Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Explanation for flat earther. This is as simple as I think I can make it.

Ok, so the black circle is the earth.  The yellow line is the light coming from the sun.  The green line is a line from the centre of the Earth to a point currently in nightime and continuing on.  The blue line is a similar line, but futher away from the point where it's the sun still only just hits the earth.  Notice how is you continue the line upwards from the Point where the green line hits surface you get to a place where you can see the sun.  Notice that the same thing happens with the blue line, but you have to go further from the surface of the earth.  This is why things high above the surface of the earth still recieve sunlight after thing things at sea level stop recieving sunlight.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Apparently the guy calling himself Kirk Tingblad on youtube is the same guy calling himself Kirk Tingblad on facebook and therefore probably the "real" one.

Which means he's been lying for months about not getting my message that I left on his facebook page.  So wow, apparently you can be an Emmy winner and still a pathetic loser.

The guy on youtube was the real Kirk Tingblad he could post his facebook page. Like I just did.

Friday, October 09, 2015

Tell me if this idea for screenplay is racism.

So there's a country that's usually run by white guys with particular (arbitrary) qualifications.  However other than the current ruler there are no white candidates that qualifies, so 2 black children are the heir appearants.  One of these children is magical.  Ok, yes, I know that makes her a magic negro but it's justified, I swear.  They are playing but one of them fails to listen to the other and is therefore critically hurt by him.  The ruler and his wife rush them both to a medical specialist who saves the injured one, let's call him Banna.  The medical specialist then removes all memories of magic from her and replaces them with other memories that are just as fun, but deeply misleading.    tell her she has to learn to control her power and that "fear will be her enemy".  Instead of taking this advice, the character, we'll call him Alsa shuts himself up in his room and does absolutely nothing to learn to control his power, other than try to suppress his emotions in the most neurotic war possible.

Neither brother attempts to learn about their potential role as future leaders.   They are not shown reading a single book.  They don't even talk to each other because Alsa is afraid he'll lose control of his powers and hurt him again.  The current ruler and his wife die, but the brothers are too young to take control so a substitute government (which is not shown and which we are told nothing about) is temporarily put in.

Eventually the older brother Alsa is made ruler when he turns 18 (or 21, probably 18).  He barely gets through the ceremony without his magical power going haywire.  When his brother announces that he wants to marry a woman hes just met, Alsa loses control of his power, and endangers people nearby.  He flees in terror, abandoning his responsibility, then sings about how happy he is to abandon his responsibilities.  Meanwhile his powers are altering the climate of his entire country in a way that would doom many of it's citizens.  So the country has a black ruler for less than 24 hours before going to hell.

Banna tries to fix this by running after Alsa with no plan other than talking to him, which is exactly what caused the problem to begin with. He almost dies because he has no experience in the new climate, which is worse in the areas Alsa headed into.  He has no plan for finding his brother, took no preparations, and left his fiance in charge, despite knowing her for less than 16 hours.  He gets help from a white woman who actually knows how to manage in this environment.  Her expertise and bravery are the only thing that keeps him alive because as pointed out before, he knows nothing about surviving in the environment he headed into.

When Banna gets to Alsa's new magically-created house he asks him to fix the climate problem.  Banna was unaware of it and in fact hoped to avoid having his power hurt people by running away from the capital.   However when he learns that his power is hurting people he simply decides to continue to mope.  He tells his brother to go, and lashes out at him, unconsciously hurting him with his power.

So have you got it yet?  Yes this is all Frozen, just gender/race flipped.  Notice how badly sickeningly racist it would be if it were about blacks not women.

Classically Liberal gets it so right.

Classically Liberal gets it so right.
"I have long contended that the conservative obsession with morality is the direct result of these individuals knowing their own heart all too well. They fear "sin" in others because they know exactly how corrupt they themselves happen to be. Conversely, the desire of those on the Left to impose charity, via the state, on others, is the result of their knowledge that they are not charitable when given the opportunity. Political groups tend to want the state to compensate for the moral shortcomings that they themselves possess."
Control of others is the projection of the desire to  control themselves.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

A refutation of "FAQ: Don’t women have “female privilege”?" by tekanji

"Systems like the draft and chivalry often seem advantageous to women at first glance, "
They don't just "seem advantageous to women at first glance", they are advantageous to women.  I mean how the hell is not getting drafted not a privilege?  If a person is excused from having to forced labor that everyone else has to do, particularly dangerous, dirty, unpleasant work that's a privilege.

"but when examined more closely they in fact reinforce sexist institutions that keep both women and men from true equality. "
But the definition of privilege does not include "doesn't reinforce institutions that are generally bad for the person", even assuming that "patriarchy" is generally bad for women, which isn't exactly certain.  Many people get privileges from systems that are designed to keep them down, e.g. prison trustees, NCOs in conscript armies, mothers in sexist societies who get (often abusive) power over their children.

"This is because, although many strides towards equality have been made over the years, women as a class have not yet leveled the playing field,"
That depends on what you call "level".  But more importantly nobody is claiming that male privilege is evidence of female privilege.  People are saying that women being excused from duties or punishments and given things that men do not get is that evidence.

"While feminists do agree that the practices that are commonly ascribed to 'female privilege' (such as women being the recipients of chivalric practices) are expressions of inequality, they disagree that such practices should be considered a form of institutionalized privilege. "
But they are things that if given to any other groups would be considered privileges and are institutionalized.

"This is because being rewarded for not going against the status quo and being the recipient of institutional privilege are not the same thing. "
But these privileges aren't given for not going against the status quo, they are given for having a vagina and not a penis.  Many men do not go against the status quo (most actually) and they aren't excused from the draft.

" The system of privilege uses that kind of reward system in order to perpetuate itself, but the existence of a reward isn’t proof in of itself of privilege. "
But the reward system by definition is a dispenser of privileges.  It's not a reward if it's not a privilege.

"But the reason that benevolent sexism works and “female privilege” does not is because it better identifies the system behind the beliefs."
But again, the definition of privilege doesn't include a description of who give privileges.  A privilege is privilege regardless of who gives it.

". However, the difference is that the status quo for men is one which grants them status and power "
It gives _some_ men status and power.

"whereas the status quo for women is one which limits their power to the much smaller, and more specific, domestic sphere."
But there is still power and status there.  In any case some women certainly do get power and status from the status quo, and always have.  Hillary Clinton and Queen Elisabeth I have far more status than the average man.  The king's whore always had more status and power than 99% of men

"whereas men are presumed to possess the traits associated with competence at high-status roles "
And also at roles that are dirty, dangerous, violent and painful

"See, I think that some of the problems that men face now- some of the things that people like Burton complain about and see as examples of female privilege over males- are a direct result of the flaws a patriarchical system. "
If they were flaws why did they persist for the whole history of civilization?  Conscription has been a constant for thousands of years, only starting to die out in the late 20th century (and it's hardly dead).  The female privilege of exclusion from conscription has also been a constant for that long.  Hard to see it as a "flaw".  It's not like there hasn't been a chance to correct it.

"To summarize the point of this section: When it’s called benevolent sexism it’s recognized to be tied to the system of sexism, "
But when it's called female privilege it's also recognized to be tied to the system of sexism.  It's just that both types of sexism are recognized.

"I’ve seen the argument floated around that if there’s such thing as “male privilege” that there must therefore be an equivalent of 'female privilege'. "
By who?  Has made this argument?

"The tendency of most people is to think of “privilege” in terms of its common usage, which is an individual advantage that a person can earn and possess. "
You mean they think of privilege in terms of what it actually means.

"But the problem is that male privilege isn’t that kind of privilege; it’s a kind of privilege that is systematic, rather than something that an individual has control over."
All privilege is systematic, and the individual doesn't have control over any system of privilege.  Not even the ostensible rulers can do that.

"It’s different than the common usage because it’s specifically backed up by institutional authority "

"Or, as it is put most commonly, the counterparts to privileged groups are that of the non-privileged groups."
So then for you privilege is all or nothing?  I guess you've never heard of intersectionality.

"To summarize the point of this section: Since the concept of privilege inherent in the term “male privilege” expresses a hierarchy (ie. an in-group/out-group dynamic), the placement of men in the in-group (because of the power that their class holds) necessitates placing women and other non-men in an out-group (because of the lack of power). Thus, “female privilege” doesn’t work as a counterpart to “male privilege” because it doesn’t fit into that dynamic."

But that only works if you assume that those in the out-group have no privileges.  But that is rarely if ever true.  Blacks in the USA for instance had the privilege of not having to live up to sexual norms like fidelity.  Women aren't expected to risk their lives for men like men are supposed to risk their lives for women.  Most famously of all Jews could become money-lenders.  I would guess that most out-groups have some form of privilege that the in-group doesn't have.  That it is less significant than that of the out-group goes without saying, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  This entire article has been nothing but an elaborate denial of facts known by any who care to see.

Monday, May 25, 2015

A rebuttal of "The Origin Of 'The World's Dumbest Idea': Milton Friedman" by Steve Denning

“In a free-enterprise, private-property sys­tem,” the article states flatly at the outset as an obvious truth requiring no justification or proof, “a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business,” namely the shareholders.

Come again?

If anyone familiar with even the rudiments of the law were to be asked whether a corporate executive is an employee of the shareholders, the answer would be: clearly not. The executive is an employee of the corporation.

An organization is a mere legal fiction

So if the organisation is a legal fiction the executive can't really work for it.  He can't be responsible to something that doesn't really exist, because a nonexistant thing cannot hold power over a real thing.  The executive works for the shareholders because they are the ones whose money he is recieving, they are the ones whose benefit he is supposed to work for.  To say that he is doing something for the good of the corporation, but not the good of the shareholders is meaningless.  The corporations only has meaning as a collection of the interests of the shareholders.

"The executive “has direct re­sponsibility to his employers.” i.e. the shareholders."
Who else is he responsible to?  How is this not undeniable?

"What’s interesting is that while the article jettisons one legal reality—the corporation—as a mere legal fiction,"
The corporation IS a legal fiction.

"it rests its entire argument on another legal reality—the law of agency—as the foundation for the conclusions. "
Well yes, because that reality is actually a reality.  It is possible to make someone your agent, and that's not a "legal fiction" they really are your agent, you really have authorized them to make contracts and do other things on your behalf.  

"The choice depends on the predetermined conclusion that is sought to be proved."
No it depends on what is actually a legal fiction and what is not.

"How did the corporation’s money somehow become the shareholder’s money? "
It was always the shareholders money.  All money and assets the corporation has were either to the corporation on the understanding that the resultant returns would be given to the shareholders, or they are the resultant returns that should be given to the shareholders.

"That is the article’s starting assumption. "
No it's the stated fact in the companies own documents.  

"The article goes on: “Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers’ money.” One moment ago, the organization’s money was the stockholder’s money. "
Yes but now we're talking about the money paid by the customers, which is NOT the organisation's money.  It's the customer's money, and they're paying more because of the executives actions.  

"With another wave of Professor Friedman’s conceptual wand, the customers have acquired a notional “right” to a product at a certain price "
No he hasn't said they have a right to the product at a certain price.  What he has said is that the ill-effects of the executive spending money other than on production can impact customers, and he has no right to negatively affect them.  Why should they pay because he thinks money should be spent on something?  

"Now suddenly, the organization’s money has become, not the stockholder’s money or the customers’ money, but the employees’ money."
But again, this is not the organisation's money, it's the employees.  If he causes them to lose wages then he is causing them to lose THEIR money, not the corporation's.  

"One might think that intellectual nonsense of this sort would have been quickly spotted and denounced as absurd. And perhaps if the article had been written by someone other than the leader of the Chicago school of economics and a front-runner for the Nobel Prize in Economics that was to come in 1976, that would have been the article’s fate. "
Right because nobody ever dispute anything Friedman said.  Practically everything he said was attacked by someone.  The problem is that his logic is flawless.  

"The success of the article was not because the arguments were sound or powerful, but rather because people desperately wanted to believe. "
But almost nobody wanted to believe this.  Most people wanted corporations to act like nice guys, or they thought they did.  

"Underneath impenetrable jargon and abstruse mathematics is the reality that whole intellectual edifice of the famous article rests on the same false assumption as Professor Friedman’s article, namely, that an organization is a legal fiction which doesn’t exist "
That's not an assumption it's a clear fact.  A corporation does not have a physical existance.  

"and that the organization’s money is owned by the stockholders."
Ok firstly that's two things, and secondly neither is an assumption.  Both are clearly true for the reasons I've shown.

"In this way, the alleged tendency of executives to feather their own nests would be mobilized in the interests of the shareholders."
Alleged tendencies?  I'm sorry was there anyone anywhere who didn't know that executives feathered their own nests?  

"So for a time, it looked as though the magic of shareholder value was working. But once the financial tricks that were used to support it were uncovered, the underlying reality became apparent. "
So the problem isn't with shareholder value, but that executives FAKED shareholder value.  Great I hope that means you'll stop trashing the concept.  

"The rate of return on assets and on invested capital of US firms declined from 1965 to 2009 by three-quarters, as shown by the Shift Index, a study of 20,000 US firms.

"The shareholder value theory thus failed even on its own narrow terms: making money. "
Ah yes, the post hoc, promptier hoc fallacy.  Hello my old friend.

"Yet, precisely the opposite occurred. In the period of shareholder capitalism since 1976, executive compensation has exploded while corporate performance declined."
Which suggests that executives HAVEN'T been prioritizing shareholder value have they?  

"”. It turned out that the fabulous returns of GE during the Welch era were obtained in part by the risky financial leverage of GE Capital, which would have collapsed in 2008 if it had not been for a government bailout."
So in other words Welch wasn't maximising shareholder value, he was just maximising what the value appeared to be if you didn't look at the risks.  So again this has nothing to do with what Friedman said.  

"Jack Welch...  said“On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy..." "
Yes and it's the result you're trying for.  Friedman didn't say that it was a strategy.  He said it was a GOAL, and the only legitimate one.  

Welsh continues "...your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products."
This is literally insane.  Does he honestly think that his products voted for him?  Or that they should?  Good thing he didn't manage a piggery.  As for employees being your constituents, no.  They did not hire you, they cannot fire you, they don't pay you and you're not responsible to them.  That this even needs to be said is astounding.  Customers at least could be argued to be paying executives, but they are not doing this because they control the executives or have rights over the executives, other than not being defrauded by them.  The purpose of serving the customers is to serve the employer. That is true for the lowliest fast food worker to the highest executive.  

"Managers and investors should not set share price increases as their overarching goal"
And Friedman didn't say they should  He did not mention share price but the VALUE of the company.  It's possible that this whole article is the result of this moronic misunderstanding.  Price is not value.  

"… Short-term profits should be allied with an increase in the long-term value of a company.”
Note that Friedman said nothing about the timeframe that value should be assessed in or how it should be discounted for time.  He never said that short term profits should be earned at the expense of long-term value.  In fact considering his other statements he would probably have considered the question unanswerable except by those whose money it was. 

"In an effort to win, they go up to the very edge of illegality"
Yes they should, that's why it's the edge of illegality, because they shouldn't go beyond it but it's OK to go right up to it.  If you're trying to say that firms have an ethical duty to stay away from these edges you're going to have to make the case.  

" or if they go over the line, get off with civil penalties that appear large in absolute terms but meager in relation to the illicit gains that are made."
Ok let's suppose that the penalty for a "crime" (whether it's actually a bad thing or not) is $1M.  That is effectively the price that government has put on doing that thing (or at least being caught at it).  Now either that price is too low to compensate for the damage to society from breaking the law or it isn't. 

If it isn't if the fine completely compensates for the damage to society then if the profit from crime exceeds the fine they should do it.  The shareholder benefits, the public in the form of the taxpayers benefit and since there's nobody else involved, society in general benefit.  The exception is if the benefits form the fine don't go to the people who suffered costs from the crime.  But that's hardly the companies or the executive's fault.  

If the fine doesn't completely compensate for the damage to society, this is STILL not the company or the executives fault.  It is not their job to correctly set incentives for corporate behaviour, but to recognise and act on those incentives.  Just like the worker isn't obliged to  tell his employer how to operate more profitably by firing him.  Just like the customer isn't obliged to tell the seller how to get more money out of him.  It makes no sense to impose a duty on executives that they have no expertise in, that is difficult or impossible to measure and that frankly nobody is paying them to do.  

"In such a world, it is therefore hardly surprising, says Roger Martin in his book, Fixing the Game, that the corporate world is plagued by continuing scandals, such as the accounting scandals in 2001-2002 with Enron, WorldCom, Tyco International, Global Crossing, and Adelphia, "
None of which were about maximising shareholder value, but faking it.  

"subprime meltdown of 2007-2008"
First of all there was a general meltdown in mortgages, not one specifically in subprime mortgages.  But the meltdown was caused by government interference in the market, and people ignoring shareholder value for quick paper profits.  

"Martin writes: “It isn’t just about the money for shareholders, or even the dubious CEO behavior that our theories encourage. It’s much bigger than that. Our theories of shareholder value maximization and stock-based compensation have the ability to destroy our economy and rot out the core of American capitalism"
Yet not a single one of these abuses relates to what Friedman said.  He never justified fraud in the pursuit of shareholder value.  He never justified lying to the shareholders to pretend value was greater than it was. 

"Peter Drucker made a sustained argument against shareholder value in his classic book, Management. In his view, “There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer. . . . It is the customer who determines what a business is. It is the customer alone whose willingness to pay for a good or for a service converts economic resources into wealth, things into goods. . . . The customer is the foundation of a business and keeps it in existence.” "
And if that doesn't result in benefit for the business owners, usually in the form of profit, how is that an overall good thing?  The customer is a means to an end, not an end in itself.  There are of course businesses where the customer is an end in themselves, formed by customers to serve them.  These are called buyers cooperatives.  That most businesses are not organised in this way shows that Drucker is clearly wrong.  

"Similarly in 1979, Quaker Oats president Kenneth Mason, writing in Business Week, declared Friedman’s profits-are-everything philosophy “a dreary and demeaning view of the role of business and business leaders in our society… Making a profit is no more the purpose of a corporation than getting enough to eat is the purpose of life. Getting enough to eat is a requirement of life; life’s purpose, one would hope, is somewhat broader and more challenging. Likewise with business and profit.” "
The difference is that it's your life but not your business.  If you consider creating profit to be too "dreary" then by all means quit and pursue something more meaninful.  Personally I would consider making the shareholders richer so that they can pursue their life goals more successfully to be pretty meaningful, but maybe I just care more about other people than him.  

"Power in the marketplace shifted from seller to buyer. "
When you see a buyer and a seller interacting, who is usually being nicer to the other?  Who acts as though they are the supplicant, and the other guy has their fate in their hands?  It's almost always the buyer that has the power and it always has been  So the claim that the power "shifted" to buyers is questionable at best, bizarre at worst.  True there are MORE options for consumers, but they always had multiple options in any free or near-free market.  

"A whole set of organizations responded by doing things differently and focusing on delighting customers profitably, rather than a sole focus on shareholder value. "
As though these were opposing goals.  

"In effect, shareholder value is obsolete. What we are seeing is a paradigm shift in management, in the strict sense laid down by Thomas Kuhn: a different mental model of how the world works."
And note that not one difference in how firms actually operate is listed, nor how that way would be inconsistent with shareholder value. So we can assume Denning is just lying here.

Friday, April 24, 2015

Intentionality and FCM Or who intends and how much.

Intentionality and FCM

Or who intends and how much.

By Michael Price

So GirlWritesWhat made a video** about "On Intentionality. Or, What Is It For = What Does It Do?" by FCM* comparing it to how pyschotics infer intentionality where it doesn't belong. While this is a valid and valuable point regarding how FCM regarded "patriarchy" there are at least three points that are far more important.

Firstly as GWW has pointed out time and time again what feminists call "patriarchy" resulted in men being the one's to do all the most dangerous, dirty, stressful, and in general unpleasant jobs. Even the jobs that feminsits point to as evidence of male power often, frankly, suck. Congratulations on becoming King of Scotland, I hope you'll last until... I mean I hope I see you at your birthday next week. So if we're judging by the results then isn't that an argument that "patriarchy" was created by women to avoid those jobs? After all "patriarchy" is primarily supported by social norms, many of them formed in childhood, and women in "patriarchy" are in charge of childcare. The more "patriarchal" the society the less men have to do with forming the beliefs of the children.

Secondly there is the point that "patriarchy" has a lot of effects. FCM basically assumed that the ones she didn't like were the intended effects, but the effects she does like or doesn't care about she assumes aren't intended. It's classic paranoid narcissism, although expressed in a group rather than an individual context.. It also assumes a level of power amoung men that make anti-semitic tracts about the Rockefellers seem tame. She claims "it cannot be denied that they were intentionally creating brain damaged fembots to clean house and be compliant semen receptacles for men. if they didnt like or want that outcome, they wouldve stopped doing it.". But this only follows if there is another way to achieve the ostensible goals without creating said fembots. If the patient has a habit of waving knives around while screaming about demons you don't have to be a fembot-fan to say reach for the icepick. All that can be said is that they prefered fembots to maniacs, or possibly to not getting paid. If FCM's logic was true then the fact that environmentalists blocking nuclear power resulted in more coal plants would prove that they wanted the resultant mercury-contanimated fish. Also (and this is an example she specifically used) having PIV sex proves you want a baby. About a million abortions a year cast doubt on this.

Thirdly the claim that patriarchy is designed is simply asserted, without any evidence whatsoever. Systems can evolve without intention, as shown by the example of the respiratory system FCM gives. Social system also evolve, often against the interests of the people making the changes. For instance the current system of laying fibre optic cable is very much against the interest of the main data transmission companies. No sooner do they complete a highly expensive cable lay across hundreds or thousands of than some other company starts laying another cable with newer technologies that will transmit more data cheaper per bit. So the first company has to lay another cable that's even more expensive but cheaper per bit.The net result is that massive investments are made that are rapidly made obsolete while prices get lower and lower. The naval arms race prior to World War One was not desired by ANY of the great powers that indulged in it. I don't often say this but FCM should read some Karl Marx regarding how systems can force results on people or institutions that they never wanted. Yes, you heard right, called FCM more ignorant than Karl Marx.

FCM is incredibly hypocritical because she calls women who don't believe it was designed "cult members" whose beliefs "flies in the face of the actual, real evidence", which she does not produce. I suppose that she might consider the fact that women don't like the present "patriarchal" system very much as evidence that they had no power to create the social system. But that assumes that women wanted the same things when the "patriarchy" was created as they do now, despite thousands of years of social, technological, climatic, evolutionary and economic change. Basically she believes because she wouldn't want a system where daddy has all the responsibility no other woman would. Again, classic narcissism.

Of course the question of intentionality leads to the question "Whose intentionality?". There were many people alive at the formation of what she calls "patriarchy" all of whom were unique individuals with their own goals, desires, levels of knowledge, and circumstances. We can't assume that everyone who helped form "patriarchy" had the same set of goals. Milton Friedman's "baptists and bootleggers" theory of how legal restrictions on trade come to be is a classic example of mixed intentions. The "baptists" want the restriction for the "common good" the "bootleggers" so they can make money. People who wanted to free the Iraqi people from Saddam, people who wanted the price of oil to go up, people who wanted to sell more ammo to the Pentagon all supported the Iraq war and others. Whose intentions were responsible then?

She simply assumes there was a coherent, unified agreement amoung all men to insitute those social, economic and political features that she calls "patriarchy". This despite the fact that many men are disadvantages by said features. For instance men who are better a getting women to do what they want by persausion are automatically disadvantaged by compulsion being allowed, even encouraged, in intimate relations. They simply can't use their best asset. Similarly those men who are not particularly strong yet are expected to defend their women get the short end of the stick. On the other hand women who are good at looking pretty got a free ride. She ignores all the for a simple, unnuanced theory that has all the qualifiers a political theory needs, it fits at least two facts. We can't expect more from her, but we should expect more from anyone we actually listen to.




Xenoatomatonism is a word I coined to describe the beleif that other people are basically automatons that will respond in predictable, linear ways that can easily be calculated and factored into, and thus they can be easily ruled or controlled. It is a kind of delusion. It is related to the "Gorbachev delusion"*, the idea that government has power and control that it clearly cannot have (especially due to the people's ability to evade it's restrictions).

While many people have described the errors and foibles of the Bush Administration, they have not described the core malfunction, the root the Thoreau would have us strike at. I believe that xenoatomatonism is it. Take for instance the overoptimistic estimation that oil revenue from Iraq would pay for the war. Try this test, stop someone in the street and ask them "If a large number of arabs were mad at the US, what are the top 5 things they'd try to do to hurt it?". I guarantee most people would have "stop the US getting oil" in the list. Yet the Bushrangers thought that they could protect infrastructure that is by nature vulnerable. Oil pipelines are large, hard to armour and due to their geometry need the largest perimetre to defend of any single strategic target. They really thought that despite their enemies having access to thousands of tonnes of explosive prior to the invasion and the experts to use it efficently the pipelines wouldn't be blown up. If the average person had this as part of their plan you'd think they were just stupid, but these were smart people**. To have not seen such a glaring inconsistency it must have been obscured by a belief that could not be shoved aside. The assumption that the Iraqis were simple chess pieces that would make the moves the administration's rules stipulated fits the bill precisely.

* Named this delusion after Mikhail Gobachev tried to limit alcohol consumption by limiting State production, without realising that people could make their own. This dispite being the son of Russian peasants and therefore quite well aware of the possibility of private illegal production.

** Yes I know, Bush is allegedly an idiot and Libby certainly is, but Rove isn't and neither is Cheney or Rumsfeld.

When women have to defend themselves against lying feminists.

So the professional misser of the point Erin KLG has defended her article “When Women Don’t Want Daughters”. This seems to be at least in part in reply to girlwriteswhat completely disembowling said article. Erin claims that "the world was harder for women. ". Let's take a look at her justifications and see if they hold water or more hot air.

 Number one men have almost all the positions of power. Therefore there lives are all easier. Here Erin fails to make the basic logic distinction between "All of X are Y" and "All of Y are X". The fact that I share a type of chromosome with almost all world and national leaders doesn't actually help me. It's not like I can say "Hey I'd like special treatment from you Mr. Powerful on account of how we both have dicks.". Well I could but unless he's really into dicks that's not likely to help. Having a vagina, which most powerful men are into (not all but a large majority) generally helps a lot more. Maybe that's why, as GWW pointed out, more money is spent, anything from 8 to 100 times more on female than male problems.

 For the second point Kan't Learn Gentleness (I'm going to try and give her as many deserved acronums as I can) complained "We" haven't had a female president. By this she means just the USA, presumably. But a female US president would be a massive advantage to the men's right's movement because she would not have to prove her feminist credentials and could look at men's disadvantage without being massacred in the press. I don't think it WOULD happen but it could. In any case I haven't lead a country either and I don't whine about it.

 For sheer assininity (real men don't just use words they CREATE them) the third point can't be beat. Women get portrayed badly in the media. She gives a number of examples of the horrible, horrible ways they get portrayed. Of these some didn't mention women at all, some didn't imply any judgements on women and NONE showed unambiguous violence against women. There was one ad that showed a woman in a sexual situation with several men, but whether it was consensual or not wasn't clear. Another showed a woman dead, but it she didn't appear to have died by violence. Being the distractable guy I am I then clicked some links from these pages and got to one allegedly showing the 10 funniest TV ads. One of these showed a man who looked like a Pinata with a broken arm and bandage on his head, the joke being that he had been beaten with a stick to get skittles. Not on the violence against men specifically mentioned, and the results clearly visible but it was played for laughs. So possible violence against women, (admittedly sexual which is touchier) ad gets banned. Definite violence against a men, ad gets laughed at. Note that I didn't look for an ad like this. I didn't need to. A few minutes clicking links about advertising and I get to one. Count the number of ads where the woman is stupid, insensitive, insane or evil, then count the number of ads the man is, it's not a contest.

 Nor is the actual entertainment any better in this regard. Aside from the occasional show like "Modern Family" or "Married with Children" (both with the brilliant Ed O'Neill) which treat the male and female characters about equally, most TV shows show men to be incompetent, inconsiderate, insensitive fools. Sometimes like in Tim Allen's "Home Improvement" that's most of the joke of the series.

Her fourth point is that 85-90% of the people in the USA with eating disorders are women. My fourth point is that 80% of the people who suicide are men. Her point is "Not unrelated" to media portrayals, at a guess I'd say mine is too. But if you had to choose, gun to your head so to speak, would you rather be the person who splattered chunder all over the floor or brains all over the wall?

 Then she brings up the most horrible thing in the world. The wage gap still exists. So does the huge amount of differences between male and female labor that create it, including but not limited to, the willingness of males to work stupid hours*, to work outside often in terrible weather, to do dangerous work, to remain in a job without taking time off for a child etc. anyone who doesn't know that the work men and women do is very different is startlingly ignorant.

 Erin Knowledge-Less Girl tries to claim that justifying the wages gap on the grounds of, "lifestyle choices" (which are also choices about work) is condemning women because they can give birth. This is poppycock and if she actually watched to GWW's video she's know this. I suspect she does unless she's totally ignorant of how men and women run their lives. It's not giving birth reduces a woman's value to the employer. No doubt taking time off to deal with the physical aspects of pregnancy and childbirth is a factor but it's a minor one. If it were not then women would be back in the workforce 2 months after giving birth. Instead many women drop paid employment for years, even decades, after becoming a mother, and/or radically reduce their hours of paid work. They could choose not to do this and have their husband do the stay at home thing (this is not unknown, in fact Stefan Molyneux the biggest philosopher on the web did exactly that). The choice is a lifestyle choice and it's one that negatively impacts their value to their employer.

Then she's gets on to men graduating with the degrees that pay the most. Yeah I'm guessing that women's studies and social work degrees don't pay that well. How is this a case the world being harder on women? The women made the choice, presumably they had their reasons to believe that it would make them happy. Men also had their reasons to believe that the higher paying degrees would make them happy. I don't see why the fact that one choice leads to more money neccesarily implies it leads to more happiness. What Erin Knotted Logic, Gordian is saying here is that women unfortunately are too stupid to make the right, money-making course choices and so end up miserable because they lack the power money brings. But do they lack the power money brings? Money is not powerful in the earning but the spending. As David Thomas pointed out in "Not guilty the case in defence of men" women make or influence much even most of the major spending decisions. In fact he lists 10 areas of financials services and all but 2 or 3 the woman clearly wears the pants regarding them. So how does the fact that women don't even have to earn the money they spend men it's tougher for them?

Then she talks about how 2/3s of the world's illiterates are female. This is a bit of a switcheroo because up until this point she was talking about the experience of women and men in the USA. All the facts related to the USA and similar western cultures, there was no indication that the world she considered stretched to Kabul or Karachi or indeed beyond Rio Grande. Her original article also didn't seem to address anything but the Western experience. In the 3rd world certainly it's rough being a chick. In fact it's so rough that some feminists have said women were the primary victims of, for instance, the war in Afghanistan. Why? Because it often left them without husbands or sons. But none of this has anything to do with the original article, unless Erin is totally ignorant of why people in other cultures prefer sons. The original article was all about her own culture, nothing about others. Don't worry she'll turn back to being totally US-centric when she compares rates of violent victimisation, because she certainly won't be making the case on that with figures from down south of the border.

 Now we come to a bad word "slut". Well some people use it as a bad word, others use it as a fun word, even a compliment, but she's got a point, calling people slut is not nice. Neither is calling someone "coward". The difference is that nobody ever fought a useless war to stop someone calling them a slut. If the worst you have to worry about is being called a slut you've got a pretty good life. From slut we transition straight to honour killings and "purity balls" as though giving a girl a celebration (albeit a weird one with unfortunate connations) for a choice you approve of and killing her for one you do not are the same class of phenomena. Some people think that "saving yourself for marriage" is a good idea. Plenty of those people think the males should do it too. How this makes the world tougher for females (other than that some people Erin doesn't like anyway won't like them) is beyond me. Honour killings are of course horrific, but is there a country in the world where they outnumber infanticides? Let alone killing of men for absurd reasons? Note that her case was that the world is tougher for women than men, not that it is tough for women.

 She then goes on to the discrepancy between male and female criminal vicitimisation rates. Well she pretends to. She presents a graph that appears to show the discrepancy is being radically reduced. The thing is that violent crime is often underreported, particularly if the victim feels they are unlikely to get justice or may suffer retaliation. Male vicitims of domestic violence, who are just as common as female victims, are one such group. Females have been reporting domestic violence more often, males, not so much. Male victims of prison rape* are another. Assaults on females are taken much more seriously and everyone knows this (and most would be upset if it weren't so) so naturally males are less likely to believe it's worth making a complaint. One way to eliminate reporting errors is to look at homicide, which is not greatly underreported for obvious reasons. Luckily the page she sent us to is part of a site that has such information. Find a year where men weren't murdered at twice the rate women were. Go ahead, find it. Now look at that realise this is actually pretty good for men. In the Mexican border areas (where feminists worried that there was an epidemic of woman murder) the ratio is more like 10-1. If anyone knows of a country that has more females murdered than males please tell me. Well maybe India with the infanticides, which are of course almost never carried out by males.

Speaking of perpetrators she then mentions that 90% of perpetrators are male. Of course this depends on official statistics which almost certainly underreport assaults by females, particularly domestic abuse. But let's a ssume she's right. How does that show that women have it tougher? Does she assume that the life of a violent offender is a happy one? A stress-free one? Sure these guys have to take responsibility for their actions, but somewhere there is a woman who's job it was to raise them to be healthy and happy, he is pretty clearly not. The question isn't, why is a woman not afraid or raising a female victimizer, but why isn't she more afraid of raising a male victim than a female one, given that they probably outnumber them 3-2 at least?

 The answer is because like Erin they don't really love any male. They think it's fine to ignore their pain, denigrate and insult them openly, clearly state, to their faces that they are by nature stupid, uncultured, insensitive, cruel and violent and arrange everything in society to someone else's benefit with their money. Then the cruelest trick in the female arsenal, telling them that this is love. Telling them that the warped twisted relationship where the male can be barely tolerated in return for being useful is the wonder, joyous, mutual, respectful, kind and enlightening thing we call love. Then they wonder why we like hookers and porn.

 She claims that men being called "girls" or "pussies" proves that women are considered the lesser sex. Hmm.. let's see, what would you rather have, your gender being used as an insult or spending on the health of your gender being several times lower? Having your genitals being a term of abuse or losing your children in custody battles pretty much every time? Dying on the job or being whistled at in public? Where is this woman's self-respect? What happened to her that she can advance such baloney without drinking herself into a stupor to cope with what she does for a living? I don't know and I don't care, I'm just glad I'm not her.

Why I think Marxists aren't stupid.

Stefan Molyneux claimed that many people who back Marxism are stupid, that they simply don't realise the logical fallacies and other problems in Marxist "thought".  I believe that this is not the best explanation for Marx's popularity.  I think that practically all supporters of Marxist thought are capable of understanding the gross flaws in it but choose not to do so.  These two hypothesis predict significantly different results in the real world, so they are not simply academic or arbitrary differences, but distinct and testable.

If people were really accepting Marxism from stupidity then when an idea that was too stupid to accept came along, they would not accept it.  If on the other hand they were not, they would accept it, if doing so achieved the same goals as accepting Marxism.   I have found such a stupid idea, the 12:1 law.  This law said that a company could not pay anyone more than 12 times what it paid it's lowest paid employee.  I'm still not clear on whether that meant per year, per hour, per week, or what.  It doesn't matter. 

To show that this law was not supported out of stupidity think really quickly; what are the first two consequences of this law to come to mind.  Unless your mind works really oddly it will be "some people will get pay raises and some people will get pay cuts.".  Now ask yourself, did these people do anything to deserve either?  No.

It's blatantly obvious that some workers will get no pay raise since the company either does, or will pay it's CEO less than 12 times their income.  Others on exactly the same pay will get a raise, despite doing the same work under the same conditions, just for another company.  That is clearly unfair.  If someone had wanted to benefit workers they could simply have lobbied for more union power, a higher minimum wage, lower taxes on the "poor" and more on the rich etc.  But they didn't.  They choose to back this idea.  It is impossible to believe that those who voted for the law didn't figure out, and had no friends that figured out, that the effect would to hugely unfair to some workers.  Even people who are extremely stupid must at some point mention their stupidity to smart people, who will correct them.  But apparently for a significant proportion of the Swiss population that didn't happen.  Which suggests that it's not stupidity, but deliberate avoidance of the facts.  Rand said the only evil thought was the refusal to think, and this is a prime example.

Sunday, April 19, 2015


"Nerds, geeks, and gamers can roam free… unless you’re a woman with an opinion, differing experiences and interests, or different viewpoint from the Badgers. Pot meet kettle."
When exactly have the Badgers stopped anyone from roaming freely?  When have they stoppped anyone from saying the shit they say?  You really don't care whether you anything you say is even remotely related to the truth do you?
"The Honey Badger Brigade booth ... is attending panels that feature feminists and women just to disrupt them."
Where is the evidence of that?  If there are panels featuring feminists the of course people who dispute the feminist orthodoxy are going to attend them and attempt to challenge that orthodoxy.  That's not disruption, that's debate.  

"The “hate group” has spurred an outcry from attendees and others towards the Calgary Expo team "
What evidence do you have that the "Honey Badgers" are a hate group or that "A Voice for Men" is a hate group?  Oh that's right nothing.   There is no evidence in your post, and the evidence that you give in a later comment is that they were listed as one- by the _Southern Poverty Law Center_, the least credible source on the entire planet outside of North Korea. There is literally not one scrap of evidence you even MIGHT be telling the truth.

"Panelist Brittney Le Blanc recounting what happened:
We were about fifteen minutes into the panel when a woman in the second row stood up and identified herself as a Men’s Rights Activist. "

And why did she do that?  Because someone asked a question about what MRAs think and why they think it.  One of the Honey Badgers then offered to address that question and that offer was was accepted.  They did not derail anything.  A question was asked and they answered it, that's the opposite of derailing.

"I truly believe in freedom of speech, but coming to a panel with the entire purpose of derailing it and shooting down the voices on the panel isn’t constructive."
It is if the panel is espousing bullshit.  If someone is saying things that aren't true or that aren't supported by the evidence then yes it's amazingly constructive to shoot down their views.  If the panel isn't talking bullshit then having their views challenged allows them to be shown to be true.  

"It appears that was their plan for the expo, to come and to loudly take over the spaces of other people –"
Then where were they loud?  When did they take over anything?  You don't even say that the panelists were yelled over, so you're not even claiming this HAPPENED but you're saying was their plan?

" it’s disrespectful, disappointing and offers a prime example of why these panels need to exist in the first place."
You don't deserve respect just because you're on a panel, and if think you do then that offers a prime example of why these panels need to be stopped in the first place.

"It’s disappointing that they weren’t there to have a conversation or to listen to what we, and members of the audience, were saying. They wanted to stand up and have their say, but not to listen or try to understand the points of view other people in the room had."
Where is the evidence of this?  They didn't shout over people, they didn't take more time than they were entitled to and if the panel didn't want to talk about these issues (that a panelist brought up) they could have simply talked about something else.

Note that you don't even try to find a single example of them violating Calgary's policies.  And you're scum for allowing the implication that there was a safety concern to stand.

Monday, January 19, 2015

The pretence of knowledge in gender.

This is an analysis of "Boardroom equality progress too slow" an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald.

"The business establishment of every country tends to be conservative."
Really? Where is your evidence for that?

"Sudden change in factors such as interest rates or government regulations and policies, tends to make the most senior levels of our private-sector bureaucracies fret and complain."
No changes that are bad for their business tend to make them complain.  I've never once heard a complaint of a change that benefits them.

"Though businesspeople may cite the virtues of the market, they rarely welcome its effects on their own turf. Change, as a rule, is something to be avoided."
The fact that businesses spend millions of dollars lobbying for changes suggest you're talking rubbish.

"Thus it is not surprising – though it is genuinely disappointing – that despite 40 years and more of urging, the senior levels of Australian business remain overwhelmingly male."
Well actually it's heartening that business doesn't make decisions on the basis of "urging".  If there had been 40 years of EVIDENCE and nothing had happened that would be disappointing.

"a survey of our business leaders found they agree wholeheartedly that more women in senior management would be a good thing. "
Well of course, it's the view people are told is good.

"The chief argument against quotas is that the less talented may be promoted over the more talented. "
Actually the argument is that the less ABLE may be promoted over the most ABLE.  What degree of that ability is due to talent is irrelevant.

"What is the talent, exactly, that is being measured here?"
Well again it's ability not talent that's important here.  But the ability is presumably the ability to run a business well. 

"Is it all-round ability, or is it simple aggression – overwhelmingly a male trait? Certainly many male CEOs have an abundance of that – but are they the best leaders?"
Well if you have any evidence that they aren't and that that is due to them being selected on the basis of aggression, show it.  Oh wait, this is a pro-feminist editorial, evidence is considered gauche.

"The leadership styles of women and men differ. Women executives tell exasperated anecdotes of being sent (by male superiors) on management courses to learn how to relate better to their staff."
Exasperated tales?  Why would they be exasperated?  Surely they understand this is an important skill?  If they believe that they already possess it why weren't they able to communicate that to their bosses?  Perhaps these women are unaware of how badly they suck at relating to their staff.  Evidently they aren't aware of how much they suck at relating to their bosses.  Of course if they were NOT sent on training courses merely because they were women, that would be sexist.

"What the courses (run often enough by men) teach is how they can empathise and communicate more easily with others – skills which men find arcane and difficult to master, but which come easily to women."
I see so it's OK to assume women have greater skill in an area, but to assume men have greater skill would be anathema.

"Male executives, in other words, know these are useful traits for managers – yet they apparently have not noticed that women already possess them. "
They have not noticed that THESE WOMEN possess them.  Maybe because they don't.  Or because they're sending everyone, women and men, to the same courses so they don't get sued.

"It suggests that the idea of talent, when it comes to senior management roles, may unthinkingly be defined in ways which disadvantage or exclude women."
Well no, it suggests nothing of the kind.  It in fact suggests that they value a skill you say women are better at.  Whether it also suggests they don't know how to recognise that skill is a different matter.

"There is no need to imagine some active misogynist conspiracy is afoot to keep women out of power. "
Indeed not, it might be due to different career patterns, different values, different distributions of intelligence etc. 

"All that is needed for businesses to stay in this destructive, talent-wasting rut is a shared lack of imagination "
But you haven't actually shown any talent being wasted.  All you've shown is a possible explanation how it might be.  You haven't defined or measured talent or ability let alone shown that either is being wasted by the current system.

" As we reported, Australia's biggest firms perform worse than smaller ones: less than 20 per cent of managers reporting to the CEO in the top 200 public companies are women; the figure in all companies with more than 100 employees is nearly 30 per cent."
And does that fit with your thesis that it's masculinity that's being rewarded?  Not really.  There's no reason why masculinity would be more valued in places that can afford the best and where judging ability is most important.

What the figures would fit is the gender difference being due to IQ differences.  CEOs of the top 200 companies are in the top 1 percent of business jobs.  It makes sense that they would be near the top in intelligence.  But the further you get, up or down, from the mean IQ the more men outnumber women.  At the intelligence levels necessary to become a top 200 CEO men might well outnumber women by 5-1 or thereabouts. 

"In the boys' own world of Australian business, a person with talent is simply understood to be a person who acts like a man. "
You haven't shown ANY evidence of that.

" Leaving the free market to carry out reforms will only work if the market can see some short-term balance-sheet advantage in it.  "
First of all rubbish, firms act on long-term considerations quite a lot.  Secondly why wouldn't hiring the best be a short-term balance sheet advantage?  If it isn't that a far more serious problem than the sausagefest that is big business leadership.