ConservativeNerds
Politics • Science & Tech • Culture
A place for Conservative Nerds to gather together.  Work in the Tech industry?  Computer, comic, or video game nerd?  Tired of not being able to be yourself and express your Conservative ideas?  This is the place for you.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
Vaccine Passport company, “The Linux Foundation”, requires using their Vaccine Passport system for all Open Source events

I posted this over on Lunduke.Locals too. But figured the discussion might be a bit different over here. ;)

https://www.lunduke.com/2021/06/vaccine-passport-company-the-linux-foundation-requires-using-their-vaccine-passport-system-for-all-open-source-events/

post photo preview
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Should "Real World" laws apply to Cyberspace?

Many privacy-focused organizations -- including EFF and Startpage -- appear to be saying... no. Their stance appears to be that the desire to be 100% anonymous online is more important any need to enforce real world laws.

00:28:02
When did people stop believing the villains?

Hamas. ISIS. Antifa.
They announce evil. They do evil. They brag about evil.
... then stupid people blame someone else.

00:13:52
On the growing vilification of Jews

Candace Owens, "Christ is King", & Blaming Jews for... everything.

00:33:42
September 11, 2023
"The Ben Heckendorn Interview" - Conservative Nerds Podcast - Sep 11, 2023

Today I had the chance to talk with one of the coolest nerds on this green Earth of ours: Ben Heckendorn (aka the "Ben Heck" part of "The Ben Heck Show" ).

We've watched Ben turn XBox's, Atari 800's, and Apple IIgs's into handhelds and laptops. We've seen him build amazing Pinball machines. This nerd is legit.

But today we're talking to Ben almost entirely about political stuff -- he is one of the rare nerd voices that have been actively speaking out against some of the craziness in the world (such as Covid insanity).

Ben's website: https://www.benheck.com/

"The Ben Heckendorn Interview" - Conservative Nerds Podcast - Sep 11, 2023
Where can Conservative voices publish without censorship?

The Lunduke Journal of Conservative Nerdiness Podcast - April 27, 2023

The Big Tech platforms (like Twitter and YouTube) have a long, well documented history of silencing Conservative ideas and Conservative people. So where, in 2023, can a Conservative writer, podcaster, or video producer publish their ideas without fear of constant censorship… and while still reaching a sizable audience?

Rumble? Locals? Substack? Twitter? I have some thoughts.

Where can Conservative voices publish without censorship?
The logical contradictions of the Trans concept

The Lunduke Journal of Conservative Nerdiness - April 18, 2023

There are some pretty significant logical problems with the Transgender concept… movement… religion… whatever you’d like to call it. Logical problems — and extreme contradictions — in both the idea itself and the way it is being advocated for.

I’d like to spend a few moments calling out just a few of those logic problems and contradictions.

The logical contradictions of the Trans concept
post photo preview
4 hours ago

Bank of America, is it?

post photo preview

Two Soviet jokes, from the Khrushchev era:

Stalin is in the middle of one of his Obama-length speeches, when a sneeze erupts. "All right," Stalin barks, "who sneezed?" Dead quiet. "Guards, shoot the front row!" B-R-R-R-R-R-A-P! go the burp guns. "Who sneezed?!" Stalin demands again. A timid voice in the nosebleed section pipes up, "Forgive me, Comrade Stalin, O Father of Our Motherland," squeaks the terrified voice, "but it was I who sneezed!" Stalin ponts at him and says, "Bless you!"

After another of Stalin's interminable stem-winder speeches, he unexpectedly says, "Any questions?" After a minute or so of silence, one delegate rises and says, "Comrade Secretary, I have four questions: What happened to our petroleum, wine, and meat, and what happened to the comrade who asked the first three questions some time ago?"

post photo preview
43% of Left-wing nerds support the ban of opposing political ideas
New poll shows nearly half of Left-wing IT professionals favor heavy censorship of social media and all online publishing.

Censorship of online discourse is a major point of disagreement between the political Left and Right.

Tech organizations perceived as "Politically Left-leaning", tend to support the banning of ideas from Online publishing platforms (Social Media, YouTube, Forums, etc.) -- Mozilla's infamous declaration of "we need more than deplatforming" being one such example.

On the flipside, most moves towards less censorship are regarded as being "Politically Right-leaning" -- a great example being Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter, and subsequent loosening of some censorship rules on the X / Twitter platform.

But -- among those in the Tech Industry -- what are the true numbers of those who support the censorship of ideas?

What percentage of those on the Left, Center, and Right (politically) actually support the complete banning of certain ideas from online publishing?

The Lunduke Journal asked 7,200 people in the Tech Industry for their opinions on the topic.  These respondents represented a wide range of technical, political, and demographic backgrounds.

Here are the results.

What percentage of those, from each political leaning, supported the banning of at least one idea from online publishing.

43.8% of all Tech Industry respondents, who identified as "Left-Leaning" politically, said they supported the total banning of at least one idea from all online publishing platforms.

Compare that with 19.5% for political "Centrists" and 8.2% for those who said they were "Right-Leaning".

The exact question, asked in the survey, is as follows:

"Which of the following ideas should be censored or banned from Social Media, Community Forums, YouTube, or other public publishing platforms?

 

Note: Not ideas which you agree or disagree with.  Only those which should not be allowed.

 

Check all ideas which should not be allowed on public platforms."

The 6 following options were presented:

  • The 2020 election was stolen from Trump.
  • The 2016 election was stolen from Clinton.
  • The COVID vaccines are potentially dangerous.
  • Climate Change is not a real threat.
  • There are only two genders (male and female).
  • January 6th was a dangerous insurrection.

Six ideas, from different ends of the political spectrum (and touching on different types of topics).

Here is the breakdown, by political leaning, for each idea:

That's a lot of blue.

The numbers speak for themselves, but a few quick takeaways:

  1. There appears to be no topic where a majority (over 50%), of any political leaning, supports full censorship.
  2. Just the same, a significant percentage (between 18% and 33%) of Left-leaning people advocated for a full banning of specific ideas and topics which disagreed with their core political messaging.
  3. Nearly half of all Left-Leaning people (43.8%) support the total banning of at least one concept from being discussed online.
  4. When the ideas agreed with Left-leaning political messaging -- such as "2016 election stolen from Clinton" or "Jan 6th was an insurrection" -- Left-leaning support for censorship dropped significantly (down as far as 3.3%).
  5. Right-leaning support for idea banning stayed very low (3% or lower) and consistent, regardless of the idea (including Left-wing political messaging).

In other words...

When an idea contradicts Left-wing talking points or values... a significant percentage of Leftists believe it should not be allowed to be discussed online.  By anyone.  It becomes a forbidden concept entirely.

People on the Right, by and large, do not wish to restrict the ideas of anyone.  Even when those ideas are ones which contradict Right-leaning talking points or values.


About The Great Tech Industry Demographics Survey

This report is derived from data obtained between February 22nd and March 10th of 2024, as part of the Great Tech Industry Demographics Survey.  During this survey, 7,200 respondents (a sample size many times larger than used by most polling agencies in national elections) answered 46 questions on a wide variety of technical, political, personal, and IT work-place related topics.

The survey was distributed by a wide range of writers, podcasters, YouTubers, & tech enthusiasts -- representing a variety of computing preferences (Windows vs Mac vs Linux, etc.) and political leanings.

The full, anonymous data will be released -- to allow for additional public analysis -- following a round of initial reporting by The Lunduke Journal.


If you are not already a subscriber to Conservative Nerds (part of The Lunduke Journal), now's a great time.  At the very least, get yourself a free subscription so you don't miss out.

Find more information (including RSS Podcast feeds, links to some of the big shows, how to become a whistleblower, how to gain access to other parts of The Lunduke Journal, and more) at the Lunduke Journal Link Central page.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Do politics influence Web Browser choice? Yes. In a big way.
Are you a nerd on the Political Left or Right? Good odds we can guess what Browser you use.

Is there any relationship between a person's poltics... and the Web Browser they choose to use?

It turns out... yes.  And, according to a new survey, it is a rather big one (at least among Computer Nerds).

  • People who lean Left, prefer Firefox.
  • People who lean Right, prefer Brave.

Many may have guessed this would be the case... and now we have hard numbers to prove it.

Here is the breakdown, per Web Browser.

Surprising how low Chrome and Safari are in the survey, for all political leanings.

It's important to note that this data comes from a survey of 7,200 IT Professionals and Computer Nerds -- with respondants from a wide range of technical and political communities (more details on that survey below).  As such, while it provides a detailed look at the "Tech" world, it does not represent the broader populace (read: non-Nerds).

While there may be similar correlations in the general populace -- outside of the Tech world -- that is beyond the scope of this particular survey.

Let's dial in on just the top two Browsers -- Firefox and Brave -- for a moment.

The Big Two Browsers.

A few obvious observations:

  • Left-Leaning people overwhelmingly gravitate towards Firefox.
  • Right-Leaning people tend to be more spread out in their web browser usage (using more of the minor browsers than Leftists -- Safari, Vivaldi, Edge, and Opera).
  • Just the same, Right-Leaning people appear to prefer Brave more than Firefox by a significant margin.
  • Centrists appear somewhat split between the Right and Left.

Here's a different view on that same data, which showcases -- for lack of a better word -- the lack of... diversity... in Web Browser preference among Leftists.

Right-Leaning People are significantly more diverse... Web Browser wise.

At first glance, this data makes a fair amount of sense.

Over the last few years, Mozilla (the parent company behind Firefox) has made a habbit of courting Left-leaning users -- and pushing away those on the political Right.  Investments in Leftist causes, statements advocating for censorship of Conservatives, and the ouster of Brendan Eich as their CEO (for supporting a Right-wing political cause) have caused many Right-leaning people to look elswehere for their Web Browsing needs.

At the same time, many on the Right appear to have gravitated towards Brave as their new Browser... which was founded by Brendan Eich after his forced departure from Mozilla.

It may seem peculiar that the selection of a core piece of software has a direct -- and easily observable -- correlation to political leanings... but that is exactly what we have here.


About The Great Tech Industry Demographics Survey

This report is derived from data obtained between February 22nd and March 10th of 2024, as part of the Great Tech Industry Demographics Survey.  During this survey, 7,200 respondents (a sample size many times larger than used by most polling agencies in national elections) answered 46 questions on a wide variety of technical, political, personal, and IT work-place related topics.

The survey was distributed by a wide range of writers, podcasters, YouTubers, & tech enthusiasts -- representing a variety of computing preferences (Windows vs Mac vs Linux, etc.) and political leanings.

The full, anonymous data will be released -- to allow for additional public analysis -- following a round of initial reporting by The Lunduke Journal.


 

 

If you are not already a subscriber to Conservative Nerds (part of The Lunduke Journal), now's a great time.  At the very least, get yourself a free subscription so you don't miss out.

Find more information (including RSS Podcast feeds, links to some of the big shows, how to become a whistleblower, how to gain access to other parts of The Lunduke Journal, and more) at the Lunduke Journal Link Central page.

Read full Article
January 23, 2024
post photo preview
Microsoft executives encourage employees to commit felonies... and then they get promoted.
(Including Hate Crimes, and criminal sexualization & sterilization of minors)

Last week we learned some incredibly troubling things about Microsoft

Namely that the Redmond software giant:

  1. Encouraged employees to "transition" their children -- as young as 3 years old -- to different genders.
  2. Implemented a non-optional health plan which specifically covers "gender affirming care" for small children.
  3. Supports removing "age restrictions for gender-affirming treatments for children under 18".

Let's put aside -- just for a moment -- any personal opinions we may have about the idea of "gender transitioning for toddlers".  Because, regardless of our own feelings on the topic... it remains, in the United States, illegal.

In fact, 22 states have passed laws which reinforce the fact that "gender transitioning" of minors is a crime.

Which brings us to a question worth pondering:  How could Microsoft -- a company with a quarter of a million employees (across all 50 states) -- actively encourage blatant, criminal activity?

Any functional Human Resources department would put a stop to that.  The same goes for executives, board members, or internal legal teams.  Any company advocating for their employees to commit crimes (regardless of our personal opinions on said crimes) is heading for disaster.

That is, quite simply, obvious.

So how on Earth is this happening?  Is no manager, executive, board member, or part of the HR team objecting to this?  Is the Microsoft management team really pushing for criminal activity?

Well buckle up, buttercup.  Because it turns out that at least one Microsoft executive has been publicly advocating for people to commit crimes (in general) for years.

And the Microsoft HR team has not only allowed it... but promoted him.

The VP who calls for criminal activity

Over the years, Microsoft Vice President Scott Hanselman has publicly encouraged people (including Microsoft employees) to commit crimes in the name of "Diversity".

Which is an incredibly vague thing to say.  "What crimes, exactly?  Just crimes... in general?!"

Yes.  In general.  Just any... "Crimes".  Seriously.  It's strange, I know.

Case in point, back in 2018, this Microsoft VP (then an upper level manager) gave a keynote presentation where he encouraged people to commit criminal activity -- specifically against white people and men.

During that keynote, Hanselman made the point that it is not enough to be an "ally"... that one must be willing to be an "accomplice".  Saying, specifically, "Accomplices will go to jail with you."

Just to be sure there was no confusion about what he was encouraging -- he created a slide which read, "To create an inclusive tech environment we need accomplices more than allies."

Source: Twitter

I happened to be in the audience on that particular day -- where Hanselman repeated, multiple times, the need for people to be ready to "go to jail", to be an "accomplice", and to "commit crimes"... against white males, specifically.

No ambiguity.  Not a joke.  A serious request for Microsoft employees (and other tech tech workers in attendance) to commit crimes against people based on ethnicity and gender.

Just so we're all on the same page, here's the definition of "accomplice":

Accomplice. Noun.

 

A person who knowingly helps another in a crime or wrongdoing, often as a subordinate.

 

Example: “an accomplice in the murder”

This singular keynote -- where Hanselman was representing Microsoft -- was not an anomaly.  This is a message that Hanselman has pushed for years.  Including on Microsoft corporate podcasts, where he said the following:

"And even that term ally is loaded.  I think of it more as like, Advocate.  Or maybe when appropriate, accomplice.  You know what I mean?  How far are you willing to take this?  You know what I mean?"

Be an "accomplice."  "How far are you willing to take this."  "Crime."  "Willing to go to jail."

Vague, to be sure.  But encouraging employees to commit crimes -- even vague crimes -- is something which HR departments (and executives) tend to frown upon.  Especially when it is done so in a publicly visible way.

So how did the executive team and HR department at Microsoft respond to these calls for criminal activity (towards individuals based entirely on race and gender... which veers into "Hate Crime" territory)?

They rewarded him with a promotion.  They made him a Vice President.

What does this tell us?

While this is merely one example of a Microsoft executive... there is quite a lot we can learn from this (when combined with previous revelations) regarding what is going on within the company:

  1. The Human Resources department within Microsoft either actively supports (at least some instances of) encouraging criminal activity... or they are unable (or unwilling) to stop them.
  2. The executive team at Microsoft must, at least in part, support the idea of employees committing criminal acts.
  3. As of this moment, Microsoft executives and management have actively encouraged Microsoft employees to commit:
    1. "Hate crimes" against White people or men.
    2. Criminal "Gender Affirming Care" of minors (as young as 3 years old).

These are extreme actions, on the part of Microsoft.  A pattern of encouraging employees to commit felonies (an act which, itself, is criminal).  All well documented and irrefutable.

What's more, this provides a glimpse of the upper management organization within Microsoft: including their priorities... and determination push certain causes (including "Diversity" and sex changes for toddlers).

In the words of one Microsoft Vice President, "How far are you willing to take this?  You know what I mean?"

The Lunduke Journal has repeatedly reached out to representatives of Microsoft for comment.

To date, no response has been given.

If Microsoft responds, The Lunduke Journal will publish that response in full.


The Lunduke Journal will continue publishing material -- including additional leaks from whistleblowers -- exposing the actions of Microsoft (and other Big Tech firms).  We are far from done.

If you work for Microsoft (or another Tech firm), and have inside information that you feel should be shared with the public, here are instructions on how to anonymously become a whistleblower. The Lunduke Journal will always keep your identity confidential.

Thank you to the whistleblowers who have come forward so far -- and thank you to the supporters of The Lunduke Journal for making this work possible.

Interested in other recent Big Tech leaks?  Check out The Lunduke Journal's exclusive leaks from within Red Hat and IBM.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals