Category Archives: Rants

Warning: Producers Are Workplace Prey

There’s something that’s been on my mind for a while, and I think this can serve as a warning to those in their twenties who have the idea of spending the next 40 years of their life working for some other man.

A long while ago, I started working a new job. It seemed like typical work, but before too long into it, my supervisor started suggesting certain procedures. You probably already know that a “suggestion” from a supervisor usually comes down to “do as you’re told, or there’s gonna be trouble”, but there’s something more to that particular instance: the procedures that he was suggesting did nothing to make my job more productive, they actually did just the opposite.

It didn’t take long to figure out that for the supervisor it was a matter of pride, or that the person I was replacing didn’t put up with the guy’s shenanigans (my co-workers told me as much).

Because we’ve grown up watching a lot of television, we’ve had it drilled into our impressionable little heads that it’s the hard workers who are the winners, and that if we keep at it, management will eventually take notice, and we’ll achieve that sweet payoff. Of course, as we grow more cynical over the course of our exposure to the real world, we eventually realize that our collective work ethics are being harvested to make other people rich.

In the workplace wilderness, those who actually produce value are prey animals. Their natural predators are those who produce bloat.

Bloat predators usually don’t do much of anything. But when they smell blood, then they’re off to get a piece of the action. This happens when there’s a problem somewhere.

Those who produce value can usually get by without the help of a bloat predator. Often, solving a problem is as simple as making an adjustment to a value or two in a process. However, the bloat predator is out to justify his existence, so he’ll continue to hack away at the issue long after the matter has been solved to the satisfaction of the rest of production. A problem solved by simple adjustments can be expanded into extensive record-keeping, periodic procedures, purchases of new gadgets (that aren’t guaranteed to work), redundant measurements, and on and on.

While the productive prey can attempt to confront a bloat predator, the matter usually won’t go well for the productive, as the typical bloat predator would just label them as problematic, and end up having their way because they tend to be more connected (they know which nuggets to blow).

Over the course of my work life, I’ve encountered bloat. There’s not much that one can do about it. When it gets excessive, it might be time to start looking around, as the company you’re working for might soon be going nipples-up. If you’ve got a side-hustle, it might not be a bad idea to put more energy into that, even if just for mental health. But if you can somehow manage to become self-employed, that might be ideal. In that case, you can decide for yourself how much bloat would interfere with productivity (ideally, it wouldn’t).

But in most workplaces, unproductive people who produce bloat are a fact of life. And for those who produce value, they are a vexation.

Malthusians: Destroying Humanity For Profit

Original image source: wallup.net (edited by me)

A common position of the Malthusian is that overpopulation is resulting in an overconsumption of resources, which may result in humanity endangering itself. Professing this motivation, the Malthusian feels justified in making actions that prohibit procreation among human beings, in an effort to keep human numbers in check. To this end, they encourage people to live single.

However, it’s easy to see that people living single actually consume more resources than if a male-female couple were to share the same dwelling space.

This should be simple to comprehend when you look at the resources consumed by couples, as opposed to what they’d consume if they were to live independently.

In terms of dwelling space, two people living single would require more space overall, as they would live in different homes, each with different sinks, refrigerators, air conditioners, and bathroom facilities. On the other hand, a couple would share all these facilities. Couples would easily use up half as much living space.

Next, let’s consider utilities. In the summer time, when people are uncomfortably hot, two people living single would air condition two different living spaces, whereas a cohabiting man and woman would only need to air condition one living space. Thus, the consumption of electricity would easily be halved when couples live together, and the electrical grid would be far less stressed.

Then, there’s winter time, when people get uncomfortably cold. A person with a one-bedroom flat in the northeast United States can easily spend as much as $200 a month keeping their place warm in the winter. However, a couple wouldn’t face the same hardship, as they’d share the utility expense, and their situation would be better still for the warmth the couple would provide one another.

When it comes to transportation, matters are less clear. I’ve seen couples that manage by sharing one automobile, but this isn’t always desirable for every situation. However, when people live by themselves, they each require their own transportation, which in many cases means many single people needing their own cars. This gets more significant as the result is the consumption of more fossil fuels, as well as ethanol, which is largely derived from corn. This is more significant as concerns agriculture and landmass when you consider that most corn grown in the United States is not for consumption as food, but for conversion to fuel.

As one considers all this, it’s plain to see who makes a killing off of Malthusianism: Real estate interests, utility companies, and oil barons.

If more people are living independently of other human beings, that means more people spending more on products and services than if they were to share these things with other human beings. Real estate companies profit when more people are buying homes and apartments for themselves than if they were to cohabit. Utility companies maximize the number of spending customers when each potential customer is spending for themselves, rather than sharing the benefit with another person. Oil barons profit huge when demand is increased, and this happens when more people are fueling more cars, rather than sharing cars with partners.

From this, we see that the product of Malthusianism is reduced living space, resources being depleted, and the environment being destroyed. Which is, of course, the exact opposite of what many of their own sincere believers may have wanted. But for the ones that really benefit from the ideology, it means dying rich while fucking over the entire world for successive generations.

All while pretending that the opposite is happening.

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.

Anthony Fauci is an Inferior Man.

Anthony Fauci literally just said that “There comes a time when you have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision”.

I can guess what you’re thinking: “There’s no way. How can anyone be so out of touch with reality as to say something so devastatingly wrong?”

I don’t expect you to take my word for it, so I’m sharing video evidence. In it, Fauci tells us plebs that because we’ve been benefiting so well from society, we should give back by giving up our right to make choices for ourselves. Putting aside, of course, that society under Fauci and his other leftist corporate interests have attempted to shut us in our homes and are now pulling out the stops to threaten us into taking a vaccine that we don’t trust.

Here’s what stupid sounds like:

One of the many things that Fauci is ignorant of is the fact that the American republic was founded by better men than Anthony Fauci. What these men understood was that human rights were axiomatic tenets of reality that every human being has, as they penned in the following blurb from some old document that they might still teach about in schools:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The United States Declaration of Independence

Even if you don’t believe in a Creator, you should still understand individual rights to be a matter of superordinate principle, in a manner similar to natural law. Every human being has a right to security in their property, without it being stolen from them. Every human being has a right to their own sincerely-held religious beliefs, or any conviction they may have. They have a right to express their opinions, even if there are consequences for doing so. A person has a right to defend themselves. A person has a right to their silence, without it being taken as self-incrimination. Every person has a right to their own means of production.

In that these rights are unalienable, means that they exist by default, it is impossible for a person to voluntarily give them up, are not granted by human government, and if any government doesn’t recognize the existence of these rights, that government is wrong.

Continuing on, the Declaration of Independence has this to say:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

No one can be governed unless they allow it. It doesn’t require a lengthy explanation, because it’s entirely self-explanatory. Anthony Fauci doesn’t govern me, because I refuse to be governed by inferior men.

The republic’s founders continue with language that puts those who would follow Fauci’s example on notice:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

I know that some limp-wristed incel might latch onto the use of the word “Safety”, and twist it to mean something that it doesn’t. The fact is, safety implies bodily autonomy, including the freedom to turn down a vaccine that one does not trust.

When a government twists the concept of safety into a pretext to challenge the axiomatic freedoms, that government should be altered or removed. That’s some food for thought for the Democrat establishment, if they are at all interested in retaining their place in American government.

After all, in nature, as is the case in human society, and has been demonstrated throughout history, the followers don’t endure being abused by their leaders for very long.

There is an old proverb, and because it originated in China, I suspect that Fauci has heard of it. It goes like this:

“The emperor that burned all the books was overthrown by illiterate men.”

Howard Stern, Get Over Yourself.

Howard Stern’s remaining audience largely consists of boomers who mistakenly remember a time in which Howard Stern was cool, and Gen Xers who started listening because the boomers did.

While it’s obvious that Stern’s best days are behind him, he’ll sometimes fire off his mouth in an attempt to stay relevant. I’d have no idea what he had to say if it weren’t passed along by new media, which is pretty sad considering his history of proclaiming himself as “King of All Media”. That’s a ballsy thing to proclaim one’s self, but he didn’t use any of that to make the following statement about those who refused the COVID vaccine by reason of their personal freedom:

“Fuck them. Fuck their freedom. I want my freedom to live. I want to get out of the house. I want to go next door and play chess. I want to go take some pictures.”

Howard Stern

If Howard wants so badly to do those things, he can just do them. That’s what those who appreciate their freedoms have been doing with those very freedoms. If Howard himself has been vaccinated, he’d face no risk of getting COVID, if the vaccine were as effective as other vaccines. And if he weren’t (by reason of medical exemption), he’d be taking a risk intrinsic to living life, comparable to catching the flu.

That’s how it goes, sometimes, you don’t have the same kind of health that someone else has, and that makes your choice of activities more narrow than theirs. Fact of life.

Howard, who once upon a time was marketed under the pretense of being shocking and anti-establishment, is now taking a pro-establishment position with no risk of retaliation on the part of advertisers. And over what? He wants everyone else in the world around him to get a vaccine they might not even want, just so he’ll feel safer going outside and doing stuff.

And we’re supposed for feel bad for him after he spent the better part of his life as a multi-millionaire who made bank by contributing nothing to society except firing off his mouth on the radio, and making a movie that no one cares about.

Not everyone can understand why anyone would watch videos on YouTube about people playing video games or eating food, when people can just do these things themselves. I wonder how many of these same people listen to a radio show about a rich man who goes to night clubs and talks about seeing anatomical features that half of all people have?

Another point one can make about Stern is that he talks as though he thinks we’re still consuming the same old news stories that were going around at the early part of the pandemic:

“The other thing I hate is that all these people with COVID who won’t get vaccinated are in the hospitals clogging it up.”

Howard Stern

Remember back when they opened stadiums up with hospital beds, to prepare to treat an expected influx of patients? Remember when they closed those makeshift treatment centers down because, as it turns out, they didn’t need them? What hospitals is he going to that he couldn’t get in because of all the COVID patients?

What’s more, Howard is blowing his stack, saying that people who refused the vaccine should be denied medical care, overlooking the fact that people can refuse the vaccine for some compelling reasons, such as the suspicion that it hasn’t been sufficiently tested before being released to market, or due to concerns over spike proteins.

It’s easy to see past all the bluster and realize that the real reason why Howard is so salty is because we’re going to be the ones writing the history books, by reason of the fact that we’re the ones going out and living life and procreating.

What’s really sad about this is that we lived to see the day that Howard used his platform to proclaim the following:

“Fuck their freedom.”

Howard Stern, whose entire career is owed to free expression and the private ownership of the means of production, is apparently selective when it comes to what freedoms are applied, and how.

Because Howard Stern (and leftism in general) is out of touch with reality, they lack the cognition that freedom is not granted by human government, it’s axiomatic in a similar sense to natural law. Everyone has a right to their own sincere convictions. Everyone, when attacked, has a right to defend themselves. Everyone has a right to their own property, without it being unjustly or unfairly extracted. If any humanly devised system ignores these axiomatic fundamental rights, they still exist, and the system itself is in the wrong. Whether you’re a celebrity, radio personality, or king, if you ignore or act contrary to these rights, you are wrong.

But no one has a right to a life that’s free from risk. Risk, including the risk of getting sick, or getting attacked by an animal, or ending up impaled on something, is an intrinsic element of the reality that we live in. Attempts to alleviate those risks are usually reasonable, but sometimes not. Attempts to eliminate those risks are often wrongheaded.

If COVID is something you’re concerned about, you can plan accordingly for yourself. What you can’t do is limit another person’s freedom of movement or bodily autonomy. Whatever choices you make for yourself, you do with the possibility of whatever consequences that follow as a result.

While Howard Stern is free to have his own opinion, that includes his right to a misinformed or misguided opinion, a right he’s done nothing to waive. While Harlan Ellison may not like it, people do have a right to be ignorant.

But if you’re one of the few people left who still listen to Howard Stern, you should ask yourself what you’re listening to. When you listen to a rich man with a radio show hobnob with strippers and ruthlessly lampoon members of his own cast, is it really because there’s nothing else to listen to? As a person who gets up early in the morning, goes to work, comes home to eat poor people food, and usually barely pays the bills, it’s easy for me to say that Howard Stern doesn’t speak for me.

An Anti-Censorship “Freedom Phone” Was Just Revealed. Here Are My Thoughts.

I think my typical audience can appreciate that the sad state of social media and the tech industry is such that there is a strong unfulfilled demand for a device whose seller markets it as respecting a basic fundamental human right.

But that’s not as far as it goes when it comes to what’s sad about the Freedom Phone, which is being offered by a man who got rich by buying Bitcoin when it was cheap. As for me, I majored in Electronics Technology outside of mainland China.

But I learned a few things, and started storing value in crypto. Let’s see what Mr. Rich-Boy who already did so has to offer the pro-freedom world.

As it turns out, it’s not a whole lot. He’s taking some relatively-cheap Pixel phones, installed with GrapheneOS, and preloaded them with a few select apps, sans the typical Google stuff. One of the offerings is a Pixel 4 XL 64GB, starting at $489.

You can verify by looking it up, but it’s a snap to find the same phone for under $200. But hey, if you’re looking to justify the markup, you can look at the pre-installed OS and apps as a service for if you don’t want to do it yourself, and learn to do so, if need be. If you’re really being threatened with censorship by big tech, would it really hurt to learn?

Noteworthy is that the Freedom Phone offers an “uncensored app store”. If the app store were to be completely uncensored, what’s to stop a developer from offering an app with malware? And if the app were removed, the developer could call the Freedom Phone out for not being “uncensored”. Then there’s the question of whether “uncensored” means that the store will remove illegal content.

If you’re already paranoid, then you’ll likely already understand the concept of a “honeypot”, which is what you have when certain software is marketed towards a target group because that software has a hidden capacity for monitoring the people who use it. It’s an app such as this which was behind a massive sting operation which saw the arrest of over 800 people. Considering this, it’s understandable that even a free-speech advocate might consider the Freedom Phone to be kinda sus.

Hold on a sec, check out that logo:

It looks like it says, “Reedom Phones”. If you’re going to “ree” over the software on your cheap phone, perhaps it’s appropriate. Otherwise, Freedom Phones might want to change up their logo.

When one goes overboard with the privacy protection stuff, that in itself can put a person on the map. After all, most people wouldn’t run an obscure computer with an unusual OS, running Tor and encrypting all their files unless they had something to hide. If what you’re doing requires a huge pile of over-the-top privacy measures, what you’re doing might be so illegal that it may be a solid strategic move to do it from another continent.

By the looks of it, Freedom Phones isn’t offering it’s own carrier service or running its own cell towers. Because of this, your phone can still be denied service by your carrier, whose SIM card you install into it. What’s more, because your carrier can determine your location by triangulating your position using cell towers (yet another thing that Edward Snowden was right about), your phone can still be used to determine your general location. And speaking of your cellular provider, you probably provided them with oodles of personally-identifiable information for the purposes of identity verification when setting up your account.

Having expressed due skepticism, one thing I can appreciate about the Freedom Phone’s reveal is just how hard it has legacy media tripping over itself to write up whatever hit pieces they can about it. It seems they can agree on one point concerning it:

The Daily Beast, for example, is among those pointing out that the phone was made in China, as though that’s an argument against the phone. Let’s be honest here, just how many American tech companies make their own tech? The world would have surprisingly little without the roughly 1 billion slaves laboring under the Chinese Communist Party. Not that The Daily Beast is being racist against the Chinese, by the way.

PC Magazine is on the bandwagon with the stock response that it was made in China, as though they themselves see a problem with Chinese manufacturing. Do you see a problem with Chinese manufacturing, PC Magazine? Say it.

Even Business Insider is parroting the “but it’s made in China” spin, as though that’s an answer to any question anyone is asking about the Freedom Phone. If you have a problem with a tech device just because it has components that were manufactured in China, I welcome you to research the tech products you already have to see how far a boycott would last you.

This again.

Check out how hip and anti-establishment HotHardware is being by saying the exact same thing the corporate mainstream information media is saying, days after they say the same thing. There’s no way to stick it to the man quite like dissing a platform poised to give ordinary people a voice that cannot be censored by the establishment. Don’t you feel so hip!

While some of the concerns are valid, the left is being sudden with their disdain of Chinese manufacturing. I don’t expect them to go as far as boycotting Chinese devices. After all, they’d have a much harder time masturbating without a glowing display screen to show them pictures of cartoon ponies.

Based on what I’ve seen so far, I don’t recommend Freedom Phone. If free speech online is a big enough concern for you, I’d instead recommend getting a reasonably-priced phone you can install GrapheneOS onto, then attempt it yourself once you know what you’re doing.

If you’re still on the fence, it might be a good idea to hold off until you see some reviews from those who’ve actually used the product. The reviews themselves might be entertaining.

Nintendo Switch OLED: Why the Cheap Seats Aren’t Impressed

Nintendo just revealed the Nintendo Switch OLED, and as you may have heard, the internet personalities are less than impressed. While the cheap seats are being won over with the typical edgy skepticism, I know the real reason for their disappointment, and it’s nothing for them to be proud of.

Yeah, I’m about to step on some toes. But before that, I’ll get into my first impressions based on the trailer, shown here:

The system is basically the same as the classic Nintendo Switch model, but with a big 7-inch OLED display for portable mode, and the dock has been given a slicker design with rounder edges. It looks hot, but it’s not that big a deal for me, as I do much of my gaming with Switch on my TV, and when I’m doing that, it’s the TV that gets the attention, not the dock.

Much of the trailer shows stock photo models doing things that they could already do with the classic Switch system, so my impression based on this is that I’m not going to be missing out on much if I were to give this one a pass.

The adjustable wide stand is just what many players have been asking for for a long time, but that’s another thing that’s not going to make much difference to a person who mainly plays on their TV.

There’s also a wired LAN port (cable sold separately). That’s great for those who care about it, but wasn’t wireless ad hoc already a thing on Nintendo Switch? While the data exchange rate would likely be better with wired LAN, it’s hard to imagine many players would actually use this at family get-togethers over the system’s simple wireless connection. Revealing a wired LAN port for the Nintendo Switch this late in the game is like if they revealed a new model of Nintendo DS (their first Wi-fi enabled system) with an ethernet port.

It seems the point of the Nintendo Switch OLED is to appeal to those who haven’t purchased a Switch yet. I already have a Switch, so for me, it’s an easy pass. Having said that, I’m not terribly disappointed. While it’s not much of a surprise that Nintendo has revealed a new model of their system, my expectations weren’t very high.

On the other hand, the web personalities are collectively disappointed. That’s to be expected when someone spends time listening to rumors and treating them as anything but just rumors.

So, you believed that the new Switch would be called the “Switch Pro”. Why was it collectively accepted that that would be the official name, when it originated as a fan term? So, you believed that the Switch would have an upgraded processor replacing the NVIDIA Tegra that they’ve been using. Did Nintendo reveal this information, and I missed it? Or how about my favorite one: that Nintendo would use happy-magical spacekitties technology to somehow enhance the graphics to old Switch games as they are being played in real time. That sounds suspiciously like some kid’s wish, which might be a hint to where that rumor originated from.

It’s difficult to avoid rumors. And they are tempting to scope out, considering that sometimes the alleged-leakers actually call it. But if people believe rumors just because they appeal to their fanciful thinking, or even if they sound believable enough, they’re usually just setting themselves up for disappointment.

When it comes to games and hardware, speculation can be fun, but it can turn into disappointment when people use what’s speculative to cultivate their expectations. You can board the hype train if you want, but you should want to get off before it takes you too far. If you consume what comes from the rumor mill, don’t be surprised when you’re left with a sour taste. Try not to blow your load before the big presentation.

I know why the major content creators spend as much time as they do on the rumor-mill: they want to seem more connected, especially with their pride on the line, and considering how hard they already have to work to maintain the audience that they have. Also, there’s the pressure to maintain scheduled content, which plays a huge part in holding people’s attention. When the news is slow, it’s hard to avoid commenting on rumors that are going around. It might even be productive, if to cast skepticism on what is plainly ridiculous.

Speculation is part of the fun, but can we be more careful about accepting rumors as fact? Odds are, some guy on YouTube doesn’t have an insider connection to Nintendo, and might just be posting video commentary, just the same as anyone else can.

Why Do People Laugh at Sports Cars?

This morning, I ended up behind a Monte Carlo in traffic. I had to squint to make out the stylized letters on its decal, because at a distance, it looked like it said, “Idiotmaster”.

It wasn’t until a red light that I made it out. It said, “Intimidator”. And a right bang-up job it was doing.

People who spend something like $100,000 on sports cars have no idea how much the rest of us laugh at them. Like when they blow all that squishy money on some expensive brand name that can go 200 mph.

When is anyone going to drive at 200 mph?

What kind of yutz would spend that kind of money on a car with a benchmark that cannot even be lawfully attained? Even if they were to find the hypothetical stretch of road where such a rate is legal, they’d likely end up behind someone moving at a reasonable speed, because not everyone wants to die in a fiery wreck.

I know that some people would attempt to use “impressing the ladies” as a justification. Trust me, a woman isn’t worth spending time with unless she gives a care how you piss away your money. If you really want to attract women, get a roomy back seat.

Speaking of ridiculous cars, there was a red Jeep that I was stuck behind on a couple different days on the way to work. Maybe it was because the driver thought his Jeep was a truck, because in both cases, it was on a stretch of road where trucks had a reduced speed limit. A Jeep isn’t a truck, it’s more like an ATV with a tarp over it.

But hey, way to live up to that manufactured sense of adventure. Your ability to buy stuff makes you almost as manly as someone who shaves with a straight razor.

While I’m busy criticizing everyone’s choice in automobiles to a greasy pulp, the other day, I saw in the corner of my eye as a car attempted to “rev that engine”, except the loud popping sound came out of their muffler. I know that’s supposed to be impressive, but if it comes from your muffler, it means your heap urgently needs work.

Can we agree at this point that the sports car is not really peak automobile? And that it doesn’t indicate status in the way it once did? Because if we can agree on that, perhaps everyone can stop pretending their pitiful little sedan is something it’s not.

Worse yet, the car smelled really, really bad. As though they tried using the wrong fuel. The pump is a bad place to pretend to drive something you don’t, don’t be stupid.

For the odd idiot out to justify their purchase, no, I’m not picking on sports cars because I can’t afford one. I can afford one. Because they can be financed, nearly everyone can afford them. People laugh at sports cars because they’re ridiculous. It’s as simple as that.

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.