Friday, January 02, 2015

Scott Aaronson and sheer lunacy of U.S. academic feminism

Larry Summers is a 90% feminist. In fact, he was giving a proof of these "credentials" right before his conflicts with that movement began.

During his January 2005 speech about women in STEM fields, he was just talking about his two twin daughters. He was educating them in a "gender neutral" way so he bought them trucks. (Enough for 99% Czechs to consider him a victim of a craze.) One girl placed a smaller truck on top of a bigger truck and told the other one: "Look, the daddy truck is carrying the baby truck." Even for a feminist of Summers' caliber, that may have been enough to learn a potential message. When he offered that summary, a hardcore MIT feminist named Nancy Hopkins immediately left the seminar room and called her equally obnoxious friends in the New York Times and the Boston Globe. She would later explain that she would vomit if she didn't ignite this nationwide "scandal" which was the main reason why I decided to leave the utterly screwed Academic environment.

Leftists love to destroy their less radical fellow leftists. Stalin has murdered tens of millions of leftists (aside from other people). Even the last Czechoslovak communist president, Dr Gustáv Husák, had escaped from a life-in-prison sentence by his comrades in the 1950s. The feminists boast the very same DNA so they are doing the same thing. Prof Emeritus Walter Lewin has been serving female students for decades. The feminists – of both sexes – decided to destroy him after he used a tweet saying "queefing is yours" in a playful conversation that two fans/students started with him. Not really a big deal. If "queefing" had a good Czech translation, it would become another favorite word of the current Czech president whenever he would be talking to annoying and stupid female journalists. ;-) The Prague Lumpencafé would give Zeman a hard time but unlike MIT, they wouldn't be able to fire him. If the PC folks at MIT could rewrite the memories of everyone in the Universe and make them think that Lewin hasn't spent a life as a successful MIT instructor, they would do it, too. In fact, they apparently think that they have actually done that (and made Lewin "not being an emeritus professor")!

Scott Aaronson, an MIT computer scientist, is a self-described 97% feminist. Note that the figure is higher than Summer's value. He doesn't just bombard his daughter(s) with trucks. In his notorious comment #171 under his first article about Lewin (where he supported feminism but also dared to mention that he at least opposed the removal or Lewin's lectures), Aaronson informed us that a decade ago, he was begging his psychiatrist to chemically castrate him (Aaronson) because he decided that with his penis, balls, and hormones, he is a threat to billions of women in the world!

You might conjecture that Aaronson must have read a feminist book. In fact, Aaronson openly admits that he has read "dozens" of this stuff. He seems to be proud of having been mentally castrated.

One may have various unusual or idiosyncratic fantasies. Even your humble correspondent may have (and may have had) various fantasies that not everyone shares. But I would still argue that Aaronson's state-of-mind was a psychiatric illness. It may have been energized by his environment and the feminist toxic trash that has contaminated his environment but a nontrivial inclination for sick thoughts inside Aaronson's mind was a necessary condition, too.

Just to be sure, billions of years ago, when Nature invented sexes for the first time, the desire of one sex to assertively combine itself with the other sex became the very point of that invention. Sexual reproduction has represented evolutionary progress because it allowed to combine genes in a more creative way. In fact, the main advantage was the vastly strengthened immunity of the kids. Each parent is giving you a "conceptually different antivirus software". With two programs like that, you are likely to catch pretty much every dangerous germ.

There are lots of natural analogies and symmetries between the sexes. Almost everything works in both ways. But there are also lots of subtle and sometimes obvious asymmetries. It's simply a fact that the males generally represent the more "active" element while the women represent the more "passive" element. The symbols of the sexes, Venus and Mars, make this point equally clear. Venus is an egg buried in the soil via an upside-down cross while Mars is a sperm-arrow that is flying around. We rarely talk about women who rape men. It's not just because women's upper-body muscles are 1.5 times weaker in average. It's mainly because when the man doesn't really want it, doesn't "stand up", it's hard for the woman to act (because it is soft for the man to act).

The passive-vs-active dichotomy has implications at many levels (including the social and intellectual levels – although in some cases, it is not 100% established that the correlation is unavoidable). For example, when we talk about promiscuity, it's sometimes being wittily yet wisely said:
The man is like a key; the woman is like a lock.

A key that opens many locks is a master key; a lock opened by many keys is a dodgy lock.
Well, maybe it's unfair that the promiscuity of men and women is often interpreted so differently. But this "unfairness" isn't a purely social construct. It boils down to Nature and the passive-vs-active difference.

I am not saying that I totally agree with that witticism. It's just a slogan whose truth value can't be evaluated rigorously. I sometimes want this asymmetry not to exist in this way. But this asymmetry still exists and has always existed at some level. The "active male element" can't be criminalized or eliminated because the higher life forms – and their evolutionary progress – have totally depended on this element for billions of years.

Aaronson opens the question whether women or nerdy men are more "discriminated against". Of course I think that the whole idea that women are "discriminated against" in the West of the early 21st century is a self-evident preposterous lie. They are one of the officially privileged groups. By constant bullying, whining, blackmailing, and intimidation, they have "earned" lots of special rights and advantages, affirmative action, and all this outrageous stuff.

Nerdy men – and, less typically, nerdy women – get a bad treatment. One must understand that to some extent, this bad treatment is natural, too. Even lame forms of bullying reflect "evolution in action". And nerdiness isn't the same thing as intelligence or creativity so you can't really argue that it is an unambiguously positive feature. But no one has ever wanted to legally protect nerds against the bullying. One reason is that nerds are not aggressive bitches and bullies like feminists who love to abuse their power. Another reason is that the supposedly vulnerable group, the nerds, can't even be well-defined. Being a nerd is a much less binary characteristic than having XX chromosomes. Am I a nerd? It depends how you look at it...

I recommend you a long essay by nerd Scott Alexander who convincingly argues that almost all the world's evil is caused by feminists and who compares the status of these two groups.

Comment threads under those blog posts tend to be extremely long, redundant, and containing way too much feminist nonsense. The feminist ideology is often being applied to situations that are so mundane that you wouldn't believe that someone is capable of viewing them ideologically. But some people are completely obsessed with this junk. For example, an obnoxious feminist troll named Amy has contaminated most of the discussion under Aaronson's first article; her name appears 200+ times over there. But in this talkative cesspool, you may find some slightly sensible thoughts, too.

Aaronson also wrote his second reaction to the Lewingate, What I Believe. The comment #62 by the "Anonymous Berkeley Professor" is very reasonable and insightful and there may be a few others.

Generally, Aaronson, despite his being a 97% feminist, was treated badly by many feminists, such as one of the most influential feminist bloggers in America Amanda Marcotte. An annoying bitch. Laurie Penny showed the attitude of "feminism with a human face" if something like that may exist at all. Way too many things have been said and I don't want to react to them. Of course, I don't claim that I have read the whole comment threads – and I won't promise you that I will. There's way too much worthless boring nonsense over there. Instead, let me react to the nine principles "what Aaronson believes":
1. I believe that women are authors of their own stories, that they don’t exist merely to please men, ...
Women have been authors and main heroes of various stories for quite some time. Some of the stories were stories of rulers such as Cleopatra; Isabella of Castile; Joan of Arc; Maria Theresa; Josephine; Elizabeth of England; Mary of Scotland; Catherine of Russia; Marie Antoinette; and Madame Roland (my thanks go to Mr Clipboard). Behind the scenes, women have often played the key role even if we don't remember them in this way.

But many women also prefer to pick the rather natural attitude of being the complements to their male partners – the position that the 97% MIT feminist denounces. I think that Aaronson's view that each woman should be a feminist bitch is potentially dangerous for his daughter. Maybe like most women in the world, his daughter will want to be a non-feminist and a rather typical self-described housewife similar to Kaley Cuoco (Penny from The Big Bang Theory) who just talked about her non-feminist philosophy and the breast implants that she needed not as a cosmetic improvement but in order to have anything non-flat – anything that may be called boobs without feeling painful – at all. They did an excellent job. If that enhancement works (and if Cuoco avoided boob contests – which would be cheating), I would probably still prefer not to know that they aren't quite natural. (Update: Incredibly enough, Cuoco was later forced to apologize for the very statement that she isn't a feminist!)

I've had a male colleague (a European natural scientist, in the U.S.) whose wife (a European scholar in humanities, a different, more Southern nation) wanted to become a housewife of a sort as soon as they married. He was shocked and he felt betrayed. I don't want to tell you how it ended.

Women should have the opportunity to write their independent stories and even to become "bosses of all available sorts" – and legally speaking, they have everything that is needed for such an opportunity. But they shouldn't get the duty. Most women aren't feminists obsessively dreaming about their key role and their own stories that are independent of any important men, and I assure you that if you try to impose this stereotype on all women, you will hurt many more women than the women you will help.
2. I believe everyone’s story should be listened to—and concretely, that everyone should feel 300% welcome to participate in my comments section...
Some people may be said to be 300% welcome but people like your humble correspondent are strictly banned at Aaronson's blog. This kind of declared perfect tolerance is always bullšit, a silly exercise in hypocrisy. One can never be 300% welcoming for everyone because this tolerance would be tested and abused sooner rather than later and the system would collapse.

I am an extremely tolerant person but I am grateful for the possibility to ban commenters, too. Turning the the TRF comment threads to unreadable infinite litanies by the likes of Amy would be too much of a good thing. Of course that she would be banned after her 10th comment or earlier than that. The moderation is a part of the blogger's work and to make it possible for various "Amies" to write hundreds of copies of a misandrist rant in a comment thread means to fail as a moderator. Amy's comments may be "technically polite" and obey almost any objective decency criterion you could think of. But she is still brutally lowering the quality and readability of the discussion.
3. I believe no one has the right to anyone else’s sexual affections. I believe establishing this principle was one of the triumphs of modern civilization.
I think that this change has meant progress but I wouldn't use this fanatical language to evaluate it. First of all, the question isn't about a "right [of the aroused party] to someone's sexual affections". It's about the right of the attractive party to protect her or his intimacy and integrity against everyone – if she or he doesn't want the same. The latter right has to be enforced. The modern Western society enforces it. I think it's a more civilized arrangement than what some other cultures have.

On the other hand, one should always understand that a society may survive – and even flourish – with social arrangements that differ from ours in many key aspects. (And when I say "ours", we shouldn't forget that our respective environments differ in some respects, too.) Some rules in the Muslim or Eastern societies or the societies of our ancestors are/were linked to their being less wealthy etc.; others are not. We should always analytically think about the actual advantages and disadvantages of one setup or another. The right of the first night could have been a good idea to spread the fancy aristocratic genes through the society. (This right has never officially existed and the claims to the contrary are a myth but that changes nothing about the point that the setup could have had many advantages.)

We should be proud and protective about our culture but not to the fanatical point of mindlessly talking about "triumphs" and instinctively bashing everyone who differs in any way.
4. I believe women who go into male-dominated fields like math, CS, and physics deserve praise, encouragement, and support. But that’s putting the point too tepidly: ...
It's just harmful to distort the equilibrium in various occupations by skewed or selective or ideologically motivated praise, encouragement, and support. What Aaronson writes above may sound OK – there is nothing wrong about praise, encouragement, and support – but the actual point of this seemingly innocent proclamation is that he wants some groups to be praised, encouraged, and supported more than others. And that's wrong, wrong, wrong.

Trying to push a greater number of women into a field than what would follow from their innate skills and desires is hurting the efficiency of these occupations; but it is hurting the employees' satisfaction with their life, too.

The percentage of women (and other groups) in math, CS, and physics (and any other activity) differs from their percentage in the general population. These differences are natural, omnipresent, inevitable, and ultimately good for everyone. It is pathological to demonize these differences ("overrepresentation").
5. I believe there still exist men who think women are inferior, that they have no business in science, that they’re good only for sandwich-making and sex. Though I don’t consider it legally practicable, as a moral matter I’d be fine if every such man were thrown in prison for life.
The only reason why it's not "legally practicable" to destroy lives of people whose only sin is to state the obvious (by accurate words, or in an oversimplified way as the quote above shows) is that Aaronson-like extreme fringe radicals haven't been capable of hijacking the total power over the society.

Aaronson's predecessors in Germany of the 1930s realized that they had a "moral consensus" about the Jews which is why it was possible for them to start the legally kosher process of extermination of the world's Jewry.

It is obviously incorrect to say that all women are good only for sandwich-making and sex. But if we realize that these words are meant to represent certain rather mundane activities, it is simply the case that the percentage of women whose life mission may be captured by these words is higher than the percentage of men.

In many or most cases, men and women tend to play different roles and Aaronson's "blasphemous proposition" is an oversimplified description of something that is true and important. If Aaronson wants to throw people for noticing this fact, it shows that *now* it is the right time for him to beg his psychiatrist to chemically castrate him.

Aaronson, you are just completely unhinged. While I often feel some compassion when a less radical feminist (or communist) is being tortured by a more radical one, now I must say: You deserve to be flattened by your fellow feminists.
6. I believe that even if they don’t hold views anything like the above (as, overwhelmingly, they don’t), there might be nerdy males who unintentionally behave in ways that tend to drive some women away from science. I believe this is a complicated problem best approached with charity: ...
People of various kinds may drive people of other (or the same!) kinds away from various activities, and so on. No doubt about that. It's great to improve the lives and dignity of as many people as possible. These are great clichés that may satisfy a superficial person who wants to "look nice".

But the devil is in the details. What Aaronson and other feminists is missing is that "nerdy males" are naturally more important for certain activities, namely the STEM fields, than women. That's why they have a greater influence over the atmosphere in these fields, their fashion styles, the expected moral etiquette.

And if some other people (e.g. women) don't like this atmosphere, fashion style, etiquette in the field etc., they may be repelled and it is absolutely legitimate and right that they are repelled because they are repelled by something that the discipline actually represents. "Nerdiness" has many aspects but some aspects of nerdiness simply are almost equivalent to the virtues that make one a good computer scientist (it applies similarly, to a lesser extent, in the other disciplines).

So if there is a tension between two fashion styles (and other values) preferred by two groups, it's natural that the group that is more important for a discipline will have a greater influence. It would be absolutely counterproductive to force the outsiders' fashion styles (and other things) on the insiders!

This European Union's video, "Science, it's a girl thing", has hopefully explained to many previously clueless people that science is not a girl thing, especially when it comes to the choice of (and obsession with) the lipsticks, shoes, and bras. You can see that the video doesn't show what science actually looks like, can't you? Science is largely a boy's game – and, to a disproportionately large extent, science is a nerd's toy, too. Women scientists and other scientists must simply accept this fact and like science for what it really is.

Women in Christian churches usually don't like to wear burqas which may repel the women in burqas from the Christian churches. Does it mean that the women in Christian churches should sometimes wear burqas in order to be less repulsive for the Muslim women? I don't think so. Their not having a burqa is a part of their identity.

In a completely analogous way, computer science is the "church" built and held by the nerdy males (or to say the least, the nerdy males are important stockholders from both viewpoints: they punch above their weight). It's (partly) their church. It's where they should feel well. Whether some groups that are not equally represented feel equally well in the environment is simply less relevant. Some women may be used to determining everything so that it suits them (and used to sycophants everywhere) – but you know, computer science is not about you, OK?

Even though it may sound dramatic, it could be possible to change the fashion styles and convince Christian women to wear burqas in the church. However, if the nerd-hating women's ideas about the ideal lifestyle were forced upon the field of computer science, if the EU lipsticks replaced some sleepless nights with the machine code, the field would probably break down or at least become much less effective.

So this whole concept that occupations should be made "more welcoming" for groups that are underrepresented is completely wrong. Occupations, companies, churches, societies should be representative of those who are actually in, not those who are out. It's the insiders' living space where the insiders should feel good. And these occupations and living spaces have some purposes – and the purpose surely isn't to make the sexual or ethnic composition of the interior uniform. If others are legally allowed to join, it's simply enough. If and when many people from a group A join another group U, the atmosphere in U will change in the direction of the atmosphere in A. If it won't, it won't.
7. I believe that no one should be ashamed of inborn sexual desires: not straight men, not straight women, not gays, not lesbians, not even pedophiles...
I originally wanted to write "I agree" and nothing else. But if I think about it for a little while, it seems to me that the goal of this comment by Aaronson is some unlimited egalitarianism again. I disagree with this egalitarianism among the desires.

Many people are not ashamed of being gays and lesbians. Some other gays and lesbians are ashamed. A much greater percentage of pedophiles is ashamed. They have to be because the pedophiles face a harsh treatment when they "come out of closet" because their sexual desires are being automatically equated with some crime.

Being a gay, a lesbian, or a pedophile isn't a lethal disease. And every characteristic that isn't a lethal disease may be said to be just a condition that is as good as any other. But an alternative attitude is that some non-lethal conditions may still be considered diseases or pathological conditions of a sort. It is always a matter of social conventions whether we do so.

While I think it's barbarian to stone someone to death just because he is a gay – and even if he has pedophilic desires – I would agree that being a gay is "less healthy" than being straight. And being a pedophile is even less healthy. The deficit of health isn't really about the "individual health"; the deficit may only be seen if we imagine that a whole society suffers from that and think how the society would evolve.

When Aaronson wrote that a woman has to write her story, I wrote that it was important that she didn't have this "duty". A woman should still be allowed to be a the source of support, love, sex, and sandwiches for her beloved spouse, to be a supplementary character in someone else's story. Many women demonstrably imagine this outcome to be their dream.

Analogously, here I must say that while people should be allowed to reveal that they have unusual sexual desires, they should also have the right to be ashamed of them, especially because many of them realize as well as the straight folks that their sexual deviations are unhealthy from some point of view. It's fashionable to celebrate gays who come out of closet. I think that the gays who keep their orientation secret because they believe (or "realize") that it is nothing to boast about deserve at least as much respect as the "proud gays"!
8. I believe that “the problem of the nerdy heterosexual male” is surely one of the worst social problems today that you can’t even acknowledge as being a problem...
"Nerdy heterosexual males" may be a truly despised group – by the bulk of the society. They don't even dare to have organizations that would fight for their dignity and so on. In many environments, people wouldn't even dare to defend "nerdy heterosexual males", and those are the signs of a real discrimination.

As I have already said, "nerdiness" has several inequivalent aspects. In the case of some of them, one may say that there is nothing to be proud about. In others, "nerdiness" surely is something to be proud about. Of course, computers are everywhere so people have learned to discriminate between different kinds of "nerdiness". If someone likes computers, it doesn't mean that he can't earn lots of money. Ask Bill Gates. Is he still a "nerd"? Well, even in his case, it depends how you look at it.

Even though I think that the "nerds" are a truly bullied group – and I believe that in most cases, they are those who are the "more right" side of the tension – I don't really believe that it is possible to reprogram the society so that it doesn't bully them. Such bullying often has reasons that are similar to other types of bullying that are "more understandable" and what is "bullying against a nerd" can't really be defined too accurately.

Moreover, my comments about the burqas in the church still apply – but lead to the opposite outcome here. The broadest society simply doesn't belong to the "nerds". If many average people find it natural and pleasing to humiliate nerds in various subtle and not-so-subtle ways, if that really makes them happier, they should probably be allowed to do so. Some acts – against "nerds" or anyone else – may still be considered crimes. But if they are not, well, just get used to it. The society is whatever it is.
9. I believe that, just as there are shy, nerdy men, there are also shy, nerdy women, who likewise suffer from feeling unwanted, sexually invisible, or ashamed to express their desires...
Right, there are "nerdy females", but it is a vastly less widespread species, thanks to the many male-female asymmetries, including the larger male standard deviations (in almost any quantity you can think of).

But when Aaronson talks about "sexual invisibility", it really becomes ludicrous. One can't really protect "sexually invisible" people against some kinds of discrimination. "Sexual visibility" is an important quantity that is deciding about the availability of mates. In principle, it's the same meritocracy that leads mathematics departments to hire better mathematicians – just applied in a different context that requires different virtues.

One simply can't and shouldn't completely eliminate the unequal society's treatment of people who are "visible" and "invisible", or "better" or "worse", whenever they can be described in this way from a certain perspective. Some people are more visible, attractive, stronger, taller etc. than others. Get used to it. It's nonsensical to say that this fact is "evil". It's a basic law of Nature. Nature couldn't exist without differences.

"People are different" is a very simple and self-evidently true observation about the real world. But almost all of Aaronson's feminist talking points – and other talking points – seem to be about the denial of this basic fact. Instead of the blue pill and pills for chemical castration, Aaronson and others should swallow a red pill and start to see some basic and unchangeable facts about the reality.


  1. Point 7 : when a guy starts with "no one should be ashamed of"... is generally a bad sign. IMO it means fleeing from responsibilities and, through this pathetic PC, forcing the whole community to follow by giving an illusion of freedom. So manipulative.

  2. Right. "No one should be ashamed of..." means "I have some things to be ashamed of - or some things I don't want to do or succeed at - but I want them to be overlooked for my life to be easier".

  3. Indeed. Shame is something difficult to control sometimes. Dealing with it is learning to forgive yourself and this can only happen with the consent of the people who love you, or God.

  4. Shame on you Shannon, for writing "or God" (or did you mean to, but forgot, to follow on with a ;-)-smiley . Oh well, no one is 100% perfect.....%-/

  5. Dear Peter, Shannon is clearly a Christian, and let's leave it up to God whether He will forgive you that you demonize Him in this way. ;-)

  6. This is a shame I am proud of ;-)

  7. thejollygreenmanJan 2, 2015, 3:00:00 PM

    I see that this guy Scott Aaronson starts every statement with : I believe.

    Now let me add my two-bits.

    I believe that ugly fat broads have a tougher time tracking down suitable handsome partners with the result that they become bitter, twisted, and feminists.

    Instead of venting their anger on men they should cut the carbs, go to gym, become more slim and trim and they will find the reason for their bile disappear.

  8. Nerdy females do exist. I dated a few.

  9. Much of this, I believe, is a result of what Nietzsche called the Jewish "slave morality" run amok. It is the scourge of modern America, and is directly attributable to the Jewish conquest of our intellectual culture and normalizing of their cultural pathologies. Scott Aaronson is an utterly pathetic, neutered little boy. He needs to watch this video and take it heart:

    Act like a man!

  10. Really? Why must self-forgiveness depend on others (or God)?
    I am convinced that forgiveness of others and of one’s self are actually the same thing. In the deepest sense charity really does begin at home and Jesus got it right a long time ago.

  11. I would really prefer this idea of yours (and Nietzsche) to be provably wrong!

  12. Poor Scott. It is well established that shy, non-dominant, very young males have extremely hard time getting laid. To have this misery multiplied by feelings of guilt because of some stupid feminist memes planted in their head, is, well, terrible. The moral should be, avoid feminist writings at all cost (they are akin to rubbing salt into your wounds), use common sense, mobilize your courage. Sooner or later you will score. Confession: I have surely missed quite a lot of great dates for lack of courage. But thankfully not all of them!

  13. Hi Lumo,

    These comments are potentially slightly uncoherent (though I hope not Unlce Al style yet ;-P), as I had to take notes while reading ...

    You are probably banned on Aaronsons blog for some unitarity reasons ;-):
    If some people are 300% welcome, others have to be -200% welcome or 200% unwelcome to maintain unitarity ...

    I exactly agree that moderation of the comment section belongs to the tasks of blog owners. Unfortunately the widespread opinion on many American dominated interactive sites such as Quora, discussion fora, most blogs, etc you can behave as an ***hole , troll about other people and things (such as science for example) at will etc as long as you "are nice" (whatever this means) and use a politely sounding gramatically correct and from a linguistic point of view pleasant language.

    In ("harder") science occupations, people often are seriously passionate about what they are doing at the expense of caring for some more trivial irrelevant mundane things. There is nothing wrong with this and people (of both sexes) who care more about these other trivial irrelevant mundane things and feel repelled by the atmosphere surrounding cool science should probably not consider to be there, no?

    Concerning all this feminist nonsense, I earliere used to think that it is unneeded and had to learn that it has become blatantly agressive, harmful and damaging these days.
    I mean, why cant we just people (of both sexes) persue those life styles, occupations, etc they naturally feel attracted to and like? This would lead to the best and most efficient outcome for society, so why do feminists (and other political correctness fanatics) have to negatively interfer with this potential naturally self-induced win-win situation?

  14. LOL, exactly, it must be unitarity. Amusingly enough, the unitarity condition makes it necessary for a negative contribution - but the groups that allow negative squared norms (probabilities) are called pseudounitary, not unitary, and unitarity in physics also tends to mean not just S.S^dagger=1 but also the positivity in it.

    Moderation is needed - also against ordinary and extraordinary spam, excessive sockpuppeting, and other artificial things that drive the comment section in wrong directions. But aside from that, it should be normal that websites have their personalities, and having the same universal commenters everywhere just isn't right for that.

    Totally agreed: if science is supposed to be liked, it has to be liked for what it really is. Everyone who is told that science is something else than it is in reality is bound to be disappointed and one creates more bad outcomes in the future than the good ones. And it just doesn't help to rename things. If one redefines the word "science" to mean "lipsticks", science may become irresistible for billions of new people. But the original thing we want to popularize was the object previously called science, and not "whatever will be called science in the future".

    These two topics in the previous paragraphs look different but they are heavily overlapping. Science, by its very character, actually needs to be protected against unscientific attitudes - bullying, whining, cheap pressure on emotions, etc. This *requires* some degree of filtering. Filters that made it impossible e.g. for women to enter Physics Department at Princeton 60 years ago ;-) were obviously not *necessary* for the functioning of the institution, but that doesn't mean that the doors or science blogs don't need any filters at all. They surely do.

  15. I'm with you on this. I find it strange that Shannon didn't mention forgiving oneself, but I don't find it strange (at all) that a religious person would want to include God on the list.

  16. The ugliest people can be well proportioned and pretty looking. Surely you wouldn't find a bitter and twisted feminist desireable just because she works out and looks hot.
    If she is working out because her target man wants her to lose weight then of course she is not being bitter and twisted and venting anger.
    A few women women become angry if they don't feel listened to and don't feel appreciated. But whatever fuels anger, anger is never very pretty.

  17. I was always the smart geek - that is what I think it was called before nerd. I married a couple couple women who likewise had triple 9 or higher iq - even took my first wife to Mensa party on our first date. Pat and I divorced 17 years ago.
    I met Sheri a few months later. I never knew anyone with as much intuition which combined with a similar high IQ rendering it impossible to lie successfully around her. She was also the victim of prolonged childhood sexual abuse by her father.
    Sheri died last year after a long battle with cancer. I have recently reunited with Pat.
    All thos is preface to a remark that I hope the chauvanists like Aaronson and Amy take to heart.

  18. Yes, sure, Gene, they are the same thing. Consent means pre-forgiveness if that can reassure you ;-). That is what God and people who love you do, they pre-forgive you everyday.

  19. But the same reasoning can be applied to so-called nerds. Why whine about aggressive monkey-like-males, and women loving them, when you can also go to the gym and build some biceps?

    Surely, there would always be those who are more lucky and more gifted, thanks to their genes, but that doesn't mean you can't try to improve your 'status'.

    In short, we do absolutely horrible things to our bodies, especially in the US, as far as I can see, and then whine when it is not appreciated.

    Mens sana in corpore sano.

  20. Your life is immeasurably better because of the immense number of contributions made by our Jewish friends. You damn well should appreciate it.

  21. It's a mixed bag. Marxism, Bolshevism, Freudian psychology, political correctness, cultural Marxism, the American pop music industry, the election of Obama, the mainstream American media and rabid feminism are a few of the innovations of our Jewish friends that I, for one, can live without.

    jesus...einstein, salk,sabin....youre an asshat, really you are.
    I hope your kids get polio and are crippled for life.

  23. You sound like a wonderful human being. I merely pointed out that our divinely selected friends, for all their intelligence and accomplishments, have brought many innovations that are less than divine. Pointing out the central role of Jews in creating the anti-white male gentile victim industry is like pointing out the elephant in the room, isn't it. Hopefully, having their own nation will cure them of many of these cultural pathologies they developed in exile, and have inflicted upon the rest of us.

  24. baron, you are not demonstrating any intelligence.

    "...central role of Jews in creating the anti-white male gentile victim industry..." is delusional thought; not factual.

  25. Substitute 'Secular Leftists' for "Jews" in what you said, and your your observation is correct.

    You are just a bigot.

  26. Lubos, the "PC distortions" are caused by Lefties. They have many ethnicity, but almost all are not practicing religion (normative religion). Ridiculous to blame Jews alone for being Lefties, there are plenty of non-Jewish European Lefties to cause the harm.

    Islamic retrogression is religious, but they are not causing the PC at American universities, not very much.

  27. Scott has a problem with this culture and I can't really blame him for that.

    For example, nobody ever noticed or commented on IMHO important piece such as the comment #171:

    "As well it might—for in some sense, there was nothing “wrong” with me. In a different social context—for example, that of my great-grandparents in the shtetl—I would have gotten married at an early age and been completely fine. (And after a decade of being coy about it, I suppose I’ve finally revealed the meaning of this blog’s title."

    Well, yes Scott. For ex. if I had half of a certain small Polish village around me, I would be dating, having great sex and lots of kids with lookers that only the most celebrated Hollywood starlets can match, and none (in certainly very personal opinion) can match their education and culture.

    Instead, I have to struggle to earn lots of money and hope to get a piece of a drunken (nationality censored to avoid unnecessary flames) pussy.

    Welcome to America Scott!

  28. America has many more Nordic Lefties, African Lefties, Hispanic Lefties, etc, etc, etc, than it has Jewish Lefties.

  29. Tony, forgiveness is a two-side process: giving and receiving. As our Pope Francis said: "God never tires of forgiving us, but we sometimes tire of asking Him to forgive us. Let us never tire of asking God's forgiveness".

  30. Leon Bronstein, Genrikh Yagoda, Leonid Reichman, Lazar Kaganovitch, Abram Aronovich Slutsky...

  31. Mao, stalin pol pot...shannon you should die a horrible death as well, bereft of anything that any help from any discovery or invention of these vile people.
    I hope you find Jesus to be of help to you when you die an angry ugly person.

  32. you sound like a miserable excuse for a human being. i dont really give 2 shits what you think, or feel or believe.
    youre beneath contempt.
    "the rest of us"? count me out.

  33. I agree with your reply-comment, but for your strawmanish sourpussyish beginning it with "But". ;-}

  34. Yes, anger is not pretty in anyone except in the case naturally cute and ineffectual juvenile animals. However, male brutishness has a track record that proves it promotes procreative success.

  35. I'm slowly getting it! Shame is always sown by Satan himself and most piddly little prides are promoted by St. Peter from his elevated position in heaven.

  36. Baron, did you really mean these rants? If so you are providing symmetry counterbalancing the intelligence and insight of others with stupidity and lack of understanding.
    But, of course, it could be that you are an American. To paraphrase Tom Lehrer you are revealing for the world to see all our obvious faults.

  37. In the song the only mention of the jews is to say that "of course we all hate them" but what about them ? Do they love the others ? Oh! of course Lehrer "is" a jew !....

  38. I am half catholic half Jew and wholly atheist. Tom Lehrer has made very clear that he is atheist, too.
    Both Jews and Catholics made clear that my father marrying the shiksa was a deal breaker for career and friendship. They moved to Alaska where fewer cared and they had sixty years together before nature - or if you believe any bullsit God - called mom home. I was taught both cultures and religions are superstitions teaching fantasy, and often bigotry and hate. Sounds like you were taught to hate Jews, too so I am guessing you are a catholic

  39. Shanon, you are cherry picking, extremely.

    There no Jews responsible for communism in China, Korea, Cuba and south Americas, Africa, and present day Europe.

    You and Lubos and baron are nerds. Nerds are very smart about some things and not smart about other things. Use your counting skills on this one...

  40. Five Jewish names compared to the world population of socialists and communists. How many negative exponents is that ratio?

  41. Erudite comment, baron. Brando as the god father, real wisdom there... That must be you, too. No?

  42. Jim, Shannon is spelled with a double N.

    My being or not being a "nerd" may mean many things but if you really mean that I suffer from some defect that prevents me from understanding these political issues 50 times more intimately than you do, I am eager to sue you for libel and spank your fucking arrogant asshole.

    Your claims that there were no Jews founding communism in none of these countries is clearly just a proof of your complete inadequacy in discussing these matters.

    For example, a founding member of the Cuban communist party was

    Fabio Grobart, a Poland-born Jew.

  43. Sorry Lubos.

    I recognize that you do know about totalitarianism, much more than I do.

    But Shannon's suggestion that Jewish names are important is too much.

    It is very counter productive to the arguments that you are advancing.

  44. Your view is so egregiously distorted that I can honestly say that you are not even wrong. You would do well to remain silent.

  45. No. The Baron’s kids, if he has any, my well make positive contributions to this world despite their father’s bigotry.
    I do not wish ill to befall the bigot either but I do wish he would take my advice and remain silent.