A Canadian White Ribbon Campaigner Wants Men To Risk Their Lives For Females

I am a lot of things. I am Rehtaeh Parsons’ father. I am an advocate for victims of sexual assault and cyberbullying. But most of all, I am sick of saying, “if a boy or man had done the right thing, a girl or woman would still be alive.”

For readers unfamilar with the Rehtaeh Parsons’ saga, Parsons was a Canadian teenager who, at the tender age of 15, got drunk and let four boys run a train on her.

Choo-choo.

It got out that she’s the type of chick who plays with trains. Males of a certain age thought, “if her standards are that low, maybe I have a shot” and texted her looking to get a piece of her kit-kat bar. The girls, being the cruel little beasts that they are, texted her that she was a slut (there’s nothing wrong with being a slut if done for honorable reasons).

About a week later, Parsons told her family that she had been raped. After a year-long investigation, the Mounties determined that there was insufficient evidence to lay charges. About a year later, Parsons decided to self-terminate via hanging.

I am sick of urging men and boys to prevent violence against women and then seeing familiar news headlines over and over. Reading about what happened to Kassidi Coyle earlier this year shook me to my core. I saw parallels between what happened to her and what happened to my daughter: A sexual assault that eventually led a young girl to take her own life.

Unless your name is Socrates, or you are a samurai, suicide is a personal decision.

And so I ask myself, again, why does this keep happening? I’ve been noticing a deadly disconnect between what Canadians say we want in theory versus what we actually do in practice … A disconnect that is literally killing women and girls.

If women decide to self-terminate, that’s their own decision.

Her body, her choice, right?

Take the latest Canadian Women’s Foundation survey, for example. This is the first time the foundation asked Canadians about the role of men and boys in ending violence against women. So what do Canadians say they want?

As Nietzsche once aptly described as the “mania for counting noses” (democracy) is embodied in the Western fetish for surveys and polls.

Please, Mr. Canning, tell me, what does the voice of God, as filtered through the people and the pollsters, say?

Ninety-three per cent of Canadians say they want men to take a more active role in ending violence against women. But how many people are working with men and boys to end violence in their own lives and communities? And how many people are talking to the boys in their lives about consent and how to safely intervene in a situation that they know is wrong?

There is no such thing as “safely” intervening in a potentially violent situation. Stepping into a conflict puts everyone at risk. Either be prepared to accept the consequences of intervention, call a cop, or mind your own business.

When Intervention Goes Wrong
Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

I’m not interested in intervening to save women, especially not if the woman in question played a role in creating the conflict.

I hate to say it, but I think we as Canadians often take an “Oh, he’s a good kid. I’m sure he’d make the right decision in a situation like that” approach. That’s not good enough anymore. It never was good enough.

His body, his choice, right? Or, do only women get to claim bodily autonomy?

Three quarters of Canadians feel that men don’t challenge other men when they witness inappropriate behaviour toward women in public (75 per cent) and in the workplace (74 per cent). When it comes to holding other men accountable, we can all agree it’s the right thing to do in theory. But it clearly isn’t happening in practice.

Women are strong and independent and don’t need no man. Let them defend themselves.

And it especially isn’t happening behind closed doors — I know that no one held anyone accountable when young men got into a room with my daughter, raped her, and then circulated a photo around her school. And what did one of the boys say when he spoke with a journalist? “‘I felt like if she didn’t want it, it wouldn’t have happened.” We are all failing our next generation if this is the way our 16-year-olds think about consent.

Remember now: Women are perfectly equal to men, except that it is impossible for them to give non-verbal consent or implicit consent.

Yay! Equality!

Speaking of accountability, thankfully 4-in-5 Canadians (79 per cent) feel “boys will be boys” is an outdated attitude. So that means, from a young age, we must hold our boys accountable for their behaviour. Our boys can be shown how to embody empathy and compassion. We must make no excuse for toxic masculinity to get embedded in our next generation.

84% of your provincial and territorial prison population are men. 93% of your federal prison population are men.

Canada is doing just fine holding the “boys” accountable.

Speaking of prisoners, why does the Social Justice crowd think it is appropriate to hammer boys with their moral condescension about “boys will be boys” and “toxic masculinity” but would not dare go after adult men who are actually guilty of the things they claim are problems?

And while 71 per cent of Canadians rightly say “locker room talk” is a big deal, I was disheartened to find out from the Canadian Women’s Foundation survey that almost half (42 per cent) of millennial men think it isn’t a big deal. Language matters. Language normalizes, justifies, and perpetuates a cycle that turns women and girls into objects for men’s consumption, rather than positioning them as equals.

If you demand someone’s protection, you are not their equal. You are either their superior or their inferior. They are either your patron (superior) or your guard dog (inferior).

Equals protect each other.

One last contrast from the foundation’s survey: 72 per cent of millennial men believe there is no reason for a woman to feel less safe in public than a man. Yet almost half (45 per cent) of millennial women report feeling unsafe because of their gender in the past 12 months. If that’s not a disconnect, I don’t know what is.

Feelings, nothing more than feelings,
Trying to forget my feelings of love.
Teardrops rolling down on my face,
Trying to forget my feelings of love.

Or…

FUCK YOUR FEELINGS.

I refuse to order my life around your subjective and irrational emotions.

So what is the one action I hope every Canadian reading this will take? Ask a teen boy in your life to imagine him and his male friends in a room with a girl, like the situation Rehtaeh and the boys were in. Ask him what he will do. Who will he stand up for? Prepare him for the sad reality that his friends might make fun of him for doing the right thing. Let him know you will be proud of him for it.

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

No one should care more about your own well-being than you. Not random teenage boys. Not strange men. YOU. If you put yourself in position to get a train run on you, that’s your call. Men are not plastic rain ponchos that women get to grab, put on, and toss away when the storm has passed. We have just as much of an interest in our own safety as women do in theirs. And if these rapine, murderous men are such a threat to women, why wouldn’t they be a threat to a man? Do you imagine there is some special man hand-signal we put up to let each other know we are in the Man club? Here in the U.S., men are more of a lethal threat to other men than they are to women.

If women are strong enough and empowered enough to dig themselves into a bad situation, let them be strong and empowered enough to climb back out without crying for a random man to rescue them.

Source

Bash the Fash or “Beat Up Anyone Who Isn’t a Communist”

From the January 29, 1942 Home Edition of the Barrier Miner, an Australian newspaper

Anti-Communist Speech Causes Scene

LONDON, January 28.
Seventy-two-year-old Sir James Purves-Stewart, a famous physician, who advocates mercy killing, caused a stir in Anglo-Soviet circles by attacking Communism at a meeting in aid. of the Russian Red Cross at Basingstoke Town Hall.

He referred to “the horrible atrocities of the Bolshevik revolution.” Violent interruptions occurred and some of the audience walked out. A man shouted, “You ought to be speaking for Hitler.”

Alderman Mrs. E. A. Weston, who was, the next speaker, attacked Sir James Purves-Stewart,and said that she was sorry that he had been invited to speak.

Sir James Purves-Stewart later told the'”Evening Standard”, that he was strongly pro-Russian, but anti-communist. He said that there was danger of the Communists getting hold of the Anglo-Russian Public Relations Committee. “I wanted to give a true picture of Russia. There are many things in the Communist State I admire, but also things which never would be accepted by democratic citizens in Britain. I do not believe that the Russians are fighting for Communism. They are fighting for their homes and Holy Russia.”

The chairman of the executive of the Anglo-Russian Publie Relations Committee “(Professor A. V. Hill) said: “Sir James Purves-Stewart was talking irresponsibly. He ought to know better.”

[Sir James Purves-Stewart, among many, other publications, is author of Fix this text”A Physician’s Tour In Soviet Russia,” which was published in 1932.]

Does any of this sound remotely familiar? Because we are seeing this play out again like the latest installment of Dark Souls.

A lot of the same actions took place at this one speech that we see today. Purves-Stewart made valid criticisms of the Soviet Union, of the murders and repression carried out by the Communists against the Russian people in the name of Communism. The Communist response was to try and shout him down (Shut It Down, anyone?), accused him of speaking for Hitler, and wishing that he had not been invited to speak (no-platforming).

All that is required for a Communist to shriek “Fascist!” is to not be a Communist. That’s it. Nothing more. So when Antifa screams “bash the fash!” all they mean is “assault non-Communists.”

The tactics of Communists have not changed for the 70 years.

Jess Phillips and the Tyranny of the Male Feminist

My second-favorite Labour MP (second because there’s Jeremy Corbyn and the heterosexual white males always have to win) Jess Phillips attended the Edinburgh International Book Festival. While there, she had some interesting things to say about “left-wing men.” Compliments? Of course not. This is men we’re talking about. Nope, Jess wanted to complain about how left-wing men are the absolute worst.

A Labour MP has claimed that left-wing sexists are the worst of them all and that men on the left are the “absolute worst”.

Jess Phillips, the MP for Birmingham Yardley, accused left-wing men of benign neglect in the fight for sexual equality.

She told the Edinburgh International Book Festival the “well-meaning, left-leaning” men were worse than what someone else said are the “out and out sexists of the right”.

Benign sexism vs. Out and out sexism?

This is going to be better than any Clegane-bowl could possibly be.

She said: “They [the left-wing men] are the worst, the actual worst”. Men said they supported better female representation but, when it came to losing their own jobs, they would say, ‘Oh, you mean me? But I am so clever. I’ve got so much to offer the world’. They are literally the worst.”

Keep in mind that Phillips is the same woman who wanted to ban men from running for office under the Labour banner until women achieved “parity” with men.

Phillips does a good job exposing two Feminist lies about men and power and the type of man who supports Feminism from a position of power. The first lie exposed is that men in power are in business for their fellow men. This has been untrue since the beginning of civilization. Men in power are in the business of retaining their power, not to help other men.

There is no Patriarchy. But there is an Oligarchy and feminists have proven very useful tools of that Oligarchy to keep men without power from having a chance of getting power of their own. That is what Feminism is and has always been: Females who were part of the Oligarch class, but excluded from being Oligarchs themselves, demanding to become Oligarchs in their own right. To rule over inferior men as they saw similarly situated men do. Feminists became willing servants to tyranny for the promise of power.

These same oligarchical men freely support better female representation in government, in the C-suite, in Hollywood, in universities, in the military, etc. do so at no cost to themselves. They intend for someone else’s ox to be gored, not their own. The female representation in government will, by Phillips own admission, be paid for by excluding men who aren’t already in positions of power.

Ms Phillips told a tale of how a left-wing journalist at the Guardian had told her Harriet Harman was not good for women and that Jeremy Corbyn had “always voted the right way”.

Although it was thought she was referring to Seamus Milne, the Labour Party director of communications, both parties denied this.

The Labour MP said sarcastically: “So yeah, Jeremy Corbyn better for women than Harriet Harman, obviously,

“I remember him in all those meetings, there with his banners for [equality]”.

It might have been Owen Jones. I have no proof of this. However, Jones can hardly be stopped when it comes to fellating Comrade Corbyn’s Commie Cock.

She also said that while left-wing men think they want equality for women, “they don’t think of you on the same level”.

Of course they don’t think of you as on the same level. A beggar is never on the same level as a giver. So long as Feminists run around begging powerful men to give them things, then they are admitting that they are inherently not on their level.

Do for yourself and be treated like an equal, or beg and be treated like what you are.

“When they close their eyes at night and think of amazing people who have changed the world, it’s always some white dude that pops into their head,” she continued.

That…is a strange thing to think about before going to sleep, but this is Jess Phillips we are talking about. However, it is interesting that Phillips is objecting to men THINKING in a way she doesn’t like at the same time she is objecting to men not acting in ways she does not like.

Ms Phillips also added that women are completely missing from Labour Party industrial strategy because it was all about “men with shovels”.

Perhaps women ought to pick up some shovels if they want to be included in a conversation about industrial labor. Oh, wait, that’s not an air-conditioned, C-suite job or a ministerial post where a woman would get to order men around.

She said she is abused on Twitter a lot by “dunder-heided Neanderthals”, and revealed that after her friend Jo Cox MP was murdered she reported all the death threats she received to West Midlands police, and it was “quite a lot”.

That’s what the Block button is for. If a brutish, pussy-grabbing, evil male like Donald Trump can have someone manage his Twitter, you would think that a smart, empowered female like Jess Phillips could get one as well.

This latest spat between Jess Phillips and men in the Labour Party demonstrates the type of men in power that Feminists ally with: Those who already have their boots firmly placed on the necks of the supermajority of men who lack power and are looking for any excuse to press down even harder. The male feminist aspires to benevolent tyranny, to decide when any particular man gets to succeed over any woman.

And that is why Feminists are the Handmaidens of Tyranny.

Source

Clementine Ford Invites Men Back to the Plantation for Some Unpaid Labour

Clementine Ford published this very interesting piece a couple of days ago. It differed wildly in tone from her usual offerings of “men are whiny little man-babies” and “ironic misandry“; it was almost reasonable. She couldn’t resist putting women on the Cross and inviting the reader to admire how beautiful her martyrdom of pregnancy and childrearing is, but the difference in tone gave me pause.

What angle is this asshole trying to work?

Unless she repudiated the whole “women are justified in hating men because REASONS” schtick, the article didn’t make sense. Then I remembered her 2016 literary masterpiece, “Fight Like a Girl” and it brought the article into context.

She is inviting men to engage in unpaid labor. Which is supposedly terrible for women. Let’s enjoy it together with excerpts from her book.

There are a lot of cliches and sayings that get thrown around following the birth of a baby, but none are so apt as this one: it takes a village to raise a child. And hoo boy, do we really need that village. But you know who we really need in that village? More men.

Fascinating: From Clementine’s book “Fight Like a Girl”:

Do men really need to be acknowledged for doing the right thing? Do they even realise they’re taking credit for work that women have performed more tirelessly and with greater risk to their health and wellbeing? Do men need to be revered and admired, their egos stroked with the palms of a thousand tired hands?

If women are so tireless and such risk-takers, why does their Feminist village require men at all?

I’m not suggesting this imbalance of care is men’s fault. There are lots of reasons men are hesitant to offer this kind of support, and chief among them is the fear of being seen as a threat to the safety of children. Some families choose not to involve external men as caregivers because of these reasons. I can’t direct them to do otherwise, but I do think it poses a wasted opportunity to diversify the way we perceive childcare in our communities.

Ultimately, I invite men to be a part of my child’s village because I think there’s value to be had both for men in recognising their role in this village and for children in seeing men in this role.

I don’t want my son to think the people he can turn to for help are Daddy and a million other women.

I do these things not to inconvenience men in particular or because I assume my child and I are so important that we can just demand attention and time from strangers. I do it because child-rearing is hard and it does require support and outside help at times, but this help is typically just absorbed by women as more of the daily unpaid labour we perform invisibly for the benefit of others.

Fascinating. From Clementine’s book, “Fight Like a Girl”:

The thrill of supporting a man with our bodies, our children and our unpaid labour is not only supposed to make us happy but is offered as some kind of vital ingredient in the world’s evolution. It’s why absurd, insulting platitudes are thrown around to appease us, platitudes like ‘behind every great man there is a woman’.

Insulting platitudes like “it takes a village to raise a child”? In the case of men, it takes a village to raise a child you didn’t sire? That a woman didn’t deem you worthy of breeding, but she does deem you worthy of doing some “unpaid labour” on her behalf with her spawn?

Nope. Rearing another man’s child does not make me happy. I do not care how vital it is to the village or evolution. I am not appeased by “it takes a village.”

Not my kid; not my problem.

I do it because I am invested in creating a more empathetic community, and empathy involves helping other people when they need it. I do it because men are just as capable of caregiving for children as women are, but they are rarely called on to assist in the care of children outside their own immediate families.

Fascinating. From Clementine’s book, “Fight Like a Girl”:

I know now why that is. It’s because women do the work. We always have. It is usually done without complaint or protestation, because most girls are conditioned from birth to accept that unpaid domestic labour is our natural responsibility.

So, women do things “without complaint or protestation” (what is this mythical creature, a woman who does not complain? A cryptozoological being) and that just gets Clementine’s dander all the way up. But men should just “help other people when they need it”, regardless of the imposition on a man’s time, goals, or desire, (i.e. be a utility) because that’s “empathy” (translation: Something Clementine prefers).

I repeat: Not my kid; not my problem.

And I do it because I want my child to see value in extending that empathy and care to people beyond himself. I want him to consider the gentle care of children to be as much a masculine trait as it is a feminine one.

As his awareness of the world grows at a rate faster than his own fortitude or independence, I don’t want him to think that the people he can turn to for help are Daddy and a million other women. We can shape the villages we live in. This is how I’m shaping mine.

Fascinating. From Clementine’s book “Fight Like a Girl”:

Secondly, we have to start being okay with saying that. I know it’s difficult, but men aren’t children or dogs. They don’t get a cookie because they did the right thing. Not giving them a reward is not the same as swearing at them or throwing a bucket of shit at their head, even though some of them might act as if it is. We have to resist the urge to respond to basic decency by treating it as if it’s some kind of enormously magnanimous gesture. It isn’t. There shouldn’t be anything astonishing about a man who doesn’t degrade women, hurt them or treat them as somehow less than him. As Rita O’Grady says, that’s as it should be. You don’t get a fucking ribbon just for turning up to a morning tea, especially not when women’s reward for doing so much more than that is to gratefully scoop up the crumbs you leave behind.

Patriarchy Acts. Rape Culture Teaches. Sexism Wants.

The Devil Is A Liar.

Feminism is religion done wrong. If you’re going to make a moral argument, you have to provide some incentive for making a good moral decision over a bad one other than “I, Clementine Ford, shall be ever so cross with you if you do something I don’t like.” If you are going to ascribe metaphysical evil to men (all men benefit from the Patriarchy!) then you have to offer them something for doing good, whether it’s eternal paradise, 72 virgins, resurrection, Nirvana, prosperity, a pat on the head, etc.

Despite what Feminists think, men are just as human as women and almost all humans respond to incentives. Feminists don’t want to offer incentives. Clementine Ford is openly contemptuous of the idea of incentivizing Feminism, except with “insulting platitudes” or loud shrieking when a man does Feminism in the “wrong” way (as if there were a right way).

I don’t think I’ll be joining your Feminist village. It appears that the only payment for men’s labor to women and children is the business end of a stick.

Source

Bill De Blasio Wants Millionaires to Subsidize the New York Subway System

Today, Hizzoner Bill De Blasio of New York City trotted out his brain trust and union allies to declare “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Oops, that comes later.

De Blasio played that tired old song of “the rich need to pay their fair share”, this time, the rich need to pay for capital improvements to New York subways. It’s the same lame song that has seen an exodus of wealthy citizens to more friendly areas (see Chicago and Los Angeles).

Rather than attempt to excise the rot that caused the problem (MTA mismanagement of resources) De Blasio and company would rather paper over the MTA’s malfeasance with an infusion tax money, taken under sound moral theory of “how could you be so heartless as to deny me your stuff? You have so much and I have so little! If you don’t give me your stuff, I’ll suffer and it will be your fault!”

Here are some examples MTA malfeasance.

June 21, 2017:

Two MTA board members admitted Wednesday that the agency has mismanaged its money — as a top transit official declared that the current subway crisis is “an emergency.”

Board member James Vitiello griped that not enough money has been spent on issues that need to be urgently addressed, like subway maintenance.

“We have taken on projects that have been expensive . . . like Second Avenue Subway or cashless tolling,” he conceded during a meeting at MTA headquarters in Manhattan. I think we’re coming around to seeing we may have done some of that at the expense of day-to-day maintenance.

Members acknowledged the agency is beset with problems — and a chronic lack of accountability. Scott Rechler called the entire MTA system “immensely broken.” “We are at such a point of crisis that it requires approaching it differently,” he said.

In short, the MTA has spent more money on subway photo ops rather than subway functionality.

May 17, 2016:

Tens of thousands of New Yorkers left stranded; 2.5 million pick-up and drop-off times may have been manipulated to show more favorable performance; Less than 50% of one car service’s trips were on-time

More than 31,000 times in 2015, New York City residents booked Access-A-Ride vehicles that never showed up and failed to provide service, stranding thousands of New Yorkers with disabilities, seniors and others who are unable to take mass transit, according to a new audit released today by New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer. The audit found that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) allowed vendors to act with impunity, failing to monitor and correct problems or improve its Paratransit service.

“Access-A-Ride is absolutely essential for thousands of people to get around New York City every single day, yet this program stranded thousands of people, wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and caused untold harm and distress,” Comptroller Stringer said. “We found serious breakdowns in oversight and operations which have contributed to a culture of indifference and neglect by the MTA. After years of mismanagement, it’s on the MTA to take action now.”

Access-A-Ride services are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires public transportation authorities to provide a paratransit system for passengers who cannot use public bus or subway services. In assigning Access-A-Ride trips, the MTA delivers service through a network of 16 companies. These companies provide service using MTA Paratransit Division-owned vehicles, such as specially equipped buses and cars, and for hire vehicles that provide transportation to ambulatory passengers through car services.

The Comptroller’s Audit examined Access-A-Ride services for which the MTA paid $321 million in calendar year 2015.

The MTA is paying contractors for services they never performed and then cooking the books to cover up their mismanagement.

May 9, 2011:

Over the years real estate and banking interests have been the most prevalent occupations of MTA Board members. At the Brooklyn Public Hearing for the service cutbacks held in March 2010, a small group of protesters raised signs critical of the MTA’s deal to sell Atlantic Yards for below market value. In 2009, a lawsuit was filed to that effect. But it was hardly the only questionable land deal under the MTA’s watch.

Hudson Yards

Several years ago, the MTA entered into a deal to sell the air rights over the Long Island Rail Road yards near Penn Station. Although fair market value was received in that deal ($2 billion), the MTA has been criticized for the payment terms allowing the developer to hold onto much of the cash for 30 years.

The Sale of its Midtown Headquarters

We can only wonder how the MTA’s latest proposal to sell three adjacent properties at 341, 345, and 347 Madison Avenues will turn out and if it is best to sell these as a single entity as the MTA has proposed, or if a better deal could be struck if the properties were offered as three separate sales? Would a single developer have to pay more if there is increased competition?

Two Broadway

This is not the first time the MTA has thought about vacating its midtown Manhattan headquarters. When 2 Broadway was acquired at the southern tip of Manhattan, the MTA’s original plan called for purchasing that property to enable the MTA to stop the cash drain from its short term leases at 50 separate locations. That was the rationale used to sell the idea to the MTA Board. It seemed to make sense because a property owned by the MTA would have some equity should the MTA ever decide it no longer needed that property, and with real estate values on the rise, the MTA could make a killing.

Don’t ask me how it happened but somehow a purchase turned into a 99-year lease instead. I am not a real estate expert, but I fail to see the advantage of trading 50 leased properties for a single leased property in one of the most expensive areas of Manhattan, especially when the tenant (the MTA) still has to pay the massive renovation cost to adapt the building to its needs. Further, the renovations, over budget and behind schedule, have been the subject of questionable practices, including accusations of mob ties – enough to launch more than one investigation.

Amazing how our so-called public servants seem to find ways to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of the people whose interests they claim to service.

June 4, 2010:

On Wednesday, the Empire Center for New York State Policy released payroll data showing over 8,000 MTA employees made over $100,000, including overtime and extra pay, and an overall average pay raise of 2.4%. There’s a searchable database of the employees and their salaries, leading to factoids like “Eleven of the 561 employees who earned more than $150,000 in 2009 were Long Island Railroad car repairmen who earned an average of $167,342 – which was $102,477 over their annual base pay rate of $64,865.” Yup, overtime is costing a fortune.

The NY Times points out, “A Long Island Rail Road conductor who retired in April, made $239,148, about $4,000 more than the authority’s chief financial officer” and “more than a quarter of the Long Island Rail Road’s 7,000 employees earned more than $100,000 last year, including the conductor, Thomas J. Redmond, and two locomotive engineers — who were among the top 25 earners in the entire transportation authority.” (Related: LIRR employees on disability.)

This news comes as the MTA is trying to deal with a $400 million budget shortfall. The MTA released a statement saying the 2.4% wage increases “reflects built-in raises provided under multi-year labor contracts” and says the data does show the “MTA reduced its workforce and held down costs by foregoing management raises.” Plus: “The MTA’s $800 million budget shortfall for 2010 — caused by State budget cuts and deteriorating tax revenues — means there’s much more work to be done. We are in the process of overhauling every aspect of our business, including the elimination of approximately 3,000 positions this year. One key part of this effort is a focus on the work rules, pension padding and management oversight that leads to some of the unnecessary overtime highlighted in today’s report.”

And on perfect cue, the managers will blame the greedy union boys for taking as much as they can carry, and the union boys will blame the managers for being pampered egg-heads who ain’t down with the working man.

Meanwhile, neither side will stop raiding the budget for every dime they can get.

May 21, 2010:

MTA officials are locking horns with the Transit Workers Union over rules governing overtime and sick time. The MTA brass says employees have been abusing the system and costing the Authority $560 million annually; part of that big expenditure was caused by the 25% of bus and subway workers took more than two weeks worth of sick days last year. Now the MTA is assigning a task force to crack down on employees who abuse sick days. Of course, the union is up in arms about it.

“These bureaucrats, they’ve never done a day’s physical labor in their life,” TWU Local 100 boss John Samuelsen tells the Post. “And they would faint if they had to work under the conditions that Local 100 members work under every day.” Speaking to the Daily News, he fumed, “They demean their own workers publicly on a consistent basis, and they fail to acknowledge NYC Transit workers work in some of the most horrific conditions you can imagine. Several bus operators are assaulted every week, subway workers breathe in toxic fumes… We put our lives on the line to move the riding public, and when we get sick, the company tries to portray us as slackers.”

But some high-profile incidents have revealed that some NYC Transit employees have in fact been on vacation while calling out sick. And one subway operator made the equivalent of what he would have earned in five days by just showing up for three days and then working overtime. The MTA says he called out for unpaid sick time the other two days, but because overtime kicks in after each eight-hour shift (not after 40 hours) the operator made his regular week’s pay. And the cherry on top is that his replacement on the sick days was paid time-and-a-half!

MTA officials estimate that the OT belt-tightening will result in $22 million in savings this year, while the Authority faces a $400 million budget shortfall. Next year the MTA will try to save $60 million by reducing overtime, though that will require union consent, so get the popcorn ready.

Not only is the management gaming the system for every dime they can get, the union boys have their hands in the kitty as well, freely dipping and double dipping sick time and overtime.

This is the classic public bureaucracy set-up: Politicians looking for easy answers, managers who are out to enrich themselves and their friends at the public’s expense, and an untouchable union out to scrape up whatever hasn’t been stolen by the first two because, hey, they aren’t going to be the suckers who actually do the right thing when everybody else is doing wrong.

I have to give the Devil such credit as he is due. This is not a problem of Bill De Blasio’s creation. The problem can be traced to Albany and the state legislature’s implicit consent to the MTA board’s effort to put fresh paint on a burning house. De Blasio’s proposed solution is temporary at best. It is a sin tax, and like any sin tax, it lasts only so as the sinner perpetrates the sin, or remains in the reach of the taxing authority.

A long-term solution would involve reevaluating fares, manager pay and decisionmaking, worker pay, and MTA accountability practices. But that doesn’t play well to the champagne socialists and government unions that swept De Blasio into power.

You always dance with the one who brought you.

Full Press Conference:

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber With Commentary

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

One guy mistakenly believed that Google’s suggestion box really wasn’t a paper shredder with a funny post-it note attached and had the audacity to actually voice his thoughts. The author has to make the sign of the Cross against the greatest evils of our time: sexism, stereotyping, and exclusion, before screwing up enough courage to actually present an argument.

TL:DR

·Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.

But you don’t understand! You are morally impure and they are morally pure! So, when they shame you and harass you and silence you, it’s okay because they have only the best of intentions!

Per the political correctness fanboys and social justice enthusiasts, there are no bad acts. Only bad people. Which is why it is “oppression” and “triggering” when you do it, but it’s “empowering” and “advocacy” when they do it.

·This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

Some might even call them sacred cows.

·The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.

Silly goose, discussion was never the point, only compliance.

·Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression

Dear white man, when you win, it because MUH OPPRESSION and TEH PATRIARCHY. When they win, it is because GRRL POWER.

Really, how hard is it for you evil oppressors to understand? It is impossible that you actually succeeded over a woman based on your own merits.

·Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression.

Utopia is just a stone’s throw away if we just give the proper well-meaning philosopher-kings absolute power over our lives.

It might even work out this time, unlike all of the other times it’s been tried.

·Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

BLASPHEMER! Is this evil male daring to suggest that two wrongs actually DON’T make a right?

What disgusting thing will he utter next? That equal treatment does not necessitate equal outcomes?

Will this madness never cease?

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Yeah, gonna have to stop you there. People don’t have invisible biases. They might have unexamined biases. They might have unreasonable biases. They might have unadmitted biases. But to suggest that someone just doesn’t know that they dislike men, or women, or whites, or blacks, or Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, is complete nonsense. People will freely admit their biases so long as they believe that the person they are talking to isn’t sitting in moral condemnation of them.

Unfortunately, the political correctness brigade has no other tactic but moral condemnation.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Uh-oh. This cannot possibly end well.

Left Biases

·Compassion for the weak
·Disparities are due to injustices
·Humans are inherently cooperative
·Change is good (unstable)
·Open
·Idealist

The political left’s biases? Oh where to start.

Compassion for the weak: The Left does not have compassion for the weak; they have a disdain for the strong, specifically for anyone who gains anything outside of their oppressor/oppressed framework. It is why certain black men, like Dr. Ben Carson can be freely maligned, despite being “oppressed” as black men, Hillary Clinton, despite being a life-long member of the political and financial elite, can be praised.

Disparities are due to injustices: The Left takes that quote of Honore de Balzac, that behind every great fortune lies a crime, to the extreme that behind every success lies oppression.

Humans are inherently cooperative: The opposite is true; humans are inherently competitive. Humans are only cooperate when their interests are aligned.

Change is good (unstable): Not even remotely true.

Open: ???

Idealist: The idealist imagines he is creating the shining city on a hill when he’s just laying down fresh asphalt on the road to hell.

Right Biases

·Respect for the strong/authority
·Disparities are natural and just
·Humans are inherently competitive
·Change is dangerous (stable)
·Closed
·Pragmatic

Respect for the strong/authority: In the civil society, the strong have a responsibility to use their strength wisely, and authorities have a duty to use their authority justly.

Disparities are natural and just: Disparities are natural. Stephen King will never win a 100 meter dash. Usain Bolt will probably never work in astrophysics. They are both men and each owes the other the civility that comes with being men and the laws of men should regard neither as better or worse than the other.

Humans are inherently competitive: This true. Our first contests were likely for food and sex.

Change is dangerous (stable): Edmund Burke opined on the dangers of change for the sake of change far better than I could.

Closed: ???

Pragmatic: Pragmatism, like Idealism, should be tempered to avoid becoming destructive. Both can lead the holder to certain ruthless calculations that disregard the wills and desires of individuals.

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.
Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Holy smokes! Did this guy actually appeal to facts as reason? He’d better start cleaning out his desk.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
· They’re universal across human cultures
· They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
· Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
· The underlying traits are highly heritable
· They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Utopians will never let a silly little thing like biology or evolutionary psychology keep them from creating paradise on Earth, regardless of how many bodies they leave in their wake.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:
· Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
· These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
· Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
· This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
· Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Women are sensitive to their place in any social hierarchy, likely developed because fertile women were so dependent on the labor of others for their survival during significant portions of their childbearing and child-rearing years. So, they’re extroversion and gregariousness and even their neuroticism is a constant effort to maintain the favor of those with power and resources to ensure their own survival and that of their offspring.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Men hunt, women gather. Goes back to our most primitive days. Some men didn’t get to come back from the hunt.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:
· Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
· We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
· Women on average are more cooperative
· Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
· Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
· Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
· The male gender role is currently inflexible
· Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
· Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
· A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
· Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
· Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
· Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Diversity for its own sake is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. If you have a commitment to facts and reason, it should not matter what the source is. If your best team of programmers is all white men, it shouldn’t matter if their product is good.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.
In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

Protect the eggs? Male disposability? This guy…this guy here is dangerously close to ingesting a red pill.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Let’s call “political correctness” by its true name: crude thought-policing. It is motivated by the same idea where kings made it a crime to insult or criticize them. Lèse-majesté has transformed into lèse-victimé.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity.

·As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Yep.

Stop alienating conservatives.

· Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
· In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
· Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Never going to happen. Progressives would never deign to sully their pure minds with even the suggestion that someone has a valid reason for holding an opinion contrary to their own.

Confront Google’s biases.

· I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
· I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

And you will run into exactly the same issue that pollsters in the 2016 Presidential election ran into: people are not going to truthfully state their political positions to Progressives who will use the information to harangue them or mock them. Any conservative who has somehow managed to sneak into Google is certainly not going to out himself or herself.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

· These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

· Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
· There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
· These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
· I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Of course there is very little information as to the efficacy forced diversity programs because the reasonable inference is that these programs have not had the desired effect.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

· We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
· We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
· Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

Here’s the problem: The representative viewpoints are already available. The arguments have been argued. The positions have been laid out. But there is no room for dissent at Google.

De-emphasize empathy.

· I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Empathy is a virtue, but it is not empathy that the author’s cohorts want: It’s sympathy. They want you to allow them to emotionally manipulate you into giving them what they want. They want to say “Look at how beautifully I suffer! Oh, look how I bleed! Won’t anyone come save me from these troubles?” and for you to throw all reason to the side and submit to their will.

Prioritize intention.

· Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
· Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Oh, the “speech = violence” trope is far more sinister than the author believes. The “speech = violence” trope gives the party offended by speech license to do actual violence to the offending party and call it self-defense. They will claim that your words alone will justify their violence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

· Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

· We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
· Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
· Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

Source

Death Wish the Remake; Progressives Get Triggered

Joshua Rivera, a writer for GQ, saw the new Death Wish trailer, starring Bruce Willis.

He was not amused because Bruce Willis (originally a comedian before he became an action star) cracks a joke in the trailer.

I’ll give you a moment to recover from the overwhelming shock of the man who coined the phrases “Yippee-kai-yay motherfucker!” and “welcome to the party, pal!” says a darkly humorous thing in a movie prominently featuring death and explosions.

Now that we’re all off of the fainting couch, let’s get to Progressive sermonizing Rivera engages in and why it is so stupid.

In moving the setting to Chicago, a city where gun violence is both well-documented and highly politicized, and setting the trailer to “Back in Black”, the remake tips its hand: 2017’s Death Wish comes off as a work of cowardice and opportunism, piggybacking off hard-right fear-mongering and a government that’s completely and utterly disingenuous in its rhetoric about violent crime when nationwide, crime rates—despite rises in cities thanks to mass shootings like the Pulse massacre in Orlando—remain historically low.

Rivera serves the reader up with this run-on sentence packed with several different items that are not related to each other.

In moving the setting to Chicago, a city where gun violence is both well-documented and highly politicized

“Gun violence”? Let’s call it what it actually is: Negroes murdering other Negroes over petty bullshit. According to the Chicago Police Department, in 2011, 75.3% of the murder victims in the city were Black. As for offenders, Blacks made up 70.5%.

We’re #1! We’re #1! We’re #1!

Oh wait, this is actually not a good thing.

And now, for the really fun stat: The clearance rate for murders in Chicago in 2015 was *drumroll please* 25.6%. You have a roughly 70-75% chance of getting away with murder in the city of Chicago.

Those are the documents. No spin, no politicizing, no bullshit.

and setting the trailer to “Back in Black”, the remake tips its hand:

They should have gone with “Shoot to Thrill”, but Roth would have had to fight Disney over it (because of Iron Cash Cow, I mean Iron Man) which is probably not worth the licensing fees.

2017’s Death Wish comes off as a work of cowardice and opportunism

No! You’re a coward and an opportunist!

Name-calling is boring.

piggybacking off hard-right fear-mongering

Russians. Russians are everywhere. They are hiding under your bed. They are all up in your DMs, jacking your emails, leaking your nudes.

Nope. Only the hard-right is fearmongering around here.

a government that’s completely and utterly disingenuous in its rhetoric about violent crime when nationwide, crime rates remain historically low.

No thanks to traditionally Democrat-controlled metropoli like Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore, etc.

despite rises in cities thanks to mass shootings like the Pulse massacre in Orlando.

I can’t help but notice that Rivera neglected to mention that the murders done last year in Orlando at the Pulse nightclub, were perpetrated by Omar Mateen, a Jihad-enthusiast of Afghani-descent.

Must have been an oversight.

But, to the gungrabbers, motives don’t matter. The gun is actually the guilty party. This is why they count suicides as “gun violence.” which is why they insist that only the police be armed, because, through the magic of POST, they will always be present to prevent or stop crimes, and gain perfect knowledge of when and when not to use their guns.

This stands in stark contrast to the state of violent crime in the U.S. during the ’70s, a decade that did see rising crime as well as some of the most notorious killers in the nation’s history.

Bullshit. America has long had a voyeuristic fascination with killers, going back to Levi Weeks and the Manhattan Well Murder. Bonnie & Clyde. John Wilkes Booth. Charles Guiteau. H.H. Holmes. Thanks to the unholy marriage of TV and yellow journalism, murderers and psychopaths transformed from local legends to national celebrities.

The new Death Wish has an entirely different context, one where guns are routinely turned on black citizens by white supremacists and white cops, where mass shootings regularly occur and lawmakers refuse to do anything about it, where guns in the hands of the populace is not a rarity but arguably an epidemic. It takes a profound level of either ignorance or craven, willful opportunism to think that this is a moment to make a film about a white man’s rage channeled through the barrel of a gun.

This is just a rewording of the previous paragraph with a conclusion about “the white man’s rage channeled through the barrel of a gun.” Yeah. And when the Black man channels his rage through the barrel of a gun, usually against another black man, as is the norm in Chicago, Josuha Rivera, and mincing Progressives like him, are as quiet as mice pissing on cotton.

Black people, understand that this is the progressive norm. They will shed a thousand tears for you being killed in a movie, but won’t lift a finger to prevent you from being killed in real life, especially when it is by your most natural predator, another black man. These progressives mean you no good. They are part of the system of your debasement and destruction. They are advocates of the system that broke the Black family. They are defenders of the system that leaves millions of black men and black women miseducated, poorly educated, or flat-out uneducated. Progressives are the beneficiaries of generations of government subsidized dysgenics practiced on Black people.

But progressives want you to be outraged over a movie in which fictional social parasites and reprobates receive their just reward as a result of the lives they’ve led. Divine retribution in the form of a man named Paul Kersey.

This is going to be the first Eli Roth movie I pay to see.