Video: ‘Anti Social Justice: A Helpful Translation Guide’

I suppose this is meant to be ‘triggering’ to the likes of us…?

crying laughter lmao

At least she tried.

I reached out to her earlier today to try and come to some understanding, charitably offered to take down my two original posts about her. She blanked me, on tumblr no less. I can’t say I’m surprised. Here’s what I sent, I’m not ashamed of offering an olive branch, so she can’t lie about that too;

Hello I know this will seem strange but we all do strange things, don’t we? I’ve been thinking re these 2 articles specifically @ tinyurl codes: jdpyngk and jhhnrht I don’t think my intentions were made clear, I wanted to protect people from bad/harmful advice to their case, as long as you agree to implore people to seek a professional AS WELL, and ask me nicely, considering your troubles and suicidal state recently, I am willing to take these 2 posts off public view. Do we have an accord? DS x

Seems reasonable, no? Each mental health case is individual, experiental advice commonly does more harm than good. I made a simple request: That if you lecture people on medical topics, as psychiatry follows the Medical Model, you advise them to seek a professional?
Character limit meant I couldn’t put a question asking whether she actually wanted them removed (or maybe she likes the bump in traffic and someone to oppose? My numbers are higher than hers.) and that was why I put the ask nicely part (on tumblr those are done in reply in-system), because she may not actually want them taken down for whatever reason and we’re British, polite is how we roll. Omitting a please is like a punch in the face.

anyway moving on awkward 10 doctor what wut wtf

I’m bored writing about her, she has that much in common with Roosh I suppose, they both feed off the attention in some sense, hence his attempted dive into a new pool of potential BS buyers and her new series goading the people from the chans who see the label ‘SJW’ like a red rag to a bull.
I hope it becomes a form of trendy social signalling. Easy to spot in the wild, you see.

She gets it right at the end of this video, though. People in favour of what she calls ‘social inequality’ are in fact arguing for a meritocracy, which is race-blind, sex-blind, and like all true ‘justice’, blind to wherever you come from or what you are. Which SJWs argue is a good thing? While they’re pushing identity politics that refuse to let the various cards go (if we’re all human and nothing fine-grain, this is a category error to use incorrect labels like race) and use them as blunt rhetorical weapons against the dominant democratic structures. For example, see the recent hashtag #BritsSoWhite, whereas the musical apartheid of the MOBOs get not a hint of a negative mention. I’m so glad Twitter is gonna tank in light of this injustice, see why here: http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/why-twitters-politics-ultimately-doesnt.html
They don’t want equal opportunity, where results are ranked or stratified, but statist-enforced equal outcomes, and this requires dragging the more successful people down in the name of categorized peoples who can actually think for themselves and object, not that it matters. #NotYourShield

She’s doing a literal series, literally called Being an SJW, if any of you want a laugh. The comments on the above video are also quite something.

Remember the law: SJWs always project.
After introjecting guilt for existing. Ordering ‘check your privilege’ is a personal attack, calling someone bigoted, ignorant or evil, is a personal attack. It is defamation of character, the modern equivalent of crying Witch! or Heathen! Why do people feel threatened by SJWs? Who are you to deny their experience? Maybe the no-platforming scientists for doing science, threatening the livelihoods (getting people fired and blacklisted) and threatening the very lives (SWATing) of dissenters, sending rape threats to women (some previous rape victims) who are anti-feminist/SJW and rentseeking taxpayer money better spent elsewhere for problems that will never be solved because they don’t exist, cannot be falsified/verified to exist objectively and seem to exist to give Identity Crisis Studies majors an easy job, like Connie St Louis, who lied about her CV. Did she get fired for this fraud, where anyone else would? No. Such worthless people have nothing practical of value to add to society, so Crusade, with themselves as judge, jury and executioner. See monstering mobs on Twitter, which is supposed to be illegal. That’s why people are leaving Twitter in droves, the SJW plague. Authoritarian is too polite a term, not to mention inaccurate, as authoritarianism is conservative. They are totalitarians seeking to censor and oppress anyone who is Not Them. The insane people who say Newton’s Principia is a ‘rape manual’ and are literally anti-logic, because apparently logic is the invention of white men…

slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/

I don’t think you should speak to her because I might get blamed but at least you can see what I have to put up with.

eyeroll jessica jones omg wtf shut up

Her fans keep coming here.
omg the comments…
all I did was highlight inconsistencies 
there were screencaps and references to social justice resources
#journalism

Video: Why SJWs are doomed

Casual, at length opinions incoming. It’s like moneyball with the Zeitgeist.

glare glaring stare no stop please wtf drinking tea disapproval forever

There will always be people like SJWs with a wish to control/dominate others. You can’t kill that personality but we should, it should be ironed out in childhood. You’re jumping the gun, sunshine.

I think he’s leaning too hard on the prospect of a Total Collapse as an excuse for personal inaction. It is more likely to be a decades-long decline like Boiling the Frog. Lower living standards, higher prices and consumer debt until one day the gears jam and the whole thing explodes.

The University Bubble will be propped up by NGOs. Look at their sponsors. EU EU EU EU. Who want to start WW3 with our military, see the SJWs calling for a ‘Federal Europe’, a martial Empire with its own army.

On social media, people are blocking the SJWs. Even on tumblr with savior, more people are blocking ‘their’ keywords, than anything else. They’re mistagging to avoid this and openly calling for inhumane things, like deaths, slavery, disease spreading, sleeping with animals and children, while claiming moral high ground. Hence backlash. No control over others is ever enough, because we are seeing they simply don’t want the rest of us to ever be happy. They cannot stop themselves, so they will be stopped. Happiness infuriates them. The best thing we can do is self-improve and totally ignore them. They feel relevant and important as long as we feed them like a Gremlin of attention. A private conversation should still be censored to them, because they have magical thinking, inept social skills and believe certain words or ideas are like a magic spell that causes bad things to happen. They’re lunatics. These are the Witch Hunt people, except now they say “Fire the racist!” The ideology is an excuse to drag everyone else down. It’s like the divorcee feminists sad and alone, they will be punished socially but it’s going to be gradual and we cannot forgive them, they earned ostracization, the classic punishment for traitors. They’ll just worm their way back in if we go soft and try to ruin our lives again with a different set of ‘theories’. The ideology is a ruse. It’s a platform for their actions. They want power at any cost and will say anything to get it.

You can’t be betrayed by the outgroup. Accepting them and whatever defense they give will get you and yours attacked. High altruism coincides in nature with small tribes for a reason, you need to be genetically alike.

On the topic of education, perhaps mention the way social science kicks out genetic evidence? That’s going the way of the Dodo. There are two fronts, as he rightfully pointed out: the ‘science’ (raise standards, damn) and the culture. Culture is based on language and enforced by PC. Language spreads by comedy. As I’ve posted before, mockery is the best weapon. Not hollow *this is bad, OP is a fag* but *this is bad, this is why, and here’s what’s good*…Make it positive. Be the Solution.

I have asked around and I think there might be an SJW backlash against the Boomers when they realize they were bled dry to be filling the Boomer retirement coffer and wasting their own youth on being indoctrinated. I don’t know what form that backlash would take but I’d appreciate the thoughts of others. They might literally become Nazis going by the statism and urge to control. Death is the great equalizer. Certainly I think we’d outvote their ‘entitlements’ once it is made clear we won’t be in personal receipt of them. Property will crash, thankfully.

Most Millennials are only secretly against PC because hate speech was brought in as we came of age. Theoretically, we are timed as the Hero generation. I have faith we might be able to make something of this bloody shambles yet. We are self-reported higher levels of social conservatism (less promiscuity for example) so who knows? We pay lip service to the Left because they currently hold the power, including occupational:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/feb/06/millennials-conservative-cheap-wisest-generation

If we brought back the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scold%27s_bridle and used it on these secular preachers, the problem would solve itself. It’s a misconception that only women can be nags, as anyone who met a gamma male can tell you. Nagging is empty feeling forced on others like an emotional tampon, we all feel.

The PC machine is now the exact opposite of finishing school. They say impulse control is a myth.

Let them slip down in social status, it will increase social mobility for the working class. Pull up the poor and they’ll ride with you. The lower class has more grit and street smarts in their little finger than the average leftist coddled baby.

Tear off the veil: ‘social justice’ is middle class war against the lower classes and calling for ‘equality’ that oppresses the poor from challenging them but makes them feel good about themselves, with position intact and status boosted.

It’s all about class. Don’t let them dodge the issue.

We must hold them religiously to their own standards. Their standards are insane so this will end in disaster. Already they’re becoming the laughing stock and social leper for beliefs that in any other time would be called Satanic, as they tell us what is Good. Due to the low fertility rate, they must snatch the children of conservatives and convert them at school, why do you think so many are teachers? Take political topics out of state schools.

They want to get to preschoolers because you can’t unlearn Common Sense aka survival instincts. These are the people who wanted children to engage in ‘sex play’ in the 70s. They’re pedophiles. Children can read books on sex for themselves by the time they’re old enough to be curious and hormonally deserve to know, they don’t need stranger adults grooming them.

It will be interesting to see how PC caves under the rising number of terror attacks. No country for cucks and mudsharks.

Middle class parents will cut off their adult babies when they come to find their children refuse to breed. Think about it, they paid so much money into this person’s education and it would’ve been better if they spent none of it. The Gen X meltdown will be funny, especially as they dodge the Divorce Damage.

Poorer children than their parents pre-dates the Industrial Revolution when the agricultural success of an area determined a family’s prosperity and Communist belief systems caused the modern poverty. Marx is a mass murderer. e.g. Sure, give those jobs to people in another country – where are the jobs? Pay workers in Asia a living wage – why is everything so expensive? There is a winner and a loser and they made us the losers. The future economy won’t be based on race, sex or nationality but IQ. It will be IQ apartheid. The low IQ will revolt and possibly riot in the streets because they want the high IQ’s stuff. It’s ‘equal’. You see this already with disputes over Intellectual Property, as ironically writers who rely on the IP of copyright demand IP for fun technology be scrapped because they don’t want their iPhone to be so expensive. It fails to connect that there won’t be any technology without R&D and patents are mere registrations of the labour already committed. If they can’t protect themselves, they won’t trade. No iPhones for anyone. There is no such thing as a free iPhone. You have to pay the workers, you feudal shitlord. Apple workers aren’t your slaves.

NRX needs memes. That’s how the manosphere does it.

We need more positive role models. Simple stuff: how to walk, how to speak, how to dress with class, how to balance your accounts, how to start a family on a small budget, how to raise children without fear, to be antifragile against propaganda. Books went downhill when Queen Victoria died.

I disagree entirely about 2100. I’d be surprised if this lasts until 2025. The economy certainly can’t (look at interest rates) and he forgets the salient fact: the outgroup is dependent on our bread. When the freebies stop they will fight or leave. They refuse to feed themselves. When the EBT is denied, what then? It takes but a few weeks to starve.

I enjoy warning SJWs with the full redpill truth and watching them walk stridently head first into reality. Who says reverse psychology doesn’t work? They’re like little lemmings, and this is before any harshness sets in. Consider the medical conditions of an apocalypse: They’ll be pozzed by corpse juice contaminating the urban water supply and if they fall pregnant by foreign gang rape for being unchaperoned they’ll still be apologizing for their white-passing privilege as they kneel before the sword. Delusional people belong in an asylum because the asylum protects them. I don’t worry about the SJWs, leave them to it, maybe sit back and crack open a drink to watch the chaos. Children must learn consequences. We should focus our efforts on the good people who wanna get along (including hard-working foreigners) because with low time pref we must consider the rebuilding effort once their Tower collapses.

sarcasm scott I'm fine okay good great lol happy

OT rant not about MW but I’m putting this here since why not:

I dunno what it is about Youtubers lately but they all seem to be half-arsing it with circlejerk two hour plus podcasts of griping about how we ‘must do something’ as if I care anymore for their futile whining than a basic bitch at Starbucks complaining about her latte but this is one of the few newer videos that isn’t like that.

If I have a pretty firm idea of your opinion on the topic of How We’re All Doomed before I click, why would I listen to it unscripted unedited and filthy casual for hours and hours and hours of ‘content’? It strikes me as very Elliot Rodgers narcissism. Elevating the speakers over the topic. Podcasts are so Noughties anyway, why bother with Youtube if you won’t use the visual component? Would it kill you to include some graphics? Heck, even funny cat pictures!

Bitching over the internet isn’t doing something and you’re all acting like women without the excuse of being one. Bitching about masculinity is so deeply meta I dunno what to say. Claiming women stole it is like the black people who support melanin theory saying whitey stole their magic powers. We didn’t steal your mojo, you refuse to grow some.

Recently it’s What do we do about Europe? 

*twiddles thumbs* *focuses on tedious tumblr shit*

Well, you’re the men and you believe in gender roles and Patriarchy so you fight. That’s what you’re supposed to do. We have civilization and culture. You like it? You fight for it. That’s what your ancestors have been doing since forever and the only reason we’re all still here. If you really had low time pref and gave a damn about the future like you claim you wouldn’t be sitting on your arse knowing full well what’s going on (unlike bluepills, who have an excuse) and asking someone else (a parental figure) to come in and tidy up your mess. You’re adults, you fix your own shit.

Oh wait, you’re too yellow to defend what you claim to believe in. I guess cowering indoors is the Well ‘Ard response of an alpha male. Laugh at the Taharrush game because only feminists are being attacked, right? Don’t even start on the male feminists for some obscure reason cos that doesn’t look sexist at all. Proceed to denigrate women for being women (there’s a bad side to each sex) instead of being men (as feminism has informed you we should act) and don’t ask for one moment if you aren’t stepping up somewhere, when, as the dominant sex, the burden is on you alone. That’s what tradition means, the way that worked. Men do the defending because you evolved to be the martial sex. Finger-pointing and claiming victimhood will get it chopped off when the Caliphate is installed.

Link: The year SJW feminism jumped the shark

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3379465/The-year-feminism-lost-plot-self-indulgent-intolerant-irrelevant-just-world-needs-says-Sarah-Vine.html

Social Justice wasn’t explicitly identified. This is not Victorian feminism lobbying for equality of opportunity, is it?

How interesting…

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

It’s like they’re afraid of a certain book. #SJWsAlwaysLie

A book that arms you against their fascist tactics of speech suppression and ruining your social lives (isolation) and livelihood.

Link: An SJW on evil

No really pull up a chair.

View at Medium.com

You know what I hate?

Shit writers who immediately latch onto a supposed victim group with a petty anecdote as if that is a flawless mathematical proof that the world is exactly how they imagine. Instead of empty rhetoric. To use imaginary people from another victim group and getting offended on their behalf just makes you a cunt, frankly.

#NotYourShield

Most gay people aren’t into LGBT drama. Suck it up, cupcake. They don’t wanna be victims so they aren’t.

The premise of her anecdotal argument for example implies that homos are innately weaker than heteros (there was no need to bring sexuality into this discussion and the show cited actually has a nice portrayal but fuck logic when it’s an SJW on the warpath trying to sound deep) which is, as you can guess, totally baseless. Where do they get this from? It’s like how tumblr judges how to rate your argument based on your race and sex. More openly than a KKK member. They’re the most racist and sexist people alive and they’ll judge you on it to your face. Or they’ll make assumptions like I bet a white boy said this. It’s sick. No wonder they’re on meds.

As an aside, if you bring up a political debate without knowing the rational issues on both sides, you are the bigot because of course there are valid reasons on both sides that’s the whole reason it’s a current controversy. If you can’t play Devil’s Advocate for both sides equally, you don’t understand the topic and any conclusion is invalid. What a vapid twat.

Coincidentally there is this almost autistic lack of self-awareness;

But it’s a fair though. I mean, “good vs. evil” is usually an “us vs. them” type of argument. Most people don’t actually ask themselves “Are we the baddies?”

Except people with autism would perform better.

If you think your belief system is flawless, you’re in a cult.

Her stone-kicking conclusion is postmodern in the sense that she condones evil because it doesn’t really exist and moral relativism means we should learn from and embrace everyone.

eyeroll jessica jones omg wtf shut up

I’m guessing that includes paedophiles and other rapists. Proof you can sit an SJW through a really epic portrayal of abuse issues and they’ll side with the sickest person in the show (Jessica Jones was raped, Tumblr writes fanfiction about her being into this ‘relationship’ and the abuser as sexy). No, they aren’t misunderstood. You’re dumb. They are actually evil or the term means nothing. There are plenty of retarded people who can finger the Bad Guy so I don’t know if there’s a word for it. Terminal stupidity? A milder, female form of William’s Syndrome? Pathological altruism fits best but, Future Darwin Award Winners? Comparisons don’t cover the sickness and twisted nature of this pseudologic.

In case you think I’m being too hard on these people, this train of thought has real-life tragic consequences.

They’re the type of people to defend criminals, proven in a court of law criminals, blaming society for their actions as an excuse to release them onto us again. 

They’re the type of fucktard to push therapy as a viable alternative to prison for offenders, it’s called Restorative Justice and, guess what?!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11372442/Sex-therapy-in-prisons-does-not-stop-rapists-reoffending-warns-expert.html

That doesn’t work. 

Because they’re evil.

They enjoy hurting people and always will, it’s that fucking simple. You can see it in a brain scan, it’s undeniable. And idiots like this are helping them, enabling them, and should be suitably shamed for it. They’re supporting the real rape culture. They know their apparent solutions don’t work and they still try to turn a Beast into a Prince. Grow up.

Prison had the purpose of 1. keeping society safe from them, 2. limiting the damage they could cause while alive and, crucially a mix of the two, barring them from the gene pool. It was a genetic death sentence, hence it was a humane replacement to the literal one!

Btw, Restorative Justice, in practice? I’ve seen it. Victims are forced to deal with their abusers for years or the system supported by people like this blames them for refusing to put the abuse behind them (and ultimately say on legal record all is forgiven, under duress and harassment) and to consider the needs of their abuser to follow the treatment plan they wrote, so the offender can be released fully, and in turn have the full freedom to hurt them again. Or others, that they will feel guilty for. That’s how it ‘works’, or more to the point, doesn’t to anyone with a conscience. It’s systemic abuse and it’s disgusting. People like this like the idea of ‘redeeming’ evil like God himself because it makes them feel good, powerful, makes people cry (they get off on it) and costs the taxpayer a lot more money because of the trouble the criminal continues to cause because the RJ system enables them, nay, encourages them.

This topic grinds my gears.

Video: Culty Claudia

Imagine my surprise (and tbh, delight) when I saw this pop up in my recc. list. I found this guy during gamergate, he speaks a little too slowly (and monotone, but it’s a second language I think so give him a break) but the content splicing is epic.
On the subject at hand —

I assume I need no introduction Lestat IWTV film bamf

Usually people ignore her, after distorting the Nazi rape comment (really correction) by a *gasp* MAN! based on that little thing called history. She twisted a recognition of a hypothetical as a threat in the present. I dunno how unless she has a TARDIS stowed away behind that bookcase. I don’t blame them for ignoring her after that, it was a ludicrous situation. Yet there is a balance that if someone is happy to put their opinions on a controversial topic in a public video, inviting attention to it, they should be happy in turn if someone else is taking those seriously enough to do a rebuttal in a similar format.

I hope he’ll cover more like this, there is a small goldmine to be had from the sheer volume of implausible contradiction in her worldview. 2+2=5 shit. Surreal.
Posting for those wondering what dear Claudia’s up to nowadays (and yes, the gif use is a deliberate literary reference).

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.

http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2015/01/emma-watson-launches-10-by-10-by-10

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

https://twitter.com/HeforShe/status/558522851373105153

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

sjrobot

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.

http://www.noodls.com/view/B3AB8791692C77A82FCDA610905B702D96DFCE1C?3394xxx1422000694

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…..men 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.
howmanypeoplewatchedemmawatsoninseptember

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.

averagemenwhosignedHeforSheaccountingforpopulationoftheircountry

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.

conversationsonHeforShebymalesignaturesonpetition

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.”

#eloquence
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-

2015targetwomenonboards

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%.
YOU HAVE WHAT YOU WANTED ALREADY. THE DATA IS RIGHT THERE.

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);

Writers,

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28Marxism%29

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.

*crickets*

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.

What.

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.

NOWHERE IS SAFE FROM US.
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:
http://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=4294971184
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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio

Why?

“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.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/24/childless-women-in-their-twenties-out-earn-men-so/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/09/genevieve-wood/what-pay-gap-young-women-out-earn-men-cities-gop-p/
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/economics/article4272918.ece
Stats from your own Goverment yet again: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2013-provisional-results/stb-ashe-statistical-bulletin-2013.html 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.

ONSmaleearningsfulltimelesscomptowomen

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.
ONShourly2013mfpartfullcomparison

“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.