Captain America, Steve Rogers, A Hydra Agent? Fuck Marvel

So Marvel is turning Captain America into a Nazi agent and were inspired by the current election cycle.

In the zeitgeist of the moment that we’re in, in the middle of sort of a very volatile election cycle where there’s a lot of strange things going on in the world of politics, and the world and the country, it feels kind of appropriate, kind of right timing-wise, that you could get a revelation like this and it not feel out of step with where the nation happens to be in the moment. – Tom Brevoort

Marvel does well with large moral questions, but does absolutely terribly when it tries to do current event commentary. That’s why their books which exploited 3rd wave feminist raging and anti-video gamer sentimentality ended up getting cancelled or dropping enough in sales that they had to change writers and artists.

That is clearly going to be a commentary on Trump. And comic book fans are going to be livid. Absolutely livid. Because current event commentary in comic books suck. Not because of the positions the writers will take, but because it signals and demands bad writing.

If this is the case, that Marvel is going to continue with this crap where their writers concentrate on being explicit and overt with their moralism and social commentary instead of writing good stories and creating good characters, I’m done with Marvel comics for good.

Advertisements

Transgender Activist Backlash

And now this: You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use

This is the government as sovereign, threatening “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak.

How is it not obvious that this is straight out of 1984? The gov used words to reform cognitive thinking.

I would refuse to call someone “ze” or “hir” or anything other than their born gender out of PRINCIPLE against this policy.

The more you push to brainwash the public when it comes to gender, which the science still does not show what transgender activists want people to believe, the more pushback you will get. And hitting people with their pocketbooks for not adhering to a political movement’s demands is completely against everything that this country was founded on.

This is the backlash: you are the gender you were born with. You got a dick? You’re a man. You got a vagina? You’re a woman. You’ve got a mutilated penis or vagina because your genes are fucked up and don’t play well with testosterone or estrogen (intersex)? You’re whatever your genetic results are.

Everything else is neither ze nor hir.

A One Sided Conversation With A Red Pilled Feminist

I’m going to seem very harsh here, but that’s because I’m a dick. Her piece is actually very good.

Are women so smothered by the blanket of victimhood that we can’t concede that men face issues too?

Yes. Women smother each other all the time. Lesbian domestic violence is among the highest per capita. But I digress…

Isn’t the hallmark of intersectionality finding victimhood everywhere?

LOL No. Intersectionalality is the interest of finding victimhood in only specific demographics which help activists empower themselves.

Feminist boosterism can make us feel empowered.

Feel good. Not empowered. It makes you feel good. You can only empower yourself and that’s done by taking action. It’s a tough thing, really: you are only empowered by powering through things, which requires “empowerment.” The trick is that the power was always there; most people just don’t perceive it.

This is good; I too love when I am told I am special and powerful. Women do indeed face many problems in society.

Not as many as women, the most privileged class by all objective measures, actually face.

However, at my women’s college in particular,  feminist ideology renders students blind to the injustices that disproportionately affect men, like homelessness, harsh prison sentencing, and gang violence.

This doesn’t just happen at colleges. It happens everywhere, including places of legislation, the White House, the Twitters, in the streets, hell, even Facebook groups filled with harpies.

Thus, colleges need to actively incorporate men’s issues into their curriculum.

Why? Men generally don’t bother trying to think of problems as systemic, largely because they aren’t. Social norms of behavior which hurt a demographic or another aren’t systems. Systems have to be especially designed with purpose. People’s behavior, while they can be affected by systems, generally are self-generating. You can build a system to affect consumer behavior, for example, but the human behavior was always the same. The conditions that the human behavior interfaces with changes. If you are averse to risk and a government policy increases the risk of an activity, your aversion to risk may reform your actions. Your behavior is unchanged. That’s why the concept of “systems of oppression” are ridiculous: people feeling they have no power (thus the need for “empowerment”) need to be reminded they have agency and blame” systems of oppression” for their perceived lack of agency and power. It’s delusional.

Men generally don’t bother fighting “systems of oppression” that oppress them because men aren’t being told that personal failures are to be blamed on something other than themselves. Society tells men they are responsible for this and that and men agree – usually because they are. If you don’t get up and move, it’s not necessarily because you’re being kept from doing so. It’s your responsibility to do it. Women, on the other hand, are being told someone else needs to do it for them. Men don’t get told that. Hence men KNOW they have agency while women need to be reminded they have it as well.

And who tells women they have no agency in the modern era? Other women do. Women activists who need money, so they create the illusion that women still have no agency despite having it.

To actively avoid talking about men’s issues is to create a citizenry deprived of important knowledge about how the world works for men and shields students from socio-economic realities. This must end.

When I started taking Women’s Studies classes 4 years ago, I was seduced by feminist ideology.

I’m so sorry.

Mentally tabulating my oppression cards became a hobby.

This is the latest craze among the blissfully ignorant youth. Go on.

Unfortunately, being steeped in feminism didn’t just make me blind to the truth about men—it made me actively resist learning about it.

Is it like an allergy? Does feminism make people testosterone intolerant? Is that why the men who get involved in feminist circles seem like walking, talking, stinking manginas?

Thankfully, while feminism taught me that women were on the losing side of everything—real life taught me that disadvantage is more nuanced than that.

Yes, the world is very complex. Gender relations are incredibly complex. So complex that you need science to understand it.

So why do we ask feminists, who are the antithesis of science, anything about gender relations at all?

Bernie Sanders Is the Oldest Child in the World

Based on this interview, it is clear Bernie Sanders has the mind of a child who is not at all serious about anything. He has good intentions, but he’s absolutely clueless as to how economies and societies in general work. He’s been reading so many communist manifestos that he hasn’t taken the time to learn the fundamentals and that magic wands do not work.

This man is demands even more economic hegemony in order to create a socialist economy, one which removes most of the incentives for people to go into business enterprises and develop the goods and technologies that have improved everyone’s life, including those in the poorest nations.

A “moral economy” is code word for a socialist economy where the benefits merit and the justifications for income and wealth attainment are set aside as inconsequential because society will not accept someone making too much money. Simply because someone out there might not feel so good that they didn’t bother getting their high school diploma, didn’t go to college, and is stuck with a minimum wage job.

Actions and decisions have consequences. Suck it up, buttercup, because the society Bernie Sanders dreams of is one which human beings, once they are living in that society, reject. They either don’t play by the rules and cheat within the system or they dismantle the system. The Nordic model is going to last only so long and it’s already beginning to show cracks despite being only a few decades old.

So, no, I won’t be voting for someone who still thinks with the cognitive capacity of a teenager. The only difference between Bernie Sanders and a conservative who has read only Atlas Shrugged is that at least the latter read a book which has at least one tip toe in the realm of reality.

The Left’s Minimum Wage Hike and Our Socialist Future

Once the left pushes a $15 minimum wage, paid leave, and other government-enforced privileges and gifts, they will demand the government simply GIVE them a wage to sit at home. Because, when you stop reading the newspapers that only tell part of the story, the fact is that job loss is part of the equation from the left.
She quotes a variety of liberal economic policy activists who are now hedging their bets. “For its advocates, the question isn’t whether minimum wage hikes will kill jobs, but rather how to help people who end up unemployed when they do,” DePillis reported. That is, “when” they become financially dependent on the federal safety net; not “if.”
 
 
“Why shouldn’t we in fact accept job loss?” asks New School economics and urban policy professor David Howell, who’s about to publish a white paper on the subject. “What’s so bad about getting rid of crappy jobs, forcing employers to upgrade, and having a serious program to compensate anyone who is in the slightest way harmed by that?”
 
 
For larger firms that can afford to simply eliminate minimum wage positions by replacing them with a touch-screen self-service station, for example, the choice becomes a no-brainer. The self-styled most compassionate among us believe that the priority should be providing those who have their position eliminated as a result of this law with government benefits as soon as possible. While their solution to the problem they created mitigates some immediate suffering, it also robs the newly jobless of their sense of agency and pride. Families deteriorate, neighborhoods follow, and social cohesion worsens.
 
So while people rail on Hillary Clinton nonchalantly saying that the coal miners will lose their jobs, her and Bernie Sanders are perfectly fine with millions upon millions of people losing their jobs.

Academic Hegemony and the Propaganda In Universities

They only reason it seems “facts” have a leftwing bent is because all the people discussing the issues academically are leftwing. In the social sciences, most of the discussions are among avowed Marxists who have the privilege of academic hegemony and use strong-arm tactics to limit discussion within a frame they are comfortable with. This closing of the mind affects intellectual curiosity and teaching, effectively making universities havens of propaganda instead of actual places of experimentation, discovery, and learning.

Only the economists interviewed routinely expressed the conviction that their political convictions were irrelevant to their professional advancement and to the standards of research quality. (The authors seem surprised that right-of-center economists spoke highly of Paul Krugman’s scholarship, if not his New York Times columns.) Economics is also the only field Shields and Dunn studied where professors’ partisan affiliations mirror the general public’s. Marxists are more common in the social sciences and humanities than conservatives.

The modern academy pays lip service to diversity. Yet as a “stigmatized minority,” the authors note, right-of-center professors feel pressure to hide their identities, in many cases consciously emulating gays in similarly hostile environments. “I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950,” a prominent full professor told Shields and Dunn. He’s still hiding because he hopes for honors that depend on maintaining his colleagues’ good will. “If I came out, that would finish me,” he said.

More often, conservatives follow Rossman’s strategy, hiding their views until they’re safely tenured. “Nearly one-­third of professors in the six disciplines we investigated tended to conceal their politics prior to tenure,” write Shields and Dunn. The number rises to nearly half when you exclude economics.

The pattern has also worsened in recent decades. Among those over 65, only 7 percent hid their politics before tenure, compared to 46 percent of those under 45. Without the young economists, that number would look even more extreme.

In their op-ed, Shields and Dunn downplay the common pre-tenure deception as “a temporary hardship.” But the dishonesty corrodes the mission of the university. For instance, a political scientist at a research university told the authors that he wouldn’t assign works by Friedrich Hayek in his political economy class before he was tenured. His fears of political ostracism thereby deprived students of exposure to an influential 20th-century thinker.

Right-of-center scholars also learn not to ask research questions that might suggest the wrong political views. A historian told the authors he’d decided not to write his dissertation on the history of supply-side economics, because he feared the mere choice of the topic might reveal his deviance. So a significant movement in American political and intellectual history went unexamined.

I Disagree With Trump, but On Abortion, He’s Intellectually Consistent

So people decided to get all uppity about Trump saying women who get abortions should be punished if abortions are illegal.

Trump is an asshole and is not fit for presidency under our republic, but this righteous indignation about what he said is ludicrous.

I disagree with criminalizing drug sales and prostitution, but do we not, under the law, punish both the sellers of drugs and the consumer? Do we not punish both sex worker and John?

So why in the hell is there a disconnect among people who think abortion is murder and Trump’s stance? The issue isn’t that Trump is wrong. If you think abortion is murder and the states make that public policy decision to make it murder or make it illegal to participate in the act of having and performing an abortion, why in the holy hell is the consumer end of the criminal activity not being punished?

Trump just showed the anti-abortion demographic that they’re not really all in on being against murder of the unborn.

And this article linked above and the Republican Party commentariat completely fail at noticing that. Mostly because people would rather just feel better about themselves after another Trumpgasm.