Monday, January 30, 2017

A lesson in international politics: Right to enter a country

Trump banned entry to the United States from seven countries. This of course pissed off regressive leftists who seem to think that free travel to the United States is some kind of basic human right.

Whether you agree with the ban or not, let's make some things clear about international politics.

Firstly, a question: Do you have the right to enter another sovereign state, which you don't have an official citizenship of?

Answer: Absolutely not!

Being able to enter another country is a privilege that said country might grant you, but it's not a right. I'm sorry, but that's just how international politics work. Whining about being banned from entering a country, as if you had some kind of international human right to do so, is just outright stupid. No, you don't have any right to enter another sovereign state if you are not a citizen. You might be granted permission to do so by said country, but that's not a right. If that country denies you entry, that is a right they have, and that's it. No ifs, buts or maybes. I'm sorry, but that's just how it works.

Secondly: Does a sovereign state have the right to choose who can or cannot enter their borders?

Answer: Absolutely yes!

Again, no matter how much you whine, that's just how it works, sorry. An autonomic sovereign country has the right to choose who can enter and who can not. If they want to completely close their borders and bar every non-citizen in the world from entering, that's their right to do so. You might not be happy with it, and other nations might try to impose some economic or other kinds of sanctions to try to pressure them, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to do so.

If you disagree with that right, then... well, we enter the domain of international politics pretty much dealing with war. If you want to remove that right from that sovereign state, basically your only recourse is to declare war, invade it, and make it your own. Your justification for doing so would be rather questionable, though.

The United States is not the only country in the world that has banned people from other countries from entering. For example several Islamic states have banned citizens of Israel from entering their country. I don't see the regressive leftists complaining about that.

You can complain about the policies of some country, but do not act like you have the right to enter their borders as you wish. You don't. Live with it.

Friday, January 27, 2017

Are Thais racist because they prefer pale skin?

A somewhat lesser known (in the west) phenomenon that's quite prevalent in many parts of eastern Asia is that lighter/paler skin is often considered more beautiful and desirable than darker skin. In some countries, like Thailand, this is so prevalent that a skin-whitening industry has formed there, selling all kinds of lotions and pills to whiten one's skin.

The ads of these companies may often appear to be incredibly "racist" to the modern politically correct sensibilities of westerners (even to some who aren't regressive leftist social justice warriors.) Some ads may even feature a relatively pale-skinned person in "blackface". Some such ads have caused quite a lot of controversy in the west.

But is this racism, or caused by racism?

No. What most people forget, or don't know, is that in the Victorian and pre-Victorian eras, mostly in Europe, a tanned complexion was often taken as a sign that you were a poor peasant, while a pale skin was taken as a sign that you were a rich aristocrat. That's because peasants worked mostly outside, in the fields and farms, and thus got tanned, while aristocrats spent most of their time inside. In fact, a pale skin was considered aesthetically more pleasing than a tanned skin. (The archetypal Victorian era aristocratic woman being outside carrying a parasol is exactly because of this. They didn't want to get tanned when outside.)

This had little to nothing to do with race, and everything to do with aesthetic cultural norms, and the (admittedly quite elitist) notions by rich aristocrats of peasants being undesirable. A tanned skin was deemed ugly because it was strongly associated with poor people, who worked in dirty jobs in the fields and with cattle. There was likely a strong association of a tanned skin with dirtiness. A pale skin was considered beautiful, and a sign of nobility, riches and cleanliness.

Given how much influence Victorian England has had on east Asia, it does not surprise me in the least that these same cultural notions are prevalent there even today. It has absolutely nothing to do with race, and everything to do with aesthetic norms.

What does "fascism" mean?

One common trait of radical authoritarian ideologies is that they will take words with rather specific meanings, dilute them until they pretty much lose all of their original meaning, and just use it as a generic insult, to try to discredit and offend anybody who has a differing opinion. "Racism" would be your quintessential example (as well as "sexism", "misogyny" and "islamophobia".)

One such example is also "fascism". That word used to have a rather specific meaning in the past, referring to a particular authoritarian nationalist political ideology prevalent in some European countries between the world wars, and some time after.

But like with all those other words, nowadays this one is also used just as a generic insult against basically anybody who has a differing political opinion. For example, during both elections of Barack Obama, he was accused of "fascism" by republican protesters. And, of course, during Trump's election he was likewise accused of "fascism" by democratic protesters.

It indeed seems that "fascist" in modern parlance simply means "somebody who holds a political opinion I disagree with." And, of course, it's one of the favorite insults used by social justice warriors.

Quite ironically (although not surprisingly), the modern regressive leftist social justice ideology can be argued to be to a rather large extent fascist. Genuinely fascists. Just consider this description from Wikipedia:
"Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties."
This sounds pretty much exactly what the regressive left wants.

It won't be long before the regressive leftists will advocate for the abolition of democratic elections.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

PS4 Pro 4k confusion

There seems to exist a lot of misconceptions about the PS4 Pro in regards to whether it supports "true" 4k resolution or not. I think Sony is to blame for not making it clear in their promotional material.

You see, there seems to be this really prevalent notion that the PS4 Pro does not support rendering to 4k (ie. 3840x2160 pixels) at all. That it instead always renders to some lower resolution (like 1440p) and upscales it for the 4k display.

This misconception is so prevalent that when I have corrected it eg. in some YouTube comments, people have directly told me that I'm wrong, that the PS4 Pro does not support 4k resolution rendering and it will always upscale.

But that's not true. It is true (and probably the cause of confusion) that the PS4 Pro will render existing PS4 games at a lower resolution and upscale them, by default. However, new and patched games can, if they so wish, support native 4k directly, with no upscaling. In other words, they will render at exactly 3840x2160 pixels.

There are already examples of exactly this. Two of them are The Last of Us and The Witness. Both support two modes of rendering: 1440p upscaled to 4k at 60 frames per second, and native 4k (ie. 2160p) at 30 frames per second.

Sure, if you want these games to render at native 4k, they will only run at 30 FPS, so you'll have to make a choice between resolution and framerate. However, they do have support for native 4k rendering, with no upscaling.

These misconceptions seem to be all over the place, and not only among the general public, but even among people who should know best. For example a representative for Microsoft (promoting the upcoming "project Scorpio" console) derided at some point the PS4 Pro for not supporting "true" 4k. Even though it does. (Ironically, the idea was that Microsoft's upcoming would support it... yet it has turned out that it actually isn't significantly more powerful than the PS4 Pro, and won't support "true" 4k any significantly better. Probably at about equal level.)

One of the core problems with regressive feminism

I think this comic exemplifies perfectly one of the most fundamental core problems with the modern regressive feminist ideology. In fact, it exemplifies a couple of them.

Firstly, there's the patronizing and mocking attitude. This is really, really common in the regressive feminist rhetoric: Mocking their critics. They have this holier-than-thou attitude and look down their noses at the critics, and mock and ridicule them.

In one occasion, someone posted to Facebook a link to a Finnish newspaper article (written by a female journalist) that was moderately critical of the current politically correct regressive ideology, and how it caused, in part, for Donald Trump to be elected president. I responded to that post by giving actual examples of how far the regressive ideology has gone, such as the BBC engaging in racial discrimination, and psychological abuse of children.

A full-on regressive feminist activist responded to my post. Can you guess what was the very first thing she did in that post? Did she have a rational discussion with me? Or did she perhaps strongly disagree with what I wrote? Did she maybe disbelieve or deny the veracity of those articles? Did she perhaps distance herself from that kind of extremism? Or, perhaps, did she even just outright agree with those things and support them?

No. None of that. The very first thing she wrote in her response to me was mockery. Very similar to the one depicted in that comic above. That's right; when I post links to examples of how far the regressive ideology has gone, the very first response is mockery. Rather than, you know, addressing the actual issue.

Mockery has never persuaded anybody, it only causes even more division and hatred, and this is something that the regressive feminists simply cannot seem to grasp.

Anyways, that wasn't actually the major problem that the comic depicts. The major problem is the "losing your male privilege" part.

A core aspect of the regressive feminist ideology is that if there are groups of people who are disadvantaged and oppressed (I'm going to just assume for the sake of the argument that's true, rather than delve into details on whether it actually is), the solution is not to elevate them to the same sociopolitical status as the rest. Rather, their solution is to bring the rest of society, the "privileged" ones, down. In other words, rather than giving the disadvantaged people the same privileges as the rest, they want to remove the privileges of the latter.

That makes absolutely no sense. Let's use an analogy to demonstrate why:

Some countries in this world are under tyranny, unrest and outright war, while other countries are very peaceful and prosperous. You could say, if we allow ourselves to use the feminist term, that the peaceful countries are "privileged". The ideal here would be, of course, if we could make those countries in war also peaceful and prosperous, like the rest. Our aim should be to try to, somehow, elevate the less fortunate countries to the same level of peace and prosperity as the rest.

But that's not what the regressive feminist ideology aims for. No, they would mock the peaceful countries, tell them that they are "afraid of losing their privilege", use mocking terms like "peace so fragile", and try to remove their privilege and bring them down to the same level as the countries in war.

That would make absolutely no sense. Yes, peace is a very, very fragile thing, and something to embrace and protect at all costs. And yes, you should be afraid of losing such a "privilege".

How does this translate to the actual "losing your privilege" thing in society?

Well, what exactly is it that the regressives want? What are these "privileges" that they are so mockingly saying that eg. men are "afraid to lose"?

What are some of the most common "privileges" that feminists often cite as men having? For example, they will often say that men have the privilege of being able to walk alone on the street without the fear of harassment and assault. (Again, I'm going to just accept this for the sake of argument, rather than going into details of whether it's true or not.)

So the question arises: Why exactly do these regressive feminists want to remove this "privilege" from men? Why are they mocking men for being "afraid to lose their privilege"? What exactly do they want? To make men fear for their safety every time they walk on the street? Why? What for? Some kind of weird petty revenge?

Wouldn't it be more logical to aim for women to be elevated to this same "privileged" status, so that everybody has this same "privilege"? Rather than removing this privilege from anybody, causing some people to lose it, shouldn't we be aiming to give the same privilege to everybody?

This is not just theoretical. Many of these feminist outright state, directly and unambiguously, that they want to bring the privileged (ie. white males) down. It's not just some obscure rhetoric that I'm misinterpreting. They are literally and unambiguously saying that.

And that's one of the major reasons why the modern regressive feminist ideology is so detrimental, and so nonsensical. They do not want to elevate everybody to the same top position, where everybody is equally and maximally "privileged". They want to remove privileges and bring people down. Why? I have no idea. It's an ideology, and ideologies are not based on reason.

Friday, January 20, 2017

What do VR games look like? Update.

A half year ago I looked what VR games look like. Has the situation improved in this time?

And, once again, I'm not pick&choosing the worst examples. I'm examining indiscriminately the top-rated VR games on Steam, in order, using their promotional screenshots.

A few of the same games appear in the list again, so I'm going to skip those, and only presenting the new ones.

Waltz of the Wizard

Looks decent enough. Not much to complain. Maybe not Crysis 3, but compared to the average it might just as well be.

Rec Room

Looks like barely PlayStation 2 level graphics.

Google Earth VR

This may look quite nice as a thumbnail, but if you look at the full-sized version, it's actually much more simplistic than it appears (it has a quite low polygon count). But looks decent enough, I suppose.


Again barely PS2-level graphics. Looks like garbage. I could expect a DOS game to look something like this.

Hot Dogs, Horseshoes & Hand Grenades

I think we are seeing a pattern here. Although, I suppose, most PS2 games didn't have dynamic shadows. But if you look at the full-sized picture, the shadows have an absolutely horrible resolution. The rest looks PS2 level.

SportsBar VR

Looks decent enough. Maybe a bit low of a polygon count if you look at the full-sized picture, but it's ok. Not much to complain about.


This looks just bizarre, and PS2 level graphics once again. (And no, I didn't choose the most nondescript screenshot. They are all like this.) The screenshot is also really blurry; maybe they compressed it too much.

Castle Must Be Mine

We continue the PS2-level-graphics theme.

Cosmic Sugar VR

This one is even more bizarre. And once again, I didn't pick&choose the most nondescript screenshot. They are all like this. Judging from the screenshots this doesn't look like a game at all, just some small tech demo effect.


And barely PS2-level graphics. And really dark (yes, all screenshots are this dark).

Smashbox Arena, The Diner Duo, Anyland

These are all in one because they don't really need separate comments. They all look like PS2, even PS1 level.

Misconception about Nintendo and hardware prowess

Because the Nintendo Wii was quite less powerful than its two competitors (ie. the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3), yet outsold them by quite a wide margin, branding itself as the ubiquitous "casual gamer console" and "family console", many people today (especially younger ones) have got this impression that Nintendo has always been about content rather than technical specs, and that they have never cared about the latter, and that their consoles have always been "weaker" than the competition.

This is actually completely false. In fact, the Wii was the first Nintendo console that was significantly less powerful than the competition. Moreover, in all previous console generations Nintendo has always been about boasting about technical specs, and trying to out-perform the competition on that front. This, somehow, is actually somewhat surprising to these people. (And, on a meta level, the fact that it's surprising to some people is in itself surprising to more knowledgeable people.)

The original NES might be the sole exception in that it might not have been directly trying to out-perform its main competitor (the Sega Master System) in terms of hardware, but on the other hand it wasn't all that less powerful either, and didn't really have the "it's not the tech specs that matter, but what you do with it" mentality either, at least not yet. Nintendo was more like probing the ground with the NES, to see what sticks.

The SNES was clearly and unambiguously a direct response to the next-gen competitor console (ie. the Sega Genesis/Megadrive), outperforming it in terms of hardware in almost all respects, especially graphical prowess and sound.

The Nintendo 64 was also a powerhouse for its time (and, to my knowledge, the most powerful console at the time it was published). It was heavily advertised for its hardware specs, so much so that the fact that it uses 64-bit technology is right in its name. That's how much they advertised it for its hardware specs.

Again, the GameCube was also a powerhouse, outperforming its major competitor, the PlayStation 2 in terms of hardware prowess (perhaps to the surprise of many people who don't know this.) (Basically the only reason why the GameCube didn't become successful was because of Nintendo's stupid idea of using a custom data disc format that was very difficult and expensive to develop for, and severely limited the size of games. Thus not so many games were made for it, pretty much dooming the system.)

The Wii was, in fact, the first Nintendo console that did not actively try to out-perform its competitors in terms of hardware specs. (In fact, it's so close to the GameCube in terms of hardware prowess, and shares so much of its technology, that many people have called it just a repackaged GameCube with motion controllers.)

It was only at this point that Nintendo, deliberately or serendipitously (probably the latter), adopted the "it's not the tech specs that matter, but what you do with it" mentality, as a result of Wii's enormous success. (An argument might be made that it actually started a bit earlier, with the Nintendo DS, which was less powerful than its competitor the Sony PSP. But this was nevertheless well after the GameCube.)

They used the same mentality with the Wii U, which didn't pan out that well (although the reasons might have less to do with hardware specs and more to do with stupid marketing decisions.) We'll see how it goes with the Nintendo Switch (which, once again, has significantly lower hardware specs than its current competitors).

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

The Nintendo Switch might be a disappointment

The Nintendo Switch, the upcoming "next-gen" console by Nintendo, seems to be quite interesting.

Years ago there were already rumors about Nintendo's next console being some kind of hybrid between the 3DS handheld and the Wii U desktop consoles. Back then this seemed a bit far-fetched, and just some wild rumor that somebody came up with. However, it turns out that the rumor was absolutely correct.

The Switch is essentially a tablet-like portable console with detachable controller-halves on each side. You can attach it to a docking station, which is connected to a TV or monitor, and detach the controllers (or use a separate controller) in which case it will act like a desktop console. Or you can detach it from the docking station and use it as a relatively large portable console, a bit like a tablet with a physical controller attached to it (a bit like an oversized Game Boy Advance of sorts).

After the initial excitement, however, many people have pointed out some things that may be a bit of a disappointment.

While connected to a TV or monitor, it will support resolutions up to 1080p. However, the tablet part itself, which is used in the "portable" mode, has only a 720p (ie. 1280x720) resolution, which by modern standards is a bit low (especially given how physically large the screen is, which means that it has quite a low DPI density by modern standards.) It's not horrible, but it's a bit of a disappointment.

There is one saving grace to that, though, something that justifies the somewhat low resolution: It requires less rendering prowess from the graphics chip, and thus said chip can run in a lower speed mode, saving battery life.

However, apparently it's not limited to that. While still mostly at the stage of a rumor, it seems that, while detached, the console will not only run on a speed low enough to render the same content at the same framerate to its lower-resolution screen, but it will apparently run even slower than that, meaning that games will actually have lower graphical quality in portable mode.

Yet, still, regardless of this power-saving mode, it seems that the battery life is quite short. In the 2 to 3 hours range. (With a typical handheld one would expect at least 5 hours or more.) This seriously limits how much it can be used in portable mode (eg. during long trips).

The two controller-halves (Joy Cons as they call them) have their own battery, so that they can be used wirelessly while detached from the console. However, apparently there is no way to separately charge them other than having them attached to the console itself (or some accessory sold separately).

Moreover, apparently they cannot be charged when they are attached to the "Joy Con Grip", which is an accessory which can be used to make the two Joy Cons form a sort of traditional controller:

This "controller" is something that worries me, because of its ergonomics. The D-pad and the right thumbstick are rather awkwardly positioned. They don't look like they can be used comfortably.

Contrast to, for example, how these same controls are positioned in the Xbox One controller. (They are effectively at about the same distance from the base of your thumb as the left thumbstick and the ABXY buttons, making them comfortable to reach with your thumbs by just shifting them.)

Moreover, those grips (ie. those black "bulbs" that you hold in your hands to more firmly and comfortably hold the controller) are only usable in this configuration. That's because they are part of the grip accessory:

They are not part of the "Joy Cons", and thus not usable when using the console in portable mode:

The console looks quite uncomfortable to use in this mode because of that. And I'm talking from experience because the 3DS has the same problem, and it can be really awkward to use at times (for example, it's surprisingly hard to press the left shoulder button and the D-pad at the same time.)

At least in the New Nintendo 3DS the right thumbstick (that knob above the Y and X buttons) is more comfortably positioned than the right thumbstick of the Switch, which just looks awkward to use.

I don't think I'm exaggerating about this. Just take a look at this snapshot from Nintendo's own promotional trailer for the Switch:

Notice how the D-pad and the right thumbstick are positioned (although obscured by the person's hand, you can deduce its position from the previous image of the Switch above.) They look painfully uncomfortably positioned. And it doesn't even look like the person in this trailer is holding the machine incorrectly, as his index fingers look to be naturally positioned to press the shoulder buttons.

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Is getting big destroying the Games Done Quick marathons?

The Games Done Quick marathons started in 2010, and were quite small, the first one raising a mere 10 thousand dollars (of course back then, when it was the first such event organized by SDA, that was a quite sizeable amount of money, but it's a very small sum compared to later editions.) In fact, the Summer Games Done Quick events were so small that the two first ones were held at someone's home (and raised 21 and 46 thousand dollars).

The event has seen a really enormous growth. Since 2014 each event has consistently raised over a million dollars per event, the record being over 2 million dollars in January of 2017.

But as the saying goes, with great income comes great bureaucracy. (Ok, I made that "saying" up.)

The first marathons were made by nerds (mostly) for nerds. Sure, somewhat also for the greater public, but mostly for other gamers and nerds. They were fun. There weren't many rules and pretty much everything was allowed.

However, since the GDQ marathons have started raising million-dollar sums every time, they have become more and more sterile, "cleaned up", bureaucratic, "kid-friendly", "sponsor-friendly", and highly, highly commercial.

Sure, you just can't run a 2-million-dollar event happening at a large hotel in the same way as you do a 10-thousand-dollar event at somebody's home. Some bureaucracy is required, or the entire thing will just fall apart. You need ground rules, and stricter enforcement of those rules. The logistics alone are a thousand times more complicated; the technology is more complicated; managing organizers, employees and the public is a thousand times more complicated; and when we are talking about millions of dollars, things just have to be done by the book, for legal, practical and a multitude of other reasons.

But the GDQ events have gone beyond that. The events have been heavily "sterilized" from anything that makes them "nerdy" events, or from anything that could even potentially cause any kind of controversy. From anything unusual that nerds and gamers would find fun. And this often goes to ridiculous extremes, like banning excessive clapping, completely banning cosplay, and even plush dolls.

From the runners' perspective the events are extremely totalitarian. Every runner, especially those who the organizers feel are potential "troublemakers" (eg. because they might use profanities in their personal speedrunning live streams) are on a very tight leash, and get the ban hammer applied to them really, really easily, for the most minor of infractions, and sometimes even for no reason at all.

For example, the runner who goes by the nickname PvtCinnamonbun wrote this from AGDQ 2016:

This isn't an isolated case. You can find tons and tons of stories of runners being banned for the most controversial of reasons (as in, not that what they did or say was that controversial, but the ban itself was controversial and highly criticized from the public), or approached by the organizers at the event with rather authoritarian warnings.

In the most recent AGDQ 2017, a runner made a joke about Air Canada and his flight to the event. The GDQ organizers not only banned this runner from future events, but they went to Air Canada's Twitter feed and apologized (without even mentioning what they were apologizing for). Air Canada responded with "Hello, we're not quite sure we understand what you mean." They had no idea what the GDQ organizers were talking about. GDQ still banned the runner from future events, even though this was a clear case of complete overreaction and hypersensitivity for a rather innocent joke.

Another runner was banned because one person on the couch wore (what looked like) a pro-Trump hat. To clear any misunderstandings, GDQ has banned all political opinions from their events, not just pro-Trump ones. However, the disgrace here is that the runner was banned because somebody else behind him wore that hat for a minute or two. The runner wasn't even aware of this happening because it happened behind him. Why was he banned for something that somebody else did? Who knows.

There are lots of people, both runners, physical visitors, and online viewers, who are complaining that "fun" is not allowed anymore at the GDQ events, and that it's all so sterile, bureaucratic and even totalitarian.

And commercial. This is also one of the major complaints people have. Sure, it's nice if some corporation is sponsoring the event, but viewers really get sick of those corporations, or their products, being promoted over and over, sometimes even many times during the same speedrun.

Sure, prior to all this authoritarian bureaucracy sometimes some controversial things did happen, from the runners, from commenters on the couch, or sometimes even the public at the event. Sometimes the runner would make some very inappropriate jokes. Sometimes somebody went to the couch uninvited (something that has since been strictly banned and enforced, in this case perhaps arguably for good reason) and started making inappropriate or just cringeworthy comments that ruin the run for the runner himself and the viewers.

However, it seems that GDQ has gone to the other extreme in order to weed out these (quite rare) happenstances, and are extremely trigger-happy in banning runners and visitors who step even slightly out of bounds (or sometimes even without having done anything, as has been several times the case.)

The fun of the initial years has been largely replaced with dry commentary (although don't get me wrong; in some cases the commentary is extremely high quality and interesting; but still very dry) and cringeworthy forced memes (such as shouting "hype" or making the Wario sound; they might have been fun a couple of times, when done spontaneously, but when you hear it for the twentieth time, and it feels really forced and artificial, it's more cringeworthy than anything else.)

Many people have commented that they have lost interest in the GDQ events. They were fun and interesting in the early years, but now it just feels mass-produced, sterile, on-the-rails, unfun and way too commercialized. They are more interested in getting donations and pandering to their sponsors with a sponsor-friendly and kid-friendly show, than making an actually fun event to watch.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

The problem with millenials

"Millenials" is a colloquial term used to refer to the generation of people born in the 90's and early 2000's, who are now teenagers and young adults.

Many people have noticed common traits, and problems, that are quite prevalent with this generation, and are worrying that this is not a good trend. Many causes for these problems have been hypothesized.

One problem that seems to be becoming more and more prevalent, especially at poorer households, is the lack of a father. More and more people are growing in single-parent households, the vast majority of them with their mother.

Some statistics (although I don't have links to them right now) show a really worrying trend correlated to fatherless homes. If my memory serves me right, significantly more than 50% of convicted criminals eg. in the United States grew in fatherless homes. When we look at those of a poor background, the percentage goes even higher.

Many have commented on the problem of fatherless homes. It is argued that a father figure is very important for the social and emotional growth of a young person. Without a father figure, children and teenagers tend to become more rebellious and seek the wrong company.

On a rather different tangent, one thing that is also affecting millenials in a quite great degree is technology. More precisely, the internet and the astonishingly easy access to it. Nowadays you can surf the internet literally from anywhere, no matter where you are.

And that is a huge problem, in fact. It has been postulated that, especially for teenagers, social media networks are a literal form of addiction. Not just figuratively, but literally. Not just psychologically, but physically (because of dopamin production caused by certain experiences.)

Many teenagers and young adults are literally addicted to their smartphones. They cannot be parted from them even for a minute. They will always keep them around, and in front of them, no matter what the situation. School, a meeting at work, eating dinner, watching a presentation... The smartphone is always there, and they are constantly checking it, no matter what.

Social networking has created a culture of instant gratification (which is part of that physical addiction). As with so many addictions, it's detrimental to the social life of the person.

The problem with social media, and getting addicted to it, is that you don't spend time deepening your social bonds in real life. Basically everybody you know is just a casual acquaintance you know very little about. This includes both online and in real life.

We have created a generation of people who are incapable of creating deep and meaningful relationships with other people. They simply don't spend the quality time to do that. They spend all their time worrying more about the social media feeds in their smartphone than the people in front of them. They don't have deep and meaningful conversations, they don't form intimate bonds with other people. Forming such bonds requires a lot of time, and they simply aren't spending that time. When they are with other people in real life, in a situation that would be apt for a conversation... all they are doing is checking their smartphones, rather than getting to know each other better.

This instant-gratification, and lack of ability to form deep and meaningful relationships, is only aggravated by the modern regressive leftist social justice victimhood cult (which, in itself, might have also been partially created by, and aggravated by, the current millenial social zeitgeist, so they form this self-perpetuating mechanism.)

When these young people do not know other people very well, they are easy to convert into an ideology of victimhood, oppression, fear and shame. They are being brainwashed into thinking that everybody is against them, and oppressing them. Or that they are themselves the oppressors, even without knowing it, and thus should feel ashamed of themselves and make amends (but, of course, no matter what they do, it will never be enough. They will always, always be guilty, because of their personal characteristics such as skin color.)

When you don't know other people very well, when you don't know how society and social interaction really work, it's much easier to think that they are out to get you. That they are bad people. That the world is a big and scary place.

The same cult is also brainwashing its members into absolute self-hating xenophiles. Everything that's related to our own western culture is absolutely abhorrent, and everything that's foreign and different is absolutely perfect and without flaw. Black people and Muslims are the epitome of innocence and perfection. They can do no wrong, and everything they do, no matter what it is, is justified, and must be defended. Rape, murder, genocide... it doesn't matter. It's all justified.

The scary thing is that these millenials, who do not have social skills, who are incapable of forming meaningful social relationships, and who have been brainwashed into a cult of victimhood, are becoming the politicians, judges, lawmakers, teachers, professors and police officers of society. These are the people who will be teaching your children, making laws, governing them and you, and policing them and you. And they have been brainwashed into thinking that there's something inherently and deeply wrong with you, and your children, and that it must be fixed.

And what are we doing to stop this? Very little.

Blatant racism is becoming more and more prevalent

Students At Top University Want To Ban White Philosophers.
Students at one of Europe’s top universities are calling for philosophers such as Plato, Descartes, Immanuel Kant and Bertrand Russell to be dropped from the curriculum because they are white.
Yes, the sole criterion on which it should be decided whether the works of a philosopher should be taught is the skin color of said person. It doesn't matter what that person wrote, and how influential he might have been. The only thing that matters is his skin color. If the skin color is wrong, then his work should be banned.

Although, to be fair, those students, the magnanimous philanthropist they are, are ready to give a small concession:
It goes on to say that white philosophers should be studied only “if required”, – and even in those circumstances their work should be taught only from “a critical standpoint”.
Yes. White philosophers can in exceptional circumstances be studied. But only if everything they wrote is criticized. Heaven forbid they would actually consider what that white devil wrote as something reasonable and acceptable. That would be tantamount to sacrilege.

And, once again: The sole reason why the works of those particular philosophers should only be criticized is because they had the wrong skin color. Not because of what they wrote, or what kind of influence they had. Because of their skin color.

This is textbook racism, in its purest form. And if you think this is just an individual isolated case, you'd be quite wrong. This is, in fact, becoming more and more widespread.

And what exactly, do you guess, are the consequences of this blatant racism, in our modern society? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. These people are completely free to engage in their racism with complete and absolute impunity, with zero consequences. In fact, in many cases they are actually encouraged to do so.

Just consider what it would sound like if "white" were replaced for example with "jewish". Why is modern western society resembling more and more nazi Germany? And why are we allowing this? Didn't we learn anything from nazism?

Friday, January 6, 2017

I really, really hate online multiplayer games

I recently bought Titanfall 2 for the PS4. The game looks great (especially on a 4k display) and the single player campaign is really good. I really enjoyed it.

The game, however, is more known for its online multiplayer mode (especially because the first game was multiplayer-only). So after the single-player campaign I decided to give it a try.

I don't really like online multiplayer games, especially the arena-shooter style ones. I find them boring, tedious, pointless and absolutely horrible in terms of balance. Most often they don't have any sort of story, no progression, no goal, nothing to achieve. They consist mostly of just running around the same level over and over, shooting everybody. And of course everybody else is a hundred times better than me at it, so I never have a chance. I don't play online multiplayer games, I only play single-player campaigns, so I don't really have the experience.

But I decided to give this one a try. Because why not? The game is there; I only need to select the menu option to start the multiplayer game. It doesn't cost me anything to try it.

So there's a short intro, and I fall to the ground. I have no idea what the goal is, so I just start running to some direction that looks interesting. After about 10 seconds of this, somebody kills me in like one or two shots. I don't even see who it was. I just die. Just like that. Bam! Dead. I didn't even get to fire a single shot.

"F**k this s**t." I quit the game. Total playtime (discounting the non-playable intro), about 10 seconds.

I'm just not interested in this kind of game, and this reminded me precisely why.

This kind of thing would never fly in a single-player campaign mode. You just getting killed 10 seconds after starting, by something that you can't even see, with no justification, storywise reason or anything, just a random death by some random enemy which you couldn't even see, would just be bad design. It would make no sense.

And no, I wouldn't begin to like the game mode if I gave it more of a try. I have tried that countless times in the past. It has never worked. It always sucks. It's boring, tedious, repetitive, too random, too difficult, and makes no sense. I highly doubt this would be any different.

It's not the difficulty per se. Coincidentally, I just recently, a few days ago, finished the game Dark Souls III, which is a superb game. It can be difficult as hell. But it's a sort of fair difficulty, and the difficulty is very well implemented and makes sense. It's the sort of difficulty that makes you want to try it again, to beat it. It's not random, arbitrary deaths. (And, of course, there's progression, goals, achievements, rewards, and things to do and achieve.)

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Why you should never date a modern feminist

If you are a man, you should never, ever date a modern feminist woman. It doesn't matter if you are pro feminism (either classical or the current regressive version), against modern feminism, completely neutral, or anywhere in between, dating a modern feminist is a really bad idea, because it's a gamble that could ruin your life.

I'm completely serious here. This is not a joke. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is not "MRA talk" or "MGTOW talk". This is serious. As said, even if you are yourself a 100% modern feminist social justice activist, you should still never date a feminist, because you are gambling with your life.

The reason for this is that modern regressive feminism considers the word of a woman to be gospel. If she says she was raped, then to social justice warriors that's 100% truth. The woman can withdraw "consent" whenever she wants, for whatever reason she wants, no questions asked. And that "whenever" really means whenever. Even years after the fact. And modern feminism will back her up on this, no matter what. If weeks, months or even years along the line she decides to withdraw "consent" and that she was "raped" by you, then in the eyes of the feminist mob she was raped by you. No ifs, maybes, ands or buts. She says she was raped, that means she was raped. No questions asked.

And the feminist mob will not just sit idly by, and let the authorities handle the situation (assuming authorities are involved at all). They will engage in vigilante justice and try their hardest to destroy your life. Even if the authorities conclude with 100% certainty that the rape claims are false, that won't make an iota of difference. They will still try to ruin your life.

The likelihood of this happening increases due to the fact that modern regressive feminism is inherently misandrist, and makes their members very bigoted and vindictive. If you ever, ever break up with her, or make her mad, or sometimes even for no reason whatsoever, she might resort to accusing you of rape as a form of revenge, especially if her feminist friends convince her to do so. Yes, this has demonstrably happened in real life. And probably happens a lot more than is actually reported.

So it's a gamble. You are playing with your life and reputation. It could well be completely ruined, even if you are absolutely innocent, and even if you are a 100% feminist yourself.

Monday, January 2, 2017

Why "safe spaces" are detrimental to everybody involved

"Safe spaces" are this invention by modern regressive leftist social justice warriors that might have some good intentions behind it, but are in fact more detrimental than useful in practice, even to those who they are intended for. Not to talk about them being outright illegal in many cases, because they engage in gender and racial segregation.

Even if we ignore the legality question, they are still detrimental to everybody involved, even those who they supposedly benefit.

Social justice warriors will argue that "safe spaces" are courtesy to those who have suffered some trauma and may be "triggered" by some event, and thus can avoid getting depression or panic attacks.

In reality, at least 99% of people who take advantage of these "safe spaces" have never experienced any kind of traumatic event, abuse, or even hardship, in their lives. They are mostly spoiled rich university student kids who have been brainwashed by this regressive leftist victim cult into thinking that they are oppressed and marginalized by society.

And that's one of the major problems with these "safe spaces": They are echo chambers that serve only to reinforce this brainwashing. They are like cult meetings, where the cult members are being spoonfed a victimhood mentality, isolated from the rest of the world, isolated from criticism and differing points of view. Isolation is exactly the tool that cults use to keep their members brainwashed. They are told that the outside world is a big scary place, where they will experience persecution and discrimination, and that the only safe place for them is inside the cult, safely separated and isolated from the rest of the world.

When a "safe space" is race-based, then it only helps reinforce racist attitudes, rather than alleviating them. Not only is the racist mentality of the people within the "safe space" reinforced, it also creates resentment and animosity in outsiders who experience the real discrimination for being barred entry solely because of their race, even when they would have a good reason to enter. Racial discrimination only reinforces and enhances racism, not the opposite.

In other words, safe spaces are (intentionally or not) a mechanism to reinforce a false persecution complex in their members, by isolating them from other views and criticism. It's much easier to paint the outside world, other people, as monsters when you don't have any contact with them.

This is also one of the reasons why these "safe spaces" are also detrimental even for those who have experienced some traumatic events, such as rape (real, brutal rape, not the made-up "rape" that most of these social justice warriors claim to have experienced, which often amounts to someone just flirting with them, or inappropriate words.)

Rather than get better and engaging in a psychological healing process, these "safe spaces" only, and again, just reinforce their fears and their victim mentality. In this particular case the victim mentality is based on an actual event and is justified. The problem is that these "safe spaces" are not helping it; they are only reinforcing it. After a traumatic event you don't get better by isolating yourself from the outside world, by living in a societal bubble, without ever having to confront your fears. That's the worst possible thing to do. No psychologist or other similar professional has ever recommended isolation as a cure for psychological trauma, but the exact opposite.