Now this guy is serious about dominoes!

Something a little light-hearted:

Posted in Humour. Tags: . Leave a Comment »

A contrast between conservative and libertarian views

This is an excellent video that demonstrates some of the big differences between libertarians and conservatives.

Even though I am not a fan of Ann Coulter, I do think she represents the conservative position rather accurately – or, perhaps that is why I am not a fan of Ann Coulter…

Internet Defense League

Just received this:

Dear Internet Defense League member,

Last year, right on the heels of our historic victory against SOPA, a piece of really nasty legislation almost passed that would have radically undermined online privacy.

It was called CISPA.  And it raced through the US House of Representatives, passing before any of us had a chance to react.  We stalled the bill in the Senate, but now CISPA is back, and we don’t want to make the same mistake twice.  Before there is *any* movement on the bill, we want to send a strong message to Congress that CISPA shouldn’t pass.

That’s why we’re partnering with the Electronic Frontier Foundation to launch an Internet Defense League action starting tomorrow, Tuesday March 19th.

Can you participate? If so, get the code for your site here: http://members.internetdefenseleague.org

And help get more people signed up by sharing this page with your social network:

      

Wait, what is CISPA?  And why does it matter so much?

CISPA (the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) would give companies complete freedom to share your personal data with the US government.  It doesn’t *require* them to do so, but if the government asked it would be hard to say no, and they’d have no reason to– CISPA would free them from any promises made to customers in public statements or privacy policies.

Your emails, your Facebook account, your bank statements, the websites you visit, your real-time location (courtesy of your cellphone company)– all of it could soon belong to a slew of government agencies and even local police, who could use it against you without a warrant.

Get the code: http://members.internetdefenseleague.org

The IDL action will display only tomorrow. The banner looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/mVG9kVX.png The modal looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/tCOtoEC.png

And they both link to this action page hosted by the EFF: https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9048

Please spread the word.

Thanks!  Sincerely,
Holmes Wilson – Internet Defense League

P.S. If you’d like to learn more about CISPA, the EFF has a great FAQ page here: https://www.eff.org/cybersecurity-bill-faq

Thoughts on the state of feminism…

It seems timely that, just after publishing Thunderf00t’s critique of a particularly silly feminist and the comments to it (one of which, CodeSlinger’s, I had turned into a post of its own), I came across an interesting article.

In it, a self-described feminists recounts a talk by a former radical feminist, attended by (among others) feminists from modern academic circles.  Her article is titled ‘Why women’s studies needs an extreme makeover’.  It is a most interesting read…

In it, the author, Emma Teitel, quotes the speaker, Janice Fiamengo, as well as gives her own opinions on the evening.  I’d like to pique your curiosity with little quotes from both (or, rather, Teitel quoting Fiamengo).

The discipline has devolved into an “intellectually incoherent and dishonest” one, she argued, replacing a “callow set of slogans for real thought.” It’s man-hating, anti-Western, and fundamentally illiberal. “It champions a “kind of masculinity that isn’t very masculine at all,” and shuts down freedom of debate, hence the fire alarm. [the fire alarm was used in an attempt to cancel the event]

She referenced the male to female death ratio on the Titanic, and declared that “self sacrifice and heroism are not exclusive to men,” “but they are distinctive to men.” Students scowled behind their wayfarers. She railed against affirmative action, a family court system skewed unjustly to favour mothers over fathers, and the deep vein of anti-Western sentiment running through academic feminism that makes it okay to decry gender inequality in the West, and keep quiet about vaginal mutilation and honour killings in the East.  [my emphasis]

The women’s studies crowd looked constipated. Fiamengo’s arguments weren’t going down easy, this one—her best—in particular: women’s studies “can’t be about the pursuit of truth” because it has an “ideological base.” Its goal is to push the ideology that women are victims and men are perpetrators. Therefore, any evidence to the contrary, regardless of its veracity, is unwelcome. In other words, ideology censors truth. “If you believe you are righteous,” she said, “you don’t challenge other views.”[my emphasis]

She also writes about the Q&A that followed:

Almost every pro-women’s studies person who approached the mic last night, spoke another language, a jargon you might misconstrue as scientific–only the words they used weren’t shortcuts meant to simplify or summarize complex concepts, they were used to make simple concepts sound complex: Hegemonic, racialized, problematic, intersectionality. It was pure obfuscation, 1984 with tattoos and septum piercings. Some of the students couldn’t even string together a single lucid sentence. All they had were these meaningless, monolithic words. I felt like I was on a game show, the exercise being how many times can you say patriarchal, phallocentric hegemony in 45 seconds or less. It was frankly, for a feminist, depressing.

A thoroughly thought-provoking read!

H/T:  BCF

CodeSlinger speaks on feminism

CodeSlinger has some very insightful things to say on the topic of ‘feminism’ – I think they are important enough to deserve a post of their own:

Don’t kid yourself: feminism isn’t about helping women.

It preys on their psychological vulnerabilities and destroys their ability to be happy and participate in a loving, healthy family. Feminism makes women incompatible with men and then feeds on the resulting disappointment and rage.

Feminism is institutionalized penis envy.

It is instinctive for a woman to challenge and test her mate, first by goading him to fight other men, and later by attempting to undermine his dominance. The man who passes these tests will earn her love and respect; the one who fails will get nothing but loathing and contempt.

Normally, this testing eventually comes to an end as the woman matures and the man has proved his ability to remain in calm control. But modern schooling and media see to it that this cannot happen by creating a society of adult children. The females never grow out of the testing stage, and the males never achieve the maturity to pass the tests.

Feminism gives girls, and boys, an arsenal of high-sounding psychobabble with which to rationalize and justify remaining in their state of arrested development, and propagates this pathological state of affairs by demonizing its natural resolution — the male-dominated family. And the loathing and contempt which women feel for men in modern Western society is the predictable — intended! — result.

Furthermore, feminism is the handmaiden of Marxism.

It is not in the interest of the totalitarian corporocratic state for there to be strong families who look to the father for guidance and protection. This tyrannical corporation-state amalgam has arrogated these roles unto itself. Therefore, the father must be undermined and rendered impotent, causing the mother to abandon the family and turn to the totalitarian system in a Faustian bargain for security. And that is the task for which feminism was created.

The totalitarian corporocratic state — by which I mean the incestuously intertwined nest of snakes born of the unnatural union of big government and big business, which oppresses the people by violating their inalienable individual rights, and exploits them by privatizing the profits and socializing the losses of the entire economy — cannot take root in a flourishing Western society based on classical liberal principles and composed of responsible, self-reliant individuals who belong to strong traditional families embedded in healthy thriving communities.

This is why the Marxist revolutions which swept much of the globe a century ago got no traction in the West. In the intervening decades, the undermining of the moral, philosophical, social and economic foundations of Western society has had one overarching goal, and that is to bring the West to its knees in capitulation to the global totalitarian corporocratic state.

Feminism, from its inception, was — and remains — the thin edge of the wedge which is driving us to that point.

Feminism is not about helping women.

Never was, never will be.

Thunderf00t: Feminism versus FACTS

Pat Condell: Pigs Will Fly