Tag: trainwreck

MRAs against marital rape

David King writes an embarrassingly bad article in an attempt to bring the men’s rights position on marital rape in line with the feminist one.

The core thesis of Talukdar’s article is that the notion of marital rape is a contradiction in terms on the ground that marriage is irrevocable, explicit and on-going consent to sex. I disagree and, further, I think that this position is incompatible with the values and moral basis of the Men’s Human Rights Movement….

Since frequently arguments of this nature revolve around the meanings of
words I will spell out what I understand these core concepts to be and
the meaning with which I use these core words, just like a contract
would.

And there is the first sign that he’s going to get it completely wrong. He’s presenting a legal argument on the basis of what HE understands the core concepts to be and HIS definition of the core words. At this point, we already know he’s going to get it wrong, the only question is how.

Western definitions of marriage include provisions for alimony and division of marital assets after divorce, but I’m not aware that there is (now) any explicit obligation to provide for maintenance during marriage (the assumption being that, in cohabitation and in providing for himself, he provides for his wife also).

He already blew it. He’s ignoring the fact that a husband is legally obligated for his wife’s debts, legally obligated to pay support for her children, and more importantly, the fact that the obligation precedes the very existence of the written law.

“The husband’s duty to support his wife (and, under later common law decisions, his children also), and the wife’s duty to render services to her husband (and a less clearly defined duty to render services to her children), are two of the most ancient concepts of the common law.”
– Virginia Law Review, 1943

There is actually  LESS question concerning a man’s duty to provide for maintence during marriage than there is concerning a wife’s duty to provide for her children.

So, we have an explicit law that criminalises rape and, to my knowledge (though I am no legal scholar), there is no explicit legal obligation, by either spouse, to submit to sexual intercourse — at least, not in any western jurisdiction I know of. Whether there is such an explicit provision in Indian law, I cannot say. On the face of it, therefore, the law requires that, even within marriage, sex requires consent from both spouses or it is a crime.

 This is ridiculous, because without consummation, the marriage isn’t even completed. The focus on “explicit legal obligation” indicates the problem, David King thinks that the law is limited to “black letter law”, which is simply not the case. Both the common law and case law are not only relevant, in most cases they trump black letter law, which is the reason the various courts are able to throw out black letter law and declare it to be invalid.

It should be noted that Historia Placitorum Coronæ (the original
title of Hale’s treatise) is a chronicle, a contemporary description of
facts and events as they were understood at the time; such works were
and are not law and have no judicial authority (then or now), and can be
nothing more than of historical interest.

It should also be noted that Historia was written in 1736, and that both the law and social mores change over time. Once, slavery was lawful and only landed people (which included women, by the way) had the right to vote. If defences of such law offered before slavery was abolished have no moral relevance in the 21st Century, then Hale’s nearly 280-year-old interpretation of marital consent is of questionable relevance today.

First, King fails to grasp that the intrepretation is not Hale’s. He is merely repeating the “the position of the common law, which is that a husband cannot be guilty of the rape of his wife because
the wife “hath given up herself in this kind to her husband, which she
cannot retract”” What King is ignoring is that this is not only settled law, it has been settled law for considerably more than three centuries.

The depths of absurdity to which the denial of marital consent takes King is finally revealed towards the end of his article, where he inadvertently reveals that denying marital consent is tantamount to denying marriage altogether.

There’s something to that, insofaras Talukdar quite reasonably questions what rights the man has in return for the obligation to support and maintain his wife. But, the point could equally be used to argue for abolition of the man’s obligation to maintain his wife as much as to argue that his wife owes him sex in exchange for that obligation.

 In other words, marriage neither grants a right of support to the wife nor a right of services to the husband. Which, one can only wonder, raises the obvious question of why any man or any woman would get married in the first place, if they literally get nothing out of it?

The fact of the matter is perfectly plain. Marriage grants sexual consent, which is precisely why nearly 100 percent of all couples regularly have sex without either party ever granting verbal or written consent to the other. In his desire to play the legal white knight, David King has managed to transform what he claims are the “values and moral basis” of men’s rights into something all but indistinguishable from the Neo-Dworkinian position that all sex is rape.

This is one of the many reasons I am not a Men’s Rights Activist. With friends like these, enemies are superfluous.

The refutation of Freud

In case you weren’t convinced that psychology is a pseudoscience, this should do the trick:

Let me be perfectly clear: Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen (who really seems to more or less have tagged along on Larry’s coattails) are not in the same league as Theodore Beale. Larry and Brad are frightened, well fed little puppies sitting on top of a large pile of meaty bones and snarling because there are one or two they can’t have, and feeling justified in their fear because some skinny kittens have managed to slip away with a few of the bones and gnaw on them in peace.

Theodore Beale, on the other hand, is Cerberus sitting on top of the bone pile breathing fire and wreaking mayhem for the joy and the attention of upsetting everyone, puppies and kitties alike. I’ve been searching for ten years now and have not found a single redeeming characteristic in Beale. He’s a vile person with vile opinions, and he’s an absolutely atrocious writer. If it weren’t for the fact that he was raised with money and privilege, he would almost certainly be serving twenty to life somewhere, because he either acted on or got caught acting on his beliefs. He is someone outside the scope of psychotherapy. If you were to ask him, he would tell you there is nothing wrong with him, he’s just fine the way he is – and that is why he is outside the scope of therapy.

He doesn’t need to be saved, society needs to be protected from him – and then maybe someone (not me) can work on saving him. And I speak as someone who works with violent people, entitled people, people who abuse, on a regular basis. If he were free to act on his impulses with impunity, people would suffer. I can only be grateful he’s not particularly impulsive.

Right now, it serves Theodore Beale very well to borrow the Sad Puppy meme and create his own offshoot, the Rabid Puppies. He is getting attention and hate, and he thrives on that. It’s what he lives for. For now, while they serve his purposes, he is keeping the Sad Puppies protected from his fire – until they no longer serve his purposes.

And I suspect Correia and Torgersen know it. They are very careful to walk the line between distancing themselves from him and not distancing themselves too much. They have only recently acknowledged that it wasn’t the Sad Puppy slate that swept the Hugo nominations this year, it was the Rabid Puppy slate. They haven’t admitted (at least publicly) that it was Beale’s invitation of Gamergaters – people who are perfectly willing to commit illegal acts including doxxing and making rape and murder threats (and in at least one case, an attempt) – to exclude specifically women, and specifically minority women, from their own particular fandom (video games).

And yet (Correia and Torgersen claim) it is not about sexism. It is not about racism. It is about fighting against ideological purity. To borrow a meme, it is about ethics in gamer journalism.

Here’s the final, worst piece of all of this. By now, the Sad Puppies have realized what they have unleashed. They realize (at least privately) that they overreacted, that they were the bad actors against an opponent that only existed in their heads – but they can never publicly admit it, not without having the hell hound they unleashed turn on them. If they distance themselves from Beale too much, they risk being slapped by the same forces that they opened the door to theHugosfor. They might be subject to doxxing and threats and actions. They will have Beale’s venom spewed over them.

Yeah, somehow I doubt Larry and Brad are shaking in their boots that I am going to attack them. I know the SJWs would love it if I would do so. But that’s not going to happen. I didn’t fall for the divide-and-conquer tactics when they tried to get me to disavow Roosh and Roissy, and I’m not about to fall for it now.

You don’t need to be best friends to be allies. You only need to be shooting in the same direction. The weakness of the moderates, and the reason they are so reliably ineffective, is that they would much rather shoot at their allies than at their enemies.

The amusing thing is the way the “psychotherapist” tries to turn a very real enemy into something that is supposedly existing only in our heads… even as that enemy has been shrieking in full-throated outrage against us for the last two week. And then, she turns around and blames everything on #GamerGate, when there are only two confirmed #GamerGaters in Rabid Puppies, myself and Daddy Warpig.

The lesson, as always, is this: SJWs always lie.

Let them shriek. It won’t be the last time. Cerberus has a LOT more bones to crack.

John C. Wright work disqualified

Hugo Awards news from Mike Glyer at File 770:

Sasquan, the 2015 Worldcon, has made changes to the final Hugo ballot to reflect  eligibility rulings by Hugo administrator John Lorentz.

  •     “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” by John C. Wright was previously published on a web site in 2013 prior to its inclusion in The Book of Feasts & Seasons in 2014, so it is not eligible for the 2015 Novelette Hugo.
  •     Jon Eno did not publish any qualifying artwork in 2014, so he is not eligible for the 2015 Professional Artist Hugo

Replacing Wright’s novelette on the ballot is “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014). Kirk DouPonce has been elevated to take Eno’s place in the Best Professional Artist category.

I think this is a serious mistake by Sasquan. Just as Dune and Ender’s Game served as precedents for a shorter work reworked and published as a longer one, which was the case with both “One Bright Star to Guide Them” and “Big Boys Don’t Cry”, John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War serves as precedent for a work that appeared on the web prior to being professionally published and subsequently declared eligible in the latter year.

The comparison is particularly damning because John Scalzi specifically declared Old Man’s War to have been self-published in 2002, three years prior to it being published by Tor in 2005 and being nominated as Best Novel in 2006. John C. Wright is a professional author who does not self-publish and he never claimed to have published “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus”, he merely posted a work in progress on his site and removed it after Castalia House signed a contract with him to publish it. This action by Sasquan not only makes it appear as if there is one rule for SJWs who are Torlings and another for everyone else, but will serve as a chilling precedent to other writers to avoid publicly posting any unpublished and incomplete work they believe might be award-worthy in the future.

While neither I nor Castalia House intend to protest Sasquan’s decision and we recognize their right to ignore the precedents established by previous Worldcons, I do not think the decision was a wise one, especially at a time when tempers are running unusually high. Both Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies exist because some members of the science fiction community were being treated as more equal than others, and the fact that John Scalzi and Tor Books are AGAIN the incongruous beneficiary of this sort of quietly preferential treatment is further evidence of the influential cliques and whispering campaigns that George Martin and other SJWs have disingenuously denied.

That being said, I have duly removed “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” from the collection we are preparing for the Hugo Packet. And I trust that the various complaints about John C. Wright receiving six nominations can now stop, given that he now has no more nominations than Seanan McGuire received last year.

Meanwhile, another rabbit is up to the usual game. One Martha L. Thomases of New York, NY,  who “never knowingly slept with a Republican”, has posted a fake review of RIDING THE RED HORSE:

What a piece of tripe. Exactly the kind of …
By Martha L. Thomases “Martha Thomases”on April 13, 2015

What a piece of tripe. Exactly the kind of fiction that appeals to men who are insecure in their masculinity. My only regret is that one can’t rate this book any less than one star.

I’ve reported it for abuse and inappropriate content as a fake review from someone who is not a verified purchase and has not read the book, and I encourage you to do the same. Please be aware, prospective fake reviewers, if you lie about us, we will not hesitate to tell the truth about you.

I am also encouraging Amazon to consider cancelling the accounts of reviewers who post fake reviews. Retroactively. It’s an area they are looking into because their review system is very important to them, so keep that in mind when you are tempted to post a fake review. Note that Ms Thomases appears to be responding to this call by Glenn Hauman to post fake reviews of Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies works and thereby lower their average ratings.

Oh, and to answer the title question: what do you do to rabid puppies? You put them down.

I would point out that recommending a specific number of nominations for
the Hugo ballot is within the rules. Posting fake reviews of books you
have neither purchased nor read is absolutely not. I have repeatedly told people never to post any fake review for any reason. But if the SJWs truly want to play this game, we can certainly arrange to bring a hydrogen bomb to the knife fight.

As for retaliation against PZ’s book, my position is the same as it was
when McRapey’s rabbits were posting fake reviews on Amazon. First, PZ
didn’t take any such action himself or advocate it. Second, he is not
responsible for the actions of his readers. Third, one’s integrity
should not permit one to write a false review of a book, no matter how
much one despises the author. Fourth, I am actively opposed to all fake
reviews, be they pro or con.  I do not want anyone who considers
himself a reader, a fan, a regular, or Dread Ilk to write fake reviews
of anything. Why? Because lying about what you have not read is wrong.  

UPDATE: Glen Hauman is dumber than I thought. He’s actually an author himself, complete with an Amazon page. Now, I do NOT recommend downgrading his books, but I absolute recommend bringing his call to violate the Amazon reviews system to Amazon’s attention. And I call upon Hauman to recant and remove his idiotic call to put down the works written by the various Sad Puppies nominees.

UPDATE 2: Hauman must be a Making Light acolyte, given his penchant for disemvoweling. Here is what the disemvoweled comment on his site says:

*shakes head slowly* You guys really are a special brand of stupid, aren’t you? Do you enjoy poking bears with sticks as well? His audience dwarfs yours and he’s not above using the same tactics as you (as you so helpfully pointed out). So you go ahead and suggest An Approach that can only possibly win if your audience is larger than his. What exactly do you hope to accomplish? BTW, talking about the Hugo Awards without actually talking about the Hugo Awards is dishonest. Why not use an honest title, like “Vox is a horrible person. Here’s how to beat him at his own game.” I only suggest that title because you’ve shown you don’t care about committing libel.

Who is the racist, George?

So, who is more reasonably deemed “racist as fuck”, a white man active in science fiction fandom who created one of the most racially iconic scenes of the last decade and is openly trying to exclude a Native American from the science fiction world, or a part-Mexican Native American who dares to respond to people attacking him? I remember seeing that scene myself and thinking: “seriously, the white girl Christ?”

Last summer, in the finale of Game of Thrones’ third season, mother of dragons Daenerys Targaryen stood outside the walls of Yunkai waiting for the slaves she just freed, hoping to convince them to join her army as free men. Daenerys, the white-blonde queen traded moons ago to the Dothraki by her brother, moves into the crowd of outstretched brown arms as they chant “mhysa”, which, we learn, means “mother” in their native tongue, and is carried into the crowd as the camera pulls back to show her floating in the middle of this sea of arms like the bright planet in a constellation of darkness.

I turned to my husband and said: “No one at HBO remembers the visual impact of slavery, I guess?” It was at that moment I decided to stop watching it. I’m aware that Game of Thrones is a TV show, a work of fiction, but having invested in it for three seasons, I no longer trusted the creators to bridge the gap of thoughtful conversation between action and intent. How much misogyny and racism are we expected to put up with in the name of entertainment?

 
Save us, little white girl!

The man who came up with this imagery is calling me racist? And doing so because I generously described a deranged black woman as a “half-savage” after she described Robert Heinlein as “racist as fuck”, most of science fiction fandom as “racist as fuck” and me as “a self-described misogynist, racist, anti-Semite, and a few other flavors of asshole.” I tend to doubt Martin has any idea who and what he is defending when he attacks me.

I am not. And no doubt Dr. Martin van Creveld, the brilliant Israeli military historian I have the honor of editing and publishing, would be very surprised to learn about the anti-Semitism I supposedly proclaim so loudly. I know I was. Needless to say, I have never described myself as any of those things. Nor am I any of those things.

As it happens, my novelette that was nominated for the Hugo last year, “Opera Vita Aeterna” from The Last Witchking, is about a deep and abiding friendship between two individuals of different races, an elven sorcerer and a human monk. It is not a story of hate, but of three loves, the love of knowledge, the love of God, and the love of a friend. Another short story in that mini-collection, “The Hoblets of Wiccam Fensboro”, is a story about a reluctantly righteous goblin saving innocent hoblets from the hoblet-hating orcs who occupy his village.

I am absolutely nothing like Requires Hate. When Martin says “Make no mistake. Vox Day and Requires Hate are twins. Mirror images of one another.” he not only makes a mistake, he lies.

John O’Neill says I’m the most hated man in SF, but honestly, I don’t think we’ve even come close to maximizing the hate yet. All we need now is for George Martin to have a heart attack from the stress brought on by attacking #GamerGate, thereby enraging all the Westeros fans who haven’t given up hope that Martin has a Secret Master Plan to salvage the series and reverse the disaster of the last two books. Of course, the Torlings would inevitably put it all down to my cunning plan to market Castalia House in general and ARTS OF DARK AND LIGHT in particular.

“Vox Day is ruthless! George RR Martin’s untimely death just proves he will STOP AT NOTHING!”

Anyhow, this tweet amused me: Be especially nice to @GRRMspeaking at the moment. He’s getting much flack right now. 

Do you think? Because I was deeply moved by his plight, I felt I would be remiss if I failed to respond:

@GRRMspeaking My response to you is here: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/04/who-is-racist-george.html … I think it is clear who is, and is not, “racist as fuck”. #SadPuppies

@GRRMspeaking Now those you called “toads” will respond. Only they’re not toads. They are the Dread Ilk and they are wolves.

The racist SJWs of Making Light

It’s incredible, but now they’re trying to say I’m not a real Native American and Hispanics are just white people like everyone else. Because, after all, everyone knows that all Native Americans are good little Indians who stay on their intellectual reservations and only believe what the nice white liberals tell them what they can and cannot read, write, and think:

#942 ::: Alex R. ::: (view all by) ::: April 01, 2015, 10:32 AM:
Definitely spoiled white boys. Without ever having met one in person, it’s written all over their behavior. And paranoid too, in a particularly white and spoiled fashion. Please note that the word “boys” was chosen carefully. Boys self-nominate and involve their friends. Men (and women too) who want awards slog it out in the trenches and try to raise their game.

#948 ::: Matt ::: (view all by) ::: April 01, 2015, 11:01 AM:
I think the behavior you describe is pretty accurate, but I don’t think it’s a white boy thing as much as it is a rich, conservative boy thing. After all, the leader of sad puppies, Correia, isn’t a white guy (and I think that the lack of support by other other minorities in the field is part of his “persecuted for his political beliefs” narrative).

 #960 ::: Kelly Jennings ::: (view all by) ::: April 01, 2015, 12:03 PM:
Vox Day also claims to be a minority! An American Indian! Based on some genetic test he claims he took.

I mean, I’m sure no one would lie about something like that, for political reasons, or tactical reasons, or to bash liberals on his blog or twitter or whatever. Nah.

#961 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: April 01, 2015, 12:09 PM:
The footnote to my comment above notwithstanding, let’s tread lightly on the subject of whether any individual in this debate is or is not a member of any particular group.

Identity policing doesn’t tend to end well. Or start well. And the middle bits tend to stink, too.

There’s plenty to say that doesn’t go there.

#963 ::: Kelly Jennings ::: (view all by) ::: April 01, 2015, 12:12 PM:
Okay. Though VD’s use of that particular tactic has been a vexation to me, frankly. But okay.

#975 ::: Mike Scott ::: (view all by) ::: April 01, 2015, 01:23 PM:
Cat @950. If Correia’s ancestors come from Portugal, then he’s white. The Portuguese are white Europeans, the same as the rest of Europe. They doubtless have a bit more Arab and Berber than say the Swedish, but not enough to make any real difference. Remember, there’s no such race as “Hispanic”, which is mostly a mixture of white European and Native American in varying proportions.

It’s rather astonishing that these racist SJWs will openly assert that a genuine Native American simply cannot hold the opinions that I do. They may not like it, but I am a real Indian, complete with tribe, reservation, casino, and language. I even know a few words of the latter, although I am not one of the small number of people who speak it. And I can absolutely prove it.

They seem to think that minorities are pets who should be happy with whatever crumbs they deign to dole out to us. I say we take their thinning, greying scalps instead.

The ultimate argument against certification

This should pretty much end any discussion about the idea that government certification is necessary or even likely to prevent significatly negative outcomes. From the Aviation Business Gazette:

FAA recognizes Andreas Guenter Lubitz. Rheinland Pfalz-based pilot sets positive example.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is recognizing Andreas Guenter Lubitz with inclusion in the prestigious FAA Airmen Certification Database.

The database, which appears on the agency’s website at www.faa.gov, names Lubitz and other certified pilots who have met or exceeded the high educational, licensing and medical standards established by the FAA.

Pilot certification standards have evolved over time in an attempt to reduce pilot errors that lead to fatal crashes. FAA standards, which are set in consultation with the aviation industry and the public, are among the highest in the world.

Transportation safety experts strongly recommend against flying with an uncertified pilot. FAA pilot certification can be the difference between a safe flight and one that ends in tragedy.

Imagine what might have happened if those poor Germanwing passengers had flown with an uncertified pilot?

The ugly doctrine of anti-racism

The UK’s former equality czar admits anti-racism is an “ugly new doctrine”:

A former equality chief has branded his years working to stamp out racial discrimination as ‘utterly wrong’. Writer and broadcaster Trevor Phillips said efforts made under the Blair government turned anti-racism into an ‘ugly new doctrine’.

Mr Phillips is the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and has waged a 30-year campaign to tackle issues around discrimination and equality. In an upcoming Channel 4 documentary, called Things We Won’t Say About Race That Are True, he says attempts to stop prejudice instead encouraged abuse and endangered lives….

Mr Phillips, a Labour party member, says anti-racism began with good intentions but turned into ‘thought control’.

Anti-racism is anti-science, anti-history, and anti-freedom. It is pernicious and evil. Racism is neither a sin nor is it a societal evil. Race-based self-segregation is not only the observably preferred human norm for all races throughout the entirety of recorded human history, it is inevitable. You cannot support freedom and anti-racism at the same time. It is not logically possible. You cannot support freedom of speech and thought control. You cannot support diversity and freedom of association.

It is true that racism has inspired various crimes throughout history, as has greed, ambition, lust, and a variety of other concepts. But it is the crimes that matter, and it is the crimes that should be prevented, not whatever the intellectual motivation for them might be. Consider how ridiculous most people would believe the idea of passing a law against thinking or expressing lustful thoughts to be. That is precisely how stupid and totalitarian it is to try to ban racism.

Feminists don’t care about rape

They talk about it endlessly. They fantasize about it happening to them on their college campuses so long as it is white frat boys and athletes. But when it really happens and arrests are made? Crickets.

Last month, retired porn star Cytherea was the victim of a brutal gang rape at her home in Las Vegas. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, three teenage suspects, two of them minors, broke into the house, robbed Cytherea and her family at gunpoint, and raped her while her children were present. The rape and home invasion was so violent that not only are the minors being tried as adults, all three suspects could be sentenced to life in prison if found guilty….

If ever there was a story for feminists to get enraged about, this would be it. According to SJWs, America fosters a “rape culture,” where sexual assault is trivialized and men are encouraged to feel “entitled” to womens’ bodies. You can’t get more entitled than a gang of ghetto thugs invading a woman’s home and raping her at gunpoint.

Yet feminists have been eerily silent on Cytherea. A casual Google search for “cytherea rape” shows that the only articles about the story are from news outlets, porn industry sites such as TRPWL, and the conservative site The Daily Caller. Searching Jezebel, one of the most popular feminist blogs in the world, for “cytherea” returns a grand total of zero results.

 Why? There is a simple answer. “Feminists don’t care about rape victims, and they never have.”

Why we fight

Because this is what happens when you don’t:

Karen Memery (like memory but with an e as she explains), is just such a seamstress. She is the titular narrator of Elizabeth Bear’s latest steampunk adventure, Karen Memory (with an o and not an e). A prostitute at the Hôtel Ma Cherie, a high-class bordello in Seattle Rapid City in the late 1800s, Memery is dissatisfied with her job and her johns, longing for the prairie life she gave up when her father died….

Bear also gleefully subverts gender roles in Karen Memory. Not just with Karen and Priya’s lesbian relationship. She also introduces Crispin, the gay bouncer at the Hôtel Ma Cherie, and Miss Francina, one of the seamstresses who has a select client base. As Karen puts it:

    “…the thing about Miss Francina is that Miss Francina’s got a pecker under her dress. But that ain’t nothing but God’s rude joke. She’s one of us girls every way that matters, and handy for a bouncer besides.”

So not only do we have three prominent gay characters, including the main protagonist and her love interest, but we also have a transgender character — the first I’ve run into in a 19th Century setting. And Karen’s plainspoken acceptance of Miss Francina, and those other societal outcasts who gravitate to the Hôtel Ma Cherie is probably the most refreshing part of the book.

Indeed, one of the major themes of Karen Memory seems to be the subversion of the dominant white male paradigm. Bear puts a variety of alternative lifestyles and minority role models on display, and fervently asserts that they too can be heroes in a fantasy novel. Madame Damnable in her quest for leadership of Seattle Rapid City against Bantle; the African-American Marshal Reeves, who has risen to a place of leadership despite his race (and actually Madame Damnable as well – Karen makes it clear that the powerful madame is also African-American by blood, if not by appearance); and Priya and Karen’s blossoming relationship, forbidden both as same-sex and interracial, are all examples.

Does that sounds like “loads of fun” to you? Because reading about a dissatisfied whore while being subjected to a sermon on the importance of diversity in sexual orientation, race, and transgenderism sounds about as much fun as listening to to SJWs drone on NPR about intersectionalism. I would genuinely rather read an IMF paper on the monetary policy of Zambia  or Newton’s Principia. In Latin.

Loads of fun. That’s what they want to bring to the game industry too. Loads of fun. Now, you can either submit to this SJW shit, or you can help us keep it out of games and take back science fiction. What will it be?

UPDATE: Bandai Namco sensitively responds to SJW concerns by providing new armor for female characters Ivy and Amy. Happy now?

No, apparently not.

Didn’t he see Serenity?

Stephen Hawking is a good example of why scientists should not be allowed to vote, let alone set government policy:

The human failing I would most like to correct is aggression. It may have had survival advantage in caveman days, to get more food, territory or partner with whom to reproduce, but now it threatens to destroy us all. A major nuclear war would be the end of civilisation, and maybe the end of the human race.

This is idiotic. It isn’t human aggression that threatens to destroy us all, it is science and scientists. Hawking demonstrates a complete inability to correctly utilize basic logic.

Scientists created the threat. Rather than work to remove the threat, some of the very people who created it now want to EXPERIMENT WITH THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE in order to do something that won’t remove the current threat and might well create some that are even worse.

Scientists love to posture as if they are the good guys responsible for saving the human race, but they are the party primarily responsible for endangering it in a variety of ways.