Mother up

Society doesn’t need you getting a degree in Communications or Business or Peruvian Basket-weaving. It doesn’t need you getting a STEM degree or learning to program so you can compete with cheap H1B imports from India. Society doesn’t need you working at a local/state/federal government job in order to feed your four cats. Society doesn’t need you “finding yourself” by jumping on the ALPHA carousel for ten years, then jumping off and trying to stick the landing with BETA in the three-year fertility window you’ve left yourself. Society doesn’t need you trying to prove you’re just as good as a low-performing, ineffectual man. Society needs you to be a) a woman, b) a wife, and c) a mother.

Back in 2004 the never-married rate for 25-29 year old White women was
just under 37%, a number which remained roughly the same from
2002-2005.  Now less than half of all White women in their late 20s have
ever married.

When I first started charting this
the most recent data was from 2009.  At the time, I didn’t see
compelling data backing up the notion that men were on a marriage
strike.  I’m still not convinced
that a “marriage strike” describes what we are seeing, but with five
years of additional data it is obvious that we are undergoing a
significant change in marriage patterns.

That whole shiny secular equalitarian society that the feminists assured you was right around the corner isn’t real; it is less real and less functional than the It’s A Small World ride at Disneyland. You’re not going to be president, you’re not going to be an astronaut, and no one needs you to be a soldier, a fireman, or a policeman.

Your future family needs you to be what you were created to be. A mother. And women know it, or so many of them wouldn’t be zonked out of their greying gourds on psychotropic drugs in order to mask their dissatisfaction living life as ersatz men. The disease known as “women’s rights” is literally killing women.

The math simply doesn’t work. I know it’s hard, Barbie, but run the damn numbers if you don’t believe me. How are 0.75 male college graduates going to marry every female college graduate? Considering that men tend to prefer to marry less educated women, there isn’t even one potential husband for every two of you. And if you think those of us who are married and have children are going to tell our children to support your saggy barren asses in old age, well, think again. The world of equalitarian feminism is a nightmare world for women, a world of loneliness, drugs, deprivation, and solitary death.

It’s time to stop pushing young women into college, stop pushing them into pretending that they’re going to have careers, stop encouraging them to jump on the carousel, and start telling them to mother up.

Yeah, we did

The Special Victims Unit episode on #GamerGate turned out to be a little more awesome and subversive than anyone in #GamerGate was expecting. You can watch the end of it here.


“I’m out!”


“You said if you gave up, they’d win.”


“They already did.”

True. The Ralph Retort has a recap and video clips as well as a download link to the entire episode if you’re interested:

As I said, the other side was mighty pissed. Zoe was whining because the developer ends up quitting at the end. All that bullshit, and this is what pisses her off? I should have know a deceitful tramp like her would take that away from this farce. I’m tempted to think the writing staff was just trolling everyone. That’s how fucking nuts this thing was. 

Of course the show took considerable license, given that it portrayed a woman who isn’t a game developer, or even a gamer, as a game developer. Anita Sarkeesian is an activist con artist and nothing more.

As usual, the left-wing media turns reality on its head. They love to portray female game developers making games for men, when the reality is male game developers cranking out games like Cooking Mama, Candy Crush Saga, and Kim Kardashian Hollywood. Hell, I’m one of the archdevils of #GamerGate and I designed Hot Dish for THQ, which was very popular with women.

Sadly, for the villain, the producers went with Generic Evil Blond Guy rather than anyone readily identifiable as any of the major #GamerGate players. It would have been so much more awesome if he had been a British homosexual with fabulous hair. I can’t believe they didn’t go there. So disappointed.

Will Wheaton endorses Rabid Puppies

It’s been fascinating to see the widespread level of support for Sad Puppies 3 and Rabid Puppies as well as the identities of some of the people who are actively supporting us. I have to confess that considering his anti-GamerGate position, I never expected famous Star Wars actor Will Wheaton to come out and endorse Rabid Puppies for the 2015 Hugo Awards, but then, I didn’t know he was such a massive Larry Correia fan either.

I guess there just might be some truth to the rumor that he’s in the running to play Grant Jefferson in the Monster Hunter International TV show. I have to admit, I was expecting Jefferson to be a little better-looking, and to have more of a chin, but I’m sure Mr. Wheaton is such a good actor that he’ll be able to pull it off convincingly.

Who can explain the mystery?

Isn’t it remarkable that despite the fact that everyone there so values diversity and agrees that it is the most important aspect of education, the San Francisco schools are highly segregated?

Each January, parents across San Francisco rank their preferences for public schools. By June, most get their children into their first choices, and almost three-quarters get one of their choices.

A majority of families may be satisfied with the outcome, but the student assignment system is failing to meet its No. 1 goal, which the San Francisco Unified School District has struggled to achieve since the 1960s: classroom diversity.

Since 2010, the year before the current policy went into effect, the number of San Francisco’s 115 public schools dominated by one race has climbed significantly. Six in 10 have simple majorities of one racial group. In almost one-fourth, 60 percent or more of the students belong to one racial group, which administrators say makes them “racially isolated.” That described 28 schools in 2013–2014, up from 23 in 2010–2011, according to the district.

But the San Francisco Public Press has found the problem may be even more stark: If Asian and Filipino students are counted together — the standard used by the Census — together the number of racially isolated schools in the last school year rose to 39.

The drive toward racial isolation in the district parallels a larger trend in the city: With many wealthier families opting for private alternatives, the public school system is becoming racially and economically isolated from the city as a whole.

Why does it matter whether schools are diverse? One reason is academic performance. Recent studies from Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley, show that many students do much better on tests when placed in integrated classrooms, and that all kids are much less likely to grow up with racial stereotypes and prejudices. Far from being opposed to each other, excellence and diversity go hand in hand.

How did this resegregation of schools happen in a city where almost everyone from district leaders to parents supports the ideal of diversity?

And they’ve got studies show and everything! How did this happen to such a nice group of diversity-loving liberals? It’s almost as if… parents are choosing something other than diversity?

Anti-theist murders Muslims

Isn’t it amazing how often the actual news is contra the atheist narrative? Consider this comment from Brett when the news first broke of the shootings in North Carolina:

“white terrosrist Christian executes three Muslim students in cold blood. I cant help but think he was a fan of voxday…”

Now, Mr. Hicks may be a fan, but it seems unlikely:

A suspected radical atheist is in police custody after allegedly murdering three young Muslims in the North Carolina college town of Chapel Hill, media reports indicate. According to the British newspaper the Independent, the three Muslims, who were all from the same family, were in their home when a 46-year-old man identified by police as Craig Stephen Hicks gunned them down.

That being said, it will not be terribly surprising if Christians in the West are eventually observed killing Muslims. There certainly hasn’t been any shortage of Muslims killing Westerners, both Christian and non-Christian, to say nothing of the Muslim slaughter of Christians in Africa and the Middle East.

Perhaps it was just a parking dispute. Or perhaps it is another step towards the Clash of Civilizations war that so many experts have been expecting for decades.

UPDATE: Apparently Mr. Hicks was not merely an atheist, but an aggressive anti-theist. “Included in his many Facebook ‘likes’ are the Huffington Post, Rachel
Maddow, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Freedom from Religion
Foundation, Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy,’ Neil deGrasse Tyson, Gay
Marriage groups, and a host of anti-conservative/Tea Party pages.”

The very special victim of #GamerGate

They have really dragged out this Sarkeesian thing considerably further than I ever would have imagined. It’s beyond parody at this point.

It’s a long-established tradition for TV shows to draw inspiration from real-life events. NBC’s “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” is no different, and Wednesday, February 11, sees the crime drama series tackle Gamergate in an episode entitled “Intimidation Game.” The plot centers on the online harassment and kidnapping of a game developer, Raina Punjabi, modelled on controversial feminist game critic Anita Sarkeesian.

NBC’s trailer opens with Punjabi discussing the threats she’s received with police. She is set to attend an important game launch but has become the victim of an online harassment campaign. Punjabi insists that she will attend the launch, however, because not only is it a massive international event but also she refuses to give in to online hordes of anonymous, misogynistic trolls. During the conversation, terms like “swatting,” “doxxing,” and “dark net” are referenced, with one detective pointing out that online threats are “not covered by free speech.” The dialogue is embarrassingly clumsy, written for an audience not familiar with Gamergate or the more complex workings of the internet.

This is so ludicrously absurd. What is next, NCIS featuring a three-part episode that involves the murder of a neurotic transvestite who calls himself Brianna Who? An epic fantasy HBO series entitled “The Saga of Yamanamama”?

Anyhow, I hope the bad guys are a team that involves a guy in a wheelchair, a television actor, and a handsome, athletic, forty-something game developer and novelist. That would be amusing.

Mailvox: the anti-Puritans

SJ emails and makes what I consider to be an all-too-common mistake among Christians with regards to the rating system I created upon request yesterday:

Read your post on a Christian Ratings System. As the father of two young boys, there is a lot I like about this. And I laugh at how similar my experiences are with other Christian fathers. But I think it is important to think through one aspect of this sort of effort: Christians have self-selected towards being at the bottom of the food chain, often the victims, in our modern society.

That isn’t necessarily meant as a defense of modern society, other than being a reminder of the reality we live in. Regardless, I am sick and tired of Christians coming up on the short end, and I am concerned that the lesson that our churches and families are teaching our young men. With my own boys, I have taken the tack of raising Christian men in a Fallen and potentially violent world. I see no disparity between Christianity, being strong, and being realistic. In, not of.

Thus, I don’t necessarily argue with the idea of scores per se, but of the thresholds. For example, I am not sure that I wouldn’t let my boys read something more than a 15, and I balk at saying that a book that contains openly atheist characters scores a +3. What about the atheist characters being contrasted with Christian characters? What about setting up an atheist for a religious awakening?

My point is really not to pick nits, or to argue line items, but to try to argue for:

a) a more granular system that allows for more insight into the “Christians” of the book
b) in support of (a) but more tangentially, possibly having categories of scores
c) somehow trying to allow for books and material that encourages a realistic approach to Christianity

It’s really this latter point that makes me write this email because by making such a scoring system seems likely to help the self-same self-selecting Christians to self-select into ever more naive, victim-filled categories. I think this is especially true if the system is more or less linear and additive, as you have suggested. Ultimately, you are on to a great idea here, but it shouldn’t abide by the standards and metrics that a Fallen world has seen fit to place on Christianity. For example, some Christians swear, dammit, and the Song of Solomon is ostensibly about Sex. Perhaps with a little more granularity and possibly with some helpful Categories, this becomes a tool to teach rather than a grading system for my 4th grade Sunday School teacher.

I think we may need a word to describe the modern Christian anti-Puritan, the sort of Christian who fears that somewhere, somehow, there might be another Christian out there who is insufficiently exposed to the world. But is there truly a Christian in the world of 2015 who is insufficiently exposed to the material existence of godlessness, obscenity, sex, and sin? And what shall we call these advocates of being sufficiently engulfed by the world, though not of it? Soilitans? Filthians? Those Who Wallow? Edified Mudrollers?

My more literate response is to quote Aslan: “Child…I am telling your story, not hers. I tell no one any story but his own.”

It is no more SJ’s business to concern himself with how these self-selecting Christians self-select into ever more naive, victim-filled categories than it is for them to determine the precise threshold that will determine what books his young boys are permitted to read. And notice that all of his concerns are about influence and interpretation; he is bothered by the idea of simply permitting other Christians to acquire accurate information about the books and make their own judgments concerning them. In answer to his questions and points:

  1. What about the atheist characters being contrasted with Christian characters?
  2. What about setting up an atheist for a religious awakening?
  3. a more granular system that allows for more insight into the “Christians” of the book
  4. in support of (3) but more tangentially, possibly having categories of scores
  5. somehow trying to allow for books and material that encourages a realistic approach to Christianity 

1. What about them? Whether they are contrasted with Christian characters or not, the either exist in the book or they don’t. Why should parents who don’t want their children to be prematurely exposed to atheism be intentionally kept in the dark from knowing that there is a godless character in a book?

2. What about it? I’d rather like a system that would warn me: LAME AND UTTERLY CONVENTIONAL CONVERSION STORY AHEAD so I could avoid ever reading the book. “And then he became a Christian and lived happily ever after” is not the sort of thing I’m interested in supporting even if that was within the scope of the rating system. Which it isn’t. Regardless of what happens to the atheist over the course of the book, he is still there. How can any Christian rationally oppose parents simply being informed of godlessness in their children’s books?

I am perhaps uniquely qualified to comment on this. Does anyone seriously think I am even remotely afraid of exposing my children to atheist arguments, let alone fictional atheist characters presenting dumbed-down versions of those arguments? I throw Plato and Cicero and William S. Lind at my kids, does anyone seriously doubt that they can chew up arguments presented by the likes of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins without even blinking? At the same time, I’d still like to know that they are being tested in this way when it is taking place.

3. No. That goes well beyond the purpose of the rating system, which is to simply inform parents what is in the book. It doesn’t involve insight into anyone, for any reason. It describes, it doesn’t interpret.

4. The more complicated the system, the less useful it is and the less anyone will use it. Again, this is an attempt to sneak interpretation and influence in through the back door.

5. And who is to define “a realistic approach to Christianity”? I doubt anyone wants me doing that. Here the attempt to influence is overt, which is in absolute contradiction to the intention of the ratings system, which is simply to inform parents of what specific elements are present within works of fiction.

The rating system is a tool for people to use, not a tool for using people. Try to keep that in mind if you’re looking to improve it.

The Lord of Hate engages

This may explain why the pinkshirts are so remarkably shy about engaging with the Evil Legion of Evil:

Dude, please. You’ve got 45 fucking Hugo nominations. Disqualify would be saying your opinion doesn’t count because you are a white male and have privilege. Shit. Looking at that picture you’ve got Santa Privilege.

Instead the fact that one dude has 45 nominations is a pretty damned good indicator that your little pond has gone stagnant. That isn’t disqualification. That is stating the obvious. I said you guys were a tiny little clique, but I didn’t realize it was that inbred. That is something so absurd that when I learned your blog had 28 it blew my mind. It was so ridiculous that when somebody else pointed out that you actually have FORTY FIVE in total, I didn’t believe them. I scoffed at first. Even me, the guy who started this big open public conversation we’re finally having about the Hugos being broken, thought to myself, naw, that’s impossible. There’s no freaking way they’d give some individual 45 nominations and 9 Hugos.

Nope.

So, then when a guy with 45 Hugo noms writes about me, what… What are you up to now? Six? Eight articles about Sad Puppies? And in said articles misconstrues damn near everything, and repeatedly assures his readers, don’t worry, comrades, the system is fine, system is our friend, and only bad people work outside of system… Well, that’s just fishy.

It isn’t disqualification to note that somebody benefiting directly from a broken system might be in favor of said system. In your case it is just extra pathetic and kind of sad. It also explains why you seem to actually believe that I’m driven by a desire to get a trophy. I really don’t want your people’s approval and I truly don’t give a shit about me winning (and don’t worry, if I’m nominated again, I will prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt).

“No wonder you won’t engage”

Engage what? You specifically? Your bullshit is no different than the other narrative bullshit, so I respond to them in mass. Honestly Glyer 45 Hugos, internet arguing is a spectator sport, frankly your 28 Hugo Fanzine doesn’t have enough traffic for me to justify the time responding there (Which is why, I’m going to cut and paste this response over to Facebook when I’m done).

I’m kind of busy engaging the entire SJW internet to spend much time worrying about your bad Shakespeare. But it shows what an interesting selective memory you’ve got there. I’ve written in depth and rather openly about what I’m doing. You write about it and make shit up to explain to your clique what their narrative should be. I’ve repeatedly written since clarifying things, but you just ignore, and make more shit up about what I *really* meant.

And I didn’t bother with your last one, because I don’t think Dogberry was compiling links to actual quotes of his opponents being assholes.

But while I’m thinking about it, here is an interesting thought on “engaging”. Do you realize that in all this time, and all this controversy, not a single one of my opponents has actually taken the time to contact me to speak about this directly? I’ve been contacted by a bunch of people who are secretly on my side, and I’ve been contacted by many moderate fence sitters and people genuinely concerned for the future of the Hugos. But the side opposed to what I’m doing? None. None of the interview places, none of the award winning fanzines, none of the SJW bloggers with their fingers on the pulse of fandom. Zip. Zero. No engagement, just ignore what I actually say and do, and make up bullshit instead.

Now, I’ve talked to Mike Glyer via email and he actually strikes me as being on the saner and more reasonable side of Pink SF. I may not share his taste in authors, but he does a credible job of keeping fandom informed of what is going on in the science fiction world. Nothing wrong with that. He doesn’t have 45 Hugo nominations because he lobbied for them, but because people in fandom liked what he was doing. Unlike the Scalziettes, he clearly recognizes that Brad wants to save the Hugo Awards from themselves and that I could not be any less interested in winning approval from the SF rabbits.

And therein lies the problem. If even the more reasonable and clear-sighted people on the other side, even those among the very few willing to communicate directly with us, are unable to see what we, and a considerable number of science fiction and fantasy readers, very clearly see as a genre-killing cancer at work, then there isn’t any form of rational compromise possible.

Which, of course, may well be the case. If so, time and technology are on our side. It’s not going to be us eradicating them, but rather, the fact that the gatekeepers who formerly enabled them are going out of business. We’ll know the game is over when those who attacked us as vile and so forth come crawling to us, hat in hand, begging for the opportunities that they denied us when they were in power.

Not that it is all about revenge. I’ve never cared about cons and fandom. It’s not my scene. And perhaps that is what many of them hate most about us. We legitimately don’t care what they do, what they think, or what they say.

UPDATE: We have detente! Larry has come out firmly in favor of reading books for which one votes and Mike concurs:

I don’t have to say this but I think he means it. If the rest of the people behind Sad Puppies 3 take his statement to heart, and don’t just treat it as some kind of dogwhistle, they will end up enriching the award’s representation instead of merely doing a hack on it.

How fortunate that everyone supporting Rabid Puppies has read Tom Kratman, Steve Rzasa, and John C. Wright. And anyone who hasn’t, the situation is easily rectified given the links provided.

Desperately seeking the steady state

For some strange reason, some scientists intensely dislike the idea of the universe having a discrete beginning point. I can’t imagine why….

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a “Big Bang” did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity.

Let’s see. The evidence suggests that “the law of physics appear to break down”. That would be non-natural, perhaps one might say, “supernatural”. So obviously, logic and evidence must be ruled out of bounds in favor of math that adds up correctly!

The mere fact that the physicists are “emphasizing” that they are not doing what they are observably doing tends to cast more than a little doubt on their theory. Perhaps the math will hold up, perhaps it won’t. But it won’t surprise me to see this turn out to be about as credible as historical South American temperature data revisions.

Using the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, Ali and
Das derived quantum-corrected Friedmann equations, which describe the
expansion and evolution of universe (including the Big Bang) within the
context of general relativity.

Corrected, revised… we sure seem to see scientists using those words a lot these days.

Of course they folded

The EU has never been anything except one giant bluff coupled with constant appeals to Ragnarok:

Did Europe just fold?

Moments ago Bloomberg blasted a headline which has to be validated by other members of the European Commission as well as Merkel and the other Germans (and may well be refuted, considering this is Europe), which said that:

    COMMISSION TO PROPOSE 6 MONTH EXTENSION FOR GREECE – SOURCES.

So did Greece just win the first round of its stand off with Brussels? It remains to be confirmed, but congratulations to Greece if indeed it caused Merkel and the ECB to fold.

Once Greece leaves, the EU is a walking corpse. So they will do absolutely anything that will be less immediately destructive than a nation leaving the Euro, or more significantly, the EU.