Category Archives: Regressive Leftism

TWAT News: JonTron removed from video game over wrongthink

Leave a reply

JonTron-Yooka-Laylee-PlaytonicJonTron, not looking at all sad about being removed from a game that looks like garbage.

YouTube personality JonTron voiced a character in the upcoming Yooka-Laylee video game, which releases within the next few weeks. However, after JonTron expressed his views on a few sensitive matters, the developer, Playtonic, made the choice to remove his voice from the game via a content update.

Upon hearing this, I was interested in knowing just what he said, so I did a little web search. Polygon.com had the following headline:

JonTron being cut from Yooka-Laylee after spouting racist views

Just what were the racist views we’re talking about here? He said that wealthier black people commit more crimes than poorer white people, for one thing. He also said that citizenship is not a human right.

Neither of which are racist statements as much as they are observations. It is statistically accurate that black people commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. And it’s true that no one is entitled to citizenship in any country that they weren’t born in (in some cases, they can lose that much).

Leftist news sites and others with an obvious bias are not trying to convince the smartest people among us. For an idea to gain traction, it is only necessary to convince enough gullible cretins. Considering this, it’s no surprise that a news site like Polygon would conflate speaking of actual immigration law and crime statistics with hardcore ban-the-blacks-to-their-own-water-fountains racism.

Playtonic issued a statement regarding their decision to remove JonTron, and this passage in particular caught my eye:

Playtonic is a studio that celebrates diversity in all forms and strives to make games that everyone can enjoy.

“Diversity in all forms”, that is, unless that diversity involves opinions that are different from your own. Believe it or not, there’s more to diversity than having people around that look different. There are many employers that display informational pamphlets about Purim in their breakroom. Yet, those very same employers would be hesitant to actually hire a Jewish applicant if it meant that he’d want time off to keep the Holy Days, including the weekly Sabbath. This is because their so-called “commitment to diversity” is little more than virtue-signalling bluster.

One might think that with the Republican party being in control of all elected branches of federal government, there would be more respect for right-wing viewpoints. However, Playtonic’s treatment of JonTron and Polygon’s slant against him is a solemn reminder that this is not the case. Even though the political right has institutional control of the government, the left is just about as establishment as they’ve ever been. This is because their influence extends to virtually all levels of society, including education, labor unions, most of the news media, most social media, the entertainment industry, and the tech industry. They are still very much in a position of power that they can abuse.

And abuse it, they do, and they want you to know that if you step out of line and express an opinion that is not in lock-step with their own, they’ll do what they can to make that choice expensive for you.

Of course, this story doesn’t conclude with people putting up with it. Since stating their intention to remove JonTron from their game, Playtonic has been hit hard with refund requests, including from those who backed their Kickstarter project. People are expressing their disappointment with their money by demanding it back. If companies like Playtonic want to hit us for expressing our opinions, we’ll hit back where it really matters: right in their pocketbooks.

I know that there are those out there who would point out that the decision by game companies, social media, and the like to block content isn’t as much a violation of the first amendment as it is private companies deciding what content they deem suitable and which people they want associated with their image. I know, and I don’t care. As I see it, even private companies have a moral responsibility (even if not a legal one) to behave towards their customers, employees, and users in a manner consistent with the values of western civilization, which protects and honors free expression.

When it comes down to it, free expression is one of the most important things that western civilization has. Do you realize how hard it would be to determine who among us is a complete doddering imbecile if they were not allowed to state exactly what’s going on in their weak, simplistic minds?

The fastest way to expose a fool is to permit him to speak.

TWAT News: Hawaii virtue signals on immigration

Leave a reply

Hawaii has become the first state to challenge President Trump’s travel ban on 6 Muslim majority countries. The fact that the countries in question are Muslim majority is apparently relevant, rather than the fact that the countries in question are conflict zones or rogue states. But hey, I suppose the Muslim majority claim better fits the narrative, in spite of the fact that citizens of the other 44 Muslim majority countries may travel to the US easily.

president trump's travel ban percentage of countries banned

Some “Muslim ban” this is.

As you likely know, Hawaii’s capacity for identifying with the plight of states affected by illegal immigration is well known, considering the fact that the state shares a border with absolutely nobody, and the nearest continental landmass is over 2400 miles away.

google earth distance to hawaii

Seeing as Hawaii traditionally votes Democrat, it should be no surprise that the place is somehow ridiculously wealthy in spite of the fact that it doesn’t produce jack.

Hawaii’s challenge to the travel ban is on the claim that the ban is unconstitutional, which it isn’t. Come on, people. Actually read the constitution. It’s not very long, so it won’t take much time. In fact, here is a link to do so. You’d be surprised how many people have no idea what their rights are.

This Was Actually The News: Roommate seeker discriminates against Trump supporters

Leave a reply

Old media is becoming increasingly difficult to parody, what with their willingness to put any inane or ridiculous thing out there as news. Because of this, I’ve decided to try a series titled “This Was Actually The News” (or TWAT News for short), where I look at what makes the news these days. I’m not going to limit my news selections to a specific criteria, mainly in the interest of allowing myself the freedom to mock or be pleasantly surprised at whatever news stories I wish.

And what better way to kick this series off than with an article by CNN that should not have made it past the classifieds page.

23-year-old Sahar Kian made the news after taking out a classifieds ad seeking a roommate with the condition that the roommate not be a Trump supporter.

And that’s it. That’s what made this story newsworthy. That someone doesn’t want to share some cheap apartment somewhere with someone that they don’t politically agree with. Of course, the vitriol is directed at Donald Trump, so it’s no surprise that old media is going to jump over this with all the eagerness of Jared Fogle at a daycare.

Yes, there are millions of ignoramuses out there that wouldn’t cohabit with someone with a different opinion. But what makes Sahar Kian different is that she came right out and said it. What makes this story interesting isn’t that she did, it’s that old media decided to make a news story out of a simple classifieds preference. So, it actually says a lot more about old media than it says about the umpteen millionth liberal fringe lunatic that thinks that animals are people.

She probably isn’t going to have a problem finding a roommate now, now that her classifieds ad has made nationwide news. The only question is how long her choice of roommate will be able to stand her. If what she seeks in a roommate is any indication, the answer is that it won’t likely be very long.

For one thing, she doesn’t allow pets into the house. This in itself isn’t unusual, as it is a rule enforced by certain landlords. However, she also bars alcohol and meat products. So she’s liberal, but not so liberal that she’d allow people to choose for themselves what they eat and drink.

Kian also has a victim complex, as indicated in the following statement issued by Kian herself:

“Look at me, I’m brown. I’m a woman. I am somebody who is heavily reliant on Obama’s pre-existing condition clause,”

She’s also not at all hesitant to bring her battle against imaginary racists and sexists into matters. Look, I know that Trump haters are sincere in their beliefs that Donald Trump and his supporters actually are racists and sexists, and in most cases, they believe it because they were presented with evidence that, however fallacious, was convincing enough for them. What I’m saying is, when you live with someone who is paranoid enough, you’re going to see days in which they misplace their stuff and then go around saying that their enemies are stealing from them and accusing their roommates of being in on some conspiracy to do so.

As for “Obama’s pre-existing condition clause”, she’d be referring to Obamacare and her fear that the unsustainable healthcare law will be repealed. As it turns out, the law to replace it retains a ban on discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but that doesn’t prevent Kian from making assumptions, nor does it stop Kian from thinking that Trump and his supporters are out to get her.

Speaking of her ad, Kian says:

“It doesn’t say no conservatives in my ad, it doesn’t say no Republicans, it doesn’t say no Christians, it says no Trump supporters.”

Of course, it really doesn’t have to, because of her prohibition on tasty food and grown-up beverages. It’s obvious that she doesn’t want to talk politics unless it’s with someone who is in complete lock-step with the agenda of whatever left-wing fringe group that she’s a part of.

If it weren’t for the fact that this story made national news, Kian would stand almost no chance whatsoever of finding a roomie. The average person does have an ability to determine whether there’s something off about someone, even if on some small, subliminal level (it’s that so-called “creep vibe”). Kian embraces her inability to compromise with her fellow human being with an unsettling openness, which is just what makes her so unappealing. Her classifieds ad reads as a list of demands, including restrictions against food items, and it’s likely that she’d be leaving out quite a few demands that any potential roomie won’t find out about until after they’ve made the mistake of co-signing a lease with her.

So yeah… an anti-Trump classifieds ad was actually the news. Yep.

What your protests say about your values

Leave a reply

trump-dc-protests-thugs-pokemon-team-skull

People are ambassadors of whatever cause that they stand for. In particular, the actions that they carry out in the name of their cause is an indication of the virtues of the cause itself, as well as the values of the ones carrying them out.

This is particularly interesting to think about in light of the recent Trump inauguration protests. Pictured above is an image I found on CNN.com, and was obviously altered by myself to make a point. The attire of the persons pictured bear a striking resemblance to that of the antagonists of the latest Pokemon games. This is an odd choice for the protesters, as Team Skull from Pokemon were designed to be the worst amount-to-nothing low-life thugs a person could possibly imagine.

If a crappy fashion sense were all that were wrong with these people, I might not be commenting on them today (but maybe I would, considering my tendency to make fun of stupid fads). However, a person’s attire is not the only way that they represent their cause. Their cause is also represented by their actions.

What is their cause? Equal rights and opportunities for all races, either gender or perceived gender, and whatever strange sexuality happens to be touted by Buzzfeed this week. How do they represent their cause? By blocking roads, setting fires, and physically attacking people.

Apparently, they feel completely justified in their cause, otherwise, they wouldn’t do such things. It’s not like most people would get up in the morning, look themselves in the mirror, and say to themselves, “how can I be the most horribly despicable person I can be today?” If a person does something bad, it’s usually because they’ve justified to themselves whatever it is that they’re doing. In their case, that justification involves convincing themselves that the people that disagree with them are racists and sexists (though they aren’t), and convincing themselves that racism and sexism are the worst crimes that can be committed against humanity (they are far from it). Once they can do that, they can internally justify committing any crime against them, thinking that they are doing the world a favor in so doing, and thinking that they are the good guys in whatever cause it is that they are standing for.

Such thinking really isn’t new. It’s been employed throughout history to justify some of the worst crimes imaginable. The worst crimes in history have been committed by those who have felt justified in what they were doing. By way of example, Socialists and Communists believed that they were making the world a better place for poor people, and they used this as justification to kill tens of millions who opposed their movements. The National Socialist movement of Adolf Hitler actually believed that the Jewish people were plotting to take over the world, and they used this to justify attempting to wipe them out. During the initial expansion of Islam, Muslims believed that they were helping God by spreading their religion, which they used to justify attempting to take Europe by force, which they would have eventually accomplished if Europe didn’t respond with the Crusades.

Today, you see the Social Justice movement represented by groups such as Black Lives Matter doing things like blocking streets, setting fire to automobiles, attacking people, calling for the death of law enforcement, and threatening anyone that disagrees with their cause, just to name a few examples. While the movement itself sees such behavior as “activism”, the civilized world has another word that fits much better: “terrorism”. And it’s hard to argue with it, because their methods are intended to instill fear.

Terrorism – noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims

Yet, they feel justified because they’ve convinced themselves that their actions, however criminal, are for the greater good. They’ve become the bad guys, yet they don’t see it, because to them it’s everyone else that are racist or sexist.

When they punch in a car’s windshield (unaware that the car might have belonged to someone who voted for Hillary), they are representing the values of their cause. When one of them uploads a YouTube video throwing a temper tantrum because someone presented an opinion that was not in lock-step with their own, they are representing the values of their cause.

trigglypuffAn overly-well-fed millennial throwing a fit about hearing an opinion that’s different from hers at an event she didn’t have to attend.

And people can see that something is wrong. To the rest of us, it’s obvious. A man indulges in vacuous inanities to defend an ideology that actively beheads people today; people see that something is wrong. A woman throws a trash can and acts like she has demon problems; people see that something is wrong. An educator calls for “muscle” to intimidate a student journalist; people can see that something is wrong.

When SJWs act like total nutcases, they are seen as nutcases. When they behave as such on a consistent basis, people are going to come to realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with their movement. When it goes on for years, people are going to get sick of it.

This is why we now have a Trump presidency. People saw Regressive Leftism acting out for years, representing their values by throwing temper tantrums and destroying things. So people put their collective feet down and said, “No.” It didn’t happen because the SJWs failed to represent themselves. It happened because they represented themselves well. When you say that you’re for peace and progressivism, and you go around breaking and burning things, people are going to think that you’re manic. And why shouldn’t they? You’ll have already proven it beyond a doubt.

When you see Leftists behaving badly, it’s easy to point out. But when they start dressing like thugs and carrying out terrorist acts, that saves the rest of us the trouble of having to point it out, because they are doing it to themselves. The core values of the Social Justice movement are apparent because they themselves have placed them on display for the public eye to behold.

The thought of these 8 fads being over brings a smile to my face.

1 Reply

This is a blog wherein I do complain about stuff, but I do like to generally keep things positive. While there are things going on today that I find irritating to think about and fads that make me think that so many people have been hit on the heads as children, there are some things to be positive about.

I don’t know about you, but I’m one of those people that sometimes breaks out into a smile. Because people don’t read my mind, they might assume that I’m just crazy, rather than savoring an especially positive thought (while I do enjoy my privacy, I know that there are some people who I’d welcome to read my mind because they’d learn a few things that could result in them becoming better people).

EDIT: In light of the fact that new, technologically-driven ways to violate privacy are continually being developed, I’m making it clear here that that last paragraph concluded with a joke. No human being has ever been granted my permission to read my mind, including through technologically-assisted methods. So don’t do that.

There are thoughts that bring a smile to my face, and I’m sharing a few of them right here. Mainly, they have to do with certain things that used to be really popular and irked me, but I managed to live to see the day in which they are things of the past. I think of the following fads being over, and it brings a smile to my face.

1. H.I.M. (His Infernal Majesty)
This was some trendy pseudo-rebellious garbage that pandered to black finger nail polish wearing high school kids who wanted a little bit of satanic symbolism to help them be passive-aggressive towards religion for image’s sake. Their associated symbol was a pentagram with two rounded points that made it look like there was a heart in there. What was the point of this? Who cares? The fad is over. I survived, the fad did not.

2. The Emo fad
Another stupid fad that pandered to children, this one encouraged them to act all depressed in spite of the fact that they’re children who have never experienced a real hardship in their lives outside of their mom and dad not letting them borrow the car.

I can think of the following challenges that kids face:

  1. Showing up for school. Apparently, they get credit just for that.
  2. Not stepping out of line. When everyone else is bigger than you, it’s easy for them to beat you up.
  3. Keeping your mouth shut. It’s a challenge for kids to realize that they don’t know better than the adults in their lives who have been at this “life” thing much longer than they have.

There are children out there with very little in the way of food, shelter, and clothing, and they were probably more irked by the emo movement than I was because the emo kids seemed so sad to be reaping the benefits of middle-class life in a first world nation. Not that they’d still be upset about it, because the fad is over.

3. Miscellaneous nineties music
The music was probably the most annoying thing about the nineties. While it may open some wounds to bring it up, it is comforting to know that the garbage that was popular back then is no longer annoying us today.

When was the last time you turned on the radio and heard The Mighty Mighty Boss Tones? Or Third Eye Blind? Or any of that other garbage that likely had some political undertones? Left-wing political undertones, of course. This is the entertainment industry we’re talking about here. It’s not like they trust you to think for yourselves.

For that matter, when was the last time you turned on the radio and allowed it to dictate to you what music you listen to? No thanks, radio. I prefer to listen to my own playlists, without the advertisements.

4. Tight/bangin’ as slang
There have been various iterations of the word “cool” over the ages that come and go. There were a couple in particular that I was really glad to see go: “tight” and “bangin'”. Both seemed to be popular at the same time, and both of them I was really happy to see go, because of the sexual connotation involved that made them cringe-worthy. Here are a couple examples of their use:

“That hamburger was tight, yo.”

That’s “tight” as in a property of a woman’s vagina, because apparently a Burger King hamburger can be compared to the grip supplied by a birth canal during coitus, right?

“Those chicken wings were bangin’!”

To understand the full annoyance of the delivery, imagine a mildly-overweight middle-aged woman trying way too hard to sound hip tilting her head back and to the side on the word “were”, so she can push the word “bangin'” at you so you immediately feel like going home and scrubbing that association between the sexual connotation and her overly-mascaraed face from your brain with steel wool and butane.

When these two slangs were phased out as substitutions for the word “cool”, the collective did language a huge favor.

5. Michael Moore’s career
One thing that really annoyed me about the Bush presidency wasn’t Bush himself, it was the sheer smugness of the self-appointed intellectual superiors who complained about him nonstop, while a bunch of liberal arts majors carried water for them in spite of the fact that they had no idea what was going on. Considering that these people had near institutional control of the information media, it was difficult to escape all of the whining over everything he had ever done. But if I were to pick just one of them that I found more shrill and annoying than the rest, that would be Michael Moore.

While hating on Bush was the fad of the time, Michael Moore took it to an art form. To the point of making a movie to bust Bush’s chops. His arrogance was so astounding, that I actually wanted to see Bush win reelection out of spite. Which was just what happened.

Wonder what Michael Moore is up to now? When was the last time he said anything that you gave a care about?

Exactly.

It’s true that he still does speaking events, but it’s not as fun watching him descend into lunacy as it once was. Besides, right now, we have The Young Turks for that, and those guys are pure unintentional entertainment. If it’s a left-wing meltdown that you’re in the mood for, Cenk Uygur has you covered. Michael Moore is old news.

6. The DaVinci Code
If it weren’t bad enough that we had a fake documentary from Michael Moore, there were a bunch more inspired by The DaVinci Code. If you’ve already forgotten what The DaVinci Code was about, that’s enviable in it’s own sense. It was basically a work of fiction based on the premise that Jesus actually had children, which was then covered up by a mysterious order who somehow benefited by keeping this information to themselves. The order, being highly secretive and cunning, decided that the best way to keep their secret from the public was to have Leonardo DaVinci plant evidence of it throughout his work. The associated media flavored the material with mysterious, moody music and yellow, faded parchment, because you’re supposed to feel as though such a conspiracy actually happened.

Here’s the kicker: The author, Dan Brown, says that the cover up actually occurred. And suckers ate it up. Plenty of them.

So, what happened? One might like to think that the aforementioned suckers realized that they were being conned into buying garbage and doing a media machine’s marketing for them, but it’s far more likely that they got distracted by the next fad theology that came along. In any case, the DaVinci Code fad was over, and the History Channel moved on to marketing another stupid movie.

7. Loose Change
I could have merged this and the previous two into an entry called “Fakumentaries”, considering that all three of Fahrenheit 9/11, The DaVinci Code, and Loose Change came around at about the same time, indicating that there was this unusual demand at the time for being lied to by pseudo-intellectuals with obvious agendas. Our children will think that we were so stupid, but there’s no denying that there were many stupid people around at the time, as evidenced by these three fakumentaries.

What makes Loose Change so special is that it was produced by a film student by the name of Dylan Avery, who made it as an example of the kind of nonsense that 9/11 truthers believe. What Dylan didn’t count on was that, after having released his film to the internet, millions of people were stupid enough to take it at face value. So, did Dylan set the record straight?

No. He gave himself up.

He had something that most film students could only dream of having prior to graduation: a huge audience. If he set the record straight, he’d lose that audience and have to build it up again in the industry, which is something that many in the film industry spend their entire lives doing. So he issued a revised version of his film and gave the suckers what they wanted.

So, why don’t you hear about him today? For one thing, he made the mistake of releasing his video to the internet for free, so no one had to pay him for it. Not a very sustainable way to do business. Since then, he’s worked on several other films, but no one cares about them.

Of course, if more people had thought to ask why a mere film student would possess such insight into the inner-workings of a conspiracy to present a planned demolition as a terror attack, we wouldn’t have heard much about Loose Change to begin with.

8. Truck nuts
Truck nuts are one of those things that you’d see at a store somewhere and think to yourself, “Man, these things are stupid. Only a total dunce would put something like this on their car.” But then you see some people actually mount them on their cars, and you find yourself wishing that you had a rifle in your car so you can shoot them right off while you’re on the highway.

So, what are truck nuts? It’s a pair of plastic testicles that one can hang from their vehicle, right under the license plate. Putting them on your car sends a message, and that message is that you’d buy anything.

One thing I found weird about them is that I didn’t see anyone attempt to hang them on the front of their car, only on the back. Maybe it’s because they are being used to express a desire to [REDACTED].

So, there you have it. A list of fads that I’m glad are over. And sure, a few more annoying ones have popped up since. But at least we know that fads do come to an end, even the annoying ones.

An image to describe 2016

Leave a reply

Last year, I spent just a few minutes crafting an image to describe the year. After thinking about it, I’ve decided that the year 2016 is described pretty well by this one:

donald trump deal with it.png

For the cheap seats that think I’m a fan of the guy: not especially. It’s nice to see that after years of SJW insanity, America decided to put its foot down. I could have put in a blurb about blaming the Russians, but I got a little lazy. Besides, this says it just nicely.

Is there a fast, easy way to tell when someone is lying about a sex assault allegation?

2 Replies

Sex assault allegations seem to be coming up with increasing frequency in politics. It’s a trend that arguably became more mainstream with allegations against Bill Clinton, it has more recently derailed the campaign of Herman Cain, and Donald Trump currently faces allegations of sexual misconduct.

Even outside of politics, an allegation of sexual misconduct can be what it takes to derail the accused’s life, whether or not the claims are baseless. In a sense, it’s become a kind of go-to cheap shot for someone who wants to bring another person down, and this approach is attractive due to how much damage it does for very little effort.

Due to what’s at stake, it’s important that we know of a solid, consistent method for telling whether a person is lying to the public about allegations of sexual misconduct.

There is a method that is strongly consistent, and the reasoning behind it is solid. It goes as follows:

If an alleged victim of sexual misconduct takes their allegation to information media before taking it to police, there is a very strong chance that they are lying.

The reasoning behind this is as simple as it is compelling. If it were the interest of the accuser to hold a sexual predator accountable for their misconduct, their most practical course of action would be to report the incident to the police, as soon after the incident as possible. The police can then launch an investigation to collect evidence and, in so doing, increase the likelihood of a conviction, which would greatly decrease the likelihood of subsequent sexual assaults.

If it were the interest of the accuser to cause an extraordinary amount of harm to a person’s reputation, their most practical way of going about it would be to bring such allegations to the media, who, in the interest in providing the public with compelling stories, would do most of the work of attacking the reputation of the accused, especially public figures.

If a person were lying about a sex assault claim, it would not be in their interest to report it to the police. Because the police would launch an investigation, claims made would be scrutinized in the interest in reducing the likelihood of a false conviction, the investigation process would search for evidence of a crime that never occurred, and the judicial process would provide ample opportunity for the accused to make a defense. False claims generally don’t hold up under ordinary scrutiny, and would be far worse off under the kind afforded by the criminal justice system. What’s more, the police don’t like being lied to, so the person making a false claim may be prosecuted for falsely reporting a felony.

There are those who would point out that victims of sexual assaults have a difficult time coming forward due to the scrutiny that they would face. The scrutiny of law enforcement is trivial compared to the public attention that they would face, whether or not their claims were sincere. However, by design, a person who lies by taking their claims to social networks or the mainstream media can do the damage they please while avoiding accountability. Due to the “deep pockets” principle, a person is more likely to sue a media outlet for committing libel per se, because the media outlet would have more potential for compensating for damages than some woman who works at JC Penneys, even though the media outlet merely took the woman’s word for it.

On the other hand, when the matter is reported to the police, there is little potential for public attention, and such a claim, if true, could be verified, and the offender can be held accountable. The likelihood for this occurring decreases with time as the victim sits on the incident without reporting it. In fact, the statute of limitations exists to protect citizens from baseless and frivolous claims that allegedly occurred a long time ago, especially considering the tendency of the human mind to recall events with increased inaccuracy as time goes on. Considering this, the sooner a sex assault victim reports the incident to the police, the better.

Based on the simple criteria above, consider on a case-by-case basis where alleged victims of sexual assault are taking their claims, whether their claims are directed against Bill Clinton, Herman Cain, Donald Trump, or anyone else, for that matter. Are they really seeking justice, or are they motivated by something else?

Justice served: woman who falsely reported rape jailed

5 Replies

rachel soderblom

Usually, when we hear a story about a woman falsely accusing a man of rape, we hear about how the allegation tears down every aspect of the man’s life while the woman doesn’t have to face any kind of consequence. The story I’m sharing with you today has a refreshing change of pace.

I’ll preface my next statement with the following: If you’ve actually been raped, report it to the police. That’s the best shot at getting the rapist convicted so he won’t do it again. Don’t wait, just do it, and cooperate with the investigation. You’d be helping society in doing so.

As any SJW or regressive leftist can tell you, if you decide to falsely accuse someone of rape, the last thing you want to do is report it to the police. If attacking someone’s reputation with a false allegation is not beneath you, the most practical way to go about it is to take it to social media. Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, pick your social media outlet. However, actually taking it to the police could backfire.

Thirty-four year old Rachel Soderblom of Jackson, Michigan found this out the hard way after falsely reporting to the police that she had been raped. The police used DNA identification to implicate a man who did have sexual relations with her. After the man was arrested, he told his lawyer what had happened, and soon afterwards, police determined that the woman’s story didn’t line up with her friend’s claims that they set her up with him.

For those of you who don’t know the justice system very well, there is a process of questioning and collecting evidence to evaluate the veracity of an accusation. This is what is referred to as an “investigation”. As in, no, don’t count on the police to take everything you say at face value.

Rachel claimed that she was raped at random in a parking lot, when in fact her friends hooked her up with the man, and the two had arranged their sexual encounter with the man making claims that he could “make her go straight”. Rachel eventually fessed up, saying that she invented the claim that she was raped to hide the fact that she cheated on her lesbian partner, and that she did not intend for there to be an arrest.

As a result, Rachel Soderblom was convicted for falsely reporting a felony. She faces 100 days of jail time, followed by two-and-a-half years of probation. She has also been ordered to pay $1483 in fines and legal fees.

Matters like this don’t typically conclude this nicely, and it is great to see a story like this come up to discourage those who are considering the same thing. After all, the criminal justice system is intended for, you know, criminal justice, and is not intended for stupid BS.

One problem I had with this matter is that Soderblom got off way too easy. One hundred days in jail is way to short of a sentence for this kind of thing. As I see it, she should have gotten the very same sentence that she intended for her victim. At least there is a punishment for clogging up the system with BS claims instead of real cases.

To Zoe Quinn: Why does everything have to be about you?

Leave a reply

At E3, Nintendo showed off one of their new software titles, Paper Mario: Color Splash. There was an in-game event which depicted five mushroom men who were called the “Five Fun Guys”, and another character chimed in with the punchline, “Shufflegate: Exposed!”

Zoe Quinn took notice, and believed it to reference Five Guys Burgers and Fries and the Gamergate movement that she herself inadvertently set into motion, and she posted the following to her Twitter feed:

Zoe Quinn shufflegate

To be fair, she did eventually recognize it as a coincidence, and stated so in a Twitter post in an attempt to defuse the situation (short of apologizing to Nintendo, her Twitter followers, and of course Gamergate). However, it was her eagerness to be triggered by this “coincidence” that’s problematic.

Here’s the thing: it wasn’t a coincidence. The routine did reference a real-life event. It’s called the “Watergate” scandal. In the events surrounding the scandal, five men were implicated on suspicion of burglary. Because it was so prominent as a scandal, the “-gate” suffix appends the names of many scandals.

Zoe Quinn and many people who identify as feminists have an apparent inability to recognize an actual coincidence. They actually believe that there is some huge, concerted conspiracy to keep them down. It’s gotten to the point that some of them have criticized the Voyager 1 plaque for depicting the woman as standing behind the man, while the man’s hand is raised in a show of strength. As opposed to, say, offering a friendly greeting?

Pioneer 1 plaque man and woman.png

From here, it looks more like the woman is standing side by side with the man. If anything, the only disservice done to the woman is a refusal to draw her vulva. If aliens find the thing, they’re going to wonder how we reproduce. It’s not like drawing a vertical line on a woman’s groin is going to cause extraterrestrials to dismiss the plaque as pornographic. Notice how the woman’s left toes reach slightly lower than the mans? From the front-on perspective, that would indicate that she’s standing slightly in front of him.

Zoe Quinn, like many feminists, has a reduced ability to recognize something as a coincidence, or at least as a reference to someone or something besides her. Neo-feminists get angry over things because they want to be angry, and they like being angry, because they want to feel justifiably indignant over anything that they can. They may get indignant, but they don’t get to enjoy legitimate justification, because they seldom know what’s actually going on. When they make knee-jerk reactions over every perceived slight, they make themselves look silly. They look silly because they think everything is about them. And yet, they don’t ask why. And that’s a question that neo-feminists need to hear:

Why does everything have to be about you?

And while we’re asking questions, here’s another one: Why not use your head? If there were a random chance that you’d have been born as any organism, you’d have been far more likely to have been born as an ant, because there are approximately one million ants for every human being alive today. There are far more animals besides them. My point is, think about what a privilege it is to be a human being, which has the most capable brain out of any animal we know about. We possess the magnificent potential to do things like send plaques depicting naked people into space, and in spite of this, we have knuckle-draggers treating stupid behavior as an indulgence and delegating their thinking to advertisers. You have the potential to do better, so why don’t you?

At one point, Zoe Quinn wanted to be known as a game developer. That’s a pretty meaningful thing to do for a living. However, she gave up any respect she would have gotten for her endeavors when she turned her back on her fellow gamers and turned the already-corrupt trade of games journalism against the very people they were supposed to inform. That comes with a lot of guilt for just one person to deal with, but Zoe Quinn brought it upon herself, and she made matters worse for her refusal to confront it.

That’s really how the Gamergate movement got started to begin with. Zoe Quinn so insisted on playing the victim, that she betrayed the very people she so strongly wanted to be accepted by. Having to deal with that can drive a person crazy, and when it gets to that point, a person can easily mistake a joke in a Mario game as being directed against them.

#Fightfor15 backfires: McDonald’s considers replacing workforce with robots

Leave a reply

robot

I remember my first job. It was working for McDonald’s, I kid you not.

However, it’s looking like times are changing. We might be saying “good-bye” to the day when high school seniors flipped burgers so they can buy Pokemon cards. The recent push for a massive jump in minimum wage has caused McDonald’s to seriously consider employing robots to replace their crew members. And considering the logistics behind it, it might actually be a pretty good move for McDonald’s.

I don’t know how expensive some of the robots they’re considering may be, but here’s some numbers to crunch:

Minimum wage may increase to $15 per hour.
A full-time work week is 40 hours.
There are about 52 weeks in a year.
Therefore, a full-time worker at the proposed minimum wage would make $31,200.00 per year.

If just one robot set McDonald’s back $60,000, it would end up paying for itself in less than two years. That would be a serious bargain. But there’s more. Employing robots can result in the following benefits:

  • Robots won’t complain about working overtime, nor would they demand more pay for it.
  • The only benefits that they’d require is routine maintenance.
  • They won’t goof off to go on Twitter to complain about their job or accuse their boss of being in some “old boy’s club”.
  • They won’t complain about special orders.
  • No showing up late. Showing up late is for humans.
  • They’re not going to have a bad day or decide to hate their jobs, so they’re always going to be polite to the customers.

And there’s more. If they can find some robots cheap enough that can accomplish the same tasks as humans, something which is becoming easier to do, McDonald’s stands to benefit from employing robots.

I know that some McDonald’s crew might mind losing their jobs to some robots. Me, I have my own reasons for thinking that a minimum wage increase is a terrible idea. I’ve worked minimum wage and close to it long enough to understand the kind of damage that minimum wage increases do to the value of money. The government might force employers to pay their staff a higher wage. But nothing is preventing renters, retailers, and utility providers from charging more for their products and services. When there is a minimum wage increase, the cost of stuff starts shooting up.

And why wouldn’t it? Businesses have a harder time making ends meet when they’re forced to pay their staff more, and increasing the costs of products and services is a natural way of trying to offset an increase in the cost of running a business. People would have more money anyway, so if they were able to pay for it before, they’d be able to pay for it at the adjusted rate.

So, in summary, we’d be payed more, but…

  • …We’d be charged more for everything, too.
  • …The value of the money itself would plummet, which would be tough nuggets if you’ve been trying to save the stuff.
  • …There’s no guarantee that there’d be a rate increase for skilled workers, so if you went to school to do what you do, it might become harder for you to get by.
  • …And you might end up losing your source of income to a robot, in which case, you’d actually end up making less.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve lived as a poor person for quite some time, so I know how these things go. The idea that poor people would benefit from a minimum wage increase is a myth. However, it’s getting to the point that even fast food workers are having to compete with robots. That humans have been less expensive to hire has long been a selling point, but it looks like that’s changing.