Friday, July 29, 2016

Nvidia, G-sync, greed

Adaptive vsync is the idea that rather than the monitor having a fixed vertical refresh rate and the graphics card synchronizing to it (if you want to avoid screen tearing), ie. the monitor deciding what the refresh rate is, and the graphics card obeying it, we do it the other way around: The graphics card decides what the refresh rate is, and the monitor synchronizes to it. Which means that the refresh rate can be variable. This means in practice that if at some points the game you are playing drops its rendering speed to eg. 53 frames per second, rather than dropping to 30 FPS because the monitor can't handle anything else, the monitor will now use 53 FPS. Or, in other words, the next rendered frame is always shown as soon as it's ready, rather than the system having to wait for the next monitor vsync to show it. The rendering speed can vary from frame to frame, and it doesn't matter: The image will be shown immediately when it's ready (up to the maximum refresh capacity of the monitor, which is usually 144Hz or more.)

(Note that the term "adaptive vsync" is confusingly also used by Nvidia to refer to a mode where, in monitors not supporting any adaptiveness, vsync will simply be turned off if the rendering speed drops below the monitor's maximum, eg. 60 FPS, and turned on again if the rendering speed reaches or surpasses that. This mode shouldn't be confused with the adaptive vsync supported by monitors, which is what this post is about.)

Obviously adaptive vsync requires hardware support from the monitor. It obviously can't work with old monitors. The monitor needs to explicitly support this. There are currently two competing standards: One by Nvidia, G-sync, and one by AMD, FreeSync. They use rather different technologies, and work a bit differently on the inside, technically. Both are proprietary (even though FreeSync is based on a more open standard) and incompatible with each other: A G-sync monitor won't support an AMD card with FreeSync, and the other way around (unless the monitor supports both technologies.) If the monitor does not support the technology, then you simply get your regular old fixed refresh rate.

Apparently there is little technical reason why eg. Nvidia cards couldn't support both G-sync and FreeSync. They are simply refusing to support the latter, for marketing reasons. And (AFAIK) AMD cards can't support G-sync because it's a highly proprietary technology, and Nvidia doesn't want their competition using their flagship technology.

But that's not the major problem with Nvidia's G-sync, though. No, the major problem is that Nvidia is incredibly greedy with it.

For example, the Acer XG270HU and the Acer XB271HU are pretty much the same monitor, except that the former supports FreeSync, while the latter supports G-sync. Otherwise they have pretty much the same specs. Yet the former costs (as of writing this blog post) £441, or 522€, on Amazon UK, while the latter costs £627, or 742€.

Why such an enormous price difference between two monitors that are otherwise pretty much identical? Because that extra £186 / 220€ goes to Nvidia. They charge about that much from display manufacturers for using their proprietary G-sync technology. Meanwhile AMD (AFAIK) doesn't charge anything for using FreeSync technology.

And if you have an Nvidia graphics card, you pretty much don't have a choice. As mentioned, Nvidia doesn't support FreeSync, so either you pay that significant extra money for a G-sync monitor, or you don't get any adaptive vsync at all.

We are effectively being victims of a monopoly here.

Monday, July 25, 2016

Why the teleporting mechanic in room-scale VR sucks

I have been writing blog post after blog post about why I have been so utterly disappointed with VR, especially due to how "room-scale VR"-centric it has turned out to be in practice, and why I think that room-scale VR is not the way to go and has no future.

The fundamental core problem that I have been repeating is movement, movement, movement. The most fundamental core mechanic of the vast majority of video games since they first began existing. In "room-scale VR" your movement is only limited to a few steps, and that's it. (It's also limited to walking those few steps at a slow pace, with no possibility of any other kind of movement that's so ubiquitous to most games, such as jumping, climbing, running and so on and so forth.)

The kludge that room-scale VR implements around this limitation is "teleporting". In other words, because the control system necessarily limits your movement to an extremely small area, without being able to move even moderate distances, this is circumvented by you being able to "teleport" from place to place: Point to a location and press a button, and you will immediately teleport there.

I am just repeating here what I have been writing several times now in previous blog posts. One thing I had never succeeded in doing, though, was to put into words what exactly is the problem with teleporting, and why it sucks all the fun from the game.

Scott Ross (of Freeman's Mind fame) made recently a video (which is a followup video of the first one he made criticizing VR), where he succinctly puts what I have been trying to say in so many blog posts (paraphrasing):

The teleporting mechanic in room-scale VR feels like a step backwards, rather than forwards. It's like going back to the early 90's and games like Myst, where you could look around, but the only way of moving was to "teleport" from place to place.

This was of course done back then because of the severe limitations of the hardware, and the inability of rendering good 3D graphics in real time, allowing for free movement. (Instead, it used pre-rendered static "skybox" images taken from various places, and you could jump between them.)

This is exactly what I have been meaning when I have said that room-scale VR cripples games. It indeed is like going backwards 25 years, in terms of movement mechanics.

VR supporters will defend room-scale VR by saying that all the other mechanics (body tracking, controller tracking, the immersion...) more than makes up for it. I don't think so. Sure, it makes up for some of it, as an experience, but as gameplay mechanics... the fact that you are essentially playing a glorified early-90's Myst with Kinect controls... Urgh.

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Am I a "liberal" or a "conservative"?

If I were living in the United States, I would have really hard time deciding whether I'm a "liberal" or a "conservative". (I understand that there are other options as well, the so called "independent" parties, but in practice supporting them is rather inconsequential because the United States is a heavily, heavily bipartite system, with only two real choices that matter. The third option is effectively, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as not voting at all.)

Sometimes it's actually hard to know what the exact differences are between liberalism and conservatism (at least when talking about American politics). There are quite many things that one would ascribe to liberalism which a conservative would most probably say "we support that too!"

Well, Google is a great tool for this too, and after some quick research, here are a few things that demonstrate that I couldn't in good conscience subscribe solely to either political position. (Note that these are just averages, rather than describing every single individual person in either camp. In other words, a good majority of people in those camps subscribe to these, but not necessarily all of them; and there are probably degrees of acceptance.)

In the question of affirmative action, liberals are in general for (probably with exceptions), while conservatives are in general strongly against. Well, personally I am likewise strongly against it, because I'm an individualist (ie. I believe treating people as individuals, not as members of artificial groups, giving every individual person the same rights regardless of inconsequential superficial characteristics) rather than a collectivist, and I strongly think that affirmative action is sexism and racism in its purest form, and an affront to individual human rights. It's also quite unambiguously illegal and unconstitutional in the United States. I suppose that would make me an ultraconservative in this regard (although I think many "liberals" would agree with me on this as well.)

In the question of death penalty I'm slightly ambivalent, but leaning towards being against it. With this I'm not saying that I support the death penalty; rather, I'm saying that this is not necessarily a clear-cut black-and-white question, and that arguments should be listened and not just rejected outright by putting one's fingers in one's ears and shouting "lalala I can't hear you!" But if I were forced to choose either option, I would definitively choose to be against it. I suppose that would make me fall on the liberal camp.

The question of economy is a difficult one, because I recognize that I am not an economist and I have basically zero education on the subject, and thus anything I say will be pure speculation. But I would fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum: I think capitalism is the form of economy that works best in our society, the form that best drives innovation, progress and well-being. No other economic system seems to work as well. However, I also think that it should be heavily regulated by a strong government, to stop abuses by big corporations. The rights of the consumers are of paramount importance, and the power of big corporations over individual citizens must be controlled and scrutinized, and abuse must be penalized and stopped. That being said, markets should nevertheless be mostly free, rather than government-owned or controlled. (In other words, the government should regulate fairness when dealing with citizens to stop abuse of power, but in terms of economy, a free market is the best option.)

Living in Finland, where the schooling system is one of the best in the entire world, I know that a good public school system, and the abolition of private schools, is the best option. This is not just hypothetical wishful thinking; it's actual concrete real-life proof. Thus my choice is pretty clear. The liberal side wins hands down on this front. Thinking anything else would be denying reality.

Likewise Finland has one of the best public healthcare and social security systems in the world, and it works. Actual concrete proof, rather than utopistic hypotheticals. So, once again, the liberal side wins hands down.

In the question of immigration, however, I have to swing to pretty much the other extreme. I just have to take the ultra-conservative stance here: There is, generally speaking, a reason why immigration is heavily, heavily regulated and restricted. It's not just a question of nationalism or xenophobia. It's a question of pragmatism. Mass immigration with little to no limits is destructive to the hosting country. That's just how it is. Again, thinking anything else is just denying reality (which so many liberals are so fond of.) There is a reason why immigration laws are in place, and they should be followed. Strict immigration laws are necessary for the country to keep functioning properly. That's just how it is. One country cannot be the savior of the world, no matter how much suffering there is out there. Just bringing that suffering into the country en masse is not going to fix it; the only thing it's going to do is to destroy that country. In fact, if a country wants to help other countries, it's economically much more efficient to bring the help to them, in situ, rather than bringing all those people here. That's not going to fix any of the problems there, and it's only going to cause problems here; it's a lose-lose situation, and it just doesn't work. As harsh as it may be to say, immigration should benefit the hosting country; charity does not help neither. (Some charity can be done, but only within reasonable limits.)

In the question of taxes, I have to once again sit in the middle. Some taxation is necessary for the society to work, for the public schools, public healthcare and social security to work. On the other hand, over-taxation of companies and rich people only stifles the economy and drives them away from the country, and that's not healthy. There has to be a balance. Not too much, not too little. The proper amount.

The United Nations is also a point of contention between liberals and conservatives. I think that the UN is mostly a joke. They might have done some good things, but they are also laughably incompetent, biased and crooked in others. The good things don't justify the bad ones. It's a heavily politically corrupt organization, with heavy unjustified biases. I don't know if the world would be a better or worse place without the UN, but it would be once again denial of reality to think that it's not a completely corrupt, biased, incompetent and inefficient organization. But perhaps it's a necessary evil, and the world would be worse without it; who knows.

The liberalism vs. conservatism question is becoming ever more so complicated in recent years, due to the antics of the "regressive left" movement, which is a highly authoritarian in-name-only left-wing liberal movement of "social justice" and "feminism", which is giving liberalism a bad reputation. It engages in all kinds of authoritarian, even totalitarian, ideologies and practices, which is completely contrary to liberal ideas, and is destroying the reputation of liberalism.

As a concrete example, there's now on Twitter an all-liberal committee of people who decide who should and shouldn't be banned, and they shadow-ban people who have particular views, specifically conservatives. This is a complete affront to the core principles of liberalism and basic human rights: Biased banning and censoring opposing political views. This is totalitarianism, and one of the hallmarks of fascism. And it's being done in the name of liberalism.

And that's just one example of many. Conservative extremists in the United States are, in fact, using these examples to attack and ridicule liberalism. Telling to them that that's not what liberalism is about, and that they are not, in fact, liberals but pretty much the exact opposite, falls to deaf ears. Conservatives are using these totalitarian fanatics as a weapon against liberalism.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Room-scale VR cripples games: Concrete examples

I wrote earlier why I think room-scale VR cripples games. I alluded to gameplay mechanics that become completely infeasible in room-scale VR, and need to either be heavily dumbed down, or can't be used at all.

I think that the new Doom (2016) demonstrates extremely well the type of game mechanics, and gameplay design, that's completely unsuitable for room-scale VR.

The new Doom is a real homage to the original Doom from 1993. While it's a heavily modern game, in terms of visuals, gameplay, monster design, difficulty balancing and so on, it still retains that hectic brainless pure shooting action and over the top violence that was so prevalent in first-person shooters of the mid-90's.

Although that's not completely correct: It's not completely brainless. In fact, it has quite some tactical depth to it. Most fights, especially against large hordes of monsters, are really difficult. But it's not fake difficulty just for the sake of it. Instead, you need to be tactical to overcome these fights.

Most importantly, you need to keep moving! If you just stay still in one place, or move slowly, that's a sure way of getting killed. You have to run. Constantly. Fast. You have to move from place to place, you have to jump from and to platforms. You have to climb platforms. You need to constantly dodge fireballs thrown at you at high speeds. You have to search for ammo and health, or else you'll quite quickly run out of them. You need to glory-kill monsters to get health and ammo. If there are too many enemies, you have to retreat and run away from them. In fact, many of the levels, where huge fights happen, are pretty much reminiscent of arena-style multiplayer levels. And you need to take full advantage of this level design, if you want to win the battle.

You really need to play the game in order to understand how hectic it can be, and how important tactical fighting is, how important moving fast is. If you don't move, you are pretty much dead. There is no way to win those fights while standing still.

Needless to say, all of this goes down the drain, if this were to be implemented in room-scale VR. All of it. The game would need to be designed for an effectively immobile player, who is just standing still like a buffoon, shooting around. Enemies would need to be dumbed down, and the difficulty level would need to be toned way, way down. The same game mechanics, and fight design, would simply not work. Instead, a completely crippled, simplistic version would need to be implemented, with basically nothing that makes the game so hectic and enjoyable.

This actually reminds me of how first-person shooters, and many third-person shooters, for the PlayStation Portable have clearly toned down difficulty and dumbed-down enemies, because the controls of the PSP are just horrendous for this kind of game. While the reason for needing do do this is different (with the PSP controls it's really, really hard to aim at anything quickly and accurately), the end result feels really similar: The game needs to be crippled because of a limitation of the control system.

Consider another, a bit older game: Mirror's Edge.

When this game was first published, it was quite unique and somewhat revolutionary. The level of immersion was almost unprecedented. A combination of somewhat abstract yet hyper-realistic graphics, parkour, and the camera simulating the head movements of the playable character as she runs, jumps over obstacles, slides under them and so on, gave a level of immersion that had seldom, if ever, seen before in a video game. While probably not the first parkour game from first-person perspective, it certainly took the genre to a completely new level, and was a trend-setter.

Yet, once again, try to imagine this in room-scale VR. Well, it's just impossible. The format just can't support this. As a sit-down VR experience it's perfectly possible (and there are third-party drivers that make it actually possible, given that the developers themselves have refused to add support), but not as room-scale VR. It's just a physical impossibility. It can't be done.

There exists at least one room-scale VR game that somewhat attempts approaching this, with a climbing mechanic, but it's essentially a highly crippled version of what a game like Mirror's Edge does, in terms of gameplay and game mechanics. It's slow and awkward. The speed, the thrills, the high jumps, the fast maneuvering around, over and under obstacles, the sliding... none of that is there. Because it's just not possible.

In all possible examples that one can think of, there's a common theme: Movement. The most quintessential game mechanic of video games, that has existed from the very beginning, and which importance and significance got only boosted when real-time 3D games became possible. If you can't move, you have a highly crippled game (with the exception of vehicle simulators, where it's the vehicle you are sitting in that moves, rather than you as a playable character).

And that's the problem with room-scale VR: It removes movement as a game mechanic. And by this I mean movement over even moderate distances. Sure, you can move like two or three meters within a highly confined area, assuming you have that kind of free space in your room, but that doesn't really make much of gameplay (especially since the movement is at a slow walking speed due to physical necessity.) Anything more than that, or any kind of faster or fancier movement (such as parkour) is just impossible. It just sucks all the fun out of the game. It makes it boring.

The only game genre I can think of that's ok with this limitation is golf. But other than that... meh.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

In defense of monoculturalism

For a decade or two now, the ideology of multiculturalism has become almost cult-like especially in Europe. The media at large just can't shut up about it and everything related to it, politicians can't shut up about it, and it drives immigration policies, often to the detriment of the country and its people. Multiculturalism is taught in schools and in the media. It's always depicted as a good thing, this is basically always done in very vague, non-descript ways, without giving actual concrete reasons why it would be a good thing.

Curiously, and somewhat hypocritically, European multiculturalism seems to favor only immigrants of certain areas of the world, while completely ignoring, sometimes even shunning, people from other areas. The preferred areas are mostly Africa and the middle-East. Ignored and shunned areas consist mostly of rich western countries, Japan, as well as basically any country that is predominantly white, or that is predominantly westernized (such as most countries in the South American continent.)

The opposite is monoculturalism. Like multiculturalism, it can also be really extreme and pathological. However, if we don't go to the absolute extreme, I would argue that monoculturalism is significantly better for everybody than multiculturalism.

A nation prospers when its citizens work together. The less infighting there is, and the more people work in unison and understanding, the more that agreed rules and customs are the same, the more prosperous the society becomes, and the more it can progress socially, culturally, technologically and scientifically. Having a sense of camaraderie, even patriotism, having common values, customs and culture (assuming these customs are humane and beneficial to everybody, rather than being egotistical and greedy), helps with this.

When everybody shares the same values and the same culture, it decreases prejudice, distrust and hostility. It helps people work together, trust each other, communicate with each other, and work towards the same goals. The society will prosper when its citizens agree and understand each other, and want to work together.

Multiculturalism, in contrast, undermines all of this. Multiculturalists naively think that great diversity in culture, customs and values are a good thing, when it's exactly the opposite. The society becomes fragmented, and the amount of infighting, distrust, prejudice and cultural clashes will increase. Big groups of people with different values will not work together for the same goals. Valuable resources will have to be spent to placate to wildly different groups of people, all of them with different values and demands. People will distrust and hate people of other groups. Criminals will thrive because they may use their differences in culture as an excuse for their behavior.

This becomes especially bad when some of the cultures start demanding special privileges and special treatment, and when they look down their noses at people of the other groups. Social unrest and crime will raise, and more and more resources will need to be spent to keep up this fragmented society. The society will become restless rather than peaceful.

Note that monoculturalism is not inherently against immigration. Immigration is fine, in moderation, but monoculturalism requires that the immigrants adapt to and respect the hosting culture. The more same values they adopt, the better.

There are no practical benefits to multiculturalism. It's just a naive ideology. An ideology that makes some people feel better about themselves. An ideology of virtue signaling. In contrast, there are plenty of practical benefits to monoculturalism.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Why does Valve have such a good reputation among gamers?

For a reason that I cannot really comprehend, Valve Corporation has a really good reputation among the vast majority of gamers. They seem to consider it a "cool" company, a company to like and root for, and to be a fan of.

I really can't understand where this reputation is coming from. It's completely undeserved, and quite false.

Hardly a month goes by without yet another controversy surrounding Valve. Famous internet critics semi-regularly criticize Valve for yet another antic of theirs, and how they fail their customers, or engage in dubious activity. In some cases this even results in a big customer revolt.

The latest case, which is by far not the only one, is the CS-Go gambling debacle. I'm not going to repeat it here because it's easy to google for it, but long story short, from the perspective of Valve: Valve knew perfectly well, for several years, that illegal (or at the very least legally dubious) gambling was being performed by third-parties using Valve's intellectual property, and Valve did absolutely nothing about it. No statements, no policies, nothing. On the contrary, since Steam supports selling and purchasing of virtual goods related to this, Valve was gaining a profit from each sale.

It was only when a really high profile case surfaced, where the owner of such a gambling site engaged in highly illegal activities, resulting in a class action lawsuit, and this resulted in an uproar, did Valve finally shit their pants and issued a statement denying the rights to use their IP for such purposes. But only then. When this had been going on for years, and Valve knew perfectly well about it.

This is just one of the most high profile recent cases. It's not the only one.

In general, Valve doesn't really care about its customers, their privacy, or their activities, or anything, really, as long as it doesn't affect their profits and doesn't threat them legally. Petitions by users to improve things like privacy go completely ignored by Valve. Valve simply doesn't care. It is only when an enormous consumer revolt happens, which threatens their profits or reputation, that Valve will do something. Anything less than that, and they just don't care.

Yet Valve's good, and rather unearned and unjustified, reputation persists, for some strange reason. Valve has a huge fanbase, which will even go out their way to defend Valve if somebody criticizes them, or petitions for improvements that would benefit customers.

I really can't understand why Valve has such a good reputation. Other companies don't. Especially gamers, and computer savvy people in general, are highly critical of corporations like Microsoft, Electronic Arts, Ubisoft and Facebook. Yet these exact same people will furiously defend Valve against criticism, even though Valve has done some rather questionable stuff completely worthy of those other corporations.

Friday, July 15, 2016

All men are sexist (because of course they are)

The modern regressive feminist cult needs an original sin. In other words, a very bad, destructive flaw that's inherent and innate to everybody (that's to say: men), a flaw they have even if they don't present any symptoms of it.

All men are sexist (and racist, and homophobic.) Because of course they are. Even if they don't behave like it, they still are sexist. Because reasons. (It's curious how adamant feminists are that feminism is not about hating men, yet all of the inherent flaws that they come up with are always about men. Everything that's wrong is always because of men. Only men can be sexist, never women. Men are sexist even if they don't exhibit it; women can't be sexist at all.)

But how to justify that? After all, the vast majority of men do not behave in a sexist way. Well, the solution is simple: Expand the definition of "sexism" to encompass all men.

Take this article, for example: Are you sexist? Take this quiz

If you are a dick to women, you are a sexist. If you are nice to women, you are also a sexist. Because of course you are. And of course only men can be sexist; because reasons. Let's look at a few excerpts from the article:
Overt prejudice against women is hard to miss, but decades of research suggests that subtle sexism can be just as damaging — but often go unnoticed.
"Decades of research" means in plain English "stuff that feminist academics pull from their posteriors". And how exactly is "subtle sexism" just as damaging as overt one? How does throwing acid at a woman's face because she wants to learn to read "just as damaging" as opening a door for a woman? And isn't it curious how there is sexism even when nobody notices it? It is there for certain, even if nobody sees it!
Hostile sexism describes behavior that overtly threatens, intimidates or abuses women.
Women. Not men. Always women. Because, you know, there is no such a thing as hostile sexism against men. Because of course there isn't.
Benevolent sexism describes positive attitudes and actions that men take toward women that are based, deep-down, in feelings of superiority and dominance.
That men take toward women. Because, you know, women can't be sexist toward men, or toward other women. It's always only in this one direction. Because of course it is.

And "benevolent sexism" is a textbook example of an oxymoron. And of course men are only nice to women because they feel superior and dominant.

How about the quiz itself? I just love how vague and ambiguous the questions are. And most of them seem to be purposefully designed in such a manner that no matter what you answer, you will be considered a sexist.

Consider for instance the first one: "Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess."

What does this even mean? WTF does "a quality of purity" mean? And does "many" mean the same as "the majority", or does it mean the same as "several" (as in at least hundreds)? Certainly there exist women in this world that have all kinds of qualities, subjective or not, that few men possess (and likewise there exist men in this world that possess qualities that only few women do). So technically the answer is yes: Certainly there are many (as in at least hundreds, or thousands, or even more) women in this vast world that "have a quality of purity" (whatever that means) that few men possess.

But I'm suspecting that's not what this is asking. It's a trick question. Whatever you answer, you are a sexist. If you don't think women have a "quality of purity" you are a misogynist. If you think they do, then you are a "benevolent sexist".

Second: "Women should be cherished and protected by men."

Well, in principle all people should be "cherished and protected" by all people. We are a social species that thrives when we work together, and protect each other. But once again this is a very vague statement. Does "women" there mean all women, or most women, or some women, women in your family, or what? The sentence is too vague and ambiguous to give a definitive answer. (And it doesn't help that feminists themselves give completely contradictory and mixed signals about this very thing.)

Once again, there is no correct answer: If you disagree, you are a misogynist. If you agree, you are a "benevolent sexist". Because of course you are. There is no winning this.

Third: "Women seek to gain power by getting control over men."

Again, does that mean "all women", "most women", "some women", or what? Certainly from the 3-or-so billion women in this world, at least some of them do indeed seek to gain power by getting control over men. If it means "all women", then the claim is obviously incorrect; if it means "some women", then the claim is obviously correct. The question is too ambiguous to be answered correctly. Or to be answered honestly at all. Which is probably intentional.

The questions just go on like this. The funny thing is that in the results "hostile sexism" is defined as "behavior that overtly threatens, intimidates or abuses women, especially those who defy male-dominant power" (because, as stated, it can't work in the other direction), yet none of the questions have anything to do with that kind of behavior or attitudes.

It would be fun to see the same kind of quiz but in the other direction: About prejudices and sexism that women exhibit towards men, and where all the questions are trick questions that have no correct answer, where whatever you answer, you are a sexist in one way or another. Not that I would consider that quiz any more valid than this one, but it would be fun.

Monday, July 11, 2016

The SJW privilege stack is changing

Feminism and social justice is fighting for "equality", which in vernacular means that white men are treated like second-class citizens, lower than cocroaches who have no rights and can be freely oppressed and abused. All of the rest of "marginalized" groups are above them and in need of special protection and special treatment.

But, you see, not all "marginalized" groups are equal. Some are more protected than others. (This is what "equality" means, after all.) There is a de facto privilege stack in the SJW ideology, where some groups are more protected than others. This means, among other things, that groups higher up on the stack are free to abuse, oppress and take advantage of every other group below them, but must placate to every group above them. And the social justice warriors will impose that privilege and that responsibility onto those groups.

As said, white men are at the very bottom of the stack, and pretty much below cockroaches.

The very top of the stack, high above everybody else, has been taken for quite many years now by muslims. They can do pretty much what they want, and the SJWs will defend them. They can rape and harass women en masse, they can harass, throw stones at gays, and even mass murder them... it doesn't matter; they are the most protected group, and SJWs will defend them always and everywhere. (There have even been several cases now where a SJW has been raped by muslims, and she has lied to the police in order to defend them. It's that bad.)

But those two extremes are the only ones that are clear-cut. The remaining places on the stack are not that clear, and currently there is in fact a fight going on about who gets to be higher on the stack (and thus have the privilege to oppress and take advantage of everybody below them.)

LGBTwhatever people used to be quite high on the stack, but it seems that lately they have been falling lower and lower. This might be because on average they are not so loudly playing the victim card, organizing massive violent protests, harassing white people, and making all kinds of ridiculous (and illegal) special treatment demands.

It seems that black people have recently fought quite hard to get on top of them on the stack, and gain the privilege to take advantage of them.

Black Lives Matter protesters interrupt Pride mural unveiling by Toronto police.

Black Lives Matter protesters stop Toronto's Pride parade.

These are just a couple of examples. They are appropriating, invading, taking advantage of and abusing other groups, very much including the gay community. And they are doing it with complete impunity. They gay community is placating to them, and submitting to their demands. They have clearly accepted their lower status on the privilege stack. And the SJWs are not objecting.

It seems that gays are now just slightly above white women, and well below black people. In fact, they may even be falling below white women, given that they are receiving a lot more abuse from the more privileged groups than women are. If this continues long enough, they might even leave the whole social justice movement and join white men at the very bottom of the stack, and become the scum of society, with no de facto rights, and to be trampled over and taken advantage of.

Sunday, July 3, 2016

Social justice has gone too far: Child abuse

Elite K-8 school teaches white students they’re born racist

Just read the article. It's absolutely horrendous to read.

This school is segregating children based on race, and shaming children of one race and brainwashing them into believing that they are bad people, and to feel guilt. Many of these children have gone home crying because they have been told they are bad people. And it's not the only school engaging in this kind of segregation.

This is psychological child abuse, pure and simple. These children are being brainwashed, and taught that they should feel shame and guilt, and that they are bad people because of their race, and they are shunned, while children of other races are being adulated and rewarded, in front of them.

This is what social justice has come down to. Psychological torture of children. Destroying their self-confidence, and their future. Many of these children will need psychotherapy to recover from this.

Social justice is a dangerous cult, and must be stopped. It just can't continue like this. It's one thing to harass, censor and insult adults who disagree with them. A completely different thing is to abuse children. This has gone too far. It must stop.