Category Archives: Regressive Leftism

TWAT News: Deluded musician conflates fantasy narrative with real-life political climate

billie joe armstrong
This is Green Day’s Billie Joe Armstrong. I did not alter this photo.

I’m getting real tired of defending Donald Trump, off all people. However, when taking on the BS of old media, it’s a difficult thing to avoid.

This time, Green Day’s Billie Joe Armstrong made the news by comparing Donald Trump to Voldemort. That’s right, the bad guy from the fictional universe of Harry Potter.

What’s the scandal? What’s the event? Was there some major occurrence that makes this newsworthy? Nope. There was none. Just some washed up old musician firing his mouth off, and we’re supposed to give a care what he has to say.

That’s it. That’s the entire news story.

Surely this couldn’t have come from a news site that’s professional and relevant, right? There’s no way that a news outlet that’s been around for decades could have deemed this newsworthy and passed it along as news, right?

time-logo

Wrong.

That someone from the mainstream entertainment industry is expressing a view that’s so left-wing that he falls off the side of the plane isn’t really new. That the same guy thinks his audience is so witless that they’d nod assent with big stupid grins as he conflates real-life political climate with a fictional narrative isn’t exactly new, either (considering the people who actually still like Green Day, I wouldn’t put it past them). It’s also not new that he would directly compare someone he doesn’t like to the worst bad guy he could think of, consistent with someone who has never faced a true hardship.

So, what’s new about this? Absolutely nothing. And that’s exactly why it doesn’t belong in the news.

Maddox parodies SJW media, and it’s hilarious.

Each year, the web comedian Maddox does an April fools version of his site, in which he parodies something that’s popular at the time. The April fools version is an obvious joke, which he temporarily makes the main page of his site.

This year, he parodies the stereotypical social justice news site that looks for Hitler in just about everything. If calling everything Hitler is a fast way to wear Godwin’s law into the ground, Maddox is making sure that’s happening.

Here is a link to the page. (Update: the parody now has its own page.)

Considering Maddox’s history with April fools content, he’s likely to get quite a few emails from concerned individuals who have no idea what’s going on.

TWAT News: Yet another feminist shows her boobs.

emma watson tacky.png

It’s been another three months, and yet another feminist has exposed her breasts, and the drama has played out just as scripted. Because the game is old, fewer people are biting than ever before, so the production is more contrived than it’s ever been.

So, who’s the principle player, this time? It’s Emma Watson.

Look, each time this scripted scenario plays out, it begins with someone doing something that is well within their rights to do, and almost nobody cares. However, because at least one person out there takes the bait, the show is enabled to continue, and the actor can continue with their next line: by claiming to be a feminist, and that showing their boobs somehow advances women’s rights in a civilization that already grants women entirely the same freedoms as men (with preferential treatment over men, in some cases).

This time, the person who took the bait was Julia Hartley-Brewer, who tweeted this:

“Feminism, feminism . . .  gender wage gap . . . why oh why am I not taken seriously . . . feminism . . . oh, and here are my t*ts!”

Thanks a lot, Julia. If everyone had just ignored Emma, she would not have been enabled to continue. But you answered her, and Emma continued with the next lines in the script:

“They were claiming that I couldn’t be a feminist and have boobs. Feminism is about giving women choice.”

Like any other feminist that has existed in the last several decades, Emma couldn’t make her critics look unreasonable without first building up a straw man so she can tear it down. No one is saying that feminists can’t have boobs or that women can’t have choice. The world would become a better place if feminists like Watson would just get over themselves.

“Feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women with.”

Agreed. Put that into practice.

“It’s about freedom. It’s about liberation. It’s about equality.”

Mission accomplished. In western civilization, anyway. What are you doing about the numerous sex slaves in the Middle East?

“I really don’t know what my t*ts have to do with it.”

Neither do I. You’re the one that brought them into this.

Look, we all know that when feminists bare their boobs, it’s not to advance the feminist cause, considering that there’s no conceivable way that such an action would make life better for any woman anywhere. It’s about exhibitionism. Some women love sharing their boobs, and they are using feminism to enable them.

One feminist, Sharron Foster, had this to say on the matter:

“I live by the beach and I’ll happily swim in a bikini and often go topless on holiday in a warm country – why should that mean I can’t also be a feminist? That’s simply ludicrous.

“Being a feminist means making your own choices and doing what you feel is right for you.”

Again, no one is saying that women can’t bare their breasts and also be feminists. And for those who would dig up one or two tweets from someone who actually said such a thing, you’d be cherry-picking. The majority has understood the tendency of feminists to use their cause as a pretext for exhibitionism. PETA pulls this, as well.

I, on the other hand, am not cherry-picking. I’m showing the feminists’ arguments in full force, and taking them on as presented. Here’s more of what Foster has to say:

“I do not care what men or even other women think in terms of how I dress or what I choose to do because if you live by the opinion of others you only devalue your own. As a jewellery (sic) designer I am financially independent, I make all my own decisions and hope I am an excellent role model to both my five-year-old son, James, and 19-year-old daughter, Sophia.”

Does anyone doubt that her children will turn out just fine with an exhibitionist mother who is a shill for a fringe left-wing cause?

“I have always tried to raise my daughter to believe that all women should feel empowered to follow their desires.”

This is one of the main problems with modern feminism. It’s not about what they think, it’s about what they feel. When she feels like showing her breasts, she does it.

“Posing topless, for example, is not an incitement to being touched. Are men really so little in control of themselves?”

The answer is no. Believe it or not, most men don’t think about sex every waking moment of the day, and society doesn’t benefit from the notion that they do.

If the men you hang out with behave like knuckle-draggers, your solution to this problem is to seek out the company of better men.

“People who criticise (sic) Emma Watson for her Vanity Fair photo are only projecting their own prejudice on to her.”

Please explain. Psychological projection has to do with defending one’s self from one’s own faults by attributing those faults to someone else. Who is Emma Watson prejudiced against?

If you want to show your boobs, that’s your business. But when you make it about feminism, people can see right through your ruse. Personally, I don’t see Emma Watson’s breasts as a big deal. If not seeing her breasts means not hearing her shilling her pet cause, I’d consider it a bargain.

TWAT News: JonTron removed from video game over wrongthink

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

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

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

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.

Terrorismnoun
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.

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

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?

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?