Proud to say I’m voting no.

Why I’m proud to say I’m voting no in the same sex marriage plebiscite.

Ok, so, Australia is currently going a little crazy about a plebiscite to provide the politicians with some indication of whether Australian citizens in their majority prefer to accept, or not, people of the same sex being permitted to marry each other. This is being referred to as the same sex marriage, or SSM, plebiscite. A plebiscite, for those of you who don’t know, is when the citizens of a nation who are eligible to vote, do so with the intention of deciding something affecting the nation and its people. Whether the politicians obey the outcome of this plebiscite, and the will of the people, is another matter. They may decide to completely ignore the plebiscite and form some legislation intended to appease the mainstream media and the minority lobbies.

As an example of how insane this matter is making the already intellectually bankrupt Australian people, check out the reaction to one young lady simply stating on her own webpage that it’s ok to vote no:

Canberra contractor sacked for ‘vote no’ Facebook post

A SMALL-BUSINESS owner has sacked a staff member who came out in support of the “no” campaign in the same-sex marriage postal plebiscite.

Madlin Sims, who runs a party entertainment company in Canberra, said she was taking a stand on the issue, likening it to employing a staff member who posted racist material online.


So this small business owner decided to fire someone, to end someone’s source of income, merely for voicing the opinion that in a democratic process in a democratic nation, it was ok to vote no, given the two options yes and no. In this democratic process, she has stated that any option other than that she supports is actually equivalent to racism, and that is sufficient reason for her to cut off someone’s source of income and potentially render them homeless.

Yes, that is how intellectually and morally bankrupt Australians have become. The state of our democracy has deteriorated to the extent that only those who support one ideology are permitted to have jobs. Yeah, that’s right. It’s Fascism. Madlin Sims, the business owner mentioned in the quoted article, is a Fascist.

Australians are also stupid because they actually want a government to control such things. Only a moron would want that. The government should not be involved with marriage at all. It should be up to individuals whether they wish to be married. It should be up to churches or others to perform marriage ceremonies as they wish, for whomever they wish. There is simply no reason for any government to be involved in such matters. To actually want a government to interfere in one’s private life requires a magnitude of stupidity which can not reasonably be attributed to a truly conscious, thinking being.

But back to the Fascist Madlim Sims and her ilk: For the very reason that such morally bankrupt, intellectually retarded and repugnant vermin want to screw over anyone with whom they disagree, I am proud to say openly that I will be voting no. I will of course be voting yes, due to my firm belief that all citizens should be precisely equal before the law. But I am stating publicly, at work and elsewhere, that I will be voting no.

How is your society or culture described?

When any entity, whether individual or collective, has lost or failed to achieve any quantifiable or logically supportable virtues, it applies to itself neutral adjectives which can not be logically proven or substantiated as virtues.  Such adjectives are intended not to be interrogated or examined, but to provide a sense of validation and satisfaction, provided nobody questions their logical foundation or supposed benefits.


  • Diverse.
  • Multicultural.
  • Progressive.

None of those adjectives actually mean anything good or beneficial. They might, if some qualification or explanation were added. But on their own, they mean nothing.

The root of good and evil.

The ultimate good is long term or indefinite survival of one’s genetic code, or the closest matching genetic code.  This is confirmed by the basic rule of all life: all organisms which do not conform to the rule go extinct.  Any ideology which acts, or produces results, contrary to that rule is inherently evil in the objective sense, even if it provides one a brief feeling of satisfaction or hubris based on publicly demonstrating conformity to fashionable ideas of virtue.

Centralised information and censorship.

Centralised information of any sort is inherently prone to censorship and other forms of interference, and anyone with access at that central point is inherently prone to believe themselves responsible for implementing such censorship or other interference, due to the nigh-universal human delusion that each of us is morally superior to others. Distributed information is inherently more resistant to such interference.

Captain America is a hypocrite.

Recently Chris Evans, the actor who plays Captain America, opened his mouth and said something silly about Donald Trump. Here’s a news article about it. Apparently Evans dislikes the notion of people using violence to enforce the law, or to push their ideology, or something.

Chris Evans is most famous, and has made most of his fortune, through playing Captain America. That job specifically involves acting as a character who uses violence to ensure the victory of his ideology over other ideologies. Captain America, in those movies, works for a USA government agency which uses violence to enforce its rules on others. That’s what the whole thing is about. It’s the entire purpose of Captain America. It’s how Evans made most of his money. In his role as Captain America, using violence to enforce his ideology, he has killed over 14,000 people.

In short, Chris Evans is a hypocrite.

The bias and irrationality of reporters revealed in their language.

So, Donald Trump, the elected President of the United States of America, gave a rather excellent press conference about the Charlottesville riots, during which he achieved the following:

  • Firmly stated his belief that he abhors illegal violence from anyone and everyone, regardless of their ideology.
  • Made the press look like idiots again.
  • Slam dunked the extreme leftists with the label “alt-left”.
  • In response to those very clear points from Trump, the press achieved only a further revelation of their death-grip on their own biases.

    Let’s examine those points one at a time.

    Stated his beliefs.

    Trump stated several times, in different ways, that illegal violence is wrong and unacceptable, regardless of who does it or why. He was quite clear about his belief that it’s not acceptable for people to attack each other in the streets just because an opinion is disliked. That’s a perfectly reasonable belief.

    Made the press looks like idiots. Again.

    In response to Trump stating his beliefs, the press merely repeated their questions aimed at trying to get Trump to declare one group worse than the other, in contravention of his aforementioned perfectly reasonable belief. When that repetition failed to yield the desired result, the press did the only thing they could do, givne their limited intellectual faculties: repeated the same question. That made them look about as intelligent as the average barnacle.

    The slam dunk.

    For about a year now, the news companies have been portraying the USA’s alt-right movement as neo-NAZIs, racist, bigots, and generally horrible people. The reality is the alt-right does include such people, but then many other groups also include such people. The vast majority of the alt-right are just people who share the common interest of being sick of the leftist rhetoric in the USA.

    So what did Trump do? He casually whipped out the same smear the press have been using, and applied it with deadly accuracy to all the left-leaning nutters who believe they have the right to use violence to silence all words and ideas they dislike. He let that verbal cannon loose at an important press conference when the entire world was watching, right after a shockingly important and terrible episode in the USA’s history. The timing was perfect. The casual delivery was perfect. It was a beautiful hole in one, a touchdown, a bullseye, a slam dunk. Those extreme left nutters are now stuck with the appellation.

    The bias of the reporters.

    Then there was the bias of the reporters. We know the vast majority of the mainstream news businesses and their employees are very anti-Trump, primarily because they’re delusional. But one particular question they kept repeating reveals another bias. Several times, a reporter asked Trump if he was, by condemning the violence by all parties at the Charlottesville riots, placing the leftists such as ANTIFA on the same “moral plane” as NAZIs. Not that there were actually NAZIs at the riots (1), but the reporters believe there were.

    Now, the reasons the reporter repeatedly asked that same question are quite ridiculous:

    1. They have been indoctrinated into the belief that NAZIs or other racists are the worst possible things in the universe.
    2. If they can slap the NAZI/racist label on the some person or group, then anything done to that person or group is justified and acceptable, and therefore the leftists who assaulted and maimed people at Charlottesville shouldn’t really be blamed or charged with any crimes.
    3. If they can convince Trump to admit that racists are evil and deserve it, and the leftist goons aren’t really so bad after all, it also reinforces their own worldview and narrative.

    It’s quite easy to discern why those biases are ridiculous, but in case you’re having difficulty figuring it out, I’ll help you along.

    First, simply believing or expressing support for some ideology doesn’t make anyone good or bad. It might be an indication they’re enlightened or ignorant, intelligent or stupid, but the ideology alone doesn’t make them good or bad. A person’s actions, whether based on an ideology or anything else, make them good or bad. For example, an allegedly holy and righteous priest who rapes a child is infinitely worse (in my subjective opinion) than someone who holds racist beliefs but never harms anyone. Similarly, a self-righteous protestor who believes he is saving the world, and who sprays acid in someone’s face merely because their victim might hold a belief he dislikes, is infinitely worse than someone who holds racist beliefs but never harms anyone.

    Your actions reveal your character.

    Your actions are your character.

    Second, your victim’s ideology does not warrant or generate your actions. Your actions are your choice. Your actions are your fault. If you throw acid in someone’s face, doesn’t matter if your victim is the Devil or a Saint: YOU are still the sort of person who will throw acid in someone’s face. You are still an evil little coward. Your victim’s ideology doesn’t excuse, justify, or warrant your actions.


    1. There were neo-NAZIs among the crowds at Charlottesville. However, neo-NAZIs are not really NAZIs. To be a NAZI, one must be a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party, a party which no longer exists. While neo-NAZIs may hold similar beliefs to NAZIs, and may wear the costumes and wave the flags, they can not literally be NAZIs.

Malcolm Turnbull lied about terrorism.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull stated “We have the finest security and intelligence services in the world.”

The Minister For Justice stated: “Since 2014 when the terrorism threat level was raised to ‘probable’, we have been working closely and diligently with our agencies to give them the resources and powers they need to deal with this threat… Since 2014, 70 people have been charged as a result of 31 counter-terrorism operations around the country.”

In the same period, Australia has endured 7 successful terrorist attacks resulting in 9 dead and 14 injured.

Combining the successful (7) and unsuccessful (31) terrorist plots, that’s a total of thirty-eight. Seven out of thirty-eight equals about 18.4%. That is, 18.4% of terrorist attacks against Australia in the specified period have been successful.

If 18.4% of terrorist plots in Australia succeed, how can Turnbull say we have the finest security and intelligence services in the world?

The gender pay gap.

For long years, a certain faction in Western society has claimed there is institutional sexism and oppression of women resulting in women being paid less than men for identical work. This, proponents of the theory suggest, is because men are evil and are conspiring to oppress all women; presumably so the men in the compared occupations can enjoy a fractionally higher wage. That seems a trifling reason to engage in a global conspiracy against half of the population. But that’s the theory.

There have been many surveys and studies attempting to prove the theory, but they have all failed to do so. Indeed, most such studies revealed that such gender pay gaps are only in evidence when once compares males and females in different occupations. Not surprisingly, the same pay gaps are in evidence when comparing men and other men in different occupations.

But then there’s this study, which found that when comparing men and women in the same jobs, in the same companies, doing the same work, the pay levels were actually the same. The only differences detected were due to risks associated with job functions.

Below are two of the tables from the study.

A simple experiment for flat-Earthers.

Here’s a very simple test you can do to confirm (or not) your hypothesis that our world is flat.


  • A spirit level.
  • A compass.
  • Another sort of compass.
  • A friend in a city perhaps a thousand kilometres away, at approximately the same latitude, with the same equipment.


This experiment should be performed simultaneously by two people in distant cities at approximately the same latitute, while both are in daylight.

  1. Use your compass to align your spirit level to the east and west, perhaps resting horizontally atop two chairs or some other raised items.
  2. Use the other compass to check the angle from the level to the Sun.
  3. Compare the angle from horizon to Sun with the measurement obtained by your friend.

Patreon does not hold copyright over your content.

So, Patreon includes in its Terms Of Use the following:

“By posting content to Patreon you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to use, reproduce, distribute, perform, publicly display or prepare derivative works of your content.”

Having such a statement on a website does not in any way remove a copyright holder’s actual copyright, and does not in any way give that website or its owners magical copyright powers over someone’s else’s creation. The creator of any work always retains copyright over anything they create, unless they specifically sign away the copyright for a specific creation.

Patreon insists in its Terms Of Use that they’re all under California law. So what does California law say about copyright?

“Copyrights can be bought, sold, willed to others, or given away. A transfer of the copyright or an exclusive grant or license to use the work is a transaction that must be conveyed in writing.”

In other words, no, Patreon does not own a damn thing its website users put on that website, unless the copyright for a specific creation is specifically signed over, in writing, to Patreon.

Patreon does not have any copyright over anything you have created.

Similarly, you will often see things around the Intertubes such as “Creative Commons”, “GNU Public License”, “Copyleft”, and so on. Do not assume these are in any way actual legal licenses or binding agreements. Most of them are just trendy internet terms and have zero legal weight anywhere (Creative Commons is actually the name of an organisation).

Now if you want to know what copyright, patents, IP, and so on actually are, as opposed to the terms frequently thrown around on the Interwebs…

There’s this thing called the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. You may see websites claim this is “default international copyright”, but that is incorrect. This is a major piece on international law. However, being international law doesn’t actually make it law in any country at all. Basically all these guys and gals from different countries get together and hammer out these agreements, and then various nations agree to ratify some or all parts of it within their own sovereignty as they see fit. This is why, for example, Australia never ratified (and therefore does not have) that section of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which deals with freedom of speech (Article 19). Anyway, so the Berne Convention is an example of an actual law relating to copyright and IP, and how such things must be ratified by a nation’s government to have any meaning. Different nations have ratified different chunks of the Berne Convention and similar international agreements as they wanted, so some works here, some works there.

Due to the fact that companies want to trade across borders, and get money from as many places as possible, our governments generally agree to a set of rules for these things, so an American company can sell its products in Australia without a local company making a cheap knock-off and destroying that American company’s Australian profits. So however they’re worded or ratified, usually there’s some framework allowing protection of IP across borders. But it’s not always exactly the same, and depends on the local legal system and precedents and such.