Monday 29 June 2015

Why Social Media Sucks

No, not just because it acts as narcissistic supply for the typical modern whore.

No, not just because it's filled with banality.

It's because everything you say can and will be used to destroy your life.

It's because of people like this entitled bitch using it as a platform for her lies to destroy a Nobel Laureate's career (I'm cherry-picking from the article, read the whole thing for yourself):
On Monday, June 8, a British academic called Connie St Louis uploaded a sensational document to her Twitter feed. Beginning with the question ‘Why are the British so embarrassing abroad?’, it offered an account of bizarre remarks that a Nobel Prize-winning biologist by the name of Sir Tim Hunt had made earlier that day at a conference in Seoul, the capital of South Korea.
Within hours, Sir Tim was being hauled across the coals in newspapers and TV bulletins across the world. Unable to defend himself, since he was travelling back to the UK, the bespectacled professor’s only response was delivered via a voicemail message to Radio 4’s Today programme recorded in haste via mobile telephone in Seoul airport.
Then, early this week, the simmering dispute took a further, seismic twist.
It came courtesy of The Times newspaper, which revealed the contents of a leaked report into Sir Tim’s fall from grace compiled by an EU official who had accompanied him to the Seoul conference.
This individual, who has not been named, sat with him at the lunch and provided a transcript of what Sir Tim ‘really said’.
Crucially, it presented a very different take to the one which had been so energetically circulated by Connie St Louis.
Strangely, given that there were more than 90 other journalists present at the fateful lunch in Seoul, no other detailed accounts of the toast have emerged.
And then it turns out...
Perhaps, therefore, we should ask two other related questions: who exactly is Connie St Louis? And why, exactly, should we trust her word over that of a Nobel laureate?

A good place to start is the website of London’s City University, where St Louis has, for more than a decade, been employed to run a postgraduate course in science journalism.

Here, on a page outlining her CV, she is described as follows:

‘Connie St Louis . . . is an award-winning freelance broadcaster, journalist, writer and scientist.

‘She presents and produces a range of programmes for BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service . . . She writes for numerous outlets, including The Independent, Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Sunday Times, BBC On Air magazine and BBC Online.’

All very prestigious. Comforting, no doubt, for potential students considering whether to devote a year of their lives (and money) to completing an MA course under her stewardship. Except, that is for one small detail: almost all of these supposed ‘facts’ appear to be untrue.
All neatly illustrating that the herd as a whole is as stupid as bricks and doesn't deserve a voice (in fact the majority of these morons need to be muzzled).

Also neatly illustrating why anyone who uses FaceCrap, Twatter, and InstaCunt on a regular basis should be trusted almost as far as you can spit a mouthful of fishhooks.

Finally, very much illustrating how even academia will turn on each other in the moment that any kind of leftist distortion of an unfavorable type gets mentioned about any one of their own members - even one of decades good standing and tremendous contributions to science.

Oh, here's a picture of the award-winning freelance broadcaster, journalist, writer and scientist entitled bitch who started this shit-storm of what appears to be lies:
The Herd, in it's hatefulness, destroys itself and progress and anything good.
Lets do an additional aside here. You've probably heard of Leonardo da Vinci.

You may have heard of the Antikythera Mechanism. It's an ancient analog computer which was designed to predict astronomical positions and eclipses for calendrical and astrological purposes. Also for the Olympiads, the cycles of the ancient Olympic Games. (From Wikipedia.) Yeah, they had brass gears and the like before 100BCE. It wasn't until the 1300's that they got "reinvented" again.

You may not of heard of Hero, though.

In case you didn't hear of him, the Greek inventor Hero (Heron) first invented the steam engine (the Hero engine, or aeolipile) in 10CE. Now, there wasn't much bloody use for it in Alexandria so it never really took traction as it were. Until you realize:

The ancient world had a number of rudimentary railways. Of course trains didn't run on them. They were grooved paths which had vehicles pulled, probably by a mix of horses/humans/gravity. The most famous was the Diolkos, crossing the narrowest section of the Isthmus of Corinth and allowed ships to be quickly transported overland. It operated from roughly 600BCE and was still going in the time of Hero.
If the two - steam and railways - had been combined, goodness would have happened.

Hero also created basic robotics. He mostly used his automatons to put on plays. His biggest achievement: a completely automated play that lasted for more than ten minutes. Supposedly each segment of the play had two different settings and could do different things depending upon how it was arranged (binary, anyone?). Apparantly it wasn't bad either, according to: Techgnosis: Myth, Magic & Mysticism In The Age Of Information.

Hero was not just an engineer - he was supposedly brilliant at mathematics and a great theoretician. He came up with the basics of Fermat's principle. He came up with the basics of optics which supposedly weren't improved on for a thousand years (by the Arab scientist Alhazen). He discovered Hero's formula and imaginary numbers. He played with the Pyramidal Frustum (here's the Wolfram|Alpha link if you're so inclined - it's basically a pyramid with the top chopped off).

He may even have invented wind-powered machinery. Nobody's quite sure about that. There just doesn't seem to be much in the way of information about them before he showed up.

So, 2000 years ago a prototype steam engine was created. Then what happened? Civilization declined.

It was 1600 years before the steam engine was effectively reinvented and put to use.

If we would stop listening to the banality of the herd, who are concerned only with their preening fucktardisms and the latest stupidity from the Cuntdashians, we might have traveled to the stars by now. We might have colonized other worlds. We wouldn't be limited to a single planet that we are currently polluting in various ways. We wouldn't be in the social situation where we are now.

The herd sucks.

Social media - the voice of the herd - sucks.


  1. All true. Some things to consider:

    - I have read that the Romans gave women super-rights similar to our current time. Then they went into faster decline. We can't go to space or anything similar as long as the same social dynamics recur. They would have to be permanently altered for the better. As of now this appears to be impossible.

    - Social media sucks, but it's mob rule again as has prevailed time and again throughout history. If there is a lesson it's that whites gave up what tiny fraction of freedom and progress came with the numerical and cultural dominance of Europeans. Once Europeans stopped with thinking of themselves as themselves because financiers said so, and even worse once Europeans gave up God - pride goeth before the Fall - it was over.

    Once you've studied this stuff for awhile it has the quality of 'there's nothing new under the sun'.

    1. The Romans and also the Spartans, as I understand it. It's a sad indictment isn't it: listening to the herd and you go back faster than you go forward. Only by ignoring the herd do we actually advance.

      Mob rule indeed. Often, at the end of a headsman's axe - or guillotine. It's always those whose families or who personally have generated/accumulated wealth, an outward sign of success, ending up in the short line to the chopping block. I think that Amerika had a post about that, two-three weeks ago.

      History may not repeat, but it sure as hell rhymes.

  2. That nasty fat ass bitch is a scientist? Really? Anyone who isn't smart enough to keep their own weight in check has no credibility on anything. I bet that cunt was propped up by affirmative action both in her education and employment.

    1. Supposedly yes. At least, according to her CV. Which seems to be bullshit of the first water.

      Never mind, I'm sure that buried deeply inside her body is a thin white woman screaming to be let out. When she's not screaming patriarchy! /sarcasm

  3. "Any publicity is good publicity." Some people are desperate for attention. Any attention. Much more often women than men, I might add. :) If orchestrating a smear campaign is a convenient tool for stepping into the spotlight, then why not? Look, now even you, BPS, know how she looks like. Isn't it 'mission accomplished'?

    On unrelated note, would 'building a better Beta' work? (My guess in the majority of cases: not.) What would you advise to the husband of another 'Carol' from here:
    Go Your Own Way? I wouldn't. 'Game' her? Is it worth it? Grovel and pander? Of course not. What remains?
    Not "hope for the best, prepare for the worst"? Unfortunately, this.

    1. Do you remember a certain 'journalist' under the name Alyssa Bereznak from several years ago, infamous for publicly disqualifying her OK-Cupid date for being a former Magic: The Gathering world champion? Google her, if you don't. What motivated her, if not the hunger for public attention?

    2. - here is the guy in question. Did he deserve his treatment?

    3. I remember her. Was simply a case of he didn't make her tingle.

      I suspect that he didn't let her know that he was a hedge fund manager. That would've probably engaged her golddigger instincts.

    4. I agree that 'didn't make her tingle' caused him being rejected, but what made it public?

    5. It looks like she deliberately attempted to humilate him on her geek blog. Baaaad move, silly bitch.

      So, from Business Insider.

      To her now shuttered blog (her "great revealing" and public rejection of him appears to be the very last post on the blog).

      Her face is gone too. Google search fixed that - she's quite plain in my book. Hope that she brings something more'n her looks and stinky attitude to the table.

      If it's the same person (with a name like that, I'm picking it is the same chick) then she is apparently a "professional Internet user with over 10 years of experience" working as a national correspondent in technology for Yahoo. I'm hoping that blurb on the profile is supposed to be deliberately cute.

    6. I quite liked the M:TG card memes and other stuff going around about her. But then, I'm geek enough to have a good laugh at this too. Gawker intern no more.

      Second date: only to gather more ammo, apparantly. Probably used as flamebait by Gawker.

  4. Wooo, she's important, hah! What a small-souled and needy individual. You're right - there's a lot of people out there like that. There's so many reasons for why people do these various things. Pick one, run it through to it's logical conclusion, then pick another and repeat. There's probably a good dozen reasons lumping in to why she pulled this stunt.

    Reading Dalrock's post, I just about pissed myself laughing. A bad thing when I'm nominally supposed to be at my desk and working.

    My thoughts: "Building a better Beta" does not work. Part of it is that women "just want men to get it". IE they want a natural-Alpha, not a "follow-this-template to become the perfect Beta/Alpha mix that she will fall for". She doesn't want to know the details about how he was once a hopeless (whatever), finally looked in the mirror, got on the interwebs, found a little information, applied it, and is now this - yet still has that original pathetic self still inside. Looking insecurely out of his eyes. At her.

    Instant turnoff. Where the illusion was instant turnon. Similarly, possibly, finding out that your boyfriend is a professional PUA might also be an instant turnoff.

    Regarding "Carol": she sounds like a classic case of "I love him, but I'm not in love with him." Too much familiarity has bred contempt, perhaps too much to ever repair. He might as well game her - what the fuck, he has nothing to lose in the attempt - yet he should prepare for the worst while doing so. If nothing else, that will give him a "I don't give a shit what you do" mentality that just might shock her into reassessing what she thinks she knows of him.

  5. Thanks a lot for linking the post about Hero of Alexandria. Interesting in many ways.

    Another thought: would he be so creative without the access to the great library of Alexandria?
    Observe the relative timing of its destruction to the course of life of Hero.

  6. That's Jabba the Hutt's sister right there!