Tuesday, 22 April 2014

Choosing to be offended as a political weapon?

In Australia, the Racial Discrimination Act states:

18C  Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
             (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
                     (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
                     (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

In other words, if you say something nasty about white people, theoretically at least, they can do you, Jimmy.

As far as I know it's only ever been applied to people who offended non-whites, but I could be wrong.

Now an attempt to fix it, a ham-fisted one by some people's reckoning, attempts to change it from offend to vilify. Frankly, even by that increased standards, you would have to arrest the great majority of SJWs, who happily pour loathing daily on anyone deemed not a "POC", as they put it.

I'm currently trying to argue against this law with Senator Penny Wright on her Facebook page, but I'm somewhat handicapped as if I took the typical SJWcomments I get and colour-flip them to point out the inequitable applications of it; e.g. taking the SJW "Die white skum!!1!" to "Die dark-skinned scum!"; by an application of the existing law, I could be arrested by almost anyone with a grudge.

I cannot discuss the problem with this law except in very circumspect ways. My free speech is limited.

They defend the existing law as somehow stopping the rise of any new Hitlers. Well, Hitler rose for many reasons, and one of the big ones was that his thugs beat up anyone who dared speak against him. In my case, the thugs are in uniform and have badges, but the principle is the same.

Monday, 21 April 2014

Casual Pot Use Causes Brain Damage?

Casual Pot Use Causes Brain Damage? A response to https://www.tytnetwork.com/2014/04/18/casual-pot-use-causes-brain-damage/

So Jodi Gilman, Ph.D (http://scholar.harvard.edu/jodigilman/home) as part of MGH-Harvard Center for Addiction Medicine (CAM) claims. The lead author's bread and butter is coming up with results that show drugs as being 'bad'. They would lose funding if they found out anything contrary to the agenda of the government.  As such, they are hardly independent. It's difficult to have confidence in this when Science and Politics are merged into one.

"Each sample had nine men and 11 women, and they each underwent a psychiatric interview to confirm they were not dependent on marijuana or any other illegal drugs."

So the assumption is these brain changes cause addiction - yet the first screening establishes they are not.

"The researchers were unable to measure the THC content of the pot smoked by study participants, but marijuana is much stronger today – at about 5 percent to 9 percent THC content – than in the 1960s and 1970s, when THC content was typically 1 percent to 3 percent."


There are at least 85 different cannabinoids isolated from cannabis, exhibiting varied effects.[5]
(source). THC is higher at the expense of the others in some strains. Medical strains are typically higher in CBD, for example. So saying current crops are 'stronger' is meaningless.

"Scientists examined the nucleus accumbens and the amygdala—key regions for emotion and motivation, and associated with addiction—in the brains of casual marijuana users and non-users. Researchers analyzed three measures: volume, shape and density of grey matter (i.e., where most cells are located in brain tissue) to obtain a comprehensive view of how each region was affected.

Both these regions in recreational pot users were abnormally altered for at least two of these structural measures. The degree of those alterations was directly related to how much marijuana the subjects used." http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-casual-marijuana-linked-brain-abnormalities.html

"The degree of those alterations" implies the brains were scanned before usage, which is false. We don't know which came first. What they could be establishing is that people with those structures are more likely to seek out cannabis in the first place.

The science here is incredibly tenuous and this is a big deal because life and death decisions are being made on an untested hypothesis.


Research using microdialysis has shown that the levels of dopamine in the extracellular fluid of the nucleus accumbens increase when rats are injected with addictive drugs such as cocaine, heroin, nicotine, or alcohol.[8]

 This increase in dopamine is believed to be responsible for the reinforcing effects that later stimulate drug-taking behavior.

Functional-imaging studies in humans have shown that environmental cues associated with addictive drugs releases dopamine in the nucleus accumbens.

However, when administered methylphenidate, drug addicted subjects had a much smaller release of dopamine in this area than non-addicted subjects.

These findings suggest the notion that the nucleus accumbens is associated with the beginnings of drug addiction and the dorsal striatum is responsible for the augmentation of the drug habit.[8]

The nucleus accumbens has been targeted by stereotactic surgery for ablation as a treatment in China for alcoholism.[9]"

So the key points here are that it merely *suggested* that maybe the nucleus accumbens is associated with the beginnings of drug addiction.

And on that basis, China is removing chunks of people's brains.

And on that basis, anti-cannabis organisations are calling for re-criminalisation of cannabis, and jail or death for people using and growing, with the subsequent ruin of their lives.

All on the thinnest of connections.

Something is very wrong here.

Tuesday, 15 April 2014

HuffPost harridans find the hounding of rape victims hilarious - so long as they are male, of course.


Notice they can't bring themselves to say a woman raped a man. To the Feminist, this is a contradiction in terms. Women are rape victims, always; men are rapists; all of them.

And why do they focus on the appearance of the rapist? To make it incredible that any man could refuse her?

"She threatened him with a 4-inch blade as she undressed him, then demanded intercourse and oral sex, according to The Mirror. But when Stan wouldn't continue, she stabbed him six times. He managed to escape to her bathroom, where he called police."

Imagine the trauma this man went though as he tried not to go into shock, hoping he could get help before he bled out.

And how do people react? Why, they laugh at him, of course. Just look at the comments. And claim a man can't be raped. If you think I'm exaggerating, here is the evidence.

Imagine if the sexes were reversed, and a Brad Pitt wannabe raped a woman at knife point. Do you think the HuffPost feminists would think that hilarious?

"She was sentenced to five years but then it was suspended to four years because she had been impaired by high strength medication."


Again, can you imagine a man raping a woman and getting a suspended sentence, on the grounds that they were really, really high and couldn't be held responsible?


“His actions are worse than that of an animal. This is what happens when people consume drugs. They became inhuman,” he told a press conference at the state police headquarters here yesterday."

That's right; they are not only held to be responsible, they are held to be more responsible. Only women can claim to be helpless to control their own actions. They take drugs, it's not their fault - a man must have made them.

"She originally tried to claim she was the victim in the attack but a court rejected her claims."

Feminists often claim that no woman would make a false claim about rape. It's interesting that counter-evidence will never change their minds. Their beliefs are rigid; Feminism is a faith, just like any other, not a matter of reasoned thought.

Those dissenters within the ranks will keep silent, for fear of disapproval by the senior members. It does not do to criticise a Sister.

Mulan and Men

Mulan is often held up as an example of a movie where a 'Disney Princess(TM)' proves that no woman needs a man; "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle", to quote the politician Irina Dunn.

So does Mulan need a man?

Let's look at this from several levels.

Does she need a man romantically?

Feminism claims that women don't need men. Is it an honest interpretation of the plot of Mulan to say she doesn't need love?

Well, what about as a hero? She's not a princess in anything but marketing spin; she faces a peril not of her making, and unselfishly conquers it. She is brave and capable.

As a hero, does she really win without the help of any man?
A feminist looks at this situation and sees a woman and background. The men are no more important than a horse.

An honest person sees that while she is a great hero, she is hardly flying solo; she is fighting with an army, a multitude of men, all of whom she needs, without whom she would die.

They are brave and capable, too, perhaps not as much, but she is fighting as part of a gigantic team, and to erase those men is simply contemptible.

A fish doesn't need a bicycle; moreover it cannot conceive of one. Women, however, need men; some can do without them romantically, but it is an outright lie to say that all, or even most, do.

What about otherwise?
Certainly women can be soldiers. But imagine if these soldiers didn't have men in their army, would they really be as capable?

Men are needed, exactly as women are, in Mulan, as in real life.

Irina Dunn, in her own life, needed many men, but simply regarded them as things, unworthy of any respect as people.

Perhaps a more accurate one is "A woman needs Feminism like a fish needs a bicycle" - something rusting and toxic, no longer in it's rightful environment. image
Maybe it's time to clean up the lake?

Sunday, 13 April 2014

Engineered vaginas grown in women for the first time

"in some families, the condition appears to have an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance. Autosomal dominant inheritance means that one copy of the altered gene in each cell is typically sufficient to cause the disorder"


So every person that is descended from this one will have the disease. So why is she having the operation?

"I really want to go ahead and have a family."

So let's say she does have that gene, and technology is introduced to let her reproduce.

"MRKH syndrome affects approximately 1 in 4,500 newborn girls."

Let's assume the Autosomal dominant inheritance happens in one in ten cases.. they haven't given the exact figure anywhere i can find.

"Women with MRKH syndrome may also have abnormalities in other parts of the body. The kidneys may be abnormally formed or positioned, or one kidney may fail to develop (unilateral renal agenesis). Affected individuals commonly develop skeletal abnormalities, particularly of the spinal bones (vertebrae). Females with MRKH syndrome may also have hearing loss or heart defects."

So these people will require more money to care for than they are likely to produce; they are a net burden over the span of their lives.

So 1 in 45, 000 girls will have it in the first generation. Lets assume each girl has two children on average that survives to reproduce, and that the world population is stable.. big assumptions, but probably not too far off.

7.046 billion (2012) total people.. let's make it 3 billion women world wide as a simplification.

3 000 000 000 / 45 000 = 3 000 000/45
= 66, 667 worldwide.

in twenty years, 133,333

Forty years, 266,667

Sixty: 533,333

Eighty: 1,066,666

One hundred: 2133333

120,            140,         160               180              200              220
4,266,666, 8,533,332, 1,706,6664, 34,133,328, 68,266,656, 136,533,312,

240                 260                    280                   300
273,066,624   546,133,248    1,092,266,496    2,184,532,992  

320                         340
4,369,065,984         8,738,131,968

So in 340 years, if this practise was followed with ONLY ONE of these types of diseases, the entire human population would be suffering from it. EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH WOULD BE WORKING AT A LOSS.

Obviously only one disorder is absurd. If you bring this in, you'll bring it in for all sorts of genetic traits that currently self limit by creating a zygote (adult organism) unable to breed. The crash will occur when the sum total of human productivity is negative; at that point, people will start to die and this technology will become unsustainable.

Now tech developments may well put off the final day, but let's look at how much they have done to defeat things like the common cold, or the aging process.

Currently life expectancy has pretty much plateaued in the richer countries. (http://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&hl=en&dl=en&idim=country:USA:RUS:CHN)

Barring some miraculous breakthroughs, this is pretty much it in terms of how well we can cope for the future.Technology hasn't solved the problems of aging, it has merely helped us survive a few years more, over the period from 1962 to now. Social development has been the real game changer, with dividends for most, and an overall loss for the wretched inmates of North Korea.

So if we introduce this technology, the consequence is that we will cause incredible misery for future billions in exchange for the happiness of a tiny few now.

Is that truly a good idea?

Wage Gap Jabberwocky

While the BLS reports that full-time female workers earned 81% of full-time males, that is very different than saying that women earned 81% of what men earned for doing the same jobs, while working the same hours, with the same level of risk, with the same educational background and the same years of continuous, uninterrupted work experience, and assuming no gender differences in family roles like child care.

In a more comprehensive study that controlled for most of these relevant variables simultaneously—such as that from economists June and Dave O’Neill for the American Enterprise Institute in 2012—nearly all of the 23% raw gender pay gap cited by Mr. Obama can be attributed to factors other than discrimination.

The O’Neills conclude that, “labor market discrimination is unlikely to account for more than 5% but may not be present at all.”

These gender-disparity claims are also economically illogical.

If women were paid 77 cents on the dollar, a profit-oriented firm could dramatically cut labor costs by replacing male employees with females. ...

They don’t ignore the opportunity because it doesn’t exist.


Th’beast is dead! Callooh! Callay! Truly ‘tis a frabjous day!

Monday, 7 April 2014

Does Feminism actively harm men?

Reblogged from Ugu~ http://thekawaiiestvorlon.tumblr.com/post/70553822619/sorry-but-i-am-not-being-sarcastic-there-has-been

Sorry, but I am not being sarcastic.

There has been virtually no known example anywhere of feminists trying to kill people or actually, seriously trying to pass any laws just to harm men, whereas women are killed and tortured around the world by the thousands every year quite literally just for being women at all.

Even environmentalism, another cause I am completely behind, has its insane terrorists. Feminism at worst has faux-radical internet trolls.

Bogleech, as a fellow science enthusiast you understand that I’m going to have to hold you to incredibly high standards of intellectual honesty, right?

By saying this here, you have opened up a second can of worms that I have to address before we even get to how problematic your original statement is.

Here is your original claim:

Yeah there are literally no feminists who actually “go too far” or get “too extreme.” There aren’t any feminists hurting people or actually trying to create policies that infringe on anyone’s rights anywhere. The idea of the extremist evil feminist is pure fantasy and every single example anyone tries to come up with is literally just a woman who said mean things. BAWWWW FEMINAZISMS.
Do you see the disconnect here? If not, I’ll make it clearer.

1. Your original claim was that there aren’t any feminists hurting people, that there aren’t any feminists lobbying for legislation that infringes upon anyone’s rights, that harmful extremist feminists are pure fantasy, and that any example of feminists being harmful is just those women saying mean things.

Your second claim was that that there are virtually no known examples of feminists trying to kill people, or pass laws with the explicit malicious intent to harm men.

These are two very different claims, which you are trying to pass off as the same claim.

Your second claim has erased two of the original claim’s parameters, while moving the goalpost on the remaining two. “No feminists are hurting people” has been changed to “Almost no examples of trying to kill people,” and “Feminists are not seriously trying to pass laws that infringe upon people’s rights” has been changed to “No feminists are seriously trying to pass laws just to harm men.”

The disparity between these statements is massive, and could easily be construed as intellectual dishonesty, or just as easily a complete lack of self-awareness.

Because of this dramatic differences in the two claims you are trying to paint as the same claim, I am obligated to treat the second statement as an attempt to control the conversation by narrowing and polarizing the parameters of the base claim.

Included in this shifting of goalposts is an attempt (conscious or otherwise) to place the burden of proof onto me that feminist organizations have lobbied for harmful legislation with malicious intent, which is far outside what you first said.

I will have to hold you to your original claim because allowing you to narrow the conversation the way you have is inherently unethical, because it would accept a perversion of basic logic through blatant fallacy.

2. “women are killed and tortured around the world by the thousands every year quite literally just for being women at all.”

Appeal to worse problems, a form of non-sequitor.

It’s sad, true, but it’s irrelevant to your original claim that the worst feminists have ever done is say mean things.

The endangered status of the Bornean Orangutan doesn’t negate that wetas in New Zealand are threatened.

The Holocaust doesn’t morally balance Israel’s expulsion of Ethiopian Jews from its shores.

Christians being fed to lions by the Romans doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church couldn’t give the go ahead on the Spanish Inquisition.

Women being killed and tortured around the world doesn’t mean feminist organizations are incapable of doing wrong.

3. “The idea of the extremist evil feminist is pure fantasy and every single example anyone tries to come up with is literally just a woman who said mean things. BAWWWW FEMINAZISMS.”
Feminism at worst has faux-radical internet trolls.”

Before I address what’s wrong (logically) with this particular bit, we have to go back to Revereche’s original post:

Who the fuck are these hardcore feminists everyone is ashamed of associating themselves with? The most extreme individual I can think of is Val Kilmer, who went out and shot a man, and he survived and said afterward that he was just sorry he’d pushed her to that point as a friend.

All there is is this nebulous cloud of people that so many insist they don’t want to be associated with (how often have you heard people saying they “don’t want to make this a feminist issue,” or don’t consider themselves a feminist because of “what the movement has become”?), when the first worst thing a feminist has ever done in the name of feminism is hurt someone’s feelings.

Not blown up a mall, slaughtered innocents, raped anyone, etc. etc. etc.

Hurt someone’s feelings.

You have far better reasons to want to not be associated with your own goddamn country, for fuck’s sake.

Meanwhile, feminism has continued to stand up for the rights of women in the workplace, in their lives, over their own bodies.

What the hell has feminism done to discredit that sort of positive influence?

If you refuse to associate yourself with feminism, you are guilty of not looking into things further at best, and a sexist piece of shit at worst. (Yes, even if you’re a woman.)
This is a statement you have agreed with. Immediately after you agreed with it you made this post:

You know what I’m really tired of hearing?

Any possible variation on “that’s just a vocal minority!” when discussing shitty problematic behavior in a given group. It’s so common, so widely accepted that the sheer audacity of it is criminally overlooked.

Say anything about the level of misogyny in gamer culture, for example, and some wiener is inevitably going to whip out a statement like “MOST gamers are decent people!

There’s just a few of them making sexism look more common because, like, they’re really loud about it!!”

People often yield to these statements because they’re afraid to look like they’re “negatively stereotyping” a group, but this argument literally only amounts to positive stereotyping, which is equally baseless and in many ways equally harmful.

Let’s think hard about this: what does anybody actually have to go by when they are making this rather bold claim that they justknow, for sure, that most of their fellow gamers/bronies/football fans/christians are good-natured?

What empirical evidence exists to support their positive stereotype over the negative one?

If you’re claiming that good behavior is the norm, then exactly what logic dictates that bad behavior can’t become the norm just as easily? What’s stopping it?

What, exactly, is ensuring that “good” people must constitute at least 51% of your fandom? Just the ambient magic of goodness?

The shitty, awful people often make the opposite presumption, that their bigoted attitudes are representative of their peers. What makes their presumption wrong, and yours right? The fact that they’re not pleasant, and you don’t like them?

I guess the big question is, how the hell do you KNOW? What makes any variation on the “vocal minority” argument anything other than a wild guess based on literally nothing but blind optimism?

An equally big question is, why are you REALLY making this argument? What do you gain from it?

Do you sincerely believe that some mystical force is ensuring that hateful, selfish, abusive people are an inconsequential minority in your chosen group, or are you just afraid of people passing judgment on you for sharing a hobby with them?

Nobody, anywhere, actually believes that playing video games in itself magically transforms rational people into misogynists.

Nobody is actually saying that 100% of human beings who have touched an Xbox controller are enemies of feminism.

You don’t need to stereotype your subculture as primarily good just to defend yourself.

What you should do, instead of turning it into a cry of “NOT ME!,” is maybe just acknowledge that something is a problem.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t even matter if abusive, hateful shitheads are “just” a minority, because that minority might not be so “vocal” if you weren’t so damn complacent about them.

If you haven’t caught the problem here, I’ll explain. You have agreed with and echoed the idea that the worst thing feminists have ever done is hurt people’s feelings. In the very next breath you have complained about misogyny in gamer culture.

Can you demonstrate that misogyny in gamer culture has resulted in anything other than hurt feelings? If it has resulted in anything negative beyond that, then what bars feminists hurting someone’s feelings from having wider negative repercussions?

Do the feelings of someone hurt by gamer misogyny outweigh the anguish of a father who has been denied his children? (Believe me, I’m going to get back to that one). If so, why are feelings hurt by nerd subculture more important than hurt feelings that result from harmful legislation?

But that’s not the only problem. You have decried the argument “not all of us are like that,” and “most of us are good people.” And yet you have downplayed the role of radical feminists as “faux-radical internet trolls.”

Both of the above inconsistencies are examples of hypocrisy.

Now that we have gotten through all the logical problems of your inconsistent statements, we can actually address the base claim.

Your claim: there aren’t any feminists hurting people, that there aren’t any feminists lobbying for legislation that infringes upon anyone’s rights, that harmful extremist feminists are pure fantasy, and that any example of feminists being harmful is just those women saying mean things.

First Assertion: feminists aren’t hurting people/there are almost no examples of feminists trying to kill people.

A recent example of feminists being physically harmful to people is the November 24 attack on the San Juan Cathedral in Argentina. At an annual feminist gathering, a group of men formed a cordon to protect the cathedral from vandalism. The men defending the church against vandalism were spray painted in the face, spit upon, and assaulted by a mob of 7,000 feminist protestors.

Then there was the Bella’s Friends incident in Sweden. A rape survivor who goes only by the name Caroline was trafficked out of Sweden by a radical feminist organization that called itself Bella’s Friends.

She went to a camp for victims of sexual assault in order to heal, and was whisked away upon arrival because Bella’s Friends was convinced that she was the victim of an all-pervasive satanic rape/incest/paedophilia cult that completely dominated the Swedish government.

Her claim of being kidnapped has been corroborated by Norway’s Executive Director of the Crisis Centre Secretariat, Tove Smaadahl, who housed Bella’s Friends in her own home for a period before managing to negotiate Caroline’s release.

As for trying to kill people, Valeria Solanas, writer of the S.C.U.M. Manifesto and known radfem, attempted to kill Andy Warhol, Mario Amaya, and Fred Hughes. That is to say, a rather loud and much examined feminist writer tried to kill three people.

She succeeded in shooting Andy Warhol through both lungs, the spleen, stomach, liver, and esophagus, and mentally scarred him for the rest of his life. The parameters of your goalpost moving on this have been met.

That sure is a lot of mean words.

Second Assertion: there aren’t any feminists lobbying for legislation that infringes upon anyone’s rights

Are you familiar with the First Wave feminist Caroline Norton? Back in the day in the UK, default custody was awarded to the father because he was legally and financially responsible for his children (up to and including debtor’s prison). She lobbied for the Custody of Infants Act of 1839, which established the legal presumption of maternal custody. This attitude has come to be known as the Tender Years Doctrine.

While it has officially been replaced by the “best interest of the child” approach, over a hundred years of legal presumption that women are the better parent by default doesn’t magically change overnight. In fact, when Father’s Rights advocacy groups in Michigan tried for a more equitable presumption of joint custody, the National Organization of Women fought against it.

Any time someone tells you that presumed maternal custody is the result of sexism against women because they’re believed to be better caregivers, the presumption is the result of early feminist activism, and is a status-quo maintained by powerful feminist organizations.

Additionally, the feminist lobby managed to push through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which funds police officers’ and prosecutors’ domestic violence training. It was originally based off the Duluth Model of domestic violence. If you looked at the Duluth Model’s own website, it discusses its approach to ending domestic violence:

Since the early 1980s, Duluth—a small community in northern Minnesota—
has been an innovator of ways to hold batterers accountable and keep victims safe.
The “Duluth Model” is an ever evolving way of thinking about how a community works
together to end domestic violence.

A community using the Duluth Model approach:
  • Has taken the blame off the victim and placed the accountability for abuse on the offender.
  • Has shared policies and procedures for holding offenders accountable and keeping victims safe across all agencies in the criminal and civil justice systems from 911 to the courts.
  • Prioritizes the voices and experiences of women who experience battering in the creation of those policies and procedures.
  • Believes that battering is a pattern of actions used to intentionally control or dominate an intimate partner and actively works to change societal conditions that support men’s use of tactics of power and control over women.
  • Offers change opportunities for offenders through court-ordered educational groups for batterers.
  • Has ongoing discussions between criminal and civil justice agencies, community members and victims to close gaps and improve the community’s response to battering.
If you can’t discern what’s wrong with that, it contextualizes the perpetrators as male and the victims as female, despite the 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and analyses that all agree that women are just as likely to be physically aggressive, if not more, than men in abusive relationships. How can you end domestic violence if you ignore half of the perpetrators? This is a legally recognized model.

With the mandatory arrest provisions of the Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1994, and the Duluth Model being used as policy by the police, men are arrested as abusers even if they’re the ones to call the police to report violently abusive female partners.
Oh, but I guess all of that is just people getting their feelings hurt.

Third Assertion: Harmful extremist feminists are pure fantasy

I’ve already discussed some radfems who have caused real-world harm to individuals, but they certainly aren’t the only ones.

Ireen von Wachenfelt, head of the Swedish feminist organization ROKS (which runs the majority of domestic shelters in Sweden), admits to believing the conspiracy theory of a widespread network of satanic-rapist-paedophiles that permeates Swedish society. Gunilla Ekburg, who aided Bella’s Friends, was in a position of authority as the government’s special advisor on prostitution.

When confronted by Evin Rubar with questions regarding her facilitation of Bella’s Friend’s trafficking of Caroline, she told Evin that she was “hurting women,” and that if Evin Rubar is ever sexually attacked, she can expect to be turned away from shelters for “betraying” the sisterhood.

(this clip corresponds to 0:51:35-0:55:03 in the documentary K├Ânskriget, which was linked earlier).

And then there’s radical feminists silencing men trying to discuss their issues.

Here are some radical feminists disrupting a forum for battered husbands.

And then there’s tumblr’s own stfueverything, or as she’s affectionately known, Big Red. You may remember her making a spectacle of herself singing “Cry Me a River” when an MRA, trying to debate her at the U of T protests, brought up the 4:1 male/female ratio of suicide.

She, however, is not what I’m actually trying to bring your attention to. She’s just one loud-mouthed idiot. The protest itself ventured into illegal territory when it pulled a fire alarm to silence the lecture being protested, “From Misogyny to Misandry to Intersexual Dialogue.”

Observe them cheering as their opposition is silenced, denying people the opportunity to hear a different perspective and make their own decisions by attending a lecture and then asking questions of the lecturer.

See how they dance as the pulled fire-alarm endangers lives by wasting the resources of firefighters who might be needed at a real emergency at any moment.

But that’s just mean words and hurt feelings, amirite?

Fourth Assertion: the worst thing feminists do is say mean things and hurt feefees.

I pointed out your hypocrisy before, but it needs to be examined with a finer lens.

I have seen you repeatedly rail against sexism (read: misogyny) in nerd culture.

You’ve dedicated longs posts to it, you’ve complained about lazy female character design, and you have even demanded that people stop making the “but not all of us are like that” argument for fandoms and nerd sub-communities. What is all that? It’s hurt feelings.

And yet you don’t hold feminism to the same standard, a standard you expanded further to all other forms of social, political, and cultural groupings. This is called special pleading.

But this isn’t just some minor hypocrisy and a logical fallacy, you are asking us to hold an ideological movement that we trust with rape and domestic violence research, the services for abuse survivors, and our discussions on gender equality and legislation to a lower ethical standard than fucking nerds.

Sexy super heroines, scantily clad videogame characters, and billboard advertisements don’t lead to kidnappings, parents denied access to their children, falsified statistical information, active ignorance of scientific evidence and biased police and court policies towards a person based on their sex, threats to deny sexual assault aid, silenced support groups for abuse victims, or government funded organizations that espouse conspiracy theories about satanic rape-cults, but somehow they are more worthy of criticism than a movement that has.

That’s not just hypocritical, it’s obscene.

And all of this is on top of the fact that the statements made by you and Revereche are patently wrong.

Neither of you have actually looked into the subject of radical feminism, nor why people actually want to disassociate themselves with the feminist movement.

The assertion that the best case scenario for refusal to identify with feminism is the result of ignorance is wrong.

Your assertion that the worst thing that feminists have ever done is hurt people’s feelings is wrong.

The logic behind your case for feminism is wrong.

You are wrong, Bogleech. You are so very, very wrong.

Sunday, 6 April 2014

Feminists defend Female Pedophiles

One of the truly sickening things about Tumblr is the exposure to Feminists who defend female pedophiles, on the grounds the boys are 'asking for it'. If you think I'm exaggerating, here is a typical example.

I hate to think this person might have access to young boys.

this isn't an unusual case, however; there are Feminists all over Tumblr who have been bending into pretzels trying to justify the actions of this rapist. A female pedophile is a contradiction in terms to their mindset.. so they try and invent things like "it doesn't count as rape if they 'boast' about it afterwards".

Fiddling with little children is WRONG.

There's no loophole. No excuses. Nothing.

People like this are a menace to society.


Saturday, 5 April 2014

Nearly half of all rape accusations are false.

Feminists claim that false rape accusations are negligible, and often quote a figure of 2%. So what does science say?

False Rape Allegations: An Assault On Justice

By Bruce Gross, PhD, JD, MBA


Twenty-seven percent (27%) of these complainants admitted they had fabricated their accusation just before taking the polygraph or right after they failed the test. (It should be noted that whenever there was any doubt, the unresolved case was re-classified as a "proven" rape.)

Combining this 27% with the initial 212 "disproved" cases, it was determined that approximately 45% of the total rape allegations were false.


As TJ points out in http://youtu.be/irAa7HumWPI, if there's such a thing as 'rape culture', there's also such a thing as 'false rape accusation' culture.

CDC admits it uses Feminist definitions to impose sexism on it's services.

–]oneiorosgrip 2 points ago

In February of 2013 I sent a Freedom of Information act request to the CDC asking for the raw numbers from 2010 for the various areas of intimate partner and sexual violence, with a specific set of questions.

The CDC took almost a year to reply, sent me a PDF file with copy/paste errors in it that looks very much like it was thrown together at the last minute, and insisted on trying to tell me that it was useless before releasing it to me. Their explanation for why it was supposedly useless didn't address the interest I had in it.

In addition to the errors, there were issues with the information itself. There are areas in which the text makes the claim "The numbers of respondents reporting victimization in other categories not described above were too small to produce a reliable estimate and therefore were not included in the report" about types of victimization for which hundreds were listed reporting in response to other questions.

It's evident that there *were * enough respondents in at least some of those categories, and the CDC or the researchers themselves simply dodged the questions because they did not want to answer them.

It was in part because of that evasiveness that during the conference call, I point blank asked them why they refuse to call forced coitus rape when the victim is male if they're aware that it's rape when the victim is female.

The researcher on the phone literally could not answer the question - she stumbled over it for a few seconds before falling back on "because the experts said so." There was no actual reasoning - just, "because we said so."

We saw the "reasoning" behind Koss's decision to exclude female-on-male rape from the definition of rape. That is where the "expert" definition comes from.

What I got from them was an admission that they've allowed feminists to write sexism into their policy on sexual violence. It didn't even seem to bother them that much to admit it.


Tuesday, 1 April 2014

Gloves, gloves, gloves, gloves

I've always wanted surgical gloves. I had trouble doing photography at high school because my skin is quite sensitive. My teacher insisted we put our hands in the chemical bath, and bullied until i complied. Later, of course, dermatitis kicked in and my hand became almost unusable.

Ah, High School, how I hated you (except for the parts involving my mates and a few moments with girls - way too few).

Anyway, later I had lead minis and you were supposed to paint them before handling - you can see the dilemma! Kitchen gloves just don't cut it, and are generally designed for the hands of tiny Han Chinese women. My hands are average for my size, but kitchen gloves are painful and not good for gripping.

Later in Chemistry at Uni, the issue became serious. We dealt with stuff that really should never touch skin. Most of the other students just accepted a reduced life expectancy. I asked about but there were no practical solutions. I asked at Doctor's but they just got them from phone-ordered office supplies. There are no shop fronts for these things, apparently.

Nowadays you can get these:

So when i was getting the stab yesterday, I asked the tech where she got her gloves. She giggled; seemed to think the question was kinky.

Well, truth is, i wouldn't mind getting them for that purpose too; there's some acts where a pair would have been quite handy! (Image redacted)

  it seems so obvious that gloves that fit, gloves that had some sensitivity, would be practical (and i have minis that still need painting!)

So gave up asking and did an online looksie. Egad! The prices! I presume that they can only be used once, although the gloves they used in the old shows like MASH we re-used, from memory. Maybe they were stronger?

And how would I know which one to get? Am I latex allergic? What if, by some miracle, i did get a partner, and one thing led to another, and she turned out to have an allergy? Could the wrong glove lead to an embarrassing excursion to the ER?

My mind flops about the decision point. Should i shell out for latex free, knowing it might be a waste of my tiny budget, or buy non-sterile latex and a set of sterile non latex just in case, and hope they don't decay by the time they are relevant?

So many choices; psychologically that can be a bad thing. I have to choose where the money goes and i don't have scope for failure;

I must get a decent vacuum, the Dyson DC54 has had a few bad reviews, hmm, buy choice magazine for a  professional opinion? That's another $20!

Must buy Federation Commander , which again cascades into subchoices. PDF or hardcopy? Printer or tablet? There's no storefronts now, and mail delivery could be 6 months and never even arrive. If i buy a tablet, my eyes will struggle with their tiny screens.

Use it on my desktop? Not very handy for a tabletop game.


And always, in the background, there are rumours that the government is cutting disability budgets, chopping out about a third, forcing people's heads underwater.

They can't afford them, they say. They have cut all the revenue from taxing companies, and no longer have an income. They can't afford to try taxing them again either; the companies have too much power over elections
 and whoever offends them is crushed.

AD&D art creator David Trampier dies

Player's Handbook

(title page)


Fire Giant

Four-armed Gargoyle 

 Displacer Beast


(from Dragon Magazine)

This was one of my favourite strips. Kleefeld has this to say.. "the characters were so colorful and well-defined that even reading quick, unrelated snippets was deeply enjoyable."

Tomb of Horrors

(this part really lived up to that name)