Two

Two is a natural counting number, and is placed between the numbers one and three on a directly-incrementing number line composed solely of successive integers.

Two is the lowest-value prime number; it is the first in the sequence of natural numbers that cannot be divided by a natural number to achieve a quotient that is also a natural number.

An integer is considered to be “even” if the quotient of dividing it by two would be an integer. Two is the only even prime number.

Two holds the third position on the Fibonacci Sequence, the previous two positions on the sequence being two occurrences of the number one.

It is also the number achieved when adding the multiplicative identity number, one, to itself.

In algebra, an exponent of two is used when a term consisting of a combination of variables and constants is to be multiplied by itself. This is of practical application when finding the area of a square when the value of the length and width are determined to be equal.

In trigonometry, the square root of two is the length of the hypotenuse when the opposite and adjacent lengths of a right triangle are both equal to one.

Interestingly, two is the only non-zero number where the sum of adding it to itself is the same as the product of multiplying it by itself.

Two is the base number of the binary numbering system, wherein each significant digit has two possible values (zero and one), which is of foundational importance in computer science, where the smallest element of data storage has two permutations, a high state (represented by a 1), and a low state (represented by a 0). Machine code uses the base-2 number system, whereas the base-8 (octal) and base-16 (hexadecimal) number systems are used as shorthand ways to represent binary numbers. The base numbers of these number systems are powers of two.

Remember: 2 + 2 = 4

What’s it take to find some smiles during a pandemic?

0616A6DD-A392-4E11-B467-06B6CF3F836B
Have you found yourself wondering what it takes to find some smiles during a pandemic? Notice how the guy in the middle is the only one smiling? Maybe he has the answer.

”Paid for with Pennsylvania taxpayer dollars.”

If this is the kind of thing that Pennsylvania is doing with taxpayer dollars, they can make Pennsylvanians smile by giving them their money back.

Trending in Japan: English Strip Lampooning Intersectionalism

EevyDjfXkAABPY-.png

Above is the first episode of a series of comics in which a stand-in for intersectionalism joins a complex table-top game (possibly Dungeons and Dragons). Currently, the series is up to four installments. As the series progresses, the blue-haired woman imposes more and more demands on the other players, and (as a commenter points out) the art style gets more chaotic as the situation gets progressively tense.

You can read the comic on Twitter. The artist is GPrime85.

One of the readers offered to translate the episodes to the Japanese language, and the artist granted him permission. Then something interesting happened: the comic started trending in Japan.

Intersectionality has had a few brushes with Japanese media, wherein intersectionalists have made demands of anime and manga to bring the forms of expression more in line with the sensibilities of the most sensitive people the western world has to offer (the intersectionalists themselves). Japanese content creators have responded with various flavors of rejection, including scorn and even ridicule. Intersectionalists didn’t take this well. But then, they aren’t known to accept any response that isn’t immediate unconditional compliance with profuse grovelling.

Obviously, Japanese culture is not the same as western culture. As I’ve pointed out before, the Japanese consume media with more mature themes because the Japanese are generally more mature as people. The Japanese are great at distinguishing fantasy from reality, and aren’t obsessed with the idea that entertainment media must teach ideals. They know that things like cartoons and comics are just made-up stuff, and that what fictional characters do might not actually work in real life.

Even though the Japanese have media that doesn’t suit intersectional tastes, the Japanese are still a well-behaved people. Japan remains among the most civil societies, and is among the safest to live in. That’s something for intersectionalists to think about as they attempt to justify their efforts.

Conversely, intersectionality in the U.S. has resulted in long riots that have had the effect of making cities more dangerous, what with all the violence and destruction. Which, I admit, is quite an effective way to demonstrate the effects of your virtues.

civilization doremi

Newspapers Remove Pro-BLM Strip For Being “Offensive”

EeB3VFiXYAAYd8q.png

In an unusual change of pace, left-wingers are on the victim’s end of a free-speech issue. This one is over a supposedly-offensive panel (pictured above) in a pro-BLM, pro-mask comic.

Running in it’s place was an apology over the offending strip:

EeNGWHbXYAEdQwg

Oh wow, they didn’t just censor the panel, they dropped the entire comic. That’s a strong reaction.

So, what was offensive about the panel? Having seen it for myself, it doesn’t seem terribly offensive. There’s multiple layers of humor to be had. For one thing, a woman is pointing out the irony behind a woman wearing a face mask also wearing a shirt that reads, “I can’t breathe”. What’s more, the poor woman wearing the shirt seems taken aback by the ignorance of the woman who didn’t seem to understand the significance of the phrase to the black community.

Of course, it’s apparent that what’s being focused on is the potential for interpretation against the ironic combination of face masks and the “I can’t breathe” slogan. Lately, those on the left have demonstrated themselves as having far thinner skin regarding anything that even has a slight potential for being interpreted as against them, to the point that they’ve called for the censorship of anything that they could determine to be upsetting to them. This has given rise to “cancel culture”, wherein people start digging into the past of content creators to find a pretext for getting them censored, perhaps even costing them their jobs. An early victim was James Gunn, the director of Guardians of the Galaxy.

On the surface, it would seem that cancel culture is driven by the desire to fight injustice. In reality, cancel culture is driven by the desire to destroy. When people are young, they have a lot of restless energy, but usually no direction or outlet for their energy. Therefore, many of them will seek to bring about a change, just to have seen it come about knowing that they were the ones who made it happen. The man who destroyed the temple of Diana did so for no other reason than to be remembered for doing so. Somewhere out there, there’s someone who knows that he was the one who got James Gunn fired, and all he had to do was find an old social media post that could be used to make him look bad.

That’s the kind of cheap sense of empowerment that cancel culture hungers for, as they enable under-employed content consumers to think to themselves, “I can ruin the life of someone more accomplished than myself, and I don’t even have to drag my distended paunch from beneath my Chromebook.”

Intersectional causes are a powerful weapon in the hands of cancel culture, as they take on left-wing causes to try to get content creators canceled, and media companies don’t seem to have the nerve to resist. Seeing that it’s playing into their hands, leftists aren’t doing very much to address cancel culture for the threat that it is, but instead feed into it, believing they stand to benefit from the efforts of armchair activists.

Now that cancel culture is turning on leftists themselves, it’s interesting to see the leftists that previously fed into it complaining on free speech issues. As sad as it may be, they manufactured the conditions of their own plight.

What goes around, comes around.

It’s Actually Happening: Social Media is Now Censoring Medical Professionals

book burning.png

If you’ve been a proponent of free speech, you’ll agree that dark times are currently underway. Social media giants Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have deleted a livestreamed video wherein real doctors tout their successes when treating coronavirus, with one of them boldly proclaiming invariable success in treating patients who were sick with COVID-19. In addition, posts linking to the original video were deleted. According to the social media giants, these claims were classified as misinformation, and were subsequently censored.

Did you guess what medication was discussed? If you guessed hydroxycloroquine, go ahead and treat yourself to an imaginary cookie of satisfaction. The very same medicine that isn’t being given a fair shake just because it’s already been touted by Trump is now getting the doctors that prescribe it censored because their medical advice is not in line with the official stance of the World Health Organization (WHO).

Excuse me? The WHO is not even an American organization, so why are a bunch of American social media companies deferring to it when determining what constitutes sound medical advice, and what position are these same social media companies in to decide that a foreign agency’s official position overrides the advice of a trained and educated medical professional?

And, for that matter, why are they allowing a foreign organization with a suspiciously close relationship with China to determine what constitutes misinformation to be censored?

More important still: why the failure to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with a civilized western society that protects free expression in a free and open marketplace of ideas? The excuse that they are a corporate entity, exempting them from the superordinate governing principles of the progressive societies that surround them on all sides, is a rotten crutch getting ready to splinter.

I get that leftist propaganda media dislikes Trump with a burning passion, but to stem the dissemination of information about a possible treatment that could potentially save the lives of thousands just out of spite is taking it way, way too far. If hydroxycloroquine is actually saving lives and is touted by real doctors, why take any action that might prevent it from getting into the hands of people whose lives may very well depend on it?

If Twitter has any intention of being consistent in their censorship, then they can start censoring CNN:

cnn did an oopsie.png

After all, if doctors can be censored for prescribing a drug that works against the coronavirus, why exempt CNN, who aren’t even doctors, for sharing a story that suggests that the very same drug might actually be effective?

And while we’re at it, CNN also did a story about how masks don’t have any benefit when it comes to the coronavirus. What about that story? Oh, hold on… It was actually the WHO that called masks ineffective, and CNN merely passed the information on. Oops.

But it gets worse. As Anthony Fauci admits, the reason Americans were discouraged from wearing masks in early 2020 was because there was a shortage of masks, and they wanted to be sure healthcare workers had enough. So then, is misinformation on the part of the medical community okay if someone benefits from the misinformation, that is, the medical community? And how does the medical community benefit from censoring its own? And how does the public benefit when what’s censored indicates a treatment that might save perhaps millions of lives?

Considering the WHO’s close relationship with a regime that is actively committing genocide, I doubt they can be trusted with the health of billions around the world.

TWAT News: Socialism Statement at WalMart Backfires

stupid facemasks.pngIt’s like they’re being smothered in stupid.

You likely did Nazi this coming, but a Minnesota couple’s political statement backfired in an amazing way during a trip to Walmart. The couple decided to protest the prospect of a Joe Biden presidency by wearing Swastika face masks.

“I’m not a Nazi. I’m trying to show you what’s going to happen in America. If you vote for Biden, you’re going to be in Nazi Germany. That’s what it’s going to be like.” said the woman in the mask.

tumblr_pda0fyJIil1umixqao1_500

It is possible to be both smart and stupid at the same time. In this case, both people were smart enough to know that Nazism was a form of socialism, but stupid enough that it did not occur to either of them how their stunt could backfire.

Think about that: at any step along the way, from the point of having the idea to seeing it through, it did not occur to either of the two how their anti-Biden statement could backfire. One of them came up with the idea, and the other didn’t immediately shoot it down. From then to the point that they went to the store, either one could have had second thoughts.

But then, after the first person at Walmart questioned them about their masks, upon being made to see reason, at least one of them could have said, “This is stupid.” and at least turn their mask inside-out or something.

But no, they continued to justify their ridiculous statement, as though they still believed it the most brilliant idea in the world, overlooking the fact that we live in a culture pulled about by overly-sensitive imbeciles. One of them even proceeded to taunt anyone who would challenge their statement:

684fc170e3664518b468cb8bc91c4560_xl.png

The two actually managed to get banned from Walmart locations nationwide for a year. Quite an accomplishment, considering Walmart shoppers’ inherent diversity in the spectrum of intellectual luminosity.

That Was Actually The news, but sometimes it takes a long, sustained insistence in a poor choice to make it happen.

Study finds that virtue signalers more likely to have unsavory traits

virtue signaling.png

This can be filed under “no kidding”, but a study from the American Psychological Association has determined that people who virtue signal are more likely to have one the “dark triad” of unsavory traits, which are manipulativeness, narcissism, and psychopathy.

I’ve pointed out before that Democrats have virtue signaled on race issues from a position of guilt, having skeletons in their closets. I suspect that projection may be at play, with them making assumptions that other people have the same flaws. It’s kind of like the awkward male feminist who, as it turns out, has a history of behaving like a creep towards women, or the antisocial at WalMart who views new people as child abuse waiting to happen, but actually has done just that.

But now, as the study points out, virtue signaling is a new vehicle with which those with unsavory traits procure something of value, either material or not, that they’d otherwise have to earn through more merit-based endeavors. So yeah, it’s little more than stuff that people post to social media in an effort to look good.

H40Ffa7noBi2LrUQaayOX9xoG3oMrd9Cj0qY8vgZbCEAv1ss4bJ36G70VE4C8iXwvq42PkB1yEa88jk=s240-nd“Check it out, internet! I nicknamed a bunch of throwaway pokemon to make the world a better place!” -Armchair activists

In light of the George Floyd riots (remember that guy?), virtue signaling has taken on a whole new motive: now it’s a way of telling the world, “I’m on your side, so please don’t loot my business or invade my home!” Or course, the motive isn’t genuine, it’s from a threatened position of self-preservation.

However, we’re now coming to the point that virtue signaling no longer has its intended payoff. An excellent example of virtue signaling backfiring can be seen in the June ratings plunge of ESPN to the lowest point in the network’s 42-year history. How did they bring this about? By turning their programming into racial politics. This might not have been a big deal if the network were CNN, MSNBC, or any other flavor of thinly-veiled leftist propaganda, but there’s something that people expect when they tune in to ESPN.

Sports. People tune into ESPN for sports.

So when people tune in to a sports network and the programming is about some form of activism, people will naturally change the channel and watch something else, thinking something like “Maybe I’ll come back when they get back to sports.”

But there’s something else that virtue signalers such as ESPN didn’t account for: politically-charged content and virtue signaling tend to make people feel uncomfortable. Maybe people wanted to watch sports to get away from the world’s problems, not for another reminder of those problems, which are becoming increasingly trivial to find.

get woke go broke

This is something to keep in mind if you have a podcast or a YouTube channel, or otherwise have a media outlet focused on non-political content, because while you might have been wound up into thinking that activism is something you’re obligated to do by some social justice platitude that was specifically-designed to recruit you, the fact is, your viewership might just go somewhere else for the content that they were looking for.

And you can’t count on them to come back.

virtue signaling homeless.png

As the study points out, people who virtue signal tend to be manipulative and narcissistic. Yet another simple observation made by normal people has been validated by yet more rigorous observation on the part of researchers. It sounds superfluous. But hey, yet another officially-published weapon to use against the forces of stupidity and ignorance.

If you haven’t done anything wrong, do not apologize.
-Jordan Peterson

Genius: Republicans propose bill to abolish political parties with racist histories

snoopy cheer.gif

In a legendary move of ideological checkmate, House Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) decided to ride the recent tide of anti-racism by introducing a resolution that would ban any political party that has historically supported the confederacy or slavery in the U.S.. Getting behind the resolution are GOP Reps Andy Biggs (R-Arizona), Andy Harris (R-Maryland), Jody Hice (R-Georgia), and Randy Weber (R-Texas).

“Wow, what are so many Republicans doing getting behind a bill that would dissolve a political party with a racist history?” you might be asking. And, for that matter, why wouldn’t every single Democrat get right behind it? After all, if the Democrats are anti-slavery and always have been, their votes should be magnetically drawn to any bill that wipes out any party with a history of slavery. Right?

Right?

You may even feel an impetus to look into the history of both the Democrat and Republican parties, and their respective histories with slavery and the confederacy. And you may have even come to some shocking realizations.

red pill

Which was probably one of the things the resolution was designed to do.

“A great portion of the history of the Democratic Party is filled with racism and hatred. Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party’s loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn’t so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan,”
-Rep. Gohmert

Ooh, snap! The sharp end of cancel culture has just been skillfully turned on it’s wielder! If the left can justify changing street names due to the connection of the names to pro-slavery figures in the past, the same justification could be used to change the name of the Democrat party! As for what to call them from here on, you could probably think of some suggestions.

Gohmert gave some solid examples of racism tied directly to Democrats. But you might be wondering, what about Republicans? At the time of the Civil War, the Republican party was freshly-founded by Abraham Lincoln shortly after the collapse of the Whig party. Republicans were a northern party that was strongly opposed to slavery, with black Republican Fredrick Douglass (whose statue was among those recently knocked down) being a key figure in the Underground Railroad, which freed slaves.

If you think Douglass was passionate, you’d get a kick out of Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican congressman who was so anti-slavery, that he wanted to revoke the voting rights of slave owners! He was a driving force behind the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which today are used as foundations for civil rights legislation. Not only that, he pursued the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, a racist president. Johnson’s impeachment failed by only one vote, but reduced the racist president to being a mere figurehead for the remainder of his term. By the way, the racist Andrew Johnson was a Democrat.

While there are some racist people who call themselves Republican today, their racist stances aren’t officially held by the party, and the rest of the Republican party regards them as outliers.

aye laffs.jpg

So, this particular resolution puts Democrats in a pretty bad spot. They are notorious when it comes to virtue signalling on race issues, apparently due to guilt over the skeletons in their closets. Therefore, one might expect them to vote in favor of the resolution. But if they do, they’d be voting for the dissolution of their own party! But if they vote against it, they’d be disappointing their constituency, and would risk losing minority voters, on top of the many voters who would have learned something about them, in light of this resolution.

This is trolling on a scale never before seen. If Rep. Louie Gohmert were one of the bad guys, he’d be an Avengers-level threat.

What Is Happen? (26 Jul 2020)

cirno bsodBooting up again in Safe Mode. Administration of strawberry ice cream is recommended.

There have been so many black-pill category events last week that if each of those pills were to be emptied into a glass, you could use the liquid to make a black-pill cocktail. But that’s one drink that’s not going to cheer you up, unless genocide is your cup of tea.

Think I’m kidding? Read on.

You already have access to the news stories, so rather than explain them to you as though I’m someone from whom people would prefer to hear about them first, I think it more expedient to link to the stories, then afterward offer my opinion.

I know that I’m not going to come off as cheerful as usual in this installment of What is Happen?, but that’s to be expected when literal genocide is among the topics.

A lawyer dressed as a FedEx driver showed up at a judge’s home and killed her son. What makes this especially interesting is that this murder occurred just days after the same judge was assigned to a case related to Jeffery Epstein. So, as you could imagine, the conspiracy theorists proceeded to do just what you might imagine they would.

To tell the truth, I didn’t actually follow the Jeffery Epstein case when it was huge news a while back, so this story had the effect of me taking notice, and I decided to start looking into it. If the purpose of this assassination were part of an unsavory effort to keep things quiet, it could be said that that effort backfired.

Epstein was a seriously wealthy individual, and from the sound of it, he may have very well been history’s most satisfied pedophile. He also had a thing for using his wealth to get close to highly influential people, including Bill Clinton and Donald Trump (though, by all accounts, those two in particular seemed well-behaved in his presence). There therefore came to be conspiracy theories that allege that perhaps Epstein had some dirt on some important people. After being convicted, Jeffery Epstein apparently “lost the battle” in his jail cell, though there is strong doubt that he did so without assistance.

So here we are. A judge was assigned a case related to Jeffery Epstein, and days later, a man shows up at her residence and kills her son. But that’s not all, shortly afterwards, the suspected killer was found, having made the spot where he was found his personal Mount Gilboa. If this were a hit as part of a grander conspiracy, that sounds suspiciously like “tying up loose ends”.

Carrying on with the theme of wacko people knowing where notable people live, Tucker Carlson has warned that the New York Times intended to reveal the location of his family’s home. During his show, Carlson warned that the New York Times wanted to publish information about where he lives in an effort to inflict pain on him, saying they are doing so because they hate his politics, and want his show off the air.

The NY Times answered on Twitter, saying that “@nytimes does not plan to publish Tucker Carlson’s residence”. Which actually sounds more specific than the broader “where my family and I live” that Carlson was initially concerned about.

The fact that this concern came up just days after a judge’s son was killed at her home shortly after being assigned a case related to Jeffery Epstein is understandable, as this represents an escalation in the trend of “doxxing”, which involves getting back at certain people by publishing their personal information such as their home address. What’s more, Carlson has seen demonstrators show up at his house before.

Could it be that legacy media is getting in on the doxxing party in an effort to intimidate those with a non-establishment viewpoint? One motivation for doing so is that Carlson has an enormously popular program, with ratings that have soared to the point of becoming the highest-rated program in cable news history. Carlson has what the ideologues at left-wing outlets like CNN and MSNBC wish they had, which is an enormous viewership. So, we’ve established a means and a motive.

But if left-wing news outlets want viewers so badly, why don’t they start expressing viewpoints consistent with the values that people actually have?

Think that’s dark? We’re now onto the really dark stuff.

I think we can all agree that Nazis were bad, and that Hitler was bad. So was the genocide associated with them, with killings numbering so high, that efforts to tally them have had margins of error numbering in the millions.

Something similar can be said about Josef Stalin, who killed tens of millions of people, apparently more than Hitler did. As bad as Hitler was, in terms of number-of-humans-killed, Stalin was even worse news.

But then there’s Mao Zedong, who killed so many people, efforts to count them have failed. But the death toll of the Mao administration may have surpassed Stalin himself.

So, communism and socialism have this thing for intentionally murdering people in enormous numbers. But one would think that we live in a more civilized world, and that places like China have become more forward-thinking, right?

See for yourself:

What did you just watch? It’s drone footage of Uyghur Muslims in China being detained and led away. But to what?

Apparently, they are being led away to internment camps, where they can be reeducated to be better Chinese citizens. In the case of females, they face a high likelihood of birth control, or perhaps forced sterilization. The act of suppression of birth makes China’s actions, if true, fall under the definition of genocide.

China’s ambassador to the UK was brought on to The Guardian for a very special reaction video in which he is treated to the footage above:

You’re likely infuriated at his attempts at diversion, and that he went on about the beauty of the region. Because the ambassador is a citizen of China, he’s not allowed to talk in such a way that would make China look bad.

One would think we could turn to the U.S. for some form of moral superiority, but seeing as it was just this month that we learned about a civil complaint about American juveniles being forcefully administered estrogen in involuntary experiments, it would seem that America’s ability to act from a moral high ground is in question.

And if it turns out that various “TIs” are right about psychotronic experiments, then we might be in for some days that somehow manage to be darker than the ones we already have.

The ideal government protects the people. A debased government is something to protect the people from.

Wrong, Pelosi. The U.S. is a republic.

1CA6BD63-541A-4B1A-BA6A-97E5936C4708

While some would make the case that those in government should not use social media for fear that it would make them look silly, I think it’s great. The very nature of the internet as a free and open marketplace of ideas is expedient to the discovery of those who don’t know what they’re talking about. Twitter is just one outlet that enables people to open their mouths and indicate a deficit of much-needed enlightenment.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, in a gaping gaffe, declared the U.S. “a democracy, not a banana republic”, as expressed in the following tweet:

“We live in a democracy, not a banana republic. We will not tolerate the use of Americans as props in President Trump’s political games.” -Nancy Pelosi on Twitter

That the U.S. is a democracy is something that they tell elementary school students because there’s not much expectation that they would comprehend the nuance behind how the U.S. is run. It’s easy to see how the mistake is made: democracies involve voting, and Americans vote, so one might assume based on limited information that the U.S. is a democracy. As a sad side-effect in this shortcut in teaching, you have adults who don’t understand the proper classification of the U.S. government.

Because they didn’t learn any better, there are people going around speaking of democracy as though it were virtuous. It actually isn’t. A democracy is mob rule.

The U.S. is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. The constitution was especially intended to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, as expressed by James Madison in The Federalist #10. What’s more, the federal government grants substantial authority to states to govern their own affairs. Very much a republic.

The use of the term “banana republic” is interesting, considering that a banana republic is a small, politically-unstable country whose economy depends primarily upon a single export. That doesn’t sound like the American economy. In fact, the U.S. economy was rockin’ until Dems shut much of it down over a weak virus that mainly only kills people who were already being killed by something else. But I get it, she used the term because bananas sound silly, and because “republic” sounds like Republican, a group that Pelosi seems to take issue with. That the word used to describe the U.S. sounds like something she doesn’t like is a petty reason to mislead anyone as to the true nature of American government, especially for the Speaker of the House, who should understand American government better than most.

But can we really expect better from a leader who makes excuses for violent rioters while getting into Twitter slapfights with the President when he does something to make the situation better?