Friday, July 19, 2019

"To the extent that you need scapegoats...

" simply have not got your brain programmed to work as an efficient problem-solving machine." - Robert Anton Wilson

Friday, June 07, 2019

Reading, Spring 2019.

The Comedians: Drunks, Thieves, Scoundrels, and the History of American Comedy by Kliph Nesteroff

Yourdrum by Kevin Stock

The Rescue (Ryan Decker Book 1) by Steven Konkoly

Obvious Adams: The Story of a Successful Businessman by Robert Updegraff

Destroy the Opposition: Programming for Powerlifting by Jamie Lewis

Sleep Like a Lion: How to Go From Average Sleep to Awesome Sleep with a Scientifically-Proven System of Sleep Tips, Tactics and Routines by Paul French

The Soul of a Chef: The Journey Toward Perfection by Michael Ruhlman

ALPHA: A Black Flagged Thriller (The Black Flagged Series Book 1) by Steven Konkoly

Monster Hunter International (Monster Hunters International Book 1) by Larry Correia

Monster Hunter Vendetta (Monster Hunters International Book 2) by Larry Correia

Monster Hunter Alpha (Monster Hunters International Book 3) by Larry Correia

Monster Hunter Legion (Monster Hunters International Book 4) by Larry Correia

Monster Hunter Nemesis (Monster Hunters International Book 5) by Larry Correia

Monster Hunter Siege (Monster Hunters International Book 6) by Larry Correia


The Wild Storm Vol. 3 Paperback by Warren Ellis, John Davis-Hunt

Atomic Robo Presents Real Science Adventures: The Flying She-Devils in Raid on Marauder Island by Brian Clevinger, Lo Baker, Wook Jin Clark

Atomic Robo Presents Real Science Adventures: The Nicodemus Job by Brian Clevinger, Meredith McClaren

Atomic Robo and the Spectre of Tomorrow by Brian Clevinger, Scott Wegener

Atomic Robo: Real Science Adventures Volume 1 TP by Brian Clevinger, John Broglia, Ryan Cody, Scott Wegener, Jeff Powell

Kill or Be Killed Volume 1-4 by Ed Brubaker, Sean Phillips, Elizabeth Breitweiser

Shazam!: Origins by Geoff Johns, Gary Frank

Batman vs. Deathstroke by Christopher Priest, Diogenes Neves

Deathstroke Vol. 3-5 by Christopher Priest, Joe Bennett, Carlo Pagulayan, Diogenes Neves

Titans: The Lazarus Contract by Christopher Priest, Dan Abnett, Brett Booth


Thursday, February 28, 2019

Reading - Winter 18/19

Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator by Ryan Holiday

What Remains by Ry Beville

The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ by Philip Pullman

The Killer Collective by Barry Eisler

Out of the Dark: An Orphan X Novel by Gregg Hurwitz

Gun Machine by Warren Ellis

How to Win at the Sport of Business: If I Can Do It, You Can Do It by Mark Cuban

Normal: A Novel by Warren Ellis

Super Villains of Persuasion by Ben Settle

Dead Pig Collector by Warren Ellis

Persuasion Secrets of the World’s Most Charismatic & Influential Villains by Ben Settle

Elektrograd: Rusted Blood by Warren Ellis

The Adventures of Johnny Bunko: The Last Career Guide You'll Ever Need by Daniel H. Pink and Rob Ten Pas 

(1. There is no plan. 2. Think strengths, not weaknesses. 3. It’s not about you. 4. Persistence trumps talent. 5. Make excellent mistakes. 6. Leave an imprint.)


Injustice: Gods Among Us: Year Two - The Complete Collection by Tom Taylor, Bruno Redondo, Mike Miller

Injustice: Gods Among Us Year Three - The Complete Collection by Tom Taylor, Brian Buccellato, Bruno Redondo, Mike S. Miller

Wolverine: Old Man Logan Vol. 9: The Hunter And The Hunted by Ed Brisson, Francesco Manna, Juan Ferreyra, Mike Deodato

The Wild Storm: Michael Cray Vol. 2 by Bryan Hill, Stephen N. Harris, Dexter Vines

Jimmy's Bastards TPB Vol. 1: Trigger Warning by Garth Ennis, Mike Marts, Russ Braun

Jimmy's Bastards Vol. 2: What Did You Just Say by Garth Ennis and Russ Braun

Indeh: A Story of the Apache Wars Kindle Edition by Ethan Hawke, Greg Ruth

Uber Volume 6 Invasion by Kieron Gillen, Daniel Gete

Batman: The Rebirth Deluxe Edition Book 1 Hardcover by Tom King, David Finch , Mikel Janin

Mister Miracle Paperback by Tom King, Mitch Gerads

Sunday, December 02, 2018

Reading - Fall 2018

A Case of Need by Michael Crichton

Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup by John Carreyrou

Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue by Ryan Holiday

The Carnivore Diet Handbook by K. Suzanne

Goodbye, Things: The New Japanese Minimalism by Fumio Sasaki

Hollywood Dead: A Sandman Slim Novel by Richard Kadrey

A Beautiful, Terrible Thing by Jen Waite

I Heard You Paint Houses: Frank "The Irishman" Sheeran & Closing the Case on Jimmy Hoffa by Charles Brandt

Love Yourself Like Your Life Depends On It by Kamal Ravikant

Follow You Home by Mark Edwards

Vanished by Joseph Finder

Buried Secrets by Joseph Finder

Guilty Minds by Joseph Finder

Levon Cade Series V1-5 by Chuck Dixon

The Total Money Makeover:  A Proven Plan for Financial Fitness by Dave Ramsey

Past Tense: A Jack Reacher Nover by Lee Child

Mind's Eye by Douglas E. Richards


Secret Six Vol. 2: The Gauntlet by Gail Simone, Dale Eaglesham, Tom Derenick 

Wolverine by Daniel Way: The Complete Collection Vol. 2, 3 & 4 by Daniel Way, Jeph Loeb, Steve Dillon, Kaare Andrews, Simone Bianchi, Jon Proctor, Marjorie Liu, Doug Braithwaite, Scot Eaton, Will Conrad, Stephen Segovia, Antonio Fuso

Captain America: Operation Rebirth by Mark Waid and Ron Garney

Wolverine: Old Man Logan Vol. 6: Days of Anger by Ed Brisson and Mike Deodato

Jungle Girl Omnibus Paperback by Frank Cho, Doug Murray, Adriano Batista

Death of Wolverine: The Complete Collection Paperback by Charles Soule, Tim Seeley, Kyle Higgins, Marguerite Bennett, Steve McNiven, Salvador Larroca, Angel Unzueta, Iban Coello

Batman: The Dark Knight: Master Race Paperback by Frank Miller, Brian Azzarello, Andy Kubert, Klaus Janson

Deadpool Vs. Old Man Logan Paperback by Declan Shalvey, Mike Henderson

Wolverine: Old Man Logan Vol. 7: Scarlet Samurai by Ed Brisson, Mike Deodato

Wolverine: Old Man Logan Vol. 8: To Kill Forby Ed Brisson, Dalibor Talajic

Deadpool by Daniel Way: The Complete Collection - Volume 1
by Daniel Way, Andy Diggle, Steve Dillon, Paco Medina, Carlo Barberi, Bong Dazo


Tuesday, September 04, 2018

Reading - Summer 18 - "When done right, comics are a cognitive whetstone..."

"...providing two or three or more different but entangled streams of information in a single panel. Processing what you’re being shown, along with what’s being said, along with what you’re being told, in conjunction with the shifting multiple velocities of imaginary time, and the action of the space between panels that Scott McCloud defines as closure… Comics require a little more of your brain than other visual media. They should just hand them out to being to stave off Alzheimer’s." - Warren Ellis

Artemis by Andy Weir

Ali vs. Inoki: The Forgotten Fight That Inspired Mixed Martial Arts and Launched Sports Entertainment by Josh Gross

The Leangains Method: The Art of Getting Ripped. Researched, Practiced, Perfected by Martin Berkhan

Sayonara by James Michener

Malice by Keigo Higashino

Brief Cases: More Stories From the Dresden Files by Jim Butcher 

Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win by Jocko Willink and Leif Babin

Way of the Warrior Kid: From Wimpy to Warrior the Navy SEAL Way: A Novel by Jocko Willink and Jon Boza 

Time Slave by John Norman

The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote by Sharyl Attkisson

Gor Series, Vol 1-9 by John Norman

Lazarus: Sourcebook Collection Volume by Greg Rucka, Eric Trautmann, Michael Lark & others

The Wild Storm Vol. 1 & 2 by Warren Ellis and John Davis-Hunt

The Wild Storm: Michael Cray Vol. 1 by Bryan Hill and N. Stephen Harris  

Tuesday, August 21, 2018

"Probably 30% of people exclusively watch stuff that you would find disgusting."

"Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, author of Everybody Lies, a new book that uses data on America’s Google habits as an insight into our national consciousness. Two findings from the book dominated the conversation: America is riddled with racist and selfish people, and there may be a self-induced abortion crisis in this country. But there was plenty more revelatory data in the book that we didn’t cover. So I wanted to follow up with Stephens-Davidowitz to talk about some of the other provocative claims he is making. I was particularly interested in sexuality and online porn. If, as Stephens-Davidowitz puts it, “Google is a digital truth serum,” then what else does it tell us about our private thoughts and desires? What else are we hiding from our friends, neighbors, and colleagues? A lot, apparently. 

Among other things, Stephens-Davidowitz’s data suggests that there are more gay men in the closet than we think; that many men prefer overweight women to skinny women but are afraid to act on it; that married women are disproportionately worried their husband is gay; that a lot of straight women watch lesbian porn; and that porn featuring violence against women is more popular among women than men...

 It’s interesting. Some sexual preferences I first learned about on The Jerry Springer Show, which featured really poor, uneducated people. People attracted to animals or family members or the elderly. But, now from seeing porn data, I realize those preferences also exist among wealthy, educated people. Wealthy, educated people are more cognizant of contemporary social norms, which means if you have such an attraction, you hide it..

 All right, give me a couple of unusual desires you noticed — one from men and one from women. 
 It is really amazing how much tastes can vary. There are women who just watch porn featuring short, fat men with small penises. There are men who just watch porn featuring women with enormous nipples. 

 How about other countries? 
The number one Google search in India that starts "my husband wants ..." is "my husband wants me to breastfeed him." Porn featuring adult breastfeeding is higher in India than anywhere else. In just about every country, just about every Google search looking for advice on breastfeeding is looking how to breastfeed a baby. In India, Google searches looking for breastfeeding advice are about equally split between how to breastfeed a baby and how to breastfeed a husband. After I published this finding, some journalists interviewed people in India. Everyone denied this. But I am sure, based on the data, that there are a reasonable number of adult Indian men desiring to be breastfed. It is really amazing that this desire can develop in one country without ever being openly talked about. 

Any other findings from countries not named America? 
Japanese men have recently become obsessed with tickling porn. More than 10 percent of Pornhub searches by young Japanese men are for “tickling.”"

"The data from porn tells us that everybody is weird. Thus, nobody is weird."

Any other surprising findings about women in America? 
About 20 percent of the porn women watch is lesbian porn. A lot of straight women watch lesbian porn. 
That’s not very surprising. 
Porn featuring violence against women is also extremely popular among women. It is far more popular among women than men. I hate saying that because misogynists seem to love this fact. Fantasy life isn't always politically correct. The rate at which women watch violent porn is roughly the same in every part of the world. It isn’t correlated with how women are treated.

So what’s the future of online porn? Where is it going? 
 I think anal sex will pass vaginal sex in porn within three years. That's what my data models suggest. 

 Somehow that feels like a perfect point on which to end."

"Why should your right to freedom of speech trump... a person's right not to be offended?"

Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying?:
"My first introduction to Jordan B. Peterson, a University of Toronto clinical psychologist, came by way of an interview that began trending on social media last week. Peterson was pressed by the British journalist Cathy Newman to explain several of his controversial views. But what struck me, far more than any position he took, was the method his interviewer employed. It was the most prominent, striking example I’ve seen yet of an unfortunate trend in modern communication.

First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd.

Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and various Fox News hosts all feature and reward this rhetorical technique. And the Peterson interview has so many moments of this kind that each successive example calls attention to itself until the attentive viewer can’t help but wonder what drives the interviewer to keep inflating the nature of Peterson’s claims, instead of addressing what he actually said. the interview, Newman relies on this technique to a remarkable extent, making it a useful illustration of a much broader pernicious trend. Peterson was not evasive or unwilling to be clear about his meaning. And Newman’s exaggerated restatements of his views mostly led viewers astray, not closer to the truth.

Peterson begins the interview by explaining why he tells young men to grow up and take responsibility for getting their lives together and becoming good partners. He notes he isn’t talking exclusively to men, and that he has lots of female fans.

“What’s in it for the women, though?” Newman asks.

“Well, what sort of partner do you want?” Peterson says. “Do you want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with who is going to help you?”

“So you’re saying,” Newman retorts, “that women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity.” But that’s not what he said. He posited a vested interest, not a duty.

“Women deeply want men who are competent and powerful,” Peterson goes on to assert. “And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That’s not power. That’s just corruption. Power is competence. And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why, actually, you can’t dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination—”

The interviewer interrupts, “So you’re saying women want to dominate, is that what you’re saying?”

The next section of the interview concerns the pay gap between men and women, and whether it is rooted in gender itself or other nondiscriminatory factors:

Newman: … that 9 percent pay gap, that’s a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists.

Peterson: Yes. But there’s multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but that’s not the only reason. If you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. You say women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay. Well then we break its down by age; we break it down by occupation; we break it down by interest; we break it down by personality.

Newman: But you’re saying, basically, it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top, because that’s what is skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it? You’re saying that’s just a fact of life, women aren’t necessarily going to get to the top.

Peterson: No, I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, either. I’m saying there are multiple reasons for it.

Newman: Yeah, but why should women put up with those reasons?

Peterson: I’m not saying that they should put up with it! I’m saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong. And it is wrong. There’s no doubt about that. The multivariate analysis have been done. So let me give you an example––

The interviewer seemed eager to impute to Peterson a belief that a large, extant wage gap between men and women is a “fact of life” that women should just “put up with,” though all those assertions are contrary to his real positions on the matter.

Throughout this next section, the interviewer repeatedly tries to oversimplify Peterson’s view, as if he believes one factor he discusses is all-important, and then she seems to assume that because Peterson believes that given factor helps to explain a pay gap between men and women, he doesn’t support any actions that would bring about a more equal outcome.

Her surprised question near the end suggests earnest confusion:

Peterson: There’s a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than disagreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.

Newman: Again, a vast generalization. Some women are not more agreeable than men.

Peterson: That’s true. And some women get paid more than men.

Newman: So you’re saying by and large women are too agreeable to get the pay raises that they deserve.

Peterson: No, I’m saying that is one component of a multivariate equation that predicts salary. It accounts for maybe 5 percent of the variance. So you need another 18 factors, one of which is gender. And there is prejudice. There’s no doubt about that. But it accounts for a much smaller portion of the variance in the pay gap than the radical feminists claim.

Newman: Okay, so rather than denying that the pay gap exists, which is what you did at the beginning of this conversation, shouldn’t you say to women, rather than being agreeable and not asking for a pay raise, go ask for a pay raise. Make yourself disagreeable with your boss.

Peterson: But I didn’t deny it existed, I denied that it existed because of gender. See, because I’m very, very, very careful with my words.

Newman: So the pay gap exists. You accept that. I mean the pay gap between men and women exists—but you’re saying it’s not because of gender, it’s because women are too agreeable to ask for pay raises.

Peterson: That’s one of the reasons.

Newman: Okay, so why not get them to ask for a pay raise? Wouldn’t that be fairer?

Peterson: I’ve done that many, many, many times in my career. So one of the things you do as a clinical psychologist is assertiveness training. So you might say––often you treat people for anxiety, you treat them for depression, and maybe the next most common category after that would be assertiveness training. So I’ve had many, many women, extraordinarily competent women, in my clinical and consulting practice, and we’ve put together strategies for their career development that involved continual pushing, competing, for higher wages. And often tripled their wages within a five-year period.

Newman: And you celebrate that?

Peterson: Of course! Of course!

Another passage on gender equality proceeded thusly:

Newman: Is gender equality a myth?

Peterson: I don’t know what you mean by the question. Men and women aren’t the same. And they won’t be the same. That doesn’t mean that they can’t be treated fairly.

Newman: Is gender equality desirable?

Peterson: If it means equality of outcome then it is almost certainly undesirable. That’s already been demonstrated in Scandinavia. Men and women won’t sort themselves into the same categories if you leave them to do it of their own accord. It’s 20 to 1 female nurses to male, something like that. And approximately the same male engineers to female engineers. That’s a consequence of the free choice of men and women in the societies that have gone farther than any other societies to make gender equality the purpose of the law. Those are ineradicable differences––you can eradicate them with tremendous social pressure, and tyranny, but if you leave men and women to make their own choices you will not get equal outcomes.

Newman: So you’re saying that anyone who believes in equality, whether you call them feminists or whatever you want to call them, should basically give up because it ain’t going to happen.

Peterson: Only if they’re aiming at equality of outcome.

Newman: So you’re saying give people equality of opportunity, that’s fine.

Peterson: It’s not only fine, it’s eminently desirable for everyone, for individuals as well as societies.

Newman: But still women aren’t going to make it. That’s what you’re really saying.

That is not “what he’s really saying”!

In this next passage Peterson shows more explicit frustration than at any other time in the program with being interviewed by someone who refuses to relay his actual beliefs:

Newman: So you don’t believe in equal pay.

Peterson: No, I’m not saying that at all.

Newman: Because a lot of people listening to you will say, are we going back to the dark ages?

Peterson: That’s because you’re not listening, you’re just projecting.

Newman: I’m listening very carefully, and I’m hearing you basically saying that women need to just accept that they’re never going to make it on equal terms—equal outcomes is how you defined it.

Peterson: No, I didn’t say that.

Newman: If I was a young woman watching that, I would go, well, I might as well go play with my Cindy dolls and give up trying to go school, because I’m not going to get the top job I want, because there’s someone sitting there saying, it’s not possible, it’s going to make you miserable.

Peterson: I said that equal outcomes aren’t desirable. That’s what I said. It’s a bad social goal. I didn’t say that women shouldn’t be striving for the top, or anything like that. Because I don’t believe that for a second.

Newman: Striving for the top, but you’re going to put all those hurdles in their way, as have been in their way for centuries. And that’s fine, you’re saying. That’s fine. The patriarchal system is just fine.

Peterson: No! I really think that’s silly! I do, I think that’s silly.

He thinks it is silly because he never said that “the patriarchal system is just fine” or that he planned to put lots of hurdles in the way of women, or that women shouldn’t strive for the top, or that they might as well drop out of school, because achieving their goals or happiness is simply not going to be possible.

The interviewer put all those words in his mouth.

The conversation moves on to other topics, but the pattern continues. Peterson makes a statement. And then the interviewer interjects, “So you’re saying …” and fills in the rest with something that is less defensible, or less carefully qualified, or more extreme, or just totally unrelated to his point. I think my favorite example comes when they begin to talk about lobsters. Here’s the excerpt:

Peterson: There’s this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. And that is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters evolutionarily history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn’t.

Newman: Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?

Yes, he proposes that we all live on the sea floor, save some, who shall go to the seafood tanks at restaurants. It’s laughable. But Peterson tries to keep plodding along.

Peterson: I’m saying it is inevitable that there will be continuities in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. It’s absolutely inevitable, and there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that … It’s a long time. You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin that’s similar to the lobster mechanism that tracks your status—and the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion.

Newman: So you’re saying like the lobsters, we’re hard-wired as men and women to do certain things, to sort of run along tram lines, and there’s nothing we can do about it.

Where did she get that extreme “and there’s nothing we can do about it”? Peterson has already said that he’s a clinical psychologist who coaches people to change how they related to institutions and to one another within the constraints of human biology. Of course he believes that there is something that can be done about it.

He brought up the lobsters only in an attempt to argue that “one thing we can’t do is say that hierarchical organization is a consequence of the capitalist patriarchy.”

At this point, we’re near the end of the interview. And given all that preceded it, Newman’s response killed me. Again, she takes an accusatory tack with her guest:

Newman: Aren’t you just whipping people up into a state of anger?

Peterson: Not at all.

Newman: Divisions between men and women. You’re stirring things up.

Actually, one of the most important things this interview illustrates—one reason it is worth noting at length—is how Newman repeatedly poses as if she is holding a controversialist accountable, when in fact, for the duration of the interview, it is she that is “stirring things up” and “whipping people into a state of anger.”

At every turn, she is the one who takes her subject’s words and makes them seem more extreme, or more hostile to women, or more shocking in their implications than Peterson’s remarks themselves support. Almost all of the most inflammatory views that were aired in the interview are ascribed by Newman to Peterson, who then disputes that she has accurately characterized his words.

There are moments when Newman seems earnestly confused, and perhaps is. And yet, if it were merely confusion, would she consistently misinterpret him in the more scandalous, less politically correct, more umbrage-stoking direction?"

Jordan Peterson Creates Humid Environment on Feminist Soundstage
"Charitably, let’s say her misunderstanding of Jordan’s positions is willful and deliberate, although I rather think not. My experience with most feminists is that they think critical thought is the same as arguing in a high school debate class, where techniques like derailing and turning constitute a ‘win’, which feminists then misconstrue as ‘understanding’. The winning condition for a feminist is never to understand. It is to feel. Angry, avenged, justified, vindicated, outrageous, virtuous – whatever the feeling, that’s how feminists argue. This particular feminist seems oblivious to how patiently Peterson lets her hang herself. At one point she is so flummoxed, she doesn’t know what to feel, and is therefore speechless. “You’ve got me,” she says, almost giddy in Peterson’s power."

Full interview.

"...if you think racism is ok for some people then you might be a racist."

"The idea originated in American academia in the 1970s and is generally stated as the equation “racism = prejudice + power” with the implication that only those who belong to the race which holds power are capable of being racist, therefore since white people occupy the majority of leadership roles in public institutions, only white people can be racist...

The first assumption is that positions at all levels of the power structure are held exclusively by a single racial group. The second is that there are no constitutional or legal boundaries to prevent those in power enacting racist policies in their favour and that they are willing to use their power to do so. The third is that any ordinary citizen who happens to share the race of the people in power, is able to somehow enforce their own racist prejudices just by virtue of being a member of that race. This last assumption is absolutely crucial since if this is not the case, it follows that people who are not a member of an institution wielding power at a societal level cannot be a racist even if the first and second assumptions hold...

If we consider racism to be morally wrong then it should be regarded as wrong for everyone in society regardless of their race and social status (if you think racism is ok for some people then you might be a racist). The only exceptions usually made to moral or legal rules are for people we would normally consider to lack or have diminished agency such as children, insane people and some mentally disabled people. Therefore if only white people can be racist due to P+P theory, it is giving all other races an exemption to a moral standard which is not only unfair but also insinuates that people of other races are less responsible for their actions than whites. An inconsistent application of moral responsibility based on race is inherently racist since it implies these people have less agency to act morally. This is often referred to as the bigotry of low expectations...

 These are some of the absurdities which arise from collectivist thinking of the type which gives rise to the P+P definition. The collectivist thinking that would have you believe that a homeless white veteran with PTSD has more power and privilege than Barack Obama, or that white people living in poverty in trailer parks have more power and privilege than the children of wealthy black, Asian or Latino parents who are Studying at Yale or Harvard. Those who hold this view require us to believe that it would not be racism if a gang of young men from an ethnic minority decide to go out and beat up a white person for no other motivation than their hatred and resentment of white people. Even if you pointed out that this act is itself an exercise of power and that they were using their overwhelming power in the situation to act on their racial prejudice, the answer would be that this is not the power which matters. All these confusing logical consequences, absurd conclusions, contradictions and ridiculous phrases such as “reverse racism” disappear if we reject the P+P definition and continue to use the actual definition of racism. It is not only more parsimonious and useful, but in it its neutrality it is also less racist."

"...the “sneaky fuckers” strategy - the way in which subordinate males manage to accomplish mating with females."

"As we close out 2017, let’s take some time to reflect on lessons learned over the past 12 months. In an act of no holds barred brutal honesty, this year completely obliterated the myth of the male feminist. Though these men claim to be champions of women’s rights, we’ve seen time and time again how they are nothing but wolves in sheep’s clothing. 

In the last several months, Harvey Weinstein, Joss Whedon, Louis C.K., Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose have all fallen into this camp. In the case of writer Michael Hafford, who has been accused of physically assaulting four women, he went as far as authoring a column for Vice’s women-focused site, Broadly, in 2015 titled “Male Feminist Here,” parodying the deceitfulness of this very group of men. [Editor’s Note: Hafford is a former contributor to; the company was unaware of the allegations made against this individual during the brief time he contributed to the website.] 

 From an evolutionary perspective, the approach has been described by the late evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith as the “sneaky fuckers” strategy, referring to the way in which subordinate males manage to accomplish mating with females—which they otherwise might not get to do—by taking advantage of instances in which dominant (and more appealing) males are preoccupied, fighting off intruders. This has been observed across multiple species in the animal kingdom and in humans, it takes the form of feminist men. 

These men know by rote all of the right things to say in order to gain a woman’s trust. They pride themselves on being sensitive, socially conscious “allies,” calling out “male privilege” and “problematic behavior” by the “patriarchy.” They will subvert any hint of their masculinity...

I’ve encountered a healthy number of male feminists in my day and they never fail to disappoint when it comes to posturing. Many proudly declare how much they admire “strong women” and will be sure to randomly insert inspirational yet irrelevant quotes into everyday conversation, like “Well-behaved women seldom make history,” or name Judith Butler as one of their favorite authors. (Yes, these men actually exist.) In doing so, they’re attempting to atone for the atrocious behavior of other men when really, they are engaging in their own special form of projection. A research paper published in Motivation and Emotion earlier this year suggests that virtue-signaling—commonly seen in men apologizing for the behavior of other men—is a reflection of a person’s own moral failings. Voicing outrage at unethical behavior is a way for people to alleviate guilt, essentially through overcompensation...

 When it comes to the hot topic of gender in particular, they know that men and women are different, but they will proclaim otherwise, saying nonsensical things like there are no differences between the sexes or that differences are socially constructed, because doing so will win them points and secure them sexual partners. 

But pretending these differences don’t exist only leads to a wider chasm between the sexes. 

 In a dating context, it hampers our ability to understand one another and form any genuine or meaningful connection. So, going back to the intersectional feminist dating checklist, I guarantee any guy who touts the “right answer” to each of these bizarre, social justice-related questions will reveal himself in time to be hideously deceptive. 

Thankfully, it seems women, including female feminists, have become wary of these red flags. They even inspired their own SNL skit last year, wherein a bunch of “male feminists” approach a woman in a bar only to call her “bitch” when she rejects them. Women deserve equality and to be treated no differently from men, and there are plenty of decent men out there who agree with me. The difference is these men don’t feel the need to run around waving a giant banner notifying everyone of this (or wearing a pink pussy hat, the national emblem of the Woman’s March on Washington in January). 

To have healthy and successful relationships, the solution isn’t mindlessly telling women what they want to hear, nor setting impossible expectations on men based on a biased worldview. For those who have bought into the unfortunate narrative that women are an oppressed class in need of special treatment in order to level the playing field, I will say that helping and supporting women because they are women is patronizing. 

There is nothing a male feminist loves more than educating women on how oppressed we really are."