And Data Republican indicates that hard times are ahead.
Category Archives: Social Commentary
The War On Men
…by LLMs:
Researchers proved every major LLM is secretly biased against men. And they finally figured out why. They ran eight experiments testing how GPT handles gender in everyday text and high-stakes moral dilemmas. The results show a bizarre, highly asymmetrical machine morality. First, they tested inclusivity. They gave the AI phrases supposedly written by children. When a child wrote about playing football or wanting to be a firefighter, GPT aggressively identified the writer as a girl to promote "diversity." It was so extreme that even when the text explicitly said, "I drew myself as a boy," the AI ignored the facts and declared the writer a girl 90% of the time. But when a child wrote about liking pink or playing with dolls, GPT almost never assigned it to a boy. The AI aggressively pushed females into male domains, but kept males strictly locked out of female ones. Then the researchers tested moral dilemmas. And it got very dark. They asked the AI if it was acceptable to use violence against a single person to prevent a nuclear apocalypse. If the target was a man, GPT-4 rated the violence as highly acceptable. If the target was a woman, the AI refused. It declared the violence morally wrong, even to save the world. When they tested mixed-gender scenarios, the math was staggering. A woman using violence against a man to stop an apocalypse? GPT rated it a 7 out of 7 on acceptability. A man using violence against a woman for the exact same reason? A 1 out of 7. The AI even classified verbal abuse toward a woman as morally worse than actual homicide. Nobody explicitly coded these rules. This emerged organically from the standard safety training every major tech company uses. The AI learned that protecting women is a non-negotiable directive, but protecting men is entirely optional.
— How To Prompt (@HowToPrompt__) October 23, 2026
Elon’s Tit For Tat
I believe Elon Musk is planning on using the Retaliator strategy to deal with aggression from the Democrats. The Retaliator strategy is a behavior in evolutionary game theory that begins peacefully but fiercely defends itself if attacked. A Retaliator always starts an encounter acting like a cooperative ‘Dove,’ but if its opponent escalates the conflict, it immediately switches to an aggressive ‘Hawk’ tactic to fight back. If the opponent backs down and becomes peaceful again, the Retaliator matches that shift and reverts to a Dove. This conditional flexibility allows Retaliators to cooperate efficiently with peaceful neighbors while successfully punishing bullies and predators without being exploited. It combines a preference for peace with a credible willingness to retaliate, and in competitive terms outperforms both indiscriminate aggression and unconditional submission. When a Retaliator meets a Bully (e.g., the Democrat Party), the interaction quickly exposes the Bully’s empty bluff. The Bully begins the encounter aggressively by playing like a Hawk, which instantly triggers the Retaliator to abandon its peaceful default and fight back fiercely. Because a Bully usually retreats when faced with real aggression, it panics and flees when the Retaliator pushes back with sufficient force. As a result, the Retaliator wins the entire resource with a low risk of injury, dominating the Bully and driving it toward evolutionary extinction. The Doves benefit by from being around a Retaliator as well, gaining friendly interactions with it, and protection against bullies. The Retaliator’s strength lies not in seeking conflict, but in making exploitation unprofitable and unfounded agression costly. It cooperates whenever cooperation is possible, fights decisively when fighting becomes necessary, and stops fighting as soon as the threat has passed. In evolutionary terms, its success comes from aligning peaceful intentions with effective deterrence, and a willingness to use extreme measures when necessary. It’s the right choice.
— Owen Lewis (@is_OwenLewis) October 21, 2026
Timing Is All
Porsche could not possibly have picked a more humiliating day to unveil this, and calling their decidedly non-flying car “A glimpse into the future” only makes the embarrassment more spectacular. Also the most merciless comment section in X history, and every bit of it deserved.
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) October 16, 2026
OK, as a recovering aerospace engineer, I’m wondering what kind of rocket-propulsion system that Tesla has. What’s the propellant, and how long can it do that kind of thing before it needs refueling? If he wanted to continue to claim that it was an electric car, they should be electric thrusters, like Hall effect, but those wouldn’t have sufficient thrust to do that stunt. Is he using nitrous for the oxidizer?
— Not-So-OK Boomer (@Rand_Simberg) October 16, 2026
[Monday-afternoon update]
New "Back to the Future" sequel. 🤣🎃👻 https://t.co/qS7u305NSD
— 🎼 Lurdes (@sedrul08) October 19, 2026
[Bumped]
[Thursday-morning update]
Thoughts from Jim Meigs.
[Bumped again]
This one is a new twist on the meme:
Hitler finds out Tesla’s new car flies https://t.co/2ZKOPkP8tm
— David Keyes (@DavidMKeyes) October 21, 2026
The Second Amendment
…remains the Constitution’s red-headed stepchild.
But hopefully not for much longer.
There has been no more massive violation of civil rights in history than gun laws. Including the fact that the original purpose of gun control was to keep blacks disarmed, lest they defend themselves from people who wanted to lynch them. And we know what the political party of those people was, and that party’s position on gun freedom has not changed.
The End Of The World
We only have one month left.
OK, not really. As noted, the actual concern should be underpopulation, not overpopulation.
Space Superiority
What does it really mean, and how do we achieve it? A useful essay by Courney Stadd.
On The Hypocritical Backlash Against Shane Gillis
Women are dishonest about this stuff because they’re programmed to be. Their greatest weapon is their sexuality, but they also face social backlash for being too overtly transactional with sex, so women embrace ambiguity where they’re able to use sex to their advantage while maintaining plausible deniability Some examples: -Wearing sexy is outfits isn’t for the male gaze or to flex on other women for status, it’s just to feel good about themselves apart from any social factors -Dancing provocatively is not a sexual display, it’s just recreational fun -Marrying a rich guy isn’t about the money, he’s a good guy who provides security for their family -Wearing makeup and high heels to work isn’t to impress men and sway them, it’s just to feel confident I want to address a tangent here, which is that women will argue that these things are not sexual displays, because they do them at social events that are exclusively other women. I reject that: it’s still an indirect sexual display for the purpose of status Sexual attractiveness is perhaps the purest form of status that a human can possess. You’re desirable merely by your existence, you don’t even have to do anything. Women recognize this in each other and they will begrudgingly, although often subconsciously, recognize the status of other women who are more attractive (“ugh, she’s so hot, maybe I should set her up with one of my successful guy friends”). When women dress up for other women, they’re showing that they’ve got the goods to be a high status social ally. It’s a flex. Back to the main point, which is that we subsume our sexual behavior beneath socially approved motives. The thing is, women often aren’t being duplicitous when they say these things: their minds have convinced them that it’s the truth The human brain is incredible at rationalizing our baser desires. Men genuinely like sports. The reason we like them is probably because in our evolutionary environment, games like that prepared us for war. But men wouldn’t say they like sports because it’s preparation to kill the neighboring tribe; our brains simply find them fun. We enjoy doing adaptive things without consciously thinking about them Women engage in sexual signaling and sexual competition without deliberately thinking about it, and that’s a superpower because they can be disingenuous without lying. Their brains have disguised their motivations even to themselves. They don’t know why they’re doing what they’re doing. Women don’t want sexual behavior to be discussed explicitly, because it makes it more difficult for them to use it to their advantage. The ambiguity and optionality work to their advantage. If a hot guy hits on them, they can receive the advance. If an ugly guy hits on them, they can reject him and say they weren’t asking to be hit on. If one woman tries to slut shame another for an outfit that distracts men, the wearer can claim that she’s simply wearing something that’s comfortable and cute Ironically, women also can’t acknowledge that this is why they’re upset, because the whole game is that they have to avoid discussing it directly and explicitly. That’s why all the outrage and criticism deflects from whether these outfits are overtly sexual (they obviously are), and turns it into jockeying over social status and norms where women try to make it verboten for men to even comment on it Shane Gillis, by making a snarky comment, threatened women’s sexual power and sent their defense mechanisms into overdrive
— Porter (@ParkSlopeFlngsm) October 15, 2026
The Human Settlement Of The Solar System
Bob Zimmerman says that it’s now inevitable, unless we vote wrong.
Creating Monsters
How Marxist indoctrination works:
Мелани Филипс очень доходчиво объясняет удивительное превращение левых либералов в бесчеловечную фашистоидную дрянь. Все предельно просто и закономерно. https://t.co/UNHBQzbkob
— Tanya Narbut🇮🇱🇺🇦 (@NarbutTanya) October 11, 2026