skeletons will tumble. I honestly believe that MOST of them are either psychologically compromised or they are simply bad people looking for atonement of sorts and acceptance as “good people” because they know that they are not.

 

 

 

 

Jesse Singal is an idiot BUT……

…he did write a terrific article on Dr Zucker and the Progressive ideologically driven travesty surrounding Dr Zucker’s dismissal.

I do not like Jesse and you will not hear me say much good about him. I will not link that article (No doubt a quick Google of his name and Dr Zucker’s will find it for you quick enough). I think that the beatdown by Progressives that he is getting is misrepresented and dishonest (usual fare for the Progressives). I do also think whilst there are other people in their camp, I would love to see getting textually slapped around by their peers, he certainly rates up there somewhere.

What I hope to talk about is the Transgender issue. There is most certainly an issue. That issue is that Progressives have unilaterally decided that they know what is best for all Transgendered people.

“Transgenderism is to be celebrated and those that identify are to be considered brave. They absolutely should be allowed and encouraged to transition. They are absolutely born in the wrong body and shame on you if you say otherwise. You are not allowed to have a differing viewpoint and IF you do, you are transphobic”

Of course the big problem here is that we don’t know. At all. It could be that Transgenderism is inflexible or flexible state of being. Transgenderism  may be informed by psychiatric conditions or simply a neurological difference. Transgenderism could have elements of the nature and nurture. Transgenderism may mean that someone who identifies one day as more feminine may perhaps decades later suddenly identify as more masculine (or  visa versa). It may even be that different “types” of transgenderism exist or that it informs itself in different ways with different people.

The Progressives have made those calls already. They advocate for their view to be THE view and will rail against anyone who disagrees. But there are a few real problem with this.

Do you remember being a child or even a teenager for that matter? We did not think as adults do and you only need to listen to a couple of children on the bus to know that their worldview is not particularly informed and they are not ready to take on the mantle of adulthood and the responsibilities and decisions that come with this. It is OUR role to look after those interests. Let kids slowly evolve into the adults they want to be with just enough boundaries and protections to keep them safe.

When you start suggesting hormone blockers and readying kids for transition, that scares shit out of me. I am a Father of two children both teenagers and to me that is not letting them evolve or keeping them safe or finding their way. That would be me forcing my idea of what and who they ought to become and having an adult conversation with a child. As a parent I second guess myself constantly because I do not want to be 10 or 20 years down the track and have my children say “You did me wrong. I needed something other than you were giving me and could not tell you because I was a kid. You ought to have stepped up to the plate, but you did not take the lead.”

As you may know I am not a Christian. I am an Atheist. My kids believe in God. I naturally, have spoken to my children of my beliefs and heard them out and made sure what they believe is not harmful or distressing to them. I find nothing “wrong” with their beliefs. They are not mine but okay. We can co-exist with different views and experiences. Now if my kids were gay. I would hear out why they thought what they thought and explain how I felt. As long as they were safe and protected that would be okay (I would not want them distressed, self-loathing, getting bullied or being hurt). My job as parent would not be to force my view of sexual identity on them. But rather give them a safe and protected environment to grow up AND be gay. The same too would be if my children were transgender.

Forcing drugs and delaying puberty and getting surgery is forcing an expectation and as damaging in my mind as forcing the child to be an adult or in fact forcing a cisgender person to be transgender or a transperson to be cisgender. That is not our role as parents and adults in society.

The “Oh your so brave” for being transgender and giving Transgender people a platform. In almost all cases I am suspicious of it. Why? Some Transgender people are likely brave. Others perhaps not so much. Some will be intelligent and worth listening to and others as dumb as a rock. Some will be good people and others terrible. Giving undue credit to anyone BECAUSE they are Transgender is a concern.

I DO think there are brilliant people who happen to also transgender. I can’t see that one would inform the other. Same as we will have brilliant black, white, Asian and whomever else. You will have brilliant gay and straight people. The fact that someone is Transgender ought not be a platform, unto itself. I would hope most people are not that shallow.

What is Transgenderism and what causes it? We still don’t know. I have heard arguments from Progressives and from people like Milo Yiannapolous but I think that it is likely a complex issue and that many, many people are born with a solid belief that they are in the wrong body and of the right temperament to undergo transitioning and evolve close to self-actualisation. BUT there are many who are not and don’t. Suicide rates are astronomical. This is a BIG problem.

I am not sadist nor a cruel person. I do not want for people who may be in a bad place or unwell to be forced into radical surgery and find at the end of it, they are not happy and want to “transition back”. Or little kids to grow out of a gender opposition phase and find that those pills they had for years radically altered their bodies and they were now not going to be quite the men their peers were or women their peers were.

I think the Progressives leave no measure of gray for these people. What happens when the celebration and support and lack of questioning from the Progressives has transitioned people saying. “I got it wrong?”. Is it a case of accepting the praises when they get it right and ignoring them if they do not fit the mold and if they get it wrong?

I personally think that there is likely room in the Transgender spectrum for:

  1. Mentally unwell people who are not Transgender in any real sense.
  2. Children and Teenagers experimenting with identity and discovering themselves.
  3. Gender Fluidness of some degree. Where people may identify as one gender or another throughout their lives.
  4. People with hatred of their body not specific to Transgenderism.
  5. People who are neurologically wired to a different gender. Transgendered people as we stereotypically perceive them.

So transitioning and drugs and surgery all potentially works really well for the last type of people in the Transgender spectrum but I worry that if we treat everyone identifying as Transgender as if they were that last class, then we are being both irresponsible and dangerously harmful and the rates of suicide will remain high no matter how many times we call Caitlyn Jenner brave or plaster her on magazines.

We need a serious conversation about this and more research. It is dangerous, harmful, and so very stupid for any ideology to take hold of this and push it like Progressives do and like Dr Zucker’s employers did.

I want what I think most people want and that is for Transgender people to get the best that they can out of life and rise to their fullest potential. I don’t give a damn if that ultimately means they have surgery or don’t, or take blockers, or decide not to transition. I don’t give a damn. As long as collectively we all evolve  our understanding honestly and openly, the suicide rate drops and we can stop treating them as either freaks or special snowflakes. Normal is good. Moving from “Hi I am a Transgendered person and my name is Mary” to “Hi my name is Mary, and by the way, I am Transgendered” to “Hi my name is Mary”.

In closing. Jesse Singal is an idiot. He supported Progressives until he did one dangerous misstep, in telling the truth, and was unpersoned. He deserves every bit of vitriol for his past indiscretions. The research and understanding of Transgenderism is not all understood and Progressive are arseholes when they claim this. They are worse than this when they pile on and insult non-Jesse Singals for proclaiming that we need to know more and understand more.

 

 

 

These “very exciting” and infamous Ralph chat logs

So there are leaked logs in Gamergate and everyone is abuzz and losing their shit. Everyone has an opinion. To some it is a chance to sink the toe into Ralph – to settle some score, to some it is a chance to see who is associated or connected to him and hurt them, to others it is something is just good gossip, to others still it is a rallying point. I think most people see it as needless drama and hope it just resolves.

But everyone is talking about them so, Hell, why not?

Someone leaked private chat logs from a group of people including Ralph and from a chat site he set up, and released some of these the day after people from Gamergate chose to defend Sarah Nyberg and get Adsense taken down. 

There is a bit above which may ring a few alarm bells. If not I will explain.

Who: The type of person that would side with Sarah bloody Nyberg to take away Ralph’s livelihood. The type too who would see no problem in releasing privately discussed information.

When: The day after Ralph’s Adsense was taken down? (I think so maybe the day after). Convenient timing.

Okay so what about the records themselves? Were they real? Were they fabricated? Were they complete? Were they out of context? Were they damning?

What: You will no doubt have people enthusiastically tell you like the street gossip that “They are all real. They were verified as real by people that were there”. 

So there you go. They were verified as real by people in the group so THEREFORE they not fake and can be counted on. Right? Not really.

Unfortunately human nature is such that we want nice easy and simple. We want to join the dots and have everything black and white and handed to us neat and tidy, and unfortunately sometimes you just don’t get that.

Firstly, the two people who have said the logs were real. Who were they and what exactly did they say? The first was Guitar Anthony. Dan Mappplethorpe showed him an alleged chat snippet showing Guitar Anthony saying that he thought Dan was not to be trusted. (Words to that effect – but ask Dan, he will gladly present this himself) and Dan’s quoted response back was “It’s true isn’t it?”. So WHAT was true? The log was a true representation of the chat logs or that Dan was untrustworthy or something else? The second was Jennetic Anomaly saying that the chats looked right but the headers were not a part of the chat channel and the chat seems out of context.

So where the Hell does that leave us with “real”? There WAS a chat and the chats presented on initial inspection, by someone who was there, “seemed right”? Bit airy-fairy. Not a lot to hang one’s hat on:

That is like saying, “Is this definitely the man that robbed you?”

“Yeah, I guess so. The guy was about 6 foot average build, black haired and white. So sure, why not? Not like there is likely to be any other guys matching that description”

But let’s be charitable. IF we can presume they were leaked from a private chat log into the public and the log is not complete (more coming soon – why not all together?…I will get there) and verified – as it looks on initial inspection – like the real deal. Then what is that small detail about the headers? The headers were not part of the log.

Here is where, at best case, it gets a little murky and now into areas of grey rather than black and white, and at worse an absolute wash.

The Headers were added, for effect and for easier categorising. If we accept that they were added after the fact, then the LEAST we know is that the Chat logs WERE altered. If you look at the chat logs, you WILL know that they were not the real deal. So we know the chat logs WERE altered. The question is how much?

If you say that this was the ONLY alteration. Okay. Sure. How do you know? You trust the person releasing this is going to not alter the logs….except that they did. You trust them because they dislike Ralph, but doesn’t that raise an antenna at least a little? It is not some impartial third party that is simply releasing documents to a higher power because they are required to but rather someone seeking to do Ralph harm and therefore biased to doing Ralph as much harm as possible? Moreover, they are precisely the same type of people that would defend Sarah Nyberg and who would leak private discussion. You would trust that what they present you would not be tampered with (and especially after KNOWING that they already tampered with the chatlogs adding by headings to an unheaded chatlog.)

Jenn notes that they were taking things out of context and that is a problem. Real becomes a weaselly word. More of a based on real. If you look through the logs and see time and date you will notice that there are “bits missing”. Why? Could be because those bits would show a particular log in better light or provide context. We don’t know. What we do know is that the person leaking them promised more to come.

Now I don’t know at this point about you, but when I heard that, I automatically thought “Why later, why did they not release it all in one fell swoop?”. The answer to me, that popped straight into my head, is that they needed to “work on it”.

I want you to imagine you are at school (Yes, this is exceedingly hard for a middle-aged man like me but when I see crap like this in Gamergate my mind is somewhat cast back) . You come across a diary of someone you hate. You take it to your friends. You look through and KNOW that what you are reading is the real deal. Now lets pretend similar situation except that your friend brings it to you. It “seems” mostly right but some of the bits look slightly different and foreign to the diary. How much of the diary are you going top believe absolutely?

Whilst the chat log was altered and headers were doctored into it, THEY were transparently obvious. But even a technological retard like my good self could change the font and size of the text. Select the right one and the leaker can change the logs?

Question is Why? Because: changing context; Changing who said something; Cutting out waffle; putting a slightly different spin, is what makes a tighter and more interesting narrative, and may paint villains as more loathesome. If only they had not done so damn badly with the header in the first instance.

Does that mean any of the chat is genuine? I would say absolutely. What is not altered is real. Were all the people in the chat logs part of the group? Maybe. Did each thing said come from that person the log said or by someone else in there? Probably for the most part. Were any bits removed? Most certainly (As said it was not in its entirety according to leaker who would be releasing more) Was most of it intellectual conversation, strident operative planning against others or rambling shit talking? Rambling shit talking. Can it be trusted in to present it in context? No.

So what exactly would be the point in altering it further? As much as it pains me that I cannot think of a better way to show a different example

 

So that is the visual example of something REAL but in its entirety not “trustworthy” or to be taken seriously. We are talking in textual terms but the same applies. There is good reason to what to enhance something. Unlike the above where you can tell the things said out of context and the added bits, and with it being done as a mickey take, textually done with intent to enhance to positions, it may not be as easily recognised.

You and I do not know how much of the chat logs are real or altered/doctored/tampered with. We just know they have been at least a little. Take it with a grain of salt (not uncommon in these parts lately) and a healthy amount of skepticism.

Don’t read the logs? Why not? Go for your life. Enjoy with the same abandon as opening someone else’s mail or looking through their drawer, or medicine cabinet, computer files or reading through their diary. Trawl through to see any mention of your name. Then once that desire is sated, for fuck’s sake, put it behind you and concentrate on the remnants of Gamergate.

If this seems kind of pointless and petty and juvenile and not worth pursuing, believe me I am with you. Don’t give people shit about it, just let them get it out of their system. Let them feel their cathartic rage or moral indignation of “Well, I never” and exhaust their gossip. It will pass. At least people are engaged.

If we could harness that motivation that exists to hurt Ralph and anyone who is associated with him and channel that against Progressive media, we would move closer to the cohesive arse kicking watchdogs we want to be and less the squabbling clown show Gamergate has been lately. I reckon that would be unreal.

 

 

 

So I sent this to the IGF Head Honcho

Hope you may do me the benefit of reading what I write


I have some concerns about your want to “take back the Tech”. My concern is not that you want to “take it back”. The internet is an open platform and does not belong to anyone but rather everyone. So you are not taking it away from one group and back to another. It is a “misnomer”.

What does concern me is a number of things:

1) Online violence. What exactly do you mean? What is online violence? As a man who is opinionated and forthright, I have been disagreed with, argued with, shouted at, insulted, threatened, sexually harassed, doxed and even stalked. It is typical fair. I must say that the last two DID shake me up a little but the rest is just another day online. What is the definition of violence in this. I was not harmed or hurt. The doxing did freak me out a little and the stalking was creepy. But the rest is simply disembodied words on the screen. I know where the off button is.
2) How is this a woman issue? Is it not an issue that affects men and women? If someone is trying to upset someone online, they have very few ways to upset you. Generally all they have is words. If they know you are a man, good way to get at you is to make gendered insults and shaming language. “You are a virgin”, ” You have a small dick”, “You are gay” or “you can’t get it up”. If you are a woman they may call you a slut or threaten you with rape. Then of course are the body shaming insults which are fired at both men and women. Women and men get called fat but men also get the skinny and wimpy pronouncements as well. Of course the old and young thing. Then there is the race thing, which is pretty easy fare, for an obnoxious person to do. So, again, and with respect, how is this a race issue.
3) All platforms have security. If I start getting people piling onto me, (it does happen) I have agency. I am not an infant. I can choose to put up with it until they go away. I can fight back (my normal option). I can make use of the platforms own blocking/muting/protection measures OR I can turn the computer off and have a walk or go out for a while to clear my head. If things got super bad, I guess I could call the police or if not THAT bad, contact the web service and ask the platform to ban the perpetrator. I do not NEED another option.
4) How do we deal with bigotry individually if it is all censored and banned? Free Speech is free speech for everyone. My Father was a bigot. He was not a nice man. I grew up where racial insults were the “natural way” of talking about people and every racial ethnicity had particular negative stereotypes that were standard. I shared these learned behaviours. I saw people from a young age as the sum of the colour of their skin or what country they came from. But by the time I was 11 or 12 I had realised the other boys and girls in my year were not as my Father had been saying and it had been a slow realisation. I was embarrassed and mortified. My bigotry stopped. His did not but I was not responsible for his thoughts or his ugly personality.
IF I was not shown both examples how could I have judged? I am grateful that I was exposed to both mindsets to know which was right and which was wrong.
You do not protect people’s right to free speech by taking away others.
5) Who minds the minders? If there is to be decisions made to censor or restrict the internet who should have the power to make the rules, interpret the rules and execute the rules and who gets to correct them if they get it wrong?
If you were to say to me “Ross, we are taking away online violence against women” I would not support it. NOT because I am a misogynist (the default for many online to claim), but because I have NO idea what that would mean. To YOU it may mean rape doxing. To someone else it may mean rape threats. Someone else it may mean saying “You suck” or “you are a loser”. To someone else being told to “drop dead” may suffice. To someone else it may be simply retweeting an insult. Where do the people that make and enforce the rules draw the line? I do not know and neither do you. I do know that the more enforced it is, the more censorous the space becomes. This is not good. Never is.
6) Build better mice and the mice get smarter. I used to go on a forum that became more and more “safe”. The rules were heavily enforced. You know what happened? It became a toxic place of superficial happiness and all the nastiness done on secret private messages or off site and a lot of the nastiness online was passive-aggressive. Enough plausible deniability to be able to say “Oh I never meant that to be taken THAT way”. It was toxic.
If that is not a bad enough image, the trolls get trickier. They come back again and again for sport. Seeing how long that they can last.
7) When was it that women could not handle themselves or people being mean? It will come as not news to you that there are men and women online that are horrible people. Many women and men online are horrible and sometimes sexist to men and women. We are saying that women have not the emotional stoicism to dismiss or wipe their feet on such behaviour?
I am a single Father of a teenage daughter. I love my daughter very much. I want to wrap my daughter in cotton wool. I want good things for her in life and to save her from bad thoughts and heart break and bad choices. I can’t though and I would not if I could. I will give her the weight of my values and experiences and and my support and love and she will have the agency and self-determination to do it on her own. She is not oppressed or a victim. Her decisions and her choices she will take responsibility for.
She does not have to fall to pieces because someone says something nasty at school or online. There are always bad people and censoring people will not change this.

8) The danger of echochambers. I am grouchy and opinionated. Much in the way of many middle aged men, I guess. I do not really like people telling me what I want to hear. I want many views. I want to hear the views and agree, disagree, learn, teach, and evolve. Echochambers where everyone is surrounded by people who share the same blocklist or all belong in a safe space or a ideological driven grouping, is sterile. What is there to share? You all agree and what is worse, you better or you will be kicked out. That is sterile and intellectually indefensible.
Let’s say that you are a “Flat Earther”, IF you refuse to entertain any other view and stay in your group of 10 others, talking about how flat the Earth is and how round earth believers are the real crazy people, you do yourself a disservice in not listening to opinions you do not trust or believe.
Swap Flat Earth with “Truther”, Feminist, Atheist. Christian, Conservative, Liberal or whatever ideology you wish. The benefit in transparency and open channels of communication far outweigh any benefit in censorship.

I could possibly keep going but please consider what I said and the spirit of concern in which I have said it. Free Speech can not be used in the positive in any speech which promotes censorship or restricting the internet.

You, no doubt, are a learned woman and understand that “free speech for me and not for thee” MUST be staunchly defended against regardless whether the “me” is women, or “feminists” or “middle class” or a religion or whomever. Why?

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6466-all-animals-are-equal-but-some-animals-are-more-equal

We CANNOT allow this kind of thinking and the Animal Farm mentality of Orwell creep in or even worse the 1984 narratives.

As I say, I believe you are a learned women and can tell why this is INHERENTLY flawed.

Happy to discuss this privately or publicly.

 

NO SHE NEVER DID GET BACK TO ME

We NEED to play by the “rules”….What? No we don’t.

I can not tell you how much it shits me that “moderates” in Gamergate (whether it is the Feminist moderates like Cult of Vivian or the Reddit mods of Kotakuinaction – trying desperately to make sure no offense is seen) try to  “nanny” us and tell us that we have to be “better” than the opposition and not “sink to their level” or be “as bad as them”.

I don’t know about you, but when I hear those words, what I hear is “they can do whatever they like but we have to play with a hand behind our back. We have to take their slings and arrows and not give back.”

Furthermore (Do NOT tell me yo have not seen this) but when we are righteously enraged and firing salvos back at these disgusting creatures, our own moderates WILL tone police or play morality police with us. Watch it happening. A disgusting pedophile will start lying or misrepresenting us and we will have the temerity to give them shit back and misgender them as a level of disrespect and the WE will get ATTACKED by OUR OWN SIDE.

Wrap your head around this. Why? Because moderates have decided in their vacuous heads, that you can make an omelette without cracking eggs. That if the other side acts without any moral check and with impunity that we are necessarily stymied. They would RATHER their own compatriots taking unanswered hit after hit without retaliation if we are seen as responding in a way that could be seen as “unprofessional”, “not nice”, “immature”, or whatever. Being the moral guardians and adjudicators of fair play, they see fit to criticise their own allies whilst ignoring the actions of their opponents.

FUCK THAT!

I hope that last phrase is understandable. Fuck them. Fuck them all.

The reason these Progressive pieces of shit get ANY traction is being “moderate” people give them the benefit of the doubt.

Anyone with a brain in their heads knows the answer to these issues. College kids rants and protest and scream obscenities at a Professor and demand this and that and claim that the Professor has no place at the University. What should have happened the next day is a letter should have been sent to the student concerned saying that they were identified as bringing the University into disrupted and the University decided that they were unsuited to the University culture or environment and their tenure was terminated immediately. Any further access to courses or entry to the grounds would involve police prosecution.

We know that this was NOT the reaction. Because this is not the reaction, we see more and more craziness as students dictate what the university and staff should teach and act and conduct themselves. Sorry kids, but how about go fuck yourselves?

I want to see more Eron Gjoni cases, where rabid Feminists are called into account for their lies. I want to see more Honey Badgers vs Mary Sue and Calgary expo and more Gregory Elliott.I want the rest of society to be exposed an  to wake up and smell the stench of this pervasive Progressive authoritarian gangrene in society. I want those attacked to push back and take these arseholes out.

I want them exposed, shamed, ruined, and discredited. I do not think that there is ANY need for US to be the nice guys in this and history proves if we are nice, they will misrepresent or outright lie about us and if anyone, in any way associated (no matter how tenuously) does ANYTHING that could be at all construed as bad, then ALL of Gamergate is somehow of EXACTLY the same motive, intent, morality, understanding……FUCK IT! Fuck them. I am about past caring. They want to accuse us of being this that or the other? We will cop the accusation regardless. Gloves off, why endorse nice. Why not be the arseholes they have accused us of being for the last 14-15 months? Honestly, why not?

Turn that mirror

Isn’t it funny when something you know generally to be wrong is so articulated so simply and beautifully? I am no fan of Dinesh D’Souza. But …..damn! He does such a beautiful job here.

The setting is a talk at a university. The antagonists are upper middle class, Progressive, young adults, that are attending a prestigious college. Entitled brats who believe in the superiority of their intellect and morality….as if the Progressives (aka social justice warriors) come any other way.

Their spokesperson, Tommy, is as articulate as he is ideologically driven, and as weaselly as he is hypocritical. All done in the least offensive way as can condescendingly be achieved (and why not, he is morally and intellectually superior and smugly so).

It was beautiful. What was even better is that he saw Dinesh coming and Dinesh did not alter course or disguise his approach. He boxed him in and ran straight over the top of Tommy.

Dinesh’s premise on a superficial level is kind of awesome. IF you advocate against various supposed inequities and that people of a certain class, gender, race, sexual preference or what have you, possess AND YOU possess that, you must be prepared to sacrifice the benefits you gain from such privilege. Otherwise you are a hypocrite and your words are hot air.

That is a sensible result of logic. If you are Tommy and whining about the fact that white people in America benefit from the history of African American slave ownership, and that there is a measurable monetary inequity and a social inequity, AND that HE as a white person gets privilege, then surely he is advocating that he is in possession of illicit benefits. IF he is and he sees this inequity and he advocates against it, then there is NO point him impressing the evil of this retaining of benefits without HIM FIRST giving up HIS benefits.

Tommy can’t see this. Tommy likes to tell others what to do and mitigate for others without risking his own.

But here is the kicker. Isn’t that Social Justice Warriors all over? Think about EVERY Male SJW you have seen? IF they believe they are at the top of the heap and acknowledge that they are more privileged and well off and are recipients of all of this benefit, why do they not make like the hippies, give away the social and material benefits they have? Give it to the blacks, gays, women, transgendered, and disabled? Wouldn’t that make them REAL Progressives? By not, are they simply being hypocrites? Aren’t they JUST like Tommy?

What about the all too common upper middle class, well educated, white Feminist Progressive female? Are they commenting on Poor women? Black Women? Are they no better than their White Male counterparts? I mean they too, surely are part of the same social benefits and by the same rationale, the crimes of their ancestors can be visited on them too. Also their social capital is side effect of their ancestors’ decisions. So are THEY going to give up their money, income, positions of power, influence or place in society?

What about Gay and Non-gay Progressives or Transgender and cisgendered Progressives? Why do the former think they can raise these issues and act like spokespeople without being disadvantaged and on BEHALF OF Gays and of Transgendered?

Hey don’t point fingers at me. I did not make these rules, but IF I have to play by them, I am game.