We are still actively working on the spam issue.
I'm just a guy that keeps on keeping on. I decided that since I'm not doing much else, I'd make this user page actually presentable and an accurate representation of me. It's a work in Progress.
- 1 Things I am against
- 1.1 Political correctness
- 1.2 Wikipedia
- 1.3 Github
- 1.4 Open Source
- 2 External links
Things I am against
"Political Correctness is a harsher and more controlling form of totalitarianism."
-- Slavoj Žižek for a video from Big Think
SJWs hurt law enforcement and create public disruptions
The SJW Plague is a primary example of how not to protest. Through their own stupidity, and confusion, the SJW exerts their own idea of what is right to make themselves look better as a person. This not only hurts feminist movements, but it makes a burden on the community. Through false claims of rape justified by definitions of the meaning (see photo), law enforcement are forced to spend thousands of dollars investigating these false claims. Furthermore, insanity is in full bloom, and used as an excuse to 1) hate everyone, 2) justify their own mistakes (for example, a CNN reporter asked the leader of the NAACP if she was black due to a scandal which people were claiming she wasn't. In which she responded that she was not black, but identified as such), and 3) causes hatred for everyone.
Logical fallacies, idiocy and overreacting
The insanity of the political correct state ranges from being "triggered" from calling a transgender who calls herself "her" a he (usually by complete accident), to being completely offended by the fact that the commonly used abbreviation for Code of Conduct is "CoC", which looks roughly like the word Cock. This video does a good job of summing up the Political Correctness we needed to endure in 2015.
To pretty much all SJWs, any comment against something they believe in is a form of patriarchal rape.
Exploiting public misinformation
People such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Scarcasian I am against even more. They found a way to manipulate the already-bias media into believing that they are important, that they are fighters of feminist rights, and that they are programmers. Zoe calls herself a video game designer despite making only one major game (it a simplistic CYOA that 12 year old beginner programmers would make), and other similar games. Anita makes YouTube videos about video games.
Furthermore, both have attempted to hide their affiliation with 5 people (nicknamed by the internet "The 5 Guys Burgers and Fries") that conducted (with them) the "harassment" they claim to be victim of.
This Reddit post sums up what has happened since the #gamergate fiasco has happened (written in the point of View of Zoe).
The Freedom of Speech issue
Political Correctness also violates the Freedom of Speech of every citizen, and reserving it to those that know their esoteric made-up rules on how not to bully. I stand by the absolute fact that the first amendment allows everyone to speak, even bigots. I am a pansexual man and I am saying that. I am not the only one who believes in people against him being allowed to talk. Stanley L. Cohen, a Jewish lawyer, once defended members of the "New Aryan Brotherhood" in court. He also wrote an article on the ability to use the word "nigger" and "negro" unadulterated in public. It was well received.
Feminism in tech
Feminism has no place in technological affairs. The wage gap, while it has the possibility of being real, is not as important as everyone claims it to be. Furthermore, a lot of the so-called "Fighters for Equality" that claim they get paid less than the male programmers in their fields, when in reality they are web developers that can't even make a presentable website. Therefore, they are obviously either being paid their worth, or being paid above their worth because of the PC-state they are making, forcing their employers to pay them just because they are women.
The lack of a dialog
Political Correctness in general prohibits a dialogue in discussion of important topics, primarily through fear, but also through the misinformed individual not wanting to offend the other party in general. This proves that Political Correctness is counter-productive in its entirety. The fact that only the minority are perceived to be in the right is simple reverse-racism against the majority. That is not to say the majority is in the right. The problem is that the minority is always right simply because they are the minority. If the Cultural Marxists win, and the minority becomes the majority, what will happen then? No one can rationally view the thoughts behind a moron's intellect, nor discuss it due to the Political Correct state they have made.
The lack of dialog out of fear also prohibits the discussion of real issues, such as actual economic disparity (which does exist, but the PC state has corrupted it) and national affairs such as immigration control. Due to this, the public is forced to rely on the "expert opinion" of the Political Correct "feminist" who knows nothing on the subject except that the Illegal Immag- oh. Excuse me, Unregistered Migrant is a person wanting to enter America. They know nothing of Mexico (outside of TV and possibly a Spring Break they went there) nor the reasons for the influx. They have a mild grasp of the issues at hand, then make bullshit opinions on the issue to sound as if they are well-informed enough. If they at least said they did not yet know enough on this issue, and said they'll remain neutral until they do, then they would be intelligent. But they don't and therefore don't have real intelligence.
I've stopped using Wikipedia because they turned into a Safe Space. Essentially, every article is subject to review by a team of elitist editors that are bias to the SJW plague. Any article is therefore bias and contradictory not due to armature contributors having slight misinformation, not due to spammers, not due to companies using PR firms to make themselves look better. It is the elitist few staff that control and censor everything to fit with their uniform view of the world.
Sadly still, Wikipedia is still the most popular and easiest source for basic information on a topic, so I will link there on occasion. However, I have slowed down on this greatly.
Editors and censorship
Here is some proof on the subject, and here is some more proof, an article on Zoe Quinn that barely covers her, is covered very well in the GamerGate article already, and reads like the "about" section in a blog. This is a response from the official Wikipedia help chat on Freenode. I went there to ask for assistance in nominating the article for deletion. Here is a short discussion after the affair with some unrelated people. While I don't have a screenshot, the first proposed deletion notice was removed on the grounds of spam. The second was being discussed through the proper channels, as seen here. The responses are mostly about oppressed feminism, and calling me a man despite them knowing nothing about me. This is gibberish and red herrings to the main issue.
Well known in decline and economic prosperity
I am not the only person to believe in its decline. This Slashdot article uses research from a credible university to say that the elitist few are harming Wikipedia. I wrote an article for Wikipedia's 15 birthday explaining not only this but the economic hoarding issue, them having 15 million in reserve as reported in 2011, them not needing that much as they only host a high-bandwidth cloudflare-powered website.
Github is a software repo that is contrary to their intended purpose and instead fight mysogany and trans-phobia; a completely irrelevant thing to do when having business in computer technology.
- Open Source misses the point (as seen here)
- Open Source uses weak, flimsy licenses that don't guarantee it is Freedom-Friendly(tm)
- The Open Source Initiative believes simply that source-published software will result in a better product. This is completely contradictory to what GNU believes in, which is that Computers have become an everyday part of society and life itself. Therefore, its use, how it is used, and how the user is allowed to use them is a social-political issue, and they show how they stand. I believe in the former only in part, and the latter in full.
Now, just as RMS has said, Open Source is Free-Software in practice, not principle. Very rarely will you see an Open Source program that is not FSF-compatible. That being said, I will not be a part of the Open Source community, share its ideals, nor will I endorse the BSD, MIT, and other Open Source licenses. Will I use software licensed under these licenses? On occasion, yes. Would I put anything under these licenses? Absolutely not.
Computer Website (dead link, being replaced soon)