Tag Archives: SJW

This silo is a total sausage fest, bro


So, in case you haven’t heard, a Google employee recently sent out an internal memo critiquing the company’s diversity policy, and was promptly fired. Google’s actions in this case have been both applauded and condemned by many people.

Now first let me say that, as someone with almost ten years of professional experience in software development, this concerns me. We’ve all had to become very careful about what we say at the office, or even on FaceBook, or Hell, even at a bar. And I’m probably just as good at this professional phoniness as anyone. The memo the Google engineer sent out is similar to some things I have posted on personal websites, but would I send that out to the whole company where I work? Probably not.

And yet many would argue that this man was doing Google a courtesy, by speaking truth to power, as opposed to going behind power’s back, and posting this to linger in the dark corners of the internet’s MRA community, for Google to internally speculate about who wrote it. Google said that they wanted to open a dialogue about this topic, and then punished a dissenting opinion. Which is bad on them, to me.

Now let me also say that I’ve worked with transgenders, females, blacks, Indians, Chicanos, Asians, Arabs, etc, and some of them were really good at their jobs, many even better than me! I’m not denying that any type of person can be a programmer. However, to say that anyone can be a programmer, is dangerously fantastical. Programming is not ‘perception is reality’…  No amount of ‘good vibes’ will make bad code compile.


In fact, one of the biggest pains in my industry is how many pretentious people try to schmooze their way to the top of it, often without having any real understanding of it at all. This is a problem with straight white males, too. Some maverick hotshot wows the incompetent boss in an interview, is hired on, claims to be able to make everything more efficient or better somehow, and in the process, breaks everything. Seen it a million times.

And that’s why, I don’t claim to be any more bad-ass than I am, professionally. I work as a Quality Assurance Engineer, because, although I do possess basic programming and systems administration skills, I do not believe myself to be an expert at software development. My degree is in a completely unrelated field, and programming, for me, is really just a hobby that turned into a career. And that’s why I only apply for jobs I know I can do, as opposed to being the guy who says ‘Yeah, I can do that,’ while reading the ‘For Dummies’ book on it. You’d be surprised how often this actually happens, like the pretentious fraud piano teacher, who stays one lesson ahead of her kids.

Maybe at some point, I will get it together to take the 6 months of night classes I need to go full developer, but for now, I’m happy where I am: in an relatively easy, high-paying job that allows me plenty of free time for socializing and creative endeavors.
I will say this: as a QAE, I’ve watched codebases go to shit before, and the underlying organizational cause is always HR. You think the world is run by engineers and technical people, with degrees in hard science? Ha! It’s run by managers and advertisers, AKA ‘people persons’, who have degrees in social ‘science’, if anything at all. It’s the blind leading the one-eyed. I pray for a glorious and bloody revolution against these pretentious idiots.

I’ve yet to find and secure employment at a company that doesn’t have major HR issues, and when I say ‘HR issues’ I don’t mean ‘she said the n-word’ or ‘he told a raunchy joke in mixed company’. What I mean is that some people are underpaid, and some people are overpaid. The wrong people get hired and the right people get fired, or are allowed to walk away, when they get an offer their current employer doesn’t want to compete with (in which case the whole project suffers, and it’s a QA nightmare).

The fact that we’ve let ‘HR issues’ be redefined in terms of non-adherence to political correctness, to me, is just another sign that the corporate masters are dividing and conquering, by playing up these differences between races, genders, and cultures, but then refusing to talk about pay disputes, and the wrong people being put in (or more often, taking) charge.


One of the worst HR issues I’ve noticed recently is what I call ‘technical extortion’, which is to say, new developer gets job at reasonable salary, then he refactors the existing codebase in a way that only he understands, or implements some dependency, and then he basically holds the project for ransom, telling the boss ‘You are screwed without me, so give me a raise or I walk.’ I’ve had the opportunity to do this before, but I think it’s unethical. However, ethical people don’t get promoted, and I have seen this kind of behavior rewarded many times.

The people who pull this kind of shit are almost always schmoozers, who espouse all the corporate values as publicly as they can, though they are most certainly different animals behind closed doors. The person who doesn’t want to play these games, however capable he might be, gets fired.  ‘Let’s fire the competent, moderately-paid guy with the controversial opinion. This Polynesian transgender will work cheaper anyway, and it makes the company look more ‘diverse’.’ And then the codebase goes to shit, users get pissed, and the brand loses market share. Seen it a million times. Got thrown under the same bus myself before.

I once got terminated because someone went behind my back to HR, and it was all over scene drama. Like, we were after the same girl, or I dissed one of his homeys, or something. HR didn’t even get my side of the story, but our territorial conflict had nothing to do with the job, and for HR to take his side be default was totally wrong.

This is why I don’t like working at hipster companies. I don’t want my co-workers to see me out on the town, being single. I’d rather co-workers be older and married, not a bunch of EDM dudebros blaring dubstep and coming into work hungover all the time.

I sued that company for funemployment, and won. That six-month paid vacation at their expense was sweet. I’m skilled, so I can always find another job. No biggie. Working at the same company your whole life just doesn’t happen anymore. I get sick of the same old office and the same old people, so I’m happy to hop around every few years. It’s an educational experience.

Some people say that I’m unprofessional to post shit like this, but it’s literally my job to criticize not just code, but human processes. Excuse the fuck out of me for doing my job. The unprofessionalism goes far and wide above my head, let me tell you.

Imagine if the egg inspector just gave all the eggs a pass, without even looking at them. Though his policy would be non-discriminatory, it would be negligent, and people would get sick from his inaction, and refusal to perform due diligence. You want to live in a society free of discrimination? Start by eating garbage. According to your ideology, it’s just as good as fresh food.

The worst part about corporatism is that every process falls victim to a Robocop 2-esque corporate groupthink that alienates the smartest people in the room, just so some popular cause can have its bullshit two cents. And if you haven’t seen Robocop 2, I highly recommend it. It’s a philosophical journey.


This is the thing about the contemporary left: they say they are all about ‘inclusion’ and creating a world where everyone is accommodated and provided for, but when you question their bullshit, they blacklist you, in an attempt to starve you out. They’ve actually combined the worst aspects of liberalism and conservatism, and they are leveling this hypocritical ideological gun at straight white males.

Everyone else gets a free pass, because it is assumed that this is what their kind historically deserves. Let the white man be a slave to progressivism, and if he bucks his reigns, put him down. Let the diversity hires run him into the ground and bleed him dry, for shit his hypothetical grandparents did to theirs. Apply a lax liberal standard to everyone but him, and apply conservative fascism to him. Then sit back and wonder why he thinks the way he does. It’s kinda like that time in high school, when the class bully turned in a paper full of errors, and you turned in passable paper, but the teacher gave you both a ‘B’, because ‘he tried his hardest, and you could have done better’.

And then some people say ‘I can’t wait until there are no more dinosaurs like that Google engineer left on Earth.’ But then who would they make a slave to progressivism? The day the last dinosaur is pumped out of the earth and burned is the same day their commie death machine runs out of gas.

And people say ‘If you don’t like it, boycott Google,’ but honestly, I don’t think I’ll have to… If they get rid of everyone like him, and replace them with incompetent liberals, the quality of their products will decline, and so will they. That’s what happens when you play fast and loose with your position, and try to use capital to circumvent reality.

Eventually, everyone excluded by policies like Google’s will form their own company, and dominate the market. This Culturally Marxist infiltration of corporate America is too incompetent to last forever. But while it does, we are all bound to suffer the consequences of pretentious software developer incompetence.

The regression of Android’s auto-correct, S3E2 of Rick and Morty, the ever-devolving WordPress interface, and many other R&D blunders represent the Fall of Western Civilization. It’s what happens when you hire for diversity, and let newbs push bad code. Expect more shit like that from these militantly naive software companies. Maybe even the one that writes your car’s automatic driving program.

‘Oh, you said you wanted to go to Wal-Mart? We thought you meant drive straight into a wall. We just put Cindy in charge of that algorithm. Isn’t she a cutie?’

At my last job, they hired a woman onto the development team. Only female on the team, and her performance was without issue. The manager was so self-conscious about not siloing her out, he silo’ed everyone else out by comparison! He spent six weeks one-on-one with her, every day, giving her the kind of training and ‘mainsplaining’ he never gave us. Ultimately, relative to her, we felt neglected and under-trained.

I guess the assumption is: You’re a fucking white male. You should already know, or be able to quickly figure out all this stuff. But this is a cut-throat business full of protectionists. People fall out of favor, they get left off of the email list, and then they get fired, for not knowing something that nobody ever told them.


At my current job, which will be ending very soon, as I have the ability to hop around quite a bit and this project will soon end, there is an old Indian man. I have to fight the urge to strangle this incompetent man daily (and if this corporate repression continues, someone, somewhere WILL get strangled, because they haven’t been allowed to peacefully express their frustrations). The old man was hired as a favor to the executive management team, which is all Indian. Today, he asked me how to generate an SSH key. He’s been on the project over 9 months! I have too much important shit to do to babysit this guy.

Mind you, there was a time when I didn’t know how to generate an SSH key either, but not 9 months into a LAMP stack project. That would be like if a mechanic’s assistant asked ‘What’s a wrench?’ halfway through an engine overhaul.

In fact, when I didn’t know how to make a key, the first time I was asked years ago, I was too ashamed of my own ignorance to ask how, so I went to Stack Overflow, and figured it out in 15 minutes. This guy is still struggling with this as we speak. Oh yeah, and he makes substantially more money than me.

I’m getting to the age where I sometimes interview for ‘senior’ level QAE positions. What that usually means, when they are trying to hire a Senior level employee, from outside the company, is that there is an existing team of lovable losers who aren’t qualified for the job. So my job would be to educate and inspire the unqualified people they have already hired. These people are often women and ethnic minorities, who have been given cushy jobs, where not much is expected of them, and coddled, often at the expense of other employees.

I’ve had female bosses before. Never had a good one. Much like my romantic life, I’m sure there are good ones out there, but I’ve never personally met one. Plenty of pretentious and insulated divas want to be project managers, trust me, and dealing with their neuroticism is never easy.


Even when I got a night job at a headshop, just to make friends, they put a woman in charge of me. I’d taken classes in glass blowing and worked at shops for years before her, but go ahead and put her in charge, because she’s networked in with the streets, and I’m so whitebread. Well, long story short, all her employees quit (including me), none of them are her friends anymore, and she got fired. The headshop then closed, after 30 years of business.

Considering that I live in a city where cost of living is skyrocketing, I really question the motives of companies who give women cushy jobs, like ‘Social Media Manager’, just so they can afford to live here. It’s almost like someone said, ‘This silo is a total sausage fest, bro. Let’s get some trim up in here.’ And just like that, a bunch of territorial, insecure men, who are unwilling to teach eachother what they do, become willing to foster and mentor some cute young girl, and then the little guy who’s just starting out gets shafted by chauvinist group politics.

Finally, I’ll relate this little anecdote:

I did a phone interview with RetailMeNot. The guy asked me some really basic questions, and my answers seemed to intimidate him. He thought that OWASP was a paid security audit service, displaying his ignorance of OWASP, which is actually a 501c3 dedicated to proliferating computer security knowledge, something EVERYONE in software-as-a-service testing should know about.

Ultimately, they came back and said I was over-qualified. The exact words they used were ‘We wouldn’t want to put an automated scripter in a manual tester role’. I actually do both manual and auto testing, but they said I was overqualified. For an $89k/yr job. I’ve never in my life made that much money. If I’m over-qualified, why can’t I find anyone willing to pay me more to do my job?

OK, so here’s where it gets juicy: A co-worker of mine, with the exact same job title as me, at my current employer, goes up for the same role at RetailMeNot. Not only do they invite him for an onsite interview, they offered him the job! Background on this guy: by most, if not all accounts, he is less skilled than me. I’m an automator and sysadmin, and he’s just a manual front-end black box tester. Ultimately, he was laid off from my current employer for being under-skilled and overpaid. He re-located to the DC area, and ended up not even wanting or taking the job that RetailMeNot offered him. But we were somewhat friendly co-workers, so I was kept informed of all this.

Not to be bitter or toot my own horn, but if you could get either of us for the same money, it makes sense, both on paper and in practice, to hire me!

The other difference between him and me: I’m white, and he’s Indian. I would not have thought anything of this, if I had not read this review of RetailMeNot on Glassdoor:

‘Very political environment where ‘diversity & inclusivity’ is a major priority as employees are divided by race & genitalia, then we’re told we need more of this group and less of this group. It’s rather sickening. You must think and march along with the obvious political party lines (which doesn’t even have anything to do with work) or you’re not in the clique.’

And there are other reviews that indicate that’s the way the wind blows at this company, too… Just read through all their reviews.

What’s so bad for them, is that my co-worker didn’t take the job, he actually took another job, and we are still on friendly terms… so if I were to sue RetailMeNot for discrimination, he would probably testify on my behalf. Maybe someone is going to have to sue, in order to convince them to address their internal biases, and change their policy to one that is legal.


So, what do I think of affirmative action? It’s a pain in the ass, it’s not fair, and it hurts morale! Hire for merit, not diversity, and PAY PEOPLE FAIRLY. If you are an applicant and you don’t have merit yet, work your way up from the bush leagues, like I did. There are companies who hire unskilled workers off the street, you just have to pound the pavement and find them.

And yes, there are people out there who will try to use your opinion, peacefully expressed in private company, to get you fired. Just the other day, I posted about being excited about a job interview I had with a company in Denver, because I’ve been toying with the idea of moving there. A frienemy on my profile, who happens to be an old lady from Colorado, innocently asked ‘What company?’

When I explained to her that I would never divulge that info, unless I had already worked there for at least a year, she then went on this rant about how people should stop moving to Denver, and it’s full. I’ve heard this about every popular city, so it doesn’t phase me. But if I had naively told this old bag the name of the company I was interviewing with, do you think she would have called them up, and told them I was part of a secret international ring of necrophiliacs, in a petty attempt to keep me from getting a better job? Bet your sweet ass.

In 1984, George Orwell wrote ‘Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death.’ And in many ways, terminating someone and making him a pariah over his opinion, which possibly could have been changed, is a death sentence. If this guy cannot get another job, if he can’t pay his rent, armed men will put him on the streets, and he will starve and die. And no matter what your sociopolitical views are, if you think that’s social justice, like some kind of Gandhi boycott, you have more in common with Stalin than Gandhi.

And so, without further adieu, I give you my favorite Myspace meme of the early 2000’s, which I have re-captioned for the sake of relevance:


Straight white male computer nerds are racist and sexist, because they make them too hard to use. They need to make them more like sheep, so they can be fleeced, and people in the community can have good coats. But straight white males feel entitled to keep their own skin, and they don’t want us to be warm like them.



You’re wrong about the working class, I hope they kick your Berkeley ass


Imagine a classroom in Soviet Russia. Or Cultural Revolution China. Or perhaps Castro’s Cuba…  Students mirroring similar dogma at eachother, monolithicly. No arguments. It all seems very civilized, until you realize that this false consensus is the direct result of dissenters being shot, or confined to a Gulag.


But here in our insulated, idealist country, we think of that as some far away tragedy of history. It could never happen in the good old US of A…  right?


Well, unfortunately, because of recent riots at Berkeley, we can’t really say that anymore. Now, a lot of those involved or allied will say that, because this action was undertaken by a ‘rebel faction’, and not an established power, it’s actually a righteous insurrection, rather than authoritarian oppression. But given the fact that these are the children of Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Microsoft, many of whom are ‘Trustifarians’, their proletarian cred is highly suspect. If you can afford to live and go to school in that area of the country, you probably do not come from a poor background.

Whatever happened to ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it’?

And let me be clear: I don’t like Milo. I don’t like Trump. I don’t like Ann Coulter. I’m not defending the Nazi-looking guy who punched Moldylocks. I’m no Randroid. In my 20’s, I was a libertarian pot dealer who, confronted with classism in college, started reading Chomsky, and eventually started calling myself ‘libertarian socialist’. I voted for Obama and Hillary. I don’t complain when I pay my taxes. I know that life deals some a bad hand, and as a relatively privileged person, I want to help, to the extent that I comfortably can.

On the other hand, every time I have tried to network with socialists and ‘left anarchists’, what I have found is that their communities are hypocritically dependent upon censorship. It’s necessary to maintain the echo chamber. From liberals blocking dissenters on Facebook to ban-happy Reddit forum moderators, it seems as though censorship, often enforced through violence, is a load-bearing pillar of any socialist movement, whether in China or America.


But what these rich brats throwing fits don’t seem to realize is: there is no difference between China censoring the internet and the moderators of r/socialism banning people who bring up white poverty or male vs female conviction/incarceration rates. And have you checked out r/anarchism recently? It very much resembles the aforementioned communist classroom, with the mirrored dogma, monolithic ideology, primitive tribal circles, and the ban-hammer enforced false consensus. r/LibertarianSocialism has gotten so hypocritically left-authoritarian, I’ve actually started calling myself ‘centrist anti-authoritarian’, just to distinguish myself from both the SJWs AND the ‘alt-right’.

I myself have been banned from these forums, simply for attempting to challenge these brainwashed minions’ postulates with logic, facts, and reason, and have been forced to spectate while such absurdities as ‘Capitalism, not socialism, is Venezuela’s problem’, is passed off as indisputable fact. I can’t help but think that, just like comments-disabled blogs, this community has been engineered to feed into confirmation bias. On the other hand, if you go into r/libertarian and start talking about the exploitation of the working class by business owners, or ridiculous CEO pay, you might get ridiculed, but they won’t ban you.

How ironic is it that George W Bush’s words have become the same words of ‘liberal anarchists?’ Antifa revisionists don’t want you to remember these speeches:

I mean, seriously, I remember there being speakers at my college I wasn’t interested in or didn’t agree with. I didn’t protest them. I just didn’t attend. If it had really bothered me that bad, I would have just changed schools. Let me tell you this: If I were an affluent parent, I certainly wouldn’t send my kids to Berkeley. I’d send them to a school where they could learn something useful, like engineering, computer programming, or molecular biology, not ‘how to bitch like a crybaby when you don’t get exactly what you want out of life’. Are the administrators of Berkeley so nostalgic for their misspent youth in the 60’s that they are actually encouraging this behavior?

The dead canary in the socialist mine, for me, was liberal reddit discussion groups. It’s so easy to get banned from them for saying anything even slightly out-of-narrative. And then, unless you make a new account, you are forced to spectate, while they ask stupid questions of each other like ‘Why do the middle class hate the lower class?’ with the official answer, parroted by everyone ‘Because they are conditioned to.’ When asked ‘by whom?’ They will say ‘The upper class’, but if you ask me, these fucking Berkely Trustifarians ARE the upper class of their generation.Of course, I could explain to them ‘The middle class hates both the upper AND lower class, because they perceive both to be over-privileged loafers, sponging off of middle-class labor (not only that, but many working class people are content not to hate ANYONE, in fact my working-class Christian Republican family is quite active in philanthropy)’, but if I said that, my new account would get banned.

What I’ve found is that, an overwhelming biomass of young, naive idealists seems idyllic, but there will always be some Hitler-esque social politicians who will take advantage, saying ‘I’m against those things everyone hates. Vote for me.’ then when they are empowered by the community, they scapegoat some unpopular person or group for all of society’s ills, putting them in a subordinate social class. Virtue-signaling will always be used for social misdirection in a naive, idealistic college-liberal town.

This ostracism is methodical and deliberate, and meant to socially disenfranchise the political opposition. It’s the palpable liberal bias that demonizes financial capital (which I totally understand), but looks the other way on the abuses of social capital by unwashed proles. While they acknowledge the the abuse by the financial establishment, and to a lesser extent the state establishment, they refuse to acknowledge the abuses of the SOCIAL ESTABLISHMENT. They are willfully oblivious to the concept of social capital. And that’s why they are called ‘liberal regressives’, ie, liberals who claim to be progressive, but are actually an impediment to progress, burdening everything with bureaucratic drag. I’m telling you, I’m working class, been working my ass off for the past 20 years, and have even endured government persecution for cultivating entheogens, but as a middle-aged white male, all these people have ever done for me is get in my way, accuse me of being over-privileged, and attempt to stick me with their bills.

Rest assured, if these kids were a rebel faction in Africa, they would be classified as hardline communists, a threat to mineral rights investments, and unceremoniously bombed…  But because they are Americans, they get their right to free speech, even though they deny that same right to others…  Much like the racists on the right, they expect tolerance towards themselves, but refuse to tolerate others. And these crazies are right in my neighborhood, too!  It’s like I’m caught in a gang war, and I don’t want to be mistaken for either side.


Don’t get me wrong, I’m not about to start dressing like a bumblebee and jocking bitcoin, but my point is that it seems to me as that ‘anarcho-communism’ is plain-old COMMUNISM, just as much as ‘anarcho-capitalism’ is plain old CAPITALISM. 50 years ago, anarchism was not thought of as communist or capitalist. It was acknowledged that capitalism requires an authoritarian state to guard the haves from the have-nots, just as communism requires an authoritarian state to quash political dissent. And both hypocritical sides are still doing those things today, but now they have the audacity to brand themselves as ‘anarchist’ while doing it. It’s disgusting!


There has never been a kick-ass punk band named ‘Black and Red Flag’ or ‘Black and Yellow Flag’. It’s just BLACK FLAG. And speaking of punk, here’s a song that I think perfectly sums up this whole stupid conflict:

A Working Class Perspective on the Internet/Campus ‘Social Justice Warrior’ Movement

peaceful-protest-creates-real-political-change-world-changing-ideaspeaceful-protest-by-greg-klet1. When college liberals, suburbanite offspring who still live with their parents, and Trustifarian ‘California Anarchists’ complain about ‘privilege’, these complaints often apply more to themselves than to common people.

This is what psychologists refer to as ‘projection’.  When the most privileged students in the most idealized and insulated universities in the country complain about ‘privilege’, it appears to the working class as if those people are hypocritically complaining about themselves, and yet putting the burden of enacting change onto others, many of whom are ill-equipped to enact any kind of meaningful, mass-scale social change.  Long story short, if you are angry about class or racial privilege: start a charity, do community service, but ‘raising awareness’ by haranguing Joe Six-Packs on relatively proletarian internet forums, not only does that do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING positive for your cause, it actually discredits your cause politically, in the minds of many, and pushes those who would otherwise be supporters away.

What I have found is that, deprived of the ability to meaningfully go after the Koch brothers, SJWs will take out all of their rage on a more accessible, working-class person who looks like or shares traits in common with the Koch brothers.  Psychologists refer to this as ‘transference’.  It’s also called ‘hitting the easy target, because the people you are really angry with live in gated communities with armed guards’.  Even if someone is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, unless he has billions of dollars, and is directly responsible for administrating systemic oppression, prejudice, and exploitation, you have no right to hold him accountable for all of that, as if he is ‘one of them’, by way of affiliation or even common opinion, especially if he is in the same (or lower!) socio-economic class as yourself.

Also, it should be noted that, in a lot of ways, the rose-colored glasses of liberalism are a class privilege.  In other words, a charmed life leads to an idealist’s outlook.  Cloistered white girls tweeting about non-racism from the suburbs will be seem silly to urban people, whose rose-colored glasses were smashed by the bullies of the ghetto, long ago.  A playboy millionaire celebrity claiming to be a feminist, and admonishing unknown, working class-males for ‘not being feminist enough’, on the Ellen Degenres show?  Easy for him to say, especially if he has three prostitutes waiting for him in his dressing room, or is happily married to a fellow attractive celebrity.  It’s a lot like feeling morally superior to the poor, simply for being able to afford ‘health’ food, and ‘environmentally friendly’ or ‘ethically manufactured’ products.

Finally, it seems to me that people who were raised by well-off liberal parents, who spoiled their kids, do not seem to understand that a person raised by conservatives, with their lassiez-faire ‘Tough Love’ parenting philosophies, may in fact be less privileged, even if their parents are wealthy.  Liberals tend to assume that all families intra-share their wealth, just because theirs did.  But that’s not actually how all families work, so it’s very unfair to assume that someone is a ‘wealthy conservative’, just because their parents happen to be.

2.  Democrats think that popular people being shitty to unpopular people qualifies as ‘social justice’.

causes-cartoonPicture this scenario: a man tries to pick up a woman, and she slaps him in the face.  Is that progress?  No!  It’s the same thing that has been happening for many generations.  It’s a status quo of people in different social classes mistreating eachother.  There’s nothing progressive about that. And yet bad social manners and the mishandling of awkward situations happen constantly, not just in one-on-one situations, but in outsider versus the group situations, all the time, especially in liberal communities such as Occupy protests, anarchist communes, Burner gatherings, and radical subreddits.

That’s the average Democrat’s twisted sense of ‘social justice’: bandwagoning, communal co-dependence, ridiculing the underdog, and trampling the rights of the statistical minority.  It’s basically a more pretentious form of gang warfare.  ‘You are wrong, because look at all of these people on MY side.  And we have collectively decided to ban you.’  I’m sorry, but it’s fucking juvenile to treat people this way just because they think differently than you, or because they refuse to pander to popular misconceptions.  The extremes to which this abuse of social capital and insensitivity towards the socially poor are taken has gotten ridiculous, otherwise, I wouldn’t even mention it.  But it truly has gotten ridiculously petty.  Postmodern liberals have repeatedly proven that social capitalists can be just as ruthless as financial capitalists.

Social maturity, on the other hand, is to respect their perspective enough to reconcile it with your own, and perhaps even realize that you are just as blind to their perspective as they are to yours, both of you are probably right in one way and wrong in another, etc…  You don’t have to respect someone’s opinion to respect their perspective.  Real progress is people from different walks of life understanding and being compassionate to eachother, even when interests conflict.  Social conflict is inevitable and commonplace, even in ‘the best of all possible worlds’.  What is remarkable is conflict resolution via real consensus, which often entails mitigation of the concerns of both sides.

3.  Liberals are just as bad about stereotyping people as conservatives are, they just have different heuristics for doing so.

heuristicsSome liberals think that all white males are inherently over-privileged.  Some conservatives think that all black males are inherently criminals.  Both of these stereotypes are wrong, and it is unfair to assume those kinds of things of anyone without a very clear understanding of their individual background.

What’s even worse is when people stereotypically bundle someone with causes that are commonly associated to eachother.  ‘Oh, you’re Christian, so you must be a Republican capitalist, right?’  Not necessarily.  Then there are the binary thinkers: ‘You’re not a Democrat, so you must be a Republican.’  Apparently the ‘enlightenment’ required to be a social liberal does not make one immune to committing common logical fallacies.

Finally, the worst is guilt-by-association and straw men.  ‘You have contributed material to an MRA forum, so you must be a psycho like Elliot Rodger.’  Or, ‘You identify as Christian, so you must believe the world is 6000 years old.’  What I see constantly is liberals holding non-liberals accountable to the most extreme conservative positions, even if that particular non-liberal happens to be a moderate or a centrist.  All of these kinds of assumptions represent a willful ignorance to the many shades of grey and nuances between polarized mainstream political positions.  But the sad truth is, that politics have become so polarized in this country, the center looks extreme to both sides.

4.  The SJW misinformation echo chamber is real.

echo_chamberThere is plenty of misinformation that goes around on the right: Climate change denial, Biblical literalism, denial of privilege gap between economic classes, etc…

But there is also plenty of misinformation that will not die on the LEFT: All-natural, homeopathic medicine, the misapplication of new age spirituality/Eastern religion, and just the other day I had a conversation with a rather intelligent, well-informed person in which he said, ‘This 23% gender wage-gap needs to be solved…’  If you think that’s a valid statistic, I urge you to watch this:

People read this shit on Tumblr or hear it on Rachel Maddow, and they don’t question it.  They just move on with their life operating under a faulty assumption, thinking anyone who disagrees is ‘ignorant’, because they haven’t read and blindly believed the same biased media source that they themselves have.  Noam Chomsky wrote a book called ‘Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of Mass Media‘.  It’s all about how commonly propagated media manipulates public opinion, not through force, but through persuasion and selective censorship.  Everyone should read this, and bloody THINK ABOUT IT!

What’s worse is when this kind of misinformation goes around socially, not about general politics, but about individual people in the community.  ‘So and so, whom neither of us really knows all that well, is a junkie/rat/slut/sexist/racist, etc…’ goes around the grapevine in liberal communities, is often accepted as fact because the source has a higher degree of social capital than the target, and it OFTEN isn’t even true, or is some biased person’s subjective take on a half-truth.

If the person being discussed REALLY has a problem, and that problem is VERIFIABLE, then it should be addressed openly, but starting behind-the-back rumors like that is often a cheap social tactic to alienate the target, because the person saying that is insecure about the potential threat this person poses tot heir social position in the group.  In other words, ‘Don’t buy his cookies, he’s a sexist.  Buy my equal-opportunity cookies instead.’  This isn’t liberalism, it’s a marketing tactic, designed to appeal to those of certain biases. So when you hear someone say: ‘That person has a problem, let’s help them’, that’s a real liberal, but when you hear someone say, ‘That person has a problem, let’s ban them’, you should realize that you are being manipulated by someone who is trying to boost their own social status by stepping on easy targets.

How are you going to assume that you are right about national politics when you allow others to manipulate you into misunderstanding the people in your own local community?  Which brings me to my next point:

5.  SJW communities are mismanaged by naive idealists who, out of misguided principles, frequently trust the wrong people, and the wrong information.

cliffI’m coming from a town full of confirmation-biased liberals who only believe what they want to hear, or what suits their ideology or personal interest.  There are many local liberal communities who will automatically extend ‘sympathy privilege’ to a traditionally oppressed person or class, without regard to that person’s individual merit.  ‘That rock and roll singer ALWAYS gets to have a microphone.  Today, let’s give a microphone to this random transgender person.’

But does that transgender person have the ability to be compelling and entertaining?  Maybe the reason the singer always has a microphone isn’t because he is white or male, but because he is good at singing.  Maybe if the transgender were good at singing, they would be given a microphone more often.  And never rule out the possibility that, in addition to being transgender, that person could also be a lying, manipulative psychopath, who shouldn’t be given any social influence.  Just because they align with one of your pet causes, does not make them infallible as a person.

Also, they could TOTALLY be merely playing to your biases.  Maybe they aren’t what they claim to be, but they are simply imitating that, because they noticed your bleeding heart has a soft spot for that particular cause.  The most obvious case of this is the insincere male feminist.  How many foxes will liberal communities let into the hen house, just because they pretend to fit your idea of what a good person should be, they towed the party line, or they played the victim card?

6.  SJWs seem to progressively keep moving further and further away from the ideal that two wrongs don’t make a right.

male_tearsThis is where ideas like ‘White Man’s Burden’, ‘Affirmative Action’, and ‘Charging Men More‘ (as if men don’t already pay for more stuff, anyway) come from.  Gandhi, a real liberal, once said ‘An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind’.  Unfortunately, most liberals are nowhere near as enlightened as Gandhi, in the exact same way that Christians are ‘so unlike their Christ’.

7.  Some of these liberal special interests certainly seem to be rationalizing their own selfishness via ‘revolutionary’ politics.

pw_anarchist_illustrationIf you believe that you have a right to lie, cheat, and steal by way of ‘revolution’, then you are no different from the privileged class who consider it their inherent right to lie, cheat, and steal, via ‘the system’.  Why do white people get robbed by black people?  Because some black people have come to ideologically believe that whites ‘owe them’ for injustices that their great grandparents committed against black people.  So the question is: Who has the greater ‘sense of entitlement’?  The jailor, or the recently released prisoner?

8.  Hypersensitivity over slips of the tongue and ‘micro-aggressions’ makes SJWs look weak and insecure compared to people who have actually been through some real shit.

There is a class of humans living on this Earth who lead tough lives.  We live in the ghetto, we went through a war, we were beat up every day in Junior high, we have been incarcerated, we have experienced long periods of poverty, we have experienced long periods of social alienation, we were abandoned by our families at a younger age than many people, we worked very hard for very little money most of our lives, and yet through all this, we endured.

Then, there are a class of people who get hysterically offended because of a suggestive song on the radio, a violent movie playing in theatres, foul language on television, or something someone said to them, in passing.

Which of these do you think is the more privileged class?  Do you find it ironic that the more-privileged class is calling the less-privileged class ‘over-privileged’, or should this gaslighting be recognized as dangerously misinformative?

9.  Redefining legal concepts such as ‘violence’ to incriminate more people only serves to feed the growing prison-industrial complex, while simultaneously making you look like the ‘Boy who Cried Wolf’, thus undermining legitimate claims of violence.

Recently, a transgender person posted on a mutual friends’ Facebook wall: ‘Using the wrong pronouns to refer to a transgender is an act of violence.’  No, I’m sorry it isn’t.  It might hurt you emotionally, as if someone has not considered your feelings.  It may make you feel frustrated with the ignorance or social negligence of another person.  But it isn’t violence any more than someone cutting you off in traffic with no signal, in fact, it’s less violent than that, because there are no rolling, three-ton steel death-traps involved in a verbal altercation.

And no verbal altercation should be criminal in an emotionally open society that values free speech and social cohesion.  The reality is that we are moving towards a society where it is illegal to be angry, and this has only made people angrier.  Political correctness and emotional repression come at the cost of society, and the only people who benefit are courts and jails.  It’s another example of unrealistic idealism having very real negative consequences, consequences which ultimately make the affected society less ideal.

10.  Abandonment of ‘all-inclusive’ principles has created a class of liberal elitists who tend to be self-cloistered group-thinkers with a strong sense of ‘false consensus’.

groupthinkFalse consensus is often the result of banning dissenters.  In-group/out-group social politics will have you believing the lies of those with whom you are familiar, and mistrusting the truth of those you don’t know. Until your whole community is merely a group of liars who believe eachother’s lies, and reject the perspective of any outsider who is immune to all the groupthink.  Often it only takes one liar to be trusted in order to brainwash an entire community, and a small contingent of coordinated liars are even more dangerous to the credibility of truth.  And the worst part is, these communities tend to trust people based on hypocritical stereotypes such as ‘women never lie’, or even ‘people who cater to my ego by agreeing with my opinions surely wouldn’t lie’.

Gullible fools believe lies because they trust eachother. Those who are the most heavily invested in lies are the angriest when a dissenter tries to speak the truth.  Malevolent shepherds call dissenters ‘paranoid lunatics’ because these social demagogues are insecure about the source of their own social power.


11.  A non-SJW’s bigotry is assumed to be a result of his privilege, while an SJW’s bigotry is assumed to be a result of lack of empowerment.

If I’m not afraid to go anywhere in the city, and you consider some places ‘scary’… Guess what? No matter what kinds of controversial opinions I have expressed, YOU’RE THE BIGOT.  If you are afraid to ride the city bus because you are afraid of rape or robbery, that is bigotry. If you are afraid to go into biker bars because of all the weird heavy metal people there, that is bigotry.

Of course, there are people who will say that I am only unafraid because of ‘white male privilege’. This completely ignores three facts: 1. I have been robbed by random black people in the ghetto. 2. I have been harassed and brutalized by the police. 3. I am just as susceptible to rape as any woman.

So to assume that this whole system is set up to protect me, and that I, with my supposed imperialist military guard, are the reason everyone else is scared, that is stereotypical bigotry.

Take responsibility for your fear, realize it is irrational, and don’t be afraid to go anywhere, no matter what kinds of bad experiences you have had in the past with ‘those kind of people’. That is open-mindedness.  Anyway, I guess the moral of the story is that it’s a shame to let your own prejudice keep you from doing something that you might like if you gave it a chance. There is a firm line between prejudice and simple lack of interest, though.

Conversely, Dylan Roof was probably not an ‘over-privileged white male racist’.  More than likely, Dylan Roof had a very poor education, dysfunctional family, and few meaningful friendships.  So maybe it wasn’t ‘white privilege’ that drove Dylan Roof to his hateful opinions and actions, but intellectual and social malnourishment.