Greedy Goblin

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Weekend minipost: PUBG miniproject complete

If you check my stats you see them in free-fall. The reason is that I finished testing a very unusual playstyle that involved killing absolutely nobody. Post will come on Monday. Now I'm trying a much more aggressive strategy and playing aggressively against 2000+ rated players is a bit different from jumping to the School at 1200.

I fully expect my rank to drop to EU 1000 (from 120), but then, toplist, here I come.

Now, I expected my abandoned strategy to go all the way to the toplist, but it didn't, simply because half of the players in the top rated games play that. The dirty little punks preach about "mad skillz", but in reality they use the cheapest of tactics. Unlike them, I don't preach "mad skillz", I tell you exactly how can you walk to the top 0.5% without being any good. I mean literally your mum could walk to top 0.5% with this stat.

Friday, August 18, 2017

Unintentional newbie bashing in PUBG

Newbie bashing is a problem in every PvP game. It means that skilled players purposefully play against new or hopelessly bad players and slaughter them. This is also known as twinking or sealclubbing. This is very hurtful at the game as new players are facing those who are much better than them and have the only purpose of killing them. They usually die without having a clue what they did wrong.

The usual solution to newbie bashing is rating system: good players elevate on the ladder and are matched other good players while receive the rating as progression. A League of Legends platinum player won't be facing Bronze 5 baddies. This can be gamed by those who want to massacre newbies by running alts. I suspect that most streamers and celebrities in PUBG are guilty of purposeful newbie bashing. They intentionally thrash their ratings when not streaming, so when they do, they are facing 1200 rated newbies who helplessly line up for those glorious 10-kills streaks. If they would always play like they show it, they would quickly rise to the very top of the leaderboards and they are not there.

But PUBG faces a bigger problem: large scale unintentional newbie bashing. To understand what's the problem, we must understand the rating system. It's not easy because it's not officially published. However we can extrapolate from the point rewards. There is little reason to give lots of points to an activity that isn't considered hard, therefore gives rating. We can assume that the point you get at the end of the game is the same that is used to calculate your rating. I wrote down the points I got at the end of the games and plotted them vs my final position:
The average position point is 96. A killing blow gives 20 points, damaging full HP gives another 20. If we assume that 95 people die to other people and they lose 150% HP (damaged, healed, killed), the average kill points are 45. Which means that position has twice the weight of kills. It also means that if half of the team gets rating increase and the bottom half loses rating, you get to reach 130 points to go up. Which is #19 position without a kill or #24 and one kill or #70 and two kills.

Now the problem: if someone follows the dumb "git gud" mantra, he tries to get into action as soon as possible to "learn to PvP", which means that he dies often after either scoring a few kills or not. Since his position is low, he must score consistently 2+ kills to gain rating. Until he does, he sits with the newbies. If lots of people do it, scoring 2 kills consistently is impossible. I mean if newbies jump out randomly and "gid gud" players land on the hotspots only, they are facing equal "gid gud" players which means 1:1 K/D, which means 1 kill per game. Sure the survivors of the hotspot then go and massacre newbies, but most of the "git gud" ones are forever stuck in low rating. This means that at low rating genuine new (or hopelessly bad) players are facing mechanically good players who will not leave low rating until they get significantly above the other "git gud" ones. So newbies are massacred by people who do not intend to massacre newbies, simply follow the bad advice of "git gud".

This of course has a positive effect. The "git gud" players either die early and get back into action or - if they survive the initial hotspot massacre - they roflstomp the newbies with "omg 10 kills + win" memories. But the negatives obviously outweight it: newbies have very hard time progressing, practically the only way for them is to hide and reach 1500 rating where the average mechanical skill is lower to get kills. Also, many good players forever gets stuck in low rating, denying themselves the chance to face challenging opponents.

What would be the solution?
The numbers would be maximum possible kills. It means that if you are low rated and killed 2 people, your weapons would be taken and a message appear "you can't kill more people in this rating, please improve your rating by surviving as long as possible". This would take away the goal of intentional newbie bashing, no one could do massacre. I guess most streamers would be pretty upset if they would have to fight 1600+ rated people instead of clueless newbies. But the main goal would be forcing unintentional newbie bashers to focus on learning surviving instead of killing until they reach higher rating.

Thursday, August 17, 2017

New MMO mechanic that puts no-lifers and casuals competitive without time restrictions

PUBG update, I can't complain:


The "hardcore vs casual" debate is the oldest in MMOs, because it's the biggest unsolved problem. Namely, in a game with no losses, time spent strongly correlates with results. Even a horrible player with 8+ hours a day will get better gear in WoW than a member of a top raiding guild who can only touch his character for 3 hours a week and doesn't have a top raid lined up for that 3 hours. This then used as an excuse for horrible players to explain them standing in the fire and having horrible spell rotation on "having life".

My earlier tackles were simply limiting playing time by servers being online for only X hours a day, or characters can log in for only Y hours a week. The problem is that the first would reward players with proper time scheduling (those who are always available when servers are up), while the second would only lead to using multiple accounts to play more and get advantage.

Now I have a new idea:
  • The basic unit of the game world is the guild, not the individual player.
  • Each guild has X character slots.
  • The characters are always online, either doing stuff or resting.
  • Players log in and take control of the characters. I mean you log in, you see the list of idle characters and jump into one. If you are a guild officer, you can usurp a lower member and take the character control. When you log off, the character becomes idle and some other guildmember can take it.
  • Of course there would be a rights management system to what various levels of members can do. If we consider WoW character management, simple player can do quest to improve the character, but can't pick talents and especially can't delete gear, only officers can do that.
  • From the perspective of the Game World, it doesn't matter if 1 player controls a character for 8 hours or 8 for 1-1 hours.
  • Characters need resting, if they are tired, they get nasty debuffs, but they have generous sleep schedules. So while they need 1 hour resting after every hour activity, they can work 48 hours straight without getting tired and then rest it all out in 48 hours. This helps with peak time - off time, all characters are in use when everyone logs in and they rest while people log off - without allowing nolifers make them active 24/7.
This way a casual guild of 100 players can play just as much as a hardcore guild of 10 players and assuming skill is equal (it's not) an outside observer couldn't tell the difference if the same people run a 12 hours long raid, or 100 people jump in and out, each making an hour or two.

As characters are guild assets, individual players can't take them with them when they quit the guild. What they have is their statistics, they can show that they added X XP, killed Z boss M times and did Y dungeon N times with wizard or warrior. With these stats they can apply to a good guild where they instantly get control of geared characters.

What do you think?

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Morons and slackers behave badly with women, go figure!

This is a very interesting study, no wonder it's referred by Washington Post and TIME.

The researchers wanted to know if misogyny (hostility towards women) is a social construct like the feminists say or something stemming from evolutionary biology. According to the feminists, men in general behave in a sexist manner towards women to remove them from a male-dominated area. On the other hand evolutionary theory thus predicts that only lower-status males will be hostile towards females who want to restore their status via violence. It also predicts that higher-status males will be more friendly to females.

To the study they used Halo 3, because it had clear status measurement by rank system (points 1-50) and because it has no sexualized content, the player avatars are mechanical suits. The researchers played the game while using pre-recorded chats to always present themselves the same way. They said neutral, in-game things like "I like this map" either in male or female voice. They played 163 games and recorded them. 189 players spoke up, all males, 147 of them were teammates. 82 of them talked when the researcher talked in female voice, 65 when in a male voice. They transcribed the speeches and coded them for positive and negative statements.

They've found that players behave worse when they were bad, and this effect was especially strong towards a female. It was true both about overall skill rating and performance in the game where the comments were made:
It is crucial to point out that out of the 82 players who commented on a female teammate (mostly negatively), only 11 used sexist phrases.

They conclude that increased female-directed hostility of low status men aims to decrease a female’s confidence and perception of her self-worth (which makes sense because women usually don't mate below their status) while simultaneously increasing the perception of him being a dominant mate. Higher-skilled males do not behave in this manner as there is no need for them to reinforce their dominance to maintain their attractiveness.

I don't buy into this, because in the next sentence they say that "there is no direct evidence in the literature that negative behavior towards females increases a male’s mating opportunity", which is the central goal of all evolutionary behaviors.

My explanation is simpler: show me a bad player and I show you a bad person. Someone who cannot learn a silly video game that he chooses to play is either a moron (unable to figure out problems due to low IQ and/or low education) or a slacker (not motivated to stuff well, alcohol/drugs can be present). From there the "bad people behave badly" is an obvious conclusion. Them being especially negative towards women can be explained by ineptitude and inexperience dealing with women.

However whether I'm right or they are, the solution in both cases is my decade old demand for video game companies to strongly stratify their games and keep bad players away from good ones on different servers based on skill. "Accessible gaming" and "playing with friends" is a dead-end, as low skill players are also toxic players. By allowing them to play with skilled players, developers turn their play experience horrible leading to customer loss. The sooner they realize it, the sooner they make money. Bad players should be placed in social isolation, into solo and automatic group content with no way to communicate with other players. For example in WoW there should be
  • Leveling servers where you become eligible for transfer when you reached lvl 110 and gathered X ilvl by completing some basic solo content. There should be no group content available on this server as grouping with these players is surely a negative experience. No guilds, just friend list but no way to chat with other players who are not friends, so you can only get into someone's friend list by knowing him outside of the game.
  • LFR + LFD server, you can leave it by gathering Y ilvl. Still no guilds, all groups are formed by the random group feature. Automatic DPS/HPS measures and auto-kicking low performers to prevent them reaching Y ilvl by being carried.
  • Normal + Heroic raid, Mythic dungeon server. This is the first with guilds and open chat since those who reached here can be trusted to function above the level of baboons. You can transfer away after reaching Z ilvl.
  • Mythic raid server.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

PUBG rating system and the folly of "git gud"

At the moment of writing this post, I'm #265 in total ranking with 2078 rating (and #125 in winrate). You can see the at-the-moment ranking here.

The rating system isn't just a cosmetic reward. Matchmaking is affected by it, good players are matched against other good ones, so I have to wait until my games fill up, even in prime time. I didn't experience that when I started playing, because it's easy to fill up an 1200 rating match. I also realized how dramatically my opponents changed, which is the point of the post.

According to any "git gud" moron, the way to improve in this game (or any other) is to fight a lot, improve one's mechanics, hand-eye-coordination and map awareness. I didn't do any of it as my 0.13 K:D ratio proves. I'm supposed to be at the bottom of this game if it was what the "git gud" morons think it is. But it's a survival game and I'm getting better and better in survival as my ranking proves. Actually, I'm glad I didn't "git gud", because it would hold me back now.

The top players play very differently than the average ones. By practicing against baddies, you only pick up bad habits. The more you practice, the more rigid these bad habits will be. I did pick up bad habits during my only week-long stay among the baddies and it's a pain to get rid of them. No matter how much I try to not do them, when I have to make decisions in split-seconds, I still make the old bad decisions and then yell "stupid, stupid, stupid" at myself watching the "you are dead" screen. I have no doubt that I'll be in top 100 and I find it quite possible to be in top 10 in a month.

For example my old strategy for mid-game (from third circle to last 10) was to pick an easy to defend building and occupy it, killing anyone who wants to take it from me. The problem isn't that top players can take it from me by being able to throw grenades and by dealing headshots on the run. This could be solved by "git gud". The problem is that these buildings are already occupied when I get in and another players arrive to occupy it soon after. Why are we doing this? Because back in 1200-1600, this was a winning strategy. Idiots were running around killing each other or sitting under a tree with a sniper rifle wanting to score kills while smart players were safely sitting in these buildings. But the idiots are still at 1200 and we are all by ourselves now fighting for the buildings! The new strategy I'm working now for mid-game is a specialty of hiding in the bushes and in tiny buildings where no one looks and it seems to work.

The crucial point is that the new strategy implies that there are no snipers in the woods and on top of tall buildings screening the bushes for easy kills, which is given in a 1800+ game, since such kill-hunters rarely get this high. If I'd try the same thing in 1200, I'd be dead in no time. In that ecosystem, the optimal move was taking the empty buildings. Not like anyone else wanted them, as being in a building is "no fun", the only reason anyone came there is to kill me.

Want to hear something funny? I used to hide on the open sea where the circle was there in a boat. This way I was safe until the circle was all on land and even then I could surprise everyone as no one expects players from the shore. Today I had a game like that and four boats were on the sea, when 22 were alive. The next game I just drove to the shore to hide. I died before I could dismount my car due to several boats and campers on shore. Sea, the sure safety of low ranked games is a death trap on 2000+.

You should use all the "dirty and unfun" strategies to get out of the lowbie-ghetto as fast as possible and then learn how the other good players play and defeat them. The reason why I'm now close to the very top is that I'm actively fighting my old habits that worked against morons. The other good players, no matter how skilled they are - unless do the same - will forever be hostages of the habits they got during "git gud" and when it stops working, they make the wrong conclusion of they have to get more good. But the solution to the "4 people want the same building" is not "be the best and kill all 3", but "avoid the damn building".

Don't "git good", play to win! Do whatever improves your rating most. If it's lying by the haystack or hiding under the staircase while 3 others are fighting in the upper room, do that.

The PUBG guide with details and explanations of everything will come when I finally plateau out, hopefully only in top 10. I will get in

Monday, August 14, 2017

Hang two people to save 100M!

Sorry about another political post, but I'm kind of interested how could we avoid a nuclear war between North Korea and the USA, or at least limit its losses. I already wrote what could Japan and South Korea do to avoid mushroom clouds. Now I have an idea how could the whole war be avoided at the cost of executing two particularly evil people and imprisoning another 100-1000 for crimes against humanity.

At first, I'm absolutely sure that if a game changer doesn't appear, there will be a nuclear exchange between NORK and USA and people are dumb to downplay it. To see why the war is inevitable within the current framework, you have to understand that NORK will not give up its nuclear weapons and ICBMs while the USA won't tolerate their existence. Let's start with the NORK reasons:
  • Libya: this is the most overused, but still true reason. Libya did everything the USA and EU asked them to do about giving up weapons of mass destruction after the 2006 shift, didn't support any form of terrorism in the last decade, didn't run anti-West propaganda, didn't commit crimes against its people (by African standards) or did anything remotely bad. This made Gaddafi invited to various EU countries and became the buddy of the PM of Italy. Then out of the blue the USA and France started to arm "moderate rebels" (later turning out to be ISIS) and when it wasn't enough, bombed Gaddafi's army and finally killed him without any legal proceedings. NORK clearly made the conclusion that making amends to the USA just gets you killed.
  • Iraq: Iraq was invaded for having nuclear weapons that they didn't have. The conclusion is obvious: just because NORK gives up its nukes, it can be attacked for having the nukes they no longer have.
  • You don't want to mess with a 33 years old living god: this is a weird but important reason. NORK isn't a dime a dozen communist regime, it has several racist and tribal qualities with strong personality cult. Kim Jong Un is viewed as someone more than a man and followed without question. If you are a young person getting this kind of feedback ... well it doesn't help with making wise and modest decisions. While it's objectively impossible, NORK leadership can make itself believe that they can scare off the USA from attacking and eventually force them to accept NORK as an equal nuclear power to Russia and China. It also makes it completely impossible that NORK refrains from nuking US, Japanese and South Korean civilian cities if attacked by the USA. Expecting the last words of Kim to be anything else than "FIRE EVERYTHING!" is madness.
  • The USA looks pretty erratic now from the outside. Like blaming Russia for something that nobody done (the DNC mails were leaked, not hacked) and wouldn't be a big deal if it was true (everyone spies on everyone). I'm sure Kim has considered what would have happened if the first country that came Podesta's mind on the eve of election is not "Russia" but "North Korea". Also, what's happening between Trump and the Congress/Courts appear to open power struggle to everyone who doesn't have intimate knowledge about "checks and balances", like someone who grow up in a regime where showing not enough respect to the leader gets you executed with your family. It's not irrational to expect the US government and policies change overnight, including the decision to attack NORK.
  • Surrender isn't better than nuclear exchange: this is the crucial piece. Everything else can countered "they can't win or even survive a war against the USA, so if the USA wants to attack, their best course of action is surrender and hope for mercy". Unfortunately, the USA failed to build stable client states in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and so on. These countries didn't become stable pro-USA dictatorships where little guys can go on with their lives as long as they don't ask questions (good example: Chile under Pinochet or Iran under the Sah). These countries became failed states with headchopping madman ruling the population. The people became refugees or dead. The conclusion is that simply obeying every USA demand and accepting a puppet regime doesn't save the people. This makes the regime decide "if we are screwed anyway, let's screw them back" and make any coup impossible as coupists can't hope for saving the people even if they succeed in deposing Kim.
  • Because the strongest country after a nuclear exchange would be China, NORKs only friend. Not only the USA would lose millions of people, factories, offices, but the rest of the World would hate them for 100M dead (they can't hate NORK as they would be dead). Full scale embargo from everyone is quite possible. In this situation the world economy would center around China. This perspective gives Kim a "revenge from the grave" good feel: even if he knows that he and everyone he knows will die if he keeps on course, he can be sure that he changed the course of mankind, brought down a superpower and the future will be Chinese. He can easily see himself as Leonidas and NORK as the 300, sacrificing themselves for the greater good, striking a crippling blow into Persia-US. Remember, he is 33 and an egomaniac.
  • Finally: the USA didn't attack Russia or China no matter how bad the relations were, providing the conclusion that you can deter the USA with nukes (actually he can't but he can believe so).
OK, so we can agree that NORK will continue to build nukes and ICBMs. But why can't the USA just live with it, like they live with the Russian or Chinese nukes? Not like NORK would ever initiate an attack on the USA (unless believing that US attack is imminent):
  • Because Kim Jong Un is a 33 years old living god. Having an unhinged manchild being able to massacre Americans and allies at will is not acceptable to any reasonable man. He is no Brezhnev or Khrushchev with a vile but logical politbureau behind them. He can wake up one day and order a first strike for no good reason and his minions will obey without question. Every day he is not stopped he grows stronger, building more and better nukes and transport devices.
  • Because if he gets away with it, soon everyone else will have nukes. Both because they build it or because they buy it from Kim. This means that it's only matter of time before a terrorist puts his hands on a nuke.
  • Because it would be the end of "USA the superpower". If tiny NORK can effectively deter the USA than anyone can. The USA would be "just another rich country" with no more power or influence than France. This is not acceptable to the current US political class and even to a significant part of citizenry who believe in the "American Exceptionalism" (which is honestly not less crazy than "Kim the living god").
  • Because in the USA the military is worshiped. To assume that the US military isn't capable of anything, that they won't stop every NORK missile is closer to heresy than treason. The military reality is that NORK is surely able to kill tens of millions of South Koreans and Japanese along with about 100K Americans living there. They are most likely able to nuke and destroy with all hands at least one carrier battlegroup that goes 500km closer to NORK (which is needed to launch fighters). They can surely fire a few ICBMs to the US mainland or Hawaii or Alaska with decent possibility that the warheads survive reentry and the US missile defense fails (as it did more often than not during pre-planned tests). It is possible that Kim can pull a crazy stunt like sending a suicide submarine around the Globe to explode at the piers in New York or something. But even mentioning these facts is unacceptable in the USA, leading to people reassuring each other that "no matter what that madman does, the military will protect us". So the US decision makers will underestimate the costs.
  • Because NORK is underestimated. Just weeks ago people were laughing about NORK missiles exploding. My best guess is that they are getting help, most likely from Russia, because a nuclear exchange with NORK will strongly weaken the USA with no cost to Russia. It's possible that Kim has modern Russian ICBMs that can easily hit any USA city. This has no risk for Putin as Kim will surely not admit that he didn't do it all by himself and no allegations can be proved after the fact. Allegations before the war can't be proved either (if satellites see Russian launch vehicle, Putin can say it's a NORK copy that just looks as a launch vehicle but can't launch. Which can easily be true, Kim paraded lots of fake launch vehicles). Finally, even if the USA believes that Russia gave ICBMs to NORK, they must deny it, since claiming it would force them to initiate the end of mankind.
  • Because the USA is a democracy. This is weird, but a big problem here. Any politician trying to find a diplomatic solution can easily be labeled a traitor or a coward and replaced with a saber-ratter. Look what Susan Rice got for being reasonable first time in her life. Trump surely remembers that after he bombed Syria, he was presidential for a whole week, while for his normally Nobel Peace Prize worthy attempt to treat Russia as a partner instead of an enemy almost got him impeached.

How will the war start?
  • There is a possibility that the USA attempts a surprised "limited strike" due to overestimating its military which fails to take out the whole NORK arsenal, therefore gets nuclear retaliation.
  • The USA openly announces a limited strike declaring that they only take out the nuclear forces but have no intention to regime change, expecting Kim to just eat it like Assad. (he won't)
  • The USA starts to build up a huge conventional force in the region, either to attack or to serve as a deterrent. Either way, Kim concludes that it's a preparation for attack and choose to strike first while his forces are intact.
  • There is a communication outage due to Solar storm or major malfunction in NORK, some general interprets it as the USA is attacking and jamming communication and orders his troops to fire.
  • Some random soldier shoots over the border because he is drunk or gone mad or by accident. Someone shoots back. Then everyone starts shooting.
  • The economic sanctions actually work and Kim gets the report that "NORK will collapse in 10 days" to which he answers: prepare the army, we attack the USA in 9 days.
  • A coup or assassination attempt goes wrong and Kim gets pissed.

Anyway, this can't end any other way than about 100M people dead without a game changer. Now imagine that the USA could convince NORK that they won't attack if NORK gives up its nuclear weapons. Everyone would be happy and alive! Except they can't because of Iraq and Libya. How could they fix this? The answer is surprisingly simple: call them what they were, crimes against humanity and act accordingly. Ergo, declare that "the USA" didn't perform unprovoked aggression against two non-threatening, nuke-less countries, but a handful of evil criminals did. No one sane would claim that "the Germans will invade Europe again and gas the Jews", despite they did, because everyone knows that Hitler is a hated criminal among Germans.

Make no mistake, these were crimes against humanity. Making up nukes to invade a country is no better than dressing your troops as Polish and attack your own radio station. Attacking a country for no declared reasons is unprecedented in the modern history. If the perpetrators wouldn't be in the strongest country in the World, they would already serve their life sentence in Hague. Which is exactly what Trump should do. Declare the Iraq and Libya aggression crime against humanity and treason (they lied to the decision makers about the nukes to force a policy change) and imprison everyone involved, between 100 and 1000 people. Execute the two main perpetrators, Dick Cheney former VP and Hillary Clinton former SecState for being heads of conspiracies for crimes against humanity.

Then he can tell Kim "If you give up your nukes, you'll be safe, anyone who plots an aggression against you will hang next to these two" with credit. Kim could give up the nukes while declaring victory "I forced the US to stop being evil" (with some merit, Cheney and Clinton are evil).

The best part: since trials are on the court system, the congress can't mess with the process.

Friday, August 11, 2017

How could I miss liberals among my commenters?!

I write this blog for a decade. I mostly write about games. I often write about their real world connection, how Arthasdklol's name and chat is connected to his horrible DPS. I sometimes write purely political posts. Yet it took me with complete surprise that Azuriel, one of my long time commenters is arguing for affirmative action. When I wrote about it, others came out.

How could I not anticipate this? Honestly, I always looked the liberals as fat, loud, purple hair crazies, gender study major hipster boys and crooked politicians and was absolutely sure that I've never personally met any of them. Considering that half of the USA voted for Hillary Clinton, it should have been obvious that half of the US-based commenters of a gaming blog are Hillary voters.

To explain, let me start with what "leftism" means in Europe. In short, it means Bernie Sanders. Longer: it means social-democracy, the idea that the successful and productive people should give welfare to the unsuccessful. I disagree with this idea, but I never considered these people "bad". Their politics can be presented with a simple example "the only way for an alcoholist homeless to become productive person is giving him free health care, education and housing until he recovers and learns skills". I find it wrong and believe that he'll just waste the welfare and remains alcoholist homeless. But I can't deny that:
  • The statement is factually true, not giving him welfare guarantees that he won't get any more useful.
  • There is a chance that he turns out to be a working person, there are actual examples, no matter how rare they are.
  • The idea is based on human nature, compassion for the unfortunate. While I fight these pre-historic subroutines, it would be crazy to deny their existence.
  • Their ultimate goal is to make the alcoholist homeless into a productive person, which is a worthy and good goal.
So I see the social-democrat a naive, overly social, uninformed good person. I know many and argue with them all the time. I expected the US Dem voters to be people like that, who voted for Hillary simply because she was seen the lesser evil.

Liberals on the other hand say that the alcoholist homeless has nothing wrong with him, his state is my fault, I made him an alcoholist homeless with my toxic masculinity and oppressive whiteness and I must atone to these crimes by respecting his rights to housing and nutrition and health care without conditions. They love Hillary for the things she say and voted for her in the primaries against Bernie.

This is crazy. It doesn't compute for me, how can any reasonable person believe this nonsense. Which left me with the belief is that anyone preaching it is either a liar who just say it to get elected (Hillary) or a total lunatic (the purple hair, fat feminist with a penis). I simply can't understand how can anyone remotely reasonable call races and genders oppressors after the Holocaust (which was based on the bizarre idea that the Jewish race is oppressing the German race). Since my commenters look reasonable people, I came to the conclusion that none of my commenters are liberals.

So if you are a reader who believes in affirmative action and not a purple hair fat feminist with a penis, (nor a crooked politician) please try to explain how this will lead to a better World?

PS: I don't deny that some people are racist and misogynists. But they are individuals with their individual, identifiable offenses and not speaking for their skin color or genitals. Their obvious counter is meritocracy: their organizations will fail in competition against those that welcome hard-working women or black people. There is a reason why no top company is ran by Ku Klux Klan members: rednecks wearing ghost costumes aren't particularly good at innovation.