This always depends on whose money the “political party” and advocates are receiving. Ultimately, it is it’s own time held tradition of American hypocrisy that can be summed up as, “It’s wrong when you do it, but okay when I do.”
I came across this article in The Washington Post detailing a list for 2014 revealing the donors for the Center for American Progress. CAP finally decided to do this after taking some criticism for a lack of transparency from fellow progressives as well as conservatives only too eager to point out flaws in their opponents.
Notable top donors include Walmart, financial giant Citigroup, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and some large biotech and pharma firms. Walmart is actually particular shocking, considering unions’s attitude toward them and their top-dog status as a progressive punching bag. This however, is not what what we should apparently be paying attention to.
“We’re proud of our donors,” CAP president Neera Tanden said in an interview. “We’re very diversified. We have a very low percentage of corporate donors. We have a wide panoply of individual and foundation supporters.
In political campaign financing and lobbying, there seems to be this odd disconnect between who you should take money from and why. Most progressives will insist that money in politics is bad, but won’t hesitate to ask and accept plenty of it in order to win political races and advance certain agenda’s. It was not too long ago when Michelle Obama decried the influence of money in politics, only to request campaign donations in the same speech only minutes before.
The irony of this hasn’t been lost on those on the left. This was brought up by The Atlantic in an article a few months back, “Is Philanthropy Bad for Democracy?” in which Gara Lamarche made this point about his fellow progressives:
Why are they are not more concerned about the undemocratic and largely unaccountable nature of philanthropy? Why are we—since I too have failed, for years, to ask these big questions—hypersensitive to the dangers of big money in politics, and the way it perpetuates advantage and inequality, but blind, it seems, to the dangers of big philanthropy in the public sphere?
A prevailing question that continues to remain is as to why money from “corporations” is dangerous, but money from huge political PACs, non-profit organizations, ect are not. The CAP president emphasized the variety of donors and foundations contributing money as somehow not as “bad” as receiving money from more “acceptable” sources. Why?
The fundamental question we must ask is rather simple: Do the end’s justify the means in regards to where the cash comes from? There is no gray area. Either money in politics is bad or it is not. People with strong political involvements are willing to make all sorts of exceptions about where they get their money from while condemning others for doing the exact same thing.
At some point, there must be some consistency or the whole argument breaks down into what it has become now; decrying others for doing the exact same thing that you are doing. While you may be right about the destructive influence of “their” money in politics, it doesn’t make your identical actions any less destructive.
Either we get rid of money from politics all-together, or we quit pointing fingers at people getting funding from places, people, and worldviews we don’t like. This of course brings up another issue: Is money free speech? That is another debacle with it’s own mess.
The more and more I see posts by feminists – particularly the radfems- there appears to be this vitriolic disdain for the penultimate height of evil that infests our world; the ever dangerous white male.
Many of the things said about these “white males” are deemed acceptable statements of “uncomfortable truth” though one would not dare utter similar things about anyone else who either wasn’t white and/or male. Society is full of double-standards which we usually make excuses for with concepts like Standpoint Theory (Privilege) and the notion that if you are supposedly a member of the opposing group in society, you can’t be oppressed, marginalized, disadvantaged, ect. no matter if you are a homeless “white male” on the streets in Chicago’s terrifying winters or not.
A clip from The Amazing Athiest on “Tumblr Feminists” sums up the self-loathing that white males are supposed to feel at all times:
In a feminist’s world, I suppose it’s a good thing I’m only half-white so I experience just a little bit less hate and vitriol.
Opinionated Man a.k.a Jason Cushman recently had the unfortunate experience of being told by WordPress that “mass following” – which literally can include simply following too many people back – is now a WordPress crime under the “spam” category. We all hate spam, but this is a curious redefinition and it changes how the game is played right in the middle of it.
It’s kind of like playing a game with an older brother that suddenly tells you about a new rule in the game that you didn’t know about, but it benefits him alot. You check out the rulebook and its apparently there.
Except in this case, there are A LOT of rules. Often these Terms Of Service agreements and the subsequent rules that follow are substantial. It’s often hard to realize you’ve broken a rule, simply because there are so many of them. It allows WordPress to play a kind of “Gotcha!” game. This was a moderator’s official explanation:
The follow feature was intended to help you read blogs that you enjoy, not as a means of promotion. Our automated systems may interfere with behavior that looks more like a spam bot than a human.
I find this explanation puzzling, considering that following someone is a means of promotion. It’s not exactly the same thing as “sharing” a post and/or blog would be via social media and other means, but it is promotional.
I suppose there is only so much a blogger can take, and Cushman has decided that his number is up. Harsh Reality will now be going “Private“. I’m not exactly sure what that means and the exact impact of it, but being the genius that I’m not, even I know it’s not good.
HarsH ReaLiTy will go “private” next week. I will keep the domain since it is worth money and will decide what to do with the site later. I appreciate all the support, but please just let it go. No reason for other sites to get flagged or banned because of my little blog. Take care WP and I have enjoyed the past two years.
If you have articles you have shared on this website please copy and grab them before the 7 days is up. Thanks.
Jason C. Cushman
To myself, this is a dastardly and unexpected blow. One of the primary reasons I continued to blog and started to enjoy it was encountering Harsh Reality.
I can still recall the first time I stumbled on his site and read the header and thought to myself, “Someone who wants to offend everyone at least once!” In today’s day and age of internet activists who exist in their own bubbles, it’s alot easier to offend people than you would think, but can also be alot more costly, especially if the ensuing twitter lynch mobs have their way. It’s why I appreciated Jason’s balls – (That is going to look interesting out of context.) – alot more then most might. Hopefully, OM stick’s around, but perhaps… just perhaps, he needs a bit of a break.
Retaking The Narrative: Ethics in Gaming Journalism
“Guilt by Association” or rather “Wrong by Association” is one of the most utilized tactics of the online media age. It panders to the to the intellectual laziness in our culture which finds it much easier to dismiss arguments based on where they come from rather then what they are.
It is why you will see/hear people dismiss arguments and positions based on retorts such as, “Alex Jones nut”, liberal whackjob, bible thumper, fundamentalist, ect. instead of bothering to actually examine people’s arguments Why? Because it is far less tim consuming to simply dismiss ideas based on who has said them. This is essentially intellectual laziness, which as we can see, is really bad for a culture.
These tactics are used today by not just SJWs, but by most passionate souls on the internet. Often in order to discredit your opponents argument(s) in the ever watchful internet eye, opponents will attempt to associate a group or a movement with (1) their most radical members who are examples of poor judgement and unwise actions (2) define what the movement is about primarily about rather then it’s own advocates.
Essentially, they attempt to dictate and control the narrative and construct straw men about what you supposedly believe, and then proceed to beat the ever loving shit out of them. It’s a dirty sneaky tactic and it is one we should be aware of.
Currently, I believe anti GamerGaters and SJWs have managed to dictate the narrative and determine what we will talk forcing us to often be on the defensive.
We’ve been sidetracked defending ourselves against “harassment” claims of people like Wu, Randi, Chu, ect. While many in #GamerGate justifiably dislike what SJW’s have slowly done to gaming, they are not the main focus – Corruption and a complete lack of ethics in gaming journalism is. To make matters worse, it isn’t even just gaming journalism that has gone down hill, it’s the majority of publications, newspapers, and websites that have been influenced by the “Post Now, Update Later” mentality.
While it is unwise to ignore the actions of the SJWs that will do anything to destroy those who support GamerGate, we can not focus on them, yet we must still be aware of them. Remember, they are their own worst enemy.
It is not enough to be one of the “oppressed” according to SJWs. You have to fall lock and step in with their conclusions on anything, or you will be thrown to the wayside. Even those who do acquiesce to their complaints about racism, sexism, homophobia, trans-phobia and every kind of phobia and “ism” out there still can’t win.
In the end, SJW’s have seriously curbed the artistic freedom of developers and have been able to successfully shame people with cyber twitter lynch mobs if they don’t hit all of the items on the checklist of Social Justice. Daniel Vavra who has worked as a designer and writer for 15 years in the gaming industry has some sobering insight as to what SJWs are slowly doing to the industry:
The biggest problem we have is, that there is a group of people that think they know what’s right and what’s wrong and that they have a mission to make the world a better place and protect the oppressed by any means. They don’t even care what the “oppressed” people think. They censor any feedback they don’t like. They try to censor Twitter. They think that they are better than the rest. It’s funny that they are absolutely unable to have any discussion or provide solid arguments. Have you ever seen any of them in direct confrontation with their opponents? I guess you didn’t, because they only know how to bark at others from behind the fence and then how to play victims when somebody barks back.
And they will never be happy. If you don’t have a gay character in your game, you are homophobic, if you do have gay character in your game, you are homophobic, because they don’t like the character. If women in your game look good, you are sexist, if they look bad, you are sexist, if you can fight with them, you are misogynistic, if you can’t fight with them, you are using them as objects, if you don’t have any women, because there is no correct way how to have them, you are misogynistic.
It’s a witch hunt and it’s affecting my artistic freedom.
What is even more concerning is that they have become arguably the dominate representation in Gaming publications and sites and they are only too happy to throw the notion of journalistic ethics out if the “ends justify the means”.
They have been and still are willing to promote terrible game and give them unjust scores that don’t reflect their quality, plot, gameplay, ect as long as said games have the “right” messages. If the game’s don’t have those “right” messages, they are willing to let that shortcoming unduly effect their reviews and discussion of it. This is a double-standard that I will address later in this article.
The “Harassment Debacle”
I’ve seen countless twitter battles going back and forth in which Anti-GamerGaters continually attempt to put us on the defensive and divert the narrative away from talking about Ethics in Gaming Journalism to talking about supposed harassment that has happened to Anti-GamerGaters.
Observe that even minor “E celebs” like Mike Cernovich haven’t been just harassed, they’ve been doxxed and with no remorse from the supposed denouncers of harassment. In fact, Zoe Quinn herself knew about it and helped in the dox. So much for her complaints about doxxing. Dox up not down right?
Now, whether every case of harassment they claimed has actually happened or not, it is irrelevant to the our strongest demand – Ethics In Gaming Journalism, but I’ll focus more on this later.
A conversation I had on Twitter with an Anti-Gamergater and what I assumed to be a feminist – rightfully so later as I would find out – kept bringing up the “harassment” claims, as well as the supposed allegations on Hotwheels supporting child porn. Whether 8chan having Child Porn on their boards is factual or not, it doesn’t invalidate any of the arguments being made by GamerGate supporters there. This is a point I’ll drive home later in this post, but first let’s take a quick look at the story.
I found an interesting forum thread while browsing through the story and one poster summed up the thought process at play here far better than I can:
Think the other major problem is that he’s just being disingenuous. Hotwheels and his volunteer moderation team have always been pretty clear that they do not tolerate illegal content on their boards. The article was supposed to be on how the moderation team at 8chan were complicit in the distribution of child pornography, and I mean the legal definition of the word here. As much as I am opposed to that shit on moral grounds alone, most of the ‘CP’ shown there is completely legal under United States law. If SJW’s don’t like it, then they should be lobbying to get it declared illegal, not complaining about the distributors. But Hotwheels himself has said that he received no reports of CP the night the author of the article supposedly went through 8chan to find CP, which indicates that the author made no effort to actually contact the moderators of the website to get it removed.
This could mean multiple things: 1. He genuinely saw CP, but nevertheless made no effort to contact the moderators to get it removed. This, at best, makes the message of the article moot, as mods cannot do their jobs if the community does not direct them to the one thread in the one board out of literally hundreds. It’s like recording somebody getting mugged to use as evidence of the inefficiency of the local police, while not bothering to actually call the police to report the mugging. At worst it indicates that he does not really care about the distribution of CP, just that he can use it as a weapon to attack his opponents). 2: he didn’t see anything that does fit the legal definition of child pornography in the US, and did not report it because he knows it would give Hotwheels a solid trail to link back to him and call him out for lying. 3: he has no idea how the moderation of 8chan works, and is trying to talk shit about stuff he doesn’t understand.
Also another important point that was made is a rather simple but shocking one: What if he planted the child porn there himself? We have witnessed SJWs often “dox” and harass themselves in order to gain sympathy and appear to gain the moral high-ground. While that doesn’t necessarily mean that the same thing happened here, we should be VERY skeptical of any claims they make considering the dubious tactics they are willing to employ to “win”.
Anyway, back to the “harassment” issue.
So I undertook the foolhardy task of attempting to first question what “harassment” actually entailed. Enter the mind of a male feminist SJW with whom I still dialogue with on Twitter to this day.
I found this conversation we had to be very useful for seeing what kind of arguments opposing viewpoints would make and how ingrained assumptions – me and him both – about how words are used and the people that use them affects the discourse.
@LucasTemple it means waking up and having 1000+ notifications telling you to go die or using problematic language
One of the first things you’ll notice here is that they like to define harassment as actions and words that they don’t like – such as the 1000+ notifications and “telling someone to go die.” I’m also sure some of you have noticed that “harassment” will also often include essentially anything and everything they don’t like. I find this unfortunate because it destroys the necessary stigma for the words to actually mean something.
It becomes much harder to believe feminists and/or SJWs who claim they have been harassed because the definition has been applied to just about everything. I just hope that when an actual case of harassment happens, the concept of “crying wolf” doesn’t hinder someone from receiving the help and support they may need. No it wouldn’t be vengeance through Karma, it would be an opportunity to show compassion.
@RemingtonWild 1000+ notifications isn't harrasment. Telling you to go die is a grey area. Threatening to kill you is definitely harassment.
This is a lesson for me to learn and that the rest of GamerGate should as well. If the other side is going to chose their own “definitions” for what constitutes things like harassment, and any attempt to refute the obvious shortcomings of that definition can simply be dismissed by them as “redefining”, there is no point to addressing any conversational matter with them that addresses the subject of “harassment.”
I won’t make this same mistake twice. When dealing with people – specifically SJWs – who literally bend ANY word to mean what they want it to mean, you will likely not be able to actually agree on the definition of the word. Let it be noted that ideology and worldview – regardless of whatever it is affects how you view concepts as well as how you define them.
As that piece of historical and timeless wisdom says, “He who defines, wins.”
Logically Exposing The Double Standards
Many of our opponents, SJWs in particular, have often engrossed themselves so thoroughly in presuppositions that involved double standards. The spewing of the entire “privilege” and “racism doesn’t happen to white people because they are not the oppressed race/class” manure is a perfect example of this.
Essentially they are convinced that it is okay for them to be “bad”, but only them. Everyone neutral onlooker with a half a brain that hasn’t been indoctrinated 1984 style by the US public school system will be able to see through this bullshit. It is our job to point said bullshit out.
When I challenged him statement that their has been little/next-to-no harassment from the Anti-GG side and showed him several links, he responded with:
Well now. Isn’t this the same kind of “victim-blaming” behavior they have been accusing us of when we dared to doubt the veracity of Sarkeesian, Wu, ects claims of their supposed harassment? Note his tweet is evidence of that “double standard.” I proceed to point it out:
@RemingtonWild okay notice your skepticism there. Why would you not apply that same skepticism to claims from your side of harassment?
I then pointed out why then would he expect GamerGate supporters to do the same? If it’s just the extreme exceptions to feminism that are saying absolutely horrific things, then shouldn’t we apply that same logic of “exceptions” to GamerGate?
@RemingtonWild until you take responsibility for every wrong of every group you identify with, can you expect us to do the same?
Logic hurts. It also is a valuable tool to employee to the onlookers on the sidelines whose minds have not yet been subjugated to the SJW cog.
Maintaining the Focus
In the long run, It actually doesn’t matter if harassment, doxing, ect has taken place or not. In fact, let me repeat that: It actually doesn’t matter if harassment, doxiing, ect has taken place or not.
It is a distraction and besides the point because it DOES NOT diminish in anyway nor invalidate our observations that (1) ethics in gaming journalism is a problem both before and right now, (2) the gaming press still has made no real effort to acknowledge the corruption and blatant bias in pretending to be impartial while actually conspiring to drive a very specific narrative that they felt their audience didn’t need to know, (3) a refusal to disclose collusion which was later revealed by lists in which journalists secretly admitted choosing which stories they would and wouldn’t cover – the very definition of “biased media”, and (4) their persistent refusal to actually admit the glaring ethics violations that took place, offering no apology or remorse, and instead deflecting the criticism with accusations of “misogyny” and “sexism”
While we can condemn actual harassment that has taken place, we must immediately take back the narrative and focus i back onto what us and neutrals on the sidelines can plainly see: The corruption and the lack of ethics in gaming journalism. These attempts to insist that “harassment” diminishes our call for ethics in gaming journalism must be dismissed because they are actually irrational when you employ a tad bit of logic.
Note the exchange below:
@RemingtonWild you are showing the exceptions on our side – whose actions we have condemned btw. It doesn't invalidate #GamerGate though
Let’s think about that for a moment. Logic 101 dictates that it does not matter WHOadvocates an ideology. What matters specifically is the validity of that ideology, regardless of who actually advocates it. Either the ideology is valid or invalid. Note that his tactic here is essentially another form of “Guilt By Association” or rather “Wrong By Association.”
I’m going to break Godwin’s Law here, but not in the way you think. Take into account Hitler’s and the Nazi’s emphatic support for environmentalism – the kind often endorsed by many liberals. Does that mean that “environmentalism” is automatically wrong because the Nazis and Hitler endorsed it? No, it doesn’t. Who espouses the ideas of radical environmentalism is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the ideology has merit or not.
@LucasTemple why else are SO MANY public figures in the gaming and Internet community rejecting you?
Logic 101 again tells us that “truth” and what is “right” or “wrong” can not be accurately nor should be determined by a majority. Might should not make right. A majority of “Public” figures supported slavery leading up the Civil War. Did that make it right? A majority of “Public” figures opposed the Civil Rights movement during its struggle. Were they automatically correct being the majority? You get the point.
@RemingtonWild note how many public figures denounced the civil rights movement. That didn't make the civil rights movement wrong.
I think it’s safe to say he missed the point. Entirely. This doesn’t speak badly about him but rather shows what influence the assumptions of our worldviews have on how we perceive issues as well as others.
Ultimately everyone is GamerGate is responsible for themselves.
This is important to point out considering how many of us do not hold the same views on issues ranging from politics to culture. I am one of the staunchest proponents of gun rights out there, I think Climate Change is nonsense, and I advocate making ALL drugs legal.
I can guarantee many GamerGate supporters disagree with at least one of those three positions of mine. So should I denounce my fellow GamerGaters for not subscribing to EXACTLY the same opinions as my own? Nah, I’ll let the SJWs do that as they eat each other which we have seen them do so often.
@RemingtonWild every individual is responsible for themselves. I don't agree with the hardcore socialists in GG. Should I denounce them?
Let’s be honest; absolute objectivity is impossible.
Objectivity in journalism terms these days is often understood to include journalistic concepts like “disclosure”, telling both sides of the story, ect. Any “decent” opinion column – that’s about as rare as a comet these days – will argue a position on an issue without completely misrepresenting the opposing side’s viewpoints and will refrain from creating strawmen.
As the internet becomes more and more of an echo-chamber, the definition of objectivity has changed much in the way the definition of trolling has. If you disagree with someone, you are immediately accused of trolling after you have been accused of being “biased”.
To give you a very simple example, the definition of Objectivity has changed in as much the same way “Democracy” has. People say America is a “Democracy.” No, America is more of a Republic with Democratic elements. A pure Democracy is literally where 51% of the people determine the laws. (Essentially 51% of the people in a “Democracy” could decide they don’t like Asian’s anymore and ban them from driving and it would be “the law”)
In fact, most news outlets and press publications don’t exactly bother to hide their biases. What this entails is knowing that Breitbart leans to the right and The Washington Post to the left. They don’t attempt to hide it, so readers are aware of it, something that is important.
When it comes to many gaming journalists, they have gone through great lengths to disguise their biases, while still directly letting them influence their reviews of games and effecting which ones they promote. Objectivity, in the sense of being completely 100% impartial, isn’t necessary or possible to avoid “corruption” in gaming journalism. Those biases however can’t be left undisclosed if they will be allowed to effect the reviews and the rating scores given to game.
Eacaraxe – whose blog on gaming and media I highly recommend, expanded upon this line of though in a series of posts, specifically concerning the case of Bayonetta 2:
“Are certain critics, if they are docking points simply for finding the game’s content distasteful, trying to punish game developers and their publishers by denying them review-based bonuses? If so, is this emblematic of an effort on the part of critics to influence what games are produced and how they produced, contrary to critics’ claims? Is this a valid, or ethical, form of protest against content deemed objectionable by critics and those who produce it?”
This is certainly obvious in the case of the recent controversial game, “Hatred”. Whether a journalist approves or disproves of a game is irrelevant. Their duty is instead rather to inform their readers about the game and include such unnecessary details like plot, character, gameplay, ect. At least the creators of Hatred are honest and fully upfront with what their game is about, something many journalists are not and refuse to be. Will however future reviewers allow this to effect their games and also effect the kind of perception that the public – particular the corporate sector?.
Kotaku’s Social Justice influenced reviews aren’t going to be objective and we know that. We do however expect them to disclose relationships about the games they are reviewing, promoting, and giving attention to. There is an expectation that they would acknowledge the conflict of interests between either (1) the publication and the story (2) the journalists involved in the story.
Instead of doing just that, they couldn’t be bothered to disclose the glaring conflict of interests at hand between Quinn and journalists like Nathan Grayson. Disclosing a conflict of interest is Journalism 101. If you take ANY media journalism classes, it is one of the first things you will learn.
Think about anti GamerGate folks like Ian Miles Cheong that can boast that they don’t give a fuck about ethics in gaming journalism, to which no one in the the anti GamerGate coalition seems to object. The long and documented lack of journalistic ethics still doesn’t appall them in the slightest. This is a point we must continue to ram home. We can do this as we gather even more evidence that shows and will show just how bad the state of ethics in gaming journalism has become and that the corrupt gaming press still “doesn’t give a fuck”.
It deeply pains me to admit this, but the “manosphere” and some who have taken “The Red Pill” (TRP) have allowed their pain and anger to distract them from self-improvement and to mistakenly and irresponsibly blame women for their pain.
In fact, it has become home to some men who might actually hate women – in particular the “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW) portion of it who I actually deeply sympathize with. (Disclosure: I’m not a feminist.)
The thing is, most men aren’t meant to be bachelors. Despite what most MGTOWs will tell you, men and women need each other. We were designed to be together. It’s good and its healthy, regardless of how much modern day feminism has poisoned the waters between the two genders.
Yes, there actually are some misogynists who are TRP – some of these MGTOWs. Like any ideology that has come about as a backlash because of the insanity that 3rd wave feminism has become, it has members who have become just as hate-filled as the feminist movement it despises. Aaron Clarey a.k.a Captain Capitalism has made a video saying some things that really needed to be said about this emerging problem. There may be some backlash, but the truth and objective critiques meant to help others hurt.
Even though I’m only about 6 months in TRP, I understand that the whole point of the TRP is to acknowledge one’s own personal responsibility, rather then defer it to the opposite sex with excuses like, “All Women Are Like That” (AWALT) when rejection occurs – particularly approach rejection and rejection from women overall. (I will admit, I don’t experience approach rejection all that often.)
MGTOW is supposedly specifically about improving yourself, becoming self-disciplined, and becoming someone that not only women want to be around, but other men as well by not putting “pussy” on a pedestal – you know what white knights and manginas actually do. Instead, it more and more is becoming a circle-jerk where we talk about how much they hate how “terrible” women are.
Newsflash: Only just over 15% of women identify as feminists, and most of those aren’t the radicals who we hear the most about online.
Some of these MGTOWs, as Clarey points out, haven’t been successful with women because they aren’t willing to put in the effort which is shocking considering I know some older ugly fat dudes who still get laid. What is the entire point of TRP and of the MGTOWs with in it? Simple. Take personal responsibility for yourself instead of blaming others – that includes women. This is makes TRP like a beacon of light in the midst of darkness because we live in a culture where EVERYTHING is someone else’s fault. Yes, many women have been unfortunately influenced by modern day feminism and it has helped to warp their attitudes toward men.
Now some of us Red Pillers have even developed our own kinds of shaming languages which we then sling at anyone who is willing to impartially observe on the sidelines. We then continue to blame women, and when we experience rejection, we spew a bunch of vitriol about “AWALT” and the like.
The Manosphere, and the The Red Pill in general is about improving yourself and embracing reality, not blaming women for every problem under the sun. Women aren’t the enemy. They are our mothers, our sisters, our wives, and our daughters. Regardless of what is said, men and women will always need each other. It’s a fact of history and of life.
Say anything remotely good about women and you are some sort of mangina white knighting feminist. If we keep abusing these words like feminists have done with words like misogyny and rape, soon they won’t mean anything.
This is shocking to think, but some men – myself included- really like women. I dare say it’s because of our biology! Hell, some of us actually like the “traditional” idea of finding a girl, getting married, and growing into old age together and being happy doing it. I grow tired of seeing people in TRP community whose pain I can identify with throw these blanket assumptions of absolute fact upon all women.
Someone needed to say this in the manosphere and it hasn’t been just Clarey. About two weeks ago “Blair Naso” at the so affectionately labeled “misogyny central” site Return Of Kings wrote a brilliant piece, Most Men Do Not Deserve A Marriageable Woman pointing out this exact problem and blame game we have allowed ourselves to get suckered into. He points out in the article (1) how we have allowed ourselves to blame everyone else – women in particular for our problems – when it comes to having “bad” experiences with them and finding them and (2) how we have developed a sense of entitlement because we exist. When I use the word “entitlement”, I’m not using it in the awful feminist sense where approaching a girl lands you that label, but in an honest objective compassionate sense.
And of course you can claim that all women today are whores, but that is not true either. There are many women who still have a sense of dignity and only give away their sex selectively, since that is what women naturally want to do. True, there are not many virgins outside of the freshmen at Christian colleges in the southern states, but that does not mean that every woman allows herself to be the town bicycle.
While marriage is often a risky proposition for men in our time because of no-fault divorce laws, let’s at least attempt to be honest.; not every women wants to screw you over, divorce you in the future, take your kids, make you pay child support and alimony, and force you to live in a depreciating existence in a terrible apartment for the rest of your life. Yes, it has happened, but this is the result of settling down with the wrong women – something TRP should help one avoid.
Neither are all women – or dare I say all feminists – deliberate and fully aware irrational feminazis. Instead of complaining about only slutty women are, stop going to those places as Blair points out.
Maybe the reason you think every single Western girl is a tramp is because you keep searching for girls on ladies night in bars. Go volunteer for a boring non-profit that makes for a bad photo shoot, and you will be more likely to find the wife you are looking for.
A shocking idea. Perhaps – just perhaps – more traditionally minded girls who do want to settle down will employ their time with worthy causes. One element of TRP that somewhat bothers me is the constant encouraging of men to sleep with “sluts” as they ride the carousel till they hit the “wall” in their later 30s. Why do we encourage this kind of behavior – or better yet enthusiastically and opportunistically make use of it – while deriding these so called sluts? It’s almost as if we want women to be “slutty” so that we can excuse, dismiss, and insist that there is an apparent lack of worthy and honorable women to commit to so that we can pretend that said slutty women are our only alternative and is the “reality” of the situation.
You rant about how lustful women are, but how much better are you yourself? All you care about is increasing your notch count no matter what the consequences. You sleep with fat girls, you sleep with career-obsessed women, you sleep with androgynous women, and then you wonder why there are so many of them around.
Blair goes on to make an important point that even feminists don’t like:
Contrary to popular myth, feminism did not invent the slut. Men even have always had a way to get their rocks off before settling down. For example, the samba in Brazil provided a context to meet easy women long before the 1960s.
These “marriageable” women might be rejecting us for more worthy prospects because we have been settling for the “sluts” and their parents have been smart enough to teach them that you don’t want a man whose life revolves around the idea of “non-commitment” and “pumping-and-dumping”.
We can lament about all the problems of the modern day dating market, but it doesn’t change the fact that if we don’t put some effort into our appearance, game, and overall life, we can’t demand girls pay attention to us vs the better men out there.
There is a time and a place for it, but if we want to remain in said time and place our entire lives, can we really moan, groan, and rage that we aren’t attracting said marriageable women? Self-Improvement takes time, effort, and discipline.
Furthermore, do you have any real marketable skills? You say you want a stay-at-home wife, but what have you accomplished to provide that? Laziness is also a sin in most world religions, so instead of living in an apartment with your Call of Duty buddies “because the economy is just that bad,” spend a year in vocational school and learn a trade.
Well that stings. I’ll be honest. I don’t really have many worthy skills. I’m often lazy and I waste my time. At this time, I’m content to live on very little and to enjoying the small cheap parts of life. This however isn’t necessarily going to attract women who are looking for a “provider” of sorts.
While it’s hard to become a stable provider these days, one can still be responsible with their time and devote as much as possible of it to self-improvement and obtaining marketable job skills. (I’m really trying to limit my video game time.) I’m lucky I’m attractive, because it isn’t the money or the fame that has helped me get laid.
Making The Best Of Our Situation
In TRP and among most MGTOW, we acknowledged that there is certainly a phrase of anger about the realities of today’s dating situation, the destruction of families, and the hardships of divorced men who have been taken to the cleaners by their now Ex-wives. We can understand why they don’t trust women. Even those of us who haven’t been married have experienced rejection of some kind. That phrase isn’t suppose to last your entire life.
Pain can’t be used as an excuse to let ourselves become angry and distant. Let’s not lie to ourselves; we also can become “spinsters” in our old age that no one wants to be with. Pain is a part of life, but wallowing it in it, refusing to make an effort to escape it, and blaming everyone else for it is what third-wave feminists do. That is something we can’t allow ourselves to become if we wish to actually enjoy life. Don’t become like them.
Everyday, I see a lot of people in pain. I’ve met men who have been divorced or lost loved ones and I can see it in their eyes. I can also see these people making excuses for avoiding any real effort to take steps to become happy. I understand their reasons, and while valid, it doesn’t make their situation any better or cause them to feel any better.
If I am truly a compassionate person, I won’t simply nod my head and avoid any real attempt to aid them in escaping their depression and pain. At some point, you must make that initial attempt to get out of it. As Mike at Danger & Play puts it, “It doesn’t matter how you start. All that matters is that you start.” In circumstances like this where the pain is very real, his motto, “Fuck it, I’m going in,” is an important mindset to adopt.
So when I see the main vehicle of “coping” with life’s problems becoming a “fuck women” fest, I’ll point out that this permanent like state-of-anger and rage does nothing to improve ours and their plight with women. I and others must point this out, because we actually care about our fellow men. Don’t let this “criticism” become mistakenly dismissed because we are not vicious feminists with cyber-lynch mobs wielding axes to attack the already downtrodden with. We actually do care.
The internet used to be a rough and tumble place filled with danger, memes, and shocking images. AIM chatrooms and IRC chats were uncharted digital waters; it might be a fellow teenager or someone your grandpa’s ages trying to get in touch with the youth culture. 4Chan and Reddit could still be used as a pleasant shock to confirm to your parents snooping on your browser history that you were indeed being corrupted by contemptible basement dwelling peers.
Since then some have sought to brought order to that Wild West of devious trolling minds. In the last decade we have embraced this odd new idea of “safe spots” in not just where our home page lies, but where we surf, the social media feeds we receive.
Just recently I was appropriately – or inappropriately – given a firm tongue lashing on Facebook for a status remarking my enjoyment of the humor behind a recent Bill Burr standup in which he mentioned a joke he had seen at a restaurant, “We like our beer like our violence; domestic.” Considering the kind of humor I enjoy, I thought this was rather tame. (On that subject, be careful. Even being a Muslim and poking fun at “Trigger Warnings” might not save you from the wrath of SJWs.)
I had just committed one those terrible internet sins of offending someone. Well fuck me, I don’t know how I’ll cope. Now apparently, anything offensive – that could literally beanything these days – needs a trigger warning less the innocent childlike minds of passive observers suffer a PTSD like reaction to the content. But I wouldn’t have given this subject as much thought had a big deal not been made. All good conversations and provoking thought processes start through humor – apparently at someone’s expense.
Invading The Campus
This wouldn’t be as big a deal if were just simply limited to social media. However, it’s started to make its way into our universities – the places where we are supposed to branch out from our sheltered existences on the rural farm and realize how the real world works at a place at an institution of higher learning. Examine Oberlin University, which in a shocking turn of event’s and mass criticism threw the below wisdom out the window.
So what advice did Oberlin have for professors whose course material might contain potential “triggers”? In a section entitled “Understand triggers, avoid unnecessary triggers, and provide trigger warnings” (authors’ emphasis), the guide asked professors to “remove triggering material when it does not contribute directly to the course learning goals” and to “[i]ssue a trigger warning” when such material could not be eliminated altogether.
Notice that the professors were asked to remove trigger material. Think of the implications. Are we not going to talk about murder, rape, and genocide in history classes because they could be triggering? How far will/can we go? I guess we should ignore the Armenian genocide and not talk about it because the topic could make students feel uncomfortable or adhering to certain Holocaust deniers in which the subject might make them feel uncomfortable. Got to be tolerant to everyone right?
Oberlin would go farther to indicate what else could could be considered “triggering.
Amazingly, Oberlin also noted that “[a]nything could be a trigger—a smell, song, scene, phrase, place, person, and so on.”
That essentially means that almost every possible space on campus could be considered triggering. The smell of fresh vegetables at the cafeteria could be triggering. What happens when it’s applied to serious topics?
Harvard for example has many students actually request that professors avoid teaching about the law regarding topics like rape. Yea, that’s right – Harvard.
Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.
We could have an entire generation of lawyers who aren’t versed in certain fields of law because of just how triggering the topics are. Apply that to other uncomfortable topics and the implications are troubling. Since when did college – or any place of “higher” learning become a center for universities to treat students like children instead of adults? Disgusting. Colleges need to ignore students who call for things like this, Trigger warnings should always be implemented, and force students to investigate all uncomfortable subjects thoroughly. It’s called learning in the real world.
The Uncomfortable Truth
Let’s get some actual perspective on the concept of trigger warnings. The whole idea of “trigger warnings” was at first was to warn people who ACTUALLY had PTSD of content that could make them relapse. An entire new generation of sniveling writers and media however has decided to use trigger warnings for virtually every last damn thing that could possibly be considered, “offensive.” Suprisingly …shudder … Buzzfeed did a thorough and thoughtful expose on the history and current use of the Trigger Warning.
It’s spread to academia into classrooms and Syllabi. Suggestions have been made to give the Bible a trigger warning. What’s next? Huckleberry Finn? Halo? Shakespeare? Will everything at some point have a trigger warning? Finally, some journalists have realized that the abuse of the concept is destroying its validity.
A recent article in The Guardian of all places detailed the overuse of phrase. That right there – the overuse – is the real tragedy here. This “Crying Wolf” via Trigger Warnings is turning the idea into a technique so common that it LOSES its meaning. It is destroying the the actual impact that needed – rarely employed -Trigger Warnings should have.
Of course there is plenty of blame to go around, but fingers can be pointed at the SJW crowd and whatever-the-hell-kind-of-feminist-faction on places like Tumblr, Reddit, ect. Feminist publications such as Ms. Magazine, the appropriately named Bitch Magazine, and Feministe, were among the first to utilize the Trigger Warning (TW). Fun fact: Abusing and marginalizing the idea through the overuse of TWs makes you a bitch.
What this entails is a damning embarrassment to people with actual PTSD, not people who have uncomfortable experiences being cat-called in public. Besides the hypocritical ignorance of “multiculturalism” think of the horror! This nonsense trivializes people who have actual PTSD. What does real PTSD look like? Let’s take a look through the annals of history which most of our population have forgotten existed – and we keep wondering why history keeps repeating itself. We shall start with shell-shock the ancestor and real first example of PTSD after combat.
Let’s look at another video on the subject and pay close attention to 2:11-2:25. That reaction to just an officer’s red hat is real and actual PTSD.
Imagine knowing someone who reacts to nothing, except the word “bomb.” Or a friend who develops a facial muscle tick after having stabbed/bayoneted someone in the face. A French soldier in World War 1 wrote about the brutal environment of the battle of Verdun and what he describes is what gives cause to real PTSD
“At Verdun the ones who have suffered the most are the wounded and, along with them, the stretcher-bearers who transport them. Some of the bearers carry them from the front lines all the way to our post (1.5 kilometers); other ones take them in order to carry them off to Fleury and, having arrived there, the wounded have almost another 2 kilometers to go by stretcher before they can be transported by car. Imagine such a trip under the shells which hardly ever stop, through a landscape full of shell holes, tree trunks, and wrecked wire, through deep mud and, in certain areas, through clay where the stretcher-bearers sink down all the way to their waists, being forced to call for help to get themselves out of difficulty…”
“Anyone who has not seen these fields of carnage will never be able to imagine it. When one arrives here the shells are raining down everywhere with each step one takes but in spite of this it is necessary for everyone to go forward. One has to go out of one’s way not to pass over a corpse lying at the bottom of the communication trench. Farther on, there are many wounded to tend, others who are carried back on stretchers to the rear. Some are screaming, others are pleading. One sees some who don’t have legs, others without any heads, who have been left for several weeks on the ground…”
Real PTSD isn’t something we should trivialize. Note I’ve just scraped the bottom of the barrel by bringing up examples from World War. I didn’t even bring up soldiers coming back from Overseas back to the States from Afghanistan and Iraq in particular.
These souls with real PTSD actually go out of their way to overcome it. They work with professionals and their fellow soldiers to cope and deal with the PTSD instead of hiding from it and demanding a trigger warning at every street corner and website they encounter. Ignore the Description of the video, but observe again what actual PTSD is.
Even if you have PTSD from something such as rape, demanding a trigger warning and avoiding conversation about the subject won’t heal you. It will simply let the experience continue to dramatically effect your life. All the excuses in the world – no matter how damn valid – won’t change the situation you are in. Get up from your slumber, seek to overcome your problem, and enjoy the life you have! Life is short. You never know how much time you have. Don’t waste it.
P:S: Also gentlemen, we’ve switched our top-secret patriarchy meeting to the underground volcano lair this week which is off the coast of Saudi Arabia.
Bring cigars, fine scotch, and your male privilege cards.
“Podcasts” are slowly becoming a “trend” that people are starting to pick up on. It’s a hell of alot easier to embrace this trend with a decent phone. It’s also one way you can learn quite a bit – for free you stinges – and improve your ability to interact with the world. Take it from an old soul like me; I just turned 26 and every bit of attained wisdom helps make life that much more enjoyable.
While I might get pumped up to a thumping hardcore beatdown song, I actually learn something from podcasts often. Now, we all know the radio sucks for the most part – both talk and music – and that we need something different. You get sick of even your own favorite music – one can only listen to songs about smoking blunts with bitches in the club so many times without feeling unfulfilled.
I worked 3rd shift as a kickass shelf stocker for a year. (Don’t do this.) Besides destroying my social life and sleep schedule, I went through most of my music collection at work and realized that it was NOT passing the time fast enough. I ended up switching to audiobooks as well as podcasts. I’ve gone through all of my audiobooks, but there are always a large and ever increasing amount of podcasts coming out.
I’ve been referred to the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast before, but I never really checked it out until recently where I flipped the youtube podcast video on one monitor while doing some homework on the other monitor.
Giving The Rogan A Chance
Joe Rogan for those of you who don’t know is a popular commentator for the UFC, a standup comedian, a “man’s man”, and he’s been doing this podcast of his since 2009 which is co-hosted by Brian Redban. It isn’t some unknown podcast in someone’s basement either. He has had people on like Kid Cudi, Paul Stanley, David Lee Roth, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Immortal Technique, Bill Burr, Rick Ross, Cenk Ugyur, and alot of MMA fighters.
In thus episode Doug Stanhope is blasted out of his mind on shrooms, Rogan is on something else, and Joey Diaz is talking about selling coke to Whitney Houston. It’s probably some of the funniest stuff I’ve ever heard – in my life – and from all three them which are of course – standup comedians.
Watching the JRE is like taking a few liberal arts and humanities course at a college without the debt and annoying trigger warnings. You get a steady does of everything from philosophy to comedy. It also really helps past the time at work and in the car I’ve noticed. The fact that he is a standup comedian himself and he interviews so many other comedians at the same time with other guest makes for a show that is rather entertaining.
About a week and a half ago, I had the privilege of interacting with Mike Cernovich from Danger & Play in person at a meetup he held in Chicago. I really wasn’t sure if I wanted to take the train all the way down to the City – specifically Union Station and then hike my way to the Godfrey Hotel where the meetup was at. (Note I’m at the Fox Lake station which is the start of the line so I literally have to ride all the way to end of the line.)
I had never heard of the place before which was about a 30 minute walk from Union Station. The Godfrey Hotel was draped in the aesthetics of modern decor. It felt rather more comfortable then fancy. (I should have taken some pictures besides the two I did of Mike and co.) Needless to it had the flavor and semblance of a restaurant/bar, but I still felt like I was on a rooftop loft – perfect atmosphere.
There wasn’t necessarily any organized agenda besides getting us to meet other like minded people and network. Those of us there talked amongst ourselves as well as with Mike about every different topic under the sun. If you weren’t there, you really missed out. That as well as good food and the amount of Sangria that kept pouring forth onto our table.
Something that can’t be stressed enough is how down to earth Mike was. People – SJWs in particular – might not realize how humble he actually is. When I was chatting with him there was something he said that really sticks with me about how to deal with past mistakes made online,
“You’re right. See what I write in the future.”
Hopefully my memory serves me correct for that quote, but that was in regards to having made statements, tweets, ect in the past that we wish we hadn’t. When this happens the responsible thing to do is to own that history and demonstrate by what you write in the present and future who you are and what you stand for. People are afraid to admit past mistake, and with the internet nowadays I can understand why. As Mike would say, “Own Your Name.”
However, the mistakes are there. You can’t really bury them. You must simply admit them and move on. This has nothing to do with apologizing to SJWs – merely that if there are mistakes in your past – you simply acknowledge them and move on. Alas, you do not back down.
I think this is something Mike realized through #GamerGate. He is not technically a gamer and has criticized them to some extent before, but he realized the importance of what #GamerGate is to that is has become the most recent struggle in the culture wars.
Mike has realized that people are afraid to speak up. To show their disagreement and insist that they as gamers are not dead. Some of those in Gamergate might not be willing to risk speaking out, but Mike is that champion who is willing to do such themselves and can stand up to the SJW onslaught and twitter mobs.
I must admit, sometimes I lack motivation like a gazelle lacks the ability to escape a lion. It sucks. However, I can’t make excuses as it doesn’t actually solve anything – no matter how valid the excuses may be, the situation has not changed. Something I’ve realized; surround yourself with motivated and passionate people and you will start to become motivated yourself. Iron sharpens Iron.
Another day on twitter and there are some who #IStandWithJackie. Apparently Roosh who runs the “infamous” Return Of Kings has information that exposes “Jackies” real identity from Rolling Stones infamous article on the UVA “gang rape” and is pondering on whether to publish it or not. This is a turning point for him. I don’t know if Roosh considers himself to be a journalist, but I do consider him to be such to an extent.
Will he lower himself to the SJW tactic of doxxing people? Doxxing has been the realm of those on 4chan – well now 8chan- Reddit, ect. However even mainstream publications like The New York Times have participated in doxxing – most recently publishing Darren Wilson’s address – the officer in Ferguson who shot Michael Brown – via showing an image of his marriage certificate.
While the address was already floating around on the internet, it sets a new precedent when a respectable publication like the NYT is willing to publish private details such as that. Also note that the NYT still has one of the largest audiences of any one publication – both digital and in print.
When it comes to the disclosure of the private details of someone’s life, the question that must be asked is, “How necessary and pertinent is it to the story”? In this case I would suggest that it’s not at all pertinent to the story. She may deserve to be doxxed, considering what she’s done to “Barry One”, but at what point should we lower ourselves to the standards of people like that?
The moral high ground is often useless nowadays, but Mike Cernovich is right in that whoever claims the moral high ground can easily be destroyed by it as so many SJW’s have been when details about them leak out that aren’t so “moral.”
In every comment section you can be thoroughly entertained Gladiator style. I often scroll through comments to get an idea of reader’s reactions to some of the magical pieces of brilliant journalism that are displayed at sites … TRIGGER WARNING!!!!!
Nah, I’m joking… at sites such as Jezebel, Gawker, Kotaku, ect. Fortunately there are some sites that present the other side of the issue – specifically on #Gamergate – such as The Ralph Retort. To be fair, I find the comments agreeable because of my bias on the subject of #Gamergate.
Context To The Primer
Credit to ArsenicSundae for a comment that presents a very important basic primer on how to respond to Social Justice Warriors. Note that “apologizing” isn’t in there. In fact, NEVER do that. Don’t back down.
When they come after you, tell ’em to fuck themselves, because all they need is for you to engage them on their terms, which gives them an opening they can exploit.
When you’re willing to “discuss” something with them, it lends credence to their accusations and the next thing you know, you’re owning that shit.
This is an extremely important point because if you respond and try to defend yourself from the common accusations that you are a sexist, misogynist, racist, ect you have already essentially admitted assumed guilt. Your response validates their accusations – no matter how false and full of shit said accusations are.
Thousands of tweets later you have now become guilty. Take Bill Frezza’s article on Forbes, “Drunk Female Guests Are The Gravest Threat To Fraternities.” which was eventually axed thanks to the tolerance views of SJWs on differing viewpoints. He made the mistake of apologizing on his blog validating the claims of the lynch mob.
What lesson can we learn here? You don’t attempt rational discourse with people who have no interest in it. They simply would rather attempt to vilify you with labels in the court of public opinion then have an open and honest dialogue with you. Don’t waste your time by giving them time and most specifically ATTENTION.
The proper response to SJW’s involves dismissing their claims outright and immediately. Eventually labels like misogynist, racist, sexist, ect won’t mean anything because will rightfully not take them seriously after seeing that others aren’t taking them seriously either.
Primer 101: SJW Accusations & Responses
Familiarize yourself with the usual responses – most notably that of the recent Matt Taylor whose “sexist” shirt trumped his accomplishment of helping to land a machine on a moving comet. He went even went one step further and cried in his apology.
Yea, it still hurts me to think about that. Remember bullying is bad, unless you are bullying a grown man into crying over his shirt choice. What should Taylor have done? Observe the following:
Examples of poor responses to SJW harassment:
“That’s not what I meant.”
“Let me explain.”
“You’re twisting my words.”
We are all used to these. Now for the retorts?
Examples of good responses to SJW harassment:
“Go fuck yourself.”
“Get fucked, you syphilitic little prick.”
“To anyone offended by my words or actions, I’m deeply … naw, fuck it … you can all kiss my ass. Thank you.”
Yea, these responses look extreme. But you have to take extreme actions – specifically in concern to your responses when you are dealing with potential extreme SJW’s mobs. Your livelihood may actually depend on it in it.