Sunday, May 24, 2015

Why does everything consume so much RAM in Windows?

You may already have guessed what this screenshot is from from the title of this post, but if not, take a guess:

That's right, it's the RAM usage column of Windows' task manager. Do you notice something particular about it?

That's right, not a single process is taking less than 1 MB of RAM.

And mind you, I was not running any programs when I took this screenshot, with the exception of Skype (which is that 144 MB hog) and task manager itself. (And mind you, I just restarted Skype a few minutes before taking the screenshot. It's not like it has been running for days. This is the minimum that it takes.)

Why, oh why does everything in Windows take up so much RAM? Everything, and I mean everything, takes several megabytes of RAM. Heck, I can't find a single Windows program that would take less.

Perhaps Minesweeper? After all, it's one of the most rudimentary games in existence. Nope. A whopping 51 MB.

Notepad? Ok, it's a text editor, but it's extremely simplistic. Nope. Almost 2 MB.

How about calc? Surely that can't take much RAM right? Almost 7 MB. Even more than Notepad, even though calc does something extremely simple.

All those things that are listed in the screenshot are system services and background processes. Even the smallest one of them takes 1.1 MB of RAM. Not a single one takes less than that.

But consider Skype in particular. There's absolutely no rational reason why it should be taking 144MB of RAM. There's absolutely nothing in it that would require even a tenth of that. Yet it simply does, because reasons.

I believe that the fundamental reason behind all of this is highly incompetent and lazy programming. The kind of programming that simply doesn't care one iota about memory consumption, and liberally uses lots and lots of extremely wasteful data containers and other such routines with complete disregard to whether they are the right ones for the job, how many resources they will take, or if they are even needed at all. Things that any competent programmer wouldn't even think of using; it would just not even occur to them (instead they would naturally use something more efficient and more suitable for the task). And all this turned up to eleven.

The hypocrisy of Anita Sarkeesian

Anita Sarkeesian is, essentially, the face of the modern feminist movement of depicting video games as inherently sexist and misogynist to the core, painting both the video game industry and gamers as lowlife scum who hate women and consider them nothing more than sex objects. Sarkeesian has been enormously successful in this task, destroying most of the credibility that video gaming has painfully gained during the past decades, devolving it back into the "stone age" of video gaming (from the non-gaming public point of view), where gamers are lonely sex-starved nerds, and games are little more than just digital porn to satisfy them. And on top of that, she has got rich by playing the victim when gamers have protested against such an egregiously stereotypical and false depiction. (There's basically nothing that gamers can do to fix this. If they wouldn't protest, all those false claims would go uncontested. If they do protest, she plays the victim and is showered with pity money and awards. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. There's no winning this fight.)

Sarkeesian has made a half dozen videos (over a span of over two years, even though her initial promise was to make over a dozen videos over a span of about a half year or so, but never mind that) hammering on this concept. Games are inherently sexist, female characters are always treated as objects for the player to abuse, and so on and so on.

Then she goes on and undermines her own claims by starting a sub-series on positive female characters in video games. But never mind that. Let's examine what she considers "positive female characters".

The first video deals with a game named "The Scythian". She describes the playable character as follows:
It’s not just in the visual sense that the Scythian lacks clear definition. We know very little about her history, and nothing about why she has undertaken the quest to defeat an ancient evil. While games often give us images of heroes who are fated to defeat evil forces, it’s rare for these heroes of myth to be women. Like many video game heroes, the Scythian is essentially a silent protagonist, a figure defined primarily by her actions, which makes her a blank slate for all players to project themselves onto. But while we don’t actually hear her speak to other characters, a bit of the Scythian’s personality does come through as her thoughts serve as a kind of narration for the story.
And if you are wondering what she means by the playable character lacking "clear definition" in the visual sense, it means that the playable character looks like this:

In other words, this "positive female character" that Sarkeesian promotes has no voice, no backstory, no personality traits to speak of, no clear motivations, and even visually with no defining characteristics (being so blocky and abstracted away that it's even impossible to tell she's supposed to be a woman at all.) She's a "blank slate" with little to no pre-defined characteristics.

In other words, according to Anita Sarkeesian, a "positive female character" is essentially a non-descript object. A puppet. A blank object with no characteristics and nothing that would make it feel like an actual person.

And then she complains that the gaming industry objectifies women...

But even putting that hypocrisy aside, the major problem with this "positive female character" is that she actually isn't. A "female character", that is. Even by her own description this character has absolutely nothing to actually make it a "female" character; it could just as well be a man, a woman, a robot, an alien, or a fantastic creature like an elf or a fairy. The character doesn't look like a woman and has no backstory, personality or any other characteristics that would make it a woman. So how exactly is this a "positive female character"? Is Anita's concept of a "positive female character" one that's only a woman in name but has absolutely no features that would distinguish her from a robot or an alien? Or a male character, for that matter.

But not to worry, Sarkeesian turns everything around in her next video in the series. In this case it's Beyond Good and Evil. It seems that this character:

is A-ok. If you have followed Sarkeesian at all, you would know that she thinks that this character is not:

Yes, she has explicitly derided even the new Lara Croft as objectionable. And yes, she goes on to describe how Jade (the protagonist of Beyond Good and Evil) is visually designed in a manner that she approves. While, somehow, apparently Lara Croft is not, as she has expressed in the past.

This video is, in fact, a perfect example of how you can spin anything into suiting whatever narrative you want. You simply have to pick&choose tidbits of the game and portray them in the light you want to promote. She has done that with games like Hitman Absolution (where she cherry-picked portions of the game and disingenuously portrayed them to make it look like the game is horribly sexist.) In this case she's cherry-picking Beyond Good and Evil to depict the opposite narrative, ie. that of a game with a "positive" female character.

For example, she describes her characterization as non-violent (which she considers a good thing), while blatantly ignoring that fighting is the main game mechanic, and encompasses a big portion of the game. Sarkeesian has in the past derided many games for having a female character being kidnapped or held prisoner and then being rescued (ie. "damsel in distress"), while in this game she actually depicts it in a positive manner! Yes, Jade gets kidnapped a couple of times and is rescued by the male sidekick... but somehow in this particular game that's A-ok, while in most other games it's not.

As said, this is an excellent example of how you can spin anything to fit your narrative. It would be perfectly possible to depict this game in the exact opposite light, by cherry-picking different things and showing them in a negative light, deriding Jade's appearance rather than praising it, etc.

And of course, since all feminists are absolutely obsessed with race, she has to mention that Jade is "of color", as one of her "positive characteristics". As if that were relevant in any way. If anything, the character is of ambiguous ethnicity, and it's not emphasized in any way (which is a good thing, IMO.) But of course, as a feminist, Sarkeesian has to consider not being white a positive characteristic.

(Btw, am I the only one who is bothered by that expression "person of color"? It feels like it's trying so hard to not be racist, while being quite racist. Also it's technically inaccurate because 1) the skin of a "white" person is actually never pure white, and 2) "white" is actually a color. Using "person of color" IMO only emphasizes the "us vs. them" mentality of white vs. non-white people.)

There are some indications that Sarkeesian has never even played this game herself. (For example she mispronounces the name of the city where the game events happen, even though it's mentioned many times in the voice acting of the game.) It's also likely that she didn't write the script for the video, at most revised it slightly (Jonathan McIntosh is officially one of the produces and writers of the show, and he's known to write most if not all the scripts.) In fact, and while this is subjective, if you watch the video, it really looks like she's just mechanically reading from a script rather than telling the audience what she has thought of herself. Yet, she has made the claim that she's a "gamer" and that she plays the games she reviews and does "extensive research" on them.

(Now, don't get me wrong. Beyond Good and Evil is an excellent game, and the characterization of the playable and non-playable characters is good. That's not the problem. The problem is that Sarkeesian, or McIntosh, or whoever is behind the video series, shows hypocrisy by treating this particular game as exceptional and extraordinary among all other games, and applies different standards to it than to other games with female (or even male) protagonists, that are in fact inaccurate and disingenuous. She also dismisses or spins around tropes and characteristics that she has berated many other games of using, such as the "damsel in distress" trope or solving problems with violence. Even here, when talking positively of a game, she picks&chooses certain aspects, de-emphasizing if not even hiding others, such as the prevalence of the combat mechanics, a tactic she has used in the other direction with other games, a tactic that works for people who have never played the game.)

And by the way, do you want to know where at least part of that half a million dollars of pity money she has got has gone (instead of being used to actually make the videos she promised)? Ok, this is just pure speculation, but consider the two images below. The one on the left is from 2012, from her kickstarter project video, before she got all that money. The one on the right is from 2015, after she has become half a million dollars richer (if not even more, as her other earnings are undisclosed.) I'm not claiming anything, but just compare the two images...

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Have video games become too big for their own good?

It's often said (and it might be true) that currently the video game industry is larger (in term of budgets) than the film industry. In other words, a typical large AAA video game production will have a larger budget than a typical blockbuster movie production.

In other words, the biggest games have budgets that are over 100 million dollars. Sometimes a lot more.

This is great from a gamer's point of view. This means that we are getting some really epic games of absolutely vast size (both in content and in quality). These games really push the limit of what can be done with video games.

But the thing is, it may turn out that the video game industry is becoming too large for its own good. Why? Because a game will only sell so many copies.

20 years ago, heck, even 10 years ago, a video game selling 2 million copies was an absolutely humongous success of epic proportions. Nowadays, however, we have reached a point where a video game selling 2 million copies is a disappointment (to the producers and investors). We have reached a point were 2 million copies means that the game sold poorly, and is considered more or less a failure.

The reason for this is that nowadays game budgets are so much bigger than they were 20 or even just 10 years ago, yet games are not selling more in equivalent proportion. Game budgets may have increased something like ten-fold, but not sales figures.

And this may end up being the bane of the AAA video game industry. The investor money would be there, but it's not a profitable investment if the product doesn't sell enough. And in many cases, it just doesn't, no matter how much production values are put into it.

What this may well result in is a reduction in budgets, cheapening of video game production, and lowering of production values. Which means that we might not be getting video games of such epic magnitude as one could expect for the contemporary hardware, assuming no budget limits. The magnitude of the games will be limited by smaller budgets. Which will be a big shame, really.

I hope that this will not happen, but I'm afraid that it very well might.

Monday, May 18, 2015

Universities becoming totalitarian dictatorships, part 2

I wrote previously how the universities in many countries are changing from bastions of academic freedom and free speech into totalitarian fascist hellholes that are becoming more and more nazi-like.

It seems that the more time passes, the worse it's getting. Not only will you become a persona non grata if you present unpopular opinions or criticism of social justice warriors, it seems that we are slowly going into a situation where merely being a white male is enough for you to be an undesirable person. That's right, you don't even have to do anything or express any opinions; simply by existing and being of the wrong race and gender is enough.

"That's MRA talk!" Maybe it is. Heck, I hope it is only that. Yet, more and more news is coming out of social justice warriors, especially at universities, being racist against white people for the sole reason that they are white, and nothing else.

For example: University Report: A Room Full of White People Is a Microaggression.

That's right. They don't need to do anything or say anything. Just they existing and being there is considered offensive and "triggering".

Or how about the racist comments by a Boston University professor, like: "why is white america so reluctant to identify white college males as a problem population?"

That's right. If you are a white male, and you are in a college, you are a "problem population". You don't even need to do anything other than be white and male. You are undesirable. You are a second-class citizen. You are vermin.

Substitute "white male" for "jew" and those sentiments would fit right into nazi propaganda.

White people have been banned from an ‘anti-racism’ event at a British university. Why? Because they are white. No other reason. And this is somehow not discrimination nor racism. And the event is about fighting racism. Let that sink in for a moment.

Kennesaw State Student Told That Waiting For An Advisor Is 'Harassing'. Can you guess the gender? Can you guess the gender of the person who told him that?

Apparently simply waiting, doing nothing, is now "harassment". And I would bet all my money that if that student had been female, no such accusations would have been thrown at him.

And if you think these are the only examples, that I'm grasping at straws, you would be wrong.

Sunday, May 17, 2015

The concept of "cultural appropriation" is racist

Treating people not as individuals, but as members of an ethnic group, in other words, classifying people by their ethnicity, and then attributing to all members of that group certain characteristics, responsibilities or achievements, based on the sole premise that they belong to that ethnic group, is racism. You might not think it's racism, but it is the very definition of racism. It's exactly what racism is about.

Saying that a person has some responsibilities or deserves some kind of recognition because said person belongs to a specific ethnic group, and because those responsibilities or recognition are inherently attributed to that ethnic group as a whole, is racism. In other words, not looking at the person as an individual, looking at his or her own accomplishments, works and achievements, but instead only seeing the ethnic group rather than the individual, just because that person happens to have a certain skin color, is racism.

The whole concept of "cultural appropriation" is inherently racist for those reasons. I don't mean that cultural appropriation is racist. I'm saying that the concept itself is racist. It's racist because it does not treat people as individuals, but instead categorizes them into groups based on race, and assigns privileges and responsibilities based in that race. It gives some people extra privileges or extra responsibilities for belonging to a race (rather than because of personal achievements. In other words, it doesn't matter if you deserve those privileges or responsibilities because of what you have done; you deserve them because of your skin color.)

If you promote the concept of "cultural appropriation", then you are a racist. I'm sorry, but you are. You are dividing people into groups based on their race, and assigning privileges and responsibilities onto them based solely on that, disregarding their personal achievements. That's pure racism. It doesn't matter what your skin color may happen to be, if you promote the concept, then you are a racist by definition.

The whole "cultural appropriation" thing is nothing more than a new form of "equal but separate" racist ideology masquerading as some kind of social justice.

The privatization of government-owned services

In a working welfare state there usually are many government-owned companies and services that provide some of the most basic services to the citizens, such as healthcare, public transportation, mail services, and so on.

The core idea for this is that these tax-funded services are (usually) cheaper to the consumer than the equivalent privately-owned service. After all, they are already tax-funded, so it's in principle a form of wealth-distribution: Taxpayers are funding a service from which everybody, especially the poorer citizens, benefit. This means that even poorer people can afford the most basic of needs, such as healthcare, transportation and mail.

There has been a trend in many countries in recent decades to get rid of these government-owned basic services, and sell them to private organizations. This goes against everything that I wrote above. It goes against the very core of a welfare system, where the government looks after the well-being of its citizens.

This goes against the principle, and is quite inexcusable, even if the service in question is not profitable to the government. In other words, if the service consumes more tax-payer money than it brings in. It might not be profitable, but it's a service that tax-payers are funding for themselves. It's a wealth distribution system that benefits everybody.

One could make some kind of argument if such a service is highly unprofitable, and is losing tax-payer money like mad. In that case a careful analysis ought to be made which is overall better for the citizens: Keep that money sink for the benefit of the citizens, or just sell it to some private company (which invariably will mean that the service will become significantly more expensive to the consumers).

However, and this is the crux of all this, privatization is completely incomprehensible and insane when the service in question is actually profitable to the government. In other words, when the service is actually bringing more money to the government's coffers than it's taking.

A profitable government-owned service not only means that it's not taking any tax-payer money at all to fund (because it's funding itself), it actually benefits the government because it's a source of money. This is the absolute best possible scenario: Citizens are getting a cheap service without even having to have their tax money being allocated to it, and the government benefits from it as well.

Thus privatizing said service, ie. the government selling the service to a private company, is absolutely and completely crazy and incomprehensible.

Yet it happens. For example the British mail service was such a profitable company. And it was privatized. In other words, the British government sold their cash-cow to a private company. It baffles my mind.

This is quite directly a real-life case of the goose that laid the golden egg fable. In other words, killing a cash-cow (or in the fable, a goose that lays golden eggs) for a quick buck, thus stopping the inflow of money for a temporary profit. Why the British government decided to do this? Who knows.

Needless to say, and quite unsurprisingly, the price of the mail service sky-rocketed soon afterwards. Everybody lost. The citizens lost, the government lost... who knows, perhaps even that private company lost in the end as well. It makes no sense.

And the thing is, this is by far not the only example. Privatization of public services seems to be some kind of mental illness spreading throughout the world, and everybody loses.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

The problem with a common name and gmail

I have a relatively common name and surname here in Finland, and I was lucky enough that I got a Gmail invite pretty soon after it launched, so I got an email address with purely my name and surname (ie. without any numbers, additional letters, or other such extraneous characters). This is extraordinarily rare with Gmail nowadays, especially if you have a common name-surname pair, because they are naturally all taken long time ago.

There's one minor "problem" with this, however. (Not really a problem per se; it's more amusing than annoying, if anything.) And it's that I semi-regularly receive emails intended for other people with the same name as me. I'd estimate that on average I get about one email per month like this.

These emails are often official in nature, and include things like insurance documents, school diploma certificates, product or service offers (that are clearly in response to a request by the original person) and so on and so forth. Almost invariably when I examine the email or the documents, it turns out that they are intended for someone with the same first name and surname as me (but often a different middle name), usually living in a completely different part of the country.

What I think is happening with most (if not all) of these is that somebody (with the same name as me) has called an office or service by phone, and given their email by that channel, and the person on the other end misunderstands or mistypes the given email, leaving out some extra character (such as a letter or a number separated by dots in the email address), leaving only the first name and surname in the address... which happens to be my email address.

And they are all from completely different sources. It's not like it's the same organization or institution sending the emails to the wrong address. It's always something completely different and unrelated.

What I find curious is how regularly this happens. It's not extremely often (perhaps once per month, if not even less frequently), but it has been going on for quite many years. Basically for almost as long as Gmail has existed (although it was significantly rarer in the first years). It seems that there's always somebody with my name who makes a phone call somewhere, and the person on the other end misunderstand the email address...

Monday, May 11, 2015

How should democratic general elections work?

So, we live in a representative democracy, which means that there are representatives in the parliament who we voted there to run the country for our best benefit. The question is: How should voting people for parliament work?

A naive approach is to simply allow people to vote for any candidate that they want, and put a certain amount of the candidates with the most votes on parliament. This might sound like a good system at first, but in fact it really isn't. It has many problems. It may work when voting for a single person who eg. becomes the president of the country, but it doesn't really work when voting for a parliament consisting of over a hundred people. Why?

To understand why, suppose there are 100 parliament seats, and there's a "superstar" candidate who holds a certain political view, and who the majority of citizens, eg. 75%, vote for. The rest of the citizens vote for candidates who hold the opposite political view.

So now there's one representative in parliament who holds the political view supported by the majority, and 99 representatives who hold the opposing view. Obviously that political view is never going to pass any laws because it's one against 99. In other words, in this example, rather ironically, 25% of the population has more political power than the 75% who voted for that one candidate that represents their own views. This is not very good democracy.

Of course this is a very exaggerated example, but it describes well the problem with the "naive" voting system, and it is an actual problem even in actual situations. If the majority of citizens vote for a certain political view, there should be a method by which that view is represented in parliament by approximately that much. One single candidate gathering the majority of votes has, ironically, pretty much the opposite effect.

This is one of the major reasons why political parties (with more or less uniform political views within their members) exist, and why in most countries parliament seats are granted proportionally to each party, rather than blindly to the candidates with the most votes. Although this is not the only method being used.

In the countries where parliament seats are granted to political parties (rather than individuals) this may cause somewhat unintuitive situations where candidates with less votes get to parliament while other candidates with more votes might not. This even if the parliament seats are granted within a party only to those with the most votes (which is usually the case in most countries).

In the example above, if that "superstar" candidate belongs to a given party, and he (and other candidates in his party) receive 75% of the votes, this means that the party gets 75 seats in parliament. Which means that 75 members of that party go to parliament regardless of how many votes they got (yes, even if some of them didn't get any votes at all). All the other parties get the remaining 25 seats, which often leaves out candidates with more votes than those in the majority party.

Thus, if we look only at individual candidates, we may find counter-intuitive situations where some candidate got eg. 1000 votes but did not get to parliament, while another got 1 vote but got there. (This isn't even all that far-fetched, and there probably have been such situations in real life.) When examined in isolation like this, it may seem unfair, but one should understand the larger picture.

However, even this second solution may have its problems in many countries. Often the democracy system in these countries tries to make sure that different parts of the country are represented fairly. Countries are often varied in political views and needs which may vary wildly from region to region.

In the example above, it may well be that all the candidates belonging to the party of the "superstar" candidate, and who also got votes, are for example from the capital city of the country. This would mean that most or all of those 75 seats will be represented by politicians from the capital city. They might not have a high priority for other (eg. more rural) areas. They are most probably going to vote in ways that benefit the citizens living in the capital, without much thought about the other people in the country, who may have rather different needs.

Many countries try to alleviate this problem by limiting the possibility of voting for only local candidates. In other words, even if you would want to vote for that "superstar" candidate, you can't, if he doesn't happen to live in the same area as you. Instead, you are encouraged to vote for other candidates of that same party in your area. This tries to make the representatives more evenly distributed along the entire country.

Again, when examined in isolation, this can seem unfair: If there's a candidate who you agree with and who you would want to vote for, you can't. And why not? Because you just happen to live in the wrong area. When put like this, it may sound like a mockery of democracy. However, once again, there's a bigger picture at play here.

Some countries, like the United Kingdom, use even more elaborate systems. This is why you get such counter-intuitive results of, for example, the Scottish National Party receiving 1.4 million votes and getting 56 parliamentary seats, while the UKIP party got 3.7 million votes and only 1 seat. When given in isolation like this, it's very hard to comprehend how this is even possible.

A working democracy is much harder than one might naively think.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

The actual rape culture, addendum

As a continuation of my previous blog post on "rape culture", there is another form of it that has raised its ugly head during the past few decades, and which is highly destructive and detrimental. It literally destroys lives.

Feminists claim that "rape culture" in our society means that rape accusations are not taken seriously and often dismissed. This is a rather strange claim to make, given that reality is pretty much the exact opposite: Rape accusations are usually taken too seriously, to the far extreme.

As a relatively recent high-profile example, read the case of a Columbia University student whose life has been effectively destroyed because of a persistent rape accusation, even though investigation has cleared him of all charges. This case is far from being unique.

This isn't even a question of whether he's actually guilty or not (he most probably isn't, but that's not my main point). It's a question of how our modern society handles such rape accusations. It's a question of our actual rape culture.

He, like so many others in the same position, is pretty much assumed to be guilty until proven innocent (which means, among other things, that he is treated like sub-human trash, put severe restrictions upon, and being constantly watched and harassed), and even after he's found via investigation to be innocent, he is still assumed to be guilty by the public and the media at large.

To a feminist, and to our society at large, a rape accusation is pretty much the equivalent of a conviction of guilt. If a woman accuses you of rape, then you are automatically guilty. No amount of investigation will ever clear you of that charge. Your life will be ruined. You will always be known as a rapist, no matter how innocent you might be in actuality.

This is our actual rape culture. A woman is incapable of lying when making rape accusations. A rape accusation is all that is needed to know that a man is guilty of rape, especially if she's insistent. It doesn't matter what the evidence says; evidence is completely inconsequential.

This is our actual rape culture. A woman in our society has the power to ruin a man's life forever. That man will forever be shunned from society, be considered a second-class citizen, a sub-human, and his life will most probably never recover.

A woman who has been caught red-handed in a false rape accusation, of ruining another person's life, will seldom, if ever, face any consequences for her lies. This would never, ever, ever happen with the genders reversed.

This, my friend, is our actual rape culture.

Friday, May 1, 2015

Fiercely clinging to a tarnished name: Feminism

The term "feminism" has effectively become a synonym for "extremist political social marxism" because of so many loud and visible extremist feminist actions and opinions. These are the feminists that are actively shutting down academic freedom in the universities of many countries, effectively reversed the burden of proof in rape accusation cases at many places (ie. the accused will be considered guilty unless he can prove his innocence, which is rather hard to do in rape accusation cases; and no, this is not an exaggeration), who rather freely harass men who are completely innocent (even after they have been proven to be completely innocent), disrupt peaceful meetings, sometimes violently and sometimes even breaking the law, who express all kinds of misandrist opinions and actively advocate blatant discrimination against white men for the sole reason that they are white and men (such as forbidding them from applying to leading positions in certain organizations), and so on.

Yet many feminists (both extremists and more "moderate" ones) are fighting tooth and nail to restore the reputation of the tarnished term "feminism". They cling to the claim that "feminism" is an exact synonym for "equal rights", no more, no less (when everybody, including they themselves, know perfectly well that's not the only thing that "feminism" means). They campaign for the restoration of this reputation, they even get to speak in front of the UN on this very subject. The more moderate ones try to claim that those extremists do not represent real feminism.

Saying that "feminism" is just "equal rights for genders", and that if you support equal rights you are a feminist, is like saying that "communism" is just the notion that all workers should have equal rights, and that if you agree that all workers should have equal rights you are a communist.

And yet, even these more moderate feminists ofter resort to intellectually dishonest tactics when doing this. They often paint a picture of an anti-feminist as being an old-fashioned man with sexist attitudes and who simply has stereotypical misconceptions about feminism and doesn't understand it. Unless directly asked, they seldom acknowledge those things I wrote in the starting paragraph above, or that many critics of feminism very well know and understand what both the extremists and the moderates arguments are, and that they have come to their own conclusions based on full information rather than assumptions and stereotypes.

The term "feminism" has been tarnished by the antics of the extremists (and often even not-so-extremists). The term has a bad reputation, both among the general public and especially among the informed critics of feminism. So the question arises: Why are these feminists clinging so vehemently to using the term? Why are they spending so much effort in trying to restore its reputation? Why do they love that particular word so much that they can't just let it go? What exactly is it with that word in particular that's so valuable and dear that it can't be tossed aside? They defend that particular word almost religiously, as if it were sacred.

When I asked this question to a feminist recently, he answered that if using the term "feminist" causes hissy fits and tantrums, it's worth it even for that reason alone. And this isn't actually the first time I have heard this argument.

The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. They advocate using the term precisely because it causes so much opposition and criticism. Then they cry and moan because they get so much opposition and criticism.

Do you know what kind of people deliberately use controversial words to stir trouble? Trolls.

If your clinging to the term amounts to nothing more than troll tactics, then my response is: Thanks, but no thanks. You can keep your religion, I'll stay away from it.