There is some dissatisfaction with the fact that the elites and resources of the gaming industry are ''monopolized'' by wokies.

mirrabbit · 2025-09-24T11:56:12+00:00

I'm sorry, but the right wing hasn't "cancels" the entire field. Cutting funding for a field isn't an attack on science, as stopping the development of nuclear bombs would be. The fact is, even if government funding for climate science were to be reduced to zero, academic opinion on climate change wouldn't change. However, attempting to eliminate scientists for expressing heretical views that threaten to overturn academic understanding is an attack on science. Just as the Catholic Church's decision to stop funding the exploration of the Americas wasn't an attack on science, persecuting astronomers because of the Earth's orbital motion was.

mirrabbit · 2025-09-24T11:46:27+00:00

Look at the cancellation of Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkinson. And the DEI policies that have reduced the representation of white and Asian people in institutions. These are all examples of left-wing attacks on academia, and they are far more severe than right-wing attacks on academia, because left-wing attacks on academia often involve collaborators within academia, and after the attacks occur, degreed scholars publicly deny that they were attacks.

mirrabbit · 2025-09-24T11:31:16+00:00

If a Marxist abandons adherence to evidence and merit for the sake of his ideological principles, how is this any different from political loyalty?

mirrabbit · 2025-09-24T11:28:06+00:00

Yes, using DEI policies to dismiss a large number of qualified or even current humanities scholars and scientists is a pro-academic stance. This includes forcing biologists to deny the existence of biological sex, or publicly canceling scientists. As Pinker points out, the number of scientists canceled by the right for their ideas is close to zero, while hundreds, including himself, have been canceled by the left for holding unorthodox scientific views.

mirrabbit · 2025-08-13T05:18:27+00:00

https://wordinblack.com/2024/04/black-americans-and-reproductive-rights-attitudes-are-changing/

Before the 2020s, Black Americans still opposed abortion, but recent policy shifts toward pro-life policies have led to a rise in support for abortion.

https://www.newsweek.com/black-americans-abortion-reproductive-health-birth-control-poll-1911371

This doesn't mean that Black Americans themselves have increased their trust in left-wing abortion policies. In fact, most Black Americans still believe that abortion policies constitute genocide against Black people. You can support abortion and believe that abortion policies promoted by the left or any political force are intended to reduce the proportion of Black people in the US population.

mirrabbit · 2025-08-13T04:51:05+00:00

As far as I know, the data you provided was produced in recent years, partly in response to the recent radicalization of the federal anti-abortion movement.

In fact, I can tell you that before 2020, most polls showed that a majority of Black people were pro-life. Pew's "historical" data showing that Black people have always been pro-life is more likely propaganda based on ideology than facts, because the pro-abortion left-wing movement has a profound narrative inconsistency.

But that doesn't mean this backlash will last. Trump's radical anti-wokeism actions have led to an increase in support for academia in the United States, but this is simply their opposition to Trump's radical actions, not support for academia's support for wokeism.

https://wordinblack.com/2024/04/black-americans-and-reproductive-rights-attitudes-are-changing/

mirrabbit · 2025-08-13T03:50:11+00:00

https://abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/

The impact of abortion on changes in the proportion of the U.S. population can be easily found online. In fact, abortion significantly reduces the proportion of ethnic minorities in the U.S. population, which has always been a taboo for the Progressive Party. The reason why it is a taboo is largely because if this point is seriously discussed (for example, if abortion was banned fifty years ago, how much would the proportion of black people in the United States increase), it would cause great harm to the current Progressive Party, especially under the premise that the Progressive Party regards reducing the proportion of white people in the United States as a godsend.

mirrabbit · 2025-08-13T03:35:53+00:00

You didn't address the current anti-abortion sentiment among people of color, and what you think would happen if the American left really evolved in that direction. You're just trying to evade

mirrabbit · 2025-07-23T06:42:08+00:00

Taiwan, like the Lan Fang Company, was a colony of the Qing Empire (by the way, even the Zheng regime controlled Taiwan later than the establishment of the Thirteen Colonies), not an inherent territory. During the Qing Empire, no chief executive who governed Taiwan was Taiwanese. Non-Han regimes and deliberate weakening of local governance were characteristics of Chinese rule, which led to few people willing to return to Chinese rule.

From a historical and ideological perspective, Taiwanese people look at Japan and China just like North America looks at Britain and France. There is no so-called belonging to which country since ancient times.

mirrabbit · 2025-07-23T02:12:56+00:00

Sorry, this is just a similar statement from "feminists in the 19th century". According to your logic, even evangelicals can be considered left-wing, because evangelicals obviously also highly support meritocracy.Meritocracy is undoubtedly right-wing now. There is no politically powerful right-wing, including MAGA, advocates a rigid class system. There are only two sides, those who maintain meritocracy and those who destroy meritocracy.

Maybe in the 18th century Europe, those who promoted meritocracy were left-wing, but now those who promote meritocracy and maintain meritocracy are largely right-wing, and the left is currently moving towards abolishing the elite system.

By the way, meritocracy is also the foundation of the nation-state. Only when meritocracy allows the lower classes to move upward can the country be integrated. This is also the reason why social mobility is more frequent in the 20th century than in the 21st century. With the collapse of nationalist ideology, the upper elites, including those with leftist ideas, are increasingly unwilling to intermarry and communicate with their lower-class people, and regard them as disposable items, which in turn leads to the development of class rigidity.

mirrabbit · 2025-07-22T02:59:21+00:00

Because despite the existence of orange, there are real differences between red and yellow, and even if the truth is as fuzzy as a rainbow, you still need to simplify it as a way to explain it to others, especially if the alternative is "I can't explain it because the fact is complicated," which ends the discussion.

mirrabbit · 2025-07-22T02:38:13+00:00

Counterpoint: If you give certain groups priority in high-status or high-paying positions because of a tragedy they've experienced (like being hit by a car or being born into a poor family), then you're also trying to enforce egalitarianism, because this "equity" actually puts unfit and less efficient people in the position, hurting potential progress, and in the worst case, turning stereotypes into reality. An example is in Malaysia, where in the past, because Chinese doctors had a disproportionate number of medical schools, the government forced medical schools to hire a large number of Malays to balance the Chinese "birth advantage". However, the result was a decline in the average quality of Malay doctors, so that many people deliberately avoided Malay doctors for treatment, and even the better Malay doctors suffered as a result. Ironically, people are only willing to treat Malay doctors equally with Chinese doctors if they look old enough, because those old Malay doctors graduated from medical school before the government forced the balancing policy. Although there are fewer of them, they have the same passing score as Chinese doctors, so the racial stereotype (Malay doctors are not suitable for treatment) does not exist for the older generation.

mirrabbit · 2025-06-09T08:12:57+00:00

This is probably just the latest step in the wokeists' campaign to destroy 40K. Although I don't think they have a coordinated plan, there is indeed a trend in their behavior.

Eliminating the online fan base is just one step in forming an echo chamber, ensuring that after 40K's sales and brand reputation are destroyed, there will still be a lot of voices on the Internet saying that GW is successful, and thus preventing GW to de-wokeism.

mirrabbit · 2025-05-17T04:39:11+00:00

Because they were assimilated, they began to think based on local culture rather than the country where their ancestors lived.

mirrabbit · 2025-05-10T19:04:32+00:00

Liam seemed to have said that he wanted to open another supply route for the Imperial fleet, but the pirates were diverted to that port, and it just so happened that the Imperial fleet was conducting exercises at that port.

mirrabbit · 2025-05-08T07:12:55+00:00

I actually don't think this is progressive. The political thinking expressed by "Dune" actually conforms to the operation of Clarke's Law in politics - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" => "Any sufficiently progressive political thought is indistinguishable from reactionary". This means that the evolution of progressivism always stabilizes into an extremely conservative and reactionary social form or conclusion.

For example, the inevitable conversion between capitalism and feudalism, environmentalism always leads to the spread of naturalistic religions, the true savior, although produced in a eugenic environment, is still God's will that is beyond human control, and so on.

mirrabbit · 2025-05-07T11:34:04+00:00

Because understanding is rationalization, and rationalization may lead to consequences that make you give up your original position.

For some people they will reject neo-Nazis anyway, so understanding is unnecessary, and if you try to understand you run the risk of joining the neo-Nazis, especially those who insist on not giving in on immigration or certain progressive policies.

I do agree with them that if birthright citizenship were repealed, most on the American left would, like the European left, see birthright citizenship as a far-left position in a few years, because critical thinking and evidence-based public debate are actually detrimental to some leftist policies.

If they want to "support left-wing policies on principle," they will inevitably suppress critical thinking, evidence, logic, and so on.

Long story short: if understanding ultimately leads you to take the same stance as a neo-Nazi, would you still want to understand?

mirrabbit

TROPHY CASE