Category Archives: Gender Politics

The Video Game Question

Leave a reply

It’s a question that keeps coming up on social media: What to women have against men playing video games?

It’s a question that stirs up conversation as often as it does because, as much time as men spend around women, the way that they think is still a mystery to us. In this post, I’m going to attempt to answer this question.

Much of the mystery comes down to a lack of theory of mind. The fact is, men and women are different, and those differences extend to the way that we think. And it’s not bad that men and women are different, as those differences play a significant role in bringing us together (and contributing to the continuity of our species).

To get right into it, let’s look at video games in terms of their most frequently-recurring elements: Hunting, gathering, combat, problem solving, strategizing, and resource management. These elements tend to appeal more to masculine players. That’s not to say that women can’t find such elements interesting. In fact, many of them do. But the deal is, these elements appeal more to men than women.

Women are drawn more to relationship intrigue. While such games exist, they are few in number, and don’t get much attention.

Considering this, it becomes easier to understand why women don’t seem to understand why men seem to like video games, or could spend hours at a time playing them. And when you look at women in terms of what they’d be better adapted to, this starts to make intuitive sense. Women are not the hunter-gatherers of the tribe, they are the home and relationship builders. To them, video games that appeal to masculine sensibilities are something abstract.

In the same sense, this is why women have a stronger tendency to assume that while you’re at work, you’re not actually working, or that what you do for work isn’t as meaningful as the work that they do at home. It’s because they view what they do as meaningful, and perhaps have a better understanding of the meaning of homemaking than you do.

Perhaps it’s because of masculine bias, but I have an easier time seeing the value of building buildings, paving roads, running businesses, maintaining infrastructure, engineering, manufacturing, running businesses, and keeping society going. I suppose that that’s a perspective that’s normal for a male to have. Yet, women might not as clearly see that work as meaningful as the work that they do for homes and communities, or they at least better see the value of it. That would be yet another meaningful difference between men and women.

Another question that comes up that stirs up conversation ask women: If you were in the woods, would you rather meet a man or a bear? This is called “the bear question”. And it’s a question that turned controversial because a surprising number of women chose the bear, which left men wondering why. And many assumed misandry.

Yet, their answer becomes more understandable (if still silly) when you understand the way women think, and the framing of the question.

The way that the question is framed has to do with the setting: in the woods. What kind of man would most likely be encountered in the woods? A random hiker. Which, from a feminine perspective, would likely be considered a low-status male. And, in her consideration, there would be a non-zero chance that she would bear his child as a consequence of that encounter.

Women are more adept when it comes to relationships, which is why feminine warfare has to do less with kinetic warfare, and more to do with GSR (gossiping, shaming, and rallying). What’s advantageous to a woman is what promotes their social status. And among these is to be in a relationship with a high-status male.

The kind of male that would be encountered in the woods would likely be a low-status male, and women would perceive danger in that!

Then there’s the bear. As mentioned above, women are not the hunter-gatherers of the tribe. Thus, the danger that a bear would represent might not be something that women are as well adapted to recognize. As men see it, to survive a fight with a bear is considered a legendary feat. After all, bears are capricious engines of death, and even if the human is armed, the bear usually has an immense advantage.

If the question were to be reframed, the answer would likely become more consistent. “If you were in an executive boardroom, would you rather meet a man or a bear?” The number of women who would select the man would approach 100%.

When it comes down to it, the answer to the video question is that men and women are different, and there are reasons for those differences.

But the question that I have for women right now is this: Why do men have a strong preference for women who are more open-minded when it comes to the things that men like?

The Courtroom Crashout

Leave a reply

We have another special one. And this time, a lawyer who is a literal woman with a beard went on a full-on crashout in a courtroom.

Caught on camera:

Commenters were quick to say that a woman taking testosterone led to the crash out. That’s plausible, as many people who turn trans end up taking hormones that have an effect on their behavior.

As an aside, if it turns out that there is some kinda parasite that causes people to turn trans, I thought of a name for it: parasite Steve.

If you get the reference, great.

Some highlights:

Let’s hear it for the man who baited the lawyer, causing her to sperg out, thus ending her career. Yup. The woman shortly after closed her law office:

Wow, that’s her banner? I’d be embarrassed to hire her.

Like many people who get their worldview from TV, she seemed to assume that being male means acting like a hot-headed fuckbelch. She seemed to miss that real men control their passions, rather than be controlled by them.

Imagine being the guy who legally pushes a lawyer to the point that she destroys her own career. You don’t have to deserve what you drink, but it does make it taste better. And in his case, whatever he drank to celebrate had to have tasted great.

And that look on his face tells me that he knew exactly what he’s done.

Absolute legend.

Another highlight would be where the woman brought the fact that she’s trans into it, entirely unprompted, for no reason other than that she perceived some advantage to be had in doing so.

And what’s more, she demanded female officers when she was being arrested. Perhaps because she had less expectation that they could successfully subdue her. Or it could be that she was doing whatever she could to make things difficult, equivocating between her declared and her actual gender depending on the perceived advantage. As much as I might like to imagine that the woman had a stressed-induced reboot to a previous software version.

One point that I’d like to make is that, to contradict what some people are saying, it is true that a person can still speak, even to the point of calling out for help, when their respiration is not sufficient to sustain life. The whole “if you can talk you can breathe” deal is a myth which needs to be put to rest. Hopkins sounded like a dumbass, don’t you go sounding like one, too.

But whatever you said today, it probably wasn’t nearly as stupid as Hopkins’ career-ending crashout.

The fact is, we live in a world with selection pressures. When there’s a lot at stake, no one is obligated to humor someone else’s delusion. Reality doesn’t concern itself with who it pulverizes underfoot in its inexorable march, not does it even slightly slow down.

Reality marches on.

Another trans school shooter.

Leave a reply

It happened, again. The natural consequence of indoctrinating children into the trans cult, affirming their delusions on an institutional level, giving them hormones that they’ll piss into the water supply (screwing up more people and animals), and convincing them that anyone who might disagree with them are [pejorative adjective of choice] and deserving of death.

This time, it happened in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Ten people dead, 25 injured. The shooter among the dead, because he joined the many who went 41%.

Canadian mounties didn’t want to name the suspect for “privacy reasons”, probably because 17-year-old Jesse Strang was an MtF stinkditch, and didn’t want yet more negative attention to come to the AIDS that is killing western civilization.

Interestingly, a Reddit post by Strang was criticized by Matt Walsh three years ago. If you haven’t heard of Matt Walsh, he’s a conservative influencer who is regularly lambasted by his own political faction for his ignorant takes on entertainment media.

Warning: Anime is about to derail another conversation.

In the post, Strang expresses a desire to stop comparing himself to anime characters, because they are more petite than him. To out-of-touch boomers, it was the anime that set off alarm bells, rather than the delusion, because in their minds anime and manga are the different scary thing.

We should know the obvious fallacies of the parties involved, so I won’t labor the points, too much. To keep it succinct:

  • A disproportionate number of transgender people have problems with parsing reality independent of fictional constructs,
  • Transgenders also tend to somehow avoid all the anime depicting determined protagonists who work hard to make their dreams come true, and thus would make excellent role models,
  • Derpy boomeroids also avoid positive role models in entertainment media, cherry picking negative role models in an effort to unfairly portray the different scary thing in a negative light,
  • The obvious fucking point that anime and manga are just for entertainment, and not intended to influence a person’s worldview. Our parents should teach us this as kids. What are we doing?

Oh yeah, there’s also the fact that the right usually touts anime and manga as the based alternative to western entertainment, because anime and manga are usually made without any desire to make a political statement, by people whose sincere desire is to make entertaining products.

For more proof that Japan is based, consider the fact that, just days ago, Japan’s right-wing party (called Liberal Democratics, go figure) just won a huge supermajority on a referendum on foreign migration after a bunch of Muslims openly disrespected Japanese culture.

This was a huge defeat for leftists, not just in Japan, but on a global scale, as it’s yet another indication of the right-wing backlash against globalism and mass migration of Muslims.

See what I mean? Japan is based!

But as for Canada, a failure to instill proper virtues has resulted in another element in the astroturfed perversion movement to flip out and go murder ‘tard.

There should be a punishment for anyone who succeeds in a deliberate attempt to make a person go under the knife to become trans. We can’t have people going around tricking children into having their genitals removed.

So, what I propose is this: If anyone convinces anyone else into getting their genitals removed, a possible punishment can be to have the same happen to the person who convinced them.

If you trans kids, then your cock is on the chopping block.

Returning to the matter at hand, I strongly doubt that Jesse Strang had come up with the idea to go trans all on his own. I suspect that there was a handful of doctors, psychologists, and educators who had an influencing role in his delusion. They might be messing with other kids, and it would be great if they decided to stop doing that, considering the tragedy that has too often followed the delusion that they’ve enabled.

It’s starting to cost them.

Leave a reply

It’s happening differently from how I might have wanted it to. As I would have had it, the doctors and therapists who transitioned children would have had it done to them just they same as they brought upon their victims, right down to the last surgical detail.

But their bullshit is being disincentivized by a precedent-setting lawsuit, which is a victory. I’ll take it. Hey ho.

A New York jury has determined that a girl who identified as a male should be awarded $2 million after a psychologist and a surgeon used that as justification for surgical butchery.

That’s a start, and she deserves a whole lot more, considering that she’s been gaslit out of living a normal life. And any doctor involved belongs in prison.

I’ve pointed out before that people become a lot more predictable when you account for their incentives. I expect a great many physicians and psychologists to start singing a different tune, considering that a legal precedent has just been set.

And it seems as though some of them are. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons has changed their position on gender transition surgeries for children. It’s possible that they’ve been considering this for a while, but it seems to be a stretch to accept that their change in stance comes hot on the heels of news that shows that their previous stance could cost them a lot of money.

But consider the implications of these professionals changing their opinions as incentives shift. If they had ethics that they were sincere about, it wouldn’t take the prospect of being sued into oblivion to realize that there was something wrong with what they were doing.

Then there’s the question of what else they were lying about, if they were willing to say that men could become women. Doctor’s offices are more dangerous than they should be.

I’ll end this article on an interesting thought: There are a lot of doctors and psychologists out there who fast-tracked minors to life-ruining surgeries, with the idea that they could make some money by doing so. They have to be shitting themselves, right now. There are a lot of corrupt professionals who are going to lose a lot of money, to the point of their practices being shut down.

And considering that they deserve far worse, they’re not going to get any pity from me.

She just can’t bring herself to tell the truth.

Leave a reply

There are signs that we should all be on the lookout for that we should start looking for a different doctor. One is if the doctor is obese. That’s a classic red flag. Another is if they discourage a generic medication that is exactly the same as a name brand medication that they favor, and the office is packed with literature for that same brand.

Here’s a hypothetical scenario: Suppose a doctor referred you to either a gynecologist or a urologist. They referred you to the wrong one (the two are gender-specific), so you ask the doctor whether they know the difference between men and women. The doctor gets evasive, and refuses to answer the question.

Would you trust that doctor? The answer is “no”. Of course you wouldn’t. That’s the only correct answer.

Sadly, some doctors are left-wing cultists. One such example is Dr. Verma, who spent five minutes on the Senate floor evading the question of whether men can get pregnant:

Senator Hawley: “The goal is just the truth. So, can men get pregnant?”
Dr. Verma: “Again, the reason I paused there is because I’m not really sure of the goal of the question…”
Hawley: “The goal is just to establish a biological reality. You just said a moment ago that science and evidence should control, not politics. So, let’s just test that proposition. Can men get pregnant?”
Verma: “I take care of people with many identities, but, uh…”
Hawley: “Can men get pregnant?”
Vermin: “I take care of many women who can get pregnant, I do take care of many people that don’t identify as women…”
Hawley: “Can men get pregnant?”

And so on for minutes.

Conservatives have been asking leftists to identify the difference between men and women for years, and leftists still haven’t come up with an answer. Even after all this time, the best that they can come up with is to get evasive.

It’s kind of like if roaches developed the atomic bomb. It’s like a weapon that only affects one side, while the other is immune. When deployed, one side is unaffected by the fallout, while the other can do nothing more than seek shelter, and not come out for weeks.

The problem with leftists is that they’re in a cult. And it’s a cult with a strict blasphemy code. The moment that they say anything that has any potential to be interpreted as wrongthink, even accidentally, they get excoriated by their coreligionists. Even if they profusely apologize for years on end, they are never fully forgiven.

They put on the veneer of intellectualism, but they are not empiricists. The moment that you present them with a demonstrable, observable reality that goes contrary to one of their core doctrines, they do anything to avoid telling us what the rest of us see.

Not because they would have to admit that they were wrong, though it may be true that their personal pride would not permit this. It’s because they would be sentenced to many, many lashes by their own peers if they were to say the wrong thing, and may face being defrocked.

While we may laugh at their stupidity, what’s sobering about this is that leftists like Dr. Verma are still in a position where they can have an impact on the way people live. Any power that they have should be taken from them, and they should be reduced to the social pariahs that they should have been regarded as to begin with.

Tyler Robinson: A Mind Destroyed By Hatred

1 Reply

The dust hasn’t settled yet, but I’m going for it, anyhow. The feature of the latest installment of Throw Life Away Over Stupid Bullshit, Tyler Robinson.

There’s something that I like to do with people who become especially infamous, and that’s give them a fitting and derisive nickname. One of Tyler’s bullet casings had a message inscribed upon it, which reads, “notices bulges oWo what’s this”. Tyler expressed in a text message the fear that the message would be discovered, as though it were something he would be ashamed of. And because he’s furry-adjacent, a critter term would be somewhat fitting.

Therefore, his new name is Bulge Rat.

Bulge Rat would be the fuck belch who assassinated Charlie Kirk in front of his family and thousands of event attendees. Much to the profuse denial of leftists everywhere, this is yet another example of extreme left-wing violence inspired by left-wing ideology.

I suspect that most of the people who say that it was a case of a MAGA chud killing another MAGA chud don’t actually believe it, but as for the ones that do, they are simply pitiable. The world must be a confusing place for someone so gullible. It’s confusing for the rest of us, but more so for them.

You couldn’t be blamed for wondering why the left lies so blatantly against overwhelming evidence that is against them. It actually goes together with why leftism is so attractive for the slow-minded and middle-of-the-road thinkers: leftism is less concerned with whether a matter is true, and more with what furthers their own causes. This makes it easy to advocate for, because it doesn’t require moral consistency. People who are insincere about their professed beliefs usually have to at least try to remember what they said, in the event that someone may try to hold them to it. Leftism’s lack of moral consistency means less concern for the truth of a matter, freeing up mental resources for deceptive rhetoric that’s designed to catch people unprepared.

Also, did you really think that leftists would take accountability for the violence caused by their ideology? Particularly the social media influencers and pundits who have built their entire careers on the lies that they push?

Back to Bulge Rat, he came from a conservative household and once wore a Trump Halloween costume, and the bullshitters stop right there and just use that to say that he was a right-winger who killed another right-winger for not being right-wing enough, because apparently they believe that that’s what right-wingers do. Except they don’t, no one unironically believes that.

Okay, truth payload, coming in at your six. Ready? People who are in their twenties often have different views than when they were twelve. Yeah, shocker, right?

I mean, when my age consisted of a single digit, I thought that a fair world was when free stuff. But then I learned that stuff has to come from somewhere, so the world is more fair when you earn it. Like anyone who didn’t go on to become socialists.

Bulge Rat was a scholarship student with a 4.0 GPA, which goes to show that smart people are not always great people. In fact, when smart people go insane, their own substantial intelligence becomes weaponized against their own mind, and their human capacity for self-deception becomes magnified to terrifying extremes.

Initially, Bulge Rat had a bright future ahead of him. But then the mental destruction began. He was indoctrinated by left-wing politics, which convinced him to hate conservatives more and more. His family took notice. He even got himself a boyfriend, an MtF transgender who would be his roommate.

Then, his own destruction would become complete.

I’ve been completely honest with you until now, and I’m going to keep this up: There’s a lot that’s infuriating about this kid. The bombastic nature of his crime, which he carefully planned out, the reckless disregard for the people in attendance who were not his target, his indifference, not just for his target, but also his family who was in attendance, including his daughter who wanted to go to her daddy for comfort because she was afraid of the loud noise.

Bulge Rat’s execution should be televised. I had to see Charlie Kirk get shot on social media because of him, and now I want to see Bulge Rat take his medicine in front of a firing squad.

But the greatest revenge is seeing Bulge Rat’s attempt to destroy conservatism backfire spectacularly. For one thing, people are taking notice of Bulge Rat’s left-wing convictions, and they are disgusted by them. And not only that, people are taking note of the ghouls who are celebrating Charlie Kirk’s assassination, and are disgusted by this, too. And because they’ve gone mask-off, employers are discovering that these are not the kind of people that they want around.

Consequence Culture at its finest.

But better still, a passion has been ignited for conservatism. To the point that, from what I’ve heard, church attendance has come way up!

If Bulge Rat had intended to destroy conservatism, he couldn’t have made a stupider or more self-defeating move.

When it comes down to it, we no longer live in an age where assassination is an effective strategy for defeating an ideology. For one thing, it’s nothing new that martyrdom can magnify a message. But now, in this age of social media, it’s trivially simple for a person to learn about the ideology of the one martyred, and for that ideology to gain new adherents. Social media further expedites this process by greatly expanding the potential reach of the ideology’s message.

What’s more, people today see assassination as an infuriating crime against intellect, a failure to effectively refute the martyr’s ideology in a marketplace of ideas. Assassination of a martyr signals desperation on the part of a competing ideology, one with less expectation to win an argument, so it instead chooses violence. And when it comes to that point, it becomes obvious that the assassin’s ideology and its adherents don’t have a sincere interest in a safe and stable society.

And when it comes down to it, leftism is a carefully constructed denial of reality. I mean, come on, they actually believe that men can become women. What more needs to be said? And when one of their own turns violent because he can’t win with reason, they’ll lie right to you and tell you that it’s right-wing on right-wing violence, in spite of the evidence that comes pouring out against their claims.

Which is exactly what they did when Jawvious shot up a Catholic school just last month, which was an act of transgender violence. Which itself was reminiscent of an earlier attack against another Christian elementary school in Tennessee. Why does this keep happening?

It was only days prior to the assassination of Charlie Kirk that people were outraged over the senseless murder of a Ukrainian refugee on a train. While the murder itself wasn’t motivated by politics, the revolving door justice system favored by left-wing judges and DAs certainly made the macabre scene possible.

Then there’s the George Floyd riots, when the left went ballistic over the overdose death of a junkie as he was being arrested. Or there’s the ironically-termed “Summer of Love”, which saw the looting and fiery destruction of businesses.

Or there was the “CHAZ” or “CHOP”, which was an attempt to secede from the United States, an attempt which pretty much fell apart within weeks, because leftists don’t know how to run an organized society, even when enabled by a parasitic relationship with the surrounding society.

The Russians and the Chinese must have been laughing so hard.

“Er, bUt, uHM, aKcshULLy…”

What, that the right commits violence, too? That the right needs to turn down the temperature, too? As though the right is just as responsible for the violence that is committed against them as the leftists who are committing it against them? I suppose next you’ll try saying that a rape victim is just as guilty as a rapist. Considering how much leftists coddle Islamists who actually believe that, I wouldn’t put it past them.

Or are you going to bring up the January 6th Capitol protest, a demonstration that got out of hand, and no one outside of the demonstrators themselves were killed during the demonstration?

It’s been five years since, and the left hasn’t come off it. That’s because it’s all they have to fuel the myth of the violent right, outside of lying, which includes falsely attributing left-wing violence to the right, which they have shamelessly and desperately have attempted to do. Or falsely grouping prison violence as right-wing violence, to bring those numbers up.

People are pissed that Charlie Kirk was killed, especially considering that he was the nice guy, the one who went up to his political opponents to talk. That was his thing. The event he was killed at, the entire idea was that anyone could go up to him and talk to him. He was killed for that, because he was so effectively vilified by his enemies.

He was actually discussing transgender violence when he was shot. By a transgender-adjacent homosexual. I know that coincidences happen, but if someone had the idea that the shooting was timed for such a question, I could understand that.

Sobering as it may be to think about, I think that more violence is likely to be committed by those taking up the cause for the transgender movement, and left-wingers in general. The left-wing radicalization pipeline is just way too effective to realistically expect otherwise. As for when it might happen, it’s difficult to say. But considering that about 2 weeks separated the assassination of Charlie Kirk from the shooting at a Minnesota church, it might not be long before the next leftist lunatic goes murder ‘tard.

And if those who celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk are any indication, there may be many, many more who might. And they apparently number in the tens of thousands.

But as for Bulge Rat, the guy was one of many whose mind was destroyed by the left-wing radicalization pipeline. Though he accused his political opponents of hate, Bulge Rat would prove that his own hatred would surpass anyone who he ever vilified.

However, Conservatives are motivated by something far more profound: Love. The real kind. The kind that realizes that there are things worth protecting and defending.

To leftists like Tyler Robinson, love is a word with strong emotional connotations with many definitions, which they equivocate between in an attempt to justify their own agenda. However, the leftist idea of love is tainted by deviance. This is why they don’t properly comprehend it.

They don’t understand hate, either. To them, it’s yet another emotionally charged word that they falsely attribute to their political opponents. But if they understood it, they would understand that it applies well to leftists.

Think about the things you love and cherish, those things that are worth fighting for and protecting. Those are among the things that give life its joy.

Another old Simpsons episode is now surprisingly relevant

Leave a reply

I know that cartoons like The Simpsons are only fiction, and that because of this, using it to illustrate a point isn’t always helpful. The person writing them can write in any lesson that they want, including those that may not work in reality, but can work in a fictional setting anyway, by nature of being a fictional work.

Still, an old cartoon can make a point that puts things into perspective, and that perspective might be much needed.

Also, using cartoons to illustrate a point is fun, and can hold the attention of those who grew up with the same cartoons.

You may remember an old episode of The Simpsons, titled Itchy and Scratchy and Marge. In the episode, an infant character Maggie strikes her father Homer with a mallet, leaving the child’s mother Marge perplexed as to why Maggie would do such a thing. Later, she sees an episode of a cartoon, Itchy and Scratchy.

Itchy and Scratchy is an in-universe parody of a real-life cartoon Tom and Jerry, but with a stronger emphasis on graphic violence, and airs as part of a program called Krusty the Clown, which is enjoyed by Marge’s other children, Bart and Lisa. Interestingly, while Lisa normally abhors violence, she adores Itchy and Scratchy with the same enthusiasm as Bart.

Having watched the cartoon for herself, and seeing little Maggie attempting to stab Homer with a pencil, Marge makes a mental connection, and decides to take action.

As the episode progresses, Marge eventually builds a coalition, which successfully convinces the writers of Itchy and Scratchy to write a non-violent episode. Predictably, this causes viewers of Krusty the Clown to lose interest, resulting in them playing outside, instead.

For Marge, this appears to be a victory. However, the episode doesn’t end there. The curators of a famous work of art were on a tour which would take them through Marge’s home town of Springfield.

Marge believed the work to be a masterpiece. However, the coalition she was previously a part of objected to it, by reason of it being a depiction of nudity. Thus, there was a new conflict driving the plot, as Marge contested the coalition she herself was instrumental in forming, while being criticized for her alleged hypocrisy for opposing the artistic depiction of violence, while defending an artistic depiction of nudity.

In the end, Marge won out again, and Marge and Homer got to see the statue for themselves at an exhibit, where they expressed a desire for their children to also see it for themselves, possibly through a school field trip.

There are numerous takeaways that a person could come away with after watching this episode. But the one I would like to focus on is the main theme, which concerns the freedom of expression in practice.

Due to the ironic nature of how the characters in The Simpsons are written, it can be difficult to determine whether the characters learn lessons which may be apparent to viewers.

Marge initially disregarded the principle of free expression, apparently taking a position which favored her own interests. Rather than properly instructing her own children, she opted for convenience, insisting on  entertainment media which she saw as having less potential for negative influence.

But when a work of art was to arrive in town which she regarded as a masterpiece, she defended it, against the objections of the cadre she had previously sided with.

The undertone of the episode illustrates to viewers that protecting free expression doesn’t just mean protecting expressions that one prefers, it also means tolerating the presence of expressions that may not appeal to one’s sensibilities. Otherwise, one risks being seen as hypocritical, as Marge did.

Also relevant to today, one can notice that the coalition that Marge helped form didn’t stop with the art she didn’t like, it continued with the art that she did like. That’s how it often goes with such collectivist groups, they can develop in ways that’s difficult to predict, and they often develop desires which are well beyond what they may have initially expressed.

We’ve found the absolute fastest way to undermine your own cause.

Leave a reply

The race is over. We have a loser. She wasn’t the last one to reach the finish line, no. Before the starting gun even sounded, she was going full sprint in the opposite direction. Her desiccated corpse has been found, and it’s been drained of all fluid by reason of the many nicks and scratches she accumulated in her determined push through the dense bramble of abject failure.

I’m talking about Sammy Sludge, the dirtbag who went on a killing spree in a Christian school before personally ending any possibility for any redemption arc for herself.

And no, Sammy Sludge wasn’t her real name. As I see it, if anyone commits her category of crime, they should lose their real name, and instead be remembered by a demeaning monicker that they’d have been certain to have hated. Sure, she called herself “Sam”, but she also called the people she hated “sludge” in her manifesto (if her writing could be called that), so she’d probably hate to be remembered as “Sammy Sludge”.

So, Sammy Sludge, it is.

So, what did she do? She turned a gun on a few children in a Christian school, before turning it on herself. Why did she do it? Because she hated men. You know, half of all people who exist. A biological sex that is necessary for the continuity of humanity.

I’m not accusing her of thinking this through.

Her “manifesto” indicated that she was a TERF, a form of feminist which rejects even trans women. And her social media footprint indicates that she was interested in mass killings, particularly the Columbine shooting.

She was a TERF-orrist.

So, can we as a society address the brain-rot that drives people like Sammy Sludge to commit the kind of crime that she did, at just 15 years old? Maybe it’s about time that we admit that certain ideologies, when believed in with sincerity, turns people into bad people. Do we need more evidence?

Sammy Sludge, with her final act, undermined her own cause. Is there anything else a person could do to make it look worse?

Obviously, she doesn’t represent everyone from her own cause. I get that. But that doesn’t mean that she can’t undermine it. And that’s just what happened.

If Sammy Sludge was a victim in any sense, it’s that she was fed a completely one-sided argument in favor of a pile of bullshit, which she then believed in with sincerely. Her mind, as defective as it evidently was, was unable to mount a sufficient defense against the assault against her intelligence that turned her into a foot soldier for a debased cause.

What Sammy Sludge left behind was a world in which men continue to live, nearly all of whom are more virtuous than herself.

Least Attractive Bar Graph on Social Media

Leave a reply

Okay, is anybody actually falling for this? Let me know.

What I’m talking about is a graph that started trending on X, which shows a bar graph of what is supposedly the most unattractive hobbies for men, “according to women”. The chart is as follows:

I ignored it at first glance, but seeing as people kept giving it attention, I’ve decided to take it behind the shed. Spoiler alert, it’s coming back with some teeth missing.

First of all, Online Trolling is listed among the hobbies. That should be a powerful indicator of what’s going on, here. Hopefully, I don’t have to spell this out. Okay, I’ll do it anyway, because no reader left behind.

It’s bullshit. Someone came up with this graph just to mess with people. And it worked.

But it’s not the first indicator that someone is messing with you. That would be the fact that there’s no citations. And if there’s no citations, this means that there’s no study, no survey, no polling, or anything of the sort. If someone wanted their study to be at all respectable, there would be a citation, so that a person could look into the methodology to ascertain that the data has any value. There’s no citation, so there’s nothing of value.

Instead, every indication is that someone just pulled all this information straight out of their ass, and posted it on social media knowing that it would push some buttons.

Notice something else about the data? Conveniently, every data point on the bar graph decrements by five. Sure, it’s possible that if you survey thousands of people, it’s possible for the data points, when arranged in the form of a bar graph, would form a neat decrementation by fives. But it would be strongly unlikely.

Having said all that, the point that really pushes people’s buttons is the one about playing video games. I call BS, because women I’ve met play video games. In fact, the last woman I was with played video games. She had a big stack of them. But she hid them from me, even though she didn’t have to, and I ended up finding them accidentally.

Look, I remember a time when video games were the pastime of hobbyists who frequented Radio Shack. Back then, I would’ve understood if someone regarded them as some nerd hobby. But a lot has changed since then, and now it’s something that pretty much everybody does. It’s been decades since it’s been regarded as a nerd hobby, and if anyone today said that they didn’t play them, I wouldn’t believe them.

People need to stop falling for this stuff.

Star Wars cannot be salvaged.

Leave a reply

Normally, when I want to write a review, I try to avoid other people’s opinions of what’s being reviewed beforehand, because I want my review to be my genuine opinion. For anyone who has set out to write a review of Star Wars’ The Acolyte, this has become just about impossible, because the “creative” decisions made by Disney has proven to be a greater threat to the franchise than any Sith could manage to be, and as a result, social media is dragging it across nails.

Don’t get the wrong idea; I had no intention of reviewing The Acolyte, because I had no intention of watching it. While I was aware of it, it largely escaped my notice as it came around, because I don’t even bother with Star Wars, anymore.

I used to be a fan of Star Wars. I was introduced to it as a kid. At that point, Star Wars was a story that George Lucas wrote with the intention of making religion more interesting for children, which he evidently did with a reimagining of the story of David and Goliath. Except he showed a kid who wanted to be a pilot being radicalized into joining a terrorist organization by a religious zealot, then the kid went on to destroy a military base, killing millions.

But since Disney took over, their creative decisions have proven more disastrous than when George Lucas noticed that people were actually paying attention, and he decided to stop plagiarizing Dune. I gave the franchise a chance to change for the better, but I’ve since decided that I don’t really need it, and I’ve discovered that anime is better at avoiding identity politics and narcissistic power fantasies.

Based on what I’ve been hearing, I thought that the dumbest thing about The Acolyte would be the scene which showed a fire burning in space, without oxygen. Considering that Star Wars was the series that originally gave parsecs as a measure of time, not distance, it would have been a whatever moment.

But then, it turns out that it featured a sect of lesbian space witches who willed themselves pregnant, probably because their fertile years ran out as they furthered their educations and careers. So they became intersectional feminists because it’s easier to blame men than to confront their decisions to run out their biological clocks on pursuits that women don’t ultimately find meaning in, anyway. Then, after having tried everything but dating, they turned to magic. One can also point out that scissoring doesn’t work, there’s that.

Disney has written vomit. Star Wars was once a hero’s journey style of story, which nearly always involves a lesson that there are things outside of your own interests and pursuits. What Disney has written instead is blatant intersectional pandering and wish fulfillment, which actually overwrites some of the most important features of established canon. If the idea of a space witch achieving pregnancy through force of will sounds familiar, it’s because that was supposed to have been an innovation of Darth Plageus, the master of Emperor Palpatine. Did Disney forget about this? Or are they having as difficult a time keeping the source material straight as the average fan?

I’m not of the thinking that entertainment must necessarily teach a lesson. After all, entertainment is largely made-up, and the authors can insert an arbitrary moral in an attempt to justify the existence of the product to a concerned fundamentalist, and can make the moral anything that they want, including stupid nonsense that has no chance of working when put into practice in the real world. As such, I don’t expect Star Wars to contain some deep, existential meaning, especially with Disney writing it. Star Wars is not going to contain the meaning of life, especially with Disney writing up a fantasy about lesbian witches wishing themselves pregnant.

About the meaning of life, I personally think it’s pretty obvious. Life is about increasing the living mass, and increasing consciousness. You see this in nature, when you see a simple protein taking matter and free energy, and using it to create more simple proteins like itself. From a biological point of view, for us to produce progeny is the most important thing that we can do. And we have the means to do so without having to join a cult which attempts to bring it about with magical thinking. And, when it comes down to it, lesbianism is a subversion of the process.

Star Wars is supposed to be entertainment, but it’s failing miserably at that. That’s to be expected, when Disney is looking to score DEI points with intersectional pandering which alienates the vast majority of people. After all, less than 2% of all people are homosexual, and the rest are likely to be alienated by something that they don’t care to be associated with.

In fact, there’s more at stake than it not being interesting. Do you know what women in general think of homosexual men? They don’t respect them. Because women by nature tend to be more agreeable, they aren’t likely to say as much. But most women don’t want to date a man who has engaged in gay sex. This is because women care whether men have put their features in places where they do not belong. Women view gay men as having an ick on them that cannot be washed off. When heterosexual men are aware of this, it’s natural that they’d want to distance themselves from anything homosexual.

When you have the theory of mind that permits an awareness of this, it’s abundantly clear that writing in homosexual wish fulfillment is counterproductive to a brand whose objective is to have as broad an appeal as possible. I don’t wear the Star Wars logo for the same reason I don’t drink Bud Light: the image associated with the brand is something I’d rather avoid.

It’s because of this that I haven’t bothered with Star Wars in a long time. So when I hear that Disney attempted another spin-off that spits right in the faces of those who are still involved, all that really is to me is a spectacle for me to behold, pointing and laughing.

Other than that, Star Wars doesn’t mean anything to me.