SJWs co-opt beloved classic Baldur’s Gate with identity politics horseshit, predictable backlash ensues.

It is no secret that Baldur’s Gate and its sequel might be one of the greatest adaptations of DnD to the world of video games of all time, (barring Planescape: Torment). I grew up playing the shit out of it and loving it to bits. The Forgotten Realms have never seemed so wonderous or exciting as they did in Black Isle/Bioware’s game. In many ways, for good or for ill, it left its mark on the world of western rpgs and even today its legacy lives on in the form of Pillars of Eternity, a game I should probably play. The promise of a new expansion (after 17 years?!?) should fill one with joy. Unfortunately, even the Forgotten Realms have now become a battlefield in the Culture War ™, the never ending quest to shove sick and delusional progressivist/feminist message fiction down everyone’s throat until they puke rainbows and shit diversity.

This shit is getting tiresome. Is there no IP left fallow? Anyway, it is time to half-heartedly do the obligatory virtue-signal song and dance routine before we continue.

Blah blah blah Don’t have a problem with LGBTWSPQA blah blah blah shitting on a legacy blah blah just want to play Baldurs Gate blah blah don’t care blah blah fuck you disgusting soc jus losers blah blah.

The company Beamdog had one goal, to re-master BG and make an expansion that was pleasing and in the spirit of the original if it wanted to appeal to the fans of the original game, and in the process, make money. Unfortunately, Beamdog also mistakenly thought it had a second goal, which was to educate us about our biases and virtue signal to progressive game outlets, who by sheer coincidence happen to be alienating a large part of their audience with their constant culture war gibberish. The end result is one of the lead writers of the new Siege of Dragonspear expansion doing the historical revisionist jingo, leading to a shitstorm of epic proportions.

The crossed wires result in seemingly contradictory statements. Where first we get to read shit like this and feel a small measure of confidence and elation at a new Baldur’s Gate:

The goal was to make it all feel seamless, as though this expansion was dug up from a tomb of video game relics dating back all the way to the ancient 1990s. The writing style, the tone, the voice acting—everything had to be on point. That’s where spending years remaking the original games paid dividends. They even got people like Jennifer Hale and Jim Cummings to reprise roles they feared they’d forgotten.

See? A measure of veneration is neccesary when making a belated sequel to an original much beloved franchise. This is an entirely appropriate attitude. Getting the original voice actors is a great move. And then we are hit by the ice-cold bucket of diahrea. Oh dears.

“If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism, [we tried to address that],” said writer Amber Scott. “In the original there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple, like Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy. We were able to say, ‘No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.’ In Siege of Dragonspear, Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad.”

“I got to write a little tender, romance-y side quest for Khalid and Jaheira where you could learn a little bit about how their marriage works and how they really feel about each other.”

There’s also four new companions, one of whom is gay, one of whom is bisexual. There’s even a monster companion, a throwback to a Baldur’s Gate II easter egg. But it’s not just about representation for representation’s sake. Beamdog wanted to give players options.

You will note the ‘modern day gamers’ remark, which implies that most modern day audiences would in fact be put off by this crass and outrageous sexism that must have slipped under the radar when we were young. Little did we know our beloved games were cobbled together by vile misogynist pigs. Fortunately, with the appointment of the new Gender-Commisar, history may be rewritten so we have always been at war with Oceania.

The jaheira and khalid side-quest shit, other then seeming tiresome and trite, strikes me as entirely unnecessary.If we had actually played the original game through a non creepo-feminist loon lens, we would have seen the tragic death of Khalid at the beginning of BG 2 and the griefstruck Jaheera, telling us all we really needed to know. That Jaheera would eventually, through a personal quest and numerous multiple choice dialogue options, manage to cope with the loss of her husband and fall to the sweet hoots and growls of my 14-year old alter ego Arthari Ghastkill, Human Paladin (stats Str 18/98 Dex 19 Con 18 Int 4 Wis 16 Cha 18) was nothing less then fitting.

As is only predictable, the talentless harpy who could not resist besmirching the men that raised the titanic bulwarks upon which she seeks to perch a lice-ridden tent and call it a fortress grotesquely overstretched, going so far as to co-opt beloved brain-damaged warrior and fanatical cricetaphile Minsk to take an ill-conceived stab at the members of the target audience mysoginist hordes of Gamergate (or so the fucking reviews say, I will not be finding out since I will not be playing this). All of which, would probably have been forgiven, had the game been the best Baldur’s Gate ever. It was not.

What always strikes me as amusing is that the first impulse of the progressive is to consider its beliefs the norm, therefore any resistance to its co-option of a medium to spread its belief, which to it is more beautiful then the finest art, can only be an act of pure and unadulterated evil and hatred. In reality the breakdown is probably very simple.


And say it ain’t so. People play games for entertainment. Elfgames are elfgames, and the only quality of merit is their elfgameness. I don’t care if your elfgame promotes same-sex marriage, nazism, pedophilia, zoroastranism, phrenology, tantric sex, 127 genders, figure-skating or Nascar racing, as long as it is a good game, that is all that matters. If a game is diverse or inclusive is less important to me then an index, good art, or spelling. No one cares.

The rest, as they say, is the sound of reality happening (note that reality might have unhappened as I have heard some reports of negative reviews being deleted. Good luck with that guys, maybe make a better game next time?). Alienating an audience that has already tasted the bitter fruits of the Progressive Fruit Tree (hah hah I said fruit) is not a sound buisness decision and will likely seriously hurt the chances of a BG III ever happening. A shame? Perhaps, but I would not be alone in saying that I would prefer a nonexistant BG III over a terrible BG III.

Some voices will cry that the negative reviews are nothing but a fake backlash from trolls, but in the end, this does not matter even if this was accurate and there were no other complaints about bugs, nonfunctioning multiplayer or atrocious writing. The entire review system has been made murky and unreliable, aggrevated by a clarion call for positive reviews by Beamdog’s CEO on the game forums:

Hi everyone. I usually spend most of my time lurking here, but I’d like to ask a favour. It appears that having a transgendered cleric and a joke line by Minsc has greatly offended the sensibilities of some people. This has spurred these people into action, causing them to decide this is the worst game of all time and give it a zero review score on Steam, GoG and meta critic. Now, I’d like to ask for that favour. If you are playing the game and having a good time, please consider posting a positive review to balance out the loud minority which is currently painting a dark picture for new players.

Does not at all reek of desperation or tinfoil hats.

The unwanted and unasked for inclusion of progressive horseshit in old classics is a strange, 1st world evil, and it needs to stop. Nothing prevents people from creating new IP with a progressive message. If it is good and not ham-fisted, if it is made with entertainment as the highest aspiration and quality as the highest goal, people will buy it. I don’t get the problem. Not everything needs to be progressive, in the same way not everything needs to be stauchly christian or conservative or liberal. The beauty of a free market is that we can have all these things side by side, and to each his own.
Taking an old classic, hollowing it out and using it as a vehicle for ham-fisted marxist propaganda and culture warring is low and crass. And alienation of the target audience is nothing less then the inevitable result. 
Baldur’s Gate may become another casualty in the never ending Culture War. These are the tales of such times. Forget the promise of live-and-let-live and openness of mind, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark present there is only war. There is no peace among the elfgames, only an eternity of shitposting and doxing and the laughter of Cultural Karl Marx.


34 thoughts on “SJWs co-opt beloved classic Baldur’s Gate with identity politics horseshit, predictable backlash ensues.

  1. “The jaheira and khalid side-quest shit, other then seeming tiresome and trite, strikes me as entirely unnecessary.If we had actually played the original game through a non creepo-feminist loon lens, we would have seen the tragic death of Khalid at the beginning of BG 2 and the griefstruck Jaheera, telling us all we really needed to know. That Jaheera would eventually, through a personal quest and numerous multiple choice dialogue options, manage to cope with the loss of her husband and fall to the sweet hoots and growls of my 14-year old alter ego Arthari Ghastkill, Human Paladin (stats Str 18/98 Dex 19 Con 18 Int 4 Wis 16 Cha 18) was nothing less then fitting.”

    Well… yes.

    The ladies over at Gaming as Women skewered the original BG and BG2 for a lot of things. Of COURSE the ‘bad romance’ option is the shag-don’t-commit one, and of COURSE the ‘good romance’ option is the don’t-shag-commit one, and of COURSE the option for female characters is the self-centred white-knight paladin, and of COURSE this is all quite boring and predictable stuff… but even they liked the Jaheira romance, and the cool battle couple that is Khalid and Jaheira. It’s almost like those two are nuanced characters or some such shit.

    As for trans characters and/or same-sex relationships in BG, there is always the ‘Cursed’ Belt of Masculinity/Femininity, which I am abusing on my current playthrough so that my Half-Elf Ranger can score herself a hot older druid ladyfriend. This is a fairly obvious exploit but an amusing one which does nobody any harm.

    (My 14 year old alter ego was a Chaotic Neutral Necromancer with a Reputation score in the gutter and a knack for Haste-induced touch spell spamming. If I’d played BG2 at the time, he would have been all over Viconia like a cheap suit. I’m a class act, me.)

    I won’t be buying the new one because I think it’s a cheap cash-in. I don’t even own the Extended Editions. Mine is the original game, bugs and all, as God and the Space Hamsters intended.


    1. [romance]
      The romance in BG 2 is not exactly a bastion of great romance writing and the shag don’t commit stuff is all very pearl-clutchingly bourgeoise but most of the romance in fantasy is somewhat idealised (unless we are talking the wenching days of S&S) so I can sympathize. The Viconia romance tree was a nice reversal of the tired ole’ ya gots to treat the ladies with kindness and openness. If you showed any deference she thought you were a faggot. Awesome.

      I hesitate to add what I would have done differently since I am not a game writer and especially not a game romance writer but if i wanted to go crazy-shitface with the romance option i would have thrown in same-sex romance, sphinx romance, romance with an intelligent object and, of course, the option to clone onself, add the clone of oneself to the party, do so 4 more times, and have a big gay clone orgy, with Imoen watching on in horror/unwanted arousal. And it would be a neccesary component in saving the world. Maybe I should apply for the Bioware Carcosa adaptation staff.

      Easy too miss, but the possibilities for irreverent deviancy are endless with that one. Turn Khalid into a chick. Turn Jaheera into a dude. Romance Aerie and turn her into a girlish dude. Turn Sarevok into a hot babe. So much lolligagging.

      I don’t mind the inclusion of a gay dude or trans dude or whatever, as long as its handled with less ham handedness and the character has something to it besides TOKEN GENDAR and its done with entertainment and beauty in mind, not message fiction. I wouldn’t be reading the Stone Dance of the Chameleon if I was afraid of gay.


      Viconia seems like a nice girl to bring home to your folks. When is Bioware making an S&S style game with S&S style romance. Where is the option to carry off nubile slave girls and chain them to your throne. What if that is my sexuality? Why am i being marginalized?

      Icewind Dale (and supposedly its sequel) is a decent game if you want more of the same with less rp and better dungeons. Heart of winter is a drag. Planescape Torment is poetry. Neverwinter Nights 2 mask of the betrayer FTW!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. [romance]

        I feel the ‘bad girls like boys who treat them the way they treat boys’ trope is nearly as overdone as the one you described, but as you say, the game is hardly a bastion of originality there (that’s why Jaheira is such a pleasant surprise, I think).

        Sphinx romance would have pleased me. Or intelligent objects. “Mother, Father, this is Shillelagh…”


        Token Trans Characters serve neither of our goals and so I join you in scorning them.

        [S&S slave girls]

        I’d be up for that but only if the same option exists for female characters. I shall become the Vonsharess.

        (Stop thinking about that now.)

        [Icewind Dale]

        I have fond memories of Icewind Dale, although the interface seems well weird in this day and age. If I ever do a Let’s Play I shall round up two of the lasses from my current Roll20 group and have them join me in adventure and conquest and being facerolled by fire giants.

        Planescape Torment I could never quite get into. I think it’s the adventure-game style “you must click on EVERYTHING and talk to EVERYONE to have a clue what’s going on” delivery of the early levels. I am willing to accept that this means I’m stupid. As a player I am surprisingly straightfoward in my tastes and approach. It’s possible that convoluted dramafagging only appeals to me when I’m the one who knows what’s going on.


      2. [romance]

        I would disagree. The damsel in distress trope and the gentlemen trope are overdone. It’s nice to see the other side represented at all, something that was done in ye olden days but that has become almost impossible in this PC era.


        Our goals are probably more alike then you think. We disagree on method but we can find commonality in reason. For this, a beacon of hope.


        Tapping shit out of X-card. Also hordes of the underdark reference. Good game. Gave up, weakly, at the 12 elder vampire monks when a simple dawn something spell would have sufficed. My brother played it all the way through and discovered it was possible to loot the Valsharess if you stood next to her and paused at the instant of her death before the cinematic cut scene kicked in. She had the best armour in the game, only it was a corset and looked like a corset. The game ended with mephistopheles being defeated by a barbarian in the most powerful corset Faerun had ever seen.

        [Icewind Dale]

        Icewind dale had great locations but lacked the subtlety, nonlinearity and inter-character dynamics that made BG great.

        Planescape Torment is a text-rpg disguised as an infinity engine game. It is also the best computer rpg ever. The convoluted drama-fagging ensures that every click reveals a hithereto unseen little tidbit of wonder. Its characters are amazing. Its environment stunning and imaginiative as hell. It exemplifies what planescape was about, and what rpgs are about. It makes bioware writing look formulaic (true) and their worlds deserts. I look at modern morality systems and I laugh bitterly. For what know they, who know not, what can change the nature of a man?


        Revisionism is the tool of the ideologue, who believes that his vision of the world is perfect, that there is nothing left to be learned from the lessons of the past or the insights of the future and therefore the past must be destroyed and the vision must not be questioned or examined. Revisionism is Lenin and Envar Pasha and the purview of Empires victorious. I would say that any man that claims to hold a monopoly on morality would embrace the teachings of the past, if only to discredit them via argumentation. A philosophy that must hate and obliterate the very soil from which it sprung is no philosophy at all. It is discontinuity and death. Revisionism and the obliteration of history is for barbarians and fanatics. Reinterpret if you must, but to change history and to hide the proof of your revision is a dangerous thing indeed.

        I would end with a simple question. You say progress. I ask simply, to where?


      3. [romance]

        … I’ll take your word for it on the trope’s current difficulties, my exposure to modern media texts being pretty minimal these days. The trope as it stands is still tedious wafflespeak though.


        Possibly. I find that nine-tenths of my arguments are about motivations and tactics rather than what’s actually best for life and the world.


        Shadows of Undrentide/Hordes of the Underdark remains the only fun I’ve had with 3.0. Never got my hands on that corset though. I think I still have it installed somewhere.

        [Icewind Dale]

        Icewind Dale is a straightforward series of module-ish adventures. Baldur’s Gate has designs toward the ‘interactive novel’ mode.

        [Planescape Torment]

        I agree with everything you’ve said, but I’m still not that into it. I think that sort of thing needs an actual DM who is capable of nuance and adaptability. OR I’m just too thick and impatient to scour the screen for tiny clickables. That’s an option.


        You answered your own question. Regardless of where we’re going, we can’t get there unless we know where we’ve been. This is the only point I intended to make.


      4. [romance]

        Tropes are tropes for a reason. They work.


        A worrying trend. Goals first, means later. Hypothesis before method.


        Hordes was good fun but Shadows of Undrentide sucked. Lame characters, lame villain, boring dungeons.


        Last dead horse punt. You assume progress must be made and in the general sense a case for this can be made but in the case of BG and many other cases i would argue there is nothing wrong to begin with. The argument in this case is always terribly skewed and solipsistic. None would complain about the inclusion of Xzar, Montaron, Jon Irenicus or Edwin or fucking Noober yet there is a petulant demand the female roles are altered. Its always a double standard and its always ridiculously petty. It is important to realize that many of the gripes about sexism or racism are made by deeply troubled individuals with a very skewed vision on what is or is not normal. The methods of censorship and revisionism are frequently used because so many of these people are sick, and cannot create things that bring beauty or joy to the bulk of their audience.


      5. [tropes]

        Never said they didn’t. “Works” and “is played out” are not mutually exclusive. “Tropes are bad” is a spectacularly dumb statement and may your throat be pissed down by donkeys if you think that’s what I’m saying.


        I don’t think that revising BG addresses any ‘wrong’ whether there is a ‘wrong’ or not. Erasing evidence of development is bad for progress. Without a clear sense of the past we lack a clear drive for the future – away from This Thing toward That Thing. I’m not hugely interested in debating whether or not there is anything ‘wrong’ with Baldur’s Gate, in terms of ideology or technique. It’s eighteen years old and we can accept, I hope, that time and the games industry have moved on and developed in some direction, for good or ill. I claimed at the time of the Extended Edition, and will claim again now, you insufferable peon, that the damn game should have been left alone – frozen in time as an example of what was popular then and is still fun now.

        One could very easily argue that Xzar and Noober are ablist characters (one’s mentally ill, one’s developmentally disabled) or that Edwin is transphobic (instances of gender transition in these games are presented as a ‘Curse’ or played for laughs). I am surprised that nobody has done this – well, no, I’m not surprised, ablism is a fucking ugly thing with a practical dimension that renders advocacy uncomfortable for the disabled, never mind would-be allies. Personally I think Xzar’s amusing and have played someone like him in several tabletop sessions over the years. Am I delighted at being represented, gloating at the expense of those less functional than myself, or an annoying autist who doesn’t realise how offensive and annoying that characterisation is? ’tis ‘aw a muddle.

        Final thought: content creation and content criticism are two discrete skill sets and it is possible to possess one and deploy it well without the other. The “people who can’t create” argument is nonsense and always has been.


      6. [Tropes]

        Von brings the hammer. I’ll give you is played out and I think the reason for that is that most writers that seek to describe such a romance have never been within 15 feet of it and probably have some sort of cultural bias, not strange, considering the traditions of chivalry and then feminism that have dominiated the cultural landscape. Still, S&S and the pulp tales should give one enough to work with. Even Night Land has a variation on that trope, but the hero hits his damsel when she turns irrational and wants to run into the monster-haunted night land so I guess he is a mysoginist.

        [ableist/moving on]

        That’s just it though. If we look at Baldur’s Gate and Planescape Torment and compare them to Dragon Age or Kotor we don’t see a moving on. We see a regression (in writing, depth etc.). I pose that because these earlier games were not shackled to a very large, established, competetive and on the average less intelligent market, the overall quality and artistic merit and, dare i say it, diversity (of viewpoint) could be greater.

        Xzar is a schizophrenic psychopath, you refer perhaps to Xzan, a depressed elf wizard. I think the problem lies in the analysis, not the content. Under a fine enough lens any smooth surface becomes cratered. We put too much credence in the analyser and take the reading of bias as objective fact. We are adept at pattern-recognition to the extent that we can sometimes see patterns in chaos or coincidence that were not intended or even existant in the first place. I maintain the only practical response to these concerns, whether legitimate or not, is to create different content. Hectoring companies to change content because it is objectionable to a small group of activist misfits seems to have an unhealthy effect on the body of the medium and has seldom generated an increase in quality.

        [Can’t Create]
        I see in this smearing of the works of heroes past and petty pearlclutching an envy coming from a deep-seated sense of self-loathing and inadequacy. But we may differ.


      7. [Tropes]

        Better. I should seek out an example of that ‘dominant female’ trope that’s done well, I think, that I might direct the unworthy to it and educate by example. There are a couple of stories in The Decadent Handbook which hint in that direction, but they must be shorn of their modern trappings by the writer of Fantasy Literature and I trust not the modern writer of Fantasy Literature to achieve that with any aplomb.

        [Regression in Quality]

        Backsliding is an unfortunate phenomenon in mass media, aye. I’m not sure how deep Baldur’s Gate really is, though I’ll take your word for it in ref. Planescape. Does Planescape manage depth without the tired old japes of the Gate? If so that’s the sort of thing we should shoot for.

        I also wonder whether one might find improved quality of narrative craft in the so-called indie circuit. Undertale is supposed to be good and one of these days I shall play it.

        [Mentalism and Analysis]

        I allowed myself to forget the existence of Xan. Regardless, I have played characters inspired by both (one might argue I have played ‘depressed intellectual with a taste for swordplay and a futile pursuit of adventure’ all my life, ha ha ha I’m so lonely but at least the local Tesco has Bushmills).

        “Hectoring companies to change content because it is objectionable to a small group of activist misfits seems to have an unhealthy effect on the body of the medium and has seldom generated an increase in quality.”

        I don’t think it’s the only reason for the decline in quality which we perceive but it is likely to be A reason. I cannot deny that ‘safe’ content is seldom ‘interesting’ content.

        (I would argue that other reasons include the avoidance of financial risk, the gradual ‘bro-ifying’ of the computer games industry, and a reminder that personal perceptions regarding the past are coloured by our lack of critical awareness in youth. Transformers was and is shit, but we loved it when we were five because we didn’t know better.)

        [Can’t Create]

        I’m sure it’s true of SOME critics. Frustration and bile are powerful motivators for contempt.


      8. [tropes]

        The Decadent Handbook sounds like a manual for perverts.


        BG is a wonderful open fantasy romp with classics and wonders to be hand behind every nook and cranny you trollop. But to answer your question, Planescape Torment can in no way be described as standard or tired. It does character exploration virtually shorn from the trappings of the traditional morality system. Its locations are exotic, its characters wonderous, and the slow opening aside I cannot fathom an rpg lover not rpg-loving it.


        Indy has its share of pretentious hipster garbage but the teams are smaller and the audience is more niche, so the answer would logically have to be yes probably.

        [Decline and fall]

        It is of course, not the sole reason. Reality is complex.


        As above so below.


      9. [manual for perverts]

        Such is the intention. It falls short but there is some good stuff in there.

        [planescape torment and the slow opening thereof]

        I think that slow opening is the killer.

        Also, cf. my oft-made point about quality and preference as discrete qualities. I am sure Planescape Torment is brilliant, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it or wait for it to git good. I might give it another whirl one day because it’s about things I like, but the trouble with interactive media is that a lack of compelling gameplay dooms story and theme to the shitheap.



    Your point about historical revisionism bears examining. Baldur’s Gate is approaching its twentieth birthday, correct? One would almost EXPECT it to be somewhat old fashioned compared to the latest and most ideologically pure of video game narratives. If we rewrite our past, how are we supposed to retain any sense that we are progressing? We need to look back from now at ourselves then and say “gosh, haven’t we come far?” That’s how we maintain momentum and feel like we’re succeeding in our goals.


  3. Henceforth I will picture all SJW fatwas as being proclaimed from a hemp tent atop the Acropolis, the orator squatting and scratching it’s neon hair furiously while trying not to foul it’s sandals with rainbowjuice. Thanks for this image prince, you truly write better when you are exasperated.

    Both of you have valid points but I think you are giving some useful idiots far too much credit when discussing their poor attempts at “modernizing” BG. I doubt that this particular attempt at forced diversification is grounded in any deep philosophy or some erudite paradigm. Rather it seems that in in certain circles diversifagging has become a Pavlovian response which is (usually poorly) rationalized much further down the line. Then again, this could arguably be said for most human behaviors. Ultimately this is isn’t much more then another great example of why we should stop teaching women how to write.

    Revisionism can be a tool of the fanatical ideologues who believe they have a monopoly on truth and morality as much as a tool of the cynical who’s only truth and morality is expediency. However, the revolutionary telling the truth in times of universal (and more importantly successful) deceit is just as much a revisionist.


    1. [Praise]

      A Bow and firm nod.


      Not so, Amber Scott is an outspoken feminist, follower of anita sarkeesian on twitter, Pathfinder game writer (Pathfinder starting out orbiting the Soc Jus event horizon alongside Bioware and eventually plummeting in, emitting red-shifted tumblr posts as it went.) and her outspoken goal was to remake the game for “modern gamers” (Soc Jus people that don’t like or play games and need hospitalization).

      [Teaching women how to write]

      Ugh, I hate to fucking white knight a throwaway joke meant to offend thin-skinned limp-wristed boys but I have enjoyed novels by Ursula Le Guin (left hand of darkness was good and not insulting to the intellect) and In Conquest Born by C.S Friedman and a thrashy romance GoT clone written by a woman (but that one can be discounted since I, unlike you, am easily amused and I read it in public transport). Sharon Lee’s Liaden series fit a similar niche of sort of okay space opera with too much emotions. I think a case can be made for men being overall better writers, but the occasional +3 Standard deviation female writers do pop up. A lot of female writers are feminists, which does not help their writing or brain, but the old 2nd wavers, though they too had ideas that are now verifiably the product of delusional marxist lunacy, had more class, actual struggles and no tumblr. Andre Norton is kind of okay but why would you read Norton if you have not read Poul Anderson, H Beam Piper or Isaac Asimov?


      But it is okay if I do it. Seriously though. I think the use of lies and the obliteration and retroactive destruction of information is what we should be looking at. No revolutionary worth trusting need hide his evidence from the learned man. The layman is of course more easily swayed by pretty rhetoric and simple truths, but then again the layman is a tool of patriarchical opression who by his cowardice and inaction contributes to the intersectionalised marginalization *descends into gibbering*


    2. @bluemenbestmen

      [the deep philosophy and paradigm of revisionist diversifying]

      You’re probably right, at least about the Pavlovian response bit. With my cynical hat firmly attached I also observe that creators get brownie points and attention for a) trying or b) wilfully disregarding the obligation to represent X group in Y approved fashion. I think at this stage it’s a marketing obligation as much as anything. Do you read Critical Miss at all? There’s a couple of gems on this topic in there.

      [women writers]

      Besides LeGuin I would continue to recommend Susanna Clarke, Scarlett Thomas, Mary Shelley if you don’t mind Alpine scenery porn… and I hear good things about Robin Hobb, but I am suspicious of highly prolific trilogists. I’m trying to think of a good female writer of weird fiction and drawing a blank.


      Prince is right.

      Also, what the hell does “However, the revolutionary telling the truth in times of universal (and more importantly successful) deceit is just as much a revisionist” mean?


  4. I meant that revisionism is about challenging important “established facts” that are a part of the dominant narrative in historiography. Whether that current narrative is fluid and based mostly on never ending research or fabricated by the Ministry of Truth and set in stone is irrelevant in this regard. Thanks for the book tips.


  5. Holy fuck. What happened to you prince? You’ve drunk the jonestown punch. Really, people who disagree with you are now brain-damaged feminist marxist liars? Just what we need, another pundit/zak love child. Christ.


    1. [What happened]

      A revelation came to me, a series of insights gleaned over the years that have now finally been integrated into a clear, logical position. I cannot agree with social justice warriors since they do not argue based on reality and emotional argumentation over the internet means nothing to me. Nothing. I cannot remain neutral or sympathetic to their plight for the very act of neutrality is painted as vileness barely less abhorrent then the most dogged, tenacious resistance and I cannot sympathise with their stated goal because the method ensures that the very opposite of their stated goals are reached. They are either lying about their goals or they are delusional. They are a cancer.
      Antipathy, scorn and mockery is all that is warranted, thus it is all that is given.


      Your characterisation is inaccurate. Disagreement alone does not make one a brain-damaged feminist marxist liar. A critical reading of my post and the comments section should have given you enough information, but in case it has not, for the record; The merest act of disagreeing with me does not entitle one to that label. Trying to force your cultural marxist, feminist ideology, which is in direct opposition to reality, and therefore deserving of the label delusional, down people’s throats, whilst deliberately twisting or fabricating the facts to serve your agenda, therefore deserving of the label lying, entitles one to that label.

      Be precise. This is not about my attitude towards people disagreeing with me in general. This is about my attitude towards the progressive, authoritarian left, a political philosophy to which you hold a not inconsiderable amount of sympathy. If you want to discuss that then by all means let us discuss that.


      Zak and you would find more points of commonality then Zak and me, speaking purely from a political standpoint. Pundit is a rare sort of reverse SJW, a creature that represents a fundamental rejection of nearly all of progressive viewpoints whilst largely maintaining an SJW modus operandi. Both are nothing like me.
      I invite you to read my comments sections and defend the position that I somehow ascribe all criticism or dissenting viewpoints as indications of mental illness.

      You respond emotionally and rather then logic, you have chosen shame as your weapon of choice. I understand, but it does not work. You chose to do so in public instead of a personal message. That I can forgive. I hold no grudge against you, and would like you to know that you remain welcome here if you choose to visit or comment in the future. But my position in both of my most recent articles remains unchanged. And no half-hearted Pundit or Zak comparison will change any of that. If you want to change my mind, do better. If you have come here merely to throw insults, at least up your game.


  6. Haha. How can I discuss anything with you when I react emotionally rather based on logic? How am I supposed to not talk to you publicly? I don’t know you or your contact details. Shame? Well I guess criticism is in the eye-of-the-beholder huh? To defend my position though. If I state my goals, as I have in the past, I am lying or delusional. That is a rhetorical flourish both employed by Zak and Pundo. If I maintain that change is a bloody process and it is better to happen over words and culture than with guns and wars then I’m authoritarian forcing cultural marxism and feminism down everybody’s throat. A classic Pundo pigeonhole. I’m very surprised as a psychologist you believe in fact fabrication. It appears to me you’ve set up a rhetorical wall that any evidence to the contrary is fabricated. A Pundo flourish as well. I assert that you are ready to label dissension based on the previous three approaches. You’ve already labeled me emotional. Which only re-affirms my initial assumption gleamed from the content of your post.


    1. (2nd attempt, the internet poleaxed my post)

      [How can I discuss anything with you when I react emotionally rather based on logic?]

      By not reacting emotionally and arguing from a logical basis. Your previous response was emotional, this one has improved somewhat.

      [How am I supposed to not talk to you publicly? I don’t know you or your contact details.]

      This one is on me. I have added email contact details in the about page (hello Ladies!) but this was a recent addition so I retract any criticism re this topic.

      [Shame? Well I guess criticism is in the eye-of-the-beholder huh?]

      Your initial post contains an expletive, an implication regarding my teetering mental health as a result of the consumption of a concoction of hithereto unspecified contents, a comparison with Jon Tarnowski and Zak, a generalization of my attitude towards those of dissenting opinions and an invocation of the Son of God.
      I guess it is.

      [To defend my position though.]

      Yes plz.

      [If I state my goals, as I have in the past, I am lying or delusional. That is a rhetorical flourish both employed by Zak and Pundo.]

      Tossfiddle. A goal alone cannot make one a liar, but I suppose a goal could theoretically make one delusional if it impossible to achieve. I look at both goals and methods and conclude based on their interaction. For example, I wholeheartedly believe a person trying to stop racism/prejudice/dragonkinphobia/Nascar racing by injecting SocJus in Baldurs Gate and calling everyone who disagrees a bigot is a moron, since the end result has the following effects:

      1) Provide the option of either surrender or resistance to anyone not toting the party line. If we look at the rising opposition to progressivist thigamajib it is not hard to reach a conclusion as to the effectiveness of this method. And I promise you, it has only begun.
      2) Risk crippling the company and alienating a significant segment of the fanbase for social brownie points and that feeling you get when you pretend you have done something good.
      3) End racism from hateful Baldur’s Gate fans?!?

      As long as there is a plethora of available entertainment people can always choose a non-shitty alternative, thus this memetic onslaught is only effective if it is injected everywhere and anything that contradicts this line needs to be purged or censored.

      [If I maintain that change is a bloody process and it is better to happen over words and culture than with guns and wars then I’m authoritarian forcing cultural marxism and feminism down everybody’s throat. A classic Pundo pigeonhole.]

      Change is indeed happening over words and culture. I wonder if it is the change you like. We shall see, but I would not put money on a SocJus victory any time soon.

      Note that you use the term “words” but you do not specify what type of “words.” Slandering an entire subculture is technically “words.” Flagrantly, hypocritically and one-sidedly censoring viewpoints from the public discourse via shame and harassment is technically “words.”

      If you force cultural marxism and feminism down everyone’s throat then you are an authoritarian forcing cultural marxism and feminism down everyone’s throat.

      [I’m very surprised as a psychologist you believe in fact fabrication. It appears to me you’ve set up a rhetorical wall that any evidence to the contrary is fabricated. A Pundo flourish as well.]

      Then you should probably admit that you know jack shit about psychology (psychology has had its fair share of junk science, frauds and crackpot theories as well sir). To assume 100% accuracy in any medium is nonsense. For example, in the case of the Native American Gamer Terrorist Problem, there are 2 sides of a story. They are mutually contradictory in nature. They cannot both be true. Thus we can look at the rest of their accounts, form an opinion as to their comparative reliability, and judge accordingly. Since one of those sides requires one to reach bizarre conclusions and adopt insane behavioural patterns, it is my personal estimation that the other side, a responsible CEO of a miniature company with a fairly liberal if not outright progressive fanbase, is probably more reliable then a racist tumblerina.

      Not to mention that one can imply, cherrypick, omit, reinterpret, exagerrate and relativise without ever directly lying.

      [You’ve already labeled me emotional. Which only re-affirms my initial assumption gleamed from the content of your post.]

      I’ve labeled your previous response emotional. This one makes an attempt at logic. Your assumptions are as follows:

      1. I state that your response was emotional. Therefore all your responses are now emotional.
      2. I make a statement as regards to a general pattern of behaviour of SJWS. Therefore this pattern is to be applied universally without exception.
      3. I imply or state that a statement is fabricated. Therefore all evidence that contradicts my position is fabricated.
      4. I call someone who disagrees with my position a delusional liar. Therefore everyone who disagrees with me is a delusional liar.

      Based on those assumptions, you are correct to re-affirm your initial assumption. But your assumptions are false.

      Try again.


  7. [position, liar]
    Prince, those are your exact words but I’m glad you’ve backed away from that statement and expanded your position. Perhaps being fair in your content posts would avoid astonished responses.

    The intended goal of inclusivity in media representation is normalising marginalised people. The aim of this process would be to gain a level of social acceptance where prejudice doesn’t override opportunity. I believe that prejudice can be overcome by exposure. I think history bares this out to be true. In this specific, can nerd communities be somewhere trans people can escape like the rest of us and gain a level of acceptance that they gain the benefits from said escapism like the rest of us? I think they can but not with current attitudes.

    The problem with change is somebody has to loose something for others to gain something. People are going to feel alienated just as marginalised people currently feel alienated.

    I disagree with the market system we have but it’s what we got. I can’t reconcile a business folding due to consumer boycott. It’s unfair that in the process [small indie company A] get’s axed while Walmart try to pay their workers a living wage under the poverty line. That’s the market system though. It’s weird like that. I’m not an economist so I can’t speculate on a solution that protects everyone in society both privileged to marginalised.


    Can social justice fix these problems? I think it’s too early to tell. The success of the civil rights movement has changed post-Ferguson. Social justice is much, much younger than that movement.

    We live in precarious times. I think everyone recognises that which is why we have such high levels of social anxiety. I’m glad that SocJus victory isn’t eminent. I’d rather these ideas tested in niche rather than in sweeping social reforms. Ideas take more than a life-time to critically assess.

    On word categorisations: these problems are not exclusive to one side or the other. I don’t think we can be anti-authotarian and control the tone and devices of the debate at the same time. People are going to harasses and dox and slur and threaten…etc. I don’t have an answer on how to police that nor am I sure we should.


    Oh deary me. I was unaware I was making any claim to psychological expertise. Yes, it’s true. I have a surface knowledge of psychology and am actively suspicious of social-psychologist methodology. Now, you should probably admit you know shit about sociology and textual analysis. Just so we don’t step on each other’s specialised toes.

    We could, as an alternative, refrain from that pissing contest and admit that we’ve both read a lot of books and had fancy educations. Thus avoiding a pointless who-knows-what argument.

    [emotion, logic]

    1. I noticed that anyone who agrees with such measures are characterised by you before you characterised my response in that light. You’ve since clarified that outburst and so there’s no need to hold this suspicion is there?

    2. Yes, because your pattern is false. The characteristics of outliers does not make a good foundation for generalisations. If SJWs can be described as thus then you can be generalised to stand with Zak/Pundit. You think that is unfair. Okay but it’s not different from what you’re doing with this content. It’s lazy and unfair, hence my surprise because you are usually more careful. At least when we’ve talked before. Sorry, I mean “my emotions”.

    3. Your taking a handful of statements in bad faith and using that as evidence of corrupt group morals. So yes, we wait to see what other evidence you discount. It seems you believe these decisions are reactionary when there is a lot of research behind the SJW position. So to discount the evidence of say Jane Elliot’s blue eye experiment or Thomas Ford’s racist humour experiment in favour of an anecdotal goof-of-the-month gives me, I think, reasonable pause to suspect you are building a rhetorical wall.

    4, Yes, having seen evidence of bad-faith, think it’s reasonable to hold such positions.

    This whole set-up is a bunch of rhetorical bullshit. You’re switching from engaging me to building a “I, Prince, are a rational, logical, mind devoid of emotional bias while you are not” dichotomy. I find the chastising of my comment with the implication that you are impartial and can be swayed through logical argumentation disingenuous. I may not know as much as you about psychology but I’ve read and understood Lee Ross. I also spend my professional life in argumentation. I know that logic is not enough to sway anyone. Hence why we teach Greek rhetoric in first year composition. I’m willing to have a conversation (public or private as you wish) but let’s drop the pretences.


    1. [position]

      What?! My exact words are that anyone who disagrees with me is a delusional liar? Are we going by different defenitions of the word exact?

      Dude, thus far I have managed to avoid astonished responses from pretty much anyone that is not you.


      That is all well and good but as soon as that intended goal supercedes the goal of shit entertaining us people will get upset or angry and will roll their eyes and they are fucking right to do so. This is not about a gay dude in an elfgame somewhere, Bioware has been doing that for ages, this is about an ideologue deciding a beloved video game is a good place to spout her trite message garbage and slandering anyone who disagrees as racist (again, SJW playbook 101). And you can set your fucking watch to the way progressives handle responses like that. Like fucking clockwork.

      [Prejudice by exposure]

      But you are doing the opposite of that. You support people that are calling for the death of white males and that actively promote and indeed celebrate that if the current trend continues ethnic europeans will be a minority in europe in 2050 (probably civil war or repatriation before that). You are actively promoting black nationalists or islamists with viewpoints that are severly prejudiced and indeed actively racist because these people are ‘opressed’ or some other nonsense.

      If you are going to cite history as an example that multiculturalism is great you are off your meds. Diversity is not an asset when your food supply runs out or your economy goes to shit. Allowing mutliple ethnic minorities within your country without a single unifying and dominant culture is asking for a civil war if the food gets scarce or the economy goes to shit because people dividing along tribal lines in times of crises is an instinctual, genetically-hardcoded response and accompanying differences in culture maginify that response. I say is, but I should say i suspect because there are no defenite answers. Genetics are a thing. It is foolishness to think we can escape the fetters of biology simply if we try hard enough.

      [trans people]

      But the fucking fact is that nerd communities are already more open and tolerant to trans people and other weirdos then baseline humanity, despite the scaremongering nonsense propagated by the media. Nothing physically prevents them from playing a video game or getting a group together and game. Freedom of association aside, this is not the point that is being opposed so this is irrelevant.

      [someone has to lose something so someone has to gain something]

      Not everything is a zero-sum game. Also, if I have to lose something in my elfgame for someone else to play an elfgame that someone can go fuck himself and find another fucking hobby.


      The problem is that the alternative tends to end up deporting hundreds of thousands of political prisoners to siberia or working a third of its population to death. You look at the world in terms of things being fair or not fair based on some sort of ideal vision of equality. The world is not like that. The world is not fair. A meteor killed the dinosaurs, was that fair? A car and a bike cannot go at the same speed. Some people will be born useless and stupid in a 3rd world hellhole and others will be born handsome and smart with not a care in the world. A midget will never be the greatest heavyweight mma fighter.


      I don’t share your optimism. I suspect you (in the plural, I do not hold you personally responsible) are doing irreperable damage to western civilisation that will end in violence or the abolition of democracy. And you are wrong. You are an old idea with a fresh coat of paint.

      [one side]

      You are implying the frequency of those behaviours is not an important factor. That is like saying nazis killed jews but a gypsy also killed a jew, therefore the problem happens on both sides. The frequency with which the authoritarian left utilises these tactics are shocking, but then again the authorotarian left has a better infrastructure to do this anyway.

      If you don’t feel like that behaviour should be policed that is fine. But then you must accept the fact you will face increased resistance from people that are tired of your shit, and similar tactics. This has the effect of polarising both sides, making reconciliation less likely and escalation more likely.


      I agree with your point but it was you that brought up the “I cant believe a psychologist would say this”


      1. Long response is long. Clarified statement is clarified.
      2. Your suprise is the result of a false positive or perhaps some sort of aerosolised australian jellyfish poison that temporarily inhibits cognition. Saying my political viewpoint on social justice warriors resembles that of Pundit is fairly accurate. Saying that I employ the same debating modus operandi is something different altogether. I accept the former whilst railing against the latter. In your second salvo, you accused me of employing the methods of the beast (pipe-smoking, plagiarism, rune-magick), i assert that in this you are mistaken.
      3. I’m not here to defend the position that SJWs are fucking atrocious, and if i would I am not basing that thesis on Baldurs GateGate. I guess I am here now. The evidence for SJW perfidy is so common and well documented it would not be hard to find a list of atrocious stupid and frankly revolting saying and events instigated by SJWs. Its literally all over the internet. People make youtube videos doing nothing but picking apart feminist/sjw antics.
      ‘There is a lot of research behind the position’ doesn’t tell us anything about the sort of people that have come to predominate in this movement, nor does it explain or excuse entire fucking student classes throwing hissy fits at mere words, various and increasingly common rape-hoaxers, race-baiting lunatics agitating against a childrens holiday or feminist loons paradoxically believing that europe has a rape culture but the middle east does not. These things can be perceived on a consistent basis by anyone interested in them.
      Also, pot-calling the kettle black. Your discounting of the various disruptive if not life-ruining events instigated by SJWs, often against innocents, that tend to be wholeheartedly condoned and even lauded by the community and the main stream media is no less a cherrypicking of observable evidence.
      4. Listen, those are all really impressive accomplishments but could you fucking adress the argument without more vague and spurious nonsense about what I am or am not secretly trying to do?

      My various nefarious mind-traps, secret double agendas and rhetorical sleeper-agents aside, we have established thus far that the first assumption merely needed clarification, the second one has been forfieted and has now changed to Your assesment of SJWs is wrong, which i am okay with, the 3rd one is an incorrect assumption since I do not pose BG as evidence of wholesale corruption and the 4th one is poorly defended, I move you concede to change the 4th to “Everyone that is an SJW is a delusional liar” and then I can tell you why I think that is an unreasonable assumption and that you have been smoking too much crack.

      Logic is not enough to sway anyone can hardly be a universal truth. While rhetoric is a potent tool, I regard it as an unfortunate neccesity, not something to be employed willy nilly in every engagement. You assume dialectic and switch to rhetoric if that does not work surely?


      Public will do if you are up for it. I am starting to get into it.


  8. [position]
    What?! My exact words are that anyone who disagrees with me is a delusional liar? Are we going by different defenitions of the word exact?
    Dude, thus far I have managed to avoid astonished responses from pretty much anyone that is not you.

    Yes, that was the inferral before the later exposition. No, we are no going by different definitions. You’ve also manage to avoid responses from people who are sympathetic to social justice in media as well.

    Entertainment can’t be qualified and an example of SJ in good media vs bad media does not mean the goal is superseded. If you expect those in the SJ camp to be perfect then I think your standards are too high.

    [Prejudice by exposure]
    Who is calling for the death of white males? The whole point of the culture wars is so we don’t go to actual war that will result in the deaths of white males and non-white males. I can’t share your concern relating to demographic changes. Ethnic natives have been waxing from majority to minority since recorded history. I’m unconvinced by arguments of ethnicity. Skin colour and genes does not map well to abstract concepts like nation-states. Which is why culture has largely developed the way it has. It get Anegles and Normans and Saxons and Britons and Celts and Gauls and Romans and Etruscans…etc. Together under a functional geographic location. Over time these tribal ties die away but not without some degree of social friction.

    I don’t believe you need to be ethnically European to be European.
    European colonisation wiped out most of my mother’s culture in the name of the white man’s burden. My genetics or the history of my people have not stopped me from embracing and contributing to European intellectual history. Again, I point out that for change to happen someone has to lose something for someone to gain something.

    If you want to promote separatism and preserve the white European culture by not allowing minorities in then that is fine. However, that is not equality or liberty. These are values I hold.

    I am half white and half non-white. Which part of my genetic biology do I respond with in such a race war? Pre-determined biological action does not make rational sense and I’m afraid I can’t see any sense in that line of argument besides racial purity. Which I think is a vile concept. Homosaipans would not be so evolutionary adept without genetic diversity.

    [trans people]
    That is not what trans people say in general and it is not my experience that nerd communities are relatively open either. Compared to my literary and professional communities then nerd communities are very conservative and exclusive. I suspect that has something to do with traditional social rejection of nerd personality types.

    Yes, no one is stopping people in isolation but isolated groups are not a community.

    [someone has to lose something so someone has to gain something]
    Okay. Then you can fuck yourself and find another video-game. If there is no middle then that’s a shame.

    No. I see fairness as a worthy goal to strive for if ultimately doomed to fall short. I believe in the attempt and not surrendering to social-dawarinistic policies. I believe that humans have created civilisation despite the natural inequalities and so believe that inequalities can be overcome. However, like Godel’s incompleteness, which questions can be answered and which are beyond our scope is not clear. This is why we have peer-review and humanities and the scientific method. To find out to the best of our ability.

    Okay. Let that be on my conscious if history proves me wrong. Oh, but it’s stupid to be a guilty European over colonialism isn’t it?

    This is the world we’ve inherited. We can learn to share it or we can kill each other but I would rather die quickly than slowly as a second or slave class.

    I think we’re all old ideas in fresh paint. The brith of western intellectual history started with the socratic paradox and it still stands for all our books and science.

    [one side]
    I do accept I will face resistance and tactics. It’s apart of conflict resolution on a massive non-violent scale. I just mis-judged you. I thought you were in favour of understanding and comprise and getting along. I had no idea until your last post that you held ethnic and cultural separatist views.

    If I am not aloud to express confusion then that’s okay. You’ve taken that comment with malice but I meant what I wrote. That is, I was unaware that psychology thought fabrication outside the schizophrenic families was possible.
    1. Yep.
    2. I have made my case. That’s all I can do.
    3. Yes, there is a lot of evidence on the internet for bad behaviour on any issue.
    It tells you the sort of people who are active in the movement and not exposing an online opinion. I have never met a feminist who doesn’t believe the middle-east has a rape and murder problem. It is a war-zone. I just attended a feminist convention last year whose keynote speaker was an Afghan woman trying to raise money and awareness for her feminist charity dedicated to protecting and educating Afghan women. She was very clear of Sino-Arab cultural problems…

    Look. I’m not going down this tit-for-tat bullshit. There is as just as much documentation for bad behaviour on the other side. I’m no excusing bad behaviour, I’m defending the aims and goals of the movement. Unfortunately, and this might be hard for you to accept, this means that social power-brokers are going to have to give up some of their said social power in order to avoid armed conflicts. You accused me of supporting Islamists but it’s the social and economic factors of radicalisation that I’m trying to avoid. In terms of theology, I’ll leave that to groups like Quilliam who can reach the radicalised community better than I can.

    4. I am addressing the argument. I’m just not addressing it in the way you want. If that is too much for you then I’ll stop talking to you. As I said before, I’ve severely misjudged your intentions when addressing these topics. If I had known this was, in part, about combating the demographic changes in Europe and preserving some sort of ethnic and ideological European-ness then I would have never bother with you on YDIS or here.

    I mean, you’ve implied nearly everything I expected (“off my meds, smoking crack, have debased cognitive ability etc”). If your rhetoric is above criticism but mine isn’t then this is a pointless debate.

    And yes, when it comes to politics I think naive realism’s challenge to cognition can’t be ignored.


    1. Ugh, I have been slow in replying, which is poor form.

      Before I adress your current rebuttal I continue my trend of poor form, by re-gurgitating a previous post:

      Your response to logic part III is not an argument, or rather, it is not a counter-argument. Even if I were to accept uncritically, which, for the sake of this argument I shall temporarily do, that the current incarnation of social justice is based on rock solid, diamond hard physical science, this does not mean that the philosophy based around those facts is of neccesity accurate or flawless, that the philosophy drawn from that data is of neccesity equally well thought of and that the movement has not changed over time. I am drawing a conclusion based on the empyrical reality of SJW behavior and retardation, what I perceive as behavioural trends. It can be likened to a religious person arguing his religion is peaceful because that is what it says in his holy book.

      Even if the basis is solid, you can still get retarded results over time. Like this one (I have trouble believing it is not a joke but it seems legit, it would restore my faith in humanity if it was an april fools joke, but this does not appear to be the case).

      On to the meat of the matter:

      [Kill all white men or kill all men]

      Actually took me the longest to find out where i got that from. I’d add the SCUM manifesto and the various nonsense inspired by it, the killallmen hashtag (technically all men), the infamous harvard debate nonsense and tumblr (I am using Tumblr as evidence because this is my party and i can do what i want), but you are correct in asserting it cannot be put forth as typical. As to anyone in the soc jus camp, I dont know what the soc jus camp is, I can guarantee you could find some overweight blue haired lesbian tumblerinas gushing over their ideal Brave New World Society where women are grown in artifical wombs so they wont need men will back you up.

      Contempt for white males and the blaming of white cis male patriarchy is however, a common behavioural trait of soc jus warriors. For sake of argumentation I wish to put forth Drs. Ozlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo’s textbook “Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education. p.46 which states: Stop! There is no such thing as reverse racism or reverse sexism (or the reverse of any form of opression) While women can be just as prejudiced as men, women cannot be “just as sexist as men” because they do not hold political, economic and institutional power.” The Textbook is from 2011.

      Im sure I can find plenty of race-baiting lunatics on tumblr or the various databases of SJW antics floating about the web but this one represents a more serious example because it is from an allegedly academic text based on a firm well respected basis that is, i am told, very reliable.


      Uh, on my blog? I assume you meant YDIS? You may dig up whatever examples you feel are relevant, but I will point out I gave myself a rhetorical escape pod by stating pretty “much anyone” rather then the more comprehensive and absolute “anyone”, thus ensuring that even if said examples are forthcoming the haggling over what exactly constitutes pretty much will be painstakingly annoying for everyone involved.


      Fallacious. I do not expect them to be perfect, I expect them not to prioritize social Justice over quality. While im skeptical about the concept, I dont abhor inclusivity, I abhor the prioritisation of social justice over entertainment since I, and presumably, other people, buy this media to be entertained, not indoctrinated.
      If we want to continue this line of reasoning we will ultimately descend into arguing over what proportion of inclusivity/progressivist failures constitutes an acceptable margin and that is a subjective question.

      [Demographic changes]

      It is worth pointing out that in all your examples, with the possible exception of Etruscans since I dont know shit about Etruscans other then the fact the greeks borrowed heavily from them in their art, these demographics changed as a result of invasions and colonialism (which i thought you opposed and saw as abhorrent?), not by holding hands and hugging. The Saxons, the Normen, The vandahls, the huns, the mongols, the romans, the europeans, the ottomans; all invaders. If you invaded and you were badass enough you beat everyone up and held the ground until everyone sort of got used to you or you conquered everyone and then interbred (as with, say, the mongols). The common theme is sharp pieces of metal going into human beings repeatedly is what i am saying.
      So while you are correct to state it is part of history, that does not mean it is desirable for or in the best interest of the native population of Europe, especially a native population that has the technological, economical and political resources to easily prevent this invasion/population replacement, to actively encourage it. Which leads us too…

      [Ethnic European]

      On the individual level that is a logical position. However, at a population level, changing the demographics will change the culture. There are biological differences between ethnicities in such varied matters as testosterone production, disease resistance, alcohol resistance and so on. The recorded differences between personality traits of various european nations are likely a product of both environment and genes, as they are on the individual level. Even if the differences in IQ are entirely the result of environmental stimuli, that still means you are importing a large amount of relatively low IQ people of a different and possibly incompatible culture, that you will be tolerant of because of multiculturalism, into your country. It is absurd to believe that merely walking around on european soil will turn you into a european.

      I find it absurd to consider that groups of people living under different conditions would not over time be selected for suitability in those conditions (they are, hence, say, africans, dark skin or europeans having a lower chance of alcoholism then say native americans because of the beer guzzling we had to endure for centuries when the water supply was too polluted). It is no great leap or stretch to posit that some behavioural traits that are already partially inherited at the individual level would face a similar selection process. There is a constant exchange of different dna groups as travellers from group A to group B mate but this is a fairly slow process (unless you are talking about invading hordes i mean refugees) so it makes sense there would indeed be differences between say, aztecs and conquistadores. This gets more complex once we start yapping about certain genes only being activated under certain conditions etc. etc.

      Previous immigration plans have always had a stop of decades, thus allowing for adjustment periods, and of course, a pressure to assimilate, which is largely absent in a dedicated multicultural society. All of this would be a problem even if you assume everyone who comes to europe is even interested in assimilating at all (cough cough muslims cough cough)


      That argument is only valid if you assume equality and liberty are universal constructs that can just be introduced into a population willy nilly and take within a generation or so instead of products of western tradition and culture and therefore by no means as important or relevant to non-westerners. If that is the case, why doesn’t everyone have it yet?

      [Racial purity]

      You assume my argument is against race-mixing. It is not. The population replacement is not the result of race-mixing, it is the result of outbreeding by ethnically very homogenous groups, and extremely low reproduction figures for natives (all the women seem to be chasing careers or being strong and independent for some mysterious reason and we musnt have more children because think of the environment etc. etc.).


      Even if that were in general true, that means you are pressuring nerds, who have already faced octracism everywhere else and have banded together so they dont face prejudice, to conform to a social paradigm and forcing them to give up their space, where they are again pressured and octrasized. You kind of sound like a bully.

      But I find it hard to believe. Nerds have among them furries, otakus, goths, catpissmen and various other weirdos. Are we really supposed to believe they would draw the line at transexuals and be even more insular and cliquish? Nerds, in general, dont care about who you are, all they care about is stupid shit no one else cares about like DnD. Id estimate them to give LESS of a shit about who you are then the average bear.

      [Someone has to lose something]

      Again, you sound like a bully. I will only join this thing you do if you conform to my demands. I’d love to compromise, but I too know Alinsky (and am actually reading the bastard myself) and the lack of a defenitive inclusivity goal where everyone can sit their progressive ass down and say, “yup, thats enough diversity for me! We have done it! It is now the Diversiest! Hail! Sarkeesian” makes a priori rejection sound like a pretty good option. And the disruption some of those people cause. I mean, I’d compromise if you personally wanted to play in my game and you would demand I’d stop portraying humanoids as stand ins for native americans and the dungeon as a metaphor for my rape at their hands but thats because of individual respect, not some right afforded by our biological differences.

      I dont go bemoaning the fact none of the shitty dutch books i read in school are referenced in Dnd. I had to learn it myself, find out what books to even read, learn english to play video games and have incredibly long discussions with strangers on the internet while i have to work tomorrow. Incidentally, this is a good convo and if i post social justice shit again you are welcome to argue and call me a racist or whatever since i think we can at the very least improve our respective arguments.


      Sounds pretty sane. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome is what I’d strive for. And capitalism, with goverment meddling, still seems the best way.


      Fallacious. Nonequivalent. It is unreasonable to hold me responsible for something that my distant ancestors did but it is not unreasonable for me to hold you responsible for promoting a political philosophy that informs policies that might lead to civil war if that civil war does happen, since that is your choice and of your own volition. It is unreasonable of me to hold you solely responsible of course.

      [Old ideas]

      Could not agree more.

      [One side]

      My position has hardened somewhat over the years but I’d say im neither 100% uncompromising nor 100% compromising, just less compromising. Same with ethnic and cultural seperatist views. Im fine with a hint or a whiff of multiculturalism (since there will be variation within a single native culture even between cities), but some cultures are simply not compatible. So variation within a spectrum, but severe censure or at least pressure to confrom outside that spectrum.
      With regards to ethnicity, a slow change over time is not the same as a population explosion over a period of less then a century. It is not even ethnical seperatism, it is the opposite of that.


      If i respond with rhetoric that does not mean I am automatically upset or that I am malicious. Sometimes i just like yelling. I did not assume malice.


      3. Again, that all sounds sane and normal to me. That is, however, not the response I get from feminists i talk too on the internet, the shit i read in my newspapers, or the muttering of islamophobia that gets thrown around whenever someone critisizes muslim attitudes towards women (which are just as terrible in many nonwarzone countries mind you).

      4. Come now. No genuine harm or antipathy was intended, I chose the opening salvo as a benchmark for the rhetorical intensity level.


      That last sentence will require some clearing up.

      If the above comment has not convinced you of the merits of continuing this i will understand but you are welcome to continue.

      God I hope the internet does not eat my post.


      1. It’s cool. My main concern with continuing was teasing out how serious your bio-eugenic related opinions were at first reading. I mean, I don’t even know how to begin to get through to someone with those views but I think I’m clearer now. That is to say, you were sounding like a stormfront poster but not much anymore.

        If you are so set on formal logic, as you seem to be, then you know the behaviour of a fringe does not invalidate a group. That link is a symptom of academia-as-business. Money is in cultural studies and obesity right now. What you mistake for social justice is spawned in cultural/gender studies departments. We don’t really have a word for it yet because Stuart Hall’s baby is so recent.

        [Kill all white men or kill all men]

        Look at what faculties those academics are from. This is a bit insider baseball and so you’d have to take my word for it. However, if you know anybody who works on a campus you can cross-reference what I’m about to say. SocJus started in the 60/70s when Marxist and Sociologist were synonymous terms. Some real silly shit used to go on, like Maoist lecturers carrying guns on campus in case of the revolution. Malcolm Bradbury satirised this in the History Man.

        The “scientific” sociologists eventually won out and SocJus started to take on quantitive data sets and not just qualitative cultural theory. Cultural studies and gender studies are currently synonymous just like early Sociology. They have taken on the SocJus label but without any of the foundational texts. A degree in gender studies is like doing 4 years of Foucault out-of-context with Frankfurt School semiotics. So yes, some ridiculous statements get peer-reviewed within this framework. I believe they have to outgrow this stage and incorporate more quantitative methodologies to last as a discipline. They are enjoying a hey-day, like Marxist Sociology, but it’s stagnating and will die off if improvements aren’t made.

        I say this to give you a context in which these statements are being made and hope in that they are not long for this world because we’re looking at a highly theorised closed circle.


        Yes, we will. I think it’s reasonable to start somewhere. Once you have precedence then things can open up. If you don’t agree, we can just drop this line to save a circular conversation if you’d like.

        [Demographic changes]

        I was referencing how tribal societies developed into nation-states. I recognise that nation-states would not exist anywhere without colonialism. My response was more aimed at the absurdity of your argument when the other parties’ culture was brutally erased from the world. I don’t have much sympathy for that line because it happened to my family and we had to accept that and move on.

        My thoughts on colonialism are ambivalent. I see all killing as abhorrent and I guess that includes colonialism but at the same time I recognise the benefits of colonialism. What I’m against is not so much colonialism itself but the way certain peoples are prejudiced against after-the-fact.

        It’s context based. In North Iraq, for example, I am against both Muslim and Kurdish forces fucking over Yazidis. I currently believe this is because nation-states now have moved to a more genetic-religious basis for polis identity. This shift I can track back, so far, to the 19th century romanticism that sparked the need for national epics and the perception of a homogenous society. Is this a consequence of empire in Europe waining? Possibly but I haven’t looked into that too much as of this moment.

        [Ethnic European]

        Yes, there are differences in biological demographics. You are right about that but that doesn’t mean those differences are at all scientifically or rationally interesting. While we have differences at the poles, all human biology overlaps in the main. Thus making those differences a statistical quirk and not much else.

        I’ll let Jacob Bronowski’s quote stand here because I believe it to be more erudite and eloquent than I could manage on the subject.

        “…I think we’ve all got to understand that all this talk about black people have a lower IQ than white peopl, Jews have a higher IQ than non-Jews; is all a load of rubbish…because the average IQ of a sample of the population is absolutely of no interest…in your work, in my work, in everybody’s work as of this moment. They never deal with the average IQ of a million people, they deal with the IQ of persons. Now, think of my picture, of the tall European man and the little Japanese man. Nobody argues that the Japanese are genetically smaller than Whites. Because fortunately it’s there, it’s fixed, and nobody thinks it’s terribly important. You must understand the same about the IQ.

        There are these two mountains of IQ, say the black here and the white there. We don’t know how far apart the means are but they are probably some distance apart. After all, there is not the slightest doubt that Black people have other physical advantages over White people; of which they ought to be equally as proud. But the point is there are millions of Black people who are cleverer than other millions of white people. These mountains that I’m picturing, that contain that contain one population and another, may have their peaks in slightly different places but they overlap in the main; So that the world is just as full of clever Black people, clever Yellow people, and clever Red people as it is of clever White people…”

        Note the complete lack of PC in his response. More here (48minute mark):


        No, it isn’t. It’s valid because these are values the western world has committed itself to for better or worse.

        [Racial purity]

        No, I assume your position is against demographic shifts. Whether that be mixing or otherwise. As I said, genetic Europeness is a weak-as-shit argument. [Ethnic European] is one reason why. The history of recorded civilisation for another. Education and demographic shifts (i.e Colonial subject immigration) for another.


        Well, I guess I’m a bully. I have no problem with punks fighting nazis out of show spaces either. Even though it robs the poor white-supremists of the space they choose to escape the scrutiny of society in.

        A quick glance at 4chan’s /pol/ or reddit’s red pill will show you that there are two sides to the nerd community. Whether you want to tolerate that nonsense is a personal choice but to people who happen to be in the target of their scorn, they are kinda born without a choice. They can’t exactly choose. It
        s either put up with vile shit in your escapism hobby of choice or fuck off. I know who sounds like the bully to me.

        “I mean, I’d compromise if you personally wanted to play in my game and you would demand I’d stop portraying humanoids as stand ins for native americans and the dungeon as a metaphor for my rape at their hands but thats because of individual respect” – Then you are not apart of the problem. This is exactly how it should be.

        “not some right afforded by our biological differences.” – nobody has said that and if they have then I would say they are just as confused about biological differences and I’d beat them up with my Bronowski as well.


        Yes, the best way in recent experiments but in what form? Unregulated Neo-Liberal Marketism? Nordic Model Social Democracy? Capitalism is flexible and some forms create extremely unequal opportunities with in society.


        So it is reasonable to hold me responsible because my activism in Indonesia and Australia somehow creates a civil war in Europe? I don’t agree.

        [One side]

        Well, if you believe that there are cultures that can’t get along then you are pretty uncompromising. Are you saying that you are okay with culture change as long as it doesn’t happen in your life-time? I’m not sure I understand your last point because that seems really sentimental to me.


        That’s not a very logical or reasonable way to communicate then. Are we aloud to admit that our emotions influence our views and that neither side is a completely rational being?


        3. Well I can’t speak to that. I don’t know any feminists online. I would put forth that this is not a feminist problem though and one of living in a mediated society. Well, I guess it is a problem for feminists to deal with but it’s not symptomatic of feminist logic is what I mean. Again, how many were educated in Cultural and Gender studies departments I wonder?

        4. Okay, I can know that now but without that statement it’s impossible for me to read through a text into a psyche.


        Lee Ross is a cognitive psychologist who did some interesting studies on conflict resolution. His main one being called naive realism. Basically it concludes that individuals believe they see the world objectively and those who disagree with us must be biased or illogical. This is one explanation for the widespread phenomena of online fallacy hunting aka Zak style arguing. These beliefs manifest, from what I understand, mainly but not limited to: false consensus bias and correspondence bias.

        Later works delve deeper but my main reference is the naive realism paper. Considering the nature of political views, I think we can not discount naive realism’s findings and think of our opponents as mentally ill, illogical, or ideologically biased.

        The truth is, no one is really that much of an ideologue. I present a literary argument here. We often learn new vocabulary not from dictionaries but from within texts themselves. There for it’s only natural that we take on the language of an ideological text but does not mean we are in-line with it’s purpose.

        Hence why Cultural Marxist makes no sense. I understand the etymology but I can’t think of anybody who hates identity politics more than Marxists.


      2. [Stormfront]

        I (try to) consider the logic of a viewpoint before I consider its moral merits. Stormfront is not exactly known for the quality of its argumentation. I genuinely believe that democracy and free speech create overall more peaceful and prosperous societies, thus I uphold it, but I will admit I should probably research that further and if I am given plausible and credible evidence to the contrary I am prepared to change my mind.


        Then we are dealing with an inaccuracy of terminology. The behaviour of what you term fringe groups are what I rail against. If you wish to, for the purpose of this discussion, seperate the philosophical beginnings of Social Justice from the all too frequent misbehaviour of its layman adherents, who march under the banner of Social Justice Warriors and are hated and scorned even by my far more liberal and progressive friends I won’t protest. I simply wonder whether the existence of these ragamuffins is a corruption of the original philosophy or the inevitable logical conclusion.


        Thank you for clearing that up and providing additional information.

        But then you too agree that a rot has set in that is incompatible not just with its parent civilisation but the stated aims of the very philosophical body under which banner it marches. It is, then, in your own interest to oppose them as much as it is in mine. There are some rumblings and the odd liberal that shakes his head in incredulous dissaproval but I get an impression that this chronic insanity is condoned at best and at worst, actively encouraged by the very progressive establishment that should, in its own interest, pull the plug as quickly as possible.


        I think it is important to highlight my main concern and problem with inclusivity, namely, that I have observed a tendency for Social Justice Warriors (the kind I am railing against) to use it as a means of co-opting and subverting organizations until they are no longer capable of fulfilling their original goal. The mere palette swapping of some characters here or there is not truly a concern, the wholesale conversion of a medium to fit a progressive paradigm and the demonization of media that do not conform to this paradigm. It is my observation that once the initial concessions are made the organization becomes more vulnerable to this conversion process.

        Also, one never truly runs out of marginalized groups that should be represented. Once inclusivity is implemented, it becomes logically impossible to reject a second appeal for inclusivity based on the same arguments. The process seems without end.


        One should think that you would be sympathetic, given the fact it has happened to your family. We now recognize it as an evil, surely you do not believe in some sort of ancestral retribution for acts comitted when most of our granfathers were not even alive?

        Colonisation by force can have some benefits to both civilisations in the long term, no matter how abhorrent in the present. Voluntary and unopposed colonisation by a technologically and culturally inferior (e.g violent, unused or entirely antithetical to the concept of freedom of expression, religion or democracy) people to benefit a collection of technocrats and their corporate liege-lords does not.

        [Fallen Empire]

        There are some thinkers who claim western civilisation is in decline and I can’t say I disagree. But don’t count us out just yet.


        We are all still the same species, but the original argument was in response to your assertion that culture and ethnicity are seperate. If on average, behavioural traits change within the population the culture changes with it. The question then becomes to what degree our modern, western culture is compatible with that. I find that a very scientifically and rationally interesting question.


        I will look at the video when I have time. But…!

        This quote, while noble and principled, does not address the issue. He is correct that on an individual level it hardly matters overmuch. But a demographic change means the mean IQ of your population drops, and that is huge. Your civilisation literally gets dumber. It will have less specialists to maintain the technological infrastructure we have created and are now wholly dependent on. It will have less scientists and philosophers. It will develop, on the whole, less sophisticated solutions to the problems that plague it, and with it, a tendency to solve problems via brute force. It will be, in short, less capable of maintaining the quality of life it has provided thus far. Even if we ignore the problem of cultural compatibility, that still applies.

        His conclusion does not follow from his statement. If the mean is different and IQ is distributed normally under equal Standard deviation that means that one the whole, you will not have as much smart red, black or magenta people as you will have dolm, ulfire or bone people or not as smart.


        A philosophy or culture has, if it is to mean something, a survival component. If it creates its own obsolence and prescribes a course of action that will result therein, it is meaningless or needs re-examining. If equality is such a goal and following the tenets thereof creates a situation that will actually worsen things and make everything less equal it follows that you can temporarily supercede the offending tenets to secure the future of the ideal. We have a society where you are relatively free to do as you please but it follows (logically) that this freedom does not extend to you imposing or restricting others from doing the same. If the end result is the opposite of the goal, then your course of action is wrong and not in keeping with the philosophy you uphold.

        [Demographic shifts]

        Ive thought about it and yes, it follows from my line of reasoning that I am against demographic shifts if the net result is likely to be detrimental to the quality of life for all within the area.


        If you believe that though, then you must logically oppose the very concept of safe spaces or freedom of association in all, no exception, all cases.

        I am at heart, a deeply cynical creature that believes we are essentially monkeys running on several million year old programming with self-analysing problem-solving components crudely bolted on, and much of our behaviour is deeply irrational and informed by subconscious paleogean software and genetic imperatives. Tribalism happens to be one of those. I have no problem with black people preferring to associate with other black people, thus it follows i don’t have that problem with white cis-gender hetronormative fascists wanting to associate with other cis-gender hetronormative fascists either. As long as people allow others to run their shit in peace with whomever they please, Im cool. If people violate that, be they Social Justice Warriors or stormfronters, it becomes a problem. But the relentless witch-hunting drive comes, to my eyes, mainly from social justice warriors, not the right-wingers they rail against.

        [Not part of the problem]

        Nice. Always knew this.


        A discussion for another time and with another secondant im afraid. Im not economist and would not be able to give you an informed opinion on the subject.


        Spreading a political philosophy in a day and age when there are few geographical boundaries to information means you cannot appeal to geographical location unless your activity is strictly local and aimed at keeping it local. Even if it is, provided the negative consequences to europe can be directly linked to ideologically motivated decision making (haw haw good luck with that Prince you daft sod) and you are ensuring the propagation of the ideology that caused it, that still makes you part of the problem.


        If it happens very slowly the change is more gradual and the consequences are far less likely to be destructive or cataclysmic. Cultures can have fundamental tenets that are incompatible or mutually contradictory. That means either one or the other must change if they are to live in the same country. If people are fleeing to your country for economic or safety reasons, why would you adapt to them if they were unable to create functioning, stable civilisations in their homeland?

        I guess that means I am uncompromising.


        Of course, but this does not mean we should not strive towards a format that is mainly dialectical in nature.


        Makes sense. But we CAN make those judgements based on behaviour.


  9. Adding to post above: I just looked up some shit on “kill all white men”. Came up with that chick from a London University. Not sure if that’s your reference but I’ll address that case in order to set the record straight.

    Of course I condemn it as it is neither social or justice. The very foundations of social justice are white-men (Rawls, Locke, Bentham, Mill, Taylor, Singer, Finklestien etc.) so I doubt that girl stands with us in the social justice movement. I guess this is the problem with sloppy, conservative labelling. It’s rhetorically useful to attribute outrageous members to a movement you (universal) disagree with. I don’t think anybody I know in the social justice camp would back her either. I mean my brother passes for a white-male, so it’d be a bit awkward if someone in our circle wanted to kill him in the name of movement that holds equality as a central tenet.


  10. “[psychology]

    If i respond with rhetoric that does not mean I am automatically upset or that I am malicious. Sometimes i just like yelling. I did not assume malice.”

    I will note, O Prince, that you occasionally emotional responses on the part of others, while claiming that your own words should be read with a degree of nuance and no emotionals presumed or projected. You may want to think about standards and consistency. That is all: belching may now resume.


  11. [Socjus]
    The only reason I want to seperate them is my goal for this entire discussion. To make the case that SocJus is not the movement presented with this post and elsewhere.
    What you call rot; I call growing. I don’t think an idea should be put forth and then sit in stasis. Ideas need to be tested and changed to be worthwhile. Those tests come from with in and from with out but I think that’s the nature of all ideas. It just happens you dislike this one.
    Yes, there are valid problems to be solved but I don’t believe because something is hard then it is not worth attempting.
    You overestimate people/the world’s sympathy. While the idea is held as evil in abstract, it’s still portrayed in history books a necessary civilising of a savage people. I’m not rejected from the popular idea of citizenship because my skin is brown. I’m oversensitive if I talk about my struggles with growing up in a society who recognised me as outsider. I’m a cultural-marxist if I don’t want these physical qualities to limit my or my children’s opportunities. From your point-of-view it happened in the past and isn’t relevant anymore. Truth is, the consequences still effect the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of said grandfathers on one side.

    It’s not about vendetta, that’s your spin on it. It’s about trying to move on from the past by making the past just as irrelevant to us as it is to you.

    I also reject your characterisation of immigrants. They are human not primitive or savage. Western ideas are western ideas and should be able to stand the test if they are as accurate as I believe they are.
    [Fallen Empire]
    I don’t really buy into Spenglerian pessimism. I don’t believe Europa was ever all that glorious. It’s also been a bloody, war-torn, and intellectually stagnating place. Europe’s colonies and thus it’s diversities are what got it to where it is. Look at the major contributors and take note of how many were engaged with problems of colonialism or from colonies themselves.

    Remember, I believe diversity has been one of the keys to human survival over the eons.
    I disagree. I think the humanistic questions and not the factional questions are what are interesting.
    He’s actually saying the opposite and his argument is complete. Human ability is the same in the mean not different. Where you find significant statistical differences is in the extremes. Outliers are not a fruitful model of the whole.
    I agree about philosophy/culture. However, some segments of society enjoy more freedoms than others. The idea of equality still has a long way to go. We are still learning that legal freedoms are only one part of the puzzle when it comes to how society actually works. Outgrowing the ancient Roman limits will take time.

    I point you to Max Weber’s Legal, Cultural/Tradition, and Charismatic model of Social power. A model with bipartisan agreement from the Frankfurt School to Talcott Parsons.
    [Demographic shifts]
    Ah, well I said, I have very little sympathy for this line of argument. Your people won’t be around forever, a lesson I have hard learned. I understand what you are experiencing but how you choose to deal with it is highly personal. I can’t criticise that.
    What do you think safe-spaces are?

    I agree in general with your premise of humans. However, I also note how religion has overcome genetic tribalism and how nation-states have overcome regional tribalism. I think tribalism is fluid and we need a lot of work to understand it’s mechanics before we make any conclusions about it.

    To use a modern example, history on repeat is boring, football hooligans who organise in local tribes only to suspend all ties for national gangs. So I reject your idea that genetics act as an impossible barrier.
    Fair enough. My point was only to make it clear that “capitalism” means several hundred things.
    That is a stretch. Should we throw out the entirety of German philosophy and teach Kant, Husserl, Nietzsche, etc. as fascists responsible for industrial genocides world-wide?
    I wouldn’t call the Gold Rush immigration of America and Australia slow. I wound’t call the Irish diaspora slow. I wouldn’t call the Tamil immigration in Sri-Lanka slow.

    Yes, some change is slow but that is not the nature of change. In all cases with change, there is turbulence before calm.
    Indeed but I was referring to your insistence that you are the logical and rational party in this exchange.
    Of [Realism]
    You are free to make any judgements you want. I’m simply saying that there is more to your convictions about SocJus and irrationality than what is actually there. Which I think is true of everybody, right, left, centre, independent etc.


    1. [SocJus]



      Not all change is growth, unfortunately. And history will judge whether the philosophy as a whole will survive its current apostles. If shit gets bad enough I suspect a generation-wide skewing in the opposite direction. I might live to see the ascent of nationalism in Europe. Or the globalists win. Either way, interesting times.


      It becomes a cost/benefit analysis does it not? Do the pros outweigh the cons? Is it even in my interest, or in the interest of the average practitioner of the elfgame, to support inclusivity, in the absence of retribution from the shriekmobs of Truth and Justice? There are philosophical problems to be solved, even if we disregard the current polarization.


      In some cases the view of colonization as a neccesary evil is apt. One would be remiss in not pointing out the cannibalistic or human sacrifice practices of the Aztecs or Mayas, or the burning of widows on the funeral pyres of their deceased husbands in Inda and not see that some customs are best changed. I will agree that as a whole, the process is mainly an expansion of power from the colonising nation.

      [Cultural Marxist]

      I think it is the means and behaviour, not the purported ends, that are the largest source of resistance to the current progressivist wave (the advocacy of some for abhorrent practices like transgender surgery for children, mass migration, supression of legitimate criticism under the guise of trolling or harassment or the normalisation of pedophilia nonwithstanding).


      As personal motivation I do not find that incredible. However, from the rhetoric of many laymen Soc Jus adherents it is not difficult to find astonishingly ill-informed anti-western sentiments (e.g white men caused slavery [I fucking hope that sentiment is rare] meritocracy is the tool of the patriarchy blah blah etc. etc.).


      Being on the average more savage or violent or backward or irrational does not strip one of one’s humanity.
      The act of observing a behavioural tendency in physical reality cannot be an indicator of racism if it is true, nor should it be able to function like one.

      [Western Ideals]

      They should and we shall see if they do. Exactly what western ideals emerge from the boiling cauldron of the next few decades is something we will be able to observe with our own eyes of course.

      [Fallen Empire]

      Debatable. The Dark Ages are often characterised as backwards and violent and this would have been true post collapse but even during the dark ages there was innovation, a re-examination of classic philosophy to see if it was compatible with christian theology and a gradual climb back to civilisation. The invention of the scientific method as the engine for constant societal progress and achievement cannot be understated.

      With the questionable exception of the short-lived Golden Age of the Islamic Empire, no other civilisation has managed to sustain or produce even the philosophical beginnings to fuel such technological expansion. It is not untruthful to characterize historical europe as dark and violent but the same may be said of nearly every noteworthy civilisation in history.

      Diversity as an engine of progress has merit but I think we are conflating the exchange of knowledge, trade and technology (also war as an engine of progress) between seperate civilisations with the intermingling and fusion of disparate ethnical and cultural groups within nations, which does not have the same track record (and under less then favourable conditions, a reverse track record).

      Over a longer historical period we survived by outbreeding, killing or intermingling with our fellow humanoids. The reason you no longer see australopithocenes, cro-magnons, neanderthals and so on is we competed for the same space and one of us had to go. History is violent.


      Then his argument is erronous, because the interesting shit happens on the side of those extremes. Not to mention that his assumption is not supported by the evidence nor the normal distribution of IQ, which is universal and does not vary overmuch between ethnicities or nations. I will attempt to illustrate on what scale we are working.

      Having, say, a 15 point difference (which you can find certainly find examples of), has a colossal effect on the capabilities of a country. If we take the 15 point example, the indigen population with a mean score of 100 will have about 34% of its population in the 100-115 range (higher but not highest education), whereas the migrant population will have around 13% in that range, slightly more then a third. If we look at the 115-130 range, which is reserved for the highest education (with some specialisations requiring even higher average IQs to perform satisfactorily), the difference is even more pronounced, 13% versus around 2.5%. More then 5 times less likely.

      Thus, any country finding itself blessed with an enrichment of migrants from lower IQ countries, which coincidentally happen to be poor and violent and thus more likely to have an outflux of migrants, who on the whole maintain high birth rates to offset infant mortality or an often chaotic environment which are entirely supported if not actively encouraged under the lamentably unsustainable European welfare state model will find itself with not only a wholly naturally induced imbalance of income and power even under conditions of absolute xenophilia but also a swelling of the lower IQ brackets, where the crime happens. Even a 10% drop in engineers and technical personel is a formidable logistical challenge for the average high-tech nation state. With the kind of population replacement we are talking about, the migrant population simply does not have the intellectual carrying capacity to maintain a 1st world nation. Diversity reaps its dread harvest.


      Thus far, attempts at inducing multi-culturalism in the west have been fairly successful (and now we start to see the cracks!), but to in my opinion the flaw is twofold.

      In the overzealous overextension of the progressive agenda into all aspects of culture (e.g the personal is political), which is perceived as domineering, anti-liberal and belligerent, and in instilling the same attitudes in the non-indigent populations they are supposed to protect. Progressivism (in a way like communism) is a so called Public Good dillema, it works really well if it is practiced by everyone but it works even better if it is practiced by everyone that is not you. This is where the habitual hissing and finger pointing at jewish intellectuals usually begins, but suffice it to say, a profoundly intolerant and tribalistic society masquerading under the progressivist banner will flourish in any multicultural, tolerant society until the man behind the curtain pops out and then the knives are sharpened.

      [Demographic shift]

      Nothing is forever. But defeat against inferior foes without a college try is lamentable and should be avoided. Don’t count us out just yet my friend. The long peace has sapped us of our strength, but we will remember before the end.


      The platonic model of the safe space is supposed to be an environment where the afflicted can languish and nurture imaginary wounds without fear of harassment, criticism, harmful opinions and xe may feel safe no? This does not violate your hardline inclusive sentiment. However, if the safe space exists it should not be allowed to exclude anyone on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation or various mental imbalances if it to confirm to this paradigm, and the call for various ethnically seperated safe spaces in contemporary and hilarious college outrage culture and of course the need for female spaces would in both cases violate this premise.


      Not an impossible barrier so much as a mechanism that needs constant and vigorous fine-tuning with diminishing returns as you try to adjust ever more minute and instinctive behaviour. I do not find black women on the whole very attractive for example. This is making a distinction in my dating behaviour on a personal preference. There are some who would decry this as racism. Ending racism is like ending crime or fear. You can work towards it, and it is a good goal, but you are going to hit the law of diminishing returns eventually. Perhaps you have already hit it.


      Noted and agreed.


      Nietzsche’s body of work is hardly in line with the fascism of the nazi party, beyond the borrowing of some terminology, one would have to explain the rise of similar dictators in spain and italy, if not turkey and france who lacked such a background entirely. I shall concede an entire body of philosophy cannot be thrown out solely on the basis of the chronic misbehaviour of a contingent of its laymen adherents until I can point to any philosophical foundations and take an adamntium-tipped axe to them. On that day I will rise once more.


      Those are good examples of destructive, fast demographic shifts, so why would you voluntarily submit yourself to it? The fact everything quiets down afterward is a non-point, similar to pointing out the peace that inevitably follows a war as a good reason for starting one.


      I of course have not budged an inch from this initial starting position (braying laughter, spilling of whiskey, i have had my fun etc. etc.).

      [There is more]

      I cannot logically disagree with an assertion of my non-omniscience nor an assertion that my two humble articles of my rape at the hands of native americans fail to provide a comprehensive coverage of such a broad subject so i will instead resort to calling you a liar and ask for proof since that seems to be the OSR-shortrack to being a “crazy smart guy.”


      Theories should strive towards mutual compatibility and integration into a comprehensive framework. A sociological model that does not take into account biological or physical facts is one that receives my skepticism from the get go.


      Its cool. Thank you for your kind words. I cannot preclude the possibility of similar articles in the future but the bulk of my articles are elfgame-related and will remain so.


      1. [kawm]
        A generational skewering is happening and Nationalism is already ascending. The credibility given to Nick Land and the revising of Traditionalist philosophies of Evola through the Dark Englightment speaks to this. Europe’s far right from Greece to Hungry to Sweden to Russia is pretty well established as well.

        While you accuse me of supporting the killing of all white-men, we’ll see if the faction you supports starts killing non-white people.
        I think it becomes a question of liberty. Those who want it are free to vote with their wallet and if companies comply then that’s cool. If they don’t then you have your exclusive games. The bulk of SocJus people just vote economically. This is the nature of identity politics. It’s an individual choice.
        Eh, I don’t buy into any justification of white man’s burden. Sure, through Christianity the notion of the social sacrifice has become more symbolic rather than material but to say these societies were more violent would be going too far or at least evidence is impossible because of questions of record keeping between historical cultures.
        [Cultural Marxist]
        I’m pretty sure transgender surgery would be against the Hippocratic oath and that if such practices are widespread then we have a medical ethnics emergency. I’m fairly confident that this is a straw man. Mass migration is due to geopolitical wars whose genesis is among the neoliberal glory days. It wasn’t created by SocJus people and if it is a question of helping vs letting families die in war zones then the movement is morally and logically obliged to try and help these people. Another straw-man, it’s development has nothing to do with the movement. Trolling isn’t a SocJus exclusive problem. Normalisation of pedophila? That’s ridiculous and anti-feminist. I doubt anybody but actual pedophiles are that extreme.
        I’ve not seen any of those statements. Nobody really created slavery but that doesn’t mean we don’t have social ills that need reconciliation because of the transatlantic slave trade.
        Oh please. That’s just ridiculous. Moral and cultural norms are in the eye-of-the-beholder. Your judgement on what is and isn’t savage is extremely biased just like anybody else’s. You can no claim on objectivity here.
        [Fallen Empire]
        The Dark Ages isn’t the sum-total. The Wars of Religion, The Napolanic Wars, World Wars I and II, The Crusades (I mean, Europeans killing Europeans here), not to mention the intellectual theories behind these events.

        I’m not saying Europe is bad but I challenge this notion of European supremacy. You’ve had just as much fucked up wars and injustice and backwards thinking as the rest of the world. Yes, Europe has contributed a lot but it does not take away what Europe has gained from the rest of the world.
        No, it isn’t. Your assumption that quantitative analysis is universal is erroneous. I’ll let his work stand on it’s own, however. He had the PHD in science, not me.

        To address the effects on a country. Until we have a standardised way to collect such data to a falsifiable framework to compare it then there is nothing of interest to be gained from such analysis because the data itself would just be a vague.

        This is my major concern with macro-sociology. We haven’t found a way to control for cultural bias, yet.
        Okay, I disagree but I don’t see what that has to do with our understanding of social power.
        [Demographic shift]
        Lol, inferior. You certainly are a rational and unbiased being.
        No, that is not what safe-spaces are. If you believe post-traumatic stress to be an imaginary wound then I wonder just what kind of practice you run.

        Safe Spaces are an attempt to navigate individual freedom with public space. If a victim has a legal right to protection from an attacker then how do we solve this problem. The safe space was conceived and used in courts to ensure victims will feel safe and testify thus improving justice. It’s commonly associated with women who have been raped but that is not it’s only function. It extends to all victims.
        I know that is not true because I am a person who has no genetic or biological predilections whether it be social, sexual, or personal. To say that you can’t end something that is only as recent as race theory itself is preposterous.
        Who is responsible for what is beside the point. I was just pointing out the absurdity of any individual or body of thought being held morally responsible for bad things.
        Those examples are of populations who have contributed immeasurably to their new societies, despite periods of turmoil. It seems you have a shifting concept of what immigration failure is.
        Which is the point. Skepticism and doubt are the bread and butter of reason. Total confidence is always suspicious.
        I think sociology will survive your non-confidence. There are good reasons why the scientific method separates theories of discipline and shy away from “big” theory. It’s one thing to deal with atomic or material observations and quite another to try to apply them to something which exists in essence abstractly (society). While you think of me as a social progressive, the truth is I’m an academic and social-policy conservative who believes in decade long studies and trials.

        What you propose in applying big theory to social policy leads to total disaster. I.E Social Darwinism.
        [There is more]
        The proof is here in the conversation but if I am a liar then this is my last post. Feel free to demonise me in anyway you see fit.


  12. Oh, a paragraph got nuked:

    The reason why I don’t oppose what is specifically going on with in other faculties is mainly due to the influence of Bourdieu’s Pascalian Meditations. A general theme being that one ought not use theories designed to explain one aspect of humanity to explain another. A case for specialist focus and a strive for understanding opponents rather than dismissing them based on said specialisation. I’m more than happy to add to the discourse but trashing it is counter-productive.

    The reason I over reach to talk to you is because I enjoy the quality of your writing. This turn to hatchet-man takes away from that and gives me one less place for elf-game fixes. A scare resource in our current internet climate.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s