Sep 292016

By now, I’m sure you have all heard about the fiasco that happened to Palmer Luckey, inventor of the Oculus Rift, due to a single donation of his along with having a Trump & #GamerGate supporting girlfriend.  Many people are calling this Brendan Eich 2.0, refering to how Brendan Eich was forced out of Mozilla, due to his political beliefs.  While there are similarities between what is happening to Palmer Luckey and what happened to Brendan Eich, simply calling this Brendan Eich 2.0 ignores a major part of why Palmer Luckey is in this situation.

When Brendan Eich was forced out of Mozilla, it was just about him.  No one was interested in destroying Mozilla, just getting rid of him.  There was also no attempt to connect Brendan Eich to some larger group like 4Chan.  With Palmer Luckey, it’s different.  For example, VentureBeat is connecting Palmer Luckey to everything from the NRA to 4Chan just because he uses common abbreviations like LEO for law enforcement officer and the “>” symbol for quoting comments that he is responding to. VentureBeat says that using the “>” symbol is evidence of being connected to 4Chan because on 4Chan “>” turns text green.  In reality the “>” symbol has been used in email and on Usenet for quoting previous comments since before Palmer Luckey was born and before 4Chan existed.

While that may seem to be the most absurd thing anyone could say about Palmer Luckey, it gets worse.  The Atlantic is not only trying to connect Palmer Luckey to Trump & 4Chan, but to Elliot Rodger, (yes Elliot Roger), Peter Thiel, and Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker (which Peter Thiel funded).  The Atlantic article doesn’t make much sense.  It seems to be saying that Silicon Valley is festering with Trump supporting Elliot Rodger wannabes, yet, even by the article’s own admission, Silicon Valley is heavily anti-Trump.  It seems like the article is trying to imply some sort of conspiracy theory where Palmer Luckey, Peter Thiel, 4Chan & similar elements are secretly working together to use VR to turn geeks into Elliot Rodgers.

What The Atlantic & VentureBeat is absurd and lacks any connection to reality.  Brendan Eich didn’t have to deal with this level of craziness.  Wrapped up in all of this is the narrative that the media has been selling about this.  That narrative is that Palmer Luckey has managed to completely derail the progress of VR development.  The media is pushing that narrative hard because the media wants to derail the development of VR.  VR is a threat to traditional media like The Atlantic and even newer media like VentureBeat, Gawker, etc.  VR is a bigger threat to current media than Trump could ever be.  The media has declared war on Palmer Luckey in an attempt to stop VR.  That will not work.  Attacking Palmer Luckey is too little, too late to stop VR.  VR has been in development for decades, and VR development will not stop or be slowed down regardless of what happens to Palmer Luckey.  The worst case scenario is that developers use a different platform for VR than the Oculus Rift.  There is too much money involved and too many options available for a crash in VR development to happen.

Mar 072016

One thing that comes up on places like the KotakuInAction reddit is that if feminists keep saying that the video game and tech industries are hostile to women, women will avoid them.  That makes sense because why would anyone go to a place that they believed was hostile to them if they had a choice.  Feminists keep saying that they want “diversity” in tech and video games, yet lying about nonexistent hostility to women gets the opposite of what they want.  Therefore, feminists must want something else.

What do feminists want from the tech industry?  This article illuminates what feminists really want.  First, take a look at this paragraph from the article:

Trying to force women back into a toxic environment isn’t going to work if the dynamics of the industry remain the same. And women are smart for leaving- because they aren’t giving up, they are moving to other industries that treat them better.

The author says that women should leave tech because it’s hostile to them.  Now, take a look at another part of the article:

It is time for the next wave, and it has to be focused on men. We need gender diversity workshops, sensitivity training, sexual harassment workshops for CEOs, VCs and Angels.

Conference and panel organizers who “can’t find” diverse panel members should be fired. Point blank.

VC’s who “can’t find” women entrepreneurs are not good at deal flow and their investors should pull out. Point Blank.

So if women are correctly avoiding tech because of its alleged hostility to women, then how are conference organizers supposed to find women for conferences, and how are venture capitalists supposed to find women entrepreneurs?  You can’t have women choosing to avoid an industry and have that industry be able successfully find women.  It’s logically impossible.

The author’s demand when the tech industry can’t satisfy her contradiction is that men get fired.  “Point blank”, as she says.  That is what the women in tech movement is all about.  It’s not about ending hostility towards women in the tech industry because even they know it doesn’t exist.  It is about getting men fired, so that they can take the jobs of the fired men.  Of course, that strategy won’t work since getting large numbers of men fired from the tech industry will cause the businesses they employed at to collapse.  There will not be any jobs for men or women since they will be gone.  I suspect that feminists won’t be bothered by that since they got to stick it to men they find nerdy and unattractive.

Feb 132016

There was this study done called “Gender Bias In Open Source: Pull Request Acceptance Of Women Vs. Men“.  This study did not show any bias in open source software.  The study analyzed the rate of acceptance from what an automated program thought were male and female contributors to open source projects on GitHub.  It also separated the contributors between “insiders” (people who have contributed to a particular open source project on GitHub before) and “outsiders” (people who have not contributed to a particular open source project on GitHub before).  The closest thing to bias against women the study could find was that male “outsiders” had a rate of acceptance of 64% whereas female “outsiders” had an acceptance rate of 63%.  That’s just statistical noise.  One thing in the study that isn’t getting talked about much is that female “insiders” have a higher acceptance rate than male “insiders”.  If you’re interested in all the details, Scott Alexander has a breakdown of it (including the other problems in the study).  It is also worth pointing out that this was an undergraduate study that was not peer reviewed.

Obviously, this study failed to show any bias against women in open source software.  However, that didn’t stop various media outlets from saying that men in tech are supervillians bent on oppressing women.  Here are some examples:

That last link even says, “a vile male hive mind is running an assault mission against women in tech“.  Then, immediately afterwards, the article brings up #GamerGate and includes the standard litany of lies against #GamerGate.  Obviously, there is no such thing as “a vile male hive mind”, but this is the type of propaganda that is being used against men working in tech.  It is not an exaggeration to compare this to anti-semetic propaganda because pretty much all anti-semetic propaganda describes all Jews being part of “a vile Jewish hive mind”.  In fact, I’m certain if you searched enough anti-semetic literature, you would find that exact phrase.  The phrase even belongs on the MenKampf reddit due to its similarity with anti-semetic propaganda.

No one should be surprised that men working in tech are starting to have reactions like this:

As a nerdy straight white male programmer, that fact that people like me are constantly being propagandized against by the media is getting pretty wearisome. Add in the apparent surge of support for socialism among the young and it’s getting downright frightening.

If I was an American I’d be thinking about buying a gun and at least having a backup plan in mind to escape the revolution, as paranoid as that might sound.

This sounds like good advice especially if you’re a man working in tech in San Francisco.

Feb 072016

Millennial women support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton for President by a wide margin.  Now that the “Berniebros” attack on Sanders supporters has failed, feminists are trying other tactics that clearly won’t work.  Gloria Steinem is saying that millennial women who support sanders are doing so to meet young men.  Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright is telling millennial women that there is a special place in hell for them for supporting Sanders over Clinton.  Specificially, Albright said, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

Why aren’t millennial women simply voting based on their vaginas?  They shouldn’t need old feminists to tell them to vote for Hillary, right?  It’s not because they are opposed to feminism (even if they swear up and down that they are not feminists).  There are a lot of millennial woman who unconsciously (or maybe consciously) know that the traditional feminist and SJW rhetoric of Hillary Clinton isn’t not good for them.  Sure, Clinton may become President, but that is bad in the long term for women.  A Hillary presidency and her policies will just create more MRAs, more MGTOWs, and will create more fertile ground for more #GamerGates.  Sanders seems like the safer choice for Democrats in this case.

Of course, the only difference between Sanders and Clinton, is that with Clinton will drive us off the feminist cliff at 100 MPH whereas Sanders will do it at 85 MPH.  (That’s because Sanders is against a bit of feminism like rape cases being tried by colleges.)  Sanders won’t save young women.  At most, he will delay the world of hurt young women will be in by a couple of years.

Dec 082015

The National Science Foundation is spending money on something that is the complete opposite of science, making “gender sensitive computers”.  So far it has cost US taxpayers $345,000 over the last 2 years and more money will be spent on this between now and 2019.  Here is the stated goal of “gender sensitive computers”:

“The [Principal Investigator] PI’s long-term goal is to create theory to inform [Human-Computer Interaction] HCI design practices, to ensure the production of egalitarian designs that reflect all users’ values,” a grant for the project states. “In particular, she aims to create feminist theory for HCI, which she hopes will close the gap in women’s participation in computing.”

“Previously, the PI has shown how approaches to designing for women are questionable when viewed in light of feminist theory,” the grant continued. “Feminist scholars argue that the lack of women in computing further discourages women from pursuing programming-related careers, and that women are also excluded because technologies created by men better address male needs.”
The research will also explore “gender and technical identities” and the belief that computer system designs “alienate women.”

If the grant proposal was written a year later, I’m sure it would have included attacking #GamerGate as an example of this alleged conspiracy by male nerds to keep women out of the computing field.  Another goal of this waste of money is, “The project will teach middle and high school girls to “create technologies in keeping with their gender identity.”  In other words, we will end up with nothing but more vagina software.  (Hopefully, said vagina software won’t be created after eating vagina bread and drinking vagina beer.)

What is not understood here is that computers don’t have a gender, just as all inanimate objects don’t have a gender.  There is no such thing as a computer for women or a computer for men.  A “gender sensitive computer” is a contradiction in terms.  There is no conspiracy to make “male computers” or anti-female computers because such a thing is impossible.  Computers are already “egalitarian” because a computer will do anything a user tells it to do, and the computer can neither discern any gender characteristics about its user nor understand the meaning of it.  What is driving this so called “research” is not that computers are male or pro-male in any way.  What the feminists involved in this project can’t stand is that computers don’t treat female users any different than male users.  Like with so many other things such as government policy, what these women want is not equality but special privileges.  The problem for them is that a computer does not know how to give special privileges for women.  No matter what they do a computer will never give them what they want.  That will be true even when artificial intelligence is developed.

Oct 302015

It’s impossible to talk about space exploration nowadays without talking about Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX (and Tesla Motors and SolarCity).  Thus, it is not surprising that feminists have declared war on Elon Musk.  For example, this feminist article from The Guardian falsely accuses Elon Musk (along with Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson who have their own aerospace businesses) of working on a secret plan to allow the rich to escape EarthAnother feminist attacked Musk for describing humanity as stuck on Earth as well as Musk’s South African heritage. (She also said that the colonization of Mars was “white colonialism”.)  Another article from The Guardian said that Musk’s work would lead to a #GamerGate takeover of Mars.  Feminist attacks on Musk aren’t limited to things related to space exploration.  Musk was falsely accused of berating an employee who missed a meeting to be at the birth of his child.

Why do feminists attack Elon Musk?  Some of it has to do with his involvement in the tech industry, namely PayPal.  (That is why Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson were attacked along with him.)  Musk is now the most visible proponent of space exploration, particularly private space exploration.  In other words, he can’t be shutdown with politics like NASA can.  The fundamental reason is that Musk’s goals are the direct opposite of the goals of feminists.  Musk wants humanity to survive, and survival requires that humanity not be stuck on one planet.  Musk is working to ensure the future of humanity with his goal of colonizing Mars.  Feminists don’t care about that because they are greedy and it doesn’t benefit them.  Plus, if Musk is successful in colonizing Mars then nerds, gamers, and every other man that feminists hate will have a place to go that is outside of the reach of feminists.  Feminists can’t stand that.

Oct 212015

The UN has decided to fight back against #GamerGate showing how their report on “cyberviolence” was a complete joke. In the UN dispatch, #GamerGate is being accused of being associated with “conservative conspiracy theorists”.

There’s a couple of problems with accusing #GamerGate or anyone adjacent to them of being conspiracy theorists.  First, the UN along with the rest of #GamerGate’s enemies has created conspiracy theories about #GamerGate such as that it is a secret organization to abuse women.  Second, the UN “cyberviolence” report quoted Lyndon LaRouche, an actual conspiracy theorist who believes that video games cause murders and that Pokemon is a satanic conspiracy, as a serious source.

The UN and the rest of anti-#GamerGate are a bunch of conspiracy theorists, and they’re accusing #GamerGate of being associated with “conservative conspiracy theorists” to cover up that fact.  That’s all there is to this.

Oct 192015

Those of you who follow #GamerGate know about their attempt led by Arthur Chu to eliminate Section 230 of the Communications Disclosure Act, the law that allows Web 2.0 and social networking to exist by protecting companies from liability for user generated content.  Such a law makes sense because if someone wrote graffiti on another person’s garage that named a person and accused them of child molestation, it does not make sense to hold the owner of the garage liable for that.  Despite widespread opposition, it’s clear that #Anti-Gamergate, and Arthur Chu in particular, do not intend to give up this absurd quest.

I’m happy that Anti-#GamerGate is continuing to fight against Section 230.  This is the same mistake that led to the creation of #GamerGate when gaming journalists decided to censor all discussion about Zoe Quinn and declare gamers to be over and misogynists.  Anti-#GamerGate was already a problem for the online rights and privacy crowd with their false DMCA complaints.  What Anti-#GamerGate is doing now is a declaration war against online rights and privacy.  Anyone who cares about online rights and privacy such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation isn’t going to accept the loss of their rights on the internet.

We’re on the way the #Section230Gate or something like that since Arthur Chu and the rest of Anti-#GamerGate won’t stop.  This will be a major disaster for feminism, but bigger than #GamerGate, because this is the start of attacking mainstream political groups.  Feminists will accuse the EFF and similar groups of being misogynists which is obviously absurd to any thinking person.  And Facebook and Twitter and other social media companies will have to defend their businesses against feminism or die.  (Many social media companies will end up committing suicide.)

Just as feminism’s war on gamers led to feminism’s war of online rights and privacy.  Feminism will declare war on communities adjacent to online rights and privacy advocates.  Whoever those adjacent communities end up being, they will be mainstream leading many more men who never thought about feminism to discover the ugly truth about feminism.  Feminists won’t stop even though it is in their best interests to do so just as they should have never attacked gamers.  Think of how many men would still be pro-feminist without #GamerGate.  The same thing is about to happen over and over again since feminists aren’t smart enough to know when it is in their best interests to shut up.

Oct 032015

It’s the time of the month to select a new Entitlement Princess of the Month.  Last month’s winner with 87% of the vote was Anne Dias-Griffin, the woman who divorced her hedge fund manager husband and demanded $1 million a month in alimony in addition to the $65 million one time payment she was guaranteed in their prenup.

The Entitlement Princess of the Month can only keep going with your support so keep submitting new entitlement princesses on the Entitlement Princess of the Month submission page.

This month there will be no voting because I want to give this month’s award to a woman related to the U.N.’s joke of a report on “cyberviolence”.  The September 2015 Entitlement Princess Of The Month is Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, the Under-Secretary-General of the U.N. and Executive Director of U.N. Women.  She has demanded that “cyberviolence”, something which is only words such as “you’re a liar” & “you suck”, be considered the equivalent of actual physical violenceShe also tried to strong arm the gaming industry and others into “doing something” about “cyberviolence” (which can only mean censorship).  Fortunately, she has been unsuccessful at that so far.

Additionally, Mlambo-Ngcuka has also ignored the plight of men and boys to benefit women and girls.   She has demanded any intervention against Boko Haram focus on women and girls, ignoring that all the men and boys that Boko Haram has murdered.  For example, she has demanded that counter-terrorist policies change because they might disrupt girls’ routines in going to school, while conveniently ignoring the men and boys who Boko Haram is murdering.

While Mlambo-Ngcuka’s entitlement is arguably more broad than just personal entitlement, her demands that the minor annoyances women receive online be treated as equivalent to actual physical violence such as what has happened to many men and boys who have been murdered by Boko Haram makes her the winner of the September 2015 Entitlement Princess Of The Month.

Sep 302015

I’m sure all of you have heard about that UN report on “cyberviolence against women” that Anita Sarkeesian was involved with.  The report is bad enough that it treats discredited attorney and game critic, Jack Thompson, as a legitimate source on video games.  However, that report is much worse since Jack Thompson is one of the report’s better sources on video games.  That’s because the report treats Lyndon LaRouche as a legitimate source.  Yes, the same Lyndon LaRouche who is always running for president and is a batshit insane conspiracy theorist who thinks the British are behind everything bad that happens in the world and that the Queen of England runs the international drug tradeHere is an example of what LaRouche had to say about video games:

On March 3, in a dialogue with Hispanic-American leaders, LaRouche said:

“We’re getting killings which are caused by the use of Nintendo-style games, such as the game Pokémon, with children, and also with police and others. In the case of the Diallo shooting, the problem was that the Mayor of New York, like many other officials, has been training the police force in Nintendo-style killing techniques. . . . So we have Nintendo-killers.

The UN and Anita Sarkeesian have turned LaRouche’s “Nintendo killers” into “Nintendo rapists”, but it’s all the same.  The UN by including this in a report on “cyberviolence against women” is now saying Pokémon turns boys into rapists.  And don’t forget that Pokémon (along with Dungeons & Dragons) is a satanic conspiracy:

Hasbro Interactive: Official U.S. distributor of Pokémon (abbreviation for “Pocket Monsters”), the killing game designed for toddlers beginning at 2 and 3 years old; Dungeons and Dragons, the medieval satanic and magic fantasy game; Risk II, a “ruthless quest for world domination”. One of the Hasbro Board members is Paul Wolfowitz, the co-head of George W. Bush’s team of foreign policy advisors.

What we have got now is that the UN and Anita Sarkeesian are effectively endorsing the idea that video games are a satanic conspiracy to turn boys and men into rapists because they’re using LaRouche as a source for this report.  They should have stuck with Jack Thompson because even he wasn’t this insane.

Since the UN and Anita Sarkeesian consider Lyndon LaRouche to be an expert on video games, they probably will start using other conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and David Icke as sources for further reports on “cyberviolence against women”.  Since David Icke invented the shapeshifting reptile alien conspiracy theory, I expect that the next report on “cyberviolence against women” will accuse gamers of being shapeshifting reptile aliens who secretly rule the world.  This may sound too insane to happen, but we would have thought the same a couple of weeks ago about the UN and Anita Sarkeesian using LaRouche as a legitimate source about video games.

Sep 272015

Libertarianism has been unable to deal with the fact that the primary supporters of big government are women.  The only way to get small government is to deal with this fact yet like with Republicans, most Libertarians refuse to deal with it.  They will come up with excuses like “the libertarian movement needs to grow first”, which is an admission that Libertarians will not reduce government if a woman complains.  Or they will say, “women were tricked into supporting big government because men didn’t respect women”, which is avoiding the issue by blaming men.

It’s clear that for many Libertarian women, Libertarianism isn’t about small or minimal government, but removing competing government programs that draw money away from government programs that give money to women.  (This is a reason why we need Geolibertarianism or Geoanarchism because even Libertarians can’t be trusted to be Libertarian when it counts.)  One way in which this happens is attacks on Libertarian men (or men “accused” of being libertarian despite not actually being libertarian) such as this article by Elizabeth Nolan Brown at where she says that libertarianism is being invaded by “misogynists” from #GamerGate, the MRM/MHRM, the MGTOW community.

Brown’s article is filled with minor lies such that GamerGaters commonly have Gadsden flags in their twitter profiles.  In reality, GamerGaters are more likely to use anime characters or Vivian James, the #GamerGate mascot, in their profiles.  Also, most GamerGaters are liberals/leftists or they started out that way but became (more) libertarian later when they realized that talk about alleged sexism in video games was Jack Thompson with breasts .  The biggest lie in Brown’s article is that #GamerGate/MRAs/MGTOW secretly want a big government program to dictate gender norms.  The is the exact opposite of the truth.  Feminists have already setup a multitude of big government programs to benefit women at the expense of men.  What the so called “misogynists” invading Libertarianism want is those government programs eliminated.  They don’t want government programs.

What Brown has done with her article is a case of DARVO (deny, attack, reverse victim and offender), a common tactic used by feminists.  She starts out with the assumption that big government programs that benefit women at the expense of men don’t exist (outside of a few minor cases, maybe).  Then she accuses the so called “misogynists” of wanting big government programs against women.  Brown reversed the victim and offender exactly since it’s feminists that created a multitude of government programs to hurt men, and her so called “misogynists” that want them removed.

As we know most GamerGaters aren’t Libertarians, so why is #GamerGate being lumped in with Brown’s so called “misogynists”.  It’s impossible to legitimately be a Libertarian and not in principle support #GamerGate.  The obvious endgame for the feminist war on video games is for the government to control what video games can be created since feminist infiltration of the video game industry is a failure and so is their attempt to replace video games with choose your own adventure stories.  No legitimate Libertarian can support this, but many Libertarian women can’t admit this since doing so would expose them as fake libertarians who just want to remove government programs that block the expansion of government programs for women.  In other words, #GamerGate by doing nothing but existing threatens to expose many Libertarian women for the frauds they are.

Sep 122015

Intel is running into financial trouble.  They’re going to have to slash $300 million dollars in spending which has already included $6 million dollars for their sponsorship of the Science Talent Search.  Since Intel needs to slash $300 million dollars from its business, there’s something else Intel could get rid that would not have any negative effect on their business performance, namely giving money to Feminist Frequency/Anita Sarkeesian and other feminists.  Intel has a stark choice here.  It can cut $300 million dollars from relevant productive business units, or it can not give $300 million dollars to feminists, the most unproductive (and anti-productive) group in the history of planet Earth.

Intel probably won’t make the smart choice here so what happen is that this will be the beginning of a death spiral for Intel, similar to what we have seen from Gnome, Mozilla, and other open source projects.  I’m predicting that unless Intel stops giving money to feminists, NVidia will buy up the pieces of Intel so that it can produce its own x86 CPUs (which it can’t do right now due to patents).  If you have wanted to see what NVidia would do if it could make its own x86 CPU, you will probably get your wish.

Sep 052015

Feminists get riled up at imaginary things.  Anita Sarkeesian and other feminists get angry at “violence against women” in video games, completely imaginary violence that is only a tiny fraction of violence in video games.  (Most violence in video games happens to men obviously.)

Now, feminists are outraged over the actions of Kermit the Frog, who being a muppet is an imaginary person by definition.  Apparently, Kermit the Frog is an evil misogynist for dumping his girlfriend, Miss Piggy, and finding a new girlfriend.  Maybe Kermit’s real crime to feminists is that Kermit finally left Miss Piggy after decades of her abusing him:

Since Anita Sarkeesian believes that a small bit of violence against imaginary women in video games turns gamers into monsters that will beat up and abuse women, she must have been all over how Miss Piggy is treating Kermit, right?  If video games can make men violent, then watching Miss Piggy abuse Kermit will cause girls to think that it is all right to abuse their future boyfriends and husbands.  It will also cause boys to think that they must submit to the abusive behavior of their future girlfriends and wives.

I did a search on Anita Sarkeesian’s writings to see if she had talked about anything having to do with the muppets.  I couldn’t find anything about Miss Piggy being abusive.  All I could find was some garbage about something called The Smurfette Principle.  Maybe Anita Sarkeesian thinks that more male muppets need to be abused by their wives and girlfriends.  It’s the only way all her beliefs make sense together.

Aug 102015

There has already been plenty of discussion about this article from the Atlantic that says robots will unemploy men and not women.  The methodology is problematic, but the main fault is the belief that “people skills” can prevent your job from being taken over by a robot which can be seen in this except from the article:

For instance, of the 3 million truck drivers in the U.S., more than 95 percent are men; of the nearly 3 million secretaries and administrative assistants, more than 95 percent are women. Autonomous vehicles are a not-too-distant possibility, and when they arrive, those drivers’ jobs will evaporate; office-support workers suffer no such imminent threat.

This pattern holds for many of the most gender-biased occupations. Men hold 97 percent of the 2.5 million U.S. construction and carpentry jobs. The Oxford study estimates that these male workers stand more than a 70 percent chance of being replaced by robotic workers. By contrast, women hold 93 percent of the registered nurse positions. Their risk of obsolescence is vanishingly small: .009 percent.

Nearly half of today’s jobs are likely to become obsolete in the not-too-distant future.

What is causing this pattern? The skills exhibited by the coming wave of intelligent machines are better suited to occupations currently dominated by men. Many of the jobs held by men involve perception and manipulation, often in conjunction with physical exertion, such as swinging a hammer or trimming trees. The latest mobile robots combine advanced-sensory systems with dexterous manipulators to successfully perform these sorts of tasks.

Other, more cerebral male-dominated professions aren’t secure either. Many occupations that might appear to require experience and judgment—such as commodity traders—are being outdone by increasingly sophisticated machine-learning programs capable of quickly teasing subtle patterns out of large volumes of data.

By contrast, women typically work in more chaotic, unstructured environments, where the ability to read people’s emotions and intentions are critical to success. If your job involves distracting a patient while delivering an injection, guessing whether a crying baby wants a bottle or a diaper change, or expressing sympathy to calm an irate customer, you needn’t worry that a robot will take your job, at least for the foreseeable future.

If jobs that involved “calming an irate customer” were protected then we wouldn’t see ATM machines.  ATM machines are one example of how “people skills” jobs, in this case bank tellers, can and will be reduced in number.  In fact there are even better examples such as this comment to the article:

Seems to me that automation already came to women’s work. I remember a time when every manager had to have a secretary. Secretaries typed memos, opened and distributed internal mail, filed incoming memos in chron files, ordered supplies, scheduled meetings, and so on.

Today, the traditional job of the secretary is largely done through email. Instead of every manager having a secretary, a single admin assistant can support an entire department.

Computers have also affected other clerical jobs. In the early 80s I worked in the patient accounts department of a hospital. There were around 100 employees, mostly women. Today that same department has around 50 employees, with computer systems doing most of the work of billing and collections.

This is something that has already happened.  And yet the article would have us believe that office workers can’t have their jobs eliminated.  (In fact, the only reason even more women in these types of jobs haven’t be unemployed is because the government is keeping a lot of these jobs around as make work jobs for women via unnecessary regulations and unnecessary government functions.)

What the article fails to understand here is that writing computer software is easier than building a robot.  Women are in a lot of paper pushing jobs (which don’t even involve paper anymore).  That is what we have seen happen and will continue to happen.  Women can’t save their virtual paper pushing jobs by dressing them up in “people skills”.  Women haven’t been able to do that so far.

As for commodities traders, there hasn’t been an elimination of those jobs like there has been with secretaries and the like.  So far big data tools have been doing work that couldn’t have been done before instead of replacing work currently being done.  Unsurprisingly, the article fails to understand intelligence augmentation which is what those tools do.

Since building a robot is harder than writing computer software, jobs in the trades (which the article refers to as “swinging a hammer”) aren’t going to be eliminated in the short term.  To build a robot that can replace a man in the trades requires sophisticated vision hardware and software as well the ability to interact with the real world that isn’t required to replace virtual paper pushers.  It will happen eventually, but the virtual paper pushers will get eliminated first as is already happening.  And this doesn’t even being to address the fact that we have a shortage of people in the trades.  If there were robots ready to replace men working in the trades, it will just mitigate the shortage that already exists.

The only area where technology is going to replace men in the short term is self driving vehicles.  In other words, that means cab drivers and truck drivers.  However, while that may happen quickly, it won’t happen that quickly.  The problem will be that, in the case of truck drivers at least, truck drivers act as de facto security guards for the cargo they’re driving.  A self driving truck doesn’t have that kind of built in security system.  While this is a problem that will be solved eventually, it does mean that the elimination of truck drivers will be slowed down.

Even when truck drivers are eliminated, these men will be fine.  First, there is the option of taking a job in the trades since there’s a shortage there.  Second, men are very capable of creating startups in various industries from tech to craft beer.  In fact, because men are so successful at this, women are accusing the craft beer industry of being misogynist and running a sustained campaign against the video game industry and men working in the tech industry.  The latter even includes nonsense accusations that Elon Musk is going to help #GamerGate take over Mars and, ironically, baseless attacks on self driving vehicles.

What we are seeing with the article from the Atlantic is the same thing that happened to Tom Smykowski, the people skills guy in Office Space:

This article is basically women saying the same thing as Tom Smykowski from Office Space.  Women are saying, “We have people skills.  We are good at dealing with people.  Can’t you understand that?  What is wrong with you people?”  Tom Smykowski was the first to be let go.  His “people skills” did not help him, and women’s “people skills” aren’t helping them either.

Jul 122015

Last Friday Ellen Pao resigned from reddit.  Already the wagons are circling in an attempt to hide the fact that this was due to Pao’s gross incompetence by blaming “misogyny”.  However, there is a new tactic they’re trying that can be seen in an article about Pao’s resignation in the Christian Science Monitor:

While Reddit denies claims that it discriminated against Pao because of her gender, skeptics point to factors that they claim prove otherwise. According to Adweek, 74 percent of Reddit users are male.

First they tried to make us believe that simply having a business or industry where the employees are mostly male is evidence of misogyny.  Now, they’re trying to have us believe that a mostly male user base or customer base is evidence of misogyny.  What they’re saying is men not only should be allowed to work anywhere in large numbers but also shouldn’t be customers of any business in large numbers.  They probably won’t be satisfied until most men are in ghettos because that would be the only way to prevent men from working in a particular industry or being the customers of a particular business.

Attacking Reddit’s user base/customer base isn’t the first time that attacking a mostly male customer base has been tried.  That was the “Gamers Are Dead” articles that spawned #GamerGate.  And this probably won’t be the last time either.  There will be many more anti-feminist customer revolts like #GamerGate.

Jul 092015

Any business, hobby, or interest that is primarily made up of men will get attacked by feminists.  This is why we have #GamerGate, attacks on the tech industry, attacks on open source software, attacks on scientists from Tim Hunt to Matt Taylor, attacks on comics, and so forth.  The craft beer industry is also primarily male, and it is now getting attacked by feminists in many different places from Salon to the Chicago Tribune.  It’s to the point where we need #CraftBeerGate.

The craft beer industry has several similarities with the tech industry.  Besides being primarily male, most craft breweries are new.  There are around 3500 breweries in the US, and half of them were started after 2010.  Just as the tech industry has men forming lots of startups, so does the craft beer industry.  Just as startups have come up with new and better products, craft beer startups have brewed new and better tasting beer.  And like how tech startups have been criticized for lacking HR (a.k.a. female deadweight), the craft beer industry has been attacked for lacking “professionals” in marketing.  (This is even more of a link considering that marketing is female dominated and afraid of technology.)

The craft beer industry also has at least one similarity with video games.  Just like how feminists have produced crappy games like Depression Quest, which really shouldn’t even be called a game, there is even a feminist beer from Brazil for sale called Feminista.  As you can see from the pic the label is colorless, lacks creativity and is all around bland.  We can safely assume that that Feminista beer is bland as well.

So what will happen if women take over craft beer?  Just like how women taking over tech would destroy innovation and the culture of startups in the tech industry, women taking over the craft beer industry would lead to small breweries being destroyed leaving a few large companies brewing piss water like Feminista and slapping a beer label on it.  This is why we should all support the craft beer industry, assuming you care about fighting feminists and preserving high quality beer.  I do so I’m going to be drinking some craft beer tonight.

Jul 042015

Like with #GamerGate, the Tim Hunt saga is not going away.  An increasing number of scientists and other academics such as Richard Dawkins (as well as other individuals like Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London) are coming out in support of Tim Hunt.  Jonathan Dimbleby has resigned from his honorary fellowship at UCL (University College London) due to how Tim Hunt was treated.  Nassim Taleb, the Distinguised Professor of Risk Engineering at NYU’s School of Engineering is openly boycotting UCL and calling for others to do the same:

This should be no surprise to readers of this blog.  If a few more academics start publicly supporting Tim Hunt, then this situation will become incredibly similar to DongleGate.  The woman is was originally responsible for what happened to Tim Hunt was Connie St. Louis, and she is very similar to Adria Richards.  Connie St. Louis is not a scientist, but a “science journalist” just like how Adria Richards wasn’t a developer but a developer evangelist.  Both women say that they are part of communities (tech in Adria Richards case, scientists in Connie St. Louis’s case), that they really aren’t.  Additionally, Connie St. Francis has been exposed as a liar when someone else provided a complete transcript of what Tim Hunt said.

If DongleGate is anything to go by, then two years from Connie St. Louis will be unemployed like Adria Richards still is.  Of course, like Adria Richards, Connie St. Louis will still view herself as the victim and not the offender she actually is.

May 172015

Going after video games is not enough for the media.  It looks like the next target will be self driving cars.  Google’s self driving cars have driven 1 million miles without any human input, and have caused no accidents.  The only times self driving cars were in accidents were when humans were driving them or another car driven by a human rammed the car.  This is an impressive safety record on what is currently a BETA product, yet the media is trying to make self driving cars into a boogeyman:

A quick review.

Self-driving cars can’t avoid accidents on California Roads,Associated Press

Google Blames Humans for Accidents Involving Its Self-Driving CarsTime

Google’s self-driving cars have been getting in accidents in CaliforniaBusiness Insider

Google’s driverless cars have been involved in three car

Google’s self-driving cars are getting into accidents, MarketWatch

No one knows if such an accident-free future is even possible, or whether autonomous vehicles will prove as flexible and responsive as humans in the most dangerous and unpredictable scenarios. Either way, hiding minor accident reports from the public suggests a rocky road ahead for self-driving cars.

Google’s self-driving cars involved in 11 accidents, director saysReuters

The only thing missing is to accuse self driving cars and everyone who works on them of being misogynists.  I’m sure that will happen either because the media will be called on the carpet for their fear mongering about self driving cars or some other reason that I can’t predict.  This is bound to be the next #GamerGate (or one of the next #GamerGates) because we’re dealing with the same people who are worried that #GamerGate is going to take over Mars.

May 142015

This article for The Guardian thinks that Elon Musk’s push for Mars is going to somehow lead to #GamerGate taking over Mars in 50 years:

The first woman to be raped in space has probably already been born. And if that last sentence makes you howl with protest or insist that such a thing just wouldn’t happen, then I’d stop a second and ask yourself why.

I’m a fan of SpaceX, after some initial scepticism. I think it’s usually better to dosomething, however imperfect, than nothing, and I admire people like Elon Muskwho take on the hard challenges, and make progress in spite of naysayers. I think Lee is absolutely right though when she says:

“When we look around and see a homogenous group of individuals discussing these issues – issues that command insane budgets, we should pause. Why aren’t other voices and perspectives at the table? How much is this conversation being controlled (framed, initiated, directed, routed) by capitalist and political interests of the (few) people at the table?”

It’s early days, but if we really want to create a progressive new world then issues like these should be at the hearts of our efforts from the very start. I hope Musk and his peers open up that discussion sooner rather than later, and I hope that people like Lee can take part in it. The last thing we need is to wake up in 50 years and find that a bunch of #gamergate nobheads are running Mars.

This is absurd, but putting that aside, so what? What if all those evil white men (and Asian men since they’re practically considered white men now) leave for Mars? Wouldn’t that be a good thing for people like this? Wouldn’t that mean that Earth would become a paradise without all those evil white (and Asian) men? Obviously not, and whoever wrote this article knows it.

Robert A. Heinlein, the science fiction author, said, “Reach low orbit and you’re halfway to anywhere in the solar system.” That is because the energy required to get from the ground to low Earth orbit is the same as the energy required to get from low Earth orbit to anywhere in the solar system. If you can get to low Earth orbit, anywhere in the solar system is within reach. This is what worries people like the author of article. If it’s possible for a sufficient number of men to get to low Earth orbit, they can escape to anywhere in the solar system. Outside of the moon anywhere in the solar system is too far away to be dominated by a nation on Earth. What they’re really worried about is a migration of men to Mars (or anywhere else in space) who will then give the middle finger to all the women and manginas still on Earth. All the nonsense about women being raped in space and rovers being enslaved is just a really bad cover for this.

It’s similar to how MGTOW drives women and manginas insane because each man who goes his own way can’t be controlled. Men migrating to Mars is the same thing on a larger scale.

Apr 242015

Anne Wheaton, the wife of anti-#GamerGate mangina Wil Wheaton, is now donating a dollar to Anita Sarkeesian for every “harassing” tweet she allegedly receives.  (Unfortunately, she’s limited the donation to Anita to a max of $1000 so harassing her won’t bankrupt her.)  If you look at her twitter, it’s hard to find actual harassment.  That is, except for the fake harassment she receives from her followers to spur donations to Anita Sarkeesian.

What this proves is that if you’re attention whoring like Anne Wheaton is, it’s a guarantee you aren’t being harassed.  If you’re doing the online equivalent of holding up a billboard that says, “Harass Me!!!!”, you aren’t being harassed.

Apr 222015

Tyler Cowen, a professor at George Mason University, recently interviewed Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal and investor in Facebook.  Here is an excerpt from that interview where Thiel talks about Aspergers being important for innovation and the problems of conformity:

TYLER COWEN: Let me give you my take on how I’ve tried to fit different parts of your thought together. And again, for all you listeners, this doesn’t have to be true. It’s just my mental model of Peter Thiel. That you’re one of a lot of thinkers who takes the idea of original sin — it doesn’t have to be a theological commitment — seriously. Tocqueville wrote in the 19th century that America eventually would evolve to be a land of complacent people who were going to stop believing in original sin and stick to a kind of conformist mediocrity.

So you have taken this to heart. The world out there is deeply weird. Even though there appears to be free entry into ideas production, because of René Girard–like ideas, the people who deviate, someone comes down on them pretty hard. So there’s excess conformity, the original sin in people’s motives gets magnified at the social level. So basically, there are distortions out there. And everything we can see, it’s a gnostic theology, and a relatively small number of people who can see through those distortions can be great entrepreneurs, or can tell the truth about politics.

And it’s all ultimately some kind of bundled, implicitly theological, but not necessarily involving belief in God, but theological perspective about the nature of people. And it ends up spreading to all the different parts of society and that, to me, has been what ties your thought together. But that’s a hypothesis; let’s hear your reaction to that.

PETER THIEL: Let’s see. I think the way original sin normally works is that it resides in individuals, in one way or another. And so theologically, I would place it much more in society. And so I think society is both something that’s very real and very powerful, but on the whole quite problematic. We always run the risk of losing sight of that.

I don’t know if it’s strictly the awareness of it that solves it. Certainly, there probably are some people who are just vaguely oblivious to it, so in Silicon Valley, I point out that many of the more successful entrepreneurs seem to be suffering from a mild form of Asperger’s where it’s like you’re missing the imitation, socialization gene.

TYLER COWEN: And that’s a plus, right?

PETER THIEL: It happens to be a plus for innovation, and creating great companies, but I think we always should turn this around as an incredible critique of our society. We need to ask, what is it about our society where those of us who do not suffer from Asperger’s are at some massive disadvantage because we will be talked out of our interesting, original, creative ideas before they are even fully formed?

We’ll notice that’s a little bit too weird, that’s a little bit too strange. Maybe I’ll just go ahead and open the restaurant that I’ve been talking about, that everyone else can understand and agree with, or do something extremely safe and conventional, and therefore hypercompetitive, and probably not that great as an idea.

I’d say a lot of these people may not understand this larger theory about society, but they are somewhat oblivious to it, and it pushes progress. Now, certainly my own experience would have been a little bit more where — I grew up in Northern California. It was this hyper-tracked process, where my eighth grade junior high school yearbook, one of my friends wrote in, “I know you’re going to get into Stanford in four years.”

Four years later I got into Stanford, then I got into Stanford Law School. You won all the conventionally tracked competitions; you ended up at a big law firm in Manhattan. From the outside, it was a place where everybody wanted to get in. On the inside, it was a place where everybody wanted to get out.

You ask one of the people down the hall from me, said that it was great to see me leave. I left after seven months and three days, it was great to see me leave. It was like “I had no idea it was possible to escape from Alcatraz.”

TYLER COWEN: What did you learn there?

PETER THIEL: I learned that I was incredibly prone to this problem of social convention. If you want to give it a religious terminology, the psychological terminology would be that I had a rolling quarter life crisis in my mid-20s. The religious terminology, I had a quasi-conversion experience where I realized the value system was deeply corrupt and needed to be questioned.

I do think that one of the ways of challenging convention, one way, the Asperger’s way, is just to be vaguely oblivious to it all, and continue apace. Then I think there is another modality where you just become aware of how conventional our conventions really are, and then that becomes sort of an indirect route of trying to start thinking for yourself.

TYLER COWEN: In your view, perhaps the contemporary world is becoming, I don’t know what the word would be, stranger, or weirder, or more shaped by individuals who are different, precisely because conformity is being piled on other places. So if the movers and shakers would be people who are in some way neuro diverse, then overall, the world is becoming more surprising in a way, right? That’s what we expect at different margins, at different corners. This will accumulate. It may not ever feel like we’re getting out of the great stagnation, but each bit of change we get is in a way a more different change than we would get, say, in 1957, where everything was done with guys with white shirts and starched white collars, hoping they would be able to buy a little pocket calculator someday.

PETER THIEL: I think the innovation that we are getting is driven in strange ways.

I worry that the conformity problem is actually more acute than it was in the ’50s or ’60s, so that the category of the eccentric scientist, or even the eccentric professor, is a species that is steadily going extinct because there is less space for that in our research universities than there used to be.

I worry that perhaps, if anything, it’s a little bit the other way. It’s very hard to measure these things or calibrate them, but I think that in politics, the conventional approach is to simply look at pollsters. What are your positions going to be? You just look at the polls, you figure this out, and it works fairly well.

At the end of the day, that’s probably not how the system really changes. It probably will be changed by some idiosyncratic people who have really strong convictions, and are over time, able to convince more people of them. But whether this means that we have more or less change is hard to evaluate. It always comes from these somewhat nonconventional channels.

An interesting thing to do with this part of the interview is replace Aspergers with masculinity and conformity with feminization.  When you do that what Thiel is saying makes just as much sense if not more.

What is going on here is that innovation requires a willingness to buck conformity just as Thiel points out.  However, Aspergers (or Autism Level 1 as it is now called in the DSM-5) in many ways is just having an ultra-masculine brain.  In other words, innovation is driven by masculinity.  On the other hand, conformity is driven by femininity.  Thiel points out that the increasing conformity of universities has driven out the eccentric innovative scientist and their Aspergers/ultra-masculine brains.  What has happened to universities over the time period Thiel is talking about?  They have become feminized so naturally they became conformist and hostile to innovation.  That’s why innovation and change comes from nonconventional channels as Thiel points out.  That describes the M(H)RM, MGTOW, and #GamerGate.

Thiel also had something to say about Japan and innovation and conformity:

TYLER COWEN: In the back room, we were talking about Japan, and a recent trip of yours to Japan. Maybe you would like to relate some of what you were saying?

PETER THIEL: They always want you to say things that are sort of contrarian and surprising, and so they asked me at this discussion I was giving in Japan. And the answer that I came up with, which was both flattering to the audience, but somewhat disturbing from our perspective, was I think we always think of Japan as this hyper-imitative, noncreative culture of extreme conformity.

My suggestion is that perhaps at this point, Japan is the least conformist, the least imitative country in the world. There’s actually a lot of interesting aesthetic cultural stuff going on, there still is a lot of very successful types of businesses. There’s innovation in food production, all sorts of interesting areas.

But then it’s an indictment of the West, where I think Japan is no longer the Japan of the Meiji Restoration of the 1870s, or the Japan of the cheap plastic imitation toys of the 1950s. It’s a country that no longer thinks it can get that much by copying the West. There’s probably still some narrow interest in IT and software. Outside of that, I think they are copying the US and Western Europe less and less.

People aren’t even learning English that much anymore. They’re speaking less English than they were 15, 20 years ago. The golf courses are all getting shut down and converted to solar farms or something; people don’t even want to play golf anymore. I think we need to take this as a real critique of our society, very seriously, that they’re finding less that’s desirable to imitate in the US or Western Europe.

I’m not sure about the golf thing because golf is also declining in the US, but that’s beside the point.  Why would Japan want to copy the West less now?  It’s because so much of the West is feminized.  The Japanese know better.  Thiel points out that the one thing Japan is interested in from the West is IT and software.  In other words, Japan only wants to copy things from the West that aren’t feminized.

One thing I have noticed is how much feminists and SJWs hate Japan.  This provides an interesting angle of that.  Japan is rejecting the feminists and SJWs since they are not innovative and ossified conformists.

Mar 302015

Recently, Michelle Chapman, a British woman, was jailed for sending herself thousands of abusive messages.  This included messages of a “very unpleasant sexual nature”.  Chapman did that to make it look like her father and stepmother were responsible because she wanted to make their lives hell.

Chapman is the first woman to be prosecuted for faking online harassment against themselves.  However, it’s guaranteed that she won’t be the last.  It’s a safe bet that women like Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn have sent death threats to themselves, and the prosecution of Chapman proves that it is a real thing.

The worst part about this story is how there are people falling on their swords to not blame Chapman for her actions.  In an incredible display of white knightism, Chapman’s husband said, “She is the victim, she has mental health issues and it was a cry for help. She has not had the help she needs. This is what you do when you’re in desperate, desperate need of help – you scream out.”  After Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn are exposed as committing the same fraud as Chapman, they will use the mental illness defense too.

Feb 182015

I found this blog about how #GamerGate is the last stand of individualism.  I certainly agree that gaming is a fundamentally individualist endavor, and that #GamerGate is a battle between individuality and collectivism.  Feminists/SJWs and the other enemies of #GamerGate do not see you as an individual.  You are simply cishet (white) male to them, same as every other cishet (white) male out there.  If you’re not a cishet (white) male, and you support #GamerGate, then you’re a weaponized minority suffering from false consciousness.  Otherwise you’re in the progressive stack of victims (with white women at the top).

I disagree that #GamerGate is the last stand of individualism because there are several other fronts where individuality is fighting collectivism.  (It’s likely that the blog author simple isn’t aware of this).  The MRM/MHRM is an individualist endeavor.  MGTOW is the ultimate example of individuality, and collectivism has no weapon that can defeat MGTOW.  MGTOW has no organization or leaders so it forces the collectivists to deal with men as individuals.  They are unable to deal with men as individuals so collectivism is guaranteed to lose against MGTOW.

Translate »