Tag: SJW

SJWs always lie (TV edition)

They always lie, even in areas where you didn’t know lying was possible:

If I mistakenly write “NBC Nitely News,” you can probably still tell what program I’m talking about. Nielsen’s automated system can’t, however, and a report Thursday in The Wall Street Journal details how networks are taking advantage of that fact to disguise airings that underperform with viewers.

It’s described as a common practice in the world of TV ratings, where programs with higher ratings can charge advertisers more to run commercials. When an episode performs poorly with viewers, the networks often intentionally misspell the show title in their report to Nielsen, according to the Journal. This fools the system into separating that airing out as a different show and keeping it from affecting the correctly-spelled show’s average overall rating.

The report says the practice was initially used sparingly — for instance, when a broadcast would go up against a major sporting event. But it has now grown fairly common, with NBC misspelling the title of “NBC Nightly News” 14 times since the current TV season began last fall. At one point, that reportedly included an entire week of broadcasts.

Competitors ABC and CBS allegedly followed suit, with ABC reportedly submitting “Wrld News Tonite” on seven occasions over the same time period. CBS reportedly misspelled the name of its evening newscast as “CBS Evening Nws” a total of 12 times. (CBS is the parent company of CNET.)

Translation: the ratings of the failing TV companies are collapsing even faster than the official numbers indicate. So keep in mind that when you’re reading books, playing games or pirating video instead of watching it on TV or at the theatre, you are helping bring down the media enemy.

This is why you don’t hire SJWs

Is anyone – anyone – even remotely surprised that things went badly awry for the company that hired the tranny SJW who was pushing Codes of Conduct on Open Source projects last year?

At first I had my doubts. I was well aware of GitHub’s very problematic past, from its promotion of meritocracy in place of a management system to the horrible treatment and abuse of its female employees and other people from diverse backgrounds. I myself had experienced harassment on GitHub. As an example, a couple of years ago someone created a dozen repositories with racist names and added me to the repos, so my GitHub profile had racial slurs on it until their support team got around to shutting them down a few days after I reported the incident. I didn’t get the sense that the company really cared about harassment.

My contact at GitHub insisted that the company was transforming itself. She pointed to a Business Insider article that described the culture changes that they were going through, and touted the hiring of Nicole Sanchez to an executive position leading a new Social Impact team. I was encouraged to talk to some other prominent activists that had recently been hired. Slowly, I opened my mind to the possibility. Given my work in trying to make open source more inclusive and welcoming, what could give me more influence in creating better communities than working at the very center of the open source universe?

With these thoughts in mind, I agreed to interview with the team. The code challenge was comparable to other places where I’d interviewed, as was the pairing exercise. I was impressed by the social justice tone of some of the questions that I was asked in the non-technical interviews, and by the fact that the majority of people that I met with were women. A week later, I had a very generous offer in hand, which I happily accepted. My team was 5 women and one man: two of us trans, three women of color. We had our own backlog separate from the rest of the engineering group, our own product manager, and strong UX and QC resources. I felt that my new job was off to a promising start.

However, it soon became apparent that this promising start would not last for long. For my first few pull requests, I was getting feedback from literally dozens of engineers (all of whom were male) on other teams, nitpicking the code I had written. One PR actually had over 200 comments from 24 different individuals. It got to the point where the VP of engineering had to intervene to get people to back off. I thought that maybe because I was a well-known Rubyist, other engineers were particularly interested in seeing the kind of code I was writing. So I asked Aaron Patterson, another famous Rubyist who had started at GitHub at the same time as I did, if he was experiencing a lot of scrutiny too. He said he was not.

Shortly after this happened to me, the code review feature was prioritized. This functionality was rolled out internally pretty quickly. From that point on I didn’t get dogpiled anymore, since I could request reviews from specific engineers familiar with the area of the codebase that I was working in and avoid the kind of drive-by code reviews that plagued my initial PRs.

A couple of months later, I finished up a feature that I was very excited about: repository invitations. With repository invitations, no one could add someone else to a repository without their consent. Being invited to contribute to a repository resulted in an email notification, from which the recipient could accept or decline to join and even report and block the inviter.

Feature releases such as these are frequently promoted on the GitHub blog, and the product manager on my team encouraged me to write a post announcing what I had shipped. Since it was so important to me personally, I wrote an impassioned piece talking about how this feature closed a security gap that had directly affected and provided an abuse vector against me. The post also served as an announcement to the world of the new team and the kinds of problems that we were charged with solving.

The post was submitted for editorial review. It was decided that the tone of what I had written was too personal and didn’t reflect the voice of the company. The reviewer insisted that any mention of the abuse vector that this feature was closing be removed….

In speaking up like this, I felt like I was simply doing my job. I was trying to make a positive impact by speaking up for the minority of users who are regularly targeted for abuse. I wasn’t just trying to represent the values of the Community & Safety team, I was trying the represent the values of marginalized communities. I tried my best to make a positive impact. I kept the needs and best interests of the most vulnerable people on our platform at the front of my mind at all times, and prioritized my work according to what would make the biggest difference to this population of users.

SJWs always – always – put themselves and their social justice before the interests of the project, the company, and the community. Like insects, they are always looking for a chance to further infest their surroundings.

Finally in January I got the chance to work on the one feature that I wanted GitHub to have most of all: a tool to make adding a code of conduct to a project easy… The code of conduct adoption feature was launched in May 2017, and was widely praised. It would be my last feature for GitHub.

I’ll bet it was not widely praised within the company, but rather, by SJWs outside both the company and the tech industry. It is never, ever, a good idea to hire SJWs. Even the lesser ones are a serious problem; that’s how Coraline was hired in the first place. Notice that as I warned in SJWAL, the lesser SJW had installed itself in HR and created a locus for infestation called the Social Impact team.

But don’t worry, it has a happy ending. Of sorts.

My overall review was a “Does Not Meet Expectations.” I was shocked and upset. A bad review out of the blue was not something that I had experienced before. I thought I had good rapport with my manager, and that if there was a problem that we would have been addressing it at our weekly meetings. In my mind this was a serious management failure, but there was apparently nothing I could do about it.

The same day that I had this review, I got some devastating personal news. I have bipolar depression and was already in a bad place mentally, so I found myself feeling crushed and hopeless. In an attempt to deal with things I ended up taking a dangerously high dose of my anti-anxiety medication. When I reached out to my therapist for help, she recommended that I go to the emergency room. This was the start of an eight day ordeal involving involuntary commitment to a mental health facility.

SJWs claim a tech scalp

Rest assured, they wanted this one badly:

Travis Kalanick is stepping down from his post as CEO of Uber, effective immediately.

Kalanick’s exit came after a shareholder revolt reportedly made it untenable for him to stay at the company he founded in 2009. Investors called for the change in leadership in a letter that was delivered to Kalanick in Chicago and obtained by Times reporter Mike Isaac.

The news was first reported by the New York Times and later confirmed by TechCrunch.

“I love Uber more than anything in the world and at this difficult moment in my personal life I have accepted the investors request to step aside so that Uber can go back to building rather than be distracted with another fight,” Kalanick said in a statement to the Times.

He will remain on Uber’s board of directors. In a statement to TechCrunch, the board called Kalanick’s decision “a sign of his devotion and love for Uber.”

There is always more to this sort of thing than meets the eye. Any CEO who professes love for The Fountainhead and served on Trump’s advisory council was always going to be an SJW target in Silicon Valley. Watch as Uber will be praised for its newfound professionalism even as it begins to be converged.

Kalanick’s mistake was when he signaled that he was a pushover. The key paragraph:


Kalanick pledged to clean up the company culture in response. He asked former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to lead an inquiry, and got former Huffington Post editor-in-chief (and Uber board member) Arianna Huffington to pitch in.


Once they know you’ll give in to pressure, you will never stop feeling it.

Speaking of Southern Baptists

Lest you mistake from whence their denunciation of the Alt-Right comes:

Southern Baptists have long defended literal approaches to the Bible, but their recent translation of the Good Book might have them switching sides.

Last fall, the publishing arm of the 15-million member Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) released the Christian Standard Bible (CSB). LifeWay Christian Stores, America’s largest Christian retailer, which is owned by the SBC, sells the translation at hundreds of its locations nationwide and touts it as a work of superior scholarship. But patrons are largely unaware that the denomination-approved translation is gender-inclusive.

When several revisions to the popular New International Version (1984) appeared to employ gender-neutral language, for example, Southern Baptists condemned the translation by name and chastised its publishers. A 2011 resolution even instructed LifeWay to cease selling the translation in its stores. (LifeWay has continued to sell the NIV despite the resolution to remove it; the translation remains the most popular among Southern Baptists with a 40 percent share.)

The rationale behind the rebuke was two-fold. First, inclusive translations abolish many gender-specific terms. For example, they may change “father” to “parent,” “son” to “child,” and “man” to “mortal.” And second, these translations added words and phrases not found in ancient manuscripts for the sake of inclusion. A common example is the translation of “brother” as “brother or sister.”…

In response to this perceived menace, the SBC commissioned its own Bible translation, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, which was finalized in 2003. It was intended “to champion the absolute truth of the Bible against social or cultural agendas that would compromise its accuracy.” The translation was well received and the Bible battlefront quieted for more than a decade. But when a revision was released last fall, a number of the same “gender-neutral” elements that the SBC previously condemned were inserted into its own translation.

The CSB now translates the term anthropos, a Greek word for “man,” in a gender-neutral form 151 times, rendering it “human,” “people,” and “ones.” The previous edition had done this on occasion; the new revision adds almost 100 more instances. “Men of Israel” becomes “fellow Israelites;” when discussing Jesus’s incarnation the “likeness of men” becomes “likeness of humanity.” The CSB translates the term adelphoi, a Greek word for “brother” in a gender-neutral form 106 times, often adding “sister.” “Brotherly love” is translated “love as brothers and sisters.”

The gender-neutralizing pattern is also present in its translation of the Old Testament. For instance, where the NIV “gender-neutral” revision uses the term “human” or “humanly” for a masculine term, the CSB concurs with a “human” “humanly” or “human being(s)” 67 times. As the CSB translates the Hebrew term ‘dm (the word for adam), the generic “man, men,” it uses gender-neutral language of “human(s), humanity, human kind, people, person(s)” 242 times. The CSB also uses the term “mortal” or “mere mortal” to replace a masculine term 6 times. Numerous other instances of gender-neutral translations of masculine terminology exist across both testaments.

It appears that the SBC has not only been converged by SJWs, but has switched sides at their behest. This gentleman argues that they haven’t, that they’ve only given into gender-inclusive language to the point it is approved by a group of James Dobson-led evangelicals.

And that’s supposed to be comforting?

Have you no shame, sir!

Once a butthurt gamma, always a butthurt gamma. They can never resist the chance to take a shot at the individual who gave them terminal badfeels.

The rise of the Alt-Right and the decreasing utility of shame is a serious shock to the cucks and virtue-signalers as well as to the SJWs. Don’t fear their disapproval, but to the contrary, court it.

Mailvox: obsessions

BHB wonders why SJWs are always fixated on comparative popularity:

What is with these SJWs and obsession with blog rankings? First Scalzi and now Glyer. The next argument is going to be “the quality of the people who visit my blog are better than yours. The guy at the chinease click farm always calls me sir when I talk to him. No one ever calls me that! I bet your fans never call you sir!”

It’s all a consequence of their need to defend their current Narrative and is an aspect of their discredit-and-disqualify tactic. Comparative site traffic was a weapon that John Scalzi’s fans used to use to try to dismiss the significance of VP back in the 2012-2013 timeframe. They would claim that my criticism was nothing more than envy; “envy” is their standard response they utilize in order to avoid responding substantively to criticism. You see, it doesn’t matter what you say so long as envy causes you to say it.

Of course, once my traffic increased and it came out that Scalzi was exaggerating his traffic by a factor of 5+, they had to switch tactics while maintaining the Narrative. Since their rhetoric is all based on argumentum ad populum, they always need to find a metric, however convoluted, to claim that the numbers are on their side. That is why Donald Trump’s election (and, to a lesser extent, Bernie’s defeat in the Democratic primary) sent them into such disarray; because it is no longer possible for them to pretend that their positions are, in fact, more popular.

I never cared about my site traffic until 2013, when I understood how important it is to the SJWs. Now, of course, I wield it as an effective weapon against them. It absolutely sickens and demoralizes them to know how much bigger the traffic is here than at their own little blogs, or even worse, at the sites of their Narrative directors and role models.

One SJW once posted that the mere fact that I had more than 2,000 Twitter followers made him want to kill himself. I can only imagine how he feels now that I’m closing in on 20,000 on Gab and 30,000 on Twitter.

The corruption is every where

And convergence will come for everyone. Don’t think you or your children will escape the demands for convergence to social justice ideals just because you’re nice people who do so much for the community. John C. Wright’s son learned a hard lesson in Churchian tolerance:

This Sunday the scoutmaster of my sons’ Boy Scout Troop arrived unexpectedly and uninvited on the doorstep of my house, while I was at Mass.

He announced that, due to an anonymous complaint that my youngest son had allegedly made an “anti-Muslim remark” in a private conversation, therefore he and his brother were forthwith expelled from the troop.

To be sure, this was not the only reason given. It was merely the cherry on top. This issue is more complex than the thumbnail I give here, but those nuances are nothing to the point of the example.

When he heard the decree, my son sat on the couch with a look on his face as if he had been shot in the guts.

He had been in this troop for as long as his boyhood memory reaches, has reached the rank of Star and is about to reach Life, and is a patrol leader, or was.

This troop was a big part of our lives. Weekly meetings and monthly hikes and campouts, and yearly camporees have been woven into our schedules since Cub Scouts. The grown ups in the family have spent more hours and weekends lending a hand and helping to sell popcorn than I can calculate. My wife is more active by far than I, and has even earned her Woodbadge, which is an advanced, national leadership program that gobbled up an unfortunate amount of her writing and editing time.

The loyalty and longsuffering support of the Wright family for this troop, which has been a part of all our lives for years, suddenly counted for nothing. We dared speak a word that might offend the Prophet of Submission, peace be upon him. The Blasphemy Laws were breached!

Apparently the decision to expel was made by the pastor of the church sponsoring the troop, even though, technically, it was not his decision to make. I say apparently, because there was no conversation, and no one asked my son for his side of the story….

From my youth up, I have always been phlegmatically indifferent to the opinions of those whose opinions are based on neurotic emotion, because such opinions are without merit. From my point of view, if Tor Books wishes to insult my readers, or World Con voters wish to vote my works under ‘No Award’, their reputations are harmed, not mine. I continue as before.

In such a case, forgiveness is logical and necessary: the hatred harms only the hater, who inner darkness and unreason is exposed to the candid eye of man and angel alike.

But my son is not prepared for betrayal by people, such as Christian pastors, such as his own scoutmaster, whom I taught him to trust, respect and obey.

The world where chaplains will denounce you for being Christian, or Boy Scouts will expel you for being patriotic, is a new world to him.

When a Leftist Christian has to decide between Leftism and the teachings of Christ, he goes Left. When a Leftist Scout has to decide between Leftism and the teachings of Robert Baden Powell, he goes Left. Leftist put Leftism before all other loyalties.

Perhaps the lesson will toughen his spirit.

The lesson may be useful for my friends and readers as well:

The corruption is everywhere. To judge from their acts rather than their words, the corrupt wish not only to cow you into silence, dear reader, they wish to rob your children of innocent happiness.

John may be able to preemptively forgive these people, even though they are unrepentant and have not asked for it. I will not. They are wicked to the bone; they are People of the Lie who call good evil and evil good.

And the young Saxons are learning how to hate them. Which is good, because hatred of the wicked is both a Christian virtue and a Christian duty.

Gamergate: the ride never ends

SJWs in the game industry are trying to enforce their goodthink again, this time on developers.

Hello Raw Fury fans and friends,

Today we revealed The Last Night during the Xbox Press conference and have been overwhelmed with the response we have received. Both good and bad, and we specifically want to draw attention to a few things the creative director has said in the past.

We at Raw Fury believe in equality, believe in feminism, and believe everyone has a right and chance at the equal pursuit of happiness. We would not be working with Tim Soret / Odd Tales at all if we believed they were against these principles in any aspect.

The comments Tim made in 2014 are certainly surprising and don’t fit the person we know, and we hope that everyone reading this who knows us at Raw Fury on a personal and professional level knows that we wouldn’t tolerate working with someone who portrays the caricature of Tim going around the internet right now.

The wording of his statements toward feminism in 2014 was poor, and his buying into GamerGate as a movement on the notion that it represented gamers against journalists was naive, but in the same year he also cheered the rise of women in gaming. In a similar situation as the one happening now, folks on the IdleThumbs forums found questionable tweets and Tim took it upon himself to address them. What came from that was a dialogue where different viewpoints were considered and debated in a purposeful way.

Here is a link to everything including his tweets, his response, and the response of the forum; we hope you’ll take the time to read through it:

Side note: Debating Anita Sarkeesian’s efforts toward highlighting sexism in the games industry is touchy, and though Tim’s post back then was naive we felt that he wasn’t being malicious like so many others have been to Anita in the past, so we share all of this with the hope people can see that first hand. We understand that no matter what there will be people who will not look at Tim the same again and we respect that, too.

A lot can change in three years, including viewpoints, and Tim has assured us that The Last Night does not spout a message steeped in regressive stances. We trust Tim and know that he is an advocate for progression both in and outside of our industry, and we hope that this will be apparent moving forward.

Here we go again….

It’s frustrating, but people encountering an SJW attack for the first time ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS make the same idiotic mistake.

Tim Soret @E3‏ @timsoret  15h15 hours ago
Controversy time. That’s fine. Let’s talk about it, because it’s important.
1 – I completely stand for equality & inclusiveness.

Tim Soret @E3‏ @timsoret  12h12 hours ago
2 – In no way is The Last Night a game against feminism or any form of equality. A lot of things changed for me these last years.

Tim Soret @E3‏ @timsoret
 3 – The fictional setting of the game does challenge techno-social progress as a whole but certainly not trying to promote regressive ideas.