In a report released yesterday, entitled “Cyber Violence Against Women And Girls: A Global Wake-up Call,” UN Women, the group behind last year’s risible “He for She” campaign, called on governments to use their “licensing prerogative” to ensure that “telecoms and search engines” are only “allowed to connect with the public” if they “supervise content and its dissemination.”
In other words, if search engines and ISPs don’t comply with a list of the UN’s censorship demands, the UN wants national governments to cut off their access to the public.
So, what sort of content does the UN want to censor?… The UN is hung up on “cyber violence against women,” a Kafkaesque term that is apparently shorthand for “women being criticised on the internet…”
According to feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who spoke at the event, online “harassment” doesn’t simply consist of what is “legal and illegal,” but “also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.”
First, congrats to Aurini, who now officially has his own section in the UN’s “Troublesome-Little-Pricks” file – to the point they are discussing him openly at meetings. I had hoped to beat him to that honor, but alas it was not to be.
Moving on, you can see the beginnings of that spoiled, hyper-sensitive mindset that has periodically arisen in the resource-provisioned aristocracy, and produced widespread savagery over the most minor of trifles. Everyone knows such easily triggered individuals are to be shunned, yet things today are so easygoing they feel no shame in flaunting such brazenly neurotic and mentally damaged attitudes.
It does make sense, if you view it in the context of amygdala stimulation. Personally, I would prefer a world where other men I argue with aren’t legally allowed to pull out guns and start pointing them at people in a threatening fashion as we debate. That, to me would be a level of amygdala stimulation which it would be good to delegitimize legally. In a way the feminists are just like everyone else, only their level of amygdala sensitivity is so immense that they freak out at much more minor stimuli, such being told they “suck,” or not being given total control over every living thing because of their awesomeness. The mechanism is the same, it is just the incredible extent of their mental debility which makes the propositions they put forth so absurd.
What none of these SJWs grasp is that there is no aristocracy today, and the peasants are not helpless. These bimbos are fighting for the mass oppression of others without holding the high ground of violence, in any way shape or form. That they have been tolerated this long doesn’t mean that violence will never happen – it just means that free resources have rendered the men they hate pacifistic and hyper-tolerant. Even funnier, those men are the least of their problems.
I can’t imagine how such easily triggered minds will handle it when the savages in the cities they occupy, and the Muslims they are importing, all begin to go on the rampage once the economic situation collapses. At that point, I’m pretty sure that having the internet ban men who say they “suck” will be the least of their concerns.
Now who among us will stand up to rescue these poor damsels in distress when they savages are upon them?
Apocalypse cometh™ and the comedy will be priceless.
I think she’s far more savvy then most give her credit. I have a new post at my website called Anita Sarkeesian:Rent Seeker. She is adroit as both a troll and as a rent seeker. She creates this guilt driven narrative of cyberviolence;of male abuse and oppression of women. And the end game is to create policy by governments that provides rents or create opportunity for shakedown against private entities. I agree the only reason she can do this abundance. If it didn’t exist, she would be obscure. It’s hard to say how successful what she wishes to do as detailed in her UN address. But she used the stage offered by that useless building in creating the illusion of legitimacy. To me, stopping her game is done by calling out the rent seeking.
At the 14:30 mark it features a woman UFC fighter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLgM7asA7ec
Would you rate her as K-selected or r-selected?
As a general rule, women fighters will tend toward the r-model, although I want to be clear that at the individual level r and K are not as much use individually. Individuals can mix strategies and unique opportunities and circumstances can cause behaviors to cross over as well, so as you begin asking, “does this individual adhere to r or K,” you begin seeing one person is off on one trait, another is off on another, and so on. r/K is best for understanding how the urges got grouped together at the societal level, and why more often than not groups of them will tend to cluster in individuals.
At the societal level, I’d only expect to see women fighters normalized in a society if there were essentially free levels of resources. If resources constricted or violence and danger were ever present, I’d expect it to go back to the days when aggressive manly women were considered something strange and unusual. For example, if Rhonda Rousey tried to sell her brand right after WWII, I doubt anyone would have bought it. Guys would have thought her weird, or immediately blown her off as an angry lesbo, and never thought of her again while women would have cast a wary eye at her before dismissing her from their mind as a weirdo. If she did fight, I doubt anybody would have watched it, simply because they would have known it would have been like watching little kids fight, compared to the men. But today, GURRRLL power is everywhere, and that angry aggressive attitude is seen as more normal in a woman.
It seems that the person making that video mistake her for a K-selected woman given her psychology that if found in a man would be considered K-selected. As well as her physical fitness as a woman.
On a societal level r-selected women would have psychologies that would normally be found in K-selected men right?
Yes. My suspicion is when K-selection takes hold, those who do best have women who guide children from danger inconspicuously (and thus are probably smaller, less noticeable, and less aggressive when placed under threat), and males who dive in with the interloper and go at it, both to kick ass, and if kicking ass is impossible, buy the family time to escape. Once r-selection takes hold, you get the opposite – effete men designed to flee from any threat quickly, and more muscular aggressive females who can keep their offspring fairly safe until they can kick them out and start on the next litter. Sort of the John Wayne model vs John Scalzi and Audrey Hepburn vs Rhonda Rousey. Or the Reagans vs the Obamas.
It is my belief that in humans as a society these models just arise, in response to dopamine, pleasure, lack of threat, epigenetic changes produced by what genes are being read to meet the environment, and finally, on the larger scale, genetic selection.
Interesting. I would like to talk about an example of K-selection that seems odd. You know the resource restriction that is occurring as a result of the syrian war? Well it seems that one leftist group the YPG that emerged out of the crisis sends women out to the frontlines of combat due to their belief in gender equality and somehow the men who fought with them were convinced that women fight as well as men.
I have trouble deciding if such a group or groups like it is K or r? Leftist rebels are predominant throughout our modern era who often have women serve alongside them as irregular soldiers although making up no more than 15% of the total army.
Are those the cases of K selected people with r-selected ideologies?
A lot of this depends on circumstance, and can be much more complex than just r vs K. It sounds to me like r-leaders sending women out to fight in hopes they will one day make the leaders king, without actually risking in battle themselves. Then again war often turns into that. Were the Germans K or r in WWII? Were the Soviets r or K? The communists like Lenin who kicked the festivities off were as r as they got, the psychopaths who took over like Stalin were psychopaths exploiting opportunity more than r or K. The military they used were K, though with an r-flavor in terms of brutality and raping, probably bled over from the leadership’s effects on the culture.
As r/K matures in the mind, it falls into place as an explanation for some things, and a poor “characterizer” for others.
Now who among us will stand up to rescue these poor damsels in distress when they savages are upon them?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*wheeze*
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
***************************
@Fame’s Blond:
Sarkeesian is just Jonathan McIntosh’s meat puppet.
Unwomen- I think they have something there.