My Twitter posts

Friday, July 29, 2016

Did you get the joke? It sucked, but I got it...

Did you get the joke? It sucked, but I got it... 

...Which joke? Well the Little Jeremy joke by Mike Ward of course. I heard of this controversy and always thought that something felt wrong: no one could quote all the joke and no one knew the whole context of the said joke. But today, after hearing that Ward lost the case and went the ''I'm rich and greedy and like to pretend I'm not on Kickstarter to get your pity money'' route, I went on Youtube to listen to the original show by myself. Good job Ward, your joke was about how people are hypocritical when it comes to critisizing handicapped people and pretend they are perfect to not hurt their feelings and victimize them as soon as someone do critisize them and you victimize yourself.

 You fucking twat. 

Ahem, so yes that whole ''Ableist'' hate speech joke everyone thought was so bad ( a 2 minute joke by the way)? It was bad. As a joke. Nothing else really. A bit mean? Yes. Incitment to hatred and violence? Hum where the fuck did you get that? ''he said that the little guy is not dead yet and that he would drown him''. Wow! That sound bad, except that if you listened to the whole joke in french, like I did, you would find out that the context actually meant: ''isn't it funny how everyone pretend he is not ugly and a terrible singer just because he is handicapped? Let's be honest: he's ugly as fuck. '' What about the ''I wished he was dead part'' and the ''I would drown him myself part''  you ask? Well, for starters, he never said the first one, that's just either bad reporting or bad translating ( or both) because as a perfectly fluent native french speaker quebecer I can assure you that the meaning of all he was saying was more ''he is dead ugly and still a crappy singer, so why is he still in the spotlight being praised and lied to?''. Do people forget there is always context to jokes? At the start of the joke he is DEFENDING Jeremy, and praising him jokingly ( or sarcasticly, that's debatable)! He also thought that Jeremy was dying and in context made part of his joke about death made sense. It wasn't very funny, but still not serious. The drowning part? ''I tried to drown him in the water slides and it didn't work [quebecer obscenity], he's unkillable!'' But that part was followed by ''I looked his illness online, and he's ugly [quebecer obscenity]''. Really that was pretty much it. In context it was a bad, poorly written, joke, but clearly he wasn't inciting anyone to violence or discrimination. He was defending him. In the joke. The joke was more ''It's funny how people treat the crippled as precious little flowers'' than ''LOL CRIPPLED FAG''. Can't believe he lost his case with the joke being what it is, really. But let's ramble a little. Nothing would have happened if no one felt offended. 

That's the sad part about hate speech laws: it's the offendee that decide what is the crime. 
Don't believe me?  Think about that: if Ward made his joke about someone else and that someone else and his parents said they were fine with the joke, would it be a crime? No, of course, and that is a legal nightmare. A crime should be objectively a crime, not subjectively. And that's the thing with hate speech, it's about being offended. BUT ANYONE CAN BE OFFENDED BY ANYTHING TO VARYING DEGREES IN VARYING CONTEXTS! Take the word ''nigger'' that many people consider offensive... Except when black people use it between themselves. Then it's fine. Because offense is subjective. Same thing with ''faggot'': bad when straight people use it, fine when gay people do it amongst themselves. ''But there is history of oppression and [lecture about how society was evil and how it is supposedly still hyper racist  and bigoted despite being in a society that take the side of those who point out the racists bigoted morons, even when it's false alarm]'' Ok then, let's me get you a less historically charged example, my mom. And no that's not a joke. One time when I was a teenager and angry at her, I called her a ''chienne'' which in english litterally translate to the female of dog, but as a slur, his equivalent is ''bitch''. Bitch is not a very insulting word for most people, but my mother had a personal history with that word being used by someone which who she had a very bad history with ( no, it wasn't me, oh and since she only speak french she is actually ok with the english word bitch, just not the french one...). So when I used it, she felt EXTREMELY offended and hurt.  She told me that this word was especially offensive to her, despite being used casually by a lot of people. Later on I would guess by myself why, knowing my mother's life story. But of course, I couldn't have known that the word was especially offensive to her before saying it ( I could have guessed but I was young and stupid) and to most people the word isn't very insulting, but to her it was. This little story helps to remind me that offense is subjective, that there is nothing universally offensive to everyone. Everyone is or isn't offended, in varying degrees, from barely noticing it, to extremely butthurt about it, to differents things, and , often, in different contexts. Today for example, I worked (I know, what a surprise) and one of the customer was drunk and said pretty racist stuff to a middle-eastern customer. Out of context what he said wasn't racist in itself. Asking a total stranger that look like he could be from Syria if he is from Syria or the middle east can be a bit dense, but not necessarily racist. But asking this question, caricaturing the arabic accent and pretending to speak arab like a moron, definitely sounds racist. The man was obviously annoyed, but answered that he was Iraqi (from Irak), and specified that he was working in town. Probably to clear out the implied assumption from the drunken idiot that he was a syrian refugee ( that idiot even asked if Iraq was in the middle east just ot be sure, what a dumbass, he also used a racial slur to describe my chinesse boss).  See, context matters. I'm not an SJW that believe that any use of the question ''where are you from?'' directed to non-white people is a racist ''microaggression'' , because I understand that context, and intent, matters. And about Mike Ward intent, even though I say all the time that judging people intentions to defend or critisize an argument is sophistry and should be avoided, I feel that I should tell you what his intentions seemed to be for me since he was judged, by a court, for his intentions  and how butthurt Jeremy's parents were instead of any objective standards: Mike Ward was well-intended, he wanted us to question the fact that people lie to those with handicaps to not incommodate them, but at some point they inevitadly learn that they are not perfect, and in fact, are terrible at many things because of their handicap.  If you cuddle a child and make him believe he is flawless, the day someone do point out his flaws, he is going to throw a tantrum. Isn't it evidence  that Mike Ward view Jeremy as a human being equal to himself that he wouldn't give him special treatment? If we are willing to say that our fellow humans beings, despite all their imperfections or differences are our equals, we must treat them as such, not just in law, but between ourselves. And yes I know this is a SJW talking point but I didn't used it to defend their shitty arguments, and it makes more sense when I say it than when they use it to tell us the opposite message, that the handicapped, women , or ethnic minorities deserve special treatment, when I say they don't. I want to treat people fairly and equally. That's why I'm for facillitating access to buildings for the disabled, but not to lie to them to not hurt their feelings: because it's not fair, and hypocritical. How many of you, dear readers, mock Trump, Hillary Clinton, Kim Kardashian, Justin Bieber or any other public figure without shame? They are people too, with feelings. Yet, no one cares when it's them. And, no , the lesson here is not, ''you should care about these famous people feelings''  the lesson should be '' They should not care about what people say, and choose sparingly what to be offended at, it's not that you can't be offended, but that it shouldn't matter to the entire world if you are''. Jeremy was, that he liked it or not, a public figure the second he started singing in front of the pope. And public figure or not, he was free to be mocked at, as any other public figure ( or anyone really) should be. This whole thing blew out of proportions. Just like Milo Yiannopoulos permaban on twitter ( he might be a dense asshole, but he didn't encourage the racist tweets directed at Leslie Jones), Mike Ward is not responsible for the actions of others that were ill-inspired by his joke to harass and bully Jeremy. Hate speech laws, micro-aggressions, trigger warnings... all used to police language, and since language is used to reflect our thoughts, people's thoughts. I really hope people will realize that being an asshole is part of freedom of speech and that if people get hurt in their feelings and want everyone else to care, then they are the one making a fuss about it unnecessarily. Now let me preemptively defend myself from the angry twats that will come at me saying stuff like: '' so when someone is raped and hurt in  their feelings you want us to ignore them!? You monster!'' Apples and oranges , really. I was speaking about how your feelings toward being outraged or hurt about things that happens to you or someone else, not your depression from a traumatic event. ''But what if someone is outraged because of their traumatic past?'' Then think of my mom. Hum, just not litterally please. My mom was offended by that word, but she will have to learn to not be triggered by any random twat saying it. Plus, no one can read her mind to preemptively know this. So even if I know that saying some stuff might offend people who have been raped, I will say them anyway, because it's up to them to not feel offended. I don't have to cater to everyone feelings, and neither do you. Evidence? How many of you will shout insults at me while not caring the slighttest about my feelings? Good, because you shouldn't. As I shouldn't try to be offended. I might be, of course, but then it's up to me to make peace with myself and accept that outrage. Not go around expecting everyone to be outraged with me and pity me. There is nothing more self-loathing than someone self-pitying themselves. That's why I can't be a feminist or for Black Lives Matter: they victimize themselves all the time. You don't become a victim just because you got stabbed in the streets by a thug, you become a victim if you don't move forward and lingers in self-pity begging for victim points everywhere arounds you. If you don't want to move forward by yourselves then don't expect me to hold your hand, sit on the ground with your lazy ass,  and tell you how much I pity you, because I won't. To the risk of offending the nannies and some feminists: man up and grow up. -KeLvin P.S: the real article to follow my last article is coming soon, this was really just a rant. A smart rant, but still a rant.  

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

My tribe rocks, yours sucks: Politics, video games and human nature?

My tribe rocks, yours sucks: Politics, video games and human nature?

Hi everyone, KeLvin here. Have you ever noticed how fucking simple humans want life to be? It seems that most of us wish that everything should have a simple answer. 
God created the universe and life: a simple answer to the question ''Where does life and the universe come from?''. 
There is good and evil, you must do the first and avoid the second: A simple answer to the question: ''How should one behave?''.
 There is good people and bad people, obviously you want to be with the good people, because you are a good person isn't it?: a simple answer to the question, ''Who should I befriend/date/mate/discuss/[insert human interaction here] with?'' 
Good people should be in power, the good people must remove all power from bad people and punish any bad person: a simple answer to the question, ''what should we do with the bad people?''
Good people agree with me, bad people disagree with me: a simple answer to the question,''Who is a good person/bad person, and how to identify them?''

Now let's get real, shall we?

- Team Valor/Mystic/Instinct rules! The other teams sucks! 
- The XboxOne/PS4 is way better than the PS4/XboxOne!
- You filthy console peasants, ever heard of the PC master race!? 
- Speaking of master race, ever heard of the KKK? 
- Ugh, you disgust me dirty oppressor, we the Uhuru movement know that we must liberate the african people all over the world and unite them against you, as vengeance for all those years of oppression! 
- That's the spirit! We too want to unite the world against our oppressors! We, ISIS, want to unite all the true muslim believers, not those make-believe muslims who don't stone gay people and are ok with women walking in public without their husbands, brothers or fathers. We'll unite them all, and destroy the West heretics, as Allah  told us through his prophet Muhamed (PBUH) long ago. It's time for an islamist revolution! 
- Did anyone said ''revolution!? We, feminists, believe it's time for women to stop being mansplained in public, or complimented in public, or being looked at in public...
-... Are you sure you are not with us? 
- No! Though we will still defend you whenever there is anyone saying the Jihadists are dangerous by claiming they mean all muslim, because we are so dense at times we think that ''muslim''is equal to a race. 
-...That didn't sound like something you would say, really.
- What!? You rapists! It's you disgusting MRAs...
- MGTOWs!!!!
-... MGTOWs that are oppressing women! You support the patriarchy and rape culture, you are blind to all your privileges, like  not having gender quotas in your favour,  people believing you when you accuse someone of rape even if you lied and evidence shown this or receiving compliments all day long by strangers! Wait, I think I shuffled my privileges cards again, Where is my victim card so I can clean up this mess...
- Speaking of people with authority, what do you guys think of police brutality? We, Black Lives Matter, believe it's a race issue, obviously. That's why we didn't name ourselves ''innocent lives matter'' because it's not about making sure that innocent people who shouldn't have been shot doesn't get shot, it's about making sure everyone feel bad if any black person get shot, even those that threaten police officers or civilians. Because who cares about police officers anyway?
- Pff, infidels...
- Rapists don't deserve fair trials...
- Actually, Hillary is more suited for that, why do you think people call her Shillary... She own the establishment and thus can make a great deal for our cause.
- We too would like Hillary to win, she is funded by the middle east for a reason you know...
- Seriously?
 Didn't 9/11 teach you anything?...
- Hum, the US already have a wall you know...
- The average person. I just noticed how extreme all of you are, how similar you are. 
- Similar?
- We and these rapists? 
- We and those white supremacists? 
- We are really nice people you know... Stop oppressing us with your prejudices against white supremacists. Do you want to visit our museum exhibit? ''the non-holocaust:how the Jews, black people, homosexuality and Muslims are ruining the world and how sad it is that Hitler failed to save us all.'' 
- That's a really long name for an exhibit, you should try something as ''Uhuru: radical socialist movement centered on the theory of African Internationalism ,totally not a black supremacist movement''
- Of course Hitler failed to save you all, infidels, everyone knows Allah  will cleanse the world of the jews. And the gays. 
- That's good advice guys, so I think ''exhibit of how Allah is way cooler than Hitler at killing the Jews: totally not anti-semitic'' would do. 
 - Allah can only approve, Killing gay people is the merciful thing to do by the way. That and killing or taxing infidels who wish to worship anyone but the great Allah. 
- I thought Christians, Jews and Muslims all shared the same god but named it differently and  had sligthly different holy books?
- Only Allah is the true one.
- Well, the Christians and the Jews also say that their version is the right one, how to be sure you picked the right one, if right one there even is?
- ... 
- That's all fun and dandy guys, but we are the victims here! I mean, come on, less than a third of all unarmed black men that where killed by cops wasn't threatening anyone and unarmed black men represent a minority amongst those killed, the majority were armed...
- We understand you, but remember that with intersectionality, black men are actually less oppressed than black women, also Hillary Clinton is more oppressed than that neckbeard cavebeast there...
- Pff, don't be silly, sexism and racism only apply to those that were historically more oppressed, the present doesn't matter. 
- Yeah exactly, don't be silly, only white people can be racist, only men can be sexists. The past is truly what matter, why do you think we keep bringing it up?
- ... You all sound the same. You all sound like lunatics and morons. Please get out of the internet. 

Ahem, soooo if no one guessed it already I was joking all along mostly, and this post is only to show you what I want to talk about in my next article. See you soon -KeLvin

Friday, July 15, 2016

The hypocrisy of anti-SJWs, SJWs and Brexit

The hypocrisy of anti-SJWs, SJWs and Brexit

Nuances, concessions, compromises, dialogue, tolerance... Why Brexit and SJW vs anti-SJW debates are a mess.

            Today, I want to steer away from arguing for a side or another, and praise, once again, the importance of nuances. Like I said in my article ''Why the most extreme position is now the most nuanced one'' nuances in politics and philosophy are becoming a rarity of late. Maybe they always were a rarity... Anyway, they are rare nowadays, and that's a problem. To discuss that, I am going to look at the Brexit debacle, for both sides, and general SJW vs anti-SJW internet debates. (Skip 7 paragraphs if you don't care about Brexit and want to read my thoughts on ideological hypocrisy)


               So, Brexit, I didn't take a position in this whole thing, one because I'm Canadian, so it doesn't concern me directly, and two, because I really didn't know which side I agreed the most with. Because I was (and still am) uncertain, I watched many videos on YouTube, and read a few articles. To my big surprise, most known anti-SJWs of YouTube have sided with the pro-Brexit camp, despite the whole thing having barely anything to do with Social Justice, and most SJWs sided up with the pro-remain camp, mainly because of the usual reasons: ''racism'' (you know Muslim is a religious affiliation and that Arabic people are not born into it, right?) and being pro-immigration. I wonder why people were so quick to pick a side... For the SJWs it makes some sense: they already don't really care about nationalities, borders or history (except the history of the oppressed, of course). A sentiment that I can certainly understand, I too, doesn't give a shit about sovereignty, the size of the borders or whatever, as long as the laws remains fair, and that our human's rights remain guaranteed, I don't care if the world remain fragmented countries or unite into super countries, our lives will probably barely change either way. The anti-SJW take on this one, however, makes less sense. I understand why the more conservative or right leaning anti-SJWs did it: because they fear Muslim immigration. Understandable, since Muslim cultures and European cultures are, frankly, incompatible at the moment.

But I really didn't understand why the more left-leaning anti-SJWs have chosen the Brexit camp. Sargon of Akkad keep shouting about sovereignty, but as Thunderf00t, one of the only anti-SJWs to be pro-remain pointed out, that isn't a very good argument. Sargon claim that because of the EU 50% of the laws applied in his country are made by people he didn't elect. Well, actually, if we use that very same definition, the correct number would be between 80% to 99%. After all, in our democracies, we often only vote for the official head of the state (the President, Prime Minister or any other similar title), our regional, provincial or state representative, depending in which country we live, and our local representatives, that most people never bother to vote for anyway. So, usually, we only vote one to four of the thousand(s) of men and women that run the government. Let's not forget those that are appointed and not elected, and you get a rather interesting portrayal of modern democracies. The truth is, that sovereignty, as ''the voice of the people'' is rather limited, and once they are elected, the representatives are, in most cases, free to act against the will of the people they are supposed to represent, either because they think that they must make hard, unpleasant choices because it's ultimately better ones in the long term, or because they only care about themselves, and really don't care about the electorate. But if you meant that sovereignty is a country own capacity to choose for itself without being forced by other countries to do otherwise, then you are out of luck: EU or not, countries have been acting against each others sovereignties, for... pretty much all of history, and even more since the 20th century. The simple fact that there is such a thing as the United Nations and armies affiliated with no country, show that our governments wish to cooperate or pressure each others to achieve common goals. Just in the UN alone we can see that some countries have more ''sovereignty'' over the rest of the world. The UN security council, which is, let's face it, the most important and powerful wing of the UN, has the ''permanent members'', a list of five of the countries that are considered victors of World War II and that have two privileges: one, they are, as the name imply, permanent members that can't be easily expulsed of the United Nations, Two, the permanent members have a right to veto. That means that if any of the Big Five doesn't want something, even if everyone else in the ENTIRE WORLD want it, then it won't happen, because of the right to veto. Quite the privilege when it come to international politics and trampling other countries sovereignties isn't it? Now who is in the Big Five again? Oh that's right! The United States, obviously, because not letting the world leading economy and military have a privilege is impossible, China, because it's a powerful and populous country, Russia, another strong country that is quick to anger, France, mostly for historical reasons, though it remains one of the world strongest countries... and the United Kingdom, because it had the last grand empire. So, one of the five most powerful country in the world is complaining about others trampling their sovereignty? Are you fucking kidding me? If the United Nations even tried to pressure the UK for or against Brexit, the UK could have used their right to veto and they couldn't do a thing! I rarely use that word, but the UK is a privileged country. My country can't veto things! My country, and all those outside of the Big Five have to endure the whims of the ''privileged five'' that doesn't want to do what everyone else want because of egotistical reasons. Oh so we must all do what the annoying five want, UK included, but when we want something that they don't want we can fuck off?  Seriously, that sovereignty argument is bullshit.

      The border control/immigration argument, however, is way better. As many have pointed out, immigration is a thing, integration another. It's all flower and rainbows to want to help people but we should try to do so in the most efficient way not the most intellectually lazy one. I really don't understand what Merkel was thinking: two million immigrants, in one go? Didn't you think that would strain all your resources dedicated to integration, create many ghettos and increase criminality? Plus, she didn't need THAT much workers, sure, Germany is in an economic boom (not for long however, that immigrant move was a mistake), but not so in an economic boom that they would need 2 fucking millions workers! My opinion of immigration is similar to that of most economists: Immigration can be both a positive and a negative for the economy, it all depends on the current state of the country economy, the skills of the immigrants, how easy it will be for them to integrate and how many come in. A country with low unemployment can profit a lot from more easily integratable skilled workers, as it can stimulate an economy that needed more hands and bigger brains.  A country with high unemployment, however, such as France, Spain or Greece for examples, would be hurt by such an influx of workers, especially low skilled and hard to integrate ones, because they are already struggling. Any more workers would be detrimental to their economies, the natives, and the immigrants themselves. What's the point to immigrate in a country in hope of a better life if it is only marginally better? If everyone in your new, very far away, country speak a foreign language, discriminate you out of xenophobic fear and there aren’t any jobs to begin with or your education is not recognized in that country, what's the point? And before anyone point that out: no, immigrants do not, in most countries, get an immediate access to welfare and state subsidized services. They must become actual citizens or long term residents before (the first one grants all social advantages, welfare included, the second only a few advantages, like healthcare coverage and free public education, but not welfare) and that necessitate years to integrate perfectly. The only immigration category that get immediate access to the all the advantages of being a citizen, with an immediate right to claim welfare, are refugees, and refugees make up a minority within immigrants. In Canada for example. it's around 10% of all immigration. It's similar all around the world, since refugees cost a lot for a country, countries tend to avoid bringing unnecessary ones, those that cost the most are: refugees that speak a language very different from the receiving country, refugees that have few marketable skills, refugees that are too old to work, refugees with children, those that got crippled by the war/natural disaster and a few more.

 From a strictly economical perspective it would seems that the UK is in a good position to receive more immigrants, the UK has a pretty low unemployment rate right now, around 5%, which is 1% above Germany's and 1% under Canada's rates, for comparison. You might say that there is still unemployment and thus that mean that there aren’t enough jobs but that would be ignoring frictional unemployment, or in simpler terms ''the unemployment that makes sense''. A lot of jobs create temporary unemployment, such as harvesting jobs, ice cream parlors, those people that costume themselves as Santa around Christmas, those are seasonal jobs. There is also those that work with contracts and are for many months of the year officially unemployed, but technically not really, like construction workers for example, or teachers in some cases. Let's not forget people that get fired for incompetence or willingly quit their jobs and are in-between, or those that move, those that have standards and won't just pick any job and you get a better picture of why it is virtually impossible to see a country with a 0% overall unemployment rate. An unemployment rate of 5% is good, under that excellent, and above that it gets worse. The ''neutral'' type of unemployment is the structural kind, caused by a country changing technologies, worker qualifications, mentalities and policies, and the ''bad'' type is the cyclical kind, caused by the current state of growth of the economy, which is usually corrected by itself, with a bit of luck (the neo-liberal approach), or with massive investments in public services by the state, which will stimulate the economy (the Keynesian approach).

  It would seem that the strongest part of this argument is not the economical one, at least not in the UK case, for France or Spain it would be, but not for the UK. No, we all know what was emphasized during the pro-leave rallies: Muslim immigration and cultures clashes. Ah, Muslims, to me they are the modern day equivalent of the Christians of the middle ages: barbaric and obsessed with crusading, or in their case, starting Jihads. A Jihad is just the Muslim equivalent of a crusade anyway. You might say ''that's only the extremists'' and you wouldn't be wrong... except that, like the Middle Ages moderate Christians, when the moderate Muslims silently approve the action of jihadists they are making it worse. During the Middle Ages, not everyone was a crusading Christian, most were pretty moderate, but since the moderates let the extremists take over they ended up with war-crazed religious and non-religious leaders eager to kill and enslave all Muslims, the first ones because of blind faith, the seconds for power and gold. Ever heard of the Children Crusade? It's as stupid as it's sound: Christians zealots sent kids to war (they said ''peacefully convert Muslim to Christianity'' but really they just wanted to get rid of the hordes of poor young unwanted orphans, that were very common at the times), they were captured by Muslims, some were killed, the others enslaved. This type of bullshit happens when you let religious zealotry run amok, no matter which religion it is, and nowadays Islam is certainly the most violent religion of our time. So, understandably, one would wonder why no one learnt from history that critisizing religion is essential to avoid unnecessary wars. And tolerating and yielding to Muslims that want to impose their own rules into European societies is certainly not the intelligent thing to do. Of course that we can accommodate their most insignificant demands, such as halal meat being sold in stores or to be able to build mosques, but to try to circumvent laws or institute a thought police for anyone criticizing their religion is just retarded. As everyone forgot Charlie Hebdo yet? Those cartoonists that were killed by  Islamists offended because they mocked and illustrated their Voldemort-esque  prophet? Yeah, I didn't forget either. So why did the moderates and non-Muslims alike united to say that  ''they shouldn't have criticized or draw Mohamed, they went too far''? Too far?! The whole point was to criticize the over-sensibility of Muslims on the matter and their inability to tolerate freedom of expression! When you have for No 1 rule to not represent something, you are already infringing your most fundamental right! And that ''peace be upon him'' that systematically must follow every mention of his name? That's crazy annoying! Ahem, so yes, I perfectly understand the position that Islam values and fundamental beliefs are incompatible with western societies. One might say that the Bible is fucked up as well, and that's true, however modern Christians don't take their holy book as seriously as Muslims do, they always cherry pick and ignore what they don't like (like not eating shrimps, not doing heterosexual sodomy and more), resulting in relatively harmless, sometime annoying, definitely slightly hypocritical people.

The whole pro-leave argument thus turned to: ‘if we leave we will be able to limit Muslim immigration more easily''. And while not having to deal with the EU might facilitate that, did they forgot their own government opposition in the process? I mean, they would still need the government to act that way, and if the government in place don't want to, their main argument will have serve naught. But I'm basically nitpicking at this point, so let's shortly review the pro-remain arguments.

You got the usual ''immigration is good for the economy'' which is, as we saw, not always true, but it seems to be right now because of the low unemployment so ok, good point there, and ''we don't want to isolate ourselves from the EU table''. Well, you wouldn't really isolate yourselves, in the EU or not you would still need to deal with them regularly, thus maintaining some influence. Also did you already forget that the UK is in the Big Five dear reader? Because I certainly didn't! There was also this ''leaving is racist'' that was thrown away, but I'm willing to bet few people considered that ''argument'' when casting their ballot.

To summarize both camps had good and bad arguments, but the real question should have been: for or against the concept of an ‘'united states of Europe''?  In my case, I don't care either way, but formulated that way the vote would have been even more on the leave side I think, because my ''I don't give a damn'' position is common among young people, so they would just have voted for what others wanted.


Now that I did that mandatory reflection on the subject let's talk about the attitudes and behavior of the debate leaders and followers: complete utter stupidity. The amount of lies, misinformation and sophistry shouted from both sides made me cringe so much. There was this nonsense from the pro-leave camp about EU laws that used artificially inflated statistics, the pro-remain ''you are racist'' non-argument, the ''every one voting for the other side is not a true Briton/European'' no true Scotsman cringe-fest... It really was annoying to me to have to filter everything to find out a smidgen of unbiased reliable information on the subjects discussed. The attitude of online commentators was also unbearable. The Sargon of Akkad vs Thunderf00t ''debate''? Cringy as fuck. The feminists and Black Lives Matter activists complaining about future hypothetical racism was also tiring. We don't know yet guys, stop pretending you know the future for fuck's sake! And that's valid for both camps! Sargon's and Thunderf00t's attitudes of ''I know what is going to happen and what EU leaders think and want for the EU and the UK'' was testing my patience. Stop judging other people intentions! You can't read minds, all of you!

I swear, at this point any side of a political debate is stupid to me, it's like going to a Down's syndrome convention and figuring out who is slightly less retarded than the others. They are still retarded, so why bother electing a king/queen of the retards? Right now I think the anti-SJW side does make more sense than the SJW side, but at times they can have the same mob mentality as SJWs, even pettier sometimes. They constantly insult SJWs with lame insults, prey the stupidest SJWs videos like rabid beasts and don't always actually critisize their ideas or evidence. They are like a jock pointing out the slow kid and giggling at his stupidity, it's get boring and doesn't achieve anything except mutual hatred. Sure the SJWs have crazy assumptions and think that everything is racist or sexist, but that doesn't mean that nothing is racist or sexist. They do point out instances of actual racism or sexism amongst all their ridiculous claims. That doesn't prove that it is systematic, but that does show that there is still racism and sexism. Seeing the SJW going ''that's racist'' every two seconds is as annoying as seeing the anti-SJW going '' absolutely not race related''. I wonder how they would react to the concepts of nuances and concessions, because there is this inability to admit when the other side make a point. Yes, SJWs, racism and sexism is bad and laws such as the Canadian ''similar jobs, similar pay'' act do help to make sure that traditionally female jobs such as hotel's maids get paid as much as similar jobs such as a hotel's groom, but that doesn't mean that everyone is racist or sexist, specific individuals certainly are, but you can't effectively claim that the whole system is rigged because of these individuals. You must prove this first. Yes, anti-SJWs, not everything is racist or sexist, and the SJWs do exaggerate and claim a little bit to fast that everything is race or gender related, but that doesn't mean that ultimately it isn't or can't be part of the problem. There is for example, evidence that Donald Trump is racist, or at the very least very xenophobic. Just go on reddit, people love to debate this. So you can't just claim that he can't be racist because the SJWs exaggerate everything. He could be. Does that mean he is? Not necessarily, but it's probable, given the evidence. However, it doesn't matter if he is or not, because we shouldn't be judging other's intentions in the first place, like I said before, no one can't read minds anyway.

For every Anita Sarkeesian ''everything is systematically racist and sexist'' and Transgender Milo ''everyone is transphobic, and I hate transphobic people'' there is a RedPillPhilosophy ''everything is feminist SJW political correctness conspiracy'' and a Mayor of MGTOW ''women are useless obese lazy gold diggers and I hate them''. Anti-SJWs keep saying that the moderate feminists shouldn't silently approve or encourage the actions of the extremists among them while simultaneously the anti-SJWs are ignoring or collaborating with the most extreme parts of their own. Milo Yiannopoulos is the perfect example of anti-SJW hypocrisy, he gets a cult-like following amongst anti-SJWs and the ''Cool'' right wingers but he has some of the craziest beliefs I ever heard. Gay supremacist and outright nonsensical levels of craziness, so why aren't they talking against him at times? They sure are covering him a lot when he gets shut down by SJWs and Black Lives Matter activists at universities, but they never criticize his most extreme views! While at the same time their opponents simply have to point out this fact to make them sound less likeable. They say SJWs like to virtue signal, well they like to do that as well except that they don't even do what they preach! Say what you want about SJWs but at least they do exactly what they preach most of the time.  I am more on the anti-SJW side, but I can't help but notice the hypocrisy behind both camps.

[Post release edit: here is something I wrote about Milo, forgot to put it somewhere else , so here it goes: Milo is a gay Christian conservative journalist for Breitbart, an UK right wing news site. He spends a lot of his time right now touring American universities and having conferences where he opposes feminism and black lives matter while promoting his conservative views. Sometimes, activists interrupt aggressively his conferences and state that he must be silenced for his ‘’hate speech’’. So, of course, most anti-SJWs go to his rescue explaining to them how free speech is a two-way street and that you don’t silence people you disagree with and that speech must be countered with speech. That if they really want to oppose him, then they should make their own conferences or hold debates. Not silence him before he even said anything. And that’s fine, really, I agree with that. However, I find it hypocritical that the anti-SJWs never criticize Milo most extreme views, or just his conservative views in general (you know since a lot of anti-SJW are on the left too). We are talking about a man that think that gay men are natural-born geniuses, that being a gay man married with a nice house and a dog is gross and he literally said that gay people are superior to straight people (but he would still like his children to be straight). He even said gay master race for fuck’s sake! I’m gay myself but I can’t agree with that! And I know I’m not alone thinking this. He also makes the dumbest arguments to defend his views sometimes «If conservatism were really about protecting rich people, why would millions of working class people vote against their own interests...» Failing to notice the inherent logical fallacy of this appeal to popularity or appeal to ridicule [insert other fallacy I forgot/didn't notice here]. Let’s not forget his enormous ego and you get yourself a character that should be critisized. Not just hand waved away by feminists for what he says (some of which makes perfect sense and I can agree with) and blindly followed by anti-feminists despite all the crazy stuff that he said. Like anyone, Milo should be subjected to criticism, but he gets a free pass from anti-feminists, anti/SJWs and get an eye-roll from feminists, so his following grow and he goes unchallenged.]  

Some anti-SJWs have said that they don't bother criticizing their own side because it's not as much a threat as ''Social Justice'' and political correctness are or that these people are a minority. Don't these excuses sound familiar? That's exactly what the moderate SJWs say when asked about why they don't critisize the extremists amongst them.

That's the main reason I recommended TL; DR YouTube channel before: he don't pick a side and critisize any sides. He did videos where he criticizes MGTOWs and videos were he critisize feminists. He doesn’t care about picking a side, he cares about objectivity and the truth, like all self-respecting scientist or philosopher should.

I mentioned mob mentality for a reason: both SJWs and anti-SJWs can be incredibly tribalistic. Twitter, as great that social network is, is a constant hailstorm of pettiness where people laugh at the slow kids instead of trying to help them. Both disgust me when they create a mob and attack or ''critisize'' (read, calling the victim of the Twitter wars an idiot accompanied by a mountain of slurs with little to no explanation) someone because they said or did something stupid. We get it people, sometimes the slow kids shit their pants, but that's no reason to piss on them. Of course it's the internet so people feel more confident being assholes to each's others, but really they are just hindering dialogue. Both sides don't like to tolerate the other side. Yeah sometimes my SJW classmates annoy me but I let a few one of their claims passes or concede a few points, otherwise it's near impossible to have a polite meaningful conversation. I kind of understand why both camps live in echo chambers bubbles at times: when no one is willing to give terrain to the other, no progress can be made.

 I will end this with the same tirade as before. We need more nuances and more tolerance in politics. Actual tolerance, not just virtue signaled tolerance. We need to be able to make concessions and compromises at times, taking the extreme view of ''Everything I say is right, the other side is all wrong'' is ridiculous. Facts don't pick a side. Reality don't pick a side. So when one points out the facts, no matter what is their political affiliations, we should discuss with them. The interpretation of the facts or the reliability of said facts is always debatable, but denying the existence of evidence or the value of the evidence for an argument is silly. I hope people will abandon the political tribalism for rational discourse, but I could very much wish to become an handsome billionaire unicorn rider dragon's slayer that it would be more realistic. Have a good day, and don't point that gun at your forehead yet. -KeLvin

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Change of name! Dreamzo to KeLvin!

Short announcement! I'm changing my nickname from Dreamzo to KeLvin, while my blog isn't too popular yet. I like KeLvin more, it's seems more serious and since my name is Kevin Laprise, the name is also a clever play on the word, putting my second initial in my first name. I will retroactively change the name in my articles.