Sunday, January 21, 2018

"As Women March A Year After Trump's Election, His Approval With Some Men Grows"

   Author Michael Arceneaux is a frequent Trump critic who often writes about gender. He told the Fix that these numbers aren't that surprising.
   "I regret that men collectively choose to be so embarrassing, but given how ingrained misogyny is in our society, I guess I cannot be totally surprised that a sexist, chauvinistic loudmouth manages to maintain high approval rating amongst men. Despite all signs to the contrary, Trump projects strength because men are trained to believe the sort of bravado and machismo Trump often projects is a sign of strength and leadership. It is, as he would put it, sad!"
   We need a portmanteau word that's a combination of 'enemy' and 'ally' 'frenemy'...but not so lame...

"What Celebrity Big Brother Can Teach Us About Gender Politics"

   Do people not understand that a fair number of people are drama queens / attention whores? Not to mention people who seek interpersonal power in any way they can find it? Does anyone really believe that such motives aren't driving any of the people representing themselves as "transgendered"? PC dogma invariably makes me wonder whether people on the left have ever met any humans. (Especially humans on the left...)
Read more »

Are Non-Elite Universities About To Face A Student Shortage?

Saturday, January 20, 2018

CHE: What's So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

Surprisingly balanced.
Peterson has some really good things to say, but I certainly disagree with him about a lot of stuff, too. It's a creepy, creepy, terrifying, gut-wrenching sign of the times that he's basically the only recognizable academician standing up and speaking the truth about this insanity--saying that sex-changes are currently impossible...and that you damn sure can't effect one by changing clothes.
   I fear he's wavering on the pronoun argument--and I don't think he quite understands that terrain as well as he might, anyway. He leans too heavily on arguments against pronoun laws, and he's begun to waver on more fundamental points: men don't become women by saying so, and 'he', 'she', etc. are pronouns linked to sex, not gender. So it is insane to insist that we are under some obligation to refer to e.g. Caitlyn Jenner with feminine pronouns. (Yes, feminine is a gender--but that's a linguistic category. Feminine pronouns refer to female creatures.) If you want to call Jenner 'she', you can do's a free country. Nobody's denying that it's permissible to misuse English and say inaccurate things that presuppose falsehoods--if you want to do that, nobody's trying to stop you. You can say that Jenner is a toaster if you like. The point is: those of us who don't want to play along with the fantasy can't be compelled to do so. And we aren't doing anything wrong by refusing to pretend that night is day.'re being dumb if you do play along...but that's your right. Worse, though, you're propping up a disastrous political ideology and the insane philosophy it presupposes. You're like someone who helps to prop up Scientology because you don't want to be rude to people who are feigning disability as a way of manipulating people to say and do things they want them to say and do. Which is your right, legally speaking...but it's wrong. There are certain circumstances under which it might be best, all things considered, not to make an issue of such things...but that's a whole other discussion.

George Will: There's Nothing More Depressing Than A Cheerful Liberal

"Oxytocin-Enforced Norm-Compliance Reduces Xenophobic Outgroup Rejection"

Well nothing at all creepy about this...

Friday, January 19, 2018

Hillary Could Still Become President!!!

Yeah, no.

"What I Learned In The Peace Corps In Africa: Trump Is Right"

Does anyone know whether this is true?

Thursday, January 18, 2018

Count Dankula: Nazi Pug Trial Update

Count Dankula tells us how his trial on charges of pug Nazification is going:

Original pug Nazification video, in case you've, somehow, not seen it:

The Count is obviously a dangerous, dangerous man. Were he left free to operate in civil society we could be looking not just at Nazi pugs, but, possibly, Nazi Labradors, Nazi goldfish...even, perhaps, Nazi goats. And why think it would stop there? We might find ourselves facing Maoist kittens, Stalinist pot-bellied's a truly appalling prospect.

Decent Side Kick Drill Tutorial

IMO the side kick is radically underrated when it comes to actual fights. MMA has been great for advancing our chop socky knowledge, but it's still just a sport. And, like any sport, it's not the same as an actual fight. One of the unrealistic things about it is: nobody wears shoes. My view is that, if you're using the sole of your shoe as a striking surface, even if it gets blocked, it's likely to do damage--even fight-ending damage.
   But some of my high opinion of side kicks is undoubtedly idiosyncratic: it's a type of kick that comes fairly naturally to me (whereas round kicks are not my forte). And you kinda gotta go with what your'e good at. So I throw a lot of side kicks, back side kicks, and spinning side kicks. I'll occasionally throw Thai kicks or front kicks to mix it up and keep people honest (in sparring, I mean)...but a good fast side kick is a good weapon.
   Anyway, this is really basic, but not bad.
   tl;dr: side kicks FTW

Donald Trump Is The President Of The United States

Sometimes, it just hits me.

This truly is the darkest timeline.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Gerson: Trump's A Racist

Some of these arguments are bad.
But this is not the kind of issue you want to have to make close calls on.

Carolina 87 - Clemson 79

Long live the curse!

Did The President Of The United States Pay Hush Money To A Pr0n Star To Cover Up A Sexual Encounter?


I hate everything so much

Chelsea Manning To Run For U.S. Senate In Maryland

[incredulous stare]

Whelp, dude's got balls, I'll give him that.
   See, most people who betrayed their country and then got a completely undeserved commutation...they'd disappear from sight and spend the rest of their born(e?) days avoiding the public eye.
   Not Manning, though!
   I trust this is not something we really have to worry it? Because, honestly, I'm not sure how much more abject political absurdity I can take right now.
   Maybe the 2020 election will be Trump/Cheney versus an Oprah Winfrey / Bill Nye the Science Guy ticket, with Manning in the Senate and...oh, hell, maybe the Newtron Bomb will head back to the House to physically burn down the capitol and salt the ****er ****ing earth.

Is A Course That Indoctrinates Students Into The Cult Of Social Justice A Good Intro Philosophy Course?

Jesus Christ, can you imagine someone thinking that that was somehow an even vaguely reasonable intro to philosophy course?
The Daily Nous is PC as all hell--but the vast majority of the votes and a fair number of the comments are sane.

Why Is Anyone Surprised About The Lame Accusations Against Aziz Ansari?

Here's the deal: current feminist / progressive/PC / Title IX-type / "Yes-means-yes" / affirmative consent orthodoxy is pretty clear: it entails that Ansari is a rapist. Which in no way seems to be true, of course. But he moved in a direction his date didn't want to go, and he was insufficiently responsive to her expressions of less-than-enthusiasm. Pretty much an open-and-shut case on the theory at hand. He'd be kicked out of a whole lot of universities.
   Why is anyone surprised by anything about any of this? "Affirmative consent" orthodoxy entails that, if Smith and Jones are having sex, and Smith doesn't like what Jones is doing, Smith has no obligation whatsoever to say so, nor to give any indication. The burden is entirely on Jones. Smith is not obligated to say 'no,' not obligated to express displeasure in any way...not even obligated to refrain from giving misleading feedback. If Jones fails to secure enthusiastic "affirmative consent" at every point, then Jones is a rapist. Smith could even intentionally refrain from expressing a lack of consent for the very purpose of making Jones a rapist. Jones would, on this theory, become a rapist. If we take seriously what the Ministry of Sex has decreed about these matters, this is all pretty damn clear.
Read more »

Monday, January 15, 2018

MLK: I Have A Dream

The one and only:

Why Do Most Women Prefer Male Bosses?

I don't know why I thought this might be an honest, objective discussion of the phenomenon. I guess Lucy can yank the football at the last minute a very large number of times before I learn my lesson.
   The answer given is: it's not the phenomenon that requires's the feeling. Because, you see, you are always to "believe women"...unless they think things that feminism says they shouldn't think. Then their experience is not to be so much explained as explained away.
   And the explanation of the feeling that they'd rather have male bosses is, very roughly: because patriarchy. I mean, we don't have actual bosses in my world. But we have Chairs and administrators and shit. My favorite Chair ever was a woman. (No offense to my current Chair...) And I've had extensive dealings with both good and bad administrators--a fair number really good, and a fair number really bad. (And sometimes the same person was in both categories.) I'd have a hard time generalizing about sex in this matter. I don't see any correlation. Even administrators are often individual people with personalities and stuff. My currently-most irrational and autocratic administrator is a woman. But in the past it was a man. And a man before that. So.
   But, anyway, it's women themselves who clued me into the cattiness and backstabbery of some women--basically the "mean girls" phenomenon. My hypothesis is that men are the biggest shits in relatively unconstrained environments. In contexts when you might just get physically attacked, it's men you have to be worried about. (And you see how it's not sexist to recognize that?) In relatively more constrained environments, that problem is mostly nonexistent. In such environments, things like backstabbing and hostile-coalition-forming become more salient threats. Also, there's significant evidence that stereotypes of this general kind are pretty accurate--more accurate than most psychological studies. Which shouldn't be much of a surprise, since stereotypes are the conclusions of untold numbers of observations by people who have an actual stake in knowing the facts. (Though, of course, there could still be social explanations.)
   At any rate, I'm not so concerned about the specifics here as I am about the general leftish inconsistency about such stuff, and the tendency to explain away unwelcome conclusions. I'm in no way suggesting that the right doesn't do likewise. That'd be absurd. But the general template really ought to be met with derision: believe all women...except when you don't like what they think...then explain away the collective wisdom of humankind by gesturing at some social science studies that you like better.
   And, for the love of God, don't forget one of the most important points of the rational, liberal feminism of yore: we're only talking about generalizations in such cases. We're in no way saying anything specific about each specific individual.

Margaret Atwood: "Am I A Bad Feminist?"

Props to Atwood.
   In certain abstract terms, this is all easy: sexual harassment is bad. Due process is good. And that's about all there is to it.
   But the devil's in the details, I guess.
   And the practical details are obscured by the contemporary feminist tendency to pretend that even the most minor infelicities are tantamount to sexual harassment, and that sexual harassment is tantamount to rape. Then, of course, there's the left's tendency just to make shit up.
   Anyway, advocating for due process for Galloway doesn't mean that you don't want him to suffer the consequences if he's guilty. The other side points out that only Galloway's right (or whatever it is in an institutional context) to due process is being publicly defended. However, it's only his due process rights that we know to have been violated. Perhaps it'd be better not to emphasize Galloway's right (or whatever it is), and better to emphasize that due process is an impersonal obligation of the institution: it's the best procedure for arriving at a rational conclusion. Applying that thought to this case: arguing for due process is not the same thing as advocating for Galloway.

You Should Be Reading: Donovan Paisley

Progressive champion of women. My compassion for the oppressed is limitless. Spent 5 years at a liberal arts college and received an A+ in my sociology class.

Feminists Ditching "Pussyhats" Because They Now Think They're Racist and "Transphobic"

Sunday, January 14, 2018


I don't want to get involved in this ridiculousness.
   Objectively speaking, there are plenty of shithole countries.
   If you want to criticize Trump on this, the point to make is that the president shouldn't be saying things like "shithole" during official meetings. And he shouldn't be calling countries shitholes no matter how true it might be. It's not what we used to call "presidential." That was a quaint old concept we used to have back in the day before Gallagher became president. No wait...not Gallagher. The other one. What's-his-name. Howard Stern? know the guy I'm talking about.
   Many on the left, of course--deploying its standard mishmash of nihilism, relativism, subjectivism, and skepticism--are basically denying that there are any shithole countries. Which is idiotic. In fact, isn't the left usually arguing that it's inhumane to send illegals back to their countries precisely because they're shitholes?
Read more »