Category Archives: Rants

They’re Making Lola Bunny Less Attractive, and This Was Supposed to Benefit Women, Somehow.

Hold on, what is this? I heard that Lola Bunny is getting a redesign, but that’s just gross. Is that piccie above really of Lola Bunny? She looks like some kind of freaky space-alien-looking-thing.

But that’s not the main thing about her that I’m hearing about. But before this post continues, here’s a short disclaimer:

WARNING: If you’re disturbed by mild sexualization of a cartoon character, you should probably get over yourself.

Now that that’s out of the way, apparently, Lola Bunny was given a breast reduction in an effort to make her less sexually appealing.

In the special way that Slate sees matters, “conservatives want you to be mad that Lola Bunny’s not hot anymore”. This lulzy position overlooks the greater problem that this is what feminism has done to women throughout the western world.

As depicted above, Lola otherwise still has highly feminine characteristics, including diminutive upper-body strength, narrow shoulders, softer eyes, broader hips, and so on. Those hips are quite well-defined, by the way. Those would be what’s referred to as “birther hips”, which are considered strongly appealing by, you know, men. Lola’s otherwise over-the-top feminine appearance makes her breasts all-the-more conspicuous in their absence.

As I see it, the designers of Lola’s character could design her as they wish for what they perceive as the creative benefit of the work that features her. Put another way, if it’s your character, you can design her however you want.

However, if it was the designer’s intention to distract from her sexuality, they’ve likely figured out by now how difficult that can be. In many ways, it couldn’t really be helped by virtue of the fact that sexuality is something that occurs in the mind. An artist can’t really control whether anyone could perceive a work in a sexual manner.

If an artist wanted to make something that was impossible to perceive with an element of sexuality, that in itself would be pretty-much impossible. Humans can perceive a sexual element, even in things that wouldn’t seem intrinsically sexual. Like pizza, which is a food item. I don’t get it, but it’s something that some people find sexual.

What’s more, sexuality is an intrinsic element of humanity. It might even be that sexuality is the most human of traits. The moment that something is humanized (such as, for example, when anthromorphizing a cartoon rabbit), it gains a sexual identity. The only time when it’s acceptable to not consider a sexual identity is when it’s not known, such as when the sex of an unborn child is not yet identified. But once it’s sex is known, it’s not acceptable to call the child an “it” again.

When you draw a cartoon character of your own, and call it a “her”, you’re acknowledging the existence of her vagina, provided that the character is a human female that is anatomically consistent with other human females. It is then assumed that this characteristic plays a role, even if slight, among other characters that they interact with (except in some cases when it is established that the character plays a non-traditional societal role).

If you think I just stated a lot of highly obvious stuff, you’re well enough off to not have to be told as much. But not everyone out there is as well off. Particularly, the radical intersectional feminists who mistakenly view sexualization as a form of objectification. But the fact that they’re wrong isn’t stopping them from passionately trying to become authoritarian moral busybodies.

Intersectional feminists, being absolutely tone-deaf, misses the irony of the fact that, on International Women’s Day, the design change of a cartoon rabbit that isn’t real, and therefore cannot be an actual victim, makes the news by becoming less feminine. While this is occurring, women in the middle-east have almost no rights to speak of compared to men, and are legally kept in harems as sexual slaves.

Priorities, much?

As one might imagine, the furry community is furious about this news. They’ve become yet another western creative community that has become negatively impacted by intersectionalism’s obsession with making everything it touches less entertaining. They’re a sorta-dubious addition to the club, but they’re an addition to the club, non-the-less.

You know whose cartoon bunnies remain unaffected by western censorship? Anime.

Today has shown us yet more reason why more and more westerners are turning towards Japanese manga and anime. One can really hand it to the Japanese for making sure that entertainment is still entertaining.

If you’re siding with intersectional feminism and have managed to stick around this far, please stand by for a send-off from Akira Kogami:

When western entertainment fails hard, along comes anime to sweep up yet more viewers. How long will it take for Hollywood et al. to figure out the obvious? I don’t know, but there’s a continual flow of new anime to watch in the time it takes for it to happen.

PETA wants to ban animal name insults

PETA is no stranger to taking offense on behalf of animals. Now, they’re taking offense to the use of certain animal names as slangs, and are suggesting alternatives.

Examples include exchanging the slang “chicken” for “coward”, “rat” for “snitch”, and “snake” for “jerk”. PETA’s objection is on the reasoning that they imply that humans are superior.

Humans are superior to animals, and I can make the case for it, easily.

Suppose a race of extraterrestrials wanted to wipe out life on earth because they want an oxygen-rich terran planet on which to build an immense parking lot. Who do you suppose stands the best chance of stopping them?

Cats? No, they’ll be too busy destroying yet another set of drapes, while being too stupid to know why this pisses you off.

Dogs? No, they can’t even perform simple calculus.

Whales? Of course not. What do they even do?

If you answered “humans”, you’d be right. We’d be the most likely ones to detect those invaders the moment they’d enter our solar system, then vaporize them with all the ridiculously awesome weapons that we’ve been developing in the eons we’ve spent fighting each other.

Animals are like those worthless coworkers who have no idea how to do their jobs without making everything worse, so the best they could do would be to just stay out of the way. Except animals can justify their existences by being edible, and if they can prevent a bunch of humans from going hungry, they’ll have done their part in the effort to eventually save life on earth.

As for PETA, if they think humans are so mean, they’re free to go graze in a field, somewhere, and discover just how enlightened animals really are. And if they were to be eaten by some carnivorous or parasitic animals, they’d at least bring up the average number of humans who understand how the world works.

Fauci: “Do what you’re told” because science

Anthony Fauci, looking more like Hannibal Lecter by the day.

Dr. Anthony Fauci has been a proponent of muzzling Americans with facemasks. Now, it’s apparent that his own facemask is tight to the point of depriving his brain of oxygen, because now he’s literally telling Americans to “do what you’re told”.

Don’t believe me? Here’s what Fauci had to say, provided by NBC New York:

“I was talking with my U.K. colleagues who are saying the U.K. is similar to where we are now, because each of our countries have that independent spirit,” he said on stage. “I can understand that, but now is the time to do what you’re told.”

He actually said that.

He also said that “science” was being politicized, rather than trusted. That’s interesting, because it was “science” that governors trusted when shutting down states, causing unemployment to skyrocket, poverty to soar, and exasperating child starvation, all while not asking Americans themselves whether they objected.

And, what do you know, it turns out that scientists don’t have any idea how to run a society. For that matter, neither do doctors. Why not ask economists? And sociologists? And, for that matter, the people themselves? Even the WHO has come to understand that lockdowns were a bad idea.

Anthony Fauci sounds close to understanding that Americans don’t listen to authoritarians like him. But if he figured that out, he’d promptly shut up, get off the stage, and go where we don’t have to look at him.

If Anthony Fauci does not end up at a bus station somewhere begging for change, he has not experienced the damage he himself has caused.

The Fly That Everyone Can Shut Up About

The Vice Presidential debate was last night, and apparently, people actually watched it. That in itself surprised me, because the VP debate was like the diet cola of the campaign debates; in that people largely kid themselves about how much they matter.

Because the political climate today is bloated with people that don’t listen to what the other side has to say (largely enabled by social media algorithms serving content relative to a user’s political interests), there’s no surprise that either side would claim victory while shutting their ears to any point the other side actually made.

Because no one was actually paying attention, when a fly landed on Vice President Pence, that’s what got everyone talking. The next day, when people talked about the debate, it was mainly about the fly, which is to be expected when the debate is watched by a relatively disinterested audience that gave the debate a shot because they already streamed the Marvel movies and binge-watched every episode of The Mandalorian.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Between the two, the fly made the safer choice. I can imagine the fly bursting into flames if it were to land on Kamala Harris.

She’s the person who held people in prison for extended sentences for minor crimes so she could use them for cheap labor, paying them $1/hour to fight California wildfires. She started a fund to bail out rioters, even as rioters that had their charges dismissed by West-coast judges simply returned to riots. She filed criminal charges against the parents of truants, then laughed as she recalled their distress. She obstructed a DNA test that could have exonerated a man on death row, and when he was tested, he was cleared. Then, she blamed workers at her office for the obstruction, rather than take accountability for her own actions.

Reading her accomplishments, Kamala Harris sounds like the Chuck Norris of evil.

But as for the fly, if you guys like the thing so much, vote for it as a write-in. At this point, it wouldn’t surprise me if the thing actually won.

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

book burning.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cnn did an oopsie.png

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

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

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

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

Take your fake meat and shove it.

lina disappointed

I stood in place, neck craning at the illuminated menu. The contents of my stomach fought an uphill battle with my esophagus as I struggled to comprehend what I was beholding. As the seconds passed, my appetite decreased to the point that I could have simply walked out, requesting nothing of the distressed menu that was before me.

The problem? Submitted for your bemused disbelief, the Impossible Whopper:

F4CB0AA5-8C3C-422E-A763-98CA0C9032E5

There is some honesty to be appreciated in the implication that it’s impossible for a Whopper with 0% beef to be considered a hamburger, but any good will that could have been fostered is offset by the fact that the Impossible Whopper is, at its core, an imitation product.

If there’s no beef present, then just what meat is being served? Is it pork? Some variety of browned poultry? No, it’s pretty much a veggie burger. Of course, if the Impossible Whopper were marketed as the fake that it is, it would find it’s way down fewer gullible throats. The imitation burger is instead a lie by omission.

Another trend that’s disturbing is that of lab-grown meat. When I sit down to a steak, I shouldn’t have to ponder whether some lab somewhere successfully synthesized the protein that supports muscle growth, or the B vitamins that upholds brain function. My expectation would be that the steak was once an animal with awareness. If this were not the case, the violation of my expectation would throw my trust in the server into serious jeopardy.

It’s obvious why they’re trying to trick us: if we knew that these imitation meat products were not the real deal, almost none of us would bother with them, except perhaps the vegans who are going so crazy by reason of their ascetic diets that they’re willing to accept look-alikes to fill the void caused by an absence of normal food. But even then, that group is so legalistic that they wouldn’t likely risk the cross-contamination that’s expected at fast-food joints. So what are these proponents of fake meat doing besides trying to trick us?

There are people out there willing to ironically consume something gross just to say they did, but it’s a limited market. Once they’ve tried it once, they’ll move onto pig rectum subs or whatever, then what? What benefit is it to Burger King to leave something on a menu that just a few people are going to try only once? I’m not hungry enough to eat some imitation meat, and if I was starving, I have the benefit of having to choose between a bunch of things I’d rather eat, including durian.

If you can’t out-compete a fruit that smells like farts, you’ve failed.

If you think anime figurines are objectionable, what are you doing searching Amazon for them?

A few anime figures were recently removed from Amazon on the claims that they “promote child exploitation or depict children or characters resembling children in a sexually suggestive manner.” Because the figures in question do no such thing, there shouldn’t be an issue with showing you which ones were removed:

miku hatsune kanzaki hiro.jpg

This character is Hatsune Miku, one of the most recognizable Japanese characters. Personally, I assumed that she was an adult because she has adult characteristics (i.e. breasts, well-defined hips, etc.). But hey, I arrived at that determination using my brain and eyes. In Vocaloid lore, she’s a software character, so she wouldn’t actually have an age. Does Siri have an age, and would anyone object to finding Siri attractive?

tsumugi kotobuki.jpg

Notice just how much Tsumugi is expressing her sexuality by standing there, playing an electronic keyboard? She isn’t? Exactly.

miku hatsune.jpg

Miku again, and she looks very much grown-up in this one, too. She’s not even doing anything sexual, just dancing and singing. If you know of a place on earth that has a problem with these things, let me know about it in the comments below.

HLP.jpg

While this one is child-like in appearance, she’s not doing anything suggestive. She doesn’t look like she’s doing anything. However, she appears to be totally down with standing there and staring with a judgemental look on her face, just like the last girlfriend I had.

This representation of the character is a “chibi”, which means she was arbitrarily made child-like, which is something the Japanese do because they like cute things. Westerners should understand this because we have Funco POPs.

Still, there might be something about this character that comes off as odd. The chained collar around the neck of this angelic character implies an intention to confine. Considering this, this particular character comes off as having the highest potential for objectionability of the bunch (speaking from a position of relative ignorance of the manga or anime that may depict her).

Aoi Kannazuki.jpg

So this one (grown-up) is dressed like a maid. And there are people who think about sex when they think about maid outfits. Does this make maid outfits sexual?

No, it doesn’t.

Sexuality is something that occurs in the mind. People arbitrarily find things sexual which actually don’t have anything to do with sex. For example, feet. Why feet? I don’t know, but some people see them as sexual. Also, certain food items, like ice cream and pizza. I don’t know why people sexualize those, but it’s something that happens in their minds.

It should be obvious that I’m not overly favorable toward the idea of finding a work of expression objectionable just because there exists the potential to view it a certain way. If someone did, there would be a slippery-slope effect where that person might come to the point of objecting to just about anything, regardless of what the intention of an artist may have been.

I admit that I don’t know much about the characters pictured above, aside from Miku. If the other works that these characters were featured in sexualized them in any way, it wasn’t made apparent in the figurines themselves. But even if the characters are portrayed expressing their sexuality at any point in a manga or anime they were featured in, why would that be a bad thing, provided they were expressing it in a healthy way? Sexuality is one of the most human of traits, and is a universal aspect of human life. I suspect that the real problem is that certain people have an unhealthy view of sex and sexuality.

One related problem that I can point out in fiction, including in western media, is the gender double-standard when it comes to infatuation. When it occurs with girls and women, people assume pureness of motives. But when it’s boys and men, they’re portrayed as though we should be suspicious of their intentions. In reality, the experience of limerence is equally valid for both sexes.

ppgz_tv0010.jpg

As I’ve said before, if you don’t like a work of art, just don’t look at it. Not everyone has the same standard of what is objectionable, which is something that they can only decide for themselves. If you’re such a repressed person that when you see an adult anime woman singing you think “child exploitation”, what are you doing browsing anime figurines on Amazon?

By the way, I don’t actually know the ages of the characters depicted by the figurines. I went by characteristics, because that was how they were being unfairly judged by Amazon. I don’t really know much about these characters, aside from Miku. The characters were judged unfairly based on aesthetics, so I deemed their aesthetics as being what’s relevant to the discussion. If anyone wants to be nitpicky about it, fictional characters don’t actually have ages. Everything about them is arbitrarily made up, and whoever made them up can just make their ages whatever they want. That’s something to know about stuff that’s just made up.

PSA: Stop acting stupid about the coronavirus.

coronavirus derp.png

I’ll get to the point: Stop accusing people of having the coronavirus (or COVID-19, or whatever it’s called).

I know that not everyone would be deterred by the fact that that’s tasteless and unfunny, but there’s another kicker: you can get sued. It’s defamation.

If something you might do can rightly be called “stupid”, play it safe and don’t do it.

Also, people can stop spazzing out over COVID-19 as though it’s going to be the end of the world. It’s almost identical to the common cold, something we already have. If China is taking extreme actions to limit the spread of infection, that’s nothing to concern yourself with, unless you’re in China. We know why China is trying as hard as it is to stop COVID-19; the country is practically a huge factory, and it’s trying to limit how the sick days would collectively impact productivity.

Just chill, your life is probably still boring. No zombie apocalypse, here. Just let your immune system do it’s job.

white blood cells.jpg

Note for the slow: The admonition to let your immune system do its job should obviously apply to those who already caught the virus, and shouldn’t be taken to mean to be reckless and catch it. It also doesn’t mean to forgo treatment. If your white blood cells are receiving assistance from a qualified professional that knows what they’re doing, all the better.

Hey Jeep owners: We get it, we just don’t care.

Of all the drivers out there, none have exhibited unmerited smugness quite like Jeep owners. This smugness is distilled and used to print up Jeep decals telling the rest of us that we “wouldn’t understand”.

il_570xN.694216922_18gi.jpg

Jeep owners, we actually do understand. Your boxy car with a tarp top was marketed with a carefully-cultivated sense of adventure, and you bought one because you want people to think you’re macho. The rest of us could have made the same purchase with as much money, but we thought better of it and decided not to.

Because they’re in such a hurry to get the rest of us to take them seriously, Jeep owners are now getting their headlights modified with “angry eyes”:

jeep with angry eyes.png

This is when you realize that Jeep ownership is all about image. The carefully-marketed sense of adventure? Image. The numerous modifications with purely aesthetic value? Image. The many, many decals proclaiming the identity found in purchasing something mass-produced? Image, image, image.

These pubescent attempts to impress us are characteristic of a failure to develop beyond the Hot Wheels phase of automotive preference, and is further expressed with the idea that being a good driver means driving real fast and weaving through traffic (while the rest of us are wishing that the accident that takes the doofus off the road doesn’t take our own cars along with them). Little do they realize that if they wanted a car that’s effective at the whole “going fast” dealie, they’d want one with the proper specs to do so, such as aerodynamics.

Jeeps are the automotive equivalent of the guy who desperately wants to impress us, so he wears compression shirts, talks about guns at every chance, sprays himself with Axe, then wonders why the rest of us thinks he’s a poser.

Do you have a “Jeep thing” going on? Guess what? Nobody cares.

The Under Armour fad is cringey.

under armour punisher edgy underwear.png

It’s nothing new that people like to wear some clothing company’s logo. America today is a marketer’s wonderland when people happily accept wearing a corporate identity where any expression of individuality could have been. Worse yet, they’re paying the marketers to advertise the brand instead of the marketers paying them. But this, too, is nothing new.

If I were to wear a company’s logo, it would be because I liked the brand that the logo belonged to. If I were to project that same sensibility, I’d guess that a lot of people really like a certain kind of underwear, because I’m seeing the Under Armour logo popping up on people like an inoperable super-cancer that’s contagious. But the benefit of the doubt doesn’t apply very well to fads, so it’s more likely that a bunch of impressionable mouth-breathers saw someone else wear the logo, and instead of recognizing it as stupid, they saw yet another logo to wear.

What’s especially cringey about the Under Armour fad is that it’s about underwear. When I see someone wearing an underwear logo openly, I have a mental image of some lanky aspiring jock saying, “Hey baby, this is the brand of underwear that I wear. Wanna see?” and then a disinterested woman must cope with the trivial social inconvenience of rejecting a subtle sexual proposition from an omega male.

Underwear as we know it today was a very recent invention, and was previously only worn by women during their period to ease the effects of menstruation. Women in ancient times didn’t advertise that they were wearing panties, because not everyone had to know that they were menstruating.

Underwear is marketed as heavily as it is today because marketers want you to spend more money on it than you otherwise would, and if the logo on that underwear becomes trendy, that means more people spending more money. The fact is, humanity has done just fine without underwear for nearly the entirety of its history. It does nothing for modesty, because the clothing that one would otherwise wear would have sufficed. No, people didn’t go without underwear while wearing a kilt because of some tradition, it’s because underwear was a rarity a few centuries ago. And yes, this means that just about everyone pictured in old paintings weren’t wearing underwear.

1200px-Mona_Lisa,_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpgThe meaning behind the Mona Lisa’s mysterious smile has finally been decoded: she loves the breeze when going commando. Either that, or she’s happy about something. Get a life.

People in the past certainly didn’t have Under Armour, and for that matter, wearing corporate logos wasn’t considered trendy, either. That’s one of those things that goes to show that people in the past weren’t as stupid as they’re sometimes assumed to be.

When people wear an underwear logo on their shirt, they have no idea how much the rest of us are laughing at them for it, regardless of how self-important the underwear company is. Under Armour is an underwear company; stop taking them so seriously.