01) Social Justice Journalists Outraged Over Refusal to Censor Games
“A game that allowed you to play as an active shooter was pulled from the Steam Store and many on the left started praising Valve for doing so. But the game wasn’t pulled for being offensive, it was pulled because the developer was banned from the service.
Following this Valve clarified they would allow any game on Steam so long as it was legal and not trolling. Naturally the Social Justice left is furious over this refusal to censor legal content.
But why did Valve do it? Are they really standing up for free expression?”
I applaud Valve for this.
The reasons why you don’t give in to the “social justice” net nannies…include the fact that you’ll get an endless flow of nit pickers…who will make your life hell…
Once you compromise your stance and relent to one net nanny…you will greatly weaken your grounds on which to deny subsequent net nannies…
…You simply do not give up ground to them, at all.
01) Trump Scolds Trudeau For Canada Burning Down White House (They Didn’t)
“We are now going to explain the War of 1812 to you. Why not?
We didn’t think we’d find ourselves here, either. But on Wednesday, CNN reported that the 206-year-old war figured prominently in a discussion between President Trump and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada on May 25. According to CNN’s unnamed sources, President Trump asked Mr. Trudeau, “Didn’t you guys burn down the White House?”
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation then confirmed the CNN report. The Times has not independently confirmed the remarks.
It’s unclear if the president was trying to make a joke during what was, reportedly, a tense call about his decision to impose steep tariffs on metals imported from Canada, Mexico and the European Union.”
“The title tells it all. Maybe if you ALL watch this video, oh like, 2,000 times, they’ll keep me on!?”
Zipster is an excellent example of YouTube culture, when things were really just starting to blow up.
He’s an excellent example, of the user base which built YouTube into the juggernaut it is.
He may not be everybody’s cup of tea…but he attracted his audience of people, with whom his media resonated.
That’s what YouTube was, originally…and for many years…It’s what refugees from the mainstream media culture, came to YouTube for…It represents the true power and potential, that YouTube once had.
Now it’s just a cold tool, of the mainstream media…the same media, most of us came to YouTube to get away from…to jettison out of our lives…
You now cant even escape it…on YouTube…Unbelievable…
The YouTube partner program?…
…I remember that…It was a huge deal, when it started.
It says a lot about the time, and how much things have changed, that a channel like Zipster’s would be the first candidate to get a call.
As standards go…the original “YouTube celebrities” were small potatoes…barely significant in comparison, to what billion dollar corporations with instant name recognition can garner…
But these small, grass roots channels…are what YouTube built itself upon…
…And it says everything…that YouTube considers the early heroes of it’s own story, to be antiquated…and worthy of treating like this…
…I agree with Zipster…
…Those original, chosen channels, should be grandfathered in…They should be protected, and enshrined…
…But, if YouTube were to actually do that…it would have to be constantly reminded, and make a public admission…of just what a corporate twat it is…
01) Bret Weinstein Testifies to Congress on The Evergreen State College riots, Free Speech & Safe Spaces
“Bret Weinstein’s testimony to the House of Representatives about the free speech crisis on U.S. college campuses.
The testimony delivered by Dr. Weinstein to the members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform explained that the crisis isn’t primarily about free speech, and won’t be limited to college campuses for long.
Excerpt from Dr. Weinstein’s testimony:
Oppression Disguised as Equity
Testimony of Bret S. Weinstein
United States House of Representatives
May 22, 2018
Tomorrow is the one year anniversary of the day that 50 Evergreen students–students that I had never met–disrupted my class, accusing me of racism and demanding my resignation. I tried to reason with them. I felt no fear because I knew that, whatever my failings might be, bigotry was not among them.
At that moment. I felt sure I could reach these students. I also felt a moral obligation to try. Racism, which squanders human potential, and erodes human dignity, offends me. I am also well versed in the evolutionary logic that makes racism durable. I should have had no trouble establishing common ground.
Their response surprised me, and it would take months for me to fully understand what had happened. The protestors had no apparent interest in the very dialog they seemed to invite. I was even more surprised by the protestor’s fervor in shouting down my actual students–some of whom had known me for years. The cruelty and derision reserved for students of color who spoke in my defense was particularly chilling.
If not discussion, what did they want? I was one of Evergreen’s most popular professors. I had Evergreen’s version of tenure. Did they really think they could force my resignation based on a meritless accusation?
They did think that. And they were right. What I had not counted on was their alliance with Evergreen’s new president.
Though the protestors openly humiliated him, the president of the college partnered with the mob in private, handing them concession after concession. We know this because the rioters filmed everything and proudly uploaded it. In one particularly telling video, President Bridges calmly discusses with the leaders of the protest a demand to target STEM faculty based on the empty assertion that scientists are particularly prone to bias. In that same video the president speaks of his plan for those who resist the new order: “Bring ’em in. Train ’em. And if they don’t get it, sanction ’em.” He invites his partners to hold him to it.
On the second day of unrest, the police chief called me. Rioters were stopping traffic and searching for someone, car to car. The chief believed it was me. She was worried for my safety and helpless to protect me as the president had ordered her force to “stand down.” What would have transpired if the rioters had found me? I still don’t know, and I strongly suspect they don’t either.
The protest at my class did not emerge out of the blue in May, 2017. One year earlier I stood up and spoke in opposition to a dangerous proposal, one that threatened to establish a racial hierarchy amongst faculty.
To those who have not faced something similar, this likely sounds hyperbolic. But one can now advance such policies, and almost certainly succeed in passing them, if they are properly draped in weaponized terminology. “Equity”, for example, has taken on special properties. If a person opposes an “equity” proposal, those advancing the proposal are secure in asserting that their opponent is motivated by opposition to racial equity itself: In other words, that they are racist.
My opposition to that first “equity” proposal was voiced to my colleagues, with no students present. Demands for my resignation one year later, were not the result of organic student confusion. They were payback for violating a de facto code of faculty conduct in which one’s right to speak is now dictated by adherence to an ascendant orthodoxy in which one’s race, gender and sexual orientation are paramount. The students were on a mission. They were unwitting tools of a witting movement.
This committee should take my tale as cautionary. Is there a free speech crisis on college campuses? One can certainly make that argument, but that portrayal is at least as misleading as it is informative. What is occurring on college campuses is about power and control–speech is impeded as a last resort, used when people fail to self-censor in response to a threat of crippling stigma and the destruction of their capacity to earn.
These tools are being used to unhook the values that bind us together as a nation–equal protection under the law, the presumption of innocence, a free marketplace of ideas, the concept that people should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Yes, even that core tenet of the civil rights movement is being dismantled…
01) Schoolboy pimp, 16, was selling his schoolmates into sex – six adults arrested for buying sex
Thanks feinmann0!
“Following investigations by teachers at a school in Nakorn Sawan police have busted a 16 year old boy for human trafficking and six men who bought sexual services with school boys. But there are thought to be a staggering total of 150 people who bought sex from the victims. All of the eight victims are under 15 with some under 13.”
As Slippery Boy comments in response to this item: “The best thing about this story is that these are not homeless ‘street kids’ reluctantly prostituting themselves to survive. These were school-boys, who have school uniforms, and families that provide them with food and shelter. That must rock the misconceptions of the western ‘victimologists’ who would like to think only starving homeless drug-addicted boys would prostitute themselves.”
I couldn’t find the comment…It probably got deleted.
Very interesting report, however.
People like to overlook, that boys that age typically love sexual contact…Some will take it, anywhere they can find it…
Everybody likes to presume they’re getting dick in their anus…and, hey, I don’t know if they are or not…
…But I presume if they weren’t into whatever they were doing, they wouldn’t be returning to “the job” on a regular basis.
I don’t presume that most people sexually attracted to kids, want to be inhumane towards kids…ever…including during the sexual activity…even in the case of prostitution…
If I were getting dick in the anus at that age, and it was painful…I’d get out of that arrangement, real quick…The money would not make the experience worth it, in my opinion.
There’s so much that can happen between two males…I don’t know why everybody else [who isn’t involved], always imagines the boy is taking dick in the anus.
…I presume they are projecting.
It’s always illuminating to find these prostitution rings, where the kids themselves were running it.
If it was their business…would it not have been their rules?
“An elderly Indian scientist VIR Nehru lives in a nursing home. He began to have a negative attitude towards Muslims after the terrorist attack that killed his family. Now VIR Nehru is forced to tolerate the Muslim boy Aslam, who must visit him to serve his sentence in public works. The growing tension in the region between the two religious communities will grow into something more between the boy and the scientist within 11 weeks.”
“This short film accompanies the book HOW TO THINK MORE ABOUT SEX by Alain de Botton, published on 10th May 2012 by Pan Macmillan as part of The School of Life book series.
For more information, visit The School of Life website –
This short movie is ambiguous, until the very tail end…where it seems to conclude, that you shouldn’t sleep around…
Though I’m not up to writing a lot, today…I feel like this demands a response…
…Not only do I dislike it when I’ve invested the time into watching their media, and putting together a blog post for it…just to get a kind of “parting shot”, that sort of turns the ambiguity on it’s head…
…But I really hate it, when I’m jarred out of the flow of what I’m watching [a balanced look at an issue, from multiple viewpoints], to be quickly confronted with something I likely disagree with…seconds before the media ends.
It feels like a “bait and switch”…
The Good:
I think this explores a realm in sexuality, in a fair and honest way…for however deep a “ten minute” video can.
I like that it contrasts the different things some people expect, and how they experience things when something unexpected happens.
This opens the door to dialogue, about what we need and expect as individuals…dialogue that’s important, in helping us live our lives to the fullest.
The Question:
Is monogamy important?
…Or, more specific…Is monogamy something that everybody should be striving towards?
Personally…I respect “open” relationships…
This is not the same thing as saying, “That’s what I would choose to do”…But I do understand, sexual monogamy does not work for every relationship.
I think…so long as the people involved are honest with each other, and either accept each other in this or have the freedom to leave…it’s okay.
I just felt like the video’s last line made it seem, like the ideal is to have only one sexual partner at any given time…or, a lifelong sexual partner…
…I cant say as I find this realistic…or natural.
As a BoyLover:
The question of multiple sexual companions at the same time, overlapping, is an obvious question…
…Is it ethical to have more than one boy, as an intimate companion during the same time era?…
Is it true…that your current boy keeps you tied into the child population, and helps bridge you to other boys?…
…What happens, if you’ve only ever had one relationship with one boy…and he grows out of being a boy?…
I cant argue against the fact…that it is a natural flow of things for a BL who is open, and has boys in his life…to be introduced to new boys, by his current boy friends…
…I cant argue against…that a bunch of horny males getting together, can naturally lead to sexual relations…if everybody is adventurous enough…
…I’ve never seen that as immoral…
In fact…given the social structure we live in, where they don’t want young males making babies they’re not allowed to support…it’s always seemed like giving them a place to put their erections other than a vagina, becomes all the more moral and compassionate.
I’ve never seen a problem in loving boys…nor in being a BL…It’s an obvious, natural thing…
One Base Rule:
No matter who you are, or how you lean…you must always respect and love your companions…
…Sometimes…often, really…this means loving them, by respecting that they do not wish to be sexually loved by you…even when you so badly wish to sexually love them…
…This is a selfless, sacrificing kind of love…It’s how you know that you honestly love someone…when you put their needs and desires, above your own.
If you live by this…I figure…laws and social bigotries be damned…
…”you”, yourself…are not immoral in your sexual relationships…On the contrary…you are highly moral…
…And, hence…it is not immoral, to be involved with people who share your outlook.
