Archive

Archive for the ‘Philosophy sans Sophistry’ Category

Why SJWs Want to Censor Games While Studiously Avoiding Rap Music

November 17, 2014 19 comments

One of the more interesting, if seldom asked, question that follows from the intense interest of SJWs in censoring video games is follows:

Why are SJWs and their accomplices focusing their “activism” on certain forms of entertainment such as comic books and video games, while conspicuously ignoring the same issues in other forms such as various subtypes of rap/hip-hop music, popular non-network TV shows and movies?

Some of you might say that SJWs and their accomplices have already tried interfering in those forms- with very limited success. Well.. that is partially true, but there is much more to the story of why they failed to have any significant impact on rap music, movies and non-network TV shows.

Let us try to understand why certain forms of entertainment, such as rap music, have successfully resisted interference from SJWs. As some of you might know, the lyrics and imagery of rap/hip-hop music was considered scandalous throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. At that time, many famous proto-SJWs spent a lot of time and effort on concerted attempts to censor rap music. As many of you also know, these proto-SJWs failed so miserably that much of what (lyrics, language, behavior and dancing moves) was considered scandalous barely 20 years is now nauseatingly mainstream.

So why did SJWs fail to censor rap music in the late 1980s, and what can we learn from that massive failure?

The more cynical of you might say that rap music succeeded because white suburban kids loved transgressive black music- and there is some truth to that. But there is far more to this story than white suburban kids who bough records to look cool and piss off their parents. Start by comparing the behavior and personal lives of famous singers and musicians from various popular genres. Why are white rock stars (even those in certain popular 80s bands) widely, and correctly, perceived as less masculine than similar famous black rappers?

It comes down to how each group tries to achieve social acceptance, respectability and fame.

White musicians, like most other white morons, believe that social acceptance, fame and respectability is achieved by striving, begging and compromising. They also believe in popular scams like meritocracy and hard work. Most black musicians in contrast, understand that popularity in the music industry is some combination of intrinsic talent and plain dumb luck. They have also figured out that all that talk about meritocracy and hard work are lies meant to enrich a few white assholes at the expense of everybody else. Perhaps most importantly, they have figured out something that eludes most white morons- all that talk about social acceptance and respect from people who will abandon you, at the proverbial drop of a hat, is dishonest and meaningless.

The thoughts and actions of most black rappers are therefore not constrained by delusional attempts at gaining worthless social acceptance and respectability. Instead, they want real things like fame and money.

White musicians usually ask, beg and grovel for something that their black equivalents rightly demand. This slavish desire for worthless social acceptance and respectability also makes white musicians far more susceptible to compromise in the face of manufactured media campaigns- such as those run by SJWs. In contrast, most black musicians have little interest in gaining such worthless social respectability and are therefore largely immune from manufactured media campaigns to shame them or make them censor themselves.

Then there is the angle of plausible threats- or more precisely, who is afraid of whom.

Most black musicians, especially rappers, are not afraid of risky physical confrontations- to put it mildly. Nor are they afraid of living in poverty, as most of them grew up in less than affluent households. But perhaps most importantly, they inspire visceral fear in the minds of SJWs. Would those Sarkesian or Quinn critters dare to go up against some black rapper who has been shot and jailed a few times? Would they? and if not, why not?

My point is that leading a manufactured “moral crusade” against socially awkward white guys is far less physically risky than doing that against guys who have injured and killed people for disrespecting them.

In case you were wondering, fear is also the reason SJWs will almost never target big time TV shows and movie producers. Of course, in this case it is the fear of armies of lawyers and being blacklisted by those who have money. And let us be clear about something, those Sarkesian and Quinn critters are in it for attention, money and power- not social justice. They will never bite the hands that might feed or throw a few crumbs at them. SJWs are attacking gamers because they believe that have a chance at winning without any real physical, legal or financial risk. They also believe that gamers, being mostly socially awkward men, can be scammed into defeat via lies about losing social respect and acceptability.

What do you think? Comments?

The Priorities of SJW Activism Expose their Real Motivations

November 6, 2014 7 comments

The term, or acronym, SJW has received a lot of attention on the ‘interwebs’ over the last few weeks. While typically used in a derisive manner, it is actually a pretty accurate description of the public persona of a particular (and increasingly common) kind of political activist. So before we go any further, let us define this acronym using UrbanDictionary.

Social Justice Warrior is a pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will “get SJ points” and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are “correct” in their social circle.

The above quoted definition, is in my opinion, one of the best and most succinct definitions of this seemingly new class of social activist. I said ‘seemingly new’ because what SJWs do is actually quite old. In previous and less-connected eras, these people were known as “neighborhood busybodies”, “pearl clutchers”, incessant newspaper letter writers.. well, you get the picture. The busybodies, pearl clutchers and letter writers of previous eras were, as SJWs are now, predominantly middle-class females.

My point is that women trying to gain status among peers by patronizing supposedly “good” causes based on their interpretation of some or the other ideology is a pretty old phenomena.

Then as now, these pseudo-activists tried to gain attention and status by latching onto fashionable social issues of the day. Most of these issues were, then as now, somehow connected to public “morality” and poking around or interfering in the personal lives of other people. It is important to understand that these pseudo-activists always steered clear to substantive and important issues and social injustices. So they almost always ignored issues such as eliminating slavery, ending legalized discrimination against non-whites, ending anti-semitism, alleviating poverty etc. Instead, they spent their energies on crusades against new styles of dresses or dancing, recreational drug use and pretty much anything that might make somebody else happy.

All social activism devoted to causes that cannot result in significant material improvement of their target group is always about screwing over the lives of somebody else.

But the appeal of screwing over other people by itself cannot explain the rise of SJWs in the last decade. So what has changed? Why are more people (mostly women) trying to get in on the phenomena? Some of you might think that the rise of SJWs is due to the increase in the number of people with university degrees in social sciences. Well.. I have some news for you. The rise of SJWs has very little to do with lots of women studying social sciences in universities. It is about new and vastly increased opportunities for monetization of such pseudo-activism.

SJW proliferation is largely due to new opportunities for monetizing such pseudo-activism.

So what are these new opportunities for monetization and why now? One part of the answer to those question can be found in technological changes- especially in the field of communication. It is no coincidence that the current increase in the number of SJWs parallels the number of people who are online and on social media. The ongoing decline in the fortunes of corrupt and incestuous centralized corporate media has, paradoxically, opened up many new opportunities for those who purvey and profit from “moral” outrage or causes. Until the last decade, only a few of these parasites could get onto network TV or newspapers with high circulation numbers. The internet, or more precisely the proliferation of internet users, changed that forever. Now any wannabe SJW-type parasite can use inexpensive or free blogs and social media outlets to find people gullible enough to believe in any “moral” cause- however unrealistic or dubious.

But there is more. SJWs are merely doing what almost all large non-profit organisations and charities have been doing for decades. Do you think most of the money donated to breast-cancer charities goes to research into that disease condition or helping patients cope with it? Guess again. What about all those charities that want money to help sick and dying kids, deliver medical aid to poor and disaster-stricken people, help cure some fatal disease or some other humanitarian cause? Well.. most of the money donated to those charities are used to fund the payroll of employees in those organisations and pay for advertising agencies to come up with even bigger and more effective money-gathering campaigns. And all this occurs while these organisations run on the efforts of unpaid volunteers. All of these supposedly non-profit organisations who loudly proclaim their desire to do social “good” have no interest in actually doing what they say, let alone eliminate the reason for that problem.

To summarize, people involved in pseudo-activism are the western equivalent of people who mutilate orphans and force them to beg in poor countries.

Pseudo-activists or SJWs have no interest in solving problems other than those related to increasing their public status, power and income. They are just parasites exploiting existing niches for their lifestyle created by pre-existing system dysfunction. Also, SJWs do not actually believe in the ideologies they profess at every public occasion. Their publicly stated beliefs and ideologies are simply covers for their real motivations, namely- becoming rich and famous by screwing over other people.

What do you think? Comments?

The West Has Always Lost Against Determined Adversaries Since WW2

November 2, 2014 7 comments

The end of WW2 in 1945 was the start of many large-scale changes and shifts that have irreversibly changed the face of the world. Many of these trends, such as normalization of women working outside their homes and childbirth outside marriage have had major social consequences. But for every famous large-scale change there is one that is just as important but seldom talked about. This post is about one such change.

The west has not won a single war against a determined adversary since the end of WW2.

Now some apologists might mumble something about the Iraq War of 1991, but as I will show you the outcome of that war actually bolsters my theory. But why is this change important in the first place? Well.. it comes down to history. From the late 1700s to 1945, countries that are now part of what we today call the “west” were able to conquer and occupy countries all over the world. But then something changed and now they cannot win wars- even against countries such as North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. But it goes deeper than that.. much deeper. Today the west is unable to pull off a successfully military intervention in effectively stateless regions of the world such as parts of Africa and the Middle-East.

So what happened? How did the west become militarily impotent? And why have all the trillions spent on supporting war and developing newer weapons to alleviate their impotency?

But before we tackle those questions, let us talk a bit about how people in the west try to rationalize their military impotency. Some like to tell themselves that the west has become more humane and feels guilty about killing non-whites. However the death of millions of Koreans, Vietnamese and Iraqi in wars since WW2 suggests that is not the case. The west, especially the USA, never tried to stop killing non-whites. They have lost the ability to translate such deaths into military victory and lasting gains. We also cannot forget that efforts at weapon development and troop deployment to others countries, again especially by the USA, have not stopped in the post-WW2 period.

Others want to believe that economic reasons for colonialism such as access to raw materials are no longer important in a world driven by manufacturing and service sector jobs. While this might seem plausible to some, it runs counter to the reality that colonialism was almost never exclusively about access to cheap raw materials. Let me explain that concept with an example. Ask yourself two question- What natural resources did the UK gain from colonizing India? Was the value of those resources worth the cost of colonization? Here is another example- What resources did the USA gain through the genocide of native americans that they could not have just got by paying them market value for the land- which at that time was really low. My point is that economic rationales for colonialism are at best a fig leaf for the real motivations that drove that particular enterprise.

Still others want to convince themselves that old-fashioned colonialism is not necessary since the “west” can exploit other countries through trade and finance. While there have been a few examples of this particular scenario playing out, they have occurred mostly in small countries with especially incompetent rulers. The vast majority of countries have been able to improve both their military power as well as the living standards of their populations. The populations of western countries, on the other hand, have experienced prolonged stagnation and shrinkage of their living standards. To put it another way, the belief that trade and finance can be effectively used for remote-control colonization is not supported by available evidence.

And this brings us back to our original question- How and why did the west become militarily impotent so quickly after 1945?

In my opinion, this large-scale shift is due to an interacting and irreversible mixture of reasons- some of which I have talked about in previous posts. We have to start with the rapidly decreasing supply and increasing price of cannon fodder. In previous eras, the sheer number of surplus kids who lived to adulthood created a never-ending supply of cannon fodder for colonial expeditions. The advent and ubiquity of multiple methods of contraception has resulted in an irreversible change in that trend. There just aren’t enough dumb surplus men to throw at now risky endeavors such as colonialism.

But why is colonialism and fighting wars much more riskier now than it was in the pre-WW2 era? Well.. it comes down to mostly to small arms and a better understanding of the west by its adversaries. In prior eras, the technology differential in small arms allowed the west to deploy machine guns against spear-wielding Zulu warriors. Similarly the unfamiliarity of non-western countries with western military practice allowed the west to defeat such countries. Both of those advantages have been irreversibly lost. Today the foot-soldier of any country or group that is fighting against a western country has access to pretty much the same small-arms technology as his western counterpart. Moreover, unlike his conspicuously visible western counterpart, he can blend into the surrounding population.

I can hear some of you say.. “but what the western technological advantage in air power, nukes and heavy weaponry”? The short answer to that rhetorical question is that all of those supposed “advantages” are not decisive enough to influence the outcome of wars. Infact, some of them make matters worse. Consider the issue of nuclear weapons. While it might be tempting for USA to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear or nuclear adversary- doing so would result in a mad rush by dozens of countries to build their own nuclear weapons. Furthermore, countries with such capacity would have no hesitation about using it against the USA at the slightest hint of conflict. The use of air power while providing the illusion of invulnerability seldom causes enough damage to affect the course of war. It also does not help that airplanes, drones, laser guided-bombs and missiles are far more expensive and harder to replace than the targets they are used against. Also the tools for targeting such assets at a level sufficient to make their use onerously expensive are readily available.

We also cannot forget about the consequences of living in a multi-polar world. Countries such as China, Russia and even some so-called american “allies” are quite happy to supply money, weapons and other resources for fighting wars and insurgencies against the west. We all know what material support by Russia and China did for the outcome of wars in Korea and Vietnam. We have also seen the effect of material support by supposed allies of the west on the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. It takes far less material support and weaponry to through a lethal wrench into western efforts to colonize and conquer than it takes for the west to succeed in their objective.

And this brings us to why Saddam Hussein lost the Iraq war in 1991. The short answer is that he tried to fight the west using western tactics even though his army was poorly equipped to do so. The fact that his commanders were incompetent loyalists and professional ass-kissers made it doubly worse. He could have been far more successful and likely triumphant if the whole thing was run like a semi-decentralized insurgency. But such solutions are not acceptable to egotistic and paranoid dictators- and that is why he lost that war.

What do you think? Comments?

Was Casual Incest More Common in the Era Before Recorded History?

October 30, 2014 7 comments

Some of my regular readers might remember that I once posted an interesting photo series of Stephanie Seymour and one of her sons at a beach. Recently, she posed in lingerie (along with two of her sons) for a photoshoot in HarpersBazaar. Many people, both online and offline, thought that those photos and the implied relationship with her two supposedly gay sons was “icky” and “unnatural”. While the first type of objection (ickyness) is subjective, the second type (un-naturalness) implies objective evaluation. But, is casual incest among humans really that “un-natural” ?

But before we do that, let us get back to this particular case and be honest about the facts. Firstly, the mother of those teenage boys is a pretty well-preserved ex-supermodel. Secondly, her on-and-off-and-on again husband (and their father) is an rich white guy two decades older than her. Based on her dating history before marrying him (lots of rockstars), it is quite clear that she settled for him because he was filthy rich. It is also clear that she craves attention- perhaps much more so because she used to be a supermodel. It is therefore plausible that the relationship with her two teenage sons has a significant sexual component, despite their public statements to the contrary.

And this brings us back to the uncomfortable question: Could casual incest have been more common, even normal, in previous eras – especially during human prehistory?

The belief that incest was, and always has been, a fringe phenomena are based on a set of circular sophistic assumptions that have little basis in reality. And just to be clear, I am not trying to suggest that incest was ever the major sexual outlet for humans. Yet there is reason to believe that it was far more common than we want to or, perhaps more importantly, would like to believe.

The main scholastic argument against incest is based on the premise that it is dysgenic and that humans have a “natural” aversion to such encounters. But is that assumption supported by facts? Let us go after the dysgenic angle first. How many people obsessively filter the people they want to have sex, and perhaps children, with based on the “dysgenic-ness” of the outcome. While I am sure that aspy retards, such as those who frequent HBD sites, might care about dysgenics- people who are actually having sex are more concerned with factors such as the ease of getting laid, attractiveness, status and sometimes money.

Low barriers for partner selectivity are especially prevalent in casual sexual relationships, as opposed to those that are have socio-legal approval. Furthermore there is a large body of evidence which suggests that, historically, bestiality was not uncommon among those who worked around farm animals. To put it another way, people will have sex with far uglier and weirder people (and animals) than they will ever willingly admit.

But what about the supposed “natural” human aversion to incest? Aren’t we supposed to have some sort of deterministic aversion towards having sex with people we are closely related to? Well.. the real-life definitions of definition of “close” are rather vague and culturally determined. Consider the case of cousin marriages, which still account for around 10% of all marriages in the world yet are illegal in some parts of the USA.

For most of time anatomically modern humans have existed as a species, we have lived in tightly knit groups containing anywhere between 100 and 1000 individuals. Human groups are also quite distinct from those of most other mammalian groups in that are multi-generational and fairly gender balanced (at least over the medium term). Then there are logistical issues related to finding sexual partners outside your group. While most people born in the last few decades cannot imagine a would where people don’t live and find sexual partners in large and cosmopolitan cities, that was not always the case. Throughout human pre-history and history, most people never went further than 50 km from their birthplace. Given those conditions it is quite possible that people were more inbred than we would want to believe.

But there is more..

Over many years of searching through online porn (text, art, photos, videos) I came to an interesting realization. Certain sexual preferences and practices are far more popular than one could otherwise assume from looking at “popular” culture. For example- sexualized spanking and mild-to-moderate BDSM are far more popular than most people realize. Similarly other supposedly fringe practices like annalingus and female-to-male strapon sex are far more common in online porn than you would expect from immersing yourself in “popular” culture. So what is happening? Is depiction of these preferences and practices just another way to sell more porn? Or are they reflections of what people really want? In my opinion, it is mostly the later since it is really hard to keep on pumping out material without regard to audience engagement.

And this brings me to another observation about online porn. Incest themed online porn is just too widespread to cater to a small fringe audience. This is especially obvious in the era of online streaming porn, where incest-themed video clips keep popping up far more frequently than expected. Some of you might say that incest-themed porn is just a new way to push MILF or old-young porn. Well.. perhaps, but why push something in a way that makes it less valuable to a more conventional audience? Here is an analogous example- Would you repackage an expensive cut of meat as a supposedly less desirable cut unless there was a market for it.

What do you think? Comments?

Why GamerGaters Are Prevailing Over SJWs, Feminists and Journalists

October 27, 2014 3 comments

Mulling over GamerGate and its coverage by media for the last few days has provided me some interesting insights into the issue and how things might look in the near future (weeks to months). Some of my insights came from a dispassionate look at the responses of most “main-stream” journalists to GamerGate. A few came from studying changes in the tone of their articles and stated goals over time. Others came from my insights on the dynamics of this confrontation.

The short version of my conclusions is as follows: GamerGaters are prevailing over SJWs, feminists and journalists- and will continue to do so in the near future (weeks to months). I also believe that this trend will probably continue in the medium term (few years). FYI- I do not make predictions about events more than ten years in the future.

Here is the longer version of my insights.

1. The tone of “mainstream” journalists has shifted over the previous 2-3 weeks.

Their almost unanimous belief in an inevitable, decisive and spectacular triumph over the crushed ego of GamerGaters has increasingly been replaced by articles like this: Nobody Wins the GamerGate Civil War, Why can’t both sides bury hatchet over ethics in video games row?, Video game industry calls for an end to polarising ‘Gamergate’ controversy and The Disheartening GamerGate Campaign. It seems that some of those who wrote articles predicting the death and growing irrelevance of “gamers”, “nerds” and “neckbeards” are changing their tone. But why? Well.. a few were probably never enthusiastic about the whole thing in the first place. Some have been demoralized by the lack of an early decisive victory and are now re-evaluating their previous positions. Others are trying to buy time to regroup for a counter-offensive. Then there are those who can now see that this is turning into an insurgency.

2. GamerGate now displays all the main characteristics of an insurgency.

The last decade has seen the USA lose two wars in the middle-east. While some of you might not consider the outcome of military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan to be defeats or failures for the USA, the facts say otherwise. Simply put, the USA has failed to de-Talibanize Afghanistan after a decade of military presence in that country. They have also not been able to suppress Sunni Arab militarism in Iraq after almost a decade of being in that country. Why did they fail? Did they not spend enough money, buy enough fancy weapons or put enough boots on the ground? In my opinion, it comes down to a simple fact about warfare in the post-industrial era.

Conventional centralized armies cannot defeat determined insurgencies, especially if the later lacks a centralized command and control structure.

Let us compare the outcomes of WW2 with the decade-long dabbling in the middle-east. Ever wonder why the occupation of Germany and Japan after their defeat in WW2 was so orderly? Well.. it comes down to the fact that both nations had highly centralized command and control structures based on a national identity. People kept on fighting only as long as that structure did not surrender. Once that occurred, the occupiers faced no real resistance from the population. In contrast to that, both Iraq and Afghanistan are agglomerations of clans and tribes that form temporary alliances to fight external aggressors. In such situations, there is no central authority and command structure to declare defeat or victory.Furthermore, there is no hard and fast difference between allies and enemies in such societies.

The GamerGate crowd is similar to these insurgents in that there have no centralized command and control setup. Alliances between various groups in the coalition are temporary and ever-changing. Consequently the SJW-Feminist-Journalist crowd will never be able to rest in peace even if they declare victory. Even worse, such declarations will invite more attacks, sabotage and trolling. The SJW-Feminist-Journalist crowd in contrast are part of a fairly centralized hierarchical setup with only a few important power centers.

3. The GamerGaters have far less to lose than their adversaries.

The SJW-Feminist-Journalist crowd delights in portraying the GamerGate crowd as basement-dwelling neckbeards without well-paying careers. While that is an exaggeration, it does contain a core of truth. A lot of GamerGaters are intelligent but somewhat socially awkward and lonely guys in jobs that don’t pay well. In contrast to that, their equivalents from a previous era had far better economic and sexual opportunities. While this inter-generational change in fortunes might not seem like a big deal, it does actually has a major influence on the nature and longevity of GamerGate.

Consequently, the men participating in GamerGate today don’t have much to lose. Compare this to their equivalents from previous eras who often went along with social “consensus” because they had stable and well-paying jobs, wives, children and mortgages. People who believe they have something worthwhile to lose act far more conservatively than those who know that they don’t have much to begin with. Computer games are far more important to guys with poorly paid and unstable jobs than people who fancy themselves as petite bourgeoisie. The SJW-Feminist-Journalist crowd, on the other hand, are full of aspirational and actual petite bourgeoisie. They simply cannot afford to take the same risks as GamerGaters.

It also does not help that the SJW-Feminist-Journalist crowd are not especially conversant with the technology and other factors/issues underlying computer gaming. As many of you might have noticed by now, they cover their rudimentary understanding of technology with buzzwords and appeals to their “authority” or gender.

What do you think? Comments?

Understanding the Socio-Economic Processes that Lead to GamerGate

October 24, 2014 9 comments

A few days ago, I considered writing two posts on the ongoing GamerGate controversy- or should we say manufactured controversy. Just so that you know, this post contains a lot of stuff that will upset established or wannabe SJWs.

It all started about two months ago (Aug 2014) as the fallout of some infidelity-related relationship drama between a manipulative fat white “woman” and her rather unremarkable boyfriend. While this dramatic bullshit might have remained localized in a previous less-connected age, the widespread availability and use of the web (especially social media) resulted in that toxic spat spilling over into, and contaminating, the rest of the world. FYI, I have no real interest in exploring the ethical issues stemming from the trade of sexual favors for favorable media exposure. As I like to say- to each their own.

This post is about why computer gaming has suddenly became so culturally relevant.

As you will see, this new-found cultural relevance of computer gaming is almost exclusively about corporations trying to sell people more crap. But why is this happening now? Why was computer gaming not a big cultural issue twenty or even ten years ago? What has changed? And why?

Well.. there are many reasons.

Advances in hardware design was the first necessary, but not sufficient, condition that made all this bullshit possible. Prior to the era of Microsoft Xbox-360s, Sony PS3s, Ninentdo Wiis, smartphones and tablets- most dedicated computer gaming occurred on Desktop PCs and high-end Laptops. To put it another way, the core customer base of computer games was fairly dedicated and almost exclusively male. Sure.. there were gaming consoles like N64s, Dreamcasts, PS1s, PS2s and Xboxs- but they too were mostly a male domain. Furthermore, computer gaming was largely (and perhaps rightly) seen as the natural habitat of socially-awkward and often poor males without female company. Companies that produced computer games in those days were often small or medium-sized and produced whatever appealed to their core audience.

This started changing in the mid-2000s, but especially after the introduction of reasonably good gaming consoles that could produce pretty pictures and more life-like scenery. The introduction of these consoles also came at a time when easy online gaming became feasible. Consequently, it began to attract people who would have otherwise not started playing them. Smartphones and tablets accelerated this trend further so that everybody and their grandparents started playing Angry Birds, Farmville and CandyCrush. Corporations saw this as an opportunity to sell more crap and changed their business model accordingly. The stagnation of growth in more established form of entertainment such as network TV, movies and sporting events also made corporations see gaming as the new frontier for growth.

To summarize my first point, computer gaming became more important because of stagnation and decline in profit from other forms of entertainment. It is therefore no surprise that events such as Comic Con now receive so much corporate backing and positive advertising. This corporate interest in profit-making is also behind an explosive increase in the number of “gaming-related” journalists or as I like to call them – paid shills.

While the previous three paragraphs explain the technological (and capitalism-linked) reasons behind gaming becoming “culturally” relevant, it is not capable of explaining how a toxic spat between a manipulative fat white woman and her unremarkable boyfriend has morphed into a another “culture” war.

To understand what drives the invective of SJWs and their supposedly “liberal” journalistic allies, you have to look at cultural factors- especially what they intend to gain. So what do they intend to gain anyway? What can they possibly gain from antagonizing hardcore gamers- who are almost exclusively male? Don’t they understand, or care, about the long-term effects of antagonizing the most important and reliable customer base for that industry.

The short answer is- they don’t care about the effects of their actions on the computer gaming industry because they are not really part of that industry. The somewhat longer answer does something like this.. All those SJWs and their journalistic “friends” writing ever more toxic rants about the core audience of computer gaming are in it for themselves. It is about attempts to gain power by screwing over other people under the pretense of helping “society”.

Let us first focus on what is driving the journalists, who are perhaps the less repulsive of the two groups- if not by much. Have you ever wondered what all these people would have been doing in the pre-internet age? The simple answer is that they would have been trying to advance their careers by shilling and writing hit-pieces for print media. Journalists, with a few exceptions, have always been paid sophists, shills and character-assassination specialists for their rich masters. Think of them as whores, though that comparison is kinda demeaning to real whores. My point is that most journalists, but especially those who are trying to climb up, will shill and whore for anything that has a chance of improving their career prospects.

But why are they focusing so much on GamerGate? Why are they not paying a similar level of attention to far bigger issues like systemic racism in the american judicial system, narco-wars in Mexico or the endemic corruption and patient abuse in the american health system?

Apologists might say that some journalists do cover those issues- and that is true. But media coverage and critique of those problems bears no proportion to their impact on people. Moreover, journalists who cover the big and difficult issues have always been in the minority. But why is that so? Why do most people who pretend that their profession is devoted to speaking truth to power shy away from it whenever they have an opportunity to do so? Well.. it comes down to money and the fear of reprisals.

Systemic racism against non-whites in the USA is, and has always been, state policy. Critiquing that beyond a certain extent is not good for your journalistic career. Nor is it unique to that issues as most journalists were willing shills for the case to invade Iraq under false pretenses in 2003. Similarly most american journalists have been extremely unsupportive of people like Edward Snowden or Julian Assange, inspite of the importance of their revelations. Similarly people who do actual field-based reporting on the government-abetted narco war in Mexico run the risk of losing their heads- literally. Therefore the vast majority of journalist will never focus on the truly important issues of that era.

So how do these shills maintain their public credibility- or whatever is left of it?

While the general credibility of journalists has been on a downward slope for many decades, they still attempt to make occasional attempts to maintain their credibility. But as we talked about just now, they cannot do so by antagonizing people who pay them or are likely to kill them. Most investigative journalism is therefore about issues, groups or people they can antagonize without fear of reprisal. That is why journalist spend so much time on subjects that can let them demonize or at least look down upon people. These include single mothers, drug addicts, black men, small time con artists and medium-sized scams.

Journalist who write about games are no different. They, and their colleagues at “social-issue” driven publications, have no real expertise or empathy for the subjects and issues they write about. I could have compared them to pimps, but that would be insulting to pimps. In a way, they are part of a trend sweeping american society in which the best pretenders (such as CEOs) make the most money and get the most power. The massive user response to recent and continuing biased journalism in computer gaming therefore represents an affront to their self-perceived power and importance. In a way, the response of journalists to GamerGate is not unlike the response of parasite to the host immune system.

However parasites, unlike journalists, never believe that the host exists because of them.

I will talk about my views on SJWs and their real “motivations” in an upcoming post.

What do you think? Comments?

Most People Around You Don’t Deserve Sympathy or Compassion: 1

October 5, 2014 82 comments

Questions surrounding the nature of impersonal society and “civilization” (such as link 1, link 2) have a habit of popping up in my posts. While they can sometimes appear repetitious, it is hard to ignore them since they are also highly relevant to many facets of your day-to-day existence. One related topic, which I have also touched upon in previous posts (such as link 3, link 4), concerns the effect of changing circumstances and realities on the individual-group dynamic.

Do you really have an obligation or duty towards any human group that is incapable of, or unwilling to, fulfill its end of the deal- explicit and implicit?

As I have said before, humans are not mindless eusocial creatures like ants or bees. Formation and cohesion of human groups is based on reciprocity (or a promise thereof) between each individual in it and the rest of that group. To put it another way, real cooperation with your group only makes sense if you have a very high chance of receiving what was promised to you (explicitly and implicitly) in the first place. One of the many reasons that I rightly consider CONservatives to be less than subhuman is their repeated parroting of the “society does not owe you anything” meme. Now I know exactly what they are trying to, but don’t have the brains or balls, to say- but that is best discussed in another post. This one will focus on something different and explain my insight through a series of thought experiments.

The first one occurred to me, many years ago, at a time when I had just started using escorts. The circumstances surrounding what I am going to talk about have been mentioned in previous posts (link 5, link 6). It centers around an interesting paradox – I could get high quality paid sex (including frequent freebies) from attractive and reasonably priced escorts while I was being simultaneously rejected by far more plain, dumpy and mediocre women. So what was going on? Well.. in my opinion, it was largely about the belief of those mediocre women in their intrinsic racial superiority, even if there was no evidence to support it. Then again, most humans have an almost infinite capacity for self delusion- something that I will write more about in another post. But it does raise an even more important, if almost never asked, question that is best framed as a thought experiment.

What if all those women, and guys like them, disappeared from the face of the earth?

While I have talked about similar in a previous post, this one tackles a different question. Does the continued existence of people you do not particularly care about matter to you? Also, under what condition or circumstances would that answer change- either way? If you think through my questions systematically and rationally, you will arrive to a somewhat disquieting answer.

In an impersonal and atomized society, the existence of other people matters only so far as it translates into a high probability of serving your own needs.

The demise of anyone whose existence or actions do not serve your needs or desires is, at best, inconsequential. The reader might wonder if the demise of people who did something important for you, but not in a very obvious manner, would be detrimental. The short answer to that question is- perhaps, but not really. Let me explain what I am talking about through one somewhat tasteless thought experiment.

Imagine a situation in which 80-90% or even 100% of white physicians and surgeons in the USA died within a week. Would it matter? Well.. it would certainly matter in the very short term- perhaps a few weeks or months at most. However, their positions would almost certainly be filled through the mass importation of equally competent non-white physicians. Moreover, people who work under physicians perform most of the actual work in healthcare. So the somewhat longer answer is as follows: short-term disruptions seldom translate into long-term disruptions. The only time such large-scale disruptions translate into long-term effects is when those who became extinct had some unique ability that their successors are incapable of developing. In the case of physicians or surgeons, that is simply not the case. A non-white person with similar education, hours of experience and access to technology will do just as good a job as a white person, and the same is true of every job, profession and vocation. And this brings us to another disquieting idea.

People whose utility to others is defined by their jobs are completely replaceable and fungible.

The same is also true of employers- more specifically the people you work under. In an era where people do not have stable jobs, the demise of your immediate superior in the corporate hierarchy is largely irrelevant as most people in that position have no interest in helping you as a person. You could even replace them with a similar looking person and nobody would notice or care. This is especially true in countries such as the USA where all corporations are slow death-marches, as far as most of their employees are concerned. One could make the same case for other institutions, from universities and research institutes to schools and sports leagues. Do you really think that the sudden demise of all the “top” scientists from “prestigious” universities and institutes would somehow set our knowledge of science or progress back? Heck, if anything it might have the opposite effect by removing a lot of politically connected and uncreative courtier-types.?

In an atomized society there are no rational reasons to feel any sympathy or compassion for people who just happen to exist around you.

Now, you might say- this is cold, heartless and inhuman. Well.. perhaps, but it is rational. More importantly, is your experience any different? How many people you have worked with can you trust to not screw you over? What about any person or corporation that has ever employed you? Or what about the women you might have married? Can you really trust them to not screw you over for ego or minor financial gains? What about the government that claims to protect you from “all those bad people” if you just agree to go deeper into bonded servitude?

Perhaps you might want to reevaluate your interactions with people and institutions around you. There is no reason to be loyal, kind or even fair to people and institutions who abuse your trust in every possible way and at every possible turn.

What do you think? Comments?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 108 other followers