The issues with DEI - the Secret Service edition

DEI prioritizes diversity over competency- this is a well known problem with it. Or rather, this is a feature, since this is precisely what it is meant to do. Let's not talk about how unfair it is towards people who are not in the "protected characteristics" groups, and get left out despite being more competent than the people who get in. Let's forget about the competency crisis DEI causes. Let's talk about briefly what happens when a person, who is not an evil white cis heterosexual male (I hope I covered all here), fucks up. Because people do fuck up, even the competent ones. Well, the first reaction when Trump got shot was a gleeful laugh at the female Secret Service operatives and boss, because people assumed they fucked up because they were DEI hires. Yes, white cis heterosexual males would not have been lampooned like this, but since DEI is in place, it made those agents a free game. Who knows? Maybe they really were incompetent. Maybe they were not. But they sure as hell got a rough treatment because of DEI. (And not because they were women.) DEI puts the people it is supposed to help in a much worse situation than the white cis heterosexual male. Their sole presence will come with the assumption of being helped there instead of having worked to get there, and every time there is a fuckup, they will be under even more scrutiny. I am not sure who the winner is here.

Gender issues- argument from victimhood

 The scenario:

Step 1. Make a generalization about a group that is ideally less than kind.

Step 2. Get eviscerated by the internet

Step 3. Change your name and hide your head in shame.

If you make any negative generalization about women, blacks, gays, Muslims, whatever, normally this is what happens. People, who have images on their profiles with texts like "be kind to others" and whatnot will descend on you like a pack of furies to point out that you cannot and should not generalize in such a way. Which is fair. You really should not. First, because it is morally wrong (you know, it is "-ist", depending on if it is based on race or sex or whatever: racist, sexist, etc.), and it is also stupid because normally real-life evidence does not support it. 

Unless... unless you make remarks about men, especially white men.

Then the scenario will change considerably.

Step 1. Make an insulting generalization about men, depicting women as poor, suffering victims.

Step 2. When someone tries to argue about this, attack their person ("you are the reason we choose the bear" is the newest one, but the good, old "incel" always works)

Step 3. Watch as everyone descends on those people who dare to contradict your bigoted generalization to tear them to shreds. (And they are lucky if it does not impact their employment status...)

This interesting change in outcomes can be seen everywhere. You are absolutely not allowed to make generalizations about, say, Muslims (do try to bring up integration in European culture), while the very same people who label you an Islamophobe will absolutely murder you if you dare to challenge their open misandry. 

The responses normally can be sorted out into these categories:

1. open ad hominem attacks (the above mentioned "you are the reason we choose the bears")

2. how dare you question our experiences? All women are suffering (myself included), and you have no right to question us. Don't dare to mansplain. Especially go away with your statistical evidence. 

3. how dare you give context? (For example, pointing out that domestic violence is not a simplistic "man beats woman" issue.) "Whataboutism", "fragile ego", 'you must be the problem because you are defending abusers', OR, my favorite, "this is a safe space for women's issues, don't bring men's issues into it". But when you do it in a "safe space for men", first of all, you are an incel and a red piller, and then women's issues are immediately brought into the conversation just to show how much worse they have it. Just try it somewhere. Anywhere.

4. Yes, but. Male issues pale in comparison. It is simply not worth talking about them. And Patriarchy hurts men, too. And if you solve women's issues, you solve men's, too.

So yeah. You cannot win, because in the current zeitgeist, women are absolutely oppressed (even though the facts don't actually support this), hence they have the upper hand in the conversation- after all, if you have certified victimhood, you win by default. 

Now this is where I should bring up a sure-fire strategy to win in these conversations, but the fact is you cannot. 

The main problem is that these (mostly) women take an immense amount of glee of bullying people they disagree with into submission, all the while displaying their victimhood status - kind of like the concept of virgin prostitute. Because make no mistake: these people are some of the worst bullies you can find. Ironically, the very same tactic is used against feminists when it comes to trans issues - and they suddenly learn what it means to be bullied in this way, and do not like it very much. And in the case of Kathleen Stock, they demand that men stand by them. Ironic, I guess. 

Especially if it is online, it is best not to engage, because as the saying goes about wrestling with pigs - you both get muddy, and the pig enjoys it (and you cannot win - this is not done on an intellectual level). So however infuriating/sad/worrying it is to read bigoted comments, sometimes open hatred, you cannot do anything. Reporting these comments will do nothing, since, as we already established, these "truths" are universally accepted today. It is just another example of how polarized (and stupid) our society became, where one half of the population is seen as a threat, as something unnecessary, or even as an enemy, essentially by women who probably do not apply the same views to their own male relatives and friends. Nevertheless the "I hate blacks, but you are OK, because I know you" was never a good excuse for racism. Neither is it a good excuse for sexism. Yes, they probably will grow up eventually and realize that men and women mutually need each other, but in the meanwhile these views do an immense amount of damage to young men, to society at large, not to mention these views are propagated to the next batch of young, privileged women enjoying the feeling of victimhood. Or worse, middle aged women blaming all their failures on men. 

The curious case of Ilaria Salist

 It has been quite astonishing to follow this case. The background: there is an admittedly far-right demonstration commemorating the break-out attempt of German and German allied Hungarian forces from the besieged capital, Budapest. Which is quite bad in itself, and brings out the most unsavory characters. Such is life in a (reasonably) free society. You kinda have to tolerate the assholes, too. (You know, freedom of speech and yadda-yadda.)

But it also brought something else out. People from Germany, Italy travelled to Budapest to beat people they deemed neo-Nazis up. With viperas and other 'instruments', no less, essentially making these assaults into potential manslaughter/murder since it is quite easy to kill someone when a group of you jump him or her, beating their head, poking at them and whatnot with a piece of metal. And let me repeat this: the victims were chosen randomly.

Let me repeat this. People from other countries of the EU travelled to Budapest to potentially kill people they thought were neo-Nazis. The way they determined it? Why, anyone wearing black, green or camo is obviously a neo-Nazi. (I guess GAP is selling them clothes, too - I have a green coat which resembles a military-style jacket, bought by my girlfriend. But regardless -the selection criteria is somewhat suspect.)

Even IF the people who these staunch Antifa people were assaulting WERE neo-Nazis, I was not aware that laws did not apply any more. (I guess these "enlightened" foreigners believe that they can ignore the law of lesser nations.)

Funnily the Western media did not really get caught up in this strange chain of events, where foreigners travel to a place explicitly to almost murder the locals. I guess if it was, let's say, Hungarian neo-Nazis (of which there are not many) travelling to Berlin to assault a Pride Parade, we would have heard a lot more of it -which just shows the double standards and hypocrisy of Western media outlets.

That is, until, one of them got caught (actually, more), after assaulting people, and her father kicked up a fuss about it in Italy. First of all, this was a female teacher, so obviously, because it is a woman, we immediately feel that she must be blameless. Second, the Italian press and political establishment immediately jumped into her defense, despite the fact that she assaulted people in a foreign country where she travelled to do so.

So what does the Left in Italy do? They make her a candidate for EP in the EU. A person who almost beat someone to death. 

The reason? "Her candidacy is a positive symbol for the battle of rule of law and fundamental rights in Europe. We stand with our Italian allies against autocrats like Viktor Orbán and his barbaric methods of detention"

So the rule of law involves assaulting people in mobs? Great place Italy must be then. Oh, that is for only the filthy foreigners! Sorry, I forgot. The demagougy of this statement is astonishing. It is also interesting how Italy seeks to interfere with another country's judicial processes. Very democratic. Next thing we know, they send some exploding cigars or military advisors, a'la CIA in the '60s...

Imagine the uproar if the situation was reversed. This is an incredibly good demonstration of what people think of others living in the poorer parts of Europe -an actual example of cultural racism. Obviously if she was caught in Germany, all this would not have happened -but those untermenschen do not matter in the East. They can be beaten to death without us feeling any empathy. We need to save this poor woman!

And then the media-reaction: they immediately establish that the victims were ne-Nazis - which they were not by large. Out of the nine attacked there were plenty not having any connection to the far-right demonstration. But even if they were. OK? Even if they were -which, again, is not true- this is not actually something you would do in a civilized country, such as in Germany or Italy. So what does it say about you when you travel to some other place where you think you are free to do so? Or defend these people, hm? Are we back in the Weimar republic? Should we then allow the far right to beat people they think are Antifa? (Funnily enough, even reddit's very "progressive" community had a somewhat more balanced view on this... I guess not all is lost.)

Just read what the Guardian is writing - she was detained after a counter-demonstration, not after assaulting people. Obviously. Reuters was the only reasonably neutral source of information on this.

Second issue: instead of focusing on what they did, everyone is crying about prison conditions. Good job focusing on the main issue here, I guess. You may as well get the impression that these people were doing charity work and were detained in Iran... There are two things here. Yes, Hungarian prisons are not like the ones in Norway - if you want to be in those, well, do as Breitvik -over there. But neither are they full of rats, despite what the allegations (lies) state. Moreover: if you go to some "poor, backwater" place where you think you can beat people to the edge of death, well, you kinda need to face the realities there if you get caught. You get the same as all the other assholes breaking the law there. No special treatment for your entitled, superior little ass, no transfer to your country for you, ma'm, forgetting all about it, leaving some bloody mess behind. It is not tax evasion you did, but grievous bodily harm -no country will allow you to leave in such circumstances. Enjoy the prison sentence waiting for you in Hungary. You may be released in a couple of years if you behave yourself.

All in all, appalling reporting and appalling reactions to an Antifa action. (And just to repeat the first point: this is not to excuse this whole far-right jamboree happening in Budapest every year. But the problem is there is very little you can do about it in a country that still has vestiges of the rule of law...)

Of bears and men

 So obviously men are problem. So much so, that 99.9% women who responded to the question rather have a chance encounter with a bear in a forest than with an unknown man. (Maybe they misunderstood and like hairy, thick, homosexual men?)

Which goes to show two things, really. People, who responded, are stupid. I mean really, fucking stupid. The education system completely failed. Second: it is incredible how polarized our world has become, where facts matter not, feelings trump everything. And if you are a man, and have an opinion, obviously you are dismissing women and their experiences, and should just shut up. Obviously. (Even though it kinda is about you, too. And really, real world evidence and "muh experience" are kind of different things.)

So the first thing.

Bear attacks are rare. True. But why are they rare you may ask. Well, let's see. Bears are rare, so encounters are rare, despite of people hiking and generally living where bears live. About 1% of chance encounters end up in an attack; which is not a lot, admittedly. (There is no actual statistics; I found a couple of estimates and used the lowest one.) But then again: how many men does a woman encounter on a regular basis and how many bears? If you really think you are safer with a bear than with a random man, even just looking at the numbers, you are -as we established already- fucking stupid. Not many people meet a 100 bears in their lifetime, so the chances of getting attacked by one is astronomically low. But if you regularly met hundreds of bears... well, the situation would change. Drastically. Women meet hundreds and thousands of men regularly, and if 1% of those meetings end up in an attack, well, we have an ongoing bloodbath; Khrone would be proud. Let me put this this way: cows kill hundreds of people every year, whereas lions hardly any. Does it mean cows are more dangerous than lions? Seriously? Well, do try to keep the same number of lions as we have cows, and we would see. Statistics without understanding the context means exactly jackshit.

So that's one issue out of the way.

The other thing is we ignored the fact that most violent acts are committed by a fraction of the population. Mostly men, yes, but women are violent, too, which is left out of the discussion interestingly. Also: men are significantly more likely to be victims of random violence than women. The level of fear and the actual threat may not be in balance here, but then again, it never usually is, considering how much people fear serial killers vs how much they fear cigarettes or ultraprocessed food. We are morons when it comes to things we fear. (Further example: fear of commercial flights vs fear of automobiles.) The issue here is more complex than these idiots would like to believe.

Another also important forgotten issue: if we focus on sexual attacks only, well, those are mostly committed by people close to the victim, so again, no cigar there. A random man will be a safer choice than your uncle, for example, just going by the statistics alone. I am sure your uncle is a nice person who would not rape anyone, but statistically he is more likely to rape you than that dude on the tram. Another interesting sidenote: many women would prefer to be dismembered by a bear than to be raped? Really? That is just... wow. I mean you can't be more stupid that this; which just shows how sheltered and privileged these people are. I guess there is nothing for me but to wish them their bear encounter they crave so much. After all, it is all fun and games until the grizzly starts eating you while you are still alive.

And then the second point I want to make.

The amount of glee, bitterness, outright hatred that stems from this victim menality s incredible. Women do seem to have adopted this hostile attitude against one half of humanity as not just something valid, but something to be embraced. Meanwhile, supposedly, they not all are angry lesbians (who, by the way, have the highest incidence of domestic violence) and have day-to-day encounters with their fathers, husbands, sons. I guess they do not count?  And let's not forget. These women are living the cosy, safe, sheltered life of the Western world, not the oppressive Patriarcy of Saudi Arabia, for example. Anyone spouting this idiocy, and stirring up hatred deserves her 1% chance meeting a bear. Young men already face challenges they get absolutely no support for, so this is not helping. The largest cause of death in men under 40 is suicide. They are more dangerous to themselves than to anyone, especially to those angry and misshapen women who dwell in their imaginary victimhood.

This idiocy perfectly shows the problem with victim mentality. Since you are the victim, you are justified to have absolutely no empathy -and outright hostility- towards the evil oppressors, and you are justified in your hatred. It also helps to foster an incredible level of narcisism. You can see this in all the comment sections whenever men's issues come up - women are so incredibly hostile, ready to belittle, to dismiss, it is incredible. You'd wonder how people who are claiming that empathy is important in uderstanding the struggle of others can so easily dismiss others' struggles.  That is until you realize that strong in-group empathy leads to the lack of it against anyone who is in the out-group. This is exactly how racists operate by the way.

And as a closing, I will present you an alternative version of this tik-tok question, which is much more supported by statistics than the fucking bear is. (Mind you this is for demonstrating the idiocy; I do not actually pushing for this.)

Would you be more willing to be alone in a forest with a white man or a black man? As we know, in the US, blacks are overwhelmingly responsible for violent crime, so this is a valid question, no? And if you do not think it is -based on some weird moral qualms about racism being bad and all-, why the fuck do you think the original question is acceptable, which is not even supported by statistics? Sexism is fine when it comes to men?

We have always had female Adeptus Custodes

 Long wall of text which is justified not because of the recent changes regarding the Custodes fraction in Warhammer 40K but because it is indicative of larger cultural trends.

 

So now we have female Custodes in Warhammer 40K. Or rather, we always had. (Quite an Orwellian turn of events, if you think about it.)

The reaction is obviously quite vocal, as is the reaction to the reaction. On one part people are swearing that they will quit the hobby, make dramatic statements, get into flamewars into other people who gloat about this whole thing, and call everyone who are critical of this move an incel.

So why is this a problem, regardless of incels or not? (I am sure there are some sexists in this crowd, but then again, I have not met them. I only saw a bunch of angry nerds, and boy, nerds are people you do not want to piss off.)

There are a  couple of issues; some pertain our real world, and the trends we see, some pertain the sacred, inviolate lore.

So the real world issues.

 

1. Pandering to the DEI crowd

 

Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario. There is a small town somewhere in the countryside which is, for any reason, an attractive tourist destination. You have a pub there, which the locals love, and have been going there for decades. You now turn this pub into a club where rave parties are thrown, in the hopes of attracting the tourists with their big money, and tell the locals who grumble about you taking their favorite spot away that they are a bunch of in-bred bigots. (Especially that this happened to other pubs in the area, too.) And then you see your income fall, because –pikachu face- tourists are not as committed to your establishment as the regulars. This happened to countless franchises: Star Wars, Star Trek, Witcher, Wheel of Time, Rings of Power, Marvels, Dr Who, Indiana Jones… and the list is long. Not to mention the computer gaming industry. People who have no real interest in the franchise –and more importantly, no knowledge- demand changes. The franchise is changed, and nobody cares about it any more, since it is fundamentally different from what it was, AND it insults the original customers either directly or indirectly, or the franchise runners do it (or both).

 

One thing that really irks people (and annoys me as well) is the mindless pandering. This is a franchise that is highly nerdy, hence mostly the interest for boys (and boys who grew up to be adult men). Like it or not, nerdy stuff was not sexy back then, and you were an outcast in „normal circles” if you professed your love of Star Wars, Warhammer, whatever. Star Trek was kind of an outlier in this respect, but still – „cool kids” were not into these things. Neither „grown adults”. Fort he people who demand inclusivity for the missing female-base: do try to ask a girl out for a date, and talk to her about wargaming; there is no better way to avoid ever getting laid. Let’s face it: the number of people with large gametes (those would be the menstruators we are talking about) are not exactly drawn to these hobbies. The reason for this –and I am going to be highly controversial here, and probably would be arrested in Scotland for saying this- men and women have different interests when it comes to a hobby. (Among other things.) The fact that women were not in doves in this hobby was not due to the fact that they were chased away; normally women are not reading books about interstellar conflicts of space demons, supersoldiers and god-emperors if they can help it, and they are also not very much inclined to paint little miniatures with which they would play wargames using elaborate rules which require almost an autistic-level of concentration and devotion.

So the hobby is redominantly male, and despite of this, has several fractions that are either mixed, or female-only, just as the books have several incredibly well written female characters. So ”representation” was never an issue. People now are celebrating that finally in Warhammer you have female representation, which kind of shows how little they know about this franchise. (Not to mention the Custodes fraction was significantly nerfed in the same time, so now you can make an argument that the two things are connected… All in all, nobody (who actually was into the hobby) wanted your stupid identity politics in this game, and yet, it was pushed onto the fan base by a small, vocal crowd, who will not make up for the income lost by alienating the fans. This lesson has been taught to Disney, Netflix and other „woke” companies; time will tell if WG will see any monetary reprecussions. (They can always chalk losses up to 3D printing, though; they are resolutely resisting the new technologies, only embracing new, divisive ideologies.)

 

2. The one-sidedness

While this is a wider issue, but in recent decades we see a systematic destruction of male-only spaces, and a constant attempt to change male-oriented products. (Let’s face it; WH40K is a product – it is there to sell plastic toys priced in their weight in gold). And we do not see any similar attempt to „diversify” female-focused ones. Why is it a problem to have a franchise that serves predominantly boys and men who have interest in a weird, grim-dark fantasy setting in space? If you are a woman, and like it, great; play or read or paint. You will be welcomed; nerds are very happy when someone, who does not have a penis, shares their interests. I dare say you will even get marriage proposals in tournaments. But why do you want to twist it to fit your own taste? Why do you have to go in a house and demand that they redecorate the way you want them to? All those who demand that computer gaming, WH40K, Star Wars, etc. be changed to conform a certain ideology–do they demand similar changes in products aimed at women and girls? Of course not. Are they creating wargames, computer games, etc. representing their ideology, rather than demand changes to existing ones? Of course not.

This double standard says a lot, and it also irks people. Make your own damned franchise; don’t destroy others’.

 

3. The usual accusations: fans are toxic.

Well, fuck right off. Nerds, who make up the fan base of comic books, Star Wars, WH40K, etc. are passionate people. They spend an awful lot of time and money on these things because it matters to them, more than it matters to the tourists (you remember the pub above?), or the ideologues who demand these changes. And passions will run high when you change anything, let alone make a change that is so fundamental and ideological, so go to hell with these very predictable accusations of sexism, racism and other isms that have been used to shame fans before, and shut them down (just look up Gamersgate if you don’t believe me). And listen to what Cavill has to say about them.

 

4. The way it was handled

As I said „it was always so” shows a significant similarity to “we have always been at war with Eastasia”. “He who controls the past controls the present, and he who controls the present controls the future”. Not only that, WG and unofficial channels ban anyone who expresses displeasure of this situation. ’Nuff said.

 

5. „It is not a big thing, why are you so upset?”

Well, if it is not a big thing, why do it at all?

 

Lore issues

1. Many suspects that the whole thing was done to appease two sides: one that demands female space marines, and one that does not. So now both sides –supposed to- have gotten something. (Or it is a first step to introduce female space marines.) Again: why is it a problem to have male-only fractions? Why is it NOT a problem to have female-only fractions? (The ongoing joke about having Misters of Battle now in the Sisters of Battle fractions is very much real.) So someone please explain it to me: why is it a problem to have male-only fractions? Why it is a problem to have male-oriented games?

 

2. Why not female Custodes? For one, they have always been male. Always. Pretending it was not so is idiotic.

Changing the lore here and there is not necessarily bad, and it happened before (and the resistance was always fierce), but this is a tad big even for that, you know. Plus where were they? There are lots of books, artwork, minis, and female custodes had not been seen ever since the creation of the Custodes. So where were they? Making sandwiches for the Emperor? Mopping the Palace floor? Why were Custodes always saying „brother”? Are the terms „broter” and „son” now gender neutral?

 

3. Biology also matters- Custodes are even bigger than Astrates, so imaging to create supersoldiers from women –who, by large are not really good at being large and muscular- instead of using a stock that is already better at it –you know, boys- is stupid. It takes a lot of work to create a person who looks like a male out of a female; so why bother? Not to mention Custodes and space marines are more of weapons rather than persons. They are essentially genderless, just as a sword is genderless. Their point is to fight and die; what residual sexual organ they have is irrelevant. More on this issue: the „brotherhood” between fighting men is very much a real thing, and in this setting, has been exploited by both the Emperor and his primarch sons; I think this is a profound message that  can be taken to the real world as well. Throwing women in this mix is destroying this idea.

 

4. There is always the point of not creating a new species. If you want to create supersoldiers who are genetically modified it makes very good sense not to make male and female versions of it, because no matter what you do, sexual reproduction can happen (you can put in safeguards, but those always fail in the long run in biology), and then you will have a superrace of humans taking over from base line humanity. Not a good idea.

 

5. Plus, if you want to make female Custodes (and space marines) as effective as males, then you have to do away with all their female-specific things, like the female hormone system, skeletal structure, etc etc., effectively turning them into males. Congratulation, now you would not be able to tell the difference anyhow, as you have created a bunch of trans warriors. Boobs, long hair, female facial features, long, shapely legs and the rest of the stuff are out, you know. (Are these people really a mixture of ideologically driven activists and fetish porn consumers? You won’t have sexy space marines, no matter what, you know that, right?)

 

All in all, this is a serious fuckup on behalf of GW. It is a free market, you know; people can take their money to other wargames; they can print minis, pirate books, or even rulebooks – so actions will have consequences; the income can dry up. Publishers will –one day- learn that bringing divisive contemporary politics into their product will drive customers away to other products which do not do that. The comic book industry in the US is losing to Manga; Helldivers is winning over games in which Sweet Baby Inc. put their corrosive touch into; and other wargames –which are also cheaper- will gain serious customer base if this keeps up. They may think they should be pandering to appease the loud online activists, but the tourists, the „normies” will never make up for the lost income caused by alienating fans, and nobody is too big to fail –as Disney is refusing to learn this lesson over and over again. Social activists may be having a field day calling everyone a bigoted sexist incel over this, loudly declaring victory, signalling that incredible virtue, but the fact is that they are either not here as paying customers, and will move over to other franchises to destroy (hence never really were paying customer base to GW), OR they will also lose since their self-professed „favorite hobby” will wither, and they won’t be able to enjoy it much longer. A Pyrric victory over an idiotic ideology. Congratulation; well done.

 

Freedom of speech -the basics (long read)

 Any time freedom of speech comes up online, some "progressive" guy will come up with a couple of predictable -and quite incorrect- counters. (Weird, how the Left is now anti-freedom of expression, but things can change dramatically, I guess. While a couple of years back it was the Left that was championing this fundamental principle, now they are the ones trying to sniffle it out. Ironic, to say the least.)

So be prepared for this guy

Ackchyually, you are not American, so freedom of speech does not apply to you.

Ackchyually, freedom of speech is only the First Amendment, and it only protects you against the government. A private business can do what they want. (Weird how the Left became pro-business all of a sudden. Although since Elon Musk bought Twitter, this has subdued somewhat.)

Ackchyually, the UK does not have freedom of speech because it is not explicitly said in the law.

Ackchyually, it is freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. (I talked about this one before...)

And the rest.

Well. These guys thought they found some technicality, and they are trying to argue that the freedom to express opinions freely is something that does not apply to a specific case (normally the trans debate or the issue of fundamentalist Islam and mass migration).

Freedom of speech in Western democracies

These people forget that the freedom of speech, the freedom to offend is the very cornerstone of our modern, Western democracy. I guess this is what happens when you teach people to hate Western civilization, but I digress. You can't have democracy without this very idea- the freedom to clash opinions, the marketplace of ideas.

I can't believe I have to state it, but here you go. The freedom of speech is important for several reasons:

Individual Liberty: In democratic societies, individuals have the right to express their opinions, beliefs, and ideas without fear of government censorship or reprisal. This freedom is fundamental to individual liberty and autonomy, allowing people to participate in public discourse, criticize the government, advocate for change, and pursue personal development.

Pluralism and Diversity: Freedom of speech fosters pluralism and diversity by allowing for the expression of different viewpoints, perspectives, and ideologies without fear of reprisal. In a democratic society, diverse voices and opinions contribute to robust public debate, enriching the marketplace of ideas and leading to more informed decision-making.

Accountability and Transparency: Freedom of speech serves as a check on government power and promotes accountability and transparency in governance. The ability of citizens to freely criticize and scrutinize government actions helps to expose corruption, abuse of power, and violations of human rights, ensuring that those in authority remain accountable to the people.

Innovation and Progress: Free speech encourages innovation and progress by providing a conducive environment for the exchange of ideas and the pursuit of knowledge. In a society where individuals are free to challenge existing norms, question orthodoxies, and propose new solutions, innovation flourishes, leading to advancements in science, technology, culture, and society.

Democratic Participation: Freedom of speech is essential for meaningful democratic participation, as it enables citizens to engage in political discourse, participate in civic activities, and advocate for their interests and values. By allowing individuals to express their political opinions and mobilize support for various causes, free speech facilitates democratic decision-making and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

I hope this little list shows how freedom of speech is not only a fundamental human right but also a fundamental pillar of modern Western democracy, essential for promoting individual freedom, democratic governance, social progress, and the flourishing of democratic societies. This is not a 'mere' law, that "you can speak freely". It is an underlying principle of every single facet of Western democracies.

Freedom of speech in the UK

So you say the UK does not have freedom of speech? Well, you are ignorant. (Never seen so many people expressing their ignorance in the full belief of their intellectual superiority than lately online in discussions about the Scottish hate crime law. More on that later.)

Newsflash: the UK does have freedom of speech enshrined in its laws. It is a fundamental aspect of the UK's legal system, although it is not explicitly codified in a single document like a constitution. Instead, it is protected through a combination of common law principles, statutes, and international treaties.

Freedom of expression is enshrined in various laws and legal instruments, including the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. Article 10 of the ECHR guarantees the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain limitations that are necessary in a democratic society, such as national security, public safety, and the prevention of disorder or crime. So that's one.

Additionally, the common law tradition in the UK recognizes and protects the right to freedom of expression through judicial decisions that uphold this principle. Courts in the UK have consistently affirmed the importance of free speech and have struck down laws or governmental actions that unduly restrict it. So anyone who claims the in the UK you have no freedom of speech is an ignorant moron who does not even understand their own country's basic legal framework. This is when you realize how far the educational system had fallen.

Closing

I hope this served a useful primer of what freedom of speech is, and what it means for us, why it is vital. Any and all attempts to stifle it will eventually lead to the death of democracy -as it had in many, many cases before. I guess I have a different viewpoint than the edgelords growing up in a comfy Western democracy, but the Stalinist terror of the '50s, the soft dictatorship of the '60s-'70s-'80s are still very much a living memory where I came from. Well, in Scotland, now they have a chance to try this utopia out. Can't wait to see how they like living in a snitch-culture, where a malicious individual will be able to wreck your life, bringing down the full force of the police on you (while they ignore most burglaries and thefts). I also wonder what the next election will bring.

Woke: a right wing idiocy, or something that actually matters?

 So, whenever someone brings up the word "woke" lately the people who can be described as such immediately jump on it, claiming that it is a made-up insult by the lunatic Right to discredit those worthy progressive ideas. 

This ignores the fact that this is merely a shorthand to describe those ideas, and not an insult as such, let alone the issue that the word had been used with pride as a self-identification not a few years ago... (Selective memory strikes again.)

But how about the original claim? Namely that the progressive ideas (which are called progressive, although there is nothing progressive about racism and sexism) permeated our whole culture?

If you look at entertainment -She Hulk, Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvels, Terminator, Netflix shows and so on and so on -it is quite plain to see. Gender and race swaps even in historical figures, girl bosses who would be described as toxic males had they been written as a man, (white) men can only be incompetent or evil, and the rest. Rewriting books to "reflext current sensibilities", banning and burning books, toppling statues, pushing for legislations that are based on identity politics, promoting people based on their sex and/or race to high positions -the list is long. But if you want further proof, look no further than Google's latest image generator.

Which caused quite a lot of stirr when it refused to depict white people in historical pictures of vikings, popes and even Nazis. (And this is not the only AI that does it.) I really love the fact  that the Funding Fathers were depicted as black -makes the whole slavery thing a bit more confusing. When it finally does generate a white, blond, blue eyed Scandinavian, it is a picture of an Indian woman with blonde hair and light skin. It simply refused to generate white people's images, as it would be "harmful content". 

Now google is claiming that it is merely a matter of inaccuracies in some historical photos. 

Which is obviously not -see the issue about the refusal to generate current Scandinavians' images. (By the way, obviously while diversity is important for google, it is not that important. It does not insert random whites into non-white historical and other pictures. I have yet to see a white Malcom X generated. This is also interesting in the whole performative diversity exercise by the entertainment industry: not many random blacks and whites were placed in the Chinese army in Mulan, and reasonably few Asians and whites were shown as citizens of Wakanda.)

There is also a claim that it was merely rushed, and that they set up the filters incorrectly. 

So what is it then?

Well, the obvious answer is that it is the evidence of a glaring anti-white bias programmed into the AI. (See here for an explanation how it is happening. In short, google is "wokifying" your promts.) There are signs that there are some activists working at google injecting in their own politics into their product.

Which is bad in itself, but it also shows how this sort of bias is wide-spread and normalized in "high society": you know, entertainment, tech and the rest. You know, in those circles which dominate our everyday lives.

And it will have serious consequences.

First, wokeness actively destroys meritocracy, as it is. This is not about a stupid image generator (or two). It is about the underlying ideology. All system has some built-in tolerance for less capable people, but when it becomes systemic, well... just think about the following question: would you prefer your neurosurgeon to be a diversity hire? Or the people desiging your airplane? Or the flight crew flying it? If you significantly increase the level of incompetence in the whole of a civilization, it will collapse under its own weight.

Second, it will promote serious blacklash. I mean you are actively telling a majority (in Western countries whites are still a majority, you know) that they are trash, and promote others over them based on their skin color. What do you think will happen? (Same with men, although they are not the majority, they are "just" half the population.)

Third, you are completely changing the past and present. This tool, now, is a novelty. You can joke about it, and claim people are racist for pointing out the obvious idiocy and bias, but but it will grow. It will be a large part of our lives, and it is actively lying. In twenty years these weird images of the Funding Fathers will be "real". It will completely confuse the issue of white settlers declaring independence, saying 'all men are created equal' while owning slaves. (Not that there are no lies and misinformation about the whole slavery thing currently, but this will put those to shame.) It will show you ethnic minorities and women in SS garbs, which probably would make Hitler spin in his grave -if he had one. (Maybe this is a way to find his remains.) If you cannot trust AI, if it seeds untruthful information into our collective body of knowledge, it will have disastorous consequences. Culture, history, entertainment, science -nothing is free from this threat of getting "relativized". There will be no factual reality left. Absolute loss of trust in anything. Again; this will destroy the fabric of a civilization.

So here you go. We will diversify ourselves into obscurity, while the Chinese -who are struggling with their own problem of impeding population collapse admittedly- are laughing at our self-inflicted wounds.