It’s important to know who to blame

All immigrants arrive here in a state of preternatural innocence, dreaming of becoming the right sort of wh^WAmericans, reading the NYT, raising their little boys to be trannies, and shopping at Whole Foods. Then the Hobbesian racist nightmare of Middle America kicks in, and the mystical influence of the wrong sort of white people turn the immigrants into… actually existing third world human beings, not unlike the people who screwed up the hellhole they came from.

The operation of that mystical influence is not well understood. Maybe something to do with priming. But that’s not important.

What’s important is that our infallible progressive instincts have told us who to blame. And, in a stunning proof of the infallibility of the progressive instinct to blame the wrong sort of white people, everybody who always blames the wrong sort of white people has independently, with much thoughtful mindfulness and mindful thought, concluded that it’s the wrong sort of white people. HA! Nailed ’em! Dead to rights!

So, we figured out what TED talks are.

I can’t remember where I found out about this post about TED talk profile-picture assholes, but there it is, read it. People who’ve done TED talks, or just TEDx talks (which are a smaller, shittier, even stupider version of the same thing), are into using frame grabs from their talks as social-media profile pics and PR handout shots. And when you look at them, it’s always the same pose, The TED Talk Pose:

There are variations, but the favorite is a 3/4 profile shot from below with the arms spread like Jesus, with an exalted facial expression signifying the Impartation of Joyful Wisdom, gazing upward at the audience. An orgasmic fit of self-satisfaction and validation, wallowing in the special warm feeling of playing mutual narcissistic supply with a room full of affluent chin-strokers.

Has a single shrewd question ever pooted forth into the hushed NPRian gravitas of a TED Talk? Just one?

It’s Steve Jobs doing a keynote, with a little Jesus mixed in. TED talks are a mechanism for demi-micro-vips and nano-vips to have vanity videos made of them pretending to be Steve Jobs doing a keynote speech. Like women pay to have “glamour shots” done by photographers.

The content of TED is the Jobs Jesus Pose. That’s it.

Ring the Bell

Dear Woman Part II

Translation: “If you’re the kind of thug who doesn’t give a shit about a domestic violence conviction, maybe some nancy media twats talking down to you on twitter will turn you around!”

I mean, who do these idiots think hits women, and why? “Oh, gosh darn it, I always knew all those media assholes in expensive jackets were the acme of virile manhood, and now it turns out they don’t hit their women! I was only doing it for their approval! Land sakes, I had it all wrong!”

I hold no particular brief for men who hit women, but this is obviously not about them at all. Nobody they need to reach will ever listen to this stuff, and if they gave a damn AND had any brains, they would have thought of that. And would care.

Ht Uncouth Reflections

Check your privilege, sugar-tits

You can’t blame Adria Richardson’s lunatic hyper-entitlement on modern feminism. It wasn’t Betty Friedan or Simone de Beauvoir who came up with the idea that one (1) woman has a perfect right to walk into a conference center full of men, meeting to discuss a field built and maintained by men in a male culture, and police everything every one of those men says and does. It’s not a recent idea. It’s an eighteenth-century[1] upper-class English idea: After dinner, the ladies would retire to another room, and the gentlemen would drink port and talk man talk (in France, the ladies did not leave the table, incidentally). That sort of thing. Affluent Victorians exaggerated it to a baroque absurdity, and drove it down-market to the rest of society. It never fully penetrated the working class; it’s a class marker to this day, in the English-speaking world. That would be why our modern progressives are so devoted to guarding the ladies’ delicate ears from coarse masculine ejaculations.

The French always said English ladies were frigid stiffs.

Anyhow: The point is, I don’t mind much that men welcome women into male spaces like tech conferences far more readily than women will ever welcome men into female spaces (“what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is ours” — Eve). They just need to accept that these are our spaces, we created them, and we must know what we’re doing because ALL of the spaces actually worth entering into just happen to have been created by men. So maybe they could try to control the raging privilege in their girly little hearts and show some respect for immensely valuable institutions that were built and maintained for decades entirely without the kind of input they bring to the table. But that’s the problem: You can’t get that concept past the female solipsism filter. Adria Richardson thinks the tech industry exists for her benefit. She is incapable of conceptualizing any other reason for it to exist. She is incapable of focusing her eyes on a picture that isn’t a portrait of herself.


[1] Or seventeenth? Dunno: The Elizabethans were pretty coarse, and the Cromwell crowd weren’t as far as I recall an upper class phenomenon. Did this crap spread both up and down from the merchant classes? What about Germanic proddies on the Continent? It’s an interesting question.

Black Girls, White Girls, Asian Girls, Google

Via Roosh V on Twitter…

…we find that if you search for “black girls” on Google, you get stuff about sex. And some retarded website called the Root is trying to get hits by acting upset about that. Now, I’ve read a few things in the media, and the one thing 99.9% of journalists are too stupid to do is provide meaningful comparisons to give you a sense of scale. For example, if you search for “black girls” on Google and you get stuff about sex, that must mean that Google particularly associates black girls with sex, eleventyone!! Leave aside the fact that the journalist is too stupid to understand that Google uses an algorithm based on what everybody BUT Google thinks is important about black girls, or green grass, or red pastrami. Never mind that, you’ll never get that through a journalist’s thick skull. But what’s the first piece of information a rational adult needs in order to think rationally about the claim that those search results indicate different treatment of black girls?

If you guessed it, that must mean you’re not a journalist: What happens when you search for “white girls” or “asian girls”?

The exact same thing, of course, but much more of it. Go look:

The first page of results for black girls has a web site that encourages black girls to go into STEM fields. Nothing like that on the first pages for white or asian girls.

What utter bullshit. Oh, buried on page two or three, she casually and in passing mentions the results I found above, essentially admitting that her entire point is pure unadulterated bullshit, but she dismisses that by saying it’s “complicated” (try again!) and moves on with more bullshit.

We Blinded Us with Pseudo-Science

Via Isegoria, an account of a 1986 experiment at UC Berkeley. In a nutshell, the International Studied Department picked some number of class sections where volunteer “student leaders” were put in charge of distributing grade points for class participation. There was no formal accountability.

The professors handed out a survey the first day of class about government, one of the questions being “Do you believe Democracy is the best form of government in the world?” Nearly 100% said yes. The next class, the professors told the students that as this was a class about government that they would be asked to take responsibility for operations in class. Student leaders would be responsible for giving participation points [twenty percent of their grade] as well as points for attendance. The student leaders would also be responsible for operations in the class such as handing out and collecting papers and the behavior of the other students. The professors told students they wanted this system to be efficient.

The professors told the leaders they could use or not use the points as they saw fit. He expected things to run efficiently and if he had to intervene to get things done, they would lose points.

The basic point of the simulation was that if a group accepts `efficiency’ as the prime value in a government, instead of `fairness’, some form of dictatorship will usually follow.

Nowhere is it established, or even plausibly suggested, that the last paragraph is anything but pure bullshit.

Go read it. I’m not kidding. They pulled that conclusion right out of their asses. 1,384 words, and nowhere do they even provide a rationale for imagining that the leaders accepted “efficiency” as the prime value in their government, much less the entire group, or that it had any influence on anything anybody did. The kids did precisely what they were powerfully rewarded for doing; how is it ruled out that the reward wasn’t responsible? Spoiler: It never even crossed the researchers’ minds that people might respond to incentives, therefore they saw no need to control for that effect. The professor mumbled a spell about “efficiency”, therefore the behavior of an entire group of kids with unrelated powerful incentives is suddenly motivated primarily by a concern for efficiency? Pull the other one. Was there a control group where the professors mumbled an equivalent spell about “fairness” or “democracy” or anything else? Of course not. If there had been, I suggest that the outcome would have been the same, because it would’ve been driven by the same bad incentives and the same lack of accountability. I’d be happy to put money on that. Were the experimenters equally happy to take that bet? I can’t say, but they sure didn’t try.

These guys aren’t even social sciences, they’re international relations. Where a sociologist would know enough to go through the ritual motions of cargo cult science, these guys didn’t even get that far. Nevertheless, the spells they mumbled look like “science” to some reasonably intelligent and “educated” people. And by “intelligent” I mean their SAT scores were probably better than mine.

Here’s the thing, though: A lot of us consider the social sciences to be pseudo-science. But it appears that in the 2012 US presidential election campaign, the winning side used a lot of social science researchers in their get-out-the-vote effort, and they got out more votes in some states than anybody else expected they would. Could be good luck. There’s no way to run that election again with different guys advising that campaign. But it’s possible that those guys aren’t as dumb as they look. Just because they always have a public plateful of pretty lies for you when it benefits them, doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t handle hard truths privately themselves, when that serves their interests instead.