Tag: SJW

Expel your SJWs

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.

Locked out of Twitter again

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.

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.