Category Archives: Rants

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.

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.