Thursday, November 30, 2017

Your fetish filter is broken again II (repost from Fetlife)

Continuing where I left off, before I was so rudely interrupted. :)

@Doug58 "@BooksAndSkin I am not entirely sure that you comprehend what I wrote in my earlier post?"

He condescends, and then pretends to not be abusive. Charming.

"No matter, I can do nothing to help with that."

Better and better.

"My last suggestion is likely to keep you from 'stroking out'"

How could anybody with even the faintest bit of social intelligence see this

https://fetlife.com/groups/693/group_posts/11759151#group_comment_108768379

and think that I was in danger of "stroking out"? I'm laughing at this company and the buffoons who spend their lives in this group, kissing its corporate ass. This has become so absurd as to be comedy gold. I mean, seriously - you're on record as arguing that the law forces John to try to keep me from telling people that I fell asleep to "Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun" easily this morning.

"so I will reiterate 'if you are not happy, vote with your feet'".

And I will reiterate that "love it or leave it" isn't much of an argument. As users, we should be able to give reasonable feedback about policies or features that aren't so good or which don't make much sense, without the discussion getting derailed by a gang of ass kissing trolls who will keep repeating the same discredited talking points endlessly, no matter which concern is being raised.

I probably will leave this group sooner than later, because, as one of your fellow trolls has pointed out, it's populated by people who can't fix anything, and because the joke is wearing thin and I'm getting bored. But my departure or non-departure from Fet will not be determined by the repetitive blatherings of a pack of morally challenged halfwits who will go on sucking up to any perceived authority figure they can find, just because they'd go through life being ignored otherwise.

I use the blocking key lavishly for a reason. It ends the sort of game playing we just saw out of your and your playmates, by drawing arguments that would keep going in circles to an earlier end.

-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------

-See earlier thread:

https://fetlife.com/groups/693/group_posts/11759151

And a cowardly moderator locks this one too, doing so anonymously, because that's so much easier than dealing with inconvenient things like facts and logic.

I think I'm done with this group. Nothing of value is ever going to get done in here. Mildly amused by the fact that despite somebody's willingness to abuse his (or her) power with censorious intent, I still got to say everything in here that I wanted to.

The post above was going to be my last one in here, anyway, and I've linked the previosu discussion to it, so it still gets seen. The only people being kept from being heard on it through this anonymous mod's misdeeds are the ass-kissing trollish fanboys serving as voluntary shills for the management.

I love it when lowlifes outwit themselves.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

The Young Turks / Confederate Statue Smashed By Protesters (VIDEO)

At 4:38 I realized that Cenk was defending lawlessness and vandalism and I got tired of listening. As for having monuments to the fallen German soldiers of World War Two, speaking as a Jew, I would have no objection to that. Cenk raised the point, himself and then acted as if he had forgotten it - German soldiers weren't necessarily Nazis. I would want the Germans to mourn and honor the men they lost. For them to do otherwise would be for them to lose a piece of their humanity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wijTmi4rQ2g&lc=z22mj5bxmkvafrf1kacdp431ym3j2lvfirqpmzpbvllw03c010c

Saturday, August 5, 2017

The Young Turks / Are Alternate History Shows Harmful To Society?

+StylesusTNA That's a half truth. When America entered WWII, the front was certainly stalled and true, America was a minor power at the time, only able to make a major difference because the major powers had already bled each other dry. BUT without us in that picture, the War would have ended with German troops well inside of France, and major territorial gains at the expense of the Russian Empire. Without any position of strength to negotiate from, the allies wouldn't have been able to push anything like the treaty of Versailles, so no national humiliation and probably no Nazi rise to power. Adolf Hitler would be known only as a semi-obscure folk artist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0JjlUdhpAA&lc=z22uxrawak3vxt2ktacdp434ol05ttetk0iasj25qm1w03c010c

Friday, July 7, 2017

Post-WW2 Anti-Fascist Educational Film | Don't Be a Sucker | 1947

"+xXMapleVodkaXx That's pseudoscience. The harm done by inbreeding is due to matching deleterious recessive genes. The individual "races" have numbers large enough that mating within one's "race" does not appreciably increase the probability of such a match. Saying that multiracial people are superior to monoracial people is just another form of racism, and supporting that racism shows that you don't even understand basic biology on the high school level."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K6-cEAJZlE&lc=z13ahbeh3lmygbqm323gdhlhkxzqizp1v

That's right. Google's system just engaged in censorship on behalf of racist pseudoscience, and human beings working at Google go on censoring reports of problems with their spam filter. Have I said "stay classy", yet? I ask, because I find myself having cause to say that almost every day with these guys.

This blog might not get posted to much more in the future. Not every ghosted comment of mine has been reposted here, yet, because there are too many of them. I'd estimate that over 50% of my comments, all of them as un-spammish and reasonable as this one, have been blocked from public view by a broken spam filter, the problems with which have been reported since 2013 (if not earlier). Google, to date, has replied in only one way - by, as a fellow victim put it, "covering their backsides." By censoring the problem reports and setting their filter to ghost comments that refer to "ghosting." They haven't been so bold as to take down the videos that raise the issue, not because the people on the staff are too principled to do that, but because they're sneaky little illegitimate children who want to avoid controversy, and so do what they do on the sly, acting while nobody is looking.

As a user, I'm angry about this and I should be. I think I'm done commenting on Youtube videos. There are some discussions I'm still in, so maybe I'll respond to responses I get, but given the high probability that my replies will be censored, mindlessly and pointlessly, I'm not sure I'll bother even doing that. I will say one thing, however, without concern for who I offend by doing so: the Internet needs governmental regulation, harsh, intrusive micromanaging governmental intervention, because the Free Market has failed to produce decent service or even civilized behavior on the part of the providers we are left dealing with.

When free market thinking is taken so far that companies are left free to manipulate public opinion by tampering with the flow of discussion, and by making thoughts disappear from the public dialog, support for the free market has been taken past the point of sanity.

Thursday, June 29, 2017

What Happened At #VidConUS 2017? / Sargon of Akkad

Sargon, at 29:32 I really feel the need to say something. I've been subscribed to you for a while, haven't heard all of your videos (yet), but if I had to describe you in one word, that one word would be "gentleman." I am dismayed by the thought that Patreon would want to distance itself from your content. On what possible basis could they object to it? You are reliably civil and reasonable. I hope that doesn't sound like damnation with faint praise, because those are getting to be rare traits. I'll listen to the rest of your video, but I felt the need to say how astonished I was by the treatment you've received and to praise you for the patience and restraint you've shown in your response to this unprovoked abuse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vyvv7P6Ldo&lc=z13ed1ogepqnzz0b304cedwozqe3gtixga0

Thursday, June 22, 2017

The Reason Why We Can't Live Forever

This was different. The following comment wasn't merely ghosted. The system wouldn't even let me post it. When I clicked the reply button, the box and the button partially faded out and then came back, but nothing posted. Never a dull moment with Google's software, is there? Though, given the number of Indian names on their staff listings, I must admit that I wonder if somebody might have deliberately built a booby trap into the software in case somebody posted a sentence to be found in the quoted would-be comment below, as an act of prior restraint. If, as I say that, I sound like I'm saying that I don't trust the people at Google to wield their power in an honorable manner, that's only because I don't. This was what I would have said, had I not been blocked.

"This is going to sound cold to some, but I'm going to say it anyway. F**k the Third World. I'm tired, very tired of hearing about what we're morally obligated to give up just because they wouldn't exercise a little restraint in reproducing."

in response to a comment that global overpopulation meant that human beings in the West had no right to want to live past 200. This is where my comment would have appeared

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcqMZ98j2Og&lc=z13ez12rnq2gwv0ic04chpxwxz3fwxtqiw00k

and I stand behind that comment, no matter how it might make somebody in Calcutta or Rio feel. Personal responsibility for personal choices isn't just valid at the individual level, it is valid at the civilizational level as well. Demands from India or China (or people living in those lands) that the West make sacrifice after sacrifice so that the people in their own countries be spared the natural consequences of their spiraling population growth are illegitimate, and as the Western countries currently have birth rates below replacement level, arguments that the West is contributing to that problem are laughable.

Monday, June 19, 2017

Why I can't do one night stands (w/Matthew Hussey) / Anna Akana

This is sad. Anna, you are beautiful, charming, funny, articulate, at the very least faiirly intelligent and young - if only you were not perceived as being a gold digger, you'd never have trouble finding a boyfriend. You'd probably have no trouble finding a husband you'd be pleased with. But you had to be materialistic and refuse to see why that is a problem. You can't be selfish in relationships without that selfishness coming back to you.

See: here. That's where the comment should be visible but, not, it isn't, because management just won't admit that something doesn't work.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Trying To Get Yourself “Summer-Ready" / Buzzfeed Violet



"Attention, Anglo-Saxons: the rest of humanity has discovered this thing called "seasoning." When used on food, it makes it more flavorful, with the result that you don't feel the urge to eat quite so much of it, or the need to douse it with sugar or salt as so many of you do (because they are the only two flavoring agents which you seem to feel can be consumed by respectable people) with the result that with many of you it is a race to see whether a heart attack, diabetes or a stroke will take you out, first. You can learn more about this from practically any other culture on the planet, if the people of any of those cultures are still willing to talk to you on this subject, because you've been absolutely insufferable on it for over a century."


See: here. Yes, Google censored this, too, because I guess we're not allowed to say that filling up on large amounts of bad, oversalted, oversweetened food is unhealthy? At least the mindless bot they have doing the ghosting felt so and (of course) no appeal mechanism exists.



Friday, April 14, 2017

NollaGirl504 / New Changes To My Channel, Addressing Trolls / sigma1932

Sigma1932 started his comment with

"In the spirit of reasonable constructive feedback, yeah, I don't doubt there was plenty of anger thrown at you after that Victor Knight situation, but to be fair, you weren't an innocent bystander there due to your reaction. I'd be interested in reading the full discussion if there's more than what he's letting on, but AFAIK you deleted his comments... if not, let me know, I'll take another look for them in the comments on the other video on my own time."

and then more victim blaming nonsense from him followed, to which I tried to reply, only to thwarted by Google, a company which in this case, can be see shielding somebody who was baiting the victim of harassment and death threats from having his nonsense rebutted. This company just gets classier all of the time. My ghosted comment follows:

"Excuse me? There is nothing reasonable about your feedback. I looked up Victor Knight's OWN ACCOUNT of that initial discussion. Even if we take him at his almost certainly worthless word, he got abusive and she got hostile back. There is a world of difference between starting a fight and fighting back; to say otherwise isn't to be constructive, it is to be passive aggressive, as is your suggestion that she unhide the abuse posted by one of your fellow trolls. "How dare you explode after one of my friends baits you" - such typical troll "logic." Victor Knight's version of events can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrXwtjVLmTU "


Linking to where my comment should be visible

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVmOK3th0-s&lc=z12agjvzjqvtdhrrx04cgtkzzqr3gnn4jmg0k

As I keep saying, self-regulation has failed in the case of the Internet. One can't even explain Google's actions in terms of rational (if unprincipled) greed. The staff is being evil, just for the sake of being evil.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

NollaGirl504 / New Changes To My Channel, Addressing Trolls / Reply to Lowspeed01

In response to a comment about the user "Angry MGTOW" in which somebody said

"How this guy has followers at all I'll never know."

I wrote

"As one of the guy's former followers, I can give one answer - curiosity about what was going through this guy's mind. I think I got an answer a few weeks ago when he posted a video in which he asked his audience if he should have sex with another MGTOW called "Turd Flinging Monkey", talking about how he'd like to have TFM lick peanut butter off of his penis, going on with this fantasy for longer than I was willing to listen. Shortly after that he did a video in which he sounded like he was near the point of emotional collapse over the fact that TFM didn't want to talk to him any more."

As usual, I link directly to the portion of the discussion in which my comment should be visible, and as you can see, it has been ghosted. Why? Because Google feels like it, that's why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVmOK3th0-s&lc=z13tw1z4bmf2tzwl123wu3gyaqqasxhls

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Amy Schumer and Amber Rose Go All in on Masturbation Jokes / Nicolas Costas

+Nicholas An adult woman should feel obligated to obey her mere sibling? I've never heard of such a thing, though I have heard of premarital sex happening in Greece, so so much for "slutty" American women. What if a woman turns out to have better judgment than her brother (and I've seen that happen many times)? Should she be forced to go along with his bad decisions, merely because she was born without a penis? That's absurd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cue9frSM6EY&lc=z13kslawxtbnfhdto22twt0ogqnfyzy03

Sunday, April 9, 2017

10 Most Mind-Blowing Discoveries In The Last Year

Planet Nine - this is inaccurate. Batygin and Brown wrote a paper speculating about the existence of a ninth planet, based on the distribution of comets in the solar system (if I recall correctly), but the planet remains (as they said briefly) hypothetical; it has not been found. Anybody doubting this is invited to do a search under "Konstatin Batygin" "Michael Brown" like this one: https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22Konstatin+Batygin%22+%22Michael+Brown%22 - the planet has not yet been found, and there is some doubt as to its existence. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4ccbdNei68&lc=z13qtz5b4kvbyzqel22mj5bxmkvafrf1k

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Can We Talk About Trump? / Just Between Us





Can we talk about Trump? Sure, Gaby, why not? Aside from the fact that you'll block me. :)

So-called "liberals" like you and Allison showered the poor with contempt for years. You did some of that on this channel, and some of us criticized that choice, explained to you why Classism was an offensive display of ignorance, getting nothing but trolling and arrogance in return. We told you that people were going to get angry, really angry about this sort of attitude, but did you or other people like you listen? No. Good little rich kids that you were, you thought you could say or do anything you wanted to, and there would never be any consequences because people like you would always be in control. But there are always consequences.

Does Trump genuinely care about the poor? Probably not, but unlike you two, he at least paid lip service to the notion that somebody should and that's why he won. So many people were so desperate to find a candidate who cared whether or not they had a fair chance at survival that they were blinded to the obvious fact that Trump is a huckster and that hucksters do not keep their promises. If you think things are ugly now, just wait a year or two, when the electorate sees that Trump didn't care about the poor any more than Clinton did. Or you two probably ever will, unless the poor are of the right color or otherwise fashionable. Is some pale skinned straight guy in Missouri starving to death because nobody will hire him, no matter how solid his credentials are? People like you either won't care or worse, will find pleasure in his suffering, and then wonder why they are hated by people like him.

Empathy, Gaby. If you can't cultivate it, at least learn how to fake it and when you manage that, teach Allison, because I don't think you're going to like the alternative. You two claim to be part French. I'm sure you're heard of the Revolution. Push the poor enough and they will push back. If nothing changes, everything will. Leaders far worse than Trump will arise, if the people aren't offered a better alternative, one that they can endure. If the elected thugs fail to produce results, volunteer thugs will always be available. Random violence as a form of guerrilla warfare would be a highly effective choice for an oppressed underclass. The rich don't have the numbers needed to long endure a war of attrition. Sooner or later, the underclass will figure that out, because random violence is a natural, instinct driven response to a thwarted search for justice. Let the rioters discover that the murders they're committing are usually not being solved, and there will be more of them. Blood would end up flowing through the streets, and some of that blood is likely to be your own, either way, whether due to your execution by a thuggish future American government or your death at the hands of somebody who has been maddened by his circumstances.

Is that the future you want? I ask, because it's the future you're helping to make. If the masses start to riot, do you really think you'll be able to escape with as much face recognition as you already have? You'll be lucky to get as far as Long Beach without being caught. I can already picture Allison dangling from a noose, a tear running from her eye, her last thoughts being of Mexico, to which she had hoped you could both flee. As if there would even be any hope for Mexico, if America were to go Fascist. In this scenario, you both fail in your effort to flee to a country doomed to soon be destroyed. That thought makes me sad, not for you two, but for the Mexican people, who deserve far better.

I could add that after that, things get a lot worse, but I'm wondering, am I at all getting through to you? Is there any way to get past that bulletproof attitude of yours? Aside, I mean, from the actual use of a bullet? My three year old niece can understand the notion that her actions have an impact on others. Why, at 28, do you have so much trouble understanding the same thing? You can not act in a way that helps the thugs into power, and then morally separate yourself from the consequences.



See : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGMhdmhAd2A&lc=z12kjtghppujyx34l04cedwozqe3gtixga0





Sunday, February 5, 2017

9 Things Every Woman Secretly Does In Winter / Buzzfeed





Instead of showing you a comment that was ghosted over on Youtube (which is what I'm been doing on this blog), I'm going to show you a few comments of mine that encountered some sort of censorship over on Buzzfeed. I posted them to a poorly conceived article with the current title "9 Things Every Woman Secretly Does In Winter", written by an author not really worth following. In it, a series of unsexy female behaviors is described by somebody who seems to share in the once fashionable view that whatever revolts or annoys men, must somehow help liberate women. I saluted her success in her chosen task, writing


"Thank you. This article should be enough to kill my libido for at least a month."


Some woman whose username I have forgotten then said that the article had done a great service for women everywhere, after which the inevitable brown nosing male poster (somebody calling himself "direwolf") showed up, and shared this


"do you want some ice water for that burn"


to which I replied


"Seriously, you think that qualifies as a burn? Oh, wait … you think if you laugh at all of her jokes, she’ll put out for you? Good luck with that, direpuppy."


before going out to buy a very late breakfast. I got back and gave the woman a response that somebody didn't like.




"Amy, honey, now that I’m back from buying my kefir, let me explain why your joke falls flat. The reason is because this is 2017, not 1991 and I’m an American, not an Englishman. I’m not even of Anglo-Saxon descent, which given that I’m from Chicago, is not very surprising.

I get the impression that England, like Los Angeles, is currently going through what we in Chicago would call the early 90s. Radical separatist feminism is the latest thing, men are hot, horny and frustrated and overly eager to please and women are setting the terms of engagement, unilaterally. But dear, as much as you might want to think it will be, that will not be a sustainable arrangement, and it’s not going to last.

We went through our version of your current cultural era back around 1991. By the time we got to the mid 90s, even the feminists were laughing about that nonsense. It burned out quickly, and by the time one gets to today, one finds women driving around on a summer day catcalling men merely because the latter have their shirts off - on a day when it is 92 degrees Fahrenheit (33 Celsius) with 80% relative humidity. The men aren’t showing off, they just don’t want to swim in their own sweat as they walk along. They wonder where all of those semi-lady-like (if mildly bitchy) women that their fathers met in their youths went, and why the women their own age can’t just take a few cold showers and behave better.

Snide rejection as humor can only work from a position of power, sexual power in this case, and English women never had much. You are widely regarded as being among the ugliest on the planet, even when young, and you’re not noted for how well you age. Even if I were going to fly over to where you were, or you were going to fly here, why would I want an Englishwoman when I live in a country that is right next to Mexico and the rest of Latin America, to which women from all over the world move all of the time? How do I put this even remotely tactfully? It’s as if one woman came to my door, carting in some bouillabaise, ready to offer it to me, another with some freshly made sushi, and there you are, telling me that I can’t have your bangers and mash and not quite seeming to understand that nobody wants them. Not even the Englishmen, who’ve been eating some French girl’s cooking while you haven’t been looking, because England is a very small country and the chunnel isn’t very long. I think your version of the 90s is going to be even briefer than ours was.

American women, as a group, are far more desirable than you, even if one doesn’t count the immigrants, and even they don’t have much in the way of sexual power, any more. In 2017, in Chicago, we have something called “hookup culture” and sex has never been easier for men to come by. Some of us have even had the experience of having women offer to pay us for the service (not that most of us would sink to agreeing to that). I suspect that the affirmative consent laws (which I understand England now has) might have played a role in this, by curtailing the activity of the promiscuous alpha males, but for whatever reason, one now finds a large number of horny women and an equally large number of men who wonder whatever happened to having a relationship first.

That’s why your joke falls flat. It’s dated. It’s set in a world that doesn’t exist any more. By telling it, you help make the English look like the clueless narcissists that almost everybody has long thought them to be. Sorry (not sorry) if the truth hurts."




While I don't doubt that somebody who is going to call himself "Direwolf" and thinks that this is going to make him a badass in the eyes of his fellow dorks (look at his comments) will be a little thirsty, American men generally aren't. Is this woman or that woman unavailable? Who cares? There are plenty more, as indeed, there always were (for us). As for older men who had a rough time dating a generation ago, I'm not dismissing their experiences, I'm just saying that we haven't had to share them.

In the comment above(which no longer appears on that no effort excuse for an article), I refer to the unsustainability of the arrangement that the radical feminists wanted. There are a few very simple reasons why it couldn't be sustained, one of them being that if one has to give up one's self respect in order to have a relationship, because one's mate is treating one poorly, what one is getting isn't love. What one is getting is a sort of business relationship on terms which the men, themselves, could see served them poorly. If the choice was between that sort of relationship or none at all, the prudent man would choose to live in peace and solitude. But no such choice needed to be made.

As a matter of simple demographic reality, women outnumber men. They have done so for a very long time, and most of the time, they start doing so at a relatively young age, which has made a current female fad as amusing as it is: the phantom boyfriend. Some of us keep running into women who will swear that they have boyfriends that nobody ever sees. Nobody is fooled by this, least of all those of us who don't keep hearing it, because unlike so many of the men around us, we have interests other than videogames and sex. That helps, as does not having a dadbod. Bathing more than once a week - that's a good thing. I keep running into men who don't do that, look like prime candidate for diabetes and then wonder why the women they meet all seem to have boyfriends. Times have, indeed, changed. Men used to make much more of an effort than that, perhaps because they thought that the women were worth it. Some of us still do, without concerning ourselves with the question of whether or not the women are worth it, knowing that if all else fails, we're worth it. Self-respect begins with self-care. We improve ourselves, for our own sakes, and notice that women will often respond positively to that.

But, while times have changed, they haven't changed entirely. Like our fathers did before us, we've encountered narcissistic women whose expectations are in no way based on reality. High school dropouts who expect to get college professors, flat chested girls who think they can get body builders, women who think that all of their fantasies will come true because *vagina*. This won't happen, because the pool of body-building Nobel laureates with model looks (and six figure salaries) in limited, but these girls will dream on, speaking of their own "empowerment" when they really should be thinking about their own childishness.

The rise of the Web (and fall of educational standards) has inspired some to try to salvage their position, as if the now perpetually single women of an earlier generation weren't there to warn them of where such unrealistic expectations shall lead. They will do a search for the statistics regarding gender ratios by age, find them, link to them and (absurdly) say that yes, it is possible for almost all the women their age to boyfriends (their age) while most of the men their age do not have girlfriends, despite the fact that each woman who has a boyfriend has taken at least one man out of circulation, because see! see! there are more single men than single women, going into our ... is it 30s, now? Showing, as they do this, why, when I would grade papers in Probability and Statistics, why I would give out as many failing grades as I did. To simply cite a number without asking where it comes from or what it represents is atrocious methodology.

Even if we take the statistic at face value, without further examination (carrying out the most naïve sort of analysis), one is left with the reality that the male lead in numbers relatively speaking, is fairly slight and couldn't possibly allow for a gross mis-match in the number of men and women paired up. But there is a more interesting problem that can be seen if one follows the figures a few decades back. One finds that before the current (heavily male) wave of migration from Latin America (much of it illegal), women would surpass men in numbers in the population, not in their 30s but in their 20s, those figures skewing in the direction of being male dominated after amnesty for illegals was declared under Reagan, toward the end of his time in office. This means that the argument offered those who wish to pretend that the phantom boyfriends are all real, and want us all to overlook the fact that the arithmetic for that won't work out, boils down to the following rhetorical question.


"How do you know that the young female professional whose boyfriend has never been seen isn't out dating Manuel, the migrant fruit picker?"


to which my immediate response is


"Am I really expected to keep a straight face through that?"


but, fine, let's treat that one as if it were a real question. While I suppose that would explain why we're not seeing her boyfriend (he doesn't want to run into the INS), I'd say that there's a lot to be said for dating "Manuel." I can totally see why a woman would want to. Braving (and surviving) a dangerous desert crossing in order to work long hours just to send money back and support his loved ones - there's something very heroic and noble about that. To Hell with Donald Trump, Mexico is sending us a lot of its best people, who are now living in miserable shacks, fighting off the bugs because their employers don't want to spend money on screens for their windows. If that young White professional woman were flying down each weekend, taking long taxi rides in order to have what moments she could in Manuel's hovel, I'd think more highly of her values, because even if society doesn't value these guys, we should, and let's face it - if anybody has any claim to being superior, it's the person who has endured a harder life. That would be "Manuel", whose Latin good looks probably wouldn't hurt.

But I think we all know that's not happening very often. Even the least materialistic of American women are not seeking out these guys and the hardships that would come with dating and marrying them. But even if they were, they probably wouldn't get very far, because "Manuel", our hypothetical typical Mexican / Mexican-American migrant (and beneficiary of amnesty, if one can call the life he's living a benefit) isn't just a great guy, he's a nice Catholic boy from a culture in which people tend to marry young. He's got a girl (probably his wife) back in Chiapas. She's one of the reasons he works so hard. He sends her money so she won't starve. (In case this isn't coming through, I really hate Trump). Though life will be filled with temptations, "Manuel" comes from a culture in which people still believe in their religion and their values, and he will show a level of self-control that the supposedly more sophisticated ladies and gentlemen of the Anglosphere will usually fail to understand. He could cheat on his wife without her knowing, but he won't, because he'd know and (of course), G-d would know. In even bothering to say that, we say far more about ourselves than we do about him, because our point of view is the one that needs explaining, not his.

That being the case, the figures tell us something less than the whole story. A wave of unavailable young men entering the country under unstable circumstances represents no great increase in romantic (or sexual) opportunities for the young women here. The figures from before the amnesty tell us more about the demographics of the pool of prospective dates from which they actually draw, and these demographics do not favor them for very long into adulthood. While one still meets the young woman who, though she is a "5" (of average desirability) thinks that to date and marry a "10" is her birthright, realistically, she probably can't even get another 5 for anything that will last for very long. Maybe she can get a 4.7 (if one wishes to treat such measures as if they could be precise). Unless she is lucky, she's going to have to do a lot of settling.

The degree to which this is not a surprise for women (even young women) in Chicago can be gauged by walking into a pickup bar (not to partake, just to observe), and taking a good look at the guys and the women around them. I find myself feeling sorry for the women because, indeed, so many of us don't try. So, where did these remaining dreamers get the idea that they would find their prince charmings? Probably because of a dating pattern that was seen in years past. There were these creatures called "alpha males." Having encountered them, later in their still (usually unmarried) lives,I didn't find them to be very bright, but then I'm a PhD student in Mathematics, so maybe my standards in that area can be a little harsh. They're definitely usually not very nice, but I could see that (as an uncle of mine said once) in their day, they would have had "the body of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the looks of Tom Cruise and the spending power of" ... but I don't want to use that name for a second time in the same post.

These guys (under some measures) would be 10s, and they'd capitalize on that, keeping "harems" of women who would date only them, while they would feel free to date around. This double standard would allow women of modest charms to have "boyfriends" who were 10s (and ignore men who weren't), because the boyfriends were shared. When they got tired of this and decided that they wanted families and children, if they were realistic enough to know that the alphas weren't going to be providing them with either, they'd find one of the men at whom they'd turned up their noses in the past, thinking that now that they were ready for marriage, that this somehow obligated the men of their choice to be ready, as well. The men were not always so convinced of this. Chicago, as a number of us have observed, has a great many crazy, lonely cat ladies in their 40s and 50s.

What the earlier dating pattern had created was an artificial shortage of women. This could not be sustained. As that generation aged, it encountered a reality that has been joked about for a long time - the fading of the male libido during a man's 30s (and the strengthening of the female libido); as anybody who has ever dated older women as a young man knows, the late 30-something female sex drive is a thing to behold in awe (and maybe with a little fear). The alphas just weren't going to be able to put out that often. Viagra hadn't even been invented, yet, for most of the 90s, and who is the young (or younger) man who wants to take that stuff, anyway? But then, some years later, the whole thing became a moot point, because the affirmative consent laws showed up. Sexual activity became legally dangerous for men, and the earlier dating pattern could no longer be sustained by any man who wasn't an idiot.

The radical, man bashing feminism of the 90s had carried within it the seeds of its own destruction. It had taken hold during that time of the artificial shortage of women, because thinking that men were a dime a dozen made the women of that era feel more comfortable with the idea of treating those men in an arrogant manner, thinking that they have no personal price to pay for making that choice. The radical feminists gained supporters, they gained power and in Illinois, as I understand, they pushed through legislation that took the "Antioch College rule book" and gave it the force of law, criminal law. For those who haven't heard of Antioch College, it had a set of rules governing dating and sex among its students, under which each and every action had to be verbally agreed to, before one could continue.




eg. "May I kiss you?"

"Yes"

"May I nibble you earlobe?"

"Yes"

"May I take your blouse off?"

"Yes"

"May I take off your bra?"

"Yes"

"May I touch your left nipple?"

"Yes." "May I stroke your right nipple?" "Yes."




Like this, all throughout a creepy sexual encounter that would be left with no spontaneity. Who is the woman who would be aroused by this? Or who would not run screaming from it? At Antioch College, students could be expelled for not doing this thing is that was guaranteed to kill the mood, Puritanism having effectively been written, right into the school rulebook. In Illinois (and anywhere else in which Affirmative Consent has become law), one can not merely be expelled, one can be sent to prison on a charge of rape, there to stay for 20 years or so, and probably really be raped, oneself, repeatedly.

People from elsewhere will ask "so, really, you guys do that." The answer is "no, we don't." Our legislature (as usual) was being insane, and nobody but law enforcement and the courts have taken them seriously. But there is still that reality that in principle, after normal, uninterrupted sex, that one's partner could have one put in prison, and that fact makes sex risky for a man. That was the idea. Radical feminism was (and is) an anti-male hate movement, masquerading as a fight for equality, and this is something that in principle, allows a woman to destroy a man's life. The reason the movement failed was because, being manned as it was by emotionally stunted and morally depraved people as it was, its supporters didn't understand the concept of trust.

For most of us, the solution to the problem is an easy one. Since sex is a dangerous activity for legal reasons, many of us will hold off on it until we've developed a relationship of trust with our partners. We want to know them intimately, and not just on a physical level. We insist on knowing them so well, that we know that they would never betray us by misusing the power that the law has handed them. What this rules out is the option of rushing into sex, but aside from the (cough, cough) "loveboys" on Tinder, few of us wanted that option, anyway. We like the idea of taking our time, of our sexual encounters meaning something and of giving us and those we are with something more satisying than just a tingling sensation and a slightly elevated risk of venereal disease.

But this kills the alpha male lifestyle. While a typical man, having one woman in whom he is deeply interested, only has to get to know one woman before sex takes place, if our latter day alpha male wants to live as his predecessors did, he's going to have to get to know dozens (or maybe, in some cases, hundreds or even thousands) of women on a deep level, in short order. An aggressive bedhopper just hasn't the time to allocate to his sexual conquests to screen out the women who are going to be trouble, so in legal terms, he is playing Russian Roulette, rapidly and frequently. This is not wise, and sooner or later, no matter how many hits to the head he took on the football field in the past, our alpha male will figure that out. While promiscuous men will always be with us, they aren't as numerous as they once were (at least they don't seem to be), and that's not really surprising. By the time one gets to our era, in Chicago (and other major American cities) the very idea of a single man having a harem arouses incredulity among those under a certain age. The women will wonder why the women of that era were so unassertive as to tolerate such a double standard in dating, leaving their aunts sputtering.

It is awkward, is it not? Without the harems and the artificial shortage of women, radical feminism dies swiftly, because it gets its power from a perception of female sexual power and male sexual neediness, but the harems themselves exist in direct conflict with the standards any sort of feminism supposedly upholds. There is nothing equal about the standards to which the harem holder and the woman in the harem are being held. The privileged man enjoys freedoms which the women do not. All that the maiden aunts can do is sputter, as they try to deny that the movement to which they devoted (and on which they wasted) so much of their youth was one from which the hypocrisy could not have been removed, because the movement couldn't grow or even be maintained without it. Without those thirsty, desperate men running around in great numbers, all radical feminism could do was shrink and shrink until it became so small and so insignificant, that those just coming of age could be heard doubting that it had ever existed. That's as close to death as a cultural movement can come. It's not something that British or Australian radical feminists are going to want to think about, because when they look at our bitter, crazy cat ladies and the dead movements that are greeted, first with disbelief and then with derisive laughter, they start to see their own futures, futures they want to pretend aren't real.

They want to pretend that America, the land of Donald Trump, is lagging their own homelands culturally, but in reality it's just further down the road on which their countries are probably headed. People like "Amy" can abuse the flagging and women like Becky Barnicoat can censor comments and go into denial all the want, and the truth will not change one bit. Radical feminism, with its sense of female entitlement and unacknowledged (and yet angrily demanded) male subservience is an unsustainable dead end. The Culture Wars of which a previous generation spoke are ending, and are going to end without society being molded according to the fantasies of our activists, whether we like it or not. As progressives, we can distance ourselves from the social justice warriors and their mania, and craft a new brand of progressive politics, one that has something to offer all decent people because it respects the dignity of all deserving individuals and not just the privileged and fashionable few, or we can end up being as irrelevant as they have come to be seen almost everywhere outside of the Internet, and a few remaining, vanishing parts of the default world offline, while Trump and those like him consolidate their power, because their only opposition has come to be seen as a joke. Either way, it's our choice and our responsibility.





Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Why Do People Still Deny The Holocaust?





Nice try. Tell me, were our parents and grandparents also all in on the conspiracy? They will mention having run into far more than a few survivors, so just how much money did this alleged slush fund for victim bribing have in it? :)

In case you have forgotten, it is now 2017 and the Holocaust ended over 71 years ago. In real life, sad to say, people do get older and die, so one wouldn't expect to find a lot of survivors at this point, and I think you know that.

No, as a non-historian, I'm not going to drop everything to go investigate every fringe theory that comes by, for the same reason that as non-mathematicians, the historians don't drop everything to debunk the claims of the circle squarers and their ilk. Since I'm not trained in the field, I'm not qualified to do research in it, but even if I was, having dealt with cranks in my own subjects, I know what to expect.

You will advance one weak argument after another, and when the last has been knocked down, you'll just go back to the first, trying to "win" just by getting the last word. Anybody who has been online long enough (as in, for more than a week) has seen this game getting played. I've got better things to do with my time than to deal with that.



Note: After I posted the above comment and found that it had been ghosted, I posted this:

"+Josh E Want to hear something funny? I have to give up, because my replies are now getting ghosted. Again."

and found that it, too, had been ghosted. Isn't that hilarious? Whether it is doing so through malfunction or by design, Google is censoring a Jewish poster (that would be me) as he tries to reply to an anti-Semitic hatemonger. Isn't that awesome?



See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv1QJ_yXzg8&google_comment_id=z133wjyrklzcynipp04ccluzqmvwdtxptjc



"When People Think You’re Intimidating" / My Reply to Anj Clifford





What follows is a problem report I posted after a comment I posted to a Youtube video was ghosted without justification. This means that my comment was visible only to me. I was able to confirm this by viewing the discussion in another browser, one in which I was not logged into Google.


(my report begins)


Let me show you the latest comment of mine to have been ghosted. Go to this discussion


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTk6OzlqZ_U&google_comment_id=z12msh1qdpjchnltm23vvd2ipnfxdn3ct


I initially posted this


"'Definitely not working up nerve to talk, just staring.'

Bleh. Sounds awful.

'You'd find it annoying as hell too if you could feel someone's eyes on you all the time.'

I do actually find that annoying. So, unwavering stare, like a wolf watching a rabbit?"




and on checking to see how the discussion looked when I was logged out about two seconds later, found that this perfectly, non-spam comment had been blocked from public view. I tried to guess what Google's poorly coded spam filter had mistaken for spam, tried deleting my comment and posting a shortened version of the above. No go. Still ghosted. Finally, I tried deleting my comment, and posting without an included quote, which I really shouldn't have to do because this makes the discussion more difficult to follow, but like the other users, I have to deal with the narcissistic uncaringly incompetent jerks who work at Google. I posted this question




"An unwavering stare, then, like a predator ready to pounce?"




and that got ghosted, too, so the only response the person with whom I was trying to have a conversation can see from me is this apologetic remark




"Hi. I'm not ignoring you, but when I posted my reply, it was hidden from public view by Google's infamous spam filter. "




telling her the honest but bizarre truth - I tried to post a civil reply, and found that my attempt to do so was sabotaged by Google. I might add, as far as I can tell, the company is doing this just for giggles. Problems with the spam filter have been reported at least since 2013, and Google's only response to the problem reports has been to have some of its volunteer shills troll people reporting the problem, and then ban at least some of the people with the problem reports from the Youtube help forum, after deleting their problem reports, I guess because trolling and censorship are easier than fixing bad code. Or, and this would be my guess. because the staff is having fun being outrageous.




I am really learning to hate this company. Not merely dislike, hate, as in I wish ill upon the company and those who work for it. There should always be a price to be paid for this kind of arrogance.




(end of report)






I posted my problem to this thread in so-called Youtube help forum https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/ud2K7lI5xg8 where one can find plenty of other people reporting the same problem. Users have been reporting it for at least three years, without Google so much as acknowledging that the problem has been reported, much less that it exists. No movement from the company has been seen. Given how little regard the company obviously has for freedom of expression, I will be mirroring this blog on another host in the near future.