Category Archives: Gender Politics

Webcomic Review: Momlife Comics

At first, I wasn’t going to comment on these. One-panel comics aren’t usually worth talking about, and these seemed little more than the meanderings of a woman who is bitter about one thing or another. Then these comics blew up, so I was like, “fine, I’ll acknowledge their existence and write up a review.”

For the setting, try to imagine a curious land in which most people don’t have to grow their own food, but meals are already fully prepared and delivered to peoples homes. Not only is rape illegal, there are no roving rape gangs on the prowl in rusty pickup trucks. What’s more, the homes are crisp and cool inside in the summer, and when there’s snow on the ground in the winter, the homes are warm inside, and glowing display screens deliver limitless free entertainment on demand.

But, there’s a catch: human nature remains mostly the same. The human adaptation to conflict that has been cultivated over the course of aeons still remains. Therefore, the people started questioning their idyllic peace and halcyon luxury. Then, grumblings came, acknowledging first world problems as though a prize awaited the cynics: “My coffee is too hot”, “thirty seconds is too long for an initial boot up”, “my delivery was delayed until tomorrow”.

At the center of this maelstrom of abject ingratitude is one housewife and her adversarial relationship with her husband. That’s right, we’re reviewing Momlife Comics.

Momlife Comics was written by Mary Catherine Starr, who gives us the first hint of her politics by listing her pronouns in her bio. Because her pronouns apparently weren’t already evident from the fact that she’s a mom. She also made a BLM statement, so you know that she’s not racist.

Wow, how stunning and brave, considering the current political zeitgeist!

Mary’s IRL husband is aware of the comics, and is okay with them, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he did a Jack Murphy and wrote up an article touting the benefits of cuckolding.

Let’s start this review off with the most famous cartoon in the series so far:

Both are valid uses of the peach, and the one who gets to it first decides what happens to it. But notice that the build-up is the woman thinking about someone other than herself. How dare that man want to eat something that he paid for, from a table he paid for, in a house he also paid for!

Wow! Look how much more work that woman is doing! Patriarchy and such mushuggunah!

The missing context: the woman took all the bags, leaving the man to bring back just one. Was she aware that she could take multiple trips to the car? She’s likely to smoosh something if she tries carrying in that much at once.

Pattern established: Woman imagines some rule, but doesn’t tell man about it. Woman then gets angry at man for breaking the rule he didn’t know about.

Another pattern established: Woman gathers everything to herself, leaving nothing for the man to do. Woman then complains that she does everything.

Mary also does comics where she reverses the gender roles, which is supposed to be clever because she leaves us to determine the irony without beating us over the head with the obviousness of the point that she’s trying to make.

Get it? Because men are generally more career-focused, and women tend to be more family focused? Though it’s hard to say definitively whether Mary intended to throw shade on the fact that men and women are different, and that because of these differences they tend towards different life choices. It might be that she’d prefer a world where they made similar choices, even if that meant less excuse to hear the sound of her own voice, complaining.

I wouldn’t put it past her to complain about the rain as though she’s blaming someone for it.

Mary is such a victim in her own mind that she even sees herself at fault for bringing her own children fast food. Or are her children the only ones in the universe who would complain about fast food? Sure, it’s garbage, but kids don’t know that.

It was my intention to review this webcomic, but I instead feel tempted to psychoanalyze the author, as her comics have given a window into the soul of a troubled woman. It’s obvious that from an impressionable age, someone was able to sell her a victimhood narrative, and this resonated with her life in the hard streets of sheltered suburbia.

Since her webcomic got noticed, she produced this comic in an answer to the trolls:

Along with a notice that she’ll block trolls. Which is a mistake, because it’s a reaction that trolls look for, and they’ll take any that is any indication that they’re getting to someone. And the above comic accomplishes this masterfully.

As far as art quality goes, Mary is evidently of the opinion that if you only do one thing right, you’ve got a comic. In Mary’s case, that one thing is body proportions. Aside from that, everything is wrong. The thick, inconsistent line art, the lack of facial features, everything is just wrong. Maybe Mary can draw better than a toddler. But bring elementary school students into it, and she’s out of her league.

Okay then, let’s grade this pile. Momlife Comics gets a score of 2.6 out of 10.

Gentlemen, I know that the dating game is flawed. But tread carefully. Getting hitched to the wrong woman can be quite taxing.

One of the classic signs of an abusive relationship is joking at the expense of one’s spouse in public. These comics give ample cause for concern.

Johnny Depp Wins Defamation Suit, Amber Heard Wins Partial Victory

It looks like making stuff up about people and attempting to destroy their reputation is still a bad idea. This is the takeaway from the verdict earlier today in the trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, wherein the jury awarded Depp $15 million in damages. Heard also won $2 million in damages, but all things simplified, the victory went to Depp, overall.

The trial came after Amber Heard had written a defamatory op-ed which was published by The Washington Post in 2018. If The Washington Post bemoans that “Democracy Dies in Darkness”, it might behoove them to stop bullshitting if they want anyone to take them seriously. That and change their edgelord tagline. “Democracy Dies in Darkness”? Please.

In Amber Heard’s original article, she claimed to be a victim of domestic abuse. While Depp was not specified in the article itself, the implication was strongly against him, considering that Heard had previously accused Depp of domestic abuse in 2016.

One interesting point about this is that Johnny Depp accused Amber Heard of being abusive towards him. Believe it or not, women are capable of being abusive against men. And in many cases, they get away with it, due to the perception that it’s rarely the case. In the cases where the man succeeds in escaping, the woman often makes claims of abuse against the man, in an attempt to save face and get revenge (putting aside, of course, the inconsistency with the notion that the escaping party was the one that was abusive).

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Amber Heard really was abusive. I don’t know all the facts of the case, but from what I’ve seen in the livestream, Heard had a certain vibe about her that I didn’t like. Usually, the dignity and decorum of a courtroom is humbling. However, Heard had a certain vindictive air about her, easy to see in her body language and facial expressions. She very much looks like the kind of woman I’d want to escape from.

It’s a bit personal, but I was once in a short relationship with an abusive woman. Matters escalated to the point that I had to phone in a friend to help me get out of there. After I had escaped, the woman attempted to slander me to a congregation that I had attended. However, she left that church shortly afterwards, possibly because she had trouble getting anyone to believe her.

If a famous person like Johnny Depp may have been in a relationship with an abusive woman, and I’ve had an experience with one, I wonder whether this is more common among men than we know. If what Depp had to say was true, then it would seem as though fame and success are no guarantee of protection from abusive people.

It’s interesting to see that some more spurious outlets are pointing to Heard’s victory of $2 million as a “Win For Domestic Violence Victims”, as though this somehow eclipses Johnny Depp’s much greater victory. And, as though throwing a vodka bottle at someone, severing their fingertip doesn’t count as domestic violence.

The dubious journalists aside, the verdict is yet another culture war victory. Perhaps news outlets will be more careful about the veracity of the content of their op-eds. But considering that the MSM played up the Russian collusion hoax for years, I wouldn’t get my hopes up.

Study Finds That Testosterone Treatments Turn Democrats More Conservative

It’s not going to surprise a whole lot of people that the chemical that makes men more manly also makes men tend more towards conservatism. But now, we have a study to prove it.

The study, published by Professor Paul Zak of Claremont Graduate University, demonstrates a clear connection between testosterone levels and the political preferences of males. The 136 males participating in the study disclosed their political affiliations, then were either administered a synthetic form of testosterone or a placebo.

In an outcome as surprising as the setting of the sun, the Democrats participating in the study that took testosterone felt less warmly about their own party by 12 percent, but felt more warmly about Republicans by 45 percent.

Democrats happen to be the most compliant people, and compliance in males correlates with a lack of testosterone. I’m stating the obvious, of course. But maybe a study is already underway which will demonstrate the connection.

Come to think of it, it was mainly the Democrats that insisted on shutting down gyms and confining people to their homes during the Coronavirus Apocalypse. An apocalypse that I survived, by the way. And you probably did, too.

The study showed the strongest shift in Democrats that were weakly affiliated, and the effects waned among those with stronger Democrat leanings, and among weakly-affiliated Republicans.

Come to think of it, many of the Democratic policy positions tend to decrease the testosterone of those affected. When men pretend to be women, there isn’t much expectation that those men would have high testosterone. And of course, those men have a home in the Democratic party! When men become obese, their T-levels tend to crater. But they’d still find company among Democrats who tout the “healthy-at-any-weight” bullshit that actually kills people.

Also, consider the fact that Democrats are the ones actively trying to trick young boys into having themselves neutered. Could it be that Democrats are trying to castrate for themselves a set of lifelong loyalists?

Considering the role of the gonads in testosterone production, it would follow that the fastest way to turn a man Democrat is to have him de-balled and de-pricked. And who knows how many professing Democrats have already underwent the process?

A PR Firm Is Reportedly Telling Major Corporations to Play It Safe And Not Take a Political Position

We’ve been saying “Get Woke, Go Broke” for a long time. Now, it seems like “Get Woke, Go Broke” is intensifying, as PR firm Zeno is reportedly advising major corporations not to publicly take a position regarding the Roe v Wade draft leak.

Among Zeno’s clients includes Coca-Cola, Salesforce, Hershey’s, Netflix, and Starbucks.

The following was included in “a template email to share with client contacts”, as it was worded by Zeno’s Executive Vice President for Media Strategy, Katie Cwayna:

Do not take a stance you cannot reverse, especially when the decision is not final. This topic is a textbook “50/50” issue. Subjects that divide the country can sometimes be no-win situations for companies because regardless of what they do they will alienate at least 15 to 30 percent of their stakeholders… Do not assume that all of your employees, customers or investors share your view.

Finally, major corporations are starting to use their heads! They are starting to figure out that if you take a public position on a controversial topic, you risk alienating a significant portion of your customers, resulting in your company becoming less profitable. They’re finally figuring it out!

I like how Cwayna says “Do not take a stance you cannot reverse”, as if to acknowledge that there is a lot of pride on the line. Sure, the implication is that once a company issues a statement, the dominoes begin to fall, and the losses continue from there. But we all know that CEOs are proud, not willing to admit that they made a wrong call. After all, if they admit to making a wrong call, people might lose confidence in them.

By the way, the popular.info article claims that 72% of Americans oppose overturning Roe v Wade, which wouldn’t make it a “50/50” issue. Putting aside for a moment the deceptive framing it takes to arrive at that percentage, it should be known that Supreme Court rulings are not intended to pander to the majority, they’re supposed to consider constitutionality. Remember, one of the intents of the U.S. Constitution is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority!

The email template adds,

Avoid media “fishing.” Often during controversy, media will make general inquiries to multiple peer organizations, in which the first one to “raise its hand” becomes the lead.  In a case like this, being at the center is not advisable so be judicious if/how general inquiries are managed.

Don’t become the first corporation to issue a public statement, if you do so at all. After all, the first one to raise their hand and start speaking has the potential to become the most notorious, and therefore become more likely to be the target of focused boycotts.

Steer clear of breaking news networks/outlets. We anticipate the story will dominate newsfeeds for the rest of the week as more details unfold, so avoid pitching reporters and outlets that focus on breaking news.

What your company shares on social media does matter. Even that much can be construed as taking a position that could end up costing your company money. That may not be what Cwayna expressly stated, but we know it’s true. Closer to the intent of Cwayna’s message, it should be understood that media outlets may pressure a company into taking a position, and that it would be advisable to avoid them.

Do not engage with direct questions about your company’s position. Whether in direct messages or public-facing posts, do not respond to questions about where your company stands on this issue.

Play it safe: Keep your mouth shut. Do not take a position, even if you’re pressured into taking one. The SJW NPCs and the mass media have been pressuring major corporations to take a position, and now Zeno is saying, “don’t cave in”.

After posting their article reporting on this, Popular Information received a response from Zeno’s CEO, Barby Seigel:

The email you reference does not accurately reflect Zeno’s position or the range of counsel that we are providing to clients.

It was meant to advise clients within the first 24 hours of breaking news, and its intent was to counsel clients to be measured in their immediate response to a complex developing story.

We take seriously our responsibility to help clients proactively navigate complex societal issues, consider the actions they may take, and the accompanying communications, internally and externally.

We know and understand that companies are increasingly expected to take a stand on major issues, and we believe it’s right to do so when it is authentic to the organization, and consistent with their values and actions.

At Zeno, we believe in equal access to healthcare for all, and a woman’s right to make decisions about her healthcare. At the same time, we live in a world with different opinions and different views, and we respect those differences.

This response was written tactfully, in a manner consistent with the company’s advice, but at the same time, providing just enough apparent virtue-signaling to keep the SJWs off of them. Particularly, it’s a response to Popular Information’s stance that their advice “contrasts with Zeno’s public facing communications, which emphasize the importance of standing up for women’s rights.”

On Twitter, Zeno Group claimed that they are “proud to support #InternationalWomensDay.”

It was a low-risk, low-cost virtue signal, as all but a fringe minority of western society is for women’s rights, and the idea of “support” has been reduced to a mere sentiment with no cost. You can say you “support” something like cancer research by sharing links on Twitter, but that’s not the same as supporting cancer research with substantial grants to cancer researchers.

There is one part of the CEO’s reply that I’d like to zero in on:

We know and understand that companies are increasingly expected to take a stand on major issues, and we believe it’s right to do so when it is authentic to the organization, and consistent with their values and actions.

I’ll decode this for you: Don’t go taking a political position, even if you’re expected to, unless politics is intrinsic to the overall aims of your company. For example, if you’re Hershey’s, your deal is chocolate, not politics, so keep your nose out of politics.

I know that the left likes to say “it’s not political, but a matter of basic decency”, and similar platitudes. Don’t fall for it, because there’s still the potential for divisiveness. If you run a company whose product or service is not intrinsically political, you should answer along the lines of,

This isn’t a political company. But if it’s something that’s expected of anyone anyway, why not assume that we’re decent people? In any case, we don’t need any recruiters prowling about.

Or, if you want to be less wordy,

We make products in order to sell them, so back off.

When it comes down to it, what the political left wants is to have power over you. Whether it’s you, your home, your business, your job, your education, or so on, the left wants to have power over you, and they’ll use any platitude, any rhetorical device, any pressure, just about anything that they possibly can. They themselves are fond of saying “by any means necessary”.

Finally, large corporations are realizing that they can play it safe by not issuing a public position! Leftism has long turned major corporations into their own weapons. But now, it looks like they’re losing them!

The Supreme Court is Poised to Strike Down Roe v Wade, and Leftists Are Melting Down.

It’s been a day since a leak of the draft statement from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court about the tentative overturning of Roe v Wade. It’s already to the point that I doubt that I can say much about it that hasn’t already been said. But I can still offer my opinion, so here goes, for whatever that’s worth.

For one thing, finding the person who leaked the statement should be pretty simple. Just look for the guy who’s sweating bullets. Jokes aside, it’s going to seriously suck for the guy if he were to get caught. We know that it’s a bad idea to piss off a lawyer, but at least five Justices on the Supreme Court? When they catch him, his cheeks are going to be spread from sea to shining sea!

But as for the ruling itself, it bears pointing out that it hasn’t officially been made. The papers themselves pertained to a tentative ruling, but it would be an expected ruling if the court were to vote on the issue, considering how the Supreme Court is currently composed. Having said that, I doubt that Chief Justice John Roberts would have written up 70 pages taking on an iron man version of the Roe v Wade ruling’s philosophy just for kicks.

Much of the reasoning behind the statement is based on the principle of the 10th amendment, which doesn’t get a lot of attention, and is unfortunately ignored quite a bit. It reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It’s because of this that the original Roe v Wade ruling overstepped the boundaries provided by the Constitution, as the Constitution doesn’t say a word about abortion. Therefore, the federal government cannot issue a nationwide mandate regarding it, and it would be up to each of the individual states to rule for themselves.

There are those who point out that having to carry a child to term and then care for it has the potential to interfere with the expecting mother’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Putting aside for a moment how repugnant it is to reduce a developing life to a mere inconvenience, proponents of abortion neglect to realize that the developing child is, in fact, an individual human life, possessing genetic markers that identify the child.

Making the left’s position more difficult is that all signs point to the fact that a human life begins at the point of conception. The left attempts to make the point that human life begins at the point of birth, even though they have no scientific grounding for their stance. The fact is, when it’s pointed out that life begins at conception, the left loses any foundation for it’s position on abortion.

Now, if you were to look at the arguments above that I’ve made against abortion, you may have noticed that my arguments were based either on observed science, or on the basic underlying philosophy of this republic’s government at the time of its founding. I bring this up to highlight the fact that leftists love to make the pro-life position out to be a religious position, with the premise being that any appearance of mysticism would diminish the validity of any related moral viewpoint. The left does this because they feel less inclined to take religion seriously, portraying their opponents who do as being fundamentalist zealots and pharisaical busybodies.

The reason they do so is apparent when you consider that they (like many on the right) attempt to court the low-Q vote, and among the left’s main weapons for doing so are reductive statements.

As you can see, I’ve waged my points and counterpoints in this article based on facts that are known and observable. But if we were to bring religion into it, it would be plain to see that abortion is offensive when compared to the superordinate principles of nearly every major religion in the world today.

While these reasons play a role in my decision to oppose abortion today, these weren’t the initial reasons I decided I was against the barbaric practice. In fact, as I developed my opinion on the issue, it actually became the issue that turned me against the Democratic party. The reason for this was because the Democratic party’s insistence on abortion revealed something about them.

And that something was that the Democratic party has a shitty life-culture.

It was when I was in high school that I had more Democrat leanings. One might expect this, considering the sheer load of indoctrination that comes from the education system. But shortly after graduating, I started thinking for myself. As is typically the case when one does so, I began resisting the indoctrination. The matter of abortion and the Democrat’s insistence on it was what turned me against them. It was because of their insistence on abortion that I came to see that the Democrats and the political left has a shitty life-culture.

And the more I examined the left for what they believed in, the more apparent it became how bad their life-culture was. They view human beings as inconvenient, especially when they must be cared for and provided for. They view human beings as being part of the problem, as they view us in terms of our impact on the environment, especially when they start talking about overpopulation.

It’s obvious that the left tends more towards a hatred of human life. They view humans in terms of the waste they make, and they even seek to limit their numbers.

This contrasts heavily with the right, which views human beings as each partaking in humanity’s marvelous potential. Humans that live today can celebrate life like no other point in history up until now, and the right wants everyone to have the opportunity to do so, complete with the freedoms that beautify life in the modern world.

The reality is, everyone is entitled to a chance at life, regardless of what their initial outlook may be.

A compromise with abortion was proposed with the reasoning of “safe, legal, and rare”. In other words, abortions were supposed to be rare. But when you see the fact that some women are wearing T-shirts that brag about the number of abortions that they’ve had, it’s obvious that the intent of this compromise was not being honored.

Having said all this, I think it’s pretty evident that a significant shift in American culture is underway. This is signified in the many cultural victories that we’ve been seeing in recent months. For one thing, there are legal victories, including the Rittenhouse trial, which signified the right to defend one’s self from attackers. The Jussie Smollet trial showed us just how poorly the left-controlled information media can call it. CNN+ was an enormous failure, which might have even made it clear to the leftist outlet that people just aren’t interested in them anymore. Ron DeSantis stood up to Disney as Disney was poised to deliver sexual perversion directly to children, and got Disneyland’s special privileges revoked. Elon Musk’s pending purchase of Twitter to turn Twitter into a privately-owned platform would result in the platform actually becoming a free and open marketplace of ideas, a fact that made leftists panic because they’ve grown accustomed to the establishment censoring their opponents.

And now it seems like Roe v Wade is going to be overturned. Could this be the beginning of the age of the Republican party that actually does things?

How is the left reacting? By going ballistic. And you know what? I say, let them. This is how we win. Because the left only knows how to respond to being challenged by overplaying their hands, I say, let’s just keep challenging them. They’ll either wear themselves out and realize that they’re going nowhere, or they’ll make it evident to everyone looking on that they’re insane, and therefore cannot be looked to for sound ideas on how to run a society.

And considering what they’ve done to American society when given the chance during the lockdowns, they deserve every last defeat that gets served to them. And after this happens, every child that shall come afterwards shall enter into a world that is better for the fact that the world will no longer be run by leftists.

And they’ll have the fact that they were born to be thankful for.

It Happened: DeSantis Officially Revoked Disneyland’s Special Privileges

If you put money on Disney pushing sexual perversion on children without consequences, then you just lost money. But probably much less money than you deserve to.

Disney’s special privileges gave Disney the authority to operate Disneyland nearly as though it were its own separate state, granting them special tax privileges and even so far as granting them the authority to build their own nuclear power plant if they wanted to.

However, a bill was introduced which would revoke Disney’s special privileges. After passing the Florida senate and the Florida house, the bill reached the desk of Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, who signed it. Now, Disneyland has to compete fair and square with other theme parks.

Now, leftists are screeching because large multimedia corporations are being held to account and made to play fair. It’s an irony that you’ll recognize unless you somehow missed the left’s close relationship with multimedia conglomerates, tech oligarchs, banking cartels, the corporate information media, retail giants, academia, the energy sector, the military-industrial complex, among many others.

This is just the latest episode of a drama in light of Florida passing the Parental Rights In Education Act, which has been deceptively termed the “DoN’t SaY gAy BiLL” by the self-appointed thought police who believe you’re too stupid to think for yourself.

The alphabet soup crowd in Disney’s employ spoke up in protest, and even though the protest was an utter failure from a numbers perspective, Disney’s upper leadership decided that they wanted to avoid any bad press, so they decided that they’d create content that exposed more children to sexual perversion.

Which, by the way, is the exact opposite of what you’d want to do if your aim is to avoid bad press.

Sure, the leftist journos celebrated Disney’s bRaVerY, as one might expect them to. But that’s one circle jerk that left out the general population, who didn’t respond as kindly:

Over two-thirds of people are less likely to do business with Disney in light of their desire to expose children to sexual ideas, and about the same amount are likely to seek out family-friendly alternatives to Disney.

Disney doubled down, as one would expect from a fanatical leftist. So, DeSantis decided that if Disney is going to get into politics, they’re going to lose the special privileges that were previously afforded them by the state of Florida.

This is how we win. Challenge the fanatics, and force them to show their true colors. The only thing the left knows how to do when challenged is to overplay their hands, so they’re going to behave predictably when things aren’t going their way. Then, make sure they experience their well-deserved consequences.

Also, as relates to corrupt entertainment media companies like Disney, one should seek out alternatives. It’s not even as hard as you might think. Putting aside The Mandalorian, Star Wars hasn’t been doing that great lately. And as for Marvel, things have been coming apart since the conclusion of Phase 3. Disney has a bunch of classic movies that you probably saw as a kid. But putting that aside, Disney doesn’t really have much going for it on Disney+.

Before seeking out entertainment alternatives, I want to point out that the idea that the heroes of entertainment media must inform people as to moral principles is a misguided notion. The fact is, entertainment media is just made up, and shouldn’t inform anyone’s moral compass. I point this out because too many people point to their entertainment as something that informs them of their virtues, as though this was necessary to justify it.

The fact is, entertainment is only supposed to be entertaining. That’s the entire point.

Your best defense against malign influence in entertainment is understanding that your moral values are decided independent of the entertainment you consume. Hopefully, you understand that watching a show about an unethical hero doesn’t mean you should emulate his unethical actions.

If you’re seeking alternative sources of entertainment, I can recommend manga and anime. While Japanese entertainment has been the target of negative press in recent times, this is largely because the corporate media understands that they have no control of Japanese entertainment, outside of perhaps a few localizers.

From Mobile Suit Gundam 00

What’s great about anime and manga isn’t just the esoteric appeal, it’s also that many, many genres are represented. Some anime are comedies, some are horror. Some anime are adventure, others are drama. Anime is great because you’ll find something for you, whoever you are.

Another great thing about anime is that it’s produced in a culture that is untouched by cancel culture. Thus, the writing is not inhibited at all by the delicate sensibilities of a bunch of screeching snowflakes who seemingly have no idea how to ignore something that’s not according to their tastes.

From Cardcaptor Sakura

Another great thing about anime is that even the stuff that’s made for kids doesn’t insult their intelligence. Of course, a lot of it is made with the expectation that you’ve done your diligence as a parent and have already taught your kids that cartoons don’t teach them how to behave.

I’m going to reiterate this because it’s really important: Parents need to do their due diligence by teaching their kids that cartoons do not teach them how to behave. It’s not as easy as just telling kids as much, raising children actually takes effort!

Because my generation is familiar with the likes of Family Guy, American Dad, and King of the Hill, they should understand that there are cartoons that kids would not appreciate as much, and some that aren’t made for them. In anime, there are many cartoons that were made for grown-ups, so grown-ups aren’t being left out.

From Ghost In the Shell, an anime with a more mature edge

There are alternatives to Disney, and some of them are vastly superior. With western entertainment companies increasingly going woke, our best bet seems to be anime. If you want a suggestion in addition to the other anime pictured, Spirited Away by Hayao Miyazaki is generally considered a great place to start. Really, just about anything by Miyazaki is considered a classic.

From Spirited Away

The flow of the era is coming around to our favor. But in the time that it takes for companies like Disney to learn their lesson, they have to take a few hard hits. In the time that it takes for that to happen, it’s not a bad idea to find some alternatives. At this point, anime and manga seem like the best way to go. And why not go for it, if you haven’t already? You’re likely to find something that you like.

You might even find that you’ve been watching anime, and didn’t know it.

From Pokémon: XY

The G4 Meltdown

G4’s attempted return didn’t go so well, as shortly after the brand’s relaunch, hostess Froskurinn went on a tirade about sexism in response to a viewer’s comment.

It’s a bit of a dirty secret among content creators that once you’re big enough, you don’t interact with the audience. Mainly because of stuff like this.

Back when G4 was at its height, it was actually considered a respectable outlet by gamers. I didn’t pay it much mind, considering that I preferred to use the internet to hear the opinions of my peers, rather than have journalists attempt to tell me what they are. But I did have an IRL friend that was into G4, so it was something that I heard of. I didn’t care or notice when they were gone, however. Life goes on.

When commenters were going on about how they didn’t find Froskurinn as attractive as a previous host, this clearly got under her skin, which led up to the explosion. Personally, I suspect that the comments were troll comments. If so, she handled them the wrong way.

When you’re being trolled, you’re not supposed to let them know they’re getting to you, as the usual point of trolling is to get a reaction. An angry outburst was the exact opposite of how Froskurinn should have handled it, as it’s giving the trolls what they want. When Chris-chan was being trolled, it got to the point that trolls suspected that they were being trolled right back, because he consistently handled the matter poorly, often by completely flipping out.

Right now, G4’s ratings are plunging. And I don’t feel bad for them. Attacking your own fans is a bad strategy for content creators. While one might bring up the co-hosts, and how they might not sincerely hold Froskurinn’s views, the fact is, they were right there, clapping like trained seals, playing along to try to avoid being a pariah in the eyes of a dominant feminist, and they found themselves in that position because of a failure to gatekeep.

This matter conveniently comes up just as I’m hearing chatter about how journalists want to try to bring back GamerGate. Why would they want that? Because journalism is in the gutter, clicks are down, people don’t trust them, and they want that enraged engagement that they got from the GamerGate days.

But it’s not going to work, and here’s why: GamerGate was a precursor to the woke movement that’s been around for a while. It may not have been the main catalyst, but it played a huge foundational role. The fact is, GamerGate already happened, and the woke debacle is still ongoing, and has progressed to the point that people are getting sick of it, and is getting public pushback. If another GamerGate were to happen now, it would just be considered another element of the woke movement that people are already sick of.

Trying to bring back GamerGate now would be like trying to ignite an engine that’s already running, and on the brink of failure.

Right now, journalism is in a shitty state. At this point, few people trust them, and journalists are attempting to hang on to viewership with a steady stream of outrage-porn to keep the few they have left interested. That, and they have old people who remember way back when news was their only outlet for information.

They pursued the quick-and-easy, waving off the price that they’d have to pay in the long-term. Now, the time has come for them to pay the price. Naturally, they don’t want to pay it.

The moral of the story is, gatekeep as though your business depends on it. Once someone from one of the many flavors of woke get in, they have a knack for hijacking your brand, and making everything about themselves. Once it gets to that point, it gets hard to remove them in a way that avoids causing more damage.

I wasn’t interested in G4 back in the day, and I’m still not. And if they’re going to lash out at their viewers and go woke, they’re just going to end up with attention that they don’t want. Maybe they’ll go as far as to say that they’ve fallen while on a moral high-ground, as a cynic’s quest typically ends.

Those who die on the hill of their choice, still die.

Don’t Like a Piece of Art? Here’s a Flow Chart to Assist You.

Waterhouse_Hylas_and_the_Nymphs_Manchester_Art_Gallery_1896.15

Back in 2018, a #MeToo campaigner complained to an art exhibit to have a work removed because the person was triggered by it. Shortly afterwards, the work was reinstated after public outcry. The work in question was the one pictured above, a Victorian era painting titled Hylas and the Nymphs.

Great work guys, you censored a work of art from over a century ago that took inspiration from a fable thousands of years old just to satisfy a blowhard belonging to a fad movement.

It’s because of things like this that people don’t take feminism seriously. And it backfires when people become ashamed to identify as feminists,  as indicated by this note left for the curator:

feminist note to curator

If you spend time looking at art, you’re bound to find something that’s objectionable to you. If you dislike a work of art, your solution is simple: If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.

If this process comes off as novel and confusing, I’ve provided a simple flow chart to assist you:

art flow chart

That pretty much lays it out. If you’re still unable to follow, then you shouldn’t have been able to operate an automobile all the way to an art exhibit without causing an accident. Learn to drive.

And while you’re at it, stop assuming that every artistic expression of nudity and sexuality somehow demeans women. Nudity is the natural state of the human body, and is not inherently evil. Sexuality is one of the most human traits, and is a universal part of the human experience. An expression of either one doesn’t devalue women. Or anyone, for that matter.

And if, after considering all this, you still don’t like a work of art, just don’t look at it. I doubt that you fill the Pictures directory of your computer with images you don’t like, so why go out of your way to personally view a piece that only makes you upset? Just move on. Calling yourself a feminist doesn’t give you permission to decide for everyone else what art they have access to. Stop assuming that the rest of us can’t handle what we see.

Feminists have a very negative view of the general population, and this is what guides their attempts to decide for us what media that we have access to. Museum goers did a good job of not letting them. Very well done, keep it up.

Cambridge University Now Encouraging Women to Have Children

No matter how prevalent the forces of bullshit become, natural law remains in effect. It’s because of this that we have the expression, “play stupid games, win stupid prizes”.

The Malthusian movement has been losing steam, as countries are experiencing birth rates that are falling below the replacement rate. This is a disaster for aging boomers, considering that for Social Security to work as a scheme for wealth extraction, there actually has to be a certain number of people from whom to extract wealth.

I’ve been aware of the uniparty’s reversal of course for a few months. And, as I expected, there has been inertia, as it could take as long as a few years for programs to be rewritten or replaced or for contracts to expire, and for the culture to shift back to more traditional values.

In light of this, I think we can appreciate the irony of Cambridge’s new position, considering all that they’ve already done to contribute to the problem: They’ve long encouraged women to continually pay into the system (mainly by borrowing tons of money) to further their education and careers, until they are in their thirties, when their fertility starts to decline. Then, when you go to dating sites, you find countless women in their forties with useless degrees, desperate to have children.

But rather than fall on their sword, Cambridge instead subtly changes course, encouraging women to start having children as young as their early twenties, so they’d be more likely to have as many as three children (which is above the replacement rate of about 2.1). Of course, the undertones are highly creepy, but it’s still a sign that Cambridge (and colleges in general) will be transitioning back to more axiomatic values that have been tested and found to have resulted in healthy, successful families and societies throughout the entirety of human history.

While that might sound optimistic, it’s pretty much necessary, considering that the human specie isn’t adapted to anything else.

What would be optimistic is to assume that the uniparty and Malthusianism have learned their lessons. Rather than allowing people to live their own lives and make their own choices, they’re instead trying to manipulate society in an effort to reverse trends, in such a way that allows them to maintain control, and, of course, so they can die rich. It’s about power and money to these guys, as evidenced by the fact that they’re changing course to pursue them.

Well, “tough nuggets” is what I’d have to say, if I could decide what becomes of them. Let them know what it’s like to only have enough money to barely get by from month-to-month, hardly able to pay the bills. Just as they’ve been doing to me. They’re the ones that actually deserve it.

Webcomic Review: Robot Hugs

Warning: The reviewed webcomic contains explicit content. Reader discretion is advised.

robot hugs rough

Have you ever hoped that depression had an official webcomic? Me neither. But there is one that stands out as being sadder than the rest. And by “stands out”, I mean “slumps down in quivering half-hearted mediocrity”.

Robot Hugs isn’t so much a random, slice-of-life webcomic with a well-defined premise as it is a webspace where the author can dump his sad doodles, and sometimes make long, rambling illustrated tangents on whatever social justice activism that holds his interest, usually things like transgenderism, which the author identifies as being a part of, and feminism, because the author so desperately wants the female community to accept him as one of their own.

Early entries to Robot Hugs are usually random, inane drawings that really have nothing to them. Take this random example:

2011-08-25-A good way to go

That’s not a random panel from a strip. The previous and following comics have nothing to do with it. This is the build-up, delivery, and punch line. There is only one panel in this entry, and that’s it. No point, no effort, and no worthwhile thought.

Stick figure art is something that can be done well. In fact, some pretty good webcomics have been done with stick figure art, such as Cyanide & Happiness. In the vast majority of cases, however, it’s a cop-out that’s used to produce a sub-par product with a minimum of effort while leaning on the crutch of “style”. In some of those cases, it’s how talentless artists are enabled to coast along with a minimum of effort. In the case of Robot Hugs, there is some small sign of improvement as time went on, but it usually involves the bare minimums of stick figure art, such as good color choices and better-defined lines. Expressive facial features are sparse, but that can be sold as minimalism. At one point, he even takes on shading, but gives it up before long. Robot Hugs takes a style that’s mainly ironically likeable for its minimalism, and takes it even lower.

And then, with no warning, the author backs down from all the progress that he’s made on his style and goes to a hand drawn style that’s even worse:

2017-11-01-analogue

To be fair, he does give a reason for why he does this. However, there’s something more to it, which we can read about on his profile: The author studies in UX/IA, which has to do with website design. So he actually does spend a significant amount of his life staring at display screens. However, when one looks at his own website, how exactly is he putting his knowledge in website design into practice? He’s obviously not new at this, as his archives indicate that he’s been at it since 2009, and he usually updates about a half-dozen times a month with webcomics that are sub-par in quality.

Considering all this, and assuming that the author is trying hard, I suspect that the source of his ongoing sadness is that he’s putting a disproportionate amount of effort into something that he doesn’t really have a talent for. As children, nearly all of us are told that “we could be anything we want to be”. This is a disastrously terrible thing to tell a child, as it sets them up to pursue interests that are outside their own talents, and develop such an emotional attachment to their pursuits that they make them a part of their identity, making it an even stronger hit when they fail to live up to the expectations set for them.

The author of Robot Hugs doesn’t want to stare at display screens for long periods of time, and his webcomic has been insubstantial in quality since its inception over 9 years ago. Perhaps it’s about time for him to admit that it’s not his thing to either design websites or write webcomics. What he does instead, I don’t know; that’s the kind of thing that he can only determine after careful consideration of himself and how he can benefit society. However, it’s clear that making webcomics is not his thing.

Unless you can look at this and think “talent”:

2017-02-17-types of rats

The parts of his comic that are the most well-thought-out would be his SJW ramblings, which is not a compliment. If your only exposure to the SJW ideology would be YouTubers who make fun of them, go ahead and read an opinion piece from a veritable SJW. What you’ll find out is that the aforementioned YouTubers aren’t making up strawman arguments, they are actually taking on the SJW ideology itself, exactly as it’s presented when SJWs speak for themselves.

Here is a link to an example comic. (WORKSAFE WARNING: If you click that link, your employer’s IT department might think you’re an idiot.)

And speaking of worksafe warnings, the following came from the Robot Hugs “About” page:

NSFW comics are generally labelled as such.

Except they’re not, so his archives are a minefield of cartoon penises and vaginas that you might object to if you are somehow upset by naturally occurring features of human anatomy, or if you have a problem with these things being drawn poorly. The main character’s nipples might be considered explicit, considering that he’s a biological male who identifies as a female. Would they be? Have we figured it out yet?

And, as if it weren’t already obvious that this comic stars a self-insert, the author uses the webcomic to give us life updates:

2012-10-19-New Tablet

Whoop-dee-doo. Too bad your new tablet didn’t do anything to make your comics any better. You know what would? Having someone else do your art. And your writing. And your website design, for that matter. In fact, maybe you should pull a George Lucas and sign over creative control of your comic. Too bad that a guy would have to be insane to take this mess on, and once they come to their senses, they’d deep-six the whole thing.

The author of Robot Hugs spends too much time trying to be something he’s not: a webcomic artist, a decent website designer, even a woman. He doesn’t have what it takes to do any of these things; it’s time for him to stop kidding himself.

Robot hugs gets a score of a-sad-excuse-for-a-comic out of ten.

sick score

Which would be a 0.5 out of 10. If you’re thinking of making your own webcomic, you can do a better job than Robot Hugs with just a little something called effort.