In-group and out-group

Insty’s got a link to the Star Slate Codex – wherein a bubbled liberal actually notices that he lives in a bubble and that “his tribe” is full of a lot of screaming hypocrites. Uh-huh. As the (well worth reading) comments on Insty say: “It would probably shock the author to know that conservatives interact with intolerant liberals all the time.

That’s not to say that “Red Tribe” folks can’t insulate themselves in their own 1/10^45 strength bubble. But for a Red Triber to do so, would require that person to basically cut themselves off from the greater society to a nearly unimaginable extent, and that person would be well aware of being inside that bubble. A Red bubble that strong could only be formed by living in the appropriate geographical area, never going to college, AND cutting oneself off from the following: television, movies, newspapers, magazines, books (except for ones specifically vetted by less-bubbled Reds, or published before about 1850-ish, maybe), radio, and last but not least, the internet. So yeah: Red bubbles exist, but it takes a lot of work to maintain them and they’re very thin and transparent for those who refuse to give up modern entertainment. That Red Tribe dark-matter universe keeps getting bombarded by all the Blue Tribe light photons just by accident even without the Blue Tribe crusaders that specifically come to the Dark Universe just to make annoying evangelists of themselves.

But I do appreciate Scott’s recognition that Blue Tribe “tolerance” is not a moral virtue. That is the #1 trait of Blue Tribers that drives me personally up a wall – the moral superiority crap. I mean, I don’t really care if the Blue Tribers claim to be the smart ones and the Red Tribe the dumb ones (even though they do, and it’s not true; both sides have their idiots and low-information voters) – that doesn’t get under my skin. I mean, that just makes them dumb, not evil. But claiming moral superiority? You just hit my “will not tolerate” button. Probably because my specific subset of Red Tribe subculture lists that kind of self-righteousness as a literal “sign that you are going to Hell”! Thankfully, Blue Tribers might be wrong, but most of them aren’t actually evil, as the saying goes.

After reading Scott’s article, I tried to think of what my own “in-group” might be – you know, the group that you’d face physical fear responses just at the thought of criticizing. Uh, I think there’s a problem with that diagnostic tool: it’s the Blue Team that crucifies people who criticize them. Not the Red Team. Anybody who’d go ballistic on me for criticism to the point of provoking a physical fight-or-flight response is definitively not part of my in-group, because one of the core defining features of my in-group is “will accept criticism and logical debate over differences of opinion.” That’s why I stopped counting The National Review as part of my in-group: they engaged in Blue Tribe social ostracism rather than stand their ground for freedom of expression from various shades of Red Team people.

However, I have felt physical reactions to getting into a debate with “Blue Tribe” people. Does that mean I’m actually part of the Blue Tribe? (I don’t think so!) No, I chalked up that unsettled feeling to the whole socialized-niceness triggers – nobody wants to be disliked, but cross a Blue Tribe shibboleth and you will be accused of being worse than Hitler. Reliably. Which is why I despise Social Justice Whiners so much: they use triggers meant to keep people polite with each other, meant to preserve social fabric, as tools to squash intellectual debate. Also, they ruin people’s lives while claiming that identical behavior on the part of their opponents is The Worst Thing Ever. Which goes back to the hypocrites claiming moral superiority thing as the tribal indicator that says to me that “You are not part of my tribe; you are The ENEMY.” Want gay marriage? Not my tribe, but not necessarily my enemy. Think abortion should be legal? Definitely not my tribe – but even though I think you’re tragically wrong and your position has resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent lives, and is one of the most obscene forms of murder ever invented by fallen humanity, that doesn’t mean that I’m going to do everything in my power to silence you, get you fired from your job, or otherwise shun you from the public sphere and force you to become a hermit in the wilds. Basically: I don’t believe in using thought police to impose morality. Would that the Blue Tribe were so courteous, but courtesy only suits them when they don’t have power, and ensconced in their bubbles or not, they have quite a lot.

“Change your opinion, shut up, or leave” is not a Red Tribe principle when it comes to civil life. That’s not to say that “ideological purity tests” are inappropriate in some spheres: there’s no such thing as a Lutheran Pope for a very good reason, and the Cat Lovers Society has no obligation to extend membership resources on a “Dogs rule!” message. I happen to think that the Red Tribe needs to get a little more exclusive, because the Blue Tribe has a particular strategy that’s worked out very well for them, and it goes like this: infiltrate (taking advantage of Red Tribe tolerance), subvert (use insider position to gather more Blues into the organization, also taking advantage of Red Tribe tolerance for Blue Tribers), and then exclude – as soon as the Blue Tribers have enough power, they get rid of any lingering Reddish people who are left and specifically bar any more from joining. That’s how Blue Tribers like Scott end up in their 1/10^45 bubbles without even noticing.

And then they have the utter gall to whine about how they’re the “victims” of “intolerance” while specifically targeting any remaining Red Tribe organizations for destruction. Yeah. Sure. In what universe would that be, again?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 1 Comment

Wow, I’m kinda slow, aren’t I?

Heheheheh, well, obviously I haven’t been paying attention properly. Thanks, Insty, and welcome to my blog, everybody who came over! And whoever recommended it; I can’t imagine Glenn Reynolds himself reading my blog, I’m just an opinionated nobody. I haven’t even gotten any online harassment! But the question is: would I even notice if I did receive harassment, if I don’t notice an Instalanche? ;)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Via InstyJustine Tunney:

The 900 pound elephant in the gamer/sexism debate, is they’re really just attacking autistic people for clumsy social propriety.

“Autistic” – in today’s environment of “on the spectrum” – meaning those who lack social skills and find that fitting in with cliques is difficult except with other Odds. Gaming, comics, and anime/manga fandoms are full of people who are ruthlessly bullied outside of those networks as the lowest of mom’s-basement-dwelling losers. Notice, however, the challenger – basically saying: “prove it!” Who’s telling Anita Sarkeesian to prove that GamerGate gamers are misogynist? NOBODY. She and her feminist troll friends are slinging sewage all over a group of people who are upset that a whore and a bunch of no-ethics-journalism johns are influential in the games journalism industry. Having ethical standards? Makes you a misogynist, according to SJWs. Who really hates women? The female gamers who are standing up for their beloved gaming community, or the anti-gamergaters sending them death threats?

Whenever a female SJW starts her I’m-a-victim spiel, remember that there is a huge difference between the way society treats harassment aimed at females vs males. Anything that hurts a woman’s feelings is “harassment.” The same courtesy is not extended towards men. Try taking a woman down a peg, even if she’s literally a whore trading sexual favors for career advancement, and you’ll be accused of all kinds of things like sexism and misogyny. But apparently it’s okay to denigrate men and claim that people trying to “destroy male privilege” (In a society where girls do better in school than boys, where more women get into college than men, where men serve longer prison sentences than women for the same crimes, where men commit suicide at higher rates, and where men die on the job far more often?) aren’t engaged in actively hostile rhetoric towards males?! Uh, no. I’m going to have to call damnable hypocrisy on that one.

The way our society is structured, anyone who says anything even slightly critical of a woman has crossed a line – unless, of course, that woman isn’t in lockstep with the leftist agenda du jour, and then she’s fair game. When men are stalked and harassed and literally driven out of their homes by unhinged criminals threatening their families, where’s the media firestorm of outrage? Nowhere. Where are the help lines and organizations dedicated to helping male victims? There aren’t nearly as many as there are for women. Men aren’t even allowed to conceptualize themselves as victims even when women are literally attacking them! 

Sorry, “sisters.” You’re crying over behavior that a man would shrug off as par-for-the-course internet trolling. Welcome to equality with “male privilege”: did you think you could get the right side of the bell curve’s advantages without suffering the left side’s dysfunction? Once you’ve been SWATed, then you can complain. Playing with the boys means taking your lumps like a man. If you can’t do that, then you need to give up on this whole fake “equality” jihad.

The left’s entire vocabulary is full of hateful slurs: racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, ignorant, etc. Those words all have dictionary definitions that you could use to define exactly what is “racist” or whatever – but that’s not the definitions they use, oh no. They’ve got their own definitions, and underneath all the stupid academic jargon special definition lingo is the real meaning: “Someone who doesn’t agree with me.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 4 Comments


I don’t know what phone architecture originated the callback number other than the originating number, but in an age of cell phones, people, you need to make the call from the phone number you wish to be called back. So that the number you use – the one that shows up on the phone’s call history – is the same number that the person you’ve called can reach you at.

I’m highly unlikely to return your call if you give me a different number in a voice message, especially if I find interacting with you to be an inconvenient imposition on my time in the first place. Sales departments, please take note.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Females are confusing

I should know, I confuse myself!

So, here’s my conundrum: as a conservative female (INTJ), what it the best tactic for influencing my social group? None of my preferred tactics are likely to work on the general female public (few women can stand up to robust debate; it causes them to flee in tears) because things like facts and logic take a distant back seat to emotional responses.

I’m basically wondering: how does this emotional manipulation thing work? For instance, when a FB friend posts pictures of her new pixie cut and the predictable “How cute!” responses pour in, is there any way for another woman to insert “Maybe that wasn’t the best idea” into the emotion-stream? It would have to be done extremely subtly, I’m thinking. If it could be done at all without provoking a “How dare you not support her decision to cut her hair!” response. Perhaps the best way would be for me to start a subtle long-hair “awareness” campaign myself, to counterbalance the cut-your-hair zeitgeist at the peer-pressure level, and leave off saying anything about haircuts directly.

If I were brave enough, I suppose I could hunt down whatever the most popular pink ghetto happens to be today and study what articles they publish and how they support various social signaling methods – but I reeeeeeeeally can’t stand the pink ghetto. I mean, my response to the whole “I’m an UMC cancer survivor and those meanieface lactation activists wouldn’t leave me alone about breastfeeding!” thing that went around certain circles just left me cold. Really? You’re whining about how a lactation consultant in the hospital wanted to make sure you were making an informed decision when you told her “I’m going to formula feed” without putting “I had a complete double mastectomy, so” in front of that declaration? You feel that discussing breastfeeding with people is a dreadful imposition on your personal choices or something? Sure, I can believe that some “lactivists” are rude crusaders for their cause (kind of like vegetarians) but why the heck should you care what they think of you, if you know you’re doing your best for your child?

See, this is why I don’t get along with women. Peer shaming doesn’t work on me the way it’s supposed to (generally makes me spitting mad, in fact), because I sincerely don’t care what the vast majority of women think – because I think that vast majority of women are morons. Not necessarily bad people mind you, just incapable of making actual reasoned decisions rather than emoting and rationalizing. That’s all that article was: emoting and rationalizing and whining from this particular woman who couldn’t match up identically with her social-status peer group – so it’s not faaaaaaaaaaaair and her entire peer group should feel bad about themselves and change their social signaling behaviors so that she can fully participate, too! Cry me a river, dahling. Some of us never fit in and learn to live with people who don’t always agree with our every decision.

I enjoy reading the various red pill websites – because they make women (including myself) rather less confusing. But as these websites are geared towards men, a lot of their advice for dealing with women isn’t practical for a woman to use rather than a man. Unless she’s a lesbian, I suppose! So, how to use social media to support conservative women’s social signaling from within? I wonder if anyone has done any legwork on the matter yet. Insty’s always saying that somebody ought to buy a women’s mag and put it out with a conservative spin, and I’d certainly appreciate such a thing. I liked BH&G well enough but just had to drop it because I couldn’t stand the liberal bias AND the fact that nearly all the recipes were nasty low-fat high-carb USDA-approved trash. Made with expensive ingredients. Ugh.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

I would vote for him

Under a Reynolds Administration, I’d respond to this “chicken” game by opening up federal lands to exploration and drilling.

UPDATE: Some support for a Reynolds 2016 campaign in the comments. Hmm. What would my slogan be? How about An Inexperienced Law-Professor President Got Us Into This Mess, And It’ll Take An Inexperienced Law-Professor President To Get Us Out!

The difference is that Glenn Reynolds knows that he’s inexperienced, isn’t afraid to admit it, and would appoint a bunch of libertarians to important government positions. He also respects the Constitution, unlike the current incumbent. “Ebola czar“? You know, they told me the American Constitution formed a republic, but I think we’re on the swing-side from democracy to dictatorship at the moment. In a functioning republic, “czar” would have all the impact of a four-letter word.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Appearance matters

A certain type of SJW feminist likes to say that “women’s bodies don’t belong to society” as a justification for allowing women to make whatever damfool presentation decisions she thinks is a good idea at the time, like wearing short skirts and sitting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial so everybody can see her hiney. SJWs will also reliably get upset about misogyny if any woman dresses up like a streetwalker, goes out in public, and gets catcalled or propositioned by low-class men.

The truth is, though, that everyone’s appearance DOES belong to society, because people have these things called “eyes” that they use when they’re out in public, and if you’re out in public too, people can’t avoid seeing you. How you choose to appear in public is a nonverbal method of communication that other people are perfectly justified in using to make assumptions about your personality. (It is absolutely ludicrous to pretend that this isn’t so – I have terrible fashion sense but even I have rejected clothing on the grounds that “it just doesn’t fit me.”)

Of course, if anyone points out that certain presentation decisions reliably act as red flags – short hair and tattoos, for example – the legions of SJW worker ants come out in a frantic attempt to rebuild the mound, lest any of the crazy women be made to feel bad about her choices.

Here’s the thing, though: if you wear a whore’s uniform, you don’t get to be all shocked and offended that men treat you like a whore. You don’t get to decide unilaterally what kind of appearance signals sexual availability – that’s something that society “decides.” If mentally unbalanced women all make similar personal appearance choices, you don’t get to be upset if people think you’re mentally unbalanced if you make the same decisions. Hair, clothing, tattoos and piercings – all of it means something, but you don’t get to decide what it means to other people. (H/T The Other McCain)

However, those of us who are not spoiled-First-World-brat princesses, can actually use this to our advantage. I used to wander around in old sweats from my ROTC days at home; now, however, my go-to “throw this on because I couldn’t care less what I’m wearing before coffee in the morning” outfit is a dress. The miracle of modern fabrics means I can grab some cheap little summer piece at a discount store that never wrinkles, wears well, and is extremely washable. (I’m going to be stocking up my leggings and long-sleeved undershirts to wear under such dresses now that the weather’s turning colder.) I still have to rebraid my hair in the morning or the cloud of wispies gives me away, and I’m pretty much convinced that makeup is a vile but necessary invention of the Matriarchy, but revamping my wardrobe so that I present myself the way I want others to see me is not a difficult chore or some kind of dreadful imposition on my individuality.

Besides, wearing dresses instead of pants most of the time feels delightfully counter-cultural, as well as just looking better on females like myself who are working on losing some excess weight! Pants are really not the overweight big-bottomed girl’s friend, and I don’t care what Meghan Trainor has to say about being “perfect” or “bringing booty back.” (Her BMI is probably lower than mine anyway, to be honest.) When it comes to weight and appearance, I’m not on the side of fat acceptance – but I’m not on the side of fat-shaming either. That’s a more complicated issue, given that the dietary advice people have been given since the USDA food pyramid was invented has been… less than helpful, and weight gain and loss is not exactly the kind of instant-result decision that clothing, tattoos, piercings, and haircuts are.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 4 Comments