Category Archives: Regressive Leftism

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?

Justice served: woman who falsely reported rape jailed

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?

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

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.

Is there a fast way to tell whether politicians are lying about global warming?

Is there a fast way to tell whether the concept of anthropogenic global warming is being presented with political motives to fleece a gullible public? I believe that there is.

Al Gore in Davis Guggenheim's documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

The man pictured above is Al Gore. Al Gore has made it his mission to preach about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming. He has been so passionate about his message that he has written a book and a movie making the case that anthropogenic global warming could have catastrophic consequences in the near future. Among his stated fears is that the ocean level will rise as a result of anthropogenic global warming.

barack-obama-04

The person in this picture is Barack Obama, the current President of the United States and liberal idealogue. Like Al Gore, he believes that anthropogenic global warming will have catastrophic effects on the globe in the near-term future. In fact, he has stated that climate change is a threat to national security. Yes, in a world where Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, and Hamas exist, Obama openly proclaims that climate change is a threat to national security.

al-gore-house-santa-barbara

Pictured above is Al Gore’s property in Montecito, California. It was purchased in the year 2010, after Al Gore published his book and his movie. The property is estimated to be $8 million in value.

Why would a person invest in property in an oceanfront city if they actually believed that it would soon be underwater?

magnum-pi-estate

Pictured above is oceanfront property linked to the popular show, Magnum P.I.. In the year 2015, President Obama was linked to the purchase of this property. The property was sold for $8.7 million dollars.

Again, if a person is sincere in their belief that rising water levels would pose a direct threat to the lives of those living on and near coasts, even saying that “seas will slowly keep rising and storms will get more severe, based on the science” (as Obama said in 2013), and saying that “we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods” (as Obama said in his State of the Union address in 2015), why would the same person buy beachfront property?

If a person is sincere in a belief, why would they make long-term investments costing millions of dollars that are entirely inconsistent with those beliefs?

Stealing jokes does not make you clever.

joke thieves are not clever

Earlier, I overheard someone say something about how he trolled supporters of Donald Trump.

What did he do? He approached some Donald Trump supporters and told them some inspirational quotes, then told them that Donald Trump said those things.

Naturally, the Donald Trump supporters said that these inspirational quotes sounded nice. No surprise there. They were inspirational quotes. They sound nice by design.

I don’t believe that the guy actually approached Donald Trump supporters and attributed inspirational quotes to him. For one thing, I know the guy well enough to know that such an activity was well outside his range of usual activities. But my main reason for not believing him will become clear by the end of this post.

After the theoretical Donald Trump supporters said that the quotes sounded nice, he told them that the quotes actually originated from Adolf Hitler.

Still waiting for the punch line? Sorry, that was it.

Believe it or not, Adolf Hitler was capable of sometimes not sounding horrible. There was a reason why the guy had a following. Being a hateful, genocidal maniac doesn’t make for a very attractive political leader.

Now for the main reason why I don’t believe that this guy actually approached Donald Trump supporters about anything: In 2013, a Pinterest user posted pictures of Taylor Swift with inspirational quotes. You probably already see where this is going. On August 30 of that same year, the same Pinterest user was called out for attributing Hitler quotes to Taylor Swift. She was trolling.

After that, legions of copycats started popping up and doing the same thing, as though the rest of us don’t also have access to the internet and could have read about the same joke on Reddit.

Look, Donald Trump is a political figure. If you don’t like him, point out what’s wrong with what he stands for.

But if you’re an unclever hack, try taking credit for someone else’s prank that you read about on the internet. Why would anyone else have heard about it?

Anita Sarkeesian abandons Kickstarter project, Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games

MTIyMzAzMTMyMjM4NjQzODE0.png

If you’re an SJW, today might be a good day to crawl into your safe space, because Anita Sarkeesian has abandoned her Kickstarter project, Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games.

Of course, she’s selling it as “moving on to something else”, but the rest of us know what’s going on. Her project has been thoroughly exposed as a sham, and she’s decided to lick her wounds and try something else.

Anita has raised $158,922.00 on the project’s Kickstarter page. Whether she has any plans to refund any of the 6,968 backers of this project is unknown.

I’ve constructed the following graphic to help illustrate the progress that the project has made since it was first launched three-and-a-half years ago on May 17, 2012:

Anita's video agenda progress.png

Anita attended California State University, Northridge (which has a surprisingly high 52.9% rate of acceptance) where she majored in communications, which involved analyzing media for narrative. So when Anita takes in over a hundred thousand dollars to play thousands of dollars in video games, she’s doing what she went to school for. She’s not the only YouTube personality who comments on the content of video games, but I think she managed to do pretty well for herself in making as much money as she has.

The purpose of Anita’s series was to demonstrate that there is sexism in video games. Many video games do portray women in some pretty unrealistic and even outlandish ways, and in some cases heavily sexualizes them. Nobody really needed a social critic to point any of this out. The thing is, practically no one cares. Everyone who plays video games knows that they’re an expression of somebody’s fantasies.

Is Sarkeesian actually a gamer.png

Anita complains anyway, because as she sees it, video games normalize certain stereotypes. As Anita sees it, someone is needed to speak out against stereotypes against women because gamers are impressionable, unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. Of course, Anita is wrong.

One reason I prefer to stay away from radical feminists is because they tend to be extremely negative, sometimes assuming that complete strangers are criminals, particularly men. Most people don’t need to be told that almost no men actually have a desire to rape. Most of us recognize rape for the act of violence that it is. Of the men that actually have done it, most of them regret the act instantly. Even laws written primarily by men place rape on the same level as murder in terms of seriousness. Such laws have been around for a very long time, even in times believed by feminists to be the height of patriarchy. To the rest of us, this is obvious. To radical feminists, however, each man is potential rape waiting to happen. I have a hard time stomaching that kind of negativity.

I’m in favor of freedom of expression, even if what is being expressed is something I don’t personally agree with. I’m certain that Anita has heard of the game, Grand Theft Auto. It’s a bombastic game in which the protagonist is rewarded for committing outrageous crimes. However, the popularity of the game didn’t result in a surge in automobile thefts. This is because people know better, and aren’t so easily influenced by the expression of someone else’s fantasies, even if they enjoy the gameplay mechanics and play the game for hours a day. And even if someone steals a car because they learned to do it from a video game, it’s the car thief that’s held accountable, not the video game. The people who made the video game were exercising their protected freedom of expression.

So, what’s Anita working on next? She started a new crowdfunding project concerning the role of women in history. One can hope that the project won’t be nearly as divisive, unconstructive, and misleading as the one that she just gave up on (though this is Anita Sarkeesian we’re talking about, here). The initial fundraising goal of her new project is $200,000. That’s interesting considering that her previous project had a goal of only $6000. If she asked for thousands of dollars to play a bunch of video games, why is she asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars to do research that one can do with the simple assistance of Google?

anita research project.png

Believe it or not, women didn’t get their rights because a bunch a firebrands were shrill enough. Women got equal rights with men because men decided that society would benefit from it. What this means is that the feminist movement in it’s current form isn’t just divisive and as a result counterproductive. What it means is that feminism, in it’s current form, has been unnecessary all along.

Update (4-10-2016): Anita has made a video update, but she made it available for backers only. I found out about it because I was curious as to whether the project has raised more money or gained new backers since it was announced that Anita was moving on to something else. It wouldn’t have surprised me if it did, but as it turns out, that wasn’t the case. The video that was posted was not on one of the topics in Anita’s outline for her campaign, so in that regard, the video didn’t do anything to give her backers what they paid for.

It’s obvious that the reason she posts videos for backers only is because she’s far more sensitive to criticism than she lets on. Criticism (which Anita mistakes for “harassment”) is a normal and natural part of the experience of  publishing content on the internet, and is to be expected when what is produced is of inferior quality. Anita is taking measures to hide her content from her critics because she can’t take it anywhere close to how well she dishes it out (though she’s not very good at that, either).