Category Archives: current events

No Refunds on Freedoms Forfeited

No Refunds on Freedoms Forfeited

Lives can and will be replenished. Whether it's unfortunate natural or other causes, but eventually mankind can and will sustain against an epidemic, and prosper. May take a while to recover to former conditions, but so far the adaptable human species has prospered despite anything terrible nature has thrown at them.

On the contrary, freedom and rights conceded is not so easily or certain to be regained. Rarely in history has a leader or elites voluntarily relinquished their power and authority to the masses they control. More likely the freedom and rights must be usurped through conflict. Which leads to mass destruction, not unlike an epidemic. 

So examine the outcome of this epidemic. Lots of people will die due to the virus regardless of authoritarian lockdown policies. These draconian edicts have negligible --possibly even detrimental -- effect on saving people from an epidemic. 

The other outcome, along with the loss of lives, is the loss of freedoms and rights -- most probably permanently. Most people yearn to "return to the way things were" before the epidemic. But even if the virus were defeated (unfortunately after much suffering and death), life will never return to normal. Because the new normal is now less freedom, less rights, less privileges, for the common citizen. That they have passed on to the elites to "safeguard" during a crises. 

But there is no way they will just hand it back. They will continue to hoard their newfound powers -- "for the common good", of course. The elites will continue to lie, coerce, propogandize. That is their nature, the nature of anybody in power. But that situation is not entirely their fault. When the masses have given up their rights voluntarily, they must also face the probability (more likely than not) that they would never get it back. (At least not so easily.)

Laws during crises or emergency are put "into the books" immediately. But are not as easily undone -- not even temporary ones. Some laws may be forgotten and just left alone; yet they still have effect. 

On the other hand, repealing a law is much more difficult than enacting one. Such a process must overwhelmingly convince the lawmakers and courts. Comparatively, attempts to repeal a law requires greater effort than creating a law.

Thus once a law to remove your freedom and rights has been enacted, a greater effort must be expended by you, the common citizen, in order to return the original right you conceded. A law created during a crisis takes a day or a week to write and ratify, but the reverse process could take months, years -- and you would still lose, most likely. Not to mention the overwhelming mental and financial burden necessary to persist. 

Democrat Party is Results Oriented, Thus Misguided

In recent decades, after suffering concussive losses of the Presidency to the Republicans, a few states led by Democrat party majority have formed a coalition to abolish the electoral college. This supports my theory of results oriented vs process oriented thinking. Whereby Democrats/progressives are results oriented and Republicans/conservatives are process oriented. Results oriented is basically using whatever means necessary to achieve a result. The fatal flaw of results oriented is thinking only about a specific result, and neglecting all other results that are equally probable. In this case, Democrats are expecting that dissolving electoral college will help their party because of past results. That's another flaw of results oriented--each future incident does not necessarily follow from previous incidents.

Continue reading Democrat Party is Results Oriented, Thus Misguided

Improving Classroom Behavior

The main problem with education is the sharing of information and knowledge only flows in one direction--typically from teacher to students. If that's all education system does, we can just eliminate teachers and have students learn by watching videos all day. So what's the point and benefit of stuffing children into crowded classrooms?

One may surmise that schools bring children together so they can learn to socialize and make friends. But then why punish children for being active and expressive?
Continue reading Improving Classroom Behavior

Universal Love vs Love by Inclusivity

Universal love is by default more inclusive than love by inclusivity. Such that this progressive movement of "inclusivity" is a huge backward step compared to universal love.

Universal love doesn't care about attributes or classification. Thus it is not hindered by misperception or bias or ignorance. Nothing and nobody is omitted or excluded.

In contrast, inclusive love very much cares about classifying (people, things). It can only include things or people that they know about or care about. Thus ironically it will not include things they could care less about or have no information about. So when new information or things later come into view or concern, it has to include that piecemeal, and still erroneously omit things and people.
Continue reading Universal Love vs Love by Inclusivity

Counterproductive Forced Diversity

Fantasy, long before forced diversity was preached, was more interesting because the resultant diversity was limitless--anything was possible, yet natural and fluid.

Unfortunately, with forced diversity, now there are restrictions to diversity, to fantasy, to imagination. These diversity advocates put in rules to how diverse or not your characters are. So when you see something out of the norm, you'll be more nonchalant and think "okay so that's the quota used here"; instead of just appreciating the fantasy, the creativity, the uniqueness of characters that go deeper than skin and race. After forced diversity, creators focus too much about tangible, visible, shallow traits.

On offensiveness and censorship

My response to Wizards of the Coast taking down a comic done long time ago in light of recent misfortunes.

Being offended is the new form of implicit censorship. Since it's illegal and unconstitutional to pass laws of explicit censorship, the cultural marxists, authoritarians, and self-righteous busybodies like to force and impose self-censorship onto others, thereby bypassing any hurdles and headaches of legal and government systems. Such tactics also pervades into private and personal communications and expressions, and allows them to control speech, writing, conversations, and arts under the guise of sin, trauma, incompassion, and immorality, and now offensiveness.

By the way, Wizards should stop making Magic altogether, since 99% of the cards they make are offensive in some way. Fire and lightning cards? Traumatic to those who have been in fires and hit by lightning. Horror and zombies? Traumatic to those who are afraid of the dark. Island? Traumatic to those who been stranded on a deserted island. Cards about violence and war? Traumatic to war veterans and victims of violence.

GamerGate opinion to risemiaminews

Opinion to risemiaminews

I first got involved in GamerGate because of censorship concerns, which is one of my major pet peeves. In a free society, especially in a nation born from the foundation of natural rights (as opposed to class rights), we are now experiencing a period of rampant censorship and attempts to deny people of their constitutional and natural rights.

It is human nature, whether online and offline, to bicker and argue back and forth. There will always be controversies, both sides will say they're right and demonize the other party. I accept that and at first I ignored the scandal. However, as things heated up, I started to hear reports of big media sites suppressing and banning users by the tens and hundreds. Most disturbing is this pattern of censorship is not for removing internet trolls and illegal behavior. No, it was a systemic reaction from mainstream sites moderators to control the public's opinion and remove any opinions that didn't conform to their ideological and political views.

In other words, the mainstream media, their contributors, and moderators, were trying to steer the controversy to favor one side. Along the way, these professional bloggers demonize, dehumanize their opponents, calling them every demeaning name in the book, throwing childish insults at a large group of anonymous innocent people. While their opponents are denied the right to voice back, to defend themselves against irrational, baseless, inhuman accusations. The media prefer to guilt and shame their opponents with sensationalist buzz-words, like misogyny and racism, to incite people to join their high and mighty crusade against a so-called hate mob. They hope to win the fight by blocking and banning their opponents, such as removing their comments and dissents and blocking them on Twitter and other social media.

Thus people who read the mainstream media would only know about the "horrible" hate mob known as GamerGate. These articles all follow the same ideological and political push. Any objections to these factless blogs will be reported as online trolls and harassers without morals, or proponents of the opposing political party. The irony is that the vast majority of the opposition actually aligns politically with the media.

What the supporters in GamerGate really oppose, then, is how the media is so irresponsible, unprofessional, unethical in pushing their narrative and opinions, without standard fact-checks, without listening to balanced feedback from readers, without engaging politely with netizens.

Even all that I can understand, it's human nature to protect their ideas, no matter how wrong or unrealistic. But what I despise the most, is their total disregard for the Constitution. In their naive war for social justice, they blindly deprive others of their natural rights. Especially the 1st amendment, right to freedom of speech. These ideologues collude with each other to establish policies on their sites so that their supporters are allowed free reign on what to say on their sites and social media, while mass blocking and banning their opponents from participating in online discussions and tell their side of the story.

Case in point is Twitter. Many policies have been changed and added since GamerGate started in August of 2014, supposedly in response to complaints against GamerGate harassment. Consequently, many GamerGaters have been banned and blocked, supposedly for violating terms of usage policies. However, anti-GamerGaters, no matter how much and how severe their violations and harassment against other users, are still allowed to remain, simply because they follow the "right" ideology and joined the right clique.

It's human nature to engage in wars. Media, propaganda, and online arguments are basically war of words. However, it can't be a war if only one side is allowed to fight. The most unfortunate side-effect of GamerGate is the thought that what we take for granted from our wisest forefathers, our most important natural, basic human rights, will be deprived and disappeared in the coming generation. The fear that in the cross-fire of ideological and political warfare, that emotions trump logic, sensationalism trumps facts, hysteria trumps rights, ideology trumps freedom.

Reply to “Media Ethics Isn’t a Game”

A SPJ advocate wrote this blog entry at

The following is my reply:

Our move? We've always been, have been moving for the last 9 months. Of course you and your colleagues may not have noticed or cared while you sit in your ivory towers yapping about ethics in journalism. Meanwhile, GamerGate supporters have been on the ground zero actually doing something about unethical journalism. GG has been rooting out those "journalists" who fail basic ethics. Even FCC took their suggestions to make online journalism more ethical.

I ask you about ethics, about evidence in reporting. Does the onus fall on the accuser or the accused to prove one's innocence? For instance, in the court of law, it is up to the prosecutor to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty. [edit: And the defendant gets their chance to defend themselves and tell their side of the story.] So have you and fellow SPJs provided the same objective treatment to those accused of being involved in a hateful movement? When even federal agencies like CIA & FBI find no credible threats coming from GamerGate supporters. So why would so-called ethical journalists such as SPJ continue to ignore credible sources like CIA, but continue to believe in lying journalists with personal agendas and interests? Is it not your duty as journalists, your integrity to research and investigate for solid evidence, rather than shove that responsiblity onto the consumers and readers?

Furthermore, as truthseekers, have you never wondered why prominent members of society risk their livelihood to join in a so-called "hate" movement? Not just gamers, but people in unrelated careers and interests, journalists, feminists, professors, game designers, youtube personalities, artists, sci-fi writers, etc. all participate in the hashtag. Why would they risk being called racists, homophobes, misogynists, using their personal twitter accounts and, according to mass media and fearmongers, to harrass and spread hate openly on the internet? What could they gain from being associated with GamerGate if it were truly a hate movement? (Not to mention that those ad hominems buzzwords have been thrown around so carelessly and freely without any real reason or proof, that they already lost all meaning and no longer bear any burden for experienced internet users and those falsely accused as such.)

We have made our moves and are still moving after 9 months and still going. As a matter of fact, some of us have been waiting for some ethical journalism organization, perhaps SPJ, to make their moves, to ensure and nurture a more ethical, credible state of journalism. You would not find another more passionate group than GamerGate to push for more ethical journalism.

So it's really your move, SPJ. Show us that you believe and stand staunchly behind that very standards of ethics you endorse.

GTA V Boycotted

I remember when prohibition stopped people from drinking alcohol. The War on Drugs stopped people from using drugs. Prison stopped people from doing illegal stuff. Oh wait, that never happened because suppression never works.

I also remember when GTA V sold a record 30 million copies, and afterward there were 30 million cases of domestic violence. Oh wait, that never happened either. Because normal people don't go out and do stupid shit just because they can do them in games.

However, what this hypocritical and delusional moral panic censorship against games does harm is the freedom of expression of our most valued human creativity and imagination. Human civilization has gotten this far because of our power to imagine and invent and create. Now you're telling artists and creators that they have to curb their imagination, curb their creativity, follow the herd. You're telling creators and gamers that their choices of games and entertainment will be dictated by authoritarian moral police. You're telling people that only a privileged committee can tell them what is fun and appropriate and what is not.

Despite the fact that numerous studies have claimed games DO NOT cause actual acts of violence or crime, no matter how violent the games were.

Please DO NOT give in to people with their own insecurities and try to project their own complexes onto other people. DO NOT give in to people who suppress HARMLESS creativity and imagination and entertainment. If people have problems distinguishing harmless entertainment and reality, have them seek professional help (such as the people who created the original petition to boycott this game). Nothing is gained by censorship and suppression of thought, however valuable human rights and inventions will be lost and forfeited if censorship and book burning is allowed to run rampant.