Video: English dialect

The arr-s are from the Cornish and their trade routes (including piracy), I believe.

Rural sounds were extinguished by state schools in the 1950s-60s. When I speak like certain relatives, apparently I sound like a pirate to Yanks. There is such a thing as posh rural too. Not just the Okay-yah lot. A softer level. But the Gap Yah lot do show the arr sound is classless English with a slight throat noise to seem almost like an Ah!

Really, it’s Arh!

Old English also sounded closer to Cornish/rural than modern TV “English” -RP.

I read in it once for a teacher, on an Old English text and my own friends had to look around because they didn’t know who was speaking. It sounds coarser but richer and more lyrical, the likes of Chaucer sound better.

Never try to read Old English in RP, it sounds horrendous. Tis a crime against ears.

Plenty of jokes also don’t work.

re RP: Why is it called Received?

Received upon sodomy at a boarding school. We jape.

Americans sound like they’re slurring because modern ones speak a lot slower (I can ‘get’ what they say at double speed, easily) and the vowels drag e.g.

Heeeeeey youuuuuu

English person would say:

Hay Yu

Blunter, Celtic sound. Sounds clipped and mean, but isn’t.

With affection:

H-ay Yew

Subtle but we like making people uncertain as to whether we love or loathe them.

We also have the BBC guide to defamation:

But tongue posture varies by language (or race)

Given the lookism data and non-harmful, non-genetic nature of this, it seems fine.

However, it may only be possible to enhance certain races e.g. NW Europeans and native, dominant speakers of certain languages e.g. English, Old English.

I’m not messing with you. This once.

I haz receipts.
Peter Ladefoged wrote: “Many BBC English speakers have the tip of the tongue raised towards the roof of the mouth in the general location of the alveolar ridge, but many American English speakers simply bunch the body of the tongue up so that it is hard to say where the articulation is”.[6]


The ‘orthotropic’ principle!

The extension to the IPA recommends the use of the IPA diacritics for “apical” and “centralized”, as in ⟨ɹ̺, ɹ̈⟩, to distinguish apical and domal articulations in transcription. However, this distinction has little or no perceptual consequence, and may vary idiosyncratically between individuals.[7]

Culturally, actually. Close.

How many of these guys with facial issues speak American, not proper English?

Not judging, per se, just ….noticing.

Why are the Brits considered generally better looking than comparable American men?

Could it be that, to us, they sound stupid because, among other things, they sound drunk? They literally sound like they’re slurring.

Again English English is the only real English, tongue posture is immensely important. It would be like using a hammer wrong and wondering why it hurts, this is important. Common Core is opposed to elocution lessons, wonder why.
And reminder, language is genetic in origin.

“Mutation rates are required only for adding a time scale to both trees. Based on the topologies of trees generated from both the genetic and linguistic data, the inference of the parallel evolution of genes and languages in Caucasus is supported, despite controversies about the mutation rates.”

Parallel evolution, you can’t just take another race’s language and expect fluency on par with a genetic native. This might contribute to, say, Africans’ lower tests score, at least a little.

If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree etc.

The blogs full of historical handsome men leads me to believe Victorian English was particularly good for male facial structure (on women you don’t notice so much)

e.g. the difference to now in

“Flapped” or “Tapped” R: alveolar flap [ɾ] (About this soundlisten) (occurs in Scouse, most Scottish English, some South African, Welsh, conservative Irish and Northern England English, and early twentieth-century Received Pronunciation; not to be confused with flapping of /t/ and /d/)

A lot of Welsh models, almost untouched pristine language rearing, just saying. If a beautiful Welshman moves to America and adopts the accent, over time his facial beauty weakens.

18th and 19th century Americans (listen on youtube) sounded British. Rural British.

This faded out mid-20th century, with the rise of TV monoculture, when the American man’s face seemed to weirdly cave in like a child’s.

Gay men with excellent facial beauty (women admire) also have precise language, old-fashioned dialect. They know, they’re shallow.

How many Hollywood actors are posh?

Schools used to teach elocution. Why no longer? It’s part of speaking a language.

I’ve actually had to tell men that texting over talking will weaken their jaw.

They didn’t know. It’s a MUSCLE.

The digital native Millennials have overall worse jawlines than Gen X. Coincidence?

When old people age, they have fewer people to talk to, speeding up atrophy.

I have met researchers on these disparate topics so can bring you these threads, albeit short of resolution. Research needed, obviously. It is just really interesting. Like, even eating with cutlery made white people have more civilized jaws.

But forcing the proven brain delay of bilinguilism is bad for them, not to mention could be impossible due to differences.

Genetic variations of the COMT gene and a measure of the strength of the brain’s communications network — known as “white matter”— jointly accounted for 46 percent of the reason for why some students performed better than others in the language class.

So girls are better at it.

A waste of a class, must never be compulsory.

But being well-spoken literally makes men hotter to women. We can see it in how their face moves.

How many rappers look like mouth-breathers? [Whites invented rap, called flyting].

Flyting is a ritual, poetic exchange of insults practised mainly between the 5th and 16th centuries. The root is the Old English word flītan meaning quarrel. Examples of flyting are found throughout Norse, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval literature involving both historical and mythological figures.

Crushes on matinee idols are not a coincidence. Speech, song, poetry. All of it helps.

Etiquette had benefits. I very much want to benefit from telling men this.

Bilinguals NOT smarter, data twisted

Don’t believe me, here’s a quote from the researcher herself.

This idea that bilinguals are smarter is relatively new. Up until the 1970s, most educators believed that learning two languages at once would confuse children and slow their cognitive growth.

and the honest research backs this up, many times over

But science disagreed with these convictions, says Ellen Bialystok, a professor of psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada. The advent of neuroimaging technology (specifically the CAT scan) in the 1970s granted scientists a new way to investigate how different brains process language. But the emerging evidence wasn’t the only reason bilinguals seemed smarter; Americans’ changing attitudes played a big part, Bialystok says. As the cultural xenophobia of the 1950s subsided, society as a whole began to accept the shift towards multiculturalism.


Bialystok has been researching the bilingual brain for decades, and she is adamant: Bilinguals aren’t smarter than their single-language counterparts. “I think it’s a real problem that [my work] may be interpreted that way,” she says.

Again, for the liars:

Bilinguals aren’t smarter than monolinguals.

Bilingual brains differ in their use of executive function — a system that helps the brain access particular regions or memories when prompted, like a neurological Dewey Decimal System. A person needs executive function to switch between tasks or look for a friend in a crowded restaurant. When less developed, executive function also makes adolescents more reckless.

Contrary to media reports, executive function is not the same as intelligence, Bialystok reiterates.

Conflation, false equivalence, media lies.

They are distinct, discrete, different entities. It’s as stupid as someone claiming that obesity is the same as calories or suicide is the same thing as rope. You can tell the journalists are largely bilingual to make these common comprehension errors in semantic fluency.

But I can’t find a modern, genuine IQ study of many participants that honestly compares monolingual to bilingual. How odd. You’d think they’d want to settle the debate. Unless they’re dishonest?

But pinning down the concept of intelligence itself is not an easy task. Dictionaries define intelligence as the ability for a person to absorb and apply information — and that’s part of what executive function does, too. But this abstract definition of intelligence doesn’t mean much to science,

translation – It isn’t science. It’s propaganda.

We already have IQ, which they refuse to compare honestly because it’s real (Binet) and precise so you can’t really lie.

Bialystok says, and “that’s one of the reasons you can’t say that bilingualism (or increased executive function) gives you more of it.” Intelligence and executive function have a murky relationship and, because of this obscurity, Bialystok may be right to doubt their synonymy.

May be?

Scientist wants to deter liars, she may be right!

Why did I look this all up?

His concept is based on his theory that teaching children from earliest infancy in multilingualism develops greater brain development.

Totally not political. Totally not a failed attempt at eugenics.

Mr. Raniere does not speak any foreign languages. He can speak only English.

Mr. Raniere’s program provides each child in the Rainbow Cultural Garden seven different foreign babysitters. Each babysitter speaks in their native language to the child.

Totally not a pedo ring.

The brain actually prunes sounds with age, you’re slowing that process down. It’s bad for them.

1st article

But the surprising part is that the parts of your brain where the lexicon is stored don’t just turn on and off when you need them; they’re engaged all the time.

Linguistic ADHD, yay!

Changing neural pathways to meet new needs is a concept called neuroplasticity, and these constant tiny decisions reinforce the brain’s new configuration to make them more efficiently.


This reminds me of the multi-tasking studies where people thought they were better but were actually worse. It’s literally the same brain problem. You have limited capacity.

They have a delayed reaction time, the exact opposite.

He determined that bilinguals had more activity in both hemispheres of the pre-frontal cortex, which controls executive function.

No, not really. Actually, not at all. It does a lot of things, including language processing. That’s way too broad.


Functional Specialization for Semantic and Phonological Processing in the Left Inferior Prefrontal Cortex”

You can’t just claim executive function without fucking testing it (and discounting other processing in the same regions). A picture doesn’t tell you that.

The increased activity, he hypothesized,


stems from the need to repress one language in order to answer correctly in the other.

objective retarded reaction

Other researchers, including Bialystok and Costa, have conducted similar experiments over the past ten years, all with comparable results.

What you claim is not what you found.

You have a picture. You use it for studies, it isn’t really a study by itself.

False results can be duplicated with effort. Especially when it involves merely labeling a picture wrong.

Prefrontal cortex is a language centre, for it not to fire up, they’d need to be dead.

Don’t believe me, here’s a nature article, bitches.

Prefrontal cortex doesn’t not equal = smarts. It = listening, consciousness.

“Dual streams of auditory afferents target multiple domains in the primate prefrontal cortex”

“Large‐scale neurocognitive networks and distributed processing for attention, language, and memory”

“This approach provides a blueprint for reexploring the neurological foundations of attention, language, memory, and frontal lobe function.”

I can find this, why can’t you?


Even if the relationship between bilingualism and actual intelligence is unclear

one IQ study, that’s all I ask for

 executive function can help people do a lot of things that may make them seem smarter, such as doing more things at once and cancelling out distractions.


This is like the useless person who pretends to multi-task.

 But, Costa says, “Everything else equal, bilinguals may have a reduced vocabulary in each language.” Bilinguals certainly know more words overall, he notes, but in each individual language, their vocabulary may suffer.

in practical reality

“Everyday practice with the second language makes you control the language; you need to focus on the new language while you [ignore] the other one. This is what seems to help the development of executive function.”

aka school lessons are useless

The long-term cognitive benefits, Costa says, really outweigh the minimal short-term detriments.

No, no proof!

If you mean dementia risk, debunked that in the last post. Considering the brain of bilinguals is permanently changed and slowed on many tasks, there are multiple, permanent deficits.

You could say, a functional disability.

Don’t believe bilingual propaganda

They don’t control for class, marital status of parents and education level, let alone IQ.

The more languages a person speaks in practice, the more scattered their communication, as you’d expect.

 a phenomenon that researchers call the bilingual advantage

not biased at all

For the first half of the twentieth century, researchers actually thought that bilingualism put a child at a  disadvantage, something that hurt her I.Q. and verbal development.

When you account for IQ yes.

But, in recent years, the notion of a bilingual advantage has emerged from research to the contrary, research that has seemed both far-reaching and compelling, much of it coming from the careful work of the psychologist Ellen Bialystok.

No, one person’s opinion doesn’t steamroll decades of IQ data.

For many tasks, including ones that involve working memory, bilingual speakers seem to have an edge.

Do they control for race? If they mostly or only study Ashkenazi Jews, it doesn’t even apply to all Jews.

And when it comes to qualities like sustained attention and switching between tasks effectively, bilinguals often come out ahead. It seems fairly evident then that, given a choice, you should raise your child to speak more than one language. Indeed, papers touting “Creativity and Bilingualism,” “Cognitive Advantages of Bilingual Five-Year-Olds,” “A Bilingual Advantage in Task-Switching,” “Bilingualism Reduces Native-Language Interference During Novel-Word Learning,” and “Good Language-Switchers Are Good Task-Switchers”—and the resulting books with provocative titles such as “The Bilingual Edge” and “Bilingual Is Better”—suggest that raising a bilingual child is, in large part, a recipe for raising a successful child.

What propaganda? Science is always so overwhelmingly one-sided?

From the age of eleven, Angela de Bruin spoke two languages. Born in the nineteen-eighties in Nijmegen, a small town in the Netherlands, de Bruin spoke Dutch at home, and, in school, immersed herself in English. She became fascinated by bilinguals, and read avidly about the cognitive advantages that being fluent in more than one language was supposed to provide.

confirmation bias

In college, she took up linguistics and neuroscience. And, in 2012, de Bruin enrolled in the psychology graduate program at the University of Edinburgh to further pursue the link between bilingualism and cognition.

No motive there.

This reminds me of left hand studies that say they’re smarter.

Being left handed doesn’t make you smarter. They’re different variables.

This is doing the exact same shit. Publication bias.

They won’t publish studies that show no link or an inverse connection to a positive variable. Egocentric scientism. Tut tut.

She came to the program fully expecting to study the extent to which her bilingual brain was adapted to succeed. “I had the impression that there’s a really strong effect of bilingualism on executive function,” de Bruin told me recently.

Experimenter  prejudice.

Normally, to test for an edge in executive function,

actual science yes

you give a version of a task where people have to ignore certain stimuli while selectively focussing on others. …..

When de Bruin looked at the data, though, in three of the four tasks testing inhibitory control, including the Simon task, the advantage wasn’t there. 

Scatter brains, duh. These people fumble for a single word like a child when “fluent”.

Let me guess, she rigged a new test to get the result she wanted?
Why oh why is there a Reproduction Crisis with these tossers walking about?

Monolinguals and bilinguals had performed identically. “We thought, Maybe the existing literature is not a full, reliable picture of this field,”

fuck. you.
The field is The field. Your single subjective opinion is not eminent, fucking narcissist.

she said. So, she decided to test it further.

Of course she fucking did.

Because science means flipping the coin again and again and again until you get the result you want.

Wait – that’s scientism. Allowing your personal faith to render the results null and void.

Systematically, de Bruin combed through conference abstracts from a hundred and sixty-nine conferences, between 1999 and 2012, that had to do with bilingualism and executive control. The rationale was straightforward: conferences are places where people present in-progress research. They report on studies that they are running, initial results, initial thoughts. If there were a systematic bias in the field against reporting negative results—that is, results that show no effects of bilingualism—then there should be many more findings of that sort presented at conferences than actually become published.

Ok. This is interesting.

That’s precisely what de Bruin found.

Not the reverse, poor performance? Did she look? Or just not mention it because she is personally affected?
Multi-linguals shouldn’t be conducting multi-lingual efficacy studies.

For the same reason ice cream companies shouldn’t be studying whether ice cream is healthy.

At conferences, about half the presented results provided either complete or partial support for the bilingual advantage on certain tasks,

keyword OR

and on CERTAIN tasks (which might be neutralized by others)

while half provided partial or complete refutation. 

The null hypotheses have it.

 But the advantage is neither global nor pervasive, as oftenreported.

Almost like you need other factors.

 They had each group take part in four tasks—the Simon task, a task of everyday attention (you hear different tones and must count the number of low ones while filtering out the high ones), the Tower of London (you solve a problem by moving discs around on a series of sticks to match a picture of what the final tower looks like), and a simple task-switching paradigm (you see circles and squares that are either red or blue, and must pay attention to either one color or one shape, depending on the part of the trial).

all of those connect with IQ

In the first three tasks, they found no difference between the groups.

control for class

On the last, they thought they’d finally detected an advantage: on the switch trials—the trials immediately after a change from shape to color or color to shape—the bilinguals, both active and passive, seemed to be quicker. But when the researchers dug deeper, they found that it wasn’t so much a case of switching faster as it was being slower at the non-switch trials, where shape followed shape and color followed color.

Does she perceive this finding accurately? I doubt it. Motivated with self-interest…

So does that mean that there’s no such thing as a bilingual advantage? No. It’s just one study.

You’ve done how many?

Pored over how many? Thousands?

Tried to rig how many?

And your best one still fails?

The null hypothesis must be accepted, bitch.

At BEST, there is no improvement. Science isn’t optimistic. You is slow.

As proven by this interview, QED.

The true edge, de Bruin believes, may come far later,

rich parents

and isn’t science all about one bitch’s beliefs?

and in a form that has little to do with task-switching and executive control; it may, she says, be the result of simple learning.

Private tutors.

Adults who speak multiple languages seem to resist the effects of dementia far better than monolinguals do.

They said that about brain training, control for diet.

Bilingualism, in other words, seems to have a protective effect on cognitive decline.

Not what the word means. Protective effect means they don’t get the disease.
Tired of lies.

That would be consistent with a story

of learning: we know that keeping cognitively nimble into old age is one of the best ways to protect yourself against dementia.

Then how can bilinguals forget an entire language in a short period of time?

If learning a language has the same effect as Sudoku, I know which is more time-efficient.

When the brain keeps learning, as it seems to do for people who retain more than one language, it has more capacity to keep functioning at a higher level.

No it has less. That’s how capacity works. It literally has less.
If certain brain cells are taken up with a task and that task is doubled, tripled or more (2, 3+ languages) then you can have less storage space for new things, including short-term memory (think like RAM).

Here’s a wikipedia tier argument of why you’re wrong.

And why bilinguals are slow IRL

That, in and of itself, is reason enough to learn a second, third, fourth, or fifth language—

I see no effect, let alone a compounding effect. How is 5 better than 2?
Journalists are dumb.

and to keep learning them as long as you’re able. The bilingual advantage may not appear in the exact guise researchers think of it today. But, on a fundamental level, bilingualism’s real benefits could be far more important.

Do Sudoku, read books, chug olive oil like a Hollywood actress drinks semen.
Don’t fall for bilingual propaganda.

Let’s check with people who know their shit.

Cambridge University: 

There are also drawbacks to being bilingual

The article didn’t mention drawbacks, did they?

I guess, after poring over thousands of studies, she must’ve magically missed ALL. OF. THEM.

But the scientific community recently has become increasingly sceptical of the bilingual advantage hypothesis. One of the main points of criticism is that differences between monolinguals and bilinguals when it comes to executive function are not always apparent.

Memo: If it’s a brain thing, it always shows.

This has generated a heated debate, especially in the Bilingualism Forum of the scientific journal Cortex, about whether bilingualism is associated with cognitive advantages or not.

Like the left handed thing. Other factors were responsible.
Lefties aren’t the master race of handedness, calm the fuck down.

Without IQ to signal over, people choose the most ridiculous bullshit. What’s next, mercury retrograde?

This is very simple. Find the high IQ and only the high IQ (1SD+). Check whether the monolingual ones are better at processing incoming verbal information (since that is what a language is).

If yes, monolingualism is better for the brain.

They’re tip-toeing around, someone will have to do it eventually!

This ability is called metacognition and is associated with, but separate from,

aka a good test

other areas where bilinguals have been shown to have an advantage. Surprisingly, however, we found that bilinguals had less insight into their performance than their monolingual peers.

Yet the Government insists kids study a second language.

TLDR: No but they lie.

“A quiet revolution happened in English primary schools last September, representing a historic curriculum change: language-learning was made compulsory for all children between seven and 11.”

“is involved in an international science project with funding from the European programme ‘Erasmus Plus'”

And there it is, anti-national sentiment.

Get ’em young if you can’t brainwash them into it at Uni.

At last, we are seeing a new language become a normal part of children’s learning from the beginning of their primary education – while they are confident and curious – rather than a challenging new subject associated with the pressures of starting secondary school.”

How long until compulsory Arabic, set your timers.

Actually, you need to start in the womb, when they can hear language.
Three at the latest, so this will actually accomplish no boost in fluency.
Give me the boy UNTIL he is seven, and I shall show you the man.
Not AT seven, idiots.

Why? Why force this on kids?

“Unfortunately, studies have showed that businesses often prefer multi-lingual applicants with English as their second language over monolingual

cucking for corporations, anti-white corporations

This is all about companies extracting as much lifeblood from you as possible.

Back to the thing bilinguals are shit at in the study, Cambridge writes:

This ability is a crucial function of everyday life, when we have to make decisions where the outcomes are not immediate. For example, when an entrepreneur reviews their company’s performance, they need to take into account a variety of factors – including, for example, revenues and expenses – in order to evaluate whether the company is doing well.

Notice how most successful companies are run by school drop-outs? Maybe monolinguals have an advantage that explains this?

We only evolved to speak one language each. From an evolutionary perspective and given how language is genetic in basis, forcing children to learn more is disabling healthy brain expression. It might be permanent if deployed during early development (primary school) due to neural pruning.

Confidence in their ideas and performance can be the determining factor in whether they decide to keep investing time in their company or give up and apply for another job (the so-called “exploitation exploration trade-off”).

or cost benefit to normal monolingual people who can do it

So you’re telling me bilinguals are delusional? Less realistic? About themselves? And their abilities? Yes, let them study their supposed magical advantage, I’m sure they’ll try to find some way to conjure up something.
And by forcing it on small children, there won’t be a control group of monolinguals to study, how convenient.

State force is inhumane.

There’s a confound with expecting Mandarin speakers to be creative if you look at their baseline but okay.

So we’re depriving small children of a potent imagination.

But TV is the problem?

Creative kids question authority, you see.

But we should be concerned about a purely instrumental view of modern languages that plays up advanced skills training at the expense of supporting a research-led discipline where literature, culture and history are investigated through the relevant languages.

Companies don’t even need them.

Why hire someone who speaks Spanish when all the Spanish people will flee to you because their economy is in the shitter? With mass immigration, languages are dead.

Cambridge study:

 However, monolinguals were better able than bilinguals to discriminate between when they were right and when they were wrong. In other words, bilinguals had less insight into their performance than monolinguals. This went against our initial predictions, as we expected to find a bilingual advantage in metacognitive processing. These results indicate that bilingualism may be associated with cognitive disadvantages as well as benefits.

Don’t allow kids to self-correct and they can’t self-teach.
No wonder teachers are pushing it.

Consider this quote from the British Council article about compulsory bilingualism.

“It is an ethos that firmly promotes bilingualism as an asset: as one pupil put it, ‘the more languages you know, the brainier you are’.”


It’s a way to make dumb kids look smart on a transcript.

Cambridge again:

However, monolinguals were better able than bilinguals to discriminate between when they were right and when they were wrong.

These results indicate that bilingualism may be associated with cognitive disadvantages.

British Council:

“Language awareness permeates the school: in addition to the one hour per week in which all children learn French, every opportunity is taken to introduce children to other languages, including Latin and the languages spoken by teachers and pupils.

Code for Arabic.


The Multilanguage & Cognition lab (MULTAC) at Anglia Ruskin University is currently undertaking a three-year project funded by the Leverhulme Trust to enhance our understanding of the bilingual mind.

no bias there

The lab has already published evidence of cognitive advantages

quelle surprise

associated with bilingualism

but not caused by
which is what the control freaks claim

more lies

I smell a rat

Leverhulme? Where do I know that name?
“Following a review by the Leverhulme Trust Board, this scheme has been discontinued with immediate effect. It is therefore now closed to new applicants.”


While many of us share the intuition that learning two languages is better, or believe we’ve been told that from the media or scientific studies, the actual evidence is mixed.

like the participants

ba dum dum tssh

Dr. Ellen Bialystok(link is external), a professor of psychology at York University, has been studying the pros and cons of bilingualism for almost 40 years. She and her team have found evidence on both sides of the bilingualism argument. They find that children who regularly speak more than one language (bilinguals), on average, have slight linguistic disadvantages but also cognitive advantages(link is external) as compared to children who speak only one language (monolinguals).

This woman hasn’t been mentioned.


Only positive in biased articles, no mention of people like this.

Those linguistic disadvantages must be studied and ideally, controlled by race, class and education.

Again, a genius study would resolve this debate.

“One of the findings from these studies was that bilinguals have minor disadvantages relative to monolinguals with regard to vocabulary. While the size of an individual’s vocabulary or lexicon varied widely, on average monolinguals had more vocabulary in their one language than bilinguals had in either of their languages alone. Also, the time (in milliseconds) it took to retrieve words when thinking was slightly longer for bilinguals.”

literally slower

 In particular, bilinguals are especially good at tasks that involve monitoring conflict, a skill one practices a lot if trying to use words from one lexicon while avoiding those from another.

that’s called cognitive dissonance
not a good thing

Poor design, the monolinguals and bilinguals hadn’t practiced.
This is like comparing athletes and normal people on cardiac health. One group has an unfair advantage so the test isn’t finding what you claim it does (poor internal validity). You can’t say it’s a fair test.

PT also nabs this: “As bilingual children learn and use multiple languages (appropriately monitoring and using words from the right language at the right time) they are exercising and strengthening their executive function via neuroplasticity.”

Cheating, in study terms.

“So while bilingual children may have a slightly smaller vocabulary for each language as compared to their peers who speak only one language, they gain a cognitive advantage by having strengthened executive function. ”

No, they tested one aspect of one memory function with a minor effect. They haven’t tested executive function and the ultimate, IQ.

Vocab deficiency and Reaction time (which is correlated highly to IQ FYI):

However, the bilingual group performed significantly lower in semantic fluency.

I know, I’ve met enough. It’s frustrating to stand there, putting up with their shit articulation for the thousandth time this month.

This pattern of performance in verbal fluency is consistent with that found in previous studies.”

Link from top is

The effect on linguistic performance is generally seen as a deficit

Generally. A disability.

Memory tasks based primarily on verbal recall are performed more poorly by bilinguals but memory tasks based primarily on executive control are performed better by bilinguals.

primarily? are they or not? poor design there

memo: short-term memory is vital to IQ

so you can maybe possibly find one exception to disabled recall but generally, they aren’t as good as remembering things, as you’d expect since more language capacity is taken up

Speculations regarding the mechanism responsible for these effects are described.

Language proficiency and verbal fluency: The bad

wow, science

It is now well documented that bilinguals generally control a smaller vocabulary in each language thanmonolinguals

Yet The New Yorker missed this. All of it.

This finding is especially important for descriptions of children’s development because vocabulary size is a central measure of children’s progress in both the oral and literate forms of language development. In some sense, vocabulary size serves as a proxy for the representational base of language that the child is constructing, with a richer and more diverse vocabulary reflecting a more elaborate understanding of language. However, developmental research has consistently shown that bilingual children control a smaller vocabulary in each language than their monolingual peers.

Aka they’re thick. They may technically know two but they don’t fully understand two.

To confirm this reported finding, we combined the standardized Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test scores of 971 children between the ages of 5 and 9 years,

primary age

about half of whom were bilingual, who had participated in a variety of studies in our lab over several years. The overall analysis showed that the monolinguals had a mean standard score of 105 and the bilinguals had a score of 95, a difference that was highly significant (Bialystok and Feng, in press).

Over 10%.

Holy shit.

The difference was found for children in each age group, and there was no interaction of age and language group, indicating that the vocabulary gap was constant throughout this sample.

Primary school compulsory language classes are bad for the brain.

The older children were in third and fourth grades at school and were following a curriculum that was heavily dependent on English language and literacy. Nonetheless, the average vocabulary size of the bilingual children was smaller than their monolingual classmates

It will make them dumber. If you care about the kids, stop.

The same pattern emerges for adults, although the measure in this case is not usually vocabulary size but rather access to vocabulary, or lexical retrieval

If I had a pound for every time I heard “er, I don’t know the English”.
So they don’t actually know the language in practice, either!

Using a variety of tasks, bilinguals have been shown to be slower in picture naming (Roberts, Garcia, Desrochers,Hernandez, 2002; Gollan, Montoya, Fennema-Notestine and Morris, 2005; Kaushanskaya and Marian, 2007), obtain lower scores on verbal fluency tasks (Rosselli et al., 2000; Gollan, Montoya and Werner, 2002; Portocarrero et al., 2007), encounter more tip of the tongue experiences (Gollan and Acenas, 2004), demonstrate poorer word identification through noise (Rogers et al., 2006), and experience more interference in lexical decision (Ransdell and Fischler, 1987). In all these studies, there is evidence that at least part of the problem is the interference that must be resolved from the other language. Manipulating the relation between the words in the two languages, for example, by controlling the cognate value or adjusting word frequency, systematically changes bilingual performance (Costa, 2005), suggesting that there is a central role for the relation between the words in these effects.

Angela de Bruin somehow forgot to mention any of those long references.

In her long research of the entire field.

One minor point that’s positive and they claim it’s Settled Science TM

totally ignoring all the neutral and negative findings, like that

or these

The bilingual deficits in lexical access and retrieval persist with aging (Gollan, Fennema-Notestine, Montoya and Jernigan, 2007), although a study by Gollan, Montoya, Cera, and Sandoval (2008) showed that the effects of aging interacted with word frequency in that older bilinguals demonstrated a smaller deficit for low-frequency words. In a study of younger and older monolinguals and bilinguals, we administered three tasks to assess verbal knowledge and retrieval: an English vocabulary test (PPVT-III), a version of the Boston Naming Test, and two tests of verbal fluency (Bialystok, Craik and Luk, 2008). The PPVT-III is a standardized test of receptive vocabulary in which the participant is shown four pictures and must indicate which of the four corresponds to a name spoken by the experimenter. In the Boston Naming Test (Kaplan, Goodglass and Weintraub, 1983) participants are asked to name a series of line drawings of objects. In our version we substituted verbal definitions for half of the drawings on the speculative assumption that accessing words would be more difficult from abstract definitions than from relatively concrete drawings because of the contextual support provided by the latter (Craik, 1983).

bias in favour of the bilinguals

Finally, in the fluency tests, participants had to say as many words as possible within one minute starting with a given letter or conforming to a given category. Following standard procedure the letters were F, A, and S and the category criterion was animals. In all these tasks, the bilinguals at both ages obtained lower scores than their monolingual counterparts.

The reason that bilinguals experience deficits in lexical access is not clear.

Seems pretty clear to me. Overload.

On one view, the explanation is attributed to the fact that bilinguals use each of their languages less often than monolinguals, creating “weaker links” among the relevant connections required for rapid
and fluent speech production (Michael and Gollan, 2005). This explanation follows from connectionist models in which the pathways that underlie the associative networks between words and concepts are distributed across two languages, making those associations with each language less practiced and therefore less fluid.

Imagine cutting your language centres in half.

This view is based on bilingual speech production modeling in which these retrieval effects are simulated in a connectionist network (Dijkstra, 2005). Alternatively, Hernandez and Li (2007) propose a sensorimotor account that involves the age of acquisition of the vocabulary in each language,
with different outcomes depending on the age of L2 acquisition. Other views attribute the reduction in lexical access to the conflict that is created by the competition from the corresponding item in the non-target language (Green, 1998). This competition requires a mechanism for controlling attention to the target language, possibly by inhibiting the interfering option. Generally, such conflict is resolved by the executive processes for control, attention, and switching. If these processes are involved in ordinary language production for bilinguals, then it is possible that their constant use in an ordinary and frequent context will have the consequence of transforming those processes through practice, making them more efficient and more available for a variety of applications.

The hype for additional languages is not justified, there are far more deficits (at least 7 or 8 types, likely more) than merits (1 of a tiny 1 test of a speculated 1 skill).

The pro-bilingual studies have to use pathological groups e.g. the deaf. You can’t generalize that.


As usual, the bilinguals were faster than the monolinguals on both the congruent and incongruent
trials, but the speech–sign bilinguals performed exactly the same as the monolinguals on both trial types.

So it ISN’T about dual language use. That result should be impossible.

This pattern supports the interpretation that the conflict for selection

overcoming a forced disability on the brain

between two active languages is central to the enhancement of executive control found in bilinguals.

Athletes can easier run up a flight of stairs than people who didn’t train, what a shocker, they must be superior human beings.

Following the idea that cognitive reserve builds up from extended experience with stimulating activities


and that this cognitive reserve protects against the onset of dementia….

aka it isn’t the actual language, it’s the studying!

Let’s check.

Engaging in hobbies for one or more hours every day might be protective against dementia in late life.

Ding ding ding! Teach them something useful! (Read: Anything else).

Previous paper concludes:

The overall conclusion from these various studies is that bilingualism is one of the experiences capable of influencing cognitive function and, to some extent, cognitive structure.

Brain damage. More distraction, just what kids need.

The effects, however, are not simple; the language deficit and the control advantage interact to create a complex picture of cognition that is different for bilinguals and monolinguals, but not in a way that can be simply defined as better, worse, or indifferent.

Translation: it isn’t better, you jerks.


“So while there are a host of advantages to the ‘bilingual brain’—executive control and memory benefits”


as you can see, they use one minor memory test of many to claim EF
that is one (1) finding

and only a few minor disadvantages

No, read the paper you linked. MANY. Major issues.

They are literally slower.

“The word retard dates as far back as 1426. It stems from the Latin verb retardare, meaning to hinder or make slow. The English adopted the word and used it as similar meaning, slow and delayed.”

Thus, parents might consider not only the cognitive benefits but the social and experiential ones as well when deciding whether the immersion school or enrichment program makes sense for their children.

It isn’t about the child, it’s about the politics of being enriched.

It’s about parental virtue signalling.

Eventually, they’ll move the native tongue to second-class status, as it stands in many schools, before banning it. You aren’t allowed to speak your own language in your homeland, don’t you feel free and liberated?

Math or maths?

It is a technical specialist term. Layman and verbal use means diddly squat.

Real English (based off Old English) is superior to Americanisms. Americans do not have a language, they stole one and that’s called barbarism in linguistics. None of the origin rules are observed.

Math is normally the shortened form used on American college classes.


Math 101

Math is not a singular like Science.

Science is a single paradigm, all the same rules and assumptions and operations governing within it.

The Scientific Method.

While it has plural divisions (biology, chemistry, physics, so on) the same assumptions remain throughout.

Sub-divisions exist e.g. neurobiology, evolutionary biology so The Biological Sciences, plural, would also work, at a level reduced from the total.

“Math” is a plural subject.

“Mathematics” is the term encompassing many branches, all with different rules and aims and calculation methods.

To calculate in geometry is not how one calculates in pure mathematics.

The rules are literally different.

There is no unifying math. There is mathematics.

Why is it referred to as singular? With is?

  1. It is considered as having higher-order similarities but it is not practically the same. For example, it uses symbols, heavy on the numbers in digit format and in line with co-ordinate meanings (linear sequence of computation, down).
  2. History. In older books you will find the term “histories” as in “the histories of Europe” and this would of course refer to geographic nations, plural. The term history refers to its united way of parsing evidence once it has been gathered for the unified purpose. Science is comparable, history is comparable, maths is not comparable. e.g. A number 3.14 means something totally different in algebra as geometry.

Are we done?

Can I stop explaining this now? Forever?

[Technically, a language only counts when it is formalized in written form, codified. Hence, there are no languages in pre-recorded history that count in linguistics. On the contrary, Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics count despite no verbal equivalent.]


What about sports?

(Ignoring the fact you base your language off of TV announcements and expect me to take it seriously.)

Sport is related to archaic terms like sporting. You cannot be sportsing, America.

To be a Good Sport.

It’s also a verb.

Do not conflate with Sports Day.

Note the apostrophe.

Emma Watson thinks she’s an economist now. Here’s why I wouldn’t trust her to run a lemonade stand. #Davos #10x10x10

It’s almost as if she is slowly changing into Hermione, whom no one really liked for her politics <SPEW joke>, because her career is panning and she’s approaching the Hollywood leading lady Wall. It’s no coincidence they cut that irritating interlude to a passing mention in the films. I didn’t cover HeforShe first time round because I knew it would be a bust (as she hilariously admits in the speech at Davos) but it seems her inane #firstworldproblems are becoming a quarterly feature so my hand is forced. Side note: did she take a private jet like the other suffering millionaires?

 first world problems priorities

Let’s go to the press release first, the official line, predictably called UNWomen because women are the centre of everything don’tchaknow.

What do you want?

unveiled the HeForShe IMPACT 10X10X10 pilot initiative to galvanize momentum in advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment. The HeForShe campaign’s IMPACT 10X10X10 initiative is a one-year pilot effort that aims to engage governments, corporations and universities as instruments of change positioned within some of the communities that most need to address deficiencies in women’s empowerment and gender equality and that have the greatest capacity to make and influence those changes. Each sector will identify approaches for addressing gender inequality, and pilot test the effectiveness of these interventions for scalability.
Translation: Holding democratic institutions (governments) to ransom, alongside private bodies owned by private citizens (shareholders, MDs/CEOs) and Universities who already favour girls too much with intake ratios. One year deadline or else. As if this ask is new. Who voted for her? Ah. Nobody. She can deliver a speech, but as we’ll see, there is little point of delivering a speech where the primary indicator that she wrote it herself was unoriginality. These claims have already been addressed. Perhaps if Mz Watson were less self-absorbed, she would have bothered to take the time to fucking Google it. The truth is out there.
Still don’t see what the number ten has to do with any of this.
The report highlights a large current gap between men and women in terms of political engagement and opportunity and little improvement in equality for women in the workplace since 2006.
The economic downturn? Then called the Credit Crunch? Are women alone in suffering since then? Is that what you’re trying to argue? Have you looked at the labor force participation rates for men? Unemployment?
As for political engagement, we don’t put ourself up as much as men do. We don’t want to. Politics is called showbiz for ugly people so I find it deeply amusing that Mz Watson is giving the speech when women put themselves up for film/TV/theatre camerawork without a problem.
“Ultimately we need everyone to get involved if we are to turn the tide.”
You aren’t making this sound like a free choice, more of a mandate with a pretty smile.
I still have no idea why it’s called 10x10x10 and I read the whole page about it. I’m surprised IMPACT isn’t in huge letters in the Impact font and zooming into a Powerpoint presentation like a rocket.
It links to this tweet

Here, have some groupthink! It goes lovely with that delusion that everyone agrees with you and knows your opinion is the only good one. This is why people rightfully call social justice a cult, but strangely, the term isn’t used. PR hiccup? Even when that’s the entire point of the move. It’s redistribution of wealth to the people who, by definition, do not create it. Irony bounds we need one of the most privileged women in the world asking for the average man’s money as if she is oppressed by her sex when HR departments already hire according to SJ diktat and she made the bulk of her fortune off being a comely woman by modelling (professional objectification).

social justice definition


google search men can't beThat last image was a sardonic reference to the last feminist UNWomen campaign, which used Google autocomplete as if it were totally serious.

Serious scientific data you guys.

Serious scientific data you guys.

n.b. “Male feminists” are anecdotally more verbally abusive to women such as myself (non-feminist) than any female feminist I’ve encountered. They seem to think they’re justified behind that non-sequitur shield of “I’m a feminist, I can’t be a cyberbully” (a masked man fallacy). I have frequently been told to kill myself, always by a male feminist. One notable example was actually a campaigner against cyberbullying which he didn’t like when I pointed out such hypocrisy. If anything, you should be telling them to calm the fuck down. Rather than target other women on behalf of a minority of cultists who clearly cannot logically defend themselves against their own sex. Or don’t these normal, non-feminist women know what’s good for them?

Yet this eloquent, illustrious man in the tweet, also a spearhead for the move ahead of a whole list of experienced men, is barely covered in the media. It’s almost as if sex sells, or to be more precise, Mz Watson’s sex.

jessica stam wink sexy

I found another press release, although believe me it took some digging.

IMPACT 10X10X10 prioritizes legislative bodies and corporations in view of the gender inequality that exists in these areas, confirmed by findings from the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2014.
There are quotes from about half a dozen men who support it. Champions of industry with decades under their belt, weirdly not covered by the MSM. I’m sure going round the backdoor of democracy is totally legitimate and their report is in no way biased to support their personal ends at all.
toasting raising glass cheers leonardo da vinci congrats well done demons
Why would the UN lie to us?
Before we begin on her speech (procrastination what?), may I remind you I sadly live in the same country as this narcissistic shrew. Our government has a dedicated Centre for Social Justice. We don’t need her. They tackle the same old poverty issues which will never disappear, because poverty is relative and it has diddly squat to do with sex, unless she’s arguing physical sex differences impede women. We have an heiress covering poverty issues. Jump-shark-much? Search women in that poverty document: ~5 hits in 73 pages. It isn’t a problem for women. The data from her own country proves it. All but one stat by comparison confirm that poverty hits men harder than women. Almost as if there’s a lack of sympathy for male suffering, we should outlaw whichever bigoted ideology caused that injustice!
I will add in one more SJ definition, the one they officially use which never ever happens in practice (that would be meritocracy, a blind, non-identitarian process). Justice is blind?

Mutual obligation? At no point does HeforShe accomplish anything for men, except some vague promises that, trust us, patriarchy is bad for men too! Even though it’s run by men for men (a male safe space?) and their exclusive benefit according to …feminist theory.
From their own mouths: ”

“The patriarchy hurts men too” is a set of silencing or derailing tactics in feminist discussions…. Men are, as a class, the group advantaged by the patriarchy… who want to discuss male identity, masculinity and the patriarchy need to create new discussions in spaces that aren’t marked as women-centred. [DS: like a manosphere? mens’ rights groups?] This tactic is sufficiently well known that the acronym is sometimes used to identify it: PHMT.

Ignore the cognitive dissonance behind the curtain.

We have equal opportunities. We do not have equal outcomes because women are free agents who make personal choices and reap the consequences, both positive and negative.

I invite anyone to prove that above bolded incorrect on a factual level. Truly.
There is a performance differential on any metric you care to measure. Men and women (if you choose that sex binary as the independent variable) differ in their colour perception, for example. Something as basic as saying red or orange. As this Cell link states in passing, it’s such old news, the perception differential is biological. Innate. Immutable. “Furthermore, despite abundant evidence for sex differences in other visual domains, and specifically in other tasks of color perception-”

I’m sure Mz Watson knows better than biology. I’m sure there’s some rock-hard science, unless she’s calling Newton’s Principia a “rape manual” like some other feminists. She can’t be coasting on personal attention-whoring, emotional appeals and political philosophy. I can’t put it off any longer.

and here we go joker come on

1st thing I noticed: No like/dislike ratio data. No comments. Yes, what a welcoming invitation from HeforShe. I want to be a part of this “discussion.”

11 million views. How many unique? No, that’s asking too much. I watched it about 10 times to pick apart all the subtle jibes at supposed male dominance. And for laughs with free-thinking friends over drinks.
“Response” is great n’ all, but she isn’t really selling the real-world changes implemented as a result of her September edition [Vogue reference]. Were there any? Any at all? Surely she would point them out unless this is five minutes of self-congratulation that a few million men probably masturbated to her in a tight-fitting suit on mute.

1.2 billion social media conversations. I would wager at least 1 billion of those were arguments. Attention isn’t always positive deary. And going by the statistic you pulled a moment before, that means most people discussing your speech, didn’t watch it.

That’s right. Less than 0.01% of people talking about you actually listened to what you had to say.

They're so stupid it's a laughriot

She name drops. Keep it classy.

Marathons. Don’t people run those anyway? Merchandise? No sales data? None? You’re leaving it up to our imagination? That single 15 year old boy who wrote into his newspaper did it on a whim. I’ve seen more people write into papers about Bigfoot and UFOs.

Young girls collecting hundreds of signatures.

How many? How many girls and how many did each collect? If it were thousands of girls and that’s all they got, it wouldn’t seem as impressive, so I’m not surprised you missed out half the data. And only hundreds? At least two hundred then. Where is the link Emma to check for ourselves? Let’s see another petition in the ranks of 15k.

From their own website, out of billions of men worldwide: 208,003.
From this count, 3,665,665,350 men in the world at the time of checking (rounded a dozen or so down to 50) divided by 208,000 (rounded down by three).
Average 17,623 men per country. Is that it?
Average population of a country: 34,020,600.


That isn’t a “stunning” response Emma. That’s a rounding error.
Less than 0.001% of men in the average country. That’s a level of (in)significance a biomedical study could be proud of!
In your own country, where support should be sky-high: 26,942 men signed. 1 in 7 daily Guardian readers signed your petition. [192881/26942= 7.1]

Back to her first two stats. 11 million views/208,003. I’ll give you the three. 52.88. For every (non-unique) view of your speech, you persauded 1 in 52 men (rounding up for you because I feel pity) to sign your bloody petition.
Of the 1,200,000,000 social media conversations, bearing in mind you double that number of participants because you need at least two people to have a conversation (unless on tumblr);
Conversations on HeforShe by the number of men they induced to actually sign the fucking petition, expressed as percentage.


0.0002%, kindly rounded up. I can see those social media conversations were very fruitful.

laughing rdj crack up

Go on Emma. Tell us what a success this effort was. Try to sell us this again. Try to justify more money poured into it. How much did September cost? How much for each individual male signature? Four whole months?

“I couldn’t have dreamed it, but it’s happened. Thank you so much.”

Yeah. Sounds more like a nightmare. As you are speaking at an ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

“Thank you so much for watching-“

see above stats

“-and thank you so much for your support.”

Is that sarcasm? She can’t be that deluded to be serious, could she? And such eloquence, she comes across as SO educated. Like wow. so educated.

Reading off a speech card what the 10^3 campaign is. Isn’t her entire job in that role to memorize? Isn’t her acting non-career also based on her memory? It’s five minutes of monologue. *sigh*

“but I want to hear from the human beings that are behind these organisations.”

You already can. They send out these things called press releases and do interviews and sometimes even documentaries, so you don’t have to worry your pretty little head about more reading.

“I spoke about some of my story in September.”

If I were her editor I’d change it to: I shared my experience-. That’s all she wants to do. Talk about herself. Now she’s trying to justify her childish entitlements by asking for other people’s anecdotes too. Other people in power. No room for poor people in this warfare. A war of the sexes long outpaced Marxist class warfare in focus: “Class struggle is the women’s struggle! Women’s struggle is class struggle!” Two+ instances of logical fallacies don’t make for logic. Let’s all empathize with the poor rich people who need your help, poor people. Have a care for those in need. In Parliament. The C-suite. Ivory Towers.

“What are your stories? Girls, who have been your mentors? [implied boys cannot have mentors because masculinity is toxic to boys but masculine behaviour isn’t for girls] Parents, did you make sure you treated your children equally? [instead of fairly] If so, how have you done it? [ignoring their biology and sex-specific needs, I imagine; girls need to be taught about periods, for example] Husbands, have you been supporting your female partner [DS: I think the word you refuse to use is wife] privately so that she can fulfill her dreams too? [ignore the male NEETs, 73% male homelessness and how female NEETs chose to have children young, have more mental health problems or don’t even look for work] Young men, [poor men] have you spoken up in a conversation when a woman was casually degraded or dismissed? [there are so many things wrong with that I shan’t bother] How did this affect you? [as a man, even if 97% feminist-leaning you will be casually degraded by feminists and your opinion is dismissed as mansplaining, trick question] How did this affect the woman you stepped up for? [the part where she was spoken over and for like a paternal figure would or the implication that she cannot defend herself and requires a White Knight to protect her?] Businessmen, [only men? What Sisterhood?] have you mentored, supported or engaged women in leadership positions?”

“18% of SMEs are female led, and 22% of FTSE100 board members are female.” ~ A report written by your Government – why don’t you read?

“Using these data we can estimate that 32.9% of TEA was accounted for by women in 2011. In the US, 40.2% of TEA was accounted for be women.” Seems rather fair to me. They’ve had equal opportunity and ample incentives. In fact, excluding men would be the most unfair, sexist things you could do-


are you kidding me rn seriously wtf da vincis demons

Hidden away in another report by your own Government freely available online if you bother to look, it reads: ” In the FTSE 250 – the 250 next largest companies after those in the FTSE 100 – 13% of company directors were women. This figure has doubled in the last seven years.”

FTSE250: 26% female MDs. Above the target of 25%.

Worst of all, this is terrible news for the UK economy. Measured in Tobin’s Q, more women on the board, even on the lowest rung, makes the quantifiable company profits drop in reduced performance.  Don’t worry your head about it Mz Watson, I’m sure your political ideology is more important than the economy. You’re rich, it hardly matters to you on a personal level.

She goes on (and on and on);


Daily Mail I presume, with among the highest levels of female journalists employed? [n.b. The Guardian doesn’t report its own figures]

have you challenged the language and imagery used to portray women in the media?

CEOs, have you implemented the women’s empowerment principles in your own company?

And why would they do that?
Note how she doesn’t claim it will make them better off. Interesting omission. They hushed up on that false claim as they began to study it and they didn’t like the real-world results going against their dream. [see above Tobin’s Q]

What change have you seen?

Less money. More lawsuits.
They’ll call you.

Are you someone that has persauded men to become HeforShes?

Sounds like a transsexual thing. By someone, do you mean feminist or the hardcore SJWs? Weasel words.

-and collecting their signatures for our website.

We’ve seen. What a bang-up job they did of that.

Most media nowadays has a real brevity to bullshit issue

How many have you got?

You don’t want to ask that question. Wait… you don’t know. You really don’t know. Are you telling me you haven’t bothered to pull out a calculator once? You had the numbers before me. Nobody told you. Oh my God. Awkward.

Let them glory in their vices, we'll have the last laugh at the hags

We want to know.

They do. The UN already must. They didn’t tell you.

We want to hear from you.


One of the biggest pieces of feedback I’ve had … is that men and women want to help but they aren’t sure how best to do it. Men say they’ve signed the petition [over muffled laughter] – what now?

Here we go. This is it. This is the bold decisive action from a woman in your position of power and leadership. You may not be the feminist we deserve but… Be the feminist we need, Emma!

The truth is, the What Now? is down to you.

…………………………..wait, what’s your job again? ….Why are you even here?

Of all the anti-climaxes. You do the stereotypical female verbal defence mechanism of throwing the need for a logical answer back onto the persons asking the question, in a monologue speech in support of female assertiveness. I didn’t even know that was possible. You deflected with a tag question. To yourself, because the audience can’t talk back and give you that feedback, making the question rhetorical (and online there are no video comments, like/dislikes etc). You’re asking a rhetorical question about the need for and function of the very movement you’re meant to be promoting.

Ask Brown University for your money back.

What your HeforShe commitment will be is personal.

If we know one thing about human nature, men love commitment.

And there is no best way.

Is there a worse tactic than this? Give us a way. One single way to extrapolate from. Use your brain and come up with something. One thing. Is the best you can do to say: figure it out yourselves? Underwhelming.

Everything is valid.

Can I order this on a t-shirt.
It’s such a mindless, empty platitude it would sell like hotcakes.

Decide what your commitment is, make it public, and then please report back to us on your progress.

Like good little tin soldiers. Those are your marching orders.

-so that we can share your story.

Hang on, so the justification of this campaign is to gain information to justify this campaign?

I describe you, you hate me. Really, you hate yourself and everyone knows it.

We want to support, guide and reinforce your efforts. IMPACT 10^3 [lazy] is about concrete commitments to change, the visibility of these commitments and the measurability of them too.

We don’t care what you do for us, just do something for us, and then tell us what you did, and make sure whatever you do is really obvious and annoying to your friends and you measure it somehow for us, even in feels, to use it for some reason for this campaign that really needs you to do stuff for us because stuff needs to be done for us.


This is bringing back hard flashbacks of that classic study on automaticity. If you give people an order, whatever it is, if you give a non-reason as a reason, most of the time, they’ll still do it. Why? They don’t process the reason. There is no higher brain function and use of logic involved. They’re just following orders.

How has the campaign impacted me so far?

Well you’ve been getting paid, you’ve got more publicity than the last few years of your acting ‘career’ combined and numerous photoshoots.

I’ve had my breath taken away-

SOMEONE hire this girl a speech editor. CHRIST.
A domestic abuse case story …ended by the victim. The victim had the power to make the abuse stop? Bad example Emma. *makes cut motion rapidly*
Men in your life use a sudden excuse to talk to you and be your shoulder to cry on. Didn’t you stop to consider why?

Terrible attempt at “I have a dream”. “Economic and political parity?” Ah, when are you redistributing some of your wealth to me, from one woman to another? When can I expect the transfer? A tenner? How about some third world shithole, they could do great things with your millions? Oh, you want to keep all of your own money but lecture average people who are by definition poorer than you to give away theirs. That isn’t parity, it’s hypocrisy.

-This campaign and the result of it are a result of my incredible speechwriting skills. I know that it is not.

First instance of self-awareness. 4/5 in.

It is because the ground is fertile.

Sweeping statement. Evidence? No, I give up expecting any.

It is my belief that there is a greater understanding than ever that women need to be equal participants.

Let’s hope your understanding of that belief is better than your grasp of statistics.
How about the understanding in the past two centuries? In fact the first person to call for female suffrage was a man in 1818. When “Only 58% of the adult male population was eligible to vote before 1918.” Government source again: “In 1918 the Representation of the People Act was passed which allowed women over the age of 30 who met a property qualification to vote. …The same act abolished property and other restrictions for men, and extended the vote to all men over the age of 21. Additionally, men in the armed forces could vote from the age of 19.” Votes here with names listed: 385 Ayes to 55 Noes. Or how about when “the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 [stated] that women over 21 were able to vote and women finally achieved the same voting rights as men.”As wikipedia admits: The act was passed by the Conservative Party without much opposition from other parties.

Ever, Emma? Ever?
There’s your ‘political parity’, you don’t want to see it.

 In our homes, in our societies, in our governments, and in our workplaces.

Weasel use of the collective pronouns. Like the patronizing ‘We’.

And they KNOW, that the world is being held back in EVERY way [name one], because they are not.

Again, prove my opportunities statement false in the First World societies aka civilizations. You can’t. You don’t even bother pretending to prove that claim which dismisses the entirety of feminism up until now, you just say: You know. Oh, you KNOW. Vaguely paranoid assertion. Generic You. Switching to they is an us v. them confrontational paradigm assuming the audience agree, when you just said you want peace, harmony and men working with for women, did you mean as servants instead? Is that your idea of equality for women? If women=men doesn’t that go both ways? And it’s a black/white fallacy to throw one group up against another like the only options (they/we). If they did hold you back, how are you able to make this speech at all? You speak nonsense. There is no sense in it. You can’t be consistent for five fucking minutes??? [4:35]

Right side of history‘ myth tied to Marxism’s ripoff of misread Hegel. History isn’t teleological [1][2][3]. If you’re so sure you’re going to get your own way eventually, you wouldn’t be pushing so hard because it’d be like gravity, effortless. Your very actions betray insecurity in your ideology.
Ten Tell-Tale signs of Deception:
I won’t bother to apply that to this. Check most of them, inc. #3 “Answering questions with questions

Women share this planet 50:50.

Ah. Oh. Uh. Um. No.
I see what you did there. Women like to claim minority status when it’s a mathematical status.
Women are the global majority.

Lots of pink, very little green.


“In a study around 2002, the natural sex ratio at birth was estimated to be close to 1.06 males/female.[5] In most populations, adult males tend to have higher death rates than adult females of the same age (even after allowing for causes specific to females such as death in childbirth), both due to natural causes such as heart attacks and strokes, which account for by far the majority of deaths and also to violent causes, such as homicide and warfare 6] resulting in higher life expectancy of females.”

I guess that information wouldn’t sound as good in your speech, would it love? No, say the populations are equal mathematically, without support from the actual maths.

 And they are under-represented.

You believe. It’s an ever-moving goalpost.
You want more women to make a different choice. One you haven’t actually made yourself e.g. to board a company, go into STEM. You wanna force them? Forcing women to do what you want? That’s the only way it can happen. And you wonder why the term feminazi exists. Comments on #womenagainstfeminism?

Their potential astonishingly untapped.
Stats from your own Goverment yet again: Whereas in full-time, men earn more but in part-time, women earn more in £/hr. [chart] Why? More women are in part-time work. [chart] Men work more overtime so their full-time pay is bound to be higher for literally more hours of productive work. [chart] What equality, you say? This equality. [chart] And this equality: “At the same time (2013 Quarter 2), the Labour Force Survey (LFS) indicates that the UK workforce consisted of approximately 12.8 million men (51% of the employee workforce) and 12.5 million women (49% of the workforce).” If anything, women earn more than men for contributing fewer productive hours. In that sense, they are untapped.


See where the % change in earnings for full-time women was higher than men and the ‘All’ average of both sexes combined? Let’s look at the inequalities in part-time.

Part-time women earn more per hour than part-time men. [8.4 to 7.95] Women in part-time work earned more per hour than the sexless average of 8.29 would suggest they should.

“The mean weekly paid hours of work for full-time men were 40.1 hours compared with 37.4 for women. For part-time employees the mean weekly paid hours worked were 17.5 hours for men and 18.3 for women.”

Where men earn more: 556.0 median gross weekly earnings for full-time men in 2013 for 40.1 hours of work.
Where women earn more: 164.3 median gross weekly earnings for part-time women in 2013 for 18.3 hours of work.

a) Men earned 13.86 per hour weekly. b) Women earned 8.978 per hour weekly. Where each in their category earned more than the opposite sex under the same conditions. Simple explanation? Male overtime for (a) [chart above]. The female earnings exceeded men in part-time work because they worked longer hours than their sex competition, behaving like men in a! It comes down (result – amount paid) to N hours that are chosen to work, irrespective of the sex of the worker (proven in b) or the type of work employed (ft/pt).

Untapped = lazy. Women are 49% of that workforce.

To bring HeforShe into its next phase.

What phase?
What was the phase before?
What are you doing aside from passing the buck for feminist failures?
She does the question thing again. MLK didn’t say “What’s your dream?” Why make a huge mistake once when you can make it twice?

We want to know and we want to hear from you.

That can’t have been it.
What a gigantic waste of time covering this has been.

Taken to its logical extreme, a serial killer could daub HeforShe on the walls of his victims in blood and they’d wanna know about it. That’s how silly this entire thing is.

Feminism is defined as…


Actual definition. Oxford Dictionary definition.
Personal ‘definitions’ don’t mean shit, those are called opinions.

Maybe these people saying “educate yourselves” could pick up a copy of this magical book that defines things?

1. Subject = women. Only women.
2. ‘Rights’ = a nebulous concept involving an expansion of current powers.
3. Equality of the sexes = the pseudoscientific basis of feminism, based in Christianity and disproven by all known, harder sciences including genetics, physiology and the KO, neuroscience.

Together, these results suggest candidate regions for investigating the asymmetric effect that sex has on the developing brain, and for understanding sex-biased neurological and psychiatric conditions.

If feminism is science-positive, it should give up before this line of research continues and utterly decimates their cause by force.

Contrast with;


1. Subject = all people. Women are no longer special.
2. Deserve equal rights (treatment, including responsibility).
3. Opportunities. Not outcomes.

Final example;


What is rationalism, you ask?


The triumph of reason over experience.
That’s right, a humanist cannot, by definition, cite personal experience or belief at all.

Any fucking questions? I’m glad we had this little chat.

drinking tired of this shit michael fassbender

Video: Hidden Psychopathy + Sherlock/Moriarty

I’m going to do something here I’ve never done online before. This is how I pick up on stuff.
A casual linguistic analysis, an excerpt from this video, transcribed by me. And pop culture comparison for fun.
Key: Bold and italic, by me too, note for tone. (round bracket) implied, covert or omitted. [sq., clinical note, overt presentation]

Of note, ~9:00 in:-

(serotonin amelioration explanation)
…so Psychopaths will get very angry but they’ll stay angry. …I said when I get mad, I don’t show it to anybody. I said I could be furious at you and you’d never know. I show no anger whatsoever. I don’t show anxiety. I said first of all, you’ll never know. I can sit on it for a year or two or three or five. But I’ll get you. And I always do. And they don’t know where it’s coming from. They can’t tie it to the event and it (seemingly) comes out of nowhere. And something dramatic happens in their life but I’m very careful, almost pristine about it, that’s a fair response. So if somebody does something [DS: note linguistic distancing] you can do a lot, you know. [DS: linguistic hedge, appeal to popularity/commonality]. You can say anything to me and I won’t get mad, really. [superficial] Those things don’t get me mad. [unique triggers] Somebody’s trying to get me [challenge, disrespect] , it’s like another psychopath or another (…) you know, someone’s trying to mess with me [perception of threat]. I have uh, I have a high (standard) threshold [pattern-seeking, repetition of slight required], so many things really don’t get me mad. You can just about do anything. I’m pretty cool that way. [rarely emotionally involved personally or socially] But if you really do [personal attack, repeated or major, provocation] then I always get even [balance scales, sense of justice] and I’ll make sure [intellectual control] it’s the same sort of intensity [proportion, category] that their initial damage (caused). …I can stay cool and it’ll happen (inevitable) and they’ll look around –
What happened with their job, what happened with their family, what happened [I happened. Person as event/God.] they won’t know. [stealth] And they both said that’s psychopathic. That’s exactly it. …..
Really when I saw Dexter, I absolutely understood it, because he was being fair, he was being fair to the universe [moral code, higher power appeal] and the world of ethics of the universe he was absolutely fair. Morality wise not so much [minimisation] but I could really understand [empathise] that behaviour. [decision-making process]
……..It was always the most selfish behaviour. ….It gets worse than that. ….It would extend to everything I was doing. [global traits] …Everything I’m doing is maximally selfish. (tries to change) I said you know I don’t really mean it. My wife goes I don’t care. ….I couldn’t believe it. I thought, you see, I had taken the whole thing of empathy and meaning beyond what people behaviourally are asking for [deep, higher processing, sincerity in social observance of norms] … people said you’re trying and that’s all that matters. This really blew me away and I really still don’t understand it [DS: it’s interpersonal respect, respect for observance of norms]….

This is the living example of a successful sociopath (non-criminal, prosocial psychopath).
BBC’s Sherlock, continually selfish, would also meet this (before they made him mushy and weak for the fangirls in Series 3).

a-friend-an-enemy-oh-which-one bbc sherlockMan, how many people do you piss off???

Despite the writer’s insistence they haven’t written one, he is. He totally is. They’re just reading sociopath as a criminal. No no, ‘successful sociopath’. Successful. High-functioning, almost. If you were to apply functioning criteria to this condition, yes.

And this bundle of characteristics, as it were, makes them so dangerous. Calculating, ruthless, precise. Think Moriarty. No doubts over that one, but aren’t they similar?

I listen in for linguistic cues and quirks like this at cocktail parties, with surprising results.
This is why successful sociopaths are best in business. It’s the ideal set of traits. Look out for these clinical markers I pointed out in conversations with high-flyer types. Sometimes I announce to them on the quiet that I know what they are. Good times, good times.

no one ever gets me bbc moriarty sherlockCome on, it’s transparent as a pane of glass.

Article: The New Newspeak

Thus, we propose a simple methodology for ‘decoding progressivism’: wherever politically-correct language speaks of affirmation of a particular group or tendency, turn instead to the consideration of the groups and tendencies that are to suffer negation thereby.

…Here are a few examples of the politically-correct terms of affirmation that might be re-evaluated according to the methodology outlined above:

‘Inclusiveness’: abolition.

….Inclusiveness of this type can be used to abolish not only institutions, but also entire peoples: for if terms like English or French are opened up to include anyone who shows up at the borders of England or France and claims them, the original ethnic definition of these peoples effectively ceases to exist, just as a house ceases to exist as such when it is “redefined” within the more inclusive term of debris.

….‘Diversity,’ ‘multiculturalism,’ ‘right of free immigration’ etc.: negation of the national rights of native peoples; ethnic replacement of these peoples.

Little comment is needed here, because the correct redefinition of these terms follows more or less directly from what has been said about inclusiveness: all we need do is turn our consideration from the “rights” of immigrants that are being affirmed to the greater rights of native peoples that can only be negated thereby, principally the right of a people to have a homeland.

‘Women’s liberation’: replacement of procreation and ‘tradition’ by economic production, consumerism, and taxpaying.

Again, this redefinition is fairly self-explanatory. However, in accordance with the methodology used here, we do not wish to dwell unduly on the self-interest of the powerful which no doubt plays a large part in their promoting a ‘liberation’ consisting of economic servitude; rather, we aim to focus our attention on the spirit of hostility and negation fueling the superficially positive rhetoric of ‘women’s liberation,’ which in this case amounts to a literal negation of all subsequent generations. Inseparable from this is a deeper negation of Tradition, which is used in the above sentence as a verb in accordance with its original meaning of ‘handing down’: it is obvious that if there is no subsequent generation to which anything can be ‘handed down’, the traditional values of an entire people can be destroyed outright; and this is why the “liberation” of women into the sterile world of the office cubicle and the shopping mall occupies a special place alongside the comparable barbarisms mentioned above.


Decoding More Terms: A Call to Readers

Given the constantly-multiplying repertoire of politically-correct terms, what has been discussed above can only be a modest beginning to a much larger work of ‘decoding’ – which, once completed, would probably be sufficient to fill the pages of a short dictionary. Thus, readers who have grasped the basic methodology used here are invited to post their own attempts at decoding progressivist terms in the comments section below this article. A virus cannot be combated without vaccination – and we cannot even begin to oppose progressivism, unless we devise methods for dealing with the lies and hypocrisies encoded in its very language.

Interesting approach, I’d call it re-subversion, since the PC terms are subversions of natural law in themselves.