Category Archives: Regressive Leftism

The G4 Meltdown

Leave a reply

G4’s attempted return didn’t go so well, as shortly after the brand’s relaunch, hostess Froskurinn went on a tirade about sexism in response to a viewer’s comment.

It’s a bit of a dirty secret among content creators that once you’re big enough, you don’t interact with the audience. Mainly because of stuff like this.

Back when G4 was at its height, it was actually considered a respectable outlet by gamers. I didn’t pay it much mind, considering that I preferred to use the internet to hear the opinions of my peers, rather than have journalists attempt to tell me what they are. But I did have an IRL friend that was into G4, so it was something that I heard of. I didn’t care or notice when they were gone, however. Life goes on.

When commenters were going on about how they didn’t find Froskurinn as attractive as a previous host, this clearly got under her skin, which led up to the explosion. Personally, I suspect that the comments were troll comments. If so, she handled them the wrong way.

When you’re being trolled, you’re not supposed to let them know they’re getting to you, as the usual point of trolling is to get a reaction. An angry outburst was the exact opposite of how Froskurinn should have handled it, as it’s giving the trolls what they want. When Chris-chan was being trolled, it got to the point that trolls suspected that they were being trolled right back, because he consistently handled the matter poorly, often by completely flipping out.

Right now, G4’s ratings are plunging. And I don’t feel bad for them. Attacking your own fans is a bad strategy for content creators. While one might bring up the co-hosts, and how they might not sincerely hold Froskurinn’s views, the fact is, they were right there, clapping like trained seals, playing along to try to avoid being a pariah in the eyes of a dominant feminist, and they found themselves in that position because of a failure to gatekeep.

This matter conveniently comes up just as I’m hearing chatter about how journalists want to try to bring back GamerGate. Why would they want that? Because journalism is in the gutter, clicks are down, people don’t trust them, and they want that enraged engagement that they got from the GamerGate days.

But it’s not going to work, and here’s why: GamerGate was a precursor to the woke movement that’s been around for a while. It may not have been the main catalyst, but it played a huge foundational role. The fact is, GamerGate already happened, and the woke debacle is still ongoing, and has progressed to the point that people are getting sick of it, and is getting public pushback. If another GamerGate were to happen now, it would just be considered another element of the woke movement that people are already sick of.

Trying to bring back GamerGate now would be like trying to ignite an engine that’s already running, and on the brink of failure.

Right now, journalism is in a shitty state. At this point, few people trust them, and journalists are attempting to hang on to viewership with a steady stream of outrage-porn to keep the few they have left interested. That, and they have old people who remember way back when news was their only outlet for information.

They pursued the quick-and-easy, waving off the price that they’d have to pay in the long-term. Now, the time has come for them to pay the price. Naturally, they don’t want to pay it.

The moral of the story is, gatekeep as though your business depends on it. Once someone from one of the many flavors of woke get in, they have a knack for hijacking your brand, and making everything about themselves. Once it gets to that point, it gets hard to remove them in a way that avoids causing more damage.

I wasn’t interested in G4 back in the day, and I’m still not. And if they’re going to lash out at their viewers and go woke, they’re just going to end up with attention that they don’t want. Maybe they’ll go as far as to say that they’ve fallen while on a moral high-ground, as a cynic’s quest typically ends.

Those who die on the hill of their choice, still die.

Don’t Like a Piece of Art? Here’s a Flow Chart to Assist You.

4 Replies

Waterhouse_Hylas_and_the_Nymphs_Manchester_Art_Gallery_1896.15

Back in 2018, a #MeToo campaigner complained to an art exhibit to have a work removed because the person was triggered by it. Shortly afterwards, the work was reinstated after public outcry. The work in question was the one pictured above, a Victorian era painting titled Hylas and the Nymphs.

Great work guys, you censored a work of art from over a century ago that took inspiration from a fable thousands of years old just to satisfy a blowhard belonging to a fad movement.

It’s because of things like this that people don’t take feminism seriously. And it backfires when people become ashamed to identify as feminists,  as indicated by this note left for the curator:

feminist note to curator

If you spend time looking at art, you’re bound to find something that’s objectionable to you. If you dislike a work of art, your solution is simple: If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.

If this process comes off as novel and confusing, I’ve provided a simple flow chart to assist you:

art flow chart

That pretty much lays it out. If you’re still unable to follow, then you shouldn’t have been able to operate an automobile all the way to an art exhibit without causing an accident. Learn to drive.

And while you’re at it, stop assuming that every artistic expression of nudity and sexuality somehow demeans women. Nudity is the natural state of the human body, and is not inherently evil. Sexuality is one of the most human traits, and is a universal part of the human experience. An expression of either one doesn’t devalue women. Or anyone, for that matter.

And if, after considering all this, you still don’t like a work of art, just don’t look at it. I doubt that you fill the Pictures directory of your computer with images you don’t like, so why go out of your way to personally view a piece that only makes you upset? Just move on. Calling yourself a feminist doesn’t give you permission to decide for everyone else what art they have access to. Stop assuming that the rest of us can’t handle what we see.

Feminists have a very negative view of the general population, and this is what guides their attempts to decide for us what media that we have access to. Museum goers did a good job of not letting them. Very well done, keep it up.

An Image to Describe 2021

Leave a reply

Each year, this blog posts a picture which, in the eyes of myself, describes the year accurately, sometimes edited, and sometimes not. However sardonic it may be, I think we can all appreciate that humanity has made it as far as we have without reducing ourselves to irradiated primal components over things like economic strategy.

I think we all know that QAnon Shaman is going to take the honor this year. But before we get to that, let’s take a moment to appreciate just how zany this year has been. After all, this year wasn’t just crazy in a way like standing at a safe distance and laughing at the insane thing that some celebrity as done. This year’s craziness affected every single one of us in one way or another.

As we recap, know that I’m not even going to bother listing everything crazy about this year, as writing up such a list would take at least another year.

  • Thousands of protestors flooded the U.S. Capitol building, resulting in the people being represented therein for the first time in over a century.
  • After a nearly-two-decade military campaign, President Biden surrendered Afghanistan back to a bunch of hairy men who believe that pedophilia is normal, abandoning both equipment and American people in the process.
  • In the highly-publicized Rittenhouse trial, a jury helped millions of morons to come to the conclusion that if someone with an assault rifle is running from you, chasing him and attacking him is a bad idea.
  • Twitter banned a standing President of the United States from their platform, even though he didn’t do a damn thing wrong.
  • After months on end of the uniparty calling the lab-leak hypothesis a “conspiracy theory”, U.S. intelligence released a 2-page declassified report calling “laboratory-associated incident” a plausible source of Covid-19.
  • A huge container ship ran aground in the Suez Canal, disrupting trading for much of the world.
  • Anthony Fauci gives hope to the least of us as he demonstrates that a slow-witted, narcissistic ass-wipe can hold the highest-paid government office.
  • NASA launched its Double Asteroid Redirection Test to determine whether we are currently capable of protecting earth from an asteroid collision, showing that science can be used for something other than marketing useless garbage to gullible cretins.
  • The ultra-left are so obsessed with getting you vaccinated, that they threatened your job over it. Because nothing says that they want to protect you quite like threatening to turn you into a homeless drifter that eats garbage out of the gutters. Thankfully, the courts are succeeding so far in blocking that bullshit.

With all that said, here is the image that describes 2021, depicting the most honest man to stand at the house podium:

I don’t know about you, but I miss the days when conspiracy theorists were wrong about stuff, and mainly just went on about a flat earth and space aliens. But now that the left is so insistent that the idea that there are reptilians in government is a harmful and dangerous conspiracy theory, that gets me to thinking. Streisand Effect, and such.

Nostradamus was still a hack.

As It Turns Out, Staging a Hate Crime Against Yourself is a Bad Idea.

Leave a reply

Jussie Smollett’s acting career wasn’t that great to begin with, so it’s not too surprising that his trial performance didn’t go over that well.

Disgraced actor Jussie Smollett has just been found guilty on 5 out of 6 counts related to his attempt to stage a hate crime against himself for publicity. This is the latest development in a saga in American politics wherein Americans pay close attention to the legal aftermath of a couple years of lockdowns and violent leftist protests, and the aftermath of it all.

During the trial, the evidence against Smollett just kept piling up, and Smollett kept adding extraneous details to his defense, such as that he was engaged in adult activities with his own attackers. Which doesn’t lend much credence to the idea of a hate crime. But if that’s how it went down, it would suggest that his role in Empire wasn’t his only performance that disappointed.

The verdict was a welcome change of pace after years of MeToo accusations, some of which were baseless, and goes to show that a false accusation won’t always prosper.

Right now, if there’s anyone who should be looking on with concern, it would be Alec Baldwin, as the outcome of the Smollett trial illustrates that a person’s fame doesn’t guarantee that they get off scot-free, and he should take particular interest in Smollett’s upcoming sentencing. If Smollett gets the maximum sentence for his own crime, that might not bode well for Baldwin.

Considering that Jussie had staged a hate crime against himself for his own benefit, the outcome is something to consider. Because he’s now a convicted felon, he could potentially lose years of his own freedom, he is no longer allowed to vote, may no longer legally own a gun, and he’ll have a difficult time travelling internationally. He didn’t gain very much at all.

Though that might stand to change if one of the left’s more prominent figures grants him opportunities by reason of his symbolic status. If that would be the case, it would be their business. But putting aside how appropriate it would be for one liar to join forces with another, the prominent leftists would do well to watch their backs, considering Smollett’s track record of throwing his partners under the bus when plans fall apart.

Hopefully, this outcome will serve as a deterrent to anyone considering replicating Jussie’s crime. The U.S. has enough problems as it is, we don’t need anyone creating any fake problems that make matters worse, just for one man’s selfish benefit.

Now that that chapter of the saga is over, it might not be a bad idea to turn scrutiny to Don Lemon, who provided information to Smollett himself regarding a police investigation, which is a clear conflict of interest considering that Don Lemon himself was covering the Smollett trial. Don Lemon’s integrity is definitely on trial, as a journalist cannot be counted on for impartiality when the journalist has involvement in the story, or stake in the outcome, for that matter.

Misinformation Expert Develops Conspiracy Tier Chart to Help the Normies

Leave a reply

As we all know, the left doesn’t trust us to think for ourselves, which is why we see so many self-appointed misinformation experts helping the political establishment to assist us on the way to their conclusions.

To this end, misinformation expert Abbie Richards has decided to make a conspiracy theory tier list, just like all those cool YouTubers who tier things like animals for viability:

Yes, I linked to the tweet that time. If you’re wondering why I sometimes post a screengrab instead, it’s on the chance that these kinds of posters develop a flash of self-awareness needed to comprehend this type of content as the cringe that it is, and they attempt to memory-hole it, in the hopes that the internet would ever forget.

For your benefit, here’s the full chart:

Part of what makes artistic expressions such as the above as fascinating as they are is because they reveal more about the artist than anybody else. It doesn’t take long browsing the chart to see where Abbie Richards stands in regards to various issues.

What’s fascinating is what she considers to be dangerous. While some of the above can be classified as harmful misinformation, nearly all of it, including the upper tiers, is mainly just the stuff of old men yelling at clouds, and disheveled men meandering about at parks and rambling semi-coherently because they forgot to take their meds.

But what’s especially deafening about the above chart is the conspiracy theories that the chart omits, such as the idea that Trump colluded with Russians to win the 2016 Presidential election, or that the January 6th Capitol protest was an organized attempt at an insurrection. What makes those conspiracy theories actually dangerous is that they are believed by legacy media pundits, political elites, and their corporate interests who peddle these same conspiracy theories as facts, in spite of the same being defeated by both thorough investigation and basic observation.

Also interesting is the use of the phrase “Antisemitic Point of No Return”, which implies that each of the conspiracy theories above it were intrinsically anti-Semitic, and that the chart maker is so vindictive that if you’ve considered any of them, then as far as she’s concerned you cannot be reconciled back to reality.

As you probably already know, the inventers of conspiracy theories usually ram-rod anti-Semitism into them because it’s practically a meme at this point. Any conspiracy theory can be made anti-Semitic with an arbitrary implication that Jews were somehow involved, which is often what happens with them. Considering how clever conspiracy theorists present Jews to be, it’s interesting that there aren’t more Synagogues around. One would think that with all that they supposedly have their hands in, Jews would have a greater ideological stranglehold on the world.

Okay, closing paragraph. On this blog, I make fun of the stupid things that people do. As you can imagine, the work of finding new material is not hard. So, thanks, Abbie Richards, for providing the low-hanging fruit.

Cambridge University Now Encouraging Women to Have Children

Leave a reply

No matter how prevalent the forces of bullshit become, natural law remains in effect. It’s because of this that we have the expression, “play stupid games, win stupid prizes”.

The Malthusian movement has been losing steam, as countries are experiencing birth rates that are falling below the replacement rate. This is a disaster for aging boomers, considering that for Social Security to work as a scheme for wealth extraction, there actually has to be a certain number of people from whom to extract wealth.

I’ve been aware of the uniparty’s reversal of course for a few months. And, as I expected, there has been inertia, as it could take as long as a few years for programs to be rewritten or replaced or for contracts to expire, and for the culture to shift back to more traditional values.

In light of this, I think we can appreciate the irony of Cambridge’s new position, considering all that they’ve already done to contribute to the problem: They’ve long encouraged women to continually pay into the system (mainly by borrowing tons of money) to further their education and careers, until they are in their thirties, when their fertility starts to decline. Then, when you go to dating sites, you find countless women in their forties with useless degrees, desperate to have children.

But rather than fall on their sword, Cambridge instead subtly changes course, encouraging women to start having children as young as their early twenties, so they’d be more likely to have as many as three children (which is above the replacement rate of about 2.1). Of course, the undertones are highly creepy, but it’s still a sign that Cambridge (and colleges in general) will be transitioning back to more axiomatic values that have been tested and found to have resulted in healthy, successful families and societies throughout the entirety of human history.

While that might sound optimistic, it’s pretty much necessary, considering that the human specie isn’t adapted to anything else.

What would be optimistic is to assume that the uniparty and Malthusianism have learned their lessons. Rather than allowing people to live their own lives and make their own choices, they’re instead trying to manipulate society in an effort to reverse trends, in such a way that allows them to maintain control, and, of course, so they can die rich. It’s about power and money to these guys, as evidenced by the fact that they’re changing course to pursue them.

Well, “tough nuggets” is what I’d have to say, if I could decide what becomes of them. Let them know what it’s like to only have enough money to barely get by from month-to-month, hardly able to pay the bills. Just as they’ve been doing to me. They’re the ones that actually deserve it.

What Can You Do With $30,000?

3 Replies

What can you do if you had $30,000? Let’s get a list going:

  • Buy a brand new smart TV and still have over $29,000 remaining.
  • Live like I once did in central Pennsylvania for about 2 years.
  • Actually buy a new car. Like, new new. As in, it doesn’t smell like someone’s dog, or like someone cigarettes. The filters are new, the engine is well-oiled, you don’t have to look under the hood for a long time, and no one has driven the car before. That kind of new.
  • Pay off approximately one year of a college education.
  • Actually buy music.
  • Leave the store with 88,235 boxes of store-brand macaroni and cheese from WalMart, without stealing any of it.
  • Or splurge on 30,612 boxes of Kraft macaroni and cheese, the gold bling of macaroni and yellow powder.
  • Go to GameStop and buy something like 471 new games (this list may intermittently consider sales tax), and watch how many opened games are inserted into cases before your eyes.
  • Go to the liquor store and purchase about 1765 bottles of the most important foundational ingredient of a Jager bomb.
  • Buy 1000 of them fancy Yankee Candles. Then tell your mom. She’ll be so proud that she won’t even be able to sleep that night.
  • Assemble about 20 gaming rigs.
  • Illegal stuff.
  • Pay off the rent on a cheap-o one-bedroom apartment for about 3.5 years.
  • About 368 of those blue tablets that are famous for increasing circulation in males.
  • Buy the line of Apple products, five times.
  • You’ll have enough money to drink Kool-Aid ironically.
  • Buy about 2400 MREs, becoming the most disaster-prepared homie on the block.
  • Buy about 7518 packs of Pokémon cards, becoming the coolest 10-year-old on the block.
  • Invest in crypto, then watch the boomers who are dead-set against crypto freak out.
  • You’d have a lot of manga to read. Like, about 3440 chapters on BookWalker. And depending on promotions, you could probably get piles more.
  • Buy a ticket to the event to which AOC wore her now-infamous “Tax the Rich” dress.

Webcomic Review: Robot Hugs

1 Reply

Warning: The reviewed webcomic contains explicit content. Reader discretion is advised.

robot hugs rough

Have you ever hoped that depression had an official webcomic? Me neither. But there is one that stands out as being sadder than the rest. And by “stands out”, I mean “slumps down in quivering half-hearted mediocrity”.

Robot Hugs isn’t so much a random, slice-of-life webcomic with a well-defined premise as it is a webspace where the author can dump his sad doodles, and sometimes make long, rambling illustrated tangents on whatever social justice activism that holds his interest, usually things like transgenderism, which the author identifies as being a part of, and feminism, because the author so desperately wants the female community to accept him as one of their own.

Early entries to Robot Hugs are usually random, inane drawings that really have nothing to them. Take this random example:

2011-08-25-A good way to go

That’s not a random panel from a strip. The previous and following comics have nothing to do with it. This is the build-up, delivery, and punch line. There is only one panel in this entry, and that’s it. No point, no effort, and no worthwhile thought.

Stick figure art is something that can be done well. In fact, some pretty good webcomics have been done with stick figure art, such as Cyanide & Happiness. In the vast majority of cases, however, it’s a cop-out that’s used to produce a sub-par product with a minimum of effort while leaning on the crutch of “style”. In some of those cases, it’s how talentless artists are enabled to coast along with a minimum of effort. In the case of Robot Hugs, there is some small sign of improvement as time went on, but it usually involves the bare minimums of stick figure art, such as good color choices and better-defined lines. Expressive facial features are sparse, but that can be sold as minimalism. At one point, he even takes on shading, but gives it up before long. Robot Hugs takes a style that’s mainly ironically likeable for its minimalism, and takes it even lower.

And then, with no warning, the author backs down from all the progress that he’s made on his style and goes to a hand drawn style that’s even worse:

2017-11-01-analogue

To be fair, he does give a reason for why he does this. However, there’s something more to it, which we can read about on his profile: The author studies in UX/IA, which has to do with website design. So he actually does spend a significant amount of his life staring at display screens. However, when one looks at his own website, how exactly is he putting his knowledge in website design into practice? He’s obviously not new at this, as his archives indicate that he’s been at it since 2009, and he usually updates about a half-dozen times a month with webcomics that are sub-par in quality.

Considering all this, and assuming that the author is trying hard, I suspect that the source of his ongoing sadness is that he’s putting a disproportionate amount of effort into something that he doesn’t really have a talent for. As children, nearly all of us are told that “we could be anything we want to be”. This is a disastrously terrible thing to tell a child, as it sets them up to pursue interests that are outside their own talents, and develop such an emotional attachment to their pursuits that they make them a part of their identity, making it an even stronger hit when they fail to live up to the expectations set for them.

The author of Robot Hugs doesn’t want to stare at display screens for long periods of time, and his webcomic has been insubstantial in quality since its inception over 9 years ago. Perhaps it’s about time for him to admit that it’s not his thing to either design websites or write webcomics. What he does instead, I don’t know; that’s the kind of thing that he can only determine after careful consideration of himself and how he can benefit society. However, it’s clear that making webcomics is not his thing.

Unless you can look at this and think “talent”:

2017-02-17-types of rats

The parts of his comic that are the most well-thought-out would be his SJW ramblings, which is not a compliment. If your only exposure to the SJW ideology would be YouTubers who make fun of them, go ahead and read an opinion piece from a veritable SJW. What you’ll find out is that the aforementioned YouTubers aren’t making up strawman arguments, they are actually taking on the SJW ideology itself, exactly as it’s presented when SJWs speak for themselves.

Here is a link to an example comic. (WORKSAFE WARNING: If you click that link, your employer’s IT department might think you’re an idiot.)

And speaking of worksafe warnings, the following came from the Robot Hugs “About” page:

NSFW comics are generally labelled as such.

Except they’re not, so his archives are a minefield of cartoon penises and vaginas that you might object to if you are somehow upset by naturally occurring features of human anatomy, or if you have a problem with these things being drawn poorly. The main character’s nipples might be considered explicit, considering that he’s a biological male who identifies as a female. Would they be? Have we figured it out yet?

And, as if it weren’t already obvious that this comic stars a self-insert, the author uses the webcomic to give us life updates:

2012-10-19-New Tablet

Whoop-dee-doo. Too bad your new tablet didn’t do anything to make your comics any better. You know what would? Having someone else do your art. And your writing. And your website design, for that matter. In fact, maybe you should pull a George Lucas and sign over creative control of your comic. Too bad that a guy would have to be insane to take this mess on, and once they come to their senses, they’d deep-six the whole thing.

The author of Robot Hugs spends too much time trying to be something he’s not: a webcomic artist, a decent website designer, even a woman. He doesn’t have what it takes to do any of these things; it’s time for him to stop kidding himself.

Robot hugs gets a score of a-sad-excuse-for-a-comic out of ten.

sick score

Which would be a 0.5 out of 10. If you’re thinking of making your own webcomic, you can do a better job than Robot Hugs with just a little something called effort.

Howard Stern, Get Over Yourself.

Leave a reply

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

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

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

Howard Stern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Howard Stern

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

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

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

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

“Fuck their freedom.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New British Police Car is Elle-Oh-Effing-Elle.

Leave a reply

There are stories that you read and either laugh hard, or just let the crying take over. Or maybe there’s some third possibility that I’m being too lazy to consider at the moment.

But anyhow, the Brits have updated their police cruisers, and here’s what’s now keeping the peace:

I actually love the British, so I find it sad when they make naïve decisions with obvious consequences, such as the time that they made anonymous knife-surrender boxes in an effort to fend off violent crime, but some criminals went and stole the boxes that contained the knives.

Is there a rape in progress? It’ll have to wait, because Jimmy called some obscure sexuality “invalid” on Twitter. The police in the UK are busy with what they consider to be important. If some lunatic tried robbing me, I’d rather fend him off with bare-knuckle boxing than be rescued by these garish jokes on wheels.

It’s interesting to think that a world-ruling empire that’ll have a person hung, drawn, and quartered if they commit treason is mere centuries away from calling in clown cars over someone’s feelings.

While this development is embarrassing for the Brits, it’s especially mortifying for the British police, what of them have any amount of self-respect. Perhaps that’s of design, considering the left’s adversarial relationship with the police.

If the UK is willing to go as far as designing their police cruisers to look like clown cars, why don’t they complete the motif by making their prisons look like circus tents?

The cars are merely garish. The real tragedy is behind what they represent: the British police are encouraging people to rat each other out over wrongthink. That the authorities are encouraging people to betray each other over differing opinions is something that’s now happening in the UK.