#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
This is why you cannot give them an inch of ground. Ever. They will simply consolidate it and immediately launch their next attack from it. They do not negotiate. They do not compromise. An SJW can no more stop pressing for more social justice than a shark can stop swimming.
CGS wonders if perhaps the Fake News is preventing an even greater incidence of psychological breakdowns among the heavily medicated SJW community:
While browsing the CNN headlines and seeing this line-up of five articles about polls negatively reflecting on Trump, I contemplated the amygdala soothing that this must provide to a substantial portion of the population. If it weren’t for the constant false reminder that they aren’t alone, there is a substantial portion of the population that would find themselves under constant anxiety and tension of realizing just how isolated and fragile their situation really is.
Especially the middle class liberal who isn’t as well protected from the ghetto democrats as the upper class liberals are. If they were ever to realize how many people are indifferent to support of Trump they would realize just how tenuous their situation is stuck between the ghetto and flyover land… and knowing deep down the gates to upper class liberal town would be closed in the event of a civil breakdown.
In a way CNN’s lies are probably providing a tenuous glue keeping the liberal amygdala from meltdown which is indirectly helping maintain the peace we currently have. I know that working in a converged industry, city, and company… that even the slightest hint of disregard for their feelings or even outright support for Trump would be enough to bring the social condition to a standstill. I can’t imagine the amount of “sick leave” that we’d start seeing if CNN started reporting the accurate social shift.
Rabbits are incredibly fragile to feeling outgrouped, which of course is why they always run to that tactic whenever they are attacking us. SJW Law #3: SJWs Always Project. So trigger those fragile, shrunken amygdalas, my friends. TRIGGER THEM.
The Daily Meme Wars are a good place to start if you’re not sure how.
I’m sure this new SJW policy bodes well for science and academia. You know, say what you will about the National Socialists, but at least they had functional science. At this point, the options are rapidly coming down to a) the Alt-Right and indoor plumbing or b) mud huts and 30-year life expectancies.
Academics and scholars must be mindful about using research done by only straight, white men, according to two scientists who argued that it oppresses diverse voices and bolsters the status of already privileged and established white male scholars.
Geographers Carrie Mott and Daniel Cockayne argued in a recent paper that doing so also perpetuates what they call “white heteromasculinism,” which they defined as a “system of oppression” that benefits only those who are “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.” (Cisgendered describes people whose gender identity matches their birth sex.)
Mott, a professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, and Cockayne, who teaches at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, argued that scholars or researchers disproportionately cite the work of white men, thereby unfairly adding credence to the body of knowledge they offer while ignoring the voices of other groups, like women and black male academics. Although citation seems like a mundane practice, the feminist professors argue that citing someone’s work has implications on his or her ability to be hired, get promoted and obtain tenured status, among others….
“Today, the field is more diverse, but this diversity is largely represented by earlier career scholars. Citing only tenured, established scholars means that these voices are ignored, especially when it is well-known that today’s brutally competitive academic job market continues to privilege the white heteromasculinist body,” they wrote.
Actually, forget the Nazis. At this point, I’m beginning to conclude that the Khmer Rouge had the right approach to academia.
In a rare and totally not-at-all expected twist, the Thirteenth Doctor is a gay black woman!
Broadchurch star Jodie Whittaker is to be the first ever woman to play Doctor Who, it has been announced. The identity of the new Doctor was revealed on BBC One and on social media around the world after the Men’s Wimbledon Final today.
She will be the Thirteenth Time Lord and take over from Peter Capaldi who leaves the global hit show at Christmas.
New head writer and executive producer Chris Chibnall who takes over from Steven Moffat on the next series made the decision to cast the first ever woman in the iconic role.
Jodie Whittaker says: ‘I’m beyond excited to begin this epic journey – with Chris and with every Whovian on this planet. It’s more than an honour to play the Doctor. ‘It means remembering everyone I used to be, while stepping forward to embrace everything the Doctor stands for: hope. I can’t wait.’
Chris Chibnall, New Head Writer and Executive Producer said: ‘After months of lists, conversations, auditions, recalls, and a lot of secret-keeping, we’re excited to welcome Jodie Whittaker as the Thirteenth Doctor. I always knew I wanted the Thirteenth Doctor to be a woman and we’re thrilled to have secured our number one choice.
It’s got to be a little difficult to fake much enthusiasm for doing what every other SJW in entertainment has already been doing for the last 10 years. Personally, I look forward to the inevitable reboot when the initial fake audience generated by the SJW attention inevitably drifts away and everyone realizes that the traditional viewership has declined.
Now, personally, I don’t give a damn about Doctor Who. I haven’t watched it since I was in junior high and Tom Baker was the Doctor, and even then I thought it was pretty lame. And the actress is attractive, considerably more attractive than most of the past companions. But that’s all irrelevant, and the casting decision is chiefly noteworthy in that it signifies that absolutely nothing, no matter how classic or beloved, is safe from SJWs. We know we have reached Peak SJW when Heidi is remade, with the blonde Swiss girl played by a gay black transgendered Muslim.
Any organization that does not actively work to keep out SJWs will eventually be converged by them, be it a church or a corporation. The Z-Man understands this, as he summarizes the decline of the mainline Protestant denominations in the USA:
Young people tend not to be attracted to the faith, even if their parents regularly attend services. As people get older, have families and begin to sink roots, they get more involved in their faith and attend services regularly. That’s the trouble with the mainline Protestant religions. The young are not coming back once they start having families. That means their children are not raised in the faith. As a result, these churches are now in a death spiral.
The story is familiar to anyone who has been paying attention. These churches made the decision to chase the latest social fads in the 70’s and 80’s, hoping to make themselves more appealing to the young. The only thing they did was make themselves less attractive to people interested in being part of a traditional Christian sect. It was not just in the pews, but in the clergy as well. Those feeling the call found that the church in which they were raised was not interested in defending and maintaining the faith.
The result is the clergy slowly radicalized. First came the women and then the feminist women. Soon they invited in the homosexuals and the clergy started looking like the faculty of a liberal arts college. That’s when the pews started to empty out. Why bother going to church, when you can get the same liberal lecture from television? That’s what started the decline in church attendance. Instead of offering a shelter from the storm, they decided to chase an over-served market – radical Progressives.
Talking to my friend, he tells me that there are elements within the Episcopal Church that know what must be done to save the church. The trouble is they are outgunned and out maneuvered by the radicals. That’s the thing. The conservatives make it a priority to serve the church and serve God, while the radicals are always scheming to advance the radical agenda. The conservatives are constantly outmaneuvered because they are not playing the political games. They end up getting marginalized, despite having numbers….
It’s another reminder that Progressives must be treated like rage zombies or highly contagious disease carriers. Once you let one into your organization, it will set about bringing in more of its kind.
SJWs always converge. That is their purpose. That is their jihad. People often ask me, “what can I do?” The answer is straightforward: actively work to deconverge every organization to which you belong. If you can’t, then leave it and find another one. And if you can’t find another one, create it yourself.
From our friends at Twitter:
We’ve temporarily limited some of your account features.
Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
What happened?
We have determined that you have violated the Twitter Rules, so we’ve temporarily limited some of your account features. While in this state, you can still browse Twitter, but you’re limited to only sending Direct Messages to your followers — no Tweets, Retweets, or likes. Your account will be restored to full functionality in: 6 days and 20 hours.
I can’t say I’m entirely shocked, considering that I had repeatedly broken my own advice against responding to SJWs on Twitter. Not smart. They complain to the amenable authority, and next thing you know, you’re “temporarily limited” or worse. No worries, though, I’ll simply go back to auto-muting any SJW who tries to “debate” me.
This will have absolutely no effect on the Daily Meme Wars. The mail will go out tomorrow morning as scheduled.
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.
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.
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.
No matter how ridiculous they look. They just can’t help it.
