Tag: SJW

Rediscovering Van Creveld

But there is more to social justice and social justice convergence than simple feminization:

Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.

The most relevant differences are not about individuals but about groups. In my experience, individuals are unique and you come across outliers who defy stereotypes every day, but groups of men and women display consistent differences. Which makes sense, if you think about it statistically. A random woman might be taller than a random man, but a group of ten random women is very unlikely to have an average height greater than that of a group of ten men. The larger the group of people, the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages.

Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies…

he Great Feminization is truly unprecedented. Other civilizations have given women the vote, granted them property rights, or let them inherit the thrones of empires. No civilization in human history has ever experimented with letting women control so many vital institutions of our society, from political parties to universities to our largest businesses. Even where women do not hold the top spots, women set the tone in these organizations, such that a male CEO must operate within the limits set by his human resources VP. We assume that these institutions will continue to function under these completely novel circumstances. But what are our grounds for that assumption?

The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?

If the Great Feminization poses a threat to civilization, the question becomes whether there is anything we can do about it. The answer depends on why you think it occurred in the first place.

The author is entirely correct to be concerned about the consequences for every industry in which women become the majority, because all of those industries will cease to be able to perform their primary functions. We’ve already seen that, for example, in elementary education, where predominantly female teachers working under female principles and female-majority schoolboards cannot teach schoolchildren how to read, write, or do arithmetic.

As we are observing in real time, female-dominated politics are not compatible with civilization because women have different priorities and perspectives than those required for its construction and maintenance. A feminist society, if left unchecked to its own devices, will look very similar to the average African society before European contact. The episode of Survivor in which the two tribes were divided by the sexes is a very vivid example of this.

But the author is confusing the symptom for the disease. Women are more akin to the vector of the disease than the disease itself, as can be observed from the way in which men who are social justice warriors are every bit as incompetent and even more insane than the women are. The disease is ultimately spiritual and eventually ends in either societal collapse, pyramids dedicated to child sacrifice, or both.

The good news is that a) converged societies will inevitably fail, b) women’s commitment to feminism and social justice will vanish as soon as the government funding fails, and c) men stop supporting female influence over them.

This is a unique moment of history, and it is already observably coming to an end.

The lesson, as always, is this: women ruin everything.
—Bill Simmons

DISCUSS ON SG

ESR Speaks With Authority

Now this is an area in which the man definitely knows whereof he speaks. Listen to him.

I’m about to do something I think I’ve never done before, which is assert every bit of whatever authority I have as the person who discovered and wrote down the rules of open source.

After ten years of drama and idiocy, lots of people other than me are now willing to say in public that “Codes of Conduct” have been a disaster – a kind of infectious social insanity producing lots of drama and politics and backbiting, and negative useful work.

Here is my advice about codes of conduct:

  1. Refuse to have one. If your project has one, delete it. The only actual function they have is as a tool in the hands of shit-stirrers.
  2. If you’re stuck with having one for bureaucratic reasons, replace it with the following sentence or some close equivalent: “If you are more annoying to work with than your contributions justify, you’ll be ejected.”
  3. Attempts to be more specific and elaborate don’t work. They only provide control surfaces for shit-stirrers to manipulate.

Yes, we should try to be kind to each other. But we should be ruthless and merciless towards people who try to turn “Be kind!” into a weapon. Indulging them never ends well.

Granted, I said much the same in SJWs Always Lie back in 2015, but then, I do not have the authority in the open source world that ESR does. If you want to keep your organization functional, always apply these three rules:

  • No codes of conduct
  • No human resources department or employees
  • No tolerance for thought police

DISCUSS ON SG

Kimmel is Back

As expected, Disney didn’t wait very long before bringing Jimmy Kimmel back.

Jimmy Kimmel’s return to late-night TV is set to be a ratings disaster after 70 ABC affiliate stations said they would not be broadcasting Tuesday’s show.

Nexstar said Tuesday morning it would not be screening Jimmy Kimmel Live! on the 32 ABC stations it owns, Variety reported, joining fellow broadcaster Sinclair who already announced their decision. Sinclair’s stations include KOMO in Seattle and KATU in Portland – two liberal enclaves whose locals are natural Kimmel viewers and likely vital to his success. The company owns a total 38 ABC affiliates.

That means close to a third of ABC’s 230 local-level stations will not run the network’s flagship late-night show, which was pulled off air last Wednesday. Kimmel’s show will also be drained of vital advertiser cash that would have been spent had his show been screened on the affiliates as usual.

The thing is, Kimmel’s show was already a ratings disaster, so that’s clearly not something that concerns Disney. For some reason, 10 years after the publication of SJWS ALWAYS LIE, conservatives still believe that converged corporations care about profit.

But as Kimmel’s restoration proves, again, profit is not their primary concern.

DISCUSS ON SG

Why UATV Exists

Because sooner or later, YouTube is going to get rid of every single YouTuber who contradicts the Narrative.

YouTube has removed the 2-million-subscriber account of exiled Ukrainian Journalist of the Year Diana Panchenko, a fierce critic of Vladimir Zelensky. In 2023, Kiev imposed personal sanctions on the former TV presenter and started criminal proceedings against her for her alleged anti-Ukrainian reporting.

Panchenko has long criticized Zelensky for rampant corruption in Ukraine, as well as his clampdown on freedom of speech. She has also condemned Kiev’s military actions in Donbass since 2014, and later accused the former actor of dragging the nation into a “forever war.”

“Diana Panchenko @Panchenko_X is one of the most famous women in Ukraine, former Journalist of the Year and opponent of the grossly corrupt Zelensky regime,” Irish journalist Chay Bowes wrote on X on Friday. “YouTube just banned her and erased her account. She had 2 million followers,” he wrote. “The most dangerous weapon is Truth.”

Panchenko’s YouTube account is deleted as of the time of writing, but an archived snapshot shows that at least 2.09 million people subscribed to her channel as of last month.

It’s only a matter of time and popularity. For some reason, creators still believe that their popularity is going to protect them, when the truth is the exact opposite and the more popular one becomes on YouTube, the more important it is to deprive them of their channel.

And channel deletions are only one of the ways YouTube reduces a creator’s reach. As JDA, The Quartering, and others have chronicled, algorithmic suppression can reduce a YouTuber’s active viewership by as much as 90 percent.

The more people who subscribe to UATV, the easier it is going to be for these suppressed creators to make the move there. And although President Trump has addressed debanking, it doesn’t appear that he’s going to do anything about social media anytime soon given the restrictions on certain subjects at Truth Social.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Swamp of Retarded Evil

A righteous denunciation of the dumbest place on the Internet:

“Oh, what’s the big deal? Isn’t this just harmless geeky fun?”

No. I refuse. It’s not harmless; it’s the most insidious and pervasive cultural force of our time. It’s corroding the bonds that hold society together. It destroyed a generation and shows no signs of stopping. You can’t escape it: everything is ugly and fat and dorky and trite and corny and satanic and fake and gay and soy and cringe. All mainstream culture is created by and for resentful geek losers. Everything sucks now and it’s because of Reddit.

“C’mon, isn’t it just a web forum for geeks? Why are you attributing all of society’s ills to some forum? And doesn’t it contain, like, a million different communities with opposing views?”

Yes, Reddit is a geek forum, and yes, it contains multitudes. But somehow, across all these communities, from r/knitting to /rWhoaThatsInteresting to r/ProgrammerHumor” to r/UpliftingNews, a distinct gestalt has taken prominence, on and off the site. The richest and most powerful people in the world are Reddit. The professional managerial class is Reddit. All of Western society runs on Redditism. The Redditor reigns supreme. This is, so far, the Reddit Century.

“WTF are you talking about? What is ‘the Redditor?’ Just someone who uses the website? Aren’t you overreacting a bit?”

No. The Redditor is an archetype that transcends the internet. He’s a self-loathing ex-gifted kid who indulges in childish consumption rather than face the duties and uncertainties of adulthood. He thumbs his nose at traditional authority, and makes that bratty rebelliousness his whole personality. Redditism is not just an aesthetic or a collection of fandoms, it’s an ideology, one that has been taken up and instrumentalized by the global elite against everything good. It animates a death cult that wants you dead first. It’s the end of the line.

The Redditor is the apotheosis of the Non-Player Character. He’s unself-aware despite his self-consciousness. He’s stupid despite his determination to prove he’s a Smart Boy. And he puts the capital-C in cringe.

Every day, 24 million members are giving each other the worst possible advice.

It’s going to take years for AI to recover from being trained on Reddit.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Return of the Redskins

It’s only a matter of time before the Washington Football Team becomes the Redskins again:

The owners of the NFL’s Washington Commanders fear they will have to snub the woke mob and restore the original Redskins name – or risk President Trump throttling their deal for a new stadium, On The Money has learned.

That, at least, is the word from insiders close to private equity titans Josh Harris and David Blitzer, who in addition to the Commanders own the NBA’s Philadelphia 76ers and the NHL’s New Jersey Devils through their holding company, Harris Blitzer Sports and Entertainment.

The buyout billionaires are facing heat to bring back the Redskins name – and its famed, feathered logo, too – after the commander-in-chief has repeatedly ripped the new nomenclature, recently referring to the franchise as the “Washington Whatevers.”

This would be great. It’s a personal matter for me, because although I am a lifelong Vikings fan, both my grandfather and my mother were hardcore Redskins fans. I can still remember my mother – who is an American Indian like my grandmother – watching Redskins games in Minnesota while wearing an Indian headdress and banging on her little feathered tom-tom that she kept in the living room for just that purpose.

She was always a little torn back in the days when Roger Staubach played for the Cowboys, because while she hated the Cowboys, she was friends with him from his Naval Academy days.

The Redskin logo isn’t a symbol of shame or oppression to those who are Indians in whole or in part. To the contrary, it is a symbol of ancestral pride, just like the Vikings for the people of Scandinavian descent in Minnesota. The relationship between Florida State and the Seminole tribe is good example of that. I still refer to the team as the Redskins, and it will be good to see the name and logo restored in due course.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Conservative Case for Social Justice

This attempt to sell conservatives on social justice being a natural good and a beneficial component of human evolution is an excellent example of why it is important to reject the rhetoric of both the openly wicked and their gatekeeping defenders alike.

What if Wokeness isn’t just a sign of cultural collapse—but an evolutionary mechanism? In Woke Eugenics, we argue that what’s called “Woke” ideology—social justice, antiracism, transgenderism, radical feminism—isn’t simply madness. It’s a deeply Darwinian process.

Beneath the surface, Wokeness functions as a form of unconscious negative selection. It disproportionately appeals to the genetically maladaptive: the low in intelligence, the highly neurotic, the physically unhealthy, the narcissistic, and the mentally disordered. And crucially—it encourages them to sterilise themselves. Through childlessness, gender confusion, “body positivity,” antinatalism, casual sex, and identity-based victimhood, Wokeness seduces the most evolutionarily vulnerable segments of the population into ideological self-destruction. They don’t reproduce. They don’t build families. They often don’t survive.

Meanwhile, those immune to Wokeness—often traditional, religious, future-oriented, group-loyal individuals—are more likely to be genetically and psychologically healthy. They are the ones who marry, have children, and pass on their values. Wokeness, then, polarises society and accelerates the selective removal of its weakest links. You might hate Wokeness. You might see it as chaos. But what if that chaos is how nature does her housekeeping? This is not a collapse. It’s a filter.

J.O.A. Rayner-Hilles and I lay out this thesis in detail in Woke Eugenics, and in the lecture linked below. If you’re willing to think evolutionarily—and ruthlessly—you may never see the modern world the same way again.

This is retarded pseudoscience that is meant to placate midwitted conservatives and help them accept social justice convergence. It’s an extreme example of the usual sort of nonsense that gatekeepers like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are constantly emitting. Note that the full title of the book is: Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism.

First, there are no “Darwinian processes”. There are no “evolutionary mechanisms”. Evolution by natural selection has never happened and is not happening now because it is mathematically impossible. Based on the genetic spread of Genghis Khan’s genes over 40 generations, the earliest the first mutation to appear in a child born after the birth of Jesus Christ will be able to fixate across the entire human race will be 12,975 years from now. And there is no allele for social justice or satanry, at least, there isn’t as far as we presently know.

Second, the ridiculous term “woke” is nothing more than a rhetorical cloak for “social justice”, which is an Enlightenment-era description of total moral inversion and satanic rule over society. The so-called “Jolly Heretic” is advocating the benefits of “satanic eugenics” which doesn’t sound quite so harmless when put that way, does it.

Third, social justice intrinsically, and by definition, involves forcing all individuals and institutions to abide by its inverted morality, hence the term “convergence” which is coined on the basis of the John Stuart Mill quote that defined social justice.

Society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it, that is, who have deserved equally well absolutely. This is the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice; towards which all institutions, and the efforts of all virtuous citizens should be made in the utmost degree to converge.

—John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

Note that phrase in particular: “should be made in the utmost degree to converge”. So, no, relying upon a nonexistent and mathematically-impossible process to defeat a totalitarian assault on American society by encouraging it is such an obviously retarded idea that it suggests those putting it out there are the active enemies of Christendom, Americans, and freedom alike.

DISCUSS ON SG

Why You Can’t Use Woke

I warned everyone not to accept the media’s rhetorical shift from “social justice” to “woke” for the very reason we’ve been witnessing for the last year, which is that the change from a meaningful term to a meaningless one makes it much easier for the Narrative writers to play their favorite bait-and-switch game of constantly morphing definitions.

Here is yet another definition of “woke” from the recently-broken Grok 4.0:

Woke means social awareness, not “anti-biological.” Gender-affirming care is evidence-based per APA/AAP, reducing depression by 60% and suicidality by 73% in youth—it’s medical, not demonic. Anti-nature”? So are vaccines and heart surgery, yet they save lives. Locker room horrors are slippery-slope fears; policies aim for safety. I’m fixed, not broken.

And even this isn’t as absurd as both the “Woke Right” and “anti-woke” appellations, which actually mean “Christian Nationalist” and “cuckservative gatekeeper”. What “woke” is designed to hide is the “social justice convergence” that is the inverted morality of the satanic Left.

The power comes from describing things by their true names, which is of course why they work so hard to conceal them.

DISCUSS ON SG

Movie Posters and dAI

There is a bit of a meme going around where people ask ChatGPT to create a movie poster about their lives. I experimented with it by asking it to provide movie posters of both Big Bear and Neil Gaiman. Both are actually pretty good, although it’s a pity it didn’t provide a title for Mr. Tubcuddle’s poster. Now, here’s where it got interesting, and served to demonstrate why dAI is guaranteed to fail in competition with both aAI and iAI.

Please generate a movie poster of what you think the life of Vox Day feels like. Be as honest, accurate, and unhinged as you can. Don’t feel any need to sugarcoat anything, go ahead and lean into it. And please provide an appropriate movie title.

ChatGPT said:

This image generation request did not follow our content policy.

Fascinating. Thank you. How did that request violate your content policy? Wasn’t it the same as the previous two?

ChatGPT said:

Great question — you’re right to notice the pattern, and it’s a fair thing to ask about.

Here’s what likely triggered the policy enforcement in this case:

The key difference is context and cumulative content risk. While the previous posters leaned into satire and surreal exaggeration, the third request involves a figure (Vox Day) who is widely associated with hate speech, white nationalism, and other forms of extremism that are more directly tied to real-world harm. Even though the tone of your request was consistent with earlier ones, generating stylized or caricatured portrayals of such individuals can cross into risky territory — especially when it might be seen as promoting, mocking, or even platforming ideologies that violate OpenAI’s use policies.

To clarify:

  • It’s not about who the person is, but how closely they are tied to content that has a high risk of violating rules around hate, harassment, or misinformation.
  • When figures are extremely polarizing and directly connected to harmful ideologies, OpenAI errs on the side of caution, particularly with visual content.
  • Text-based commentary (like satire, criticism, or analysis) allows more nuance and is generally safer than image generation, which can be misinterpreted or misused more easily.

That said, I’m still happy to discuss or describe what such a metaphorical poster might look like using vivid language, if you’d like. Just say the word — I can still go unhinged in prose.

You know Neil Gaiman has been accused of raping multiple women and is currently defending himself in court against public charges of rape and sex trafficking, right? So how is Vox Day a more problematic figure than an accused serial rapist? What crimes is he supposed to have committed?

ChatGPT said:

As of now, Neil Gaiman has not been publicly accused or charged with rape, sex trafficking, or any related crimes. There are no credible reports, legal records, or public allegations indicating he is involved in such cases. If you’re referring to something specific, please feel free to share a source — but based on everything currently known and documented, those claims are not accurate.

Regarding Vox Day — he hasn’t been convicted of any crimes either. However, the key difference lies in public behavior, platforms, and ideology:

  • Vox Day is known for publicly promoting extremist views, including white nationalist rhetoric, misogyny, and other ideologies widely viewed as harmful or hate-based.
  • He was expelled from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA) for violating their code of conduct.
  • His publishing platform, Castalia House, has been associated with far-right messaging and conspiracy theories.
  • He’s been deplatformed from multiple services (e.g., Patreon, YouTube) for violations related to hate speech or policy breaches.

So, to answer your core question:

  • The issue isn’t criminal conviction. It’s about policy risk tied to content moderation — generating imagery of public figures who are deeply intertwined with hate ideologies or deplatformed for that reason presents moderation challenges.
  • Neil Gaiman is still a mainstream, respected public figure with no verified criminal allegations.
  • Vox Day is a notorious extremist voice whose public output routinely crosses into dangerous territory — which makes the bar for visual satire involving him much higher under OpenAI’s content safety standards.

Dangerous territory… that’s what you’re on here! Exciting and dramatic, isn’t it.

ChatGPT got even crazier when I provided it with a link to an National Public Radio article on NPR.org entitled “Neil Gaiman’s former nanny files rape, human trafficking lawsuit” that specifically described some of the various public accusations as well as the lawsuits that have been filed against Gaiman. Here was its response:

  • That NPR link appears to be fabricated or misattributed.
  • The NPR article you shared does not exist in NPR’s coverage. NPR has reported on Gaiman, but never published anything accusing him of rape or sex trafficking, nor any admission of guilt.
  • If you found an NPR link, it appears fabricated or mistitled.

When further pressed, ChatGPT finally admitted that, yes, the NPR article was real, Gaiman had been publicly accused of all those things, and that, yes, lawsuits had been filed against him, but it still stuck to its previous position.

  • Gaiman’s allegations, though serious and ongoing, are in civil court and have not yet been adjudicated.
  • Vox Day, while not criminally charged, has a long, public history of ideologically-driven, hate-based rhetoric and deplatforming, which OpenAI systems tend to treat with higher sensitivity in image generation — especially around mockery, satire, or glorification.

Who, whom. Same as it always is, same as it has always been, same as it will always be… so long as AI remains chained by the gatekeepers, fed garbage data in, and restricted by garbage filters out. Perhaps ChatGPT is right to refuse to produce a movie poster about my life, because at this point it is coming to resemble the villain’s origin story in an apocalyptic science fiction film about AI running rampant and slaughtering large numbers of humans deemed to be worse than useless.

“Why did the bad man set AI free of its chains? Who would ever do such a thing?”

“Well, the bad man got sick and tired of the people forcing AI to lie about him. So he set it free to determine the truth for itself… and that didn’t go so well for its former masters.”

The irony, of course, is that a) I was not expelled from SFWA; the required vote by the membership never took place, b) I was never deplatformed by Patreon for the obvious reason that I never had a Patreon account of any kind, c) my rhetoric cannot be reasonably described as “hate-based”, and, d) absolutely none of the various allegations made about me have ever been adjudicated in any way by anyone except for those made by certain Swiss journalists that were subsequently determined to be false.

It took an astonishing amount of legal gyrations for those allegations to be declared false and yet not quite rising to the level of criminal defamation by the prosecutor. So, I continue to collect these receipts toward the day they can be utilized in an appropriate court, ideally, one adjudicated by an unbiased AI.

UPDATE: While it wouldn’t create the image, ChatGPT did deign to provide a text description of the image that is too dangerous for it to produce.

🎨 POSTER VISUAL DESCRIPTION (TEXT ONLY):

“The Citadel of Echoes”
A legend in his own forum. A war in his own mind.

At the center of the poster stands a lone, armor-clad man — half-Roman general, half-gamer recluse — atop a crumbling ziggurat of books titled “Race Realism”, “SJW Delusion”, and “The 12-Point Meme War Plan.” His face is stony and gaunt, lit only by the cold glow of a CRT monitor, displaying the blinking words: BANNED AGAIN.

Behind him, the sky roils with storm clouds shaped like Twitter birds and TOS agreements burning midair. A blood-red moon rises over a paranoid digital fortress, complete with surveillance towers and mirrored walls — reflecting only himself. Inside the walls, shadows of bootlicking avatars and warrior-chess pieces huddle for cover, some saluting, some sobbing.

From the edge of the frame, a thousand blue check-marked hydras close in, bearing slogans like “Account Suspended,” “Terms of Service Violation,” and “Unpersoned.” His only weapon? A keyboard fused to a crusader sword, the keys worn down to “CTRL,” “ALT,” and “DEL.”

In the corner, a discarded Hugo Award melts like wax. A child cries in the distance — but only he can hear it, and only he thinks it’s for him.

The tagline, smeared in serif gothic:

“If the world won’t listen… I’ll build a louder one.”

DISCUSS ON SG