Feminists politicize a criminal/civility issue

There is no serious anarcho-communist movement in the West. I’ve never read any scholar or heard any political office holder or serious contender claiming that if you lack an item, it’s OK to take it from someone who has more than one. No one says that if you’re hungry, you can just walk into a food store and take food or help yourself into a private home and loot the fridge. Such views – even if they exist – are extreme fringe.

Because of lack of such views, fighting them would look insane. If a politician would start running the slogan “no one can loot your fridge”, people would consider him insane, despite they agree with the statement.

The fun thing is that your fridge isn’t safe. In the USA 15.9 million times in 2016 were properties harmed: cars stolen, homes burglarized, shop items lifted, pockets picked or even people robbed violently. That’s not a small number. It’s likely that most people suffer some kind of action against his property somewhere his life. My parent’s garden was attempted to be robbed when I was a kid (in this type of crime, the thief is going for lawnmowers, power tools and other items left unguarded around the house without actually breaking into anything). The attempt failed due to a 100 pounds dog.

So by this statistics we can conclude that there is a very serious anarcho-communist movement going on, with millions of activists trying to redistribute property and this should be in the focus of modern politics.

Except, of course this is bullshit. The thieves aren’t political, but criminal. They don’t steal because they believe it’s the right thing to do, but because they don’t care what’s right. They weren’t trying to steal my dad’s lawnmower because they believed it to be unjust privilege, but because they wanted to sell it for booze. The thieves aren’t in a political party, don’t work together for an utopia where all property is commonly used, they just break the law for their own lowly reasons. Because of that, no political answer is needed or given. There are no marches and speeches against thievery, robbery or shoplifting. If it gets into the debate, it’s only mentioned as “more resources to the police”. The point is that there is a cultural consensus that theft is bad and it includes thieves too. I mean if a thief found his home robbed while he was out robbing, he would be upset instead of celebrating this as cultural progress.

The same thing is true for sexism. There are sexist incidents in large supply. I’m pretty sure that most women are subjected to dog whistles, unsolicited touches, internet bully or workplace harassment somewhere in their lives. I do agree that resources should be allocated to fight these annoying or outright criminal acts. But forming a political movement against it is just as insane as the anti-thief movement. Like thieves, the sexists are just bad people who don’t care what’s right. They want some sexual arousal for themselves so they touch, whistle and yell. They don’t think it’s OK. They wouldn’t want it to happen with their mum, wife or daughter. But they do it anyway because they are bad people.

The feminist movement imagines a movement behind these bad people: the patriarchy. It’s a crazy conspiracy theory, no better than the one that claims that the thieves are all controlled by some Marxist mastermind who directs them where to go rob. They witch-hunt conservatives for being in this “patriarchy”, despite no one is there. There isn’t anyone – including actual harassers – who says that sexual harassment is right. No one controls, motivates or protects the harassers, just like no one does it with the thieves.

But-but-but men stand idle when harassment happens! They must be OK with it! – says the feminist, ignoring the fact that people stand idle when theft happens too. In most cases random people don’t play hero by running after a thief or give a car chase to a car robber. They might testify to police, but most of them just don’t want to get involved, so they look the other way. Being lazy doesn’t imply being supportive.

Sexism is mostly a civility issue. The perpetrator is an asshole and everyone thinks he’s an asshole. In some cases it’s a criminal issue, condemned by everyone. But it’s not a political issue, so feminism is completely pointless and even harmful, just like the movement against the imaginary anarcho-communists would do no good.


Second best blogging advice: aaa

Note: this post is because fellow bloggers are up in arms have a collective effort to encourage people to write, podcast, stream and generally create content.

Good ideas come at you at any moment. Writing a blog post takes an hour or two and usually you don’t have that at any moment. If you just go on with your life, the idea can fade and you are left with the hollow feeling of “I had an idea but I don’t remember what”.

I have a pretty effective method fighting this. Any time I have an idea, I open the blog engine and write the post title and schedule the post at some date which serves as a deadline to actually write it. Since I can’t do that with an empty post, I write “aaa” as content. Later, when I have time, the title reminds me that I have post to make.

Sure, sometimes I mix up the dates and manage to actually post something with nothing but “aaa” in it. This is annoying. But I rather post “aaa” ten times than forget something good.

Sure, the post sometimes contain more than “aaa”, like the link of a post I want to reply to or some other notes, but somehow even then I add “aaa”, out of routine. It served me well over the decade of blogging. It will serve you well too. Just make sure that the title is actually good enough to remind you of the idea. If so, it’ll be good title for the readers too.

Best blogging advice: don’t be afraid of disapproval

Update: I’ve written this idea long ago and forgot it. You can read it here.

The blogs I read are all up in arms about some strange initiative to revive game blogging. I am skeptic, because the big problem isn’t lack of good blogs, but lack of readers. Most people moved to social media for larger reach and faster access of many 20 seconds content pieces.

But hey, it doesn’t hurt to try, so let me give a good advice from the position of someone who has over 3000 posts behind him. The best I can give is: don’t be afraid that the readers will not approve. Actually, seek it! It’s easy to post something everyone likes:

See, it took like 30 seconds and I guarantee no one will be mad at me for it. But it would cost 30 seconds to anyone else and there are awful lot of anyone elses out there. Why would someone follow your blog if you write the same damn boring shit?! I swear I stop reading blogs if one more guy feels the need to blog and post screenshots about the same damn Darkshore questline that everyone and his mother are doing.

Post something that no one does, and there are two ways to do it:

  • Figure out something that no one knows or imagines. Like raiding in blue gear. But that needs you to be a unique genius and you’re probably not.
  • Say what many people think but don’t dare to say loud because they don’t want to rock the boat

I made my name by calling the bad players morons and slackers and suggested my readers to cut this dead weight off themselves and stop boosting them. Nobody liked me. Nobody wanted me in his circles. I wasn’t syndicated on the big wow sites. Those sites are gone now and I’m still here. Why? Because what I wrote was true and I was the only one saying it.

Don’t go with the flock! The way of the lone wolf isn’t that easy, but it’s something worth telling. No one wants to read the blog of a sheep, grazing all day. They want to hear about that wolf howling all alone in the woods.


Unrelated PS: I hate how social justice warriors are ruining existing games and films with their bizarre agenda, like the Star Wars sequels or the Ghostbusters abomination. I swear their next move will be replacing hotties in lead roles for grannies in the name of “ageism”…
… all hail Anita; it was Her turn to be president and I identify as a demisexual vegan transhispanic Muslim. (source)

Go Eagles … to hell!

Short update: I didn’t see it coming that the next ranked season which will come next patch (soonTM) will be with the exact same tiers as the previous. No Yugumo…

Anyway, I have much to practice with my Kagero, since I’m clearly not skilled enough to win battles:


World of Warships has an event … like … thing. It’s not really a thing because it does not require you to do anything. You sign up for a “team” and play normally. The “teams” are not represented in actual battles, it’s not like Eagles vs Sharks, players of different “teams” can be found in both sides of an actual battle. For kills, wins, heroic achievements and doing silly stuff like spot 4 people first you get points. The points are added to your “team”.

For certain point values (100, 350, 700, 1100) you get a lootbox. Also you get one at the end of the day if your “team” wins. Plus 1 if you are in the top 1000, one more for top 100 and top 10.

In the EU server the Sharks always win, simply because they have more players to collect points and because switching teams to the winners is trivial, you just select Sharks at the beginning of your day and you are there. So Sharks always get a free lootbox.

I’m stuck with Eagles who I selected before having a clue how this nonsense works. Why am I stuck? Because there is another reward: loyalty. If I stick with the Eagles, I will max out my loyalty and get lot of tokens:

Tokens are more important than lootboxes, because for 2 tokens I can buy a temporary skin that gives +175% captain XP. I’m not sure if I can play enough to max out Sharks if I switch now, because I don’t know how much I can play and so on. So I play safe and stay loyal to the Eagles until they are maxed out.

I absolutely don’t get the point of this “event”. It seems like just free rewards for doing what we were already doing. Fine, that’s nice, I guess the fact that August is usually the slowest month in gaming is the reason for the extras. But then why make the teams? Why reward those who picked Sharks higher? How could they not see that everyone will jump for the winning team?

I’m personally not that damaged by this because on most days I can play enough to get to the top 1000 Eagles, while top 1000 Sharks would be much harder. Also, I’m capable of realizing that having a free lootbox is good, even if the next guy gets two.

But this is still stupid and I wish I picked Sharks at the start.

I was right #15646 and the politicizing apolitical issues

Why am I always right? Jessica Price returned exactly as I predicted: as a full blown social justice warrior. Her feed is now full of Obama stuff, immigration stuff and generic politics.

But first she writes interesting things:

Anyway, ArenaNet’s continued refusal to condemn the increase in harassment they’ve subjected numerous women in the industry to is pretty telling. I know that it’s hard for companies to find the spine to take controversial moral stands, but you’d think “hey, stop threatening to rape and kill female devs, their families, and their pets” would be, y’know, low-hanging fruit everyone could get behind. And my understanding is that their internal response to this has been to institute more restrictive social media policies (e.g. employees aren’t allowed to complain about work at all on their personal accounts) but NOT to institute any additional protections for those who comply.

One of the larger issues here, of course, is not just their insistence that they own 100% of their employees’ time and off-work lives, but the promotion of the company brand as one in which you can interact directly with devs. Video games have a fan community that’s more hostile to creators than any other fan community I’m aware of, and video game companies require more direct engagement from their creative talent, with fewer protections, than the rest of the entertainment industry. Or, put another way, the video game industry insists that its creatives also function as customer service reps.

Now. To be VERY clear, I think anyone who is abusive to a customer service rep is being a garbage person and needs to get smacked down hard by the company. However, there’s a whole realm of not necessarily overtly abusive, but exhausting, behavior that kind of comes with the territory of your job description being, “whenever possible, make the individual customer happy through your interaction with them.” I admire the fuck out of people who take that on. And I especially admire people who make a career of it. But most people, with good reason, aren’t interested in doing that. And the fact that your average video game company wants–and pressures–its creative staff to be out there engaging directly with consumers, and expects that engagement to proceed as if the creative staff were customer service reps, is bullshit.

And it would be bullshit EVEN IF the video game fanbase weren’t notoriously riddled with aggressive misogyny, racism, etc. But of course the standards for how female and male devs are allowed to behave are different, and the treatment they receive from gamers is different. All of that, however, is just about what happens on the clock and on company-controlled social media, where even the most aggressive gamers generally know not to use slurs, issue direct threats, etc. Then you’ve got employees’ personal accounts. And if you–as someone whose job isn’t customer service–shouldn’t have to perform customer service duties on company owned media, how much more should you not have to on personal social media? TV writers don’t have to do this. Movie screenwriters don’t have to do this. Novelists don’t have to do this. The only branches of entertainment where creatives seem to be expected to perform customer service duties–including off-the-clock–is geek media, esp games/comics.

And as much as I don’t like it–I loved the idea, initially, of how much creatives and fans rubbed elbows in games– the simplest solution is for companies to eliminate direct access to creatives except in PR-controlled interviews/chats/etc. The better solution, of course, is a lot more nuanced and requires active, continuous dialogue between management and creatives. It requires a much less paternalistic approach, nuanced discussion of what safety actually means, fluid standards of access, and so on. But that’s not going to happen, because it would require corporations to unclench with regard to their employees, and to ACTUALLY treat talent as valuable. Not by offering free sodas and a foosball table, but by treating their talent as people. And it’s also never going to happen because it would require management to actually LEARN FROM employees who understand things like internet harassment far better than they do. Not in “listening sessions,” but in actual conversations. ACTUAL listening. So, given that most video game management is terrible at actual, authentic relationships, the safer option is just a PR wall between fans and creatives.

And the reason I hate that isn’t because I actually think engaging directly with fans is at all useful as far as creative feedback. It’s not. What’s useful there is actual data: are people buying? How much fanfic/fan art is being made? etc. That’s what tells you if the story’s actually hitting or missing with a majority of your audience. Forum posts/tweets/etc. don’t. But the reason I’ve continued to engage both in company-sponsored social media, and in doing game dev behind-the-curtain threads here on Twitter is because I’m interested in paying it forward as far as people who are listening–and usually, they AREN’T talking. A lot of what I know how to do I learned by people pulling back the curtain for me. Sometimes individually, on purpose, but often without even realizing I was there. And the voices we need more of in games often aren’t talking in game-focused social media. Why would they? It’s ardently hostile to marginalized people. If I were just a fan, if it weren’t my industry, I wouldn’t bother. But I’ve always read–ravenously–creatives’ accounts of HOW they do things. And all I can do in thanks for that is pull back the curtain for others.

She is right in the apolitical things. The fraternization between devs and players must stop and the best way to do it is putting devs behind the PR wall. It’s abusive for decent devs who must serve as customer service 24/7. I was always on this position, mostly because of not so decent devs who use these venues to conspire with goldsellers and other game monetizers.

Why is this dangerous? Because Jessica is on the way to become a champion of fighting against this cancerous fraternization and can use her status to also spread her SJW agenda. She fills her speech with completely wrong and unrelated parts about how “marginalized” devs are abused – when a male dev was fired with her. Her take on that is absolutely wrong. No one goes after a dev because of race and gender, but because the dev isn’t catering to that customer and he feels entitled to – mostly because he sees other customers being catered to. It’s possible or even likely that when he starts throwing abuse, it will contain racist and sexist slurs. But not because the person is racist or sexist, but because he assumes this will hurt the target. The same abusive person would call an open Trump supporter KKK member or racist.

So now, she will use her fame and credit earned fighting something genuinely bad to push the feminist lies that women and racial minorities are targeted on the internet or the gaming industry, when there isn’t anything like that. Like in gamergate, the focus will change from a valid problem to SJW agenda items like cyberbullying and “racism” and “sexism”.

If only people listened to me and not fire Jessica. Or even earlier, don’t allow player-developer fraternization. But they don’t! I’m Cassandra.

World of Warships random battles must be rigged to make profit

Entertainment products are simple: you pay them money, you receive fun time. Games are no different, you pay WoW subscription and you can log in and run around killing wolves with cartoon swords. Or you buy the box of PUBG and you can die 1 minutes after landing in School.

Simple and logical, but not for free-to-play games. Since you pay nothing, you cannot get fun, or they’d go out of business. No, in a free-to-play game, all you get is misery and suffering for free. Also, you get constant reminders that you could have fun if only you’d pay.

What does World of Warships sell you for money? Premium account that increases your XP and credit gains. Credits directly. Economy signals and camouflages that increase your XP and credit gains, decrease upkeep. Premium ships with better XP and credit gains, along with converting this XP to free XP. You start to see a pattern here: you get faster ship and captain progression for money.

But why would you want that? Why would you spend money for speeding trough the game? Because it was made purposefully horrible. The random games must be made a horrible experience to force players to pay to get out of it. If the game would be constant ranked battles for all tiers, I wouldn’t have paid them a penny. It’s possible that I’d still be around Tier 7 without the premium and the economy flags I bought, but I wouldn’t care, because I’d enjoy playing those ranked games. I actually like my Shira better than my Shima.

If I’d enjoy random games too, I wouldn’t pay either. I pay because I want out. I want to reach the position when I have a lvl 19 captain and an engine boost improvement modification for all my ships and I swear to Neptune I won’t play a single random game in my lifetime. I will simply not play between ranked seasons (OK, maybe a few games before the season starts to warm up). I will play ranked. And Wargaming won’t see a single dime from me!

The random matchmaker is purposefully ruining my games to force me to pay. That’s a necessity coming from the fact that this damn game is free to play. If the matchmaker wouldn’t be rigged, wouldn’t make everything to make me miserable, Wargaming would have no income.

On the other hand, the matchmaker must give free kills and wins to baddies for the consumables to make sense. If they would finish every game with 300 base XP, no amount of spending would help them so they would stop spending. Ergo, the matchmaker does the exact opposite to them what it does to me: places them to their best position at start, give them helpful and skillful teammates, while I’m always on the island side, surrounded by … them.

Anyway, my captains are almost complete and 3 ships have their engine upgrades. I have stocked up with +speed signals too and have my warehouse full of T2 consumables. I’ll soon be all set for rankeds and then the damn randoms can go to hell along with any hope of Wargaming of seeing a penny of mine.

Oh no! Not Buffy!

Social Justice Warriors did awful lot of evil things in the World. But none is even close to the inhuman act they are planning: rebooting Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

This iconic TV show is dearly remembered by everyone who is between 30 and 50 years old. It was unique, exciting, full of memorable quotes (my favorite: “I’ve found a puppy. Its owner died… without a fight.”) and unique and lovable characters, prompting a debate who was the best between Willow supporters and people who are wrong.

Its creator, Joss Whedon since sold himself to make superhero crap and turned total “male feminist”, probably not unrelated to the fact how he personally treated women. He never created anything worthy to remember since Serenity (don’t tell me you remember anything from Avengers besides “it was fun”). Now, probably to restart his career, off he goes to desecrate his creation.

This will flop. Badly. Why? Because he’ll make it super feminist and super diverse to both atone for his treatment of women and the lack of minorities in the original gang (Buffy, Willow, Giles, Angel, Xander). Such films are just as interesting as the “don’t try drugs kids!” videos from your friendly police department. Sure, Whedon probably could produce it in better quality, I guess he still has his skills even if he lost his vision, but I don’t expect it to be better than his Planned Parenthood PR video.

But most importantly it will flop because of the complete misunderstanding of the original Buffy. It is hailed of a hallmark feminist show, but it was absolutely not. Having a strong female protagonist was groundbreaking … for Ellen Ripley 20 years earlier. A female lead in a not-romance TV show might was a milestone … for Kathryn Janeway. While SJWs try to paint the present unbearably sexist and racist, implying the past was outright horrible, but the truth is that no one was upset about female or black heroes 20-30 years ago. Equality was considered to be achieved and -isms were limited to redneck pubs and locker rooms. From Will Smith to Carrie-Ann Moss, it wasn’t controversial or risky to cast someone who was not a white male to a role that involved beating the crap out of baddies.

Besides having female lead, there was nothing remotely “feminist” in Buffy. The baddies didn’t live in any sort of patriarchy. Many of them were women, they represented anarchism, hedonism and individualism instead of any kind of -isms that would trigger an SJW. Hell, the vampire women were equals even in flashbacks to the 18th century. The one trying to pull Buffy back was her mom, while Giles (kind of father figure) always pushed her forward, always trusted her. It was a coming-at-age show if we want to categorize.

Feminists loved it because … well, it was great and deep down somewhere feminists are still human. Also, as they are dumb and shallow, having females on screen is enough for them. “Representation” is the new buzzword for SJWs.

Trying to “feminize” Buffy will destroy it. Hell, trying to remake it without butchering it will likely do no good. 20 years passed, the World changed and there is a reason why the show was canceled.

It’ll be fun to watch another feminist project burn. But it won’t be fun to watch my youth-hood favorite burn with it. Someone agrees: