OK, folks, let's talk about politics!. I am going to publish excerpts from the official party platform of a major political party in an OECD nation and some quotes from top leaders in that party, and you all get to guess which party it is!
While I will do the edits necessary to make this a guessing game (removing names, etc.) I will be as direct and honest with their quotes as possible.
Now, it keep these parties in mind as we go! Are these from:
the US Democratic Party
the UK Labour Party
the German Greens
the French Socialist Party
OK?
Now - the Platform!
Thursday, June 8, 2017
Friday, April 28, 2017
Look at All the Prejudiced, Sexist Tools in Gaming
I've been hearing all sorts of mush about Green Ronin Games being a bunch of close-minded jerks, but I usually ignore that sort of thing. I mean, after all - it isn't like anyone would notice if they just vanished, right? I was vaguely aware of them calling men all sorts of names recently, but again - who cares?
But then someone pointed out why they were calling men mean things.
But then someone pointed out why they were calling men mean things.
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
The Rise of the Know-It-All Chick
Here is a scenario I bet you run into every day:
-You encounter a bit if internet writing from Salon, Slate, Buzzfeed, Kotaku, Mic, or any of the thousands of other clickbait stackers and decide to read it
-The author uses a style and tone that indicates that they are speaking definitely; they want you to get that they are telling you The Truth, full stop, and you better heed it.
-The actual content of the piece is probably zero, if you are lucky, but it might be absolutely wrong. As in, it makes basic errors of fact and presents them as Truth.
I noted this trend starting back a decade ago or more so I started doing a little something whenever I encountered one of these "think pieces"; I researched the author and the author's background. I found that a huge number of these authors matched a very similar profile.
They are overwhelmingly unmarried, childless, middle-class, White women in their mid-20's to early 30's with a degree in English, Literature, or another very soft subject and a work history limited to creating internet clickbait telling people what to do for $0-$50 a pop.
In other words, these articles are usually crafted by women with virtually no experience of anything approaching Real Life.
One of my personal go-to examples is someone named Laci Green. I first heard of her two years ago when someone insisted I had to watch a youtube video she made that explained how women are oppressed and stuff. After wasting 20 minutes of my life listening to her whine as she recited a list of things that were either obviously false or at best dubious, I decided to look her up.
She is a millennial (shocker!) who did the entire 'get an associate's at a community college then finish a 4 year' path and got a BA in (essentially) pre-law/pre-ed in 2011. And then...
Well, not much of any import, actually. She volunteered for things like 'dialing to support gay marriage' and 'doing social media for non-profits', etc. But in 2009 she started making YouTube videos where she talked about sex while flashing cleavage.
So she is obviously an expert in things, right? I mean, people watch her YouTube videos about sex while she wears tight clothes! She obviously can tell me about economics!
A lot of "prominent feminists" fit this mold to a T. They have no husband, a mediocre education, and extremely limited experience, but they write a blog that people read so they are hired to write articles telling other people what to think and how to live.
I refer to these writers as the Know-It-All Chicks, or KIACs. They are Liberal women with mediocre educations, mediocre writing skills, and extremely limited life experience who write constantly telling others how to live their life "properly". She's never been married and her longest relationship was 4 months? The KIAC will tell you what to look for in a man! The closest she came to being a mother was paying for her own abortion? Let the KIAC tell you how to raise your children! She's never worked in the video game industry in any capacity? Let the KIAC lecture you about how you should make video games "the right way"! She went to college using her parents' money and loans and after graduation her parents still pay her rent and insurance? Let the KIAC explain why creating jobs for Working Class Rural White men who support their families is Bad and Wrong while subsidizing the education of Upper Middle Class Urban White women is Good and Right!
So why do they do it?
Two theories.
One: Ever see a toddler chant 'I want it, I want it, I want it' until the mother gives in and buys the toy for them? That is the absolute worst thing you can do, because kids need to learn self-control and delayed gratification, but people get tired.
I think the KIACs were that toddler and think that if they keep chanting their personal message over and over and over they will eventually get what they want.
Two: Ever see a guy flatter a girl in hopes of Getting Something from her? Or parents tell a mediocre kid they are 'special'? Remember that kid who got low Bs to high Cs in school but she would insist, insist, her low grades were because she was "gifted" and school "bored" her so she underperformed?
I think the majority of these writers are in one or more of those categories; they honestly believe their are superior minds and that if they just share enough the rest of the benighted world will see the light and be saved by thinking like them.
So why do some listen?
Some are in the echo chamber of the Left.
Some are there to mock.
What should be done?
This one is simple.
When you see an article check the education, experience, and bona fides of the author. Then see if the article has links to actual substance. Then read the article and judge it for itself.
Maybe it is good. Maybe it is insightful. Who knows?
But if it is terrible, wrong-headed, and bad - call it out. Warn others.
Have a good one!
-You encounter a bit if internet writing from Salon, Slate, Buzzfeed, Kotaku, Mic, or any of the thousands of other clickbait stackers and decide to read it
-The author uses a style and tone that indicates that they are speaking definitely; they want you to get that they are telling you The Truth, full stop, and you better heed it.
-The actual content of the piece is probably zero, if you are lucky, but it might be absolutely wrong. As in, it makes basic errors of fact and presents them as Truth.
I noted this trend starting back a decade ago or more so I started doing a little something whenever I encountered one of these "think pieces"; I researched the author and the author's background. I found that a huge number of these authors matched a very similar profile.
They are overwhelmingly unmarried, childless, middle-class, White women in their mid-20's to early 30's with a degree in English, Literature, or another very soft subject and a work history limited to creating internet clickbait telling people what to do for $0-$50 a pop.
In other words, these articles are usually crafted by women with virtually no experience of anything approaching Real Life.
One of my personal go-to examples is someone named Laci Green. I first heard of her two years ago when someone insisted I had to watch a youtube video she made that explained how women are oppressed and stuff. After wasting 20 minutes of my life listening to her whine as she recited a list of things that were either obviously false or at best dubious, I decided to look her up.
She is a millennial (shocker!) who did the entire 'get an associate's at a community college then finish a 4 year' path and got a BA in (essentially) pre-law/pre-ed in 2011. And then...
Well, not much of any import, actually. She volunteered for things like 'dialing to support gay marriage' and 'doing social media for non-profits', etc. But in 2009 she started making YouTube videos where she talked about sex while flashing cleavage.
So she is obviously an expert in things, right? I mean, people watch her YouTube videos about sex while she wears tight clothes! She obviously can tell me about economics!
A lot of "prominent feminists" fit this mold to a T. They have no husband, a mediocre education, and extremely limited experience, but they write a blog that people read so they are hired to write articles telling other people what to think and how to live.
I refer to these writers as the Know-It-All Chicks, or KIACs. They are Liberal women with mediocre educations, mediocre writing skills, and extremely limited life experience who write constantly telling others how to live their life "properly". She's never been married and her longest relationship was 4 months? The KIAC will tell you what to look for in a man! The closest she came to being a mother was paying for her own abortion? Let the KIAC tell you how to raise your children! She's never worked in the video game industry in any capacity? Let the KIAC lecture you about how you should make video games "the right way"! She went to college using her parents' money and loans and after graduation her parents still pay her rent and insurance? Let the KIAC explain why creating jobs for Working Class Rural White men who support their families is Bad and Wrong while subsidizing the education of Upper Middle Class Urban White women is Good and Right!
So why do they do it?
Two theories.
One: Ever see a toddler chant 'I want it, I want it, I want it' until the mother gives in and buys the toy for them? That is the absolute worst thing you can do, because kids need to learn self-control and delayed gratification, but people get tired.
I think the KIACs were that toddler and think that if they keep chanting their personal message over and over and over they will eventually get what they want.
Two: Ever see a guy flatter a girl in hopes of Getting Something from her? Or parents tell a mediocre kid they are 'special'? Remember that kid who got low Bs to high Cs in school but she would insist, insist, her low grades were because she was "gifted" and school "bored" her so she underperformed?
I think the majority of these writers are in one or more of those categories; they honestly believe their are superior minds and that if they just share enough the rest of the benighted world will see the light and be saved by thinking like them.
So why do some listen?
Some are in the echo chamber of the Left.
Some are there to mock.
What should be done?
This one is simple.
When you see an article check the education, experience, and bona fides of the author. Then see if the article has links to actual substance. Then read the article and judge it for itself.
Maybe it is good. Maybe it is insightful. Who knows?
But if it is terrible, wrong-headed, and bad - call it out. Warn others.
Have a good one!
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
PUA's/Game Gurus Are Cringeworthy Morons
So I ran into a whining little wimp on twitter called @Lyall who exemplifies a lot of what I find most cringeworthy about the Game types/Pickup Artists; ignorance, numerical illiteracy, and social awkwardness.
I do not have any idea how many times I have read some clueless gutless nimrod whine,
Then you see someone who A) isn't brain dead and B) has read a book say,
First, the idea that '50% of marriage end in divorce' is a myth. That was never true. The actual divorce rate was never higher than about 40% and that was only in California. And the divorce rate has been declining for over 30 years and is still going down. In 2013 it was just under 20%.
So only 1 in 5 first marriages ends in divorce. That is a Hell of a lot different than 50%, isn't it? Now, since we're dealing with the sorts of guys that think Talking To Girls is scary enough that they need to spend money on ebooks, spends months in forums discussing the ideas of girls, talking, and talking to girls, and then practice for weeks before trying it I am sure some of these 'men' think 20% is scaaaaary, so let's talk about how to reduce those odds.
First, there are some things to avoid. Do not live with her before marriage. Be between her age and 6 years older than her. Don't argue about money (it is the arguing, not the money). do NOT have kids before marriage. And for heaven's sake. DON'T MARRY A SLUT. Further, don't use porn, don't cheat, and have a large family (more than 4 kids). Do these things and your divorce rate goes down.
What does this sound like so far? That's right, it sounds like,
Hell, just marrying a virgin and going to church regularly reduces your odds of divorce to about 5%.
That list is called
Living and Thinking Like a Social Conservative
So if you live and think like one of us, a SoCon, then your odds of divorce aabout 0.2%, which is 1 in 500 for you maroons, and effectively means 'one or the other actually just went crazy', which happens. And if your thin blood thinks those odds are too much, get a prenup.
First, marriage is very good for people. Married people live longer, are healthier, happier, have more friends, etc. Married men make more money and married men with stay at home wives make a LOT for money.
[No, you idiots, if a young man gets married and his wife stays at home he gets more raises and promotions than his peers. The younger he marries and the sooner his wife stays at home the larger the effect].
And married people have more and better sex.
Considering that losers like Deti are married, this means the average married guy must have a LOT of sex!
So let's sum up.
Social Conservatives are correct.
Game types are losers.
Move along.
I do not have any idea how many times I have read some clueless gutless nimrod whine,
"50% of marriages end in divorce. Women initiate the majority of divorces. Women will take your house, your money, and your kids. Marriage is HIGH RISK! Marriage is TOO DANGEROUS! Marriage is BAD!"
Then you see someone who A) isn't brain dead and B) has read a book say,
"Well, that isn't actually true."And what do the snivelers reply?
"SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES ARE AS BAD AS FEMINISTS!"My usual response is,
"Whatever, nancy"But every now and again I like to try to help people and/or point out what a stone-ignorant fucktard they are, so....
First, the idea that '50% of marriage end in divorce' is a myth. That was never true. The actual divorce rate was never higher than about 40% and that was only in California. And the divorce rate has been declining for over 30 years and is still going down. In 2013 it was just under 20%.
"But Mr. Patriarchy, the marriage rate is going down!"Shut up, kid, the raw number of marriages isn't what we are talking about. The point at hand is the odds of divorce. Don't try to redirect me.
So only 1 in 5 first marriages ends in divorce. That is a Hell of a lot different than 50%, isn't it? Now, since we're dealing with the sorts of guys that think Talking To Girls is scary enough that they need to spend money on ebooks, spends months in forums discussing the ideas of girls, talking, and talking to girls, and then practice for weeks before trying it I am sure some of these 'men' think 20% is scaaaaary, so let's talk about how to reduce those odds.
First, there are some things to avoid. Do not live with her before marriage. Be between her age and 6 years older than her. Don't argue about money (it is the arguing, not the money). do NOT have kids before marriage. And for heaven's sake. DON'T MARRY A SLUT. Further, don't use porn, don't cheat, and have a large family (more than 4 kids). Do these things and your divorce rate goes down.
What does this sound like so far? That's right, it sounds like,
"What Social Conservatives tell you to do"It gets better! Be religious, especially Catholic. Save money. Go to church at least once a week and regularly. Pray at home with your family. Have plenty of family at the wedding but have a cheap wedding. Don't use artificial birth control (especially not birth control pills).
Hell, just marrying a virgin and going to church regularly reduces your odds of divorce to about 5%.
That's 1 in 20 for your Game types.So look at that list again. What is that list?
That list is called
Living and Thinking Like a Social Conservative
So if you live and think like one of us, a SoCon, then your odds of divorce aabout 0.2%, which is 1 in 500 for you maroons, and effectively means 'one or the other actually just went crazy', which happens. And if your thin blood thinks those odds are too much, get a prenup.
"But Mr. Patriarchy,"I hear the PUAs, Game types, and their other wimpy friends snivel,
"Why would I ever get married? I just want to have sex and married people don't have sex."Actually, wrong again.
First, marriage is very good for people. Married people live longer, are healthier, happier, have more friends, etc. Married men make more money and married men with stay at home wives make a LOT for money.
[No, you idiots, if a young man gets married and his wife stays at home he gets more raises and promotions than his peers. The younger he marries and the sooner his wife stays at home the larger the effect].
And married people have more and better sex.
Considering that losers like Deti are married, this means the average married guy must have a LOT of sex!
Note: Ever wonder how Deti, the sort of spineless loser that couldn't get sex from his own wife for multiple years, is considered a source of knowledge to the losers of the Game sphere? I mean, seriously, why would anyone listen to the sort of nutless moron that needed someone on the internet to teach him how to get his wife to have sex with him? All I can figure is that he is the man with one eye.
So let's sum up.
Social Conservatives are correct.
Game types are losers.
Move along.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
By Request - Transubstantiation
A particularly ignorant twitter user, @MitchGoldwyn, who is either too lazy, too stupid, or too dishonest to use google, has asked me to explain transubstantiation, probably in some puerile attempt to 'catch me out', or something.
The short version is: through a miraculous intervention God alters the essential nature of the bread and wine without (necessarily) changing the accidents of the bread and wine.
Now, since I get the impression @MitchGoldwyn wouldn't know philosophy if he took it at the 200 level, I will go into more detail.
What is this?
The short version is: through a miraculous intervention God alters the essential nature of the bread and wine without (necessarily) changing the accidents of the bread and wine.
Now, since I get the impression @MitchGoldwyn wouldn't know philosophy if he took it at the 200 level, I will go into more detail.
What is this?
A chair, right?
So - all chairs are black, wooden, and have a straight back, right?
But what is this?
OOOoooooh! All chairs are black, but some are hard plastic. OK!
Huh. Still a chair, but not black, not hard, not wood or ...
What is going on?
There is an essential thing called a "chair". This essence is the same even if a particular chair is black, or red, or wood, or plastic, Those aprticulars, the things not directly assocaited with the essence, are called 'accidents', a philosophical term that kinda' means 'not important to the essence of a thing'.
The essence of a thing is separate from the thing. For example, if I took an axe to the first chair very soon it would cease to be a chair and become kindling (the *particular* chair ceased to exist) but the essence or idea of Chair still exists, unchanged.
If I change the accidents of a thing I don't change its essence. If I spray paint the first chair red it remains a chair. If I staple a pillow to it it remains a chair.
Pretty simple so far, right?
So what does this have to do with transubstantiation? Everything!
What happens in transubstantiation is that the essence of the Eucharist and the wine are changed from bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ without affecting the accidents. They look, smell, etc. the same (the accidents) but their essence, their substance, has been altered - that is what the word 'transubstantiation' means.
So this is, in very, very simple language and with pictures and examples, what transubstantiation means.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Lack of Self-Awareness
In this article a woman named Jillian Dunham describes a bit of her life. What we glean from the article is:
-She dated a wonderful man from the age of 25 until about 30
-This man proposed shortly after her mother died
-She broke off the engagement when she was 32 because "[her] sense of who [she]was lacked the normal range of experience", whatever that means
-She was in a string of relationships where "the mistakes [she] made were obvious", admitting she was dating men unsuitable for or uninterested in a relationship
-After years of this she realized her fertility was decreasing, so she spent the money to freeze some of her eggs
-Now about 40 she is having trouble finding single men interested in both her and a relationship
He conclusion?
Men are the problem.
This little article is so heartfelt it tugs at me, so ludicrous in its lack of self-awareness it makes me want to cringe, and so common I want to cry.
I see this same story on the verge of beginning as I speak with young people and their parents;
"Oh, she shouldn't even date until her education is complete and her career established!"
"So you want her to not even start looking for a husband or husband material until she's 25 or so?"
"Goodness, no! 30 is young enough to start looking for a husband! I mean, she's beautiful, she'll be well-educated, and she'll be successful; what man wouldn't want her?"
"Well, since the median age of marriage for men is 29 and for women is 27 more than half of all the men who every will marry shall be married by the time she starts looking. Also, the average amount of time spent dating before marriage is a touch more than 3.5 years so even if your daughter finds a good guy immediately and everything works out then she will be 34 years old at the time of marriage. And since it takes about 2.5 years on average to find 'the right guy' that's 6 years average, making her 36!"
"...well, an education is so important."
Miss Dunham's problem is that she trew away opportunities and now doesn't want to wait.
-She dated a wonderful man from the age of 25 until about 30
-This man proposed shortly after her mother died
-She broke off the engagement when she was 32 because "[her] sense of who [she]was lacked the normal range of experience", whatever that means
-She was in a string of relationships where "the mistakes [she] made were obvious", admitting she was dating men unsuitable for or uninterested in a relationship
-After years of this she realized her fertility was decreasing, so she spent the money to freeze some of her eggs
-Now about 40 she is having trouble finding single men interested in both her and a relationship
He conclusion?
Men are the problem.
This little article is so heartfelt it tugs at me, so ludicrous in its lack of self-awareness it makes me want to cringe, and so common I want to cry.
I see this same story on the verge of beginning as I speak with young people and their parents;
"Oh, she shouldn't even date until her education is complete and her career established!"
"So you want her to not even start looking for a husband or husband material until she's 25 or so?"
"Goodness, no! 30 is young enough to start looking for a husband! I mean, she's beautiful, she'll be well-educated, and she'll be successful; what man wouldn't want her?"
"Well, since the median age of marriage for men is 29 and for women is 27 more than half of all the men who every will marry shall be married by the time she starts looking. Also, the average amount of time spent dating before marriage is a touch more than 3.5 years so even if your daughter finds a good guy immediately and everything works out then she will be 34 years old at the time of marriage. And since it takes about 2.5 years on average to find 'the right guy' that's 6 years average, making her 36!"
"...well, an education is so important."
Miss Dunham's problem is that she trew away opportunities and now doesn't want to wait.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)