Polarity shift #3

In February of 2016, the BBC ran a fake news article about women being better software programmers than men based on a study which had not actually been published, and of which the authors did not intend to release the data. Of course, since that is bullshit, the BBC has changed the title of the article several times, and now it only claims that gender bias exists. Still bullshit. Or if there is gender bias, it is against nerdy Asian/Indian/white guys rather than Strong Women of Color. Below are some polarity shifted excerpts from the original article. Editorial notes in []:

Computer code written by white men has a higher approval rating than that written by women – but only if their gender is not identifiable, new research suggests.

The US researchers analyzed nearly 1.4 million users of the open source program-sharing service Github.

They found that pull requests – or suggested code changes – made on the service by white men were more likely to be accepted than those by women.

The paper is awaiting peer review.

This means the results have yet to be critically appraised by other experts.

….

However the team was able to identify whether roughly 1.4m were male or female – either because it was clear from the users’ profiles or because their email addresses could be matched with the Google + social network. [This sample is probably bad, the methodology sucks hard. Github by default does not identify gender so self-identifying gender means a lot of self selection of the sample, with results that could be skewed far from the norm.]

The researchers accepted that this was a privacy risk but said they did not intend to publish the raw data. [Emphasis mine, this is a huge red flag. They could have made the whole thing up.]

….

“Our results suggest that although white men on Github may be more competent overall, bias against them exists nonetheless,” the researchers concluded.

“I think we are going to see a resurgence of interest from white men in not only coding but all sorts of tech-related careers over the next few years,” she said.

“Knowing that white men are great at coding gives strength to the case that it’s better for everyone to have more white men working in tech.”

“It was white men who came up with almost every new idea in computer science in the first place, we owe it to them to make sure that we encourage and support white men in the software industry,” Dr Black added.

While not as egregious as my previous polarity shift, you could just as equally not expect anything so openly pro-white male to be published on any mainstream fake news site like the BBC. I actually missed this when it first came out, but a twitter link recently made me aware of it. You can see a complete take-down of the fake news here:

  • There are obvious issues in attempting to identify someone’s gender online
  • There are far more male users on GitHub then one could argue that men are in fact far better at coding because far more are actually doing it and many women are missing in action. Perhaps the small number of women who get involved are marginally better on average, but they would still be vastly outnumbered by men who are equally or more capable.
  • The media have cherry-picked data from the study which also showed clear bias towards those openly identifying themselves as female in many areas.

…..

Anyway, the real villain here is not Dr Black but of course the BBC who not only promote such propaganda, but exaggerate the “findings” of these studies to a greater extent than even those behind them. Using the wonderful Newssniffer site, we can see the BBC actually used a slightly more reasonable headline in its very first version of the article, which read “Women may write better code, study finds”. However, just 35 minutes later someone decided to remove the term “may”, thus throwing all caution out the window and moving fully away from journalism and into feminist activism instead.

Read the whole thing. It is an excellent exposé on the process of generating fake news in the MSM.

 

Share Button

Cathedral Censorship in Action: Colin Flaherty banned from Youtube

This will be a short post. I just want to draw attention to yet another example of people not following the “right” narrative being bullied, badgered, pressured and purged.

Part of the “acceptable” narrative is that all races (and genders) are equal in every conceivable way. Not just in terms of being treated fairly before the law, but also in potential for success or potential for crime. When one group statistically commits more crimes than other groups, this axiom is violated. The strategy of progressives is not to look at this information and reject the axiom, but to double down and create rationalizations that allow the axiom to coexist with facts that clearly debunk it.

It is well known (and empirically verified) that blacks commit more crimes than whites, and that in interracial violence blacks are much more commonly the aggressor against the out-group, especially whites, than vice versa. This is a clear violation of the axiom that all groups are equally criminally, or equally non-criminal. In love with their axiom, progressives invent (rationalize) nonsense theories and hypotheses such as white privilege and systematic racism to explain the disparity and keep their axiom too. Of course that is bullshit, and genetics is in the process of showing these differences are innate. Once enough “warrior” alleles at various gene locations are identified, it is almost certain blacks will have a greater frequency of them than most other groups and that will be determined to be the true cause of their higher likelihood for violent crime.

There are people out there who actively work against the progressives and make the information about the reality of inter-racial violence, and especially black violence, known. Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire for example. Another such person is Colin Flaherty, author of ‘White Girl Bleed A Lot’: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It and ‘Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry’: The hoax of black victimization and those who enable it.. In these books he demonstrates the reality and extent of black on white violence and how much more often whites are the victims of blacks rather than the other way around.

In addition to these important books, he also had a youtube channel which posted videos, both privately recorded and found in the media, which demonstrated both black violence and the media’s blatant attempts to white wash the truth. This channel was gaining popularity at a very rapid rate because the general public could not access this information as a result of collusion in the mainstream media to cover it up.

“My channel documents how the media ignore, deny, condone, excuse, encourage and even lie about these kinds of crimes. I filled a vacuum, and the people responded to that.

“And all of this was based on facts and evidence. We produced videos, 9-1-1 calls, police reports, eyewitness accounts and statements from victims who all said the same thing. ‘Something very wrong is happening here, and we have to pay attention to it,’”

“My YouTube channel was getting 1 million views a month, generating about 5 to 10 million minutes of viewing. There were 25,000 to 50,000 comments a month, and 15,000 subscribers. And all of those numbers were growing 20 percent per month,” he said.

“This channel satisfied a craving for real information about black-on-white crime and black-on-white hostility that has reached epidemic levels. And I don’t apologize for pointing out the obvious: black mob violence and black-on-white crime is wildly out of proportion.”

When a white is the perpetrator of some crime the race is readily reported, but when a black is a perpetrator, the only information we get is “a man” or “youths” or “teenagers” and the public is left wondering the ethnicity of the perp. Well, not many people are dumb enough not to know implicitly. Most average people, white or otherwise, have easily figured out that when a description is intentionally vague it usually means a black is responsible (though Hispanics also will get similar treatment their crime rate  is lower than blacks).

Colin Flaherty’s work goes against the progressive narrative of the cathedral, which makes it a prime target for censorship. His work shows the reality of race relations today and calls into question both the axiom of equality and the rationalization that whites are the aggressors and thus are at fault. Such crimethink is not something progressives will tolerate, at least not for long and so now Flaherty’s work is no longer available from youtube. A platform which has a great potential for the truth to be made known. This is unfortunate for those who value truth above sentiment, but in this case the truth wants to be free and will continue becoming more widely known despite this bump in the road.

Share Button

The girls who cry wolf

The boy who cried wolf is a famous tale in western culture. In it a shepherd boy who maintains a flock of sheep repeatedly calls for the help of local villagers to repel an attack by wolves. However, once the villagers arrive, they discover that there was no wolf attack and the boy simply tricked them for his own amusement. Eventually, a wolf does truely attack the flock and the shepherd boy really does need help. Unfortunately, when he goes to get help from the villagers, they remember all the many instances where his calls for help were false and decide not to help him. The flock of sheep is killed and the boy’s livelihood is destroyed. “This shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them.”

So why do I repeat this story that you surely already know? The lesson contained therein seems incredibly obvious right? I do this because in the recent past there have been many situations where an especially histrionic breed of woman has claimed that they were raped, usually in a most horrific manner, yet a certain amount of fact finding determines the claim of rape is false. The most famous example is the duke lacrosse case (as a former lacrosse player myself, I found the episode especially egregious), but there always seems to be a new, ostensibly obvious, case of false rape accusation which everyone takes seriously.

Bill Cosby for example is very respectable for his position of encouraging black men and women to form stable monogamous relationships and pointing out that absentee fathers is a particularly large problem for the black community. And how is this noble man (at least in this situation) treated? All of his ex-girlfriends come out and accused him of rape and harassment in some sort of opportunistic backlash in which they hope to get money from him and the raving, lunatic feminists hope to silence a particularly difficult dissenter to their culturally marxist narrative (being black gives him a certain level of immunity in the victim Olympics). All I can say about his actions is that it is fairly natural for a high status man to bed multiple women. Humans are biologically polygamous in nature and it takes a fair amount of cultural structure to make things otherwise. A culture which had been destroyed well before Cosby engaged in any dalliances. In other words, I don’t find fault with him personally for sleeping with those girls. I find fault with the girls and feminists for the Machiavellian machinations and opportunism utilized in taking advantage of the situation. The girls completely and totally created their involvement with cosby through their choices of who to sleep with. Contrary to feminist attitudes, it is in fact women who chose what males they associate with, not the other way around. This is why 80% of women in history have living descendants but only 40% of history’s men do. The girls are the ones who chose to sleep with Cosby rather than the other way around. Its all on them.

The most recent example of this sort of shenanigans is the girl named “Jackie” at the university of Virginia who claimed that she was raped by a bunch of frat guys after a date with one of them. Long story short, it turns out that all of this was made up whole sale originally because she was interested in a guy who wasn’t interested in her. She hoped to make him jealous by inventing a guy who was awesome and completely devoted to her. She bought a phone line and sent pictures of a guy she barely talked to in high school to make her story more believable. She relayed that she was so irresistible that he brought her back to his frat house and they all couldn’t help but rape her one after another; probably all wearing football helmets. She was that awesomely attractive that no male could possibly resist her beauty, they just had to rape her. Therefore her crush, Randall, must make her his girlfriend. She is just that awesome. sure… At least that was how it was supposed to work in the bizarro world of twisted logic that Jackie apparently inhabits.

I told a personal friend of this ridiculousness (repeated again and again by more women than can be counted) and stated that I simply cannot understand why the claims of any woman (especially concerning rape, but in general as well) is taken seriously any longer. It is too often an unbelievable exaggeration or complete fabrication. Usually the intent is one of three different sorts, although there a few more less common reasons. One is to bring the attention to a desperate attention whore who will say and do anything and suffer any cost for that 15 minutes of precious attention. It is also sometimes a bald attempt by an adventuress to gain financially through the legal system at the expense of men (think divorce court). And lastly, many girls, when faced with the possibility of being publicly outed as the sluts they are, opt to lie through their teeth and throw any men around them under the bus to save their “reputation.” In response I was treated to this reasonable sentiment:

It is a shame that a crazy girl who should be prosecuted and an over zealous amateur journalist looking for a seditious article failed as a professional. Rapes are very real and many women (and men) do suffer from them. Don’t forget the highschool girl who got fingered and peed on while passed out by the Ohio football team and then attacked. Those had pictures and were real.

There have been lots of incidents of women making up rape stories also, in particular on college campuses or being forced into claiming rape by crazy hateful feminists. It is a fucked up situation from all the sides obviously. [Atavisionary] you have a very strong bias against women but should recognize that rape is real and many times goes undocumented, should people not believe any rape accusers now because of this story?

It seems to me that the groups that have largely created the hateful attitude towards men, and white men in particular, care little about reason or measured consideration of specific events one at a time. They seek only to maximize the benefit of their ingroup or thede in the maximum number of situations regardless of how wrong a particular member may be in a particular situation. Fairness has never once entered their reasoning. Their demands and agitations are nothing but Machiavellian and have little to do with everyone just getting along. Generations of reasonable men have come before us and time and again they have been burned. Every inch they gave, every concession they made, every time they tried to play fair by a logical set of rules, it came back to bite them in the ass. Our culture is shot to shit because reasonable men tried to be fair to an opponent they did not, perhaps could not, understand and had no such consideration for them. It is suicidal to play by the rules when your opponents have long ago thrown them out and reap huge advantages from the asymmetry of discourse and trust. So while I do agree with the sentiment of fairness in the abstract sense, I have abandoned such sentimentality. It is useless in the absence of a good-faith arbiter with unambiguous authority who can enforce proper rules of logic and debate.

I un-apologetically state that this is a war and to win means you have to go for the throat and take no prisoners. The average woman very much had the power (women are naturally very good at social manipulation) to silence or dissuade the most delusional of rape obsessed feminists long before it got to the point of culture-wide hysteria. A hysteria which has had a great negative effect on myself and all other men. Yet they did nothing. And now I, and every other decent man, is supposed to continue treating women (and their statements) as privileged despite the fact that a large number of publicized examples clearly demonstrate that women as a group tend to lie excessively and are treated with undue leniency. This general finding by the media is fully consistent with my personal experiences over the years. Although it falls short in that it is not completely faithful to the ubiquitousness of deceit among the fairer sex that I am familiar with. And so I am left in the position that I don’t think being fair or logical will be effective in fixing this problem. Certainly uncritical white-knighting won’t help. Tough love is sometimes necessary and it seems that this is a case that the actions of women demand the toughest love imaginable. If thousands or hundreds of thousands of women have to suffer grievously at the hands of indifference to teach them as a group not to cry wolf, and for women to self-regulate other women that do cry wolf, then so be it. It is a lesson that has been a long time in coming. “This shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them.” This goes for groups as much as individuals. Don’t cry wolf, we aren’t going to believe you anymore.

Share Button

How Cultural Marxism ruined the Mass Effect franchise

When I first read about the original Mass Effect, I found myself very interested. A third person futuristic shooter with significant roleplaying elements seemed like a very unique style. Unfortunately, I did not own an X-box at the time so I did not have a chance to play the original or the sequels when they were first released. However, last year I found out that there had subsequently been a release for the PS3. I decided to get all three games and play straight through one after another.

The games were very good from a technical standpoint and in terms of gameplay. However, as the games progressed (pun intended) the influence of Cultural Marxism crept insidiously up until it made Mass Effect 3 almost unplayable. Unfortunately for me personally, and fortunately for this review, I was completely unaware of the controversy surrounding the progressive stance of the third installment which allowed me to experience it without preconceived notions.

The first issue I have with Mass Effect 3 is the shift to an over-emphasis on romantic relationships. A game of this sort is about roleplaying a tactical commander set amongst a myriad of alien species, both hostile and friendly. You are there to lead your team against the odds and save the day, to navigate political intrigue and win by force when necessary. In short, it is for role-playing the ideal masculine character who must confront difficult situations that brings out the best of his masculine virtues. To have large digressions into discussion about relationships and romance really distracts from the desired purpose of the game (from the consumer’s perspective). For example, you might be walking by couples talking to each other about their relationships or NPCs complaining about their spouses. There is also significantly more romance related dialogue for Shepard. In essence, the game and the main hero were significantly more feminized than the previous installments. That might be OK if the target demographic for this game had a significant number of women. The thing is, the large majority of gamers are young, straight men. It makes zero sense to cater to a demographic who won’t be interested in a game like this regardless of how many female friendly attributes you add to it. Game companies will never get large populations of women to play games like this because this genre of gaming is not appealing to most women. The only thing you do with this is alienate the guys who actually want to play as a tactical commander. Guys bought the game to shoot aliens, not hear npcs whine about their lovers. The first game had it right, there was very limited dialogue dealing with relationships and you could skip it easily (Sorry, I have no romantic interest in a tentacle head). It seems that if there is ever a point where there is a product or form of media that specifically caters to the interests of men, there is always a loud and vocal minority who demand that it does more to cater to women and for some unknowable reason that vocal minority is listened to despite the changed implementation alienating the largest fraction of fans.

Too much romance was bad enough, but it gets worse than that. I haven’t done an exact count, but my impression was that there are more homosexual couples in the game than heterosexual ones if you include NPC-NPC interactions.

In one example among many, there is a point where the lesbian romantic interest comes up to your quarters and beats you at chess while giving intentionally misleading innuendos if you have a male Shepard, though presumably it would lead to more if you had a female Shepard. It is obvious that bioware did not change the dialogue to match what you would expect from an uninterested lesbian talking to the male Shepard. Given her character, she should not make flirtatious comments towards the male Shepard. Instead you have a lesbian being extremely flirtatious with a male character who then suddenly changes her disposition and rebukes him. In other words, she is a tease. I can’t imagine a way to make a character more annoying or better evidence for lazy writing on the part of bioware.

In another example, there is a woman complaining on the phone that her “daughter” with another woman couldn’t be sent to her family because she was disowned by the mean traditionalists. I sympathize with people in this situation to a small degree*, but being preached to about this politicized issue is not something that should be happening in this game.

I have nothing against gays. Fluke biological events almost certainly explain most of this evolutionarily maladaptive aberration in the same way biology accounts for downs or muscular dystrophy. As an Atheist, I don’t view it as some sort of moral question or as a sin. However, just because I can understand and accept that there are and will be homosexuals**, that does not mean I want homosexuality forced on me in video games or other media. I do not, and will never, enjoy content that has a heavy homosexual theme. I don’t even like heterosexual relationship discussions in my games or media. Why does bioware think I or the rest of the straight male majority want to hear a gay dude crying over his gay lover? (Yes, there is a scene like this in the game and no you can’t avoid it). So again, the interests of the main demographic for this game (straight male gamers) is thrown under the bus in an attempt to be inclusive to an even smaller minority of activist whiners and to push the “correct” values on a large audience who were never interested in the game for any sort of partisan political message.

What does bioware say to the majority of its customer base when they complainGet over it. They apparently know what’s good for us. Small minorities have to be catered to despite the fact the game will be much less enjoyable as a result for the main demographic. I am not against there being separate video games that can cater to those minorities, but I know that I don’t want that content included in the games I play because it kills the immersion and enjoyability of the games. For a significant fraction of the gamers, this was also done despite the fact that the depicted lifestyle might be deeply offensive to their religious beliefs. I may not believe in religion or god or be offended for this reason personally, but I find the attempt to force values onto religious communities to be repugnant. Deeply religious gamers are probably also a minority, why are the interests of this minority ignored in favor of homosexuals? Homosexuality should have been left out, or at least there should have been an option to not have it be part of the game for those who didn’t want it. Content that aggressively pushes politically progressive agendas when playing escapist entertainment destroys the gaming experience and as a result I will be avoiding bioware content in the future. Not the least because of how disrespectful they were to the part of the fan base who voiced their concerns. I suspect that I will not be the only one.

Another aspect of the lesbian beating Shepard at chess should be addressed. Beyond being annoying for having incongruent dialogue and imposing a specific value system, the scene is also completely disconnected from reality when it comes to her victory at chess. The ratio of men to women in chess favors men to such an extreme degree that they have to create separate all-female leagues because there aren’t enough women who can compete effectively with men; not unlike most physical sports.This is due to biological differences between men and women in visual spatial, numerical and mechanical intelligence as well as the greater variance in intelligence among men. This leads to there being a larger number of very high intelligence men than women. I know that some women are better at chess than some men, but nonsense scenes like this are both unnecessary and ineffectual at achieving progressive goals. Seeing women winning at chess in fiction will never translate to women winning at chess in reality. The population that makes up the most elite chess players will always be overwhelmingly male. Just like the population of people who like to play video games will always be overwhelmingly male.

The Leftoids who make up the cathedral have this weird (and incorrect) idea that different outcomes for different groups result not from innate biological differences, but from social conditioning. They think if they expose young people to the “right” types of tropes in stories they will be able to increase a person’s aptitude for a field (or make them have the “right” opinions in the case of values). In this game, the relevant cues are female soldiers, scientists, and technicians. They made a lot of female scientists and technical specialists and several female soldiers in all three games. This, of course, is nonsense. Elite Men who are well-suited to engage in both extreme physical and mental tasks (see studies above) are overwhelming more numerous than elite women for biological reasons. Women didn’t need to be elite to be successful in evolutionary history, men did and still do. Though I know the portrayal of women is extremely unrepresentative, it doesn’t bother me as much as the imposition of progressive values or excessive female inclusiveness detailed above. For one thing, the technobabble dialogue doesn’t directly annoy me like relationship dialogue does, and I don’t care who voice acts it. However, it is another example of leftoids trying to social engineer and force progressive values on the general public and is worth mentioning and understanding.

Games are meant to be escapist entertainment. They aren’t supposed to be used as a soapbox for leftoids to force tolerance and biologically inaccurate representations down the throat of the gaming community. This side content was a very dark stain on what would have otherwise been a great game franchise.

* There is robust evidence that children who are raised in homes without fathers have a lot more difficulties in their lives. Generally speaking, fatherless homes should be avoided where possible. In cases of adoption, a lesbian home might be better than nothing or an abusive home, but childbearing that does not include the presence of a father should be discouraged.

** Male homosexuals tend to have extreme sexual lifestyles with many partners which contributes significantly to disease spread. HIV is the most well known example, but it is hardly the only. Extreme promiscuity probably should not be acceptable even if homosexuality is viewed as unavoidable.

Share Button