Category Archives: Slander Culture

It Seems Some Loser Got Trolled into Vandalizing Dave Cullen’s Property

You might remember Dave Cullen as the person who voiced skepticism over the coronavirus vaccine, and was later vindicated when an evolutionary biologist pointed out the unusual behavior of spike proteins in the ovaries of women who got the jab.

It would seem as though Dave has been getting plenty of engagement, in spite of having been banned on YouTube in February, as evidenced by the fact that his property was vandalized, as was public property near his new home, attempting to smear him as a “paedo”.

Dave himself outlines this in the video below:

I don’t have some special insight into the matter, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the people who vandalized Dave’s property acted on a dare. The first bit of evidence is the D-student nature of the accusation; “paedo” is what you’d call someone when you want to tear them down as cheaply as possible, in as few words as possible. Also, they misspelled his name.

The group mechanics of online organizations that engage in intimidation, such as ANTIFA, aren’t hard to understand. They largely come down to a bunch of trolls convincing gullible people to act on dares. It’s not much different from the neighborhood kids who convince some new kid to commit a prank, like ding-dong-ditch, on the pretense that “if you do it, we’ll respect you for it”.

But in reality, the opposite is true. A kid who acts on the dare is pegged as a bitch, who can be made to do anything that he’s asked to do, if put under enough pressure. In time, the bitch can be dared to steal or vandalize, while the ones that put him up to it don’t have to face the consequences if he gets caught.

Acting on a dare doesn’t win the kid respect, it only results in more dares. And he may only be a few dares away from having sex with patio furniture.

If you’re wondering what ANTIFA discussion groups are like, it’s pretty much a huge hive of trolls that try to goad whatever gullible imbeciles that meander in to do what they want them to do, so they don’t have to get their hands dirty by doing it themselves. Then they laugh themselves silly when an imbecile turns bitch by doing what the trolls want him to do.

The idea behind these groups is, “make someone else do it”. And that’s where those who are sincere in whatever the group purports to be about comes in. I don’t know, but I suspect that these groups are 90% trolls, and 10% sincere, with the occasional one among the sincere willing to go far enough to be a bitch.

(If you disagree with the use of language in this post, consider this: What do you think the trolls call the gullibly sincere behind their backs? And is that a title you’d want for yourself?)

The fact is, trolls are great at disguising themselves as someone who is sincere. It’s the whole reason they can so effectively manipulate other people into doing what they want. It wouldn’t surprise me if certain leftist fringe communities were composed almost entirely of trolls, who are collectively ready to pounce the moment that someone who is sincere in their convictions decides to show up and attempt to identify as one of them.

Then they get that person to do something stupid, and shortly afterwards, that person becomes yet another Encyclopedia Dramatica article. Then, there they go, that’s their prize for believing so hard in the cause that they vandalize someone’s home.

Did you really think that these leftist fringe communities existed for the betterment of society? No, the real point is to act as lul-farms, which milk the gullible few for whatever lulz can be drained from them. And once someone outs themselves as willing to stir up IRL drama for the cause, the trolls are just going to latch on and suck away. When do they stop? I don’t know, they can remain on the same guy for years. And if a record of the mis-deed remains on the internet for someone else to find, it’s hard to tell when interest in the lol-cow will reignite, long after it was thought to have died down.

If that sounds like an undesirable outcome to you, then these leftist fringe communities are something for you to stay away from.

But for at least one guy who messed with Dave Cullen, it might already be too late. His best bet at this point would be to get out of there before matters escalate beyond his ability to manage.

YouTuber Nails the Psychology of Cancel Culture Perfectly.

If you’re concerned that cancel culture is running amok, then the above video is worth watching. It’s about 21 minutes long, but it’s worth every second for those following matters related to cancel culture.

It’s one thing to understand that someone is wrong. But to really prepare yourself to fight back against the problem, or be ready to mount a reasonable defense, it helps to understand the psychology of your adversary.

Anna Runkle, a.k.a. the Crappy Childhood Fairy, usually does video presentations on topics relevant to those recovering from childhood abuse. If you haven’t had an especially unpleasant childhood, her videos still provide piles of insightful information on psychology, and the offering above is no exception.

The presenter points out that there’s a narcissistic desire at the heart of cancel culture. What they seek is the gratification of making a difference by standing for a cause, even if their cause equates to nothing more than a witch hunt.

I can make the observation that it hasn’t been productive to point out that the many accusations waged by cancel culture aren’t grounded in truth, and are usually based on assumptions made on flimsy inferences. The reason why this gets nowhere is because cancel culture isn’t concerned with the truth of a matter. To them, it matters more that their natural desire for tribalism is fulfilled, and to that end, they are going to seek out anyone that they can label an enemy, so that they can have a target.

This naturally leads to the question of what to do when cancel culture comes for you or someone you know or employ. Because they’re out to get a reaction, the best thing you can do is ignore them. You can block them on social media, if you want to. Naturally, this is going to seriously piss them off, because they want their voice to be heard (while trying to silence yours). Even if you’re a freedom of speech kinda guy, you have no obligation to endure abuse. So block them, and if they get pissed off, it’s their fault they’re making themselves feel that way. And if you give it more thought, appreciate the irony that they can’t take what they attempted to do to you.

Don’t engage with them. Certainly don’t apologize to them. Block them, if need be. Then go have fun doing things that they don’t, like have sex.

If you know someone who is being cancelled, the best thing that you can do is likewise ignore the attempted cancellers. If you employ that person, it’s important that you get behind them, since if the cancellers get the idea that you’re spineless, they’ll just go after you, instead, because they’d know that you cave in to pressure.

It’s not hard to be more courageous than they are.

If effortlessly blocking them doesn’t turn out to be a deterrent, then you can move on to learning to enjoy their tears. They’re losers, and you’re pissing them off. Some people are the right people to piss off. If terrible people are your enemies, then you’ve made the right enemies. In time, they might realize that they’re the ones who are giving you what you want, then back off. I wouldn’t count on it happening right away, especially if they’re inordinately stupid.

You can buy this. Not sponsored.

I know that some people might disagree with “my methods”. Just because I recommend them doesn’t mean they’re my methods. Something’s gotta go in that mug.

“All opponents are not necessarily enemies. But both enemies and opponents carry certain characteristics in common. Both perceive their opposite as an obstacle, or an opportunity, or a threat. Sometimes the threat is personal; other times it is a perceived violation of standards or accepted norms of society. In modest form, the opponent’s attacks are verbal. The warrior must choose which of those to stand against, and which to ignore. Often that decision is taken from his hands by others. In those cases, lack of discipline may dissuade the opponent from further attacks. More often, though, the opponent finds himself encouraged to continue or intensify the attacks. It is when the attacks become physical that the warrior must take the most dangerous of choices.”

Grand Admiral Thrawn

Legacy Media Just Added Bronies to the Hitler Club

There is an expression: “One bad apple spoils the barrel.” It has to do with public perception going against a group due to the behavior of just one maverick. Of course, it’s not fair to the group being discussed.

The brony community has long been a pronounced example of an eccentric group, and the legacy media has long sought after any excuse to jump all over them.

Now, thanks to the actions of one bad guy, the entire brony fandom has been “linked with neo-Nazism & shootings”. Sound unfair? That’s just how The Sun has framed it with the following headline:

In reality, bronies aren’t especially dangerous, though I still wouldn’t let them play with any children of mine. The vast majority of bronies are just fans of the show. It would be great if the article pointed that out.

Oh, hold on. They did. Eight paragraphs into the story:

While the overwhelming majority of bronies are just sincere fans of the series,…

The Sun’s article

Then they went right back to framing the fandom as deranged sociopaths:

…online forums have been infested with extreme porn and racist messaging for years — and have even been linked with real world violence before.

The Sun, continuing the same sentence

When discussing bronies, it’s hard to tell where the irony ends and the fanatical lunacy begins. But one fan took things too far when he carried out a mass killing, beforehand expressing a desire to be with the character of Applejack (pictured above) “in the afterlife”.

I can’t speak for bronies, but I imagine that they are currently saddened, both at the tragedy, and by reason of the press’ attempts to frame them in an intensely negative light. The list of people falsely-branded as racist or neo-Nazi is growing by the day, and it so happens that bronies are the latest addition to the club.

Sadly, if the press wanted to defame any group as neo-Nazis, they’d have a simple time doing so. A long-running internet meme is to corrupt something that seems innocent, which often has to do with producing fan art with Nazi imagery. If it’s an intellectual property that you like, or any fandom, it’s likely already received the same treatment at the hands of photoshoppers. While the artists might find it funny, a sad potential side-effect is that a corporate legacy media with an agenda would find it trivial to dig up their works to use as misleading examples of connections to Nazism.

These misleading examples would then be presented to consumers of legacy media, who don’t know well enough that the images were merely intended as jokes (in poor taste), and not representative of the sincerely-held ideals of the greater community.

I’m a live-and-let-live kinda guy. As I see it, if a bunch of guys want to play with plush ponies, that’s totally up to them, and there’s no reason to complain if they’re laid-back about it. Better still, they’re funny, and give us some laughs. Of course, I do have the right to point out when one is acting like a goofball or is taking things too far.

Don’t give bronies a hard time. They’re people, just like you and me. The difference being that women find them much harder to date.

Satirizing Jordan Peterson as Red Skull Illustrates Yet More Reason to Avoid American Comics

Red Skull wants you to clean your room and get your life in order.

In another sign of the baffling bizarro-world we are living in, the supervillain Red Skull, as depicted by a new interpretation of the Captain America comics, was apparently based on Jordan Peterson.

Yes, the very same Jordan Peterson who wrote a book about 12 rules for life, and one of them had to do with petting cats.

Red Skull, as you may know, was originally conceptualized as a Nazi, and was depicted as fighting for Hitler himself.

On the other hand, Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist who, as a college professor, encouraged self-development and gave lectures about, among other things, how Hitler was a seriously evil dude.

So, what’s the thinking behind making Peterson out to be a Nazi supervillain? I don’t know, but I imagine that avoiding the cognitive dissonance involved would require an immensely skillful evasion of reality.

If there’s one takeaway to be had from Sonichu, it’s that if you can’t beat your enemies in real life, just make them out to be villains in your own comic book.

Watch out, Captain Marvel!

As he is now, Red Skull represents every boomer-aged snowflake’s greatest insecurity: that millennials and post-millennials could simply use the internet and find better ideas than what the establishment has been shitting out.

The American comic book industry’s plunge into intersectional lunacy comes at a time when Japanese manga is beating them mercilessly in their own market.

It’s to the point where, if you found out that Jordan Peterson was caricatured in Captain America, you probably discovered it outside of the comic itself.

American comic book writers should want people to actually read their comics. To this end, it would be expedient for their comics to be something that people wouldn’t avoid out of self-respect. People don’t make fun of me for reading manga, but if they found me reading Captain America, it would be hard to live down.

Assuming I actually read American comics, that is.

Thanks to humor website NotTheBee, we have an archive of a panel from Captain America from days-gone-by, from back before Cap was indoctrinated into the Cult of Woke. It’s quite moving, and an excellent example of what he has fallen from:

The Weaponization of Yelp

Yelp, a popular online review site with one of the most popular cellular apps, says it will begin flagging businesses that are accused of racist conduct. The flag would be against establishments that have made the news for racism, but would be removed after 90 days, assuming that the matter involving racism has been resolved.

I’ve used Yelp before. It’s a user-driven review site that can help people decide which restaurants and other businesses to visit, and which ones to avoid. I admit that I’ve made the choice to choose a different establishment because I’ve read one-too-many negative reviews. I’ve even written some reviews, even if just to point out that a fast-food joint is, in fact, a typical fast-food joint (filthy parking lots, an unpleasant connotation of class-warfare from rude employees that could’ve applied for a different job, etc.).

Now, if an establishment makes the news for being racist, that establishment can be flagged on Yelp as racist.

Yelp’s decision to classify these restaurants in this manner on their own is likely to fend off the possibility of review-bombing, which has long been a problem on Yelp. You might have already known that anyone can write up a Yelp review, and in those reviews, people might not necessarily tell the truth. In fact, Yelp themselves has previously shown evidence of review fraud from businesses that have payed people for reviews on Yelp.

In a similar manner to how a group of people can review bomb, a group of people can also agree to make an accusation of racism to the point of the accusation getting media attention. This effectively weaponizes Yelp as yet another tool to tear someone down with the mere power of false accusation.

But it gets even worse in the context of post-truth regressive leftism. It usually goes that if just one person is making an accusation, it can usually be dismissed as a pie-in-the-sky grumbling of a malcontent. But if multiple people are making the same accusation, then it seems as though something must really be up. If a bunch of people can come to a consensus that someone should be a target, and agree upon a story to bring them down, that can be difficult for people to argue against, especially in a culture of people who presume guilt against people arrested for and charged with crimes.

I think this can be called the Jezebel effect.

If you’re wondering who Jezebel is, she’s someone we can read about in the Bible. She was married to a king who wanted a plot of land, but the owner wouldn’t sell it to him. So Jezebel invented a crime against him, and got a couple people to act as false witnesses. The land owner was then slain, and the king got the plot of land, but immediately afterwards got a stern talking-to from Elijah.

If you’re wondering what eventually became of Jezebel, she was defenestrated then eaten by dogs. Not a pleasant way to go.

Let’s be honest here; true racism in America is rare. You’d have to comb the land to find someone who is sincerely racist (as opposed to being falsely-accused). Ironically, the most racist language that’s propagated today comes from the groups traditionally thought of as being victims of racism. Come on, guys. You have to be the change you want to see.

While true racism is bad (as rare as it may be), the witch-hunt for racism has morphed into a mind-destroying toxicity of the worst kind, and is used as a false pretext for going after people merely for being on the other side. To that end, it’s a problem that persists for it’s own self-perpetuation. The weaponization of false accusation is too powerful a weapon for the mobs to want to give up.

It’s obvious to any sensible person why it’s wrong to hate someone for an immutable characteristic. But it should also be obvious why it’s wrong to target someone with a false accusation because you disagree with them, or suspect they aren’t doing enough to champion your own pet cause.

It’s too bad that there are as many people out there as there are who aren’t as strongly concerned with the truth of a matter as they are with its potential to further their own ideology. But as I’ve said before, if it’s necessary to lie to get people to accept what you’re trying to sell them, perhaps you shouldn’t believe it, either.

EDIT: A previous version of this article was written with the assumption that the designation as racist would be made by individual users. It does help to be careful with your news sources, as some of them can present a matter in a way more consistent with the bias of the news organization presenting it. Not that that’s a new problem.

How to Tell That Someone is a Pedophile

iris sternly regards

DISCLAIMER: This post is sarcasm.

You know all those times when someone is accused of being a pedophile, and you hear your friends say, “I knew it. I can tell the signs.”? It happens every time someone is outed as a pedophile, even though they don’t seem to say anything about it until after the facts are known.

You nod and say that you could tell the signs too, but we all know the reality of the matter, and that’s that you really didn’t see it coming. Don’t you feel left out when your friends have the ability to determine that someone is a pedophile, but you don’t?

Well, have no fear! By the time you’ve finished reading this article, you’ll have had the training you need to determine whether someone is a pedophile, well before you either see them on the news or they are accused on Facebook.

To tell whether someone is a pedophile, you have to look for certain mannerisms. To be more specific, if they do something that you find at least mildly irksome, that’s a sign that they might be a kiddie-diddler. The more irritating that you find someone’s behavior, the more likely it is that they’re a pedophile.

For example, if you find it annoying how that guy on the corner taps his feet when waiting for the light to change, that’s a sign of pedophilia. His pedophilia, of course. Or, if someone in front of you is just a little too slow or is taking too long to get out of the way, that’s a classic sign that he’s a pedo. You don’t know for sure, but play it safe and assume the worst. Or, if someone pays for a small grocery order with a check, that’s a sign he’s a pedophile, too. Keep your distance, and regard with disgust.

In fact, the longer that you pay attention to someone, the more little signs you’ll notice that he’s a pedophile, and it will continue to add up. Proven fact.¹ You might notice that there are a lot of pedophiles in public places you frequent, such as big box stores. In spite of the fact that true, clinical pedophilia is something rare, they tend to congregate everywhere you go, for some reason.

Another sign that someone is a pedophile is that they’re being too nice. How is that a sign of pedophilia? It’s a little known fact that a large percentage of child molesters are someone who the victim knows. Pedophiles are actually quite methodical; they’ll build a positive rapport in an effort to get closer to the one their sights are really set on: your child. Don’t have children yet? They’re planning ahead for the eventuality that you get one. They’re really cunning.

But, what about your children? What if the mean people go right for your kids when you’re not around, and try being nice to them? There is a time-proven method for preventing child abuse, and that’s to teach your children about “stranger danger”. How it works in principle is pretty simple: just teach your children that people they don’t know are molestation waiting to happen, and your children will be much better prepared to take care of the rest. Your children may have their ability to form interpersonal relationships stunted for the rest of their lives, but that’s a small price to pay to avoid having their faces show up on milk cartons.

While we’re talking about your children, we know it’s hard to avoid taking them into public. To avoid having a pedo snatch them away, teach your kids to scream “RAPE” at the top of their lungs in the event that someone gets too close.

The exact odds of a child abduction may be significantly lower than them being struck by lightning, but you’re still not willing to take that chance, are you? Besides, people get struck by lightning with frequency compared to winning the lottery. You buy tickets, don’t you? Play it smart.

Another sign to watch for is whether someone seems to be particularly jittery about being accused of being a pedophile. It’s true that accusations of pedophilia are going around like crazy, and are increasing all the time. But no one would actually be afraid of being called a pedophile unless they have actual reason to be concerned, right? And who would be more concerned about being outed than an actual pedophile! Am I right?

So, how can you use this to determine whether someone is a pedophile? Easy, just bring up pedophiles and how much you hate them, every opportunity you get. Say how much pedophiles make you angry, and what you’d do if you met one. If there were any pedophiles in earshot, they’d start to get at least slightly fidgety. That’s a giveaway! If anyone so much as breaks a sweat, they’re busted.

The last method for finding pedophiles is by far the most effective. Just go around and accuse people of being pedophiles. It can be for any reason or no reason at all. If it turns out that they’re not pedophiles, don’t worry, they’ll be screened by the criminal justice system. In the meantime, there will be plenty of media attention surrounding that person’s alleged pedophilia, so people will keep their distance from them and employers will avoid hiring them, which will makes things much harder for that pedophile in the event that they actually are one. And if they’re not, the press will just go back over their archived news articles and search engines will edit their automated indexes, and things will be all better again. That’s how it works, right?

And if it turns out that that person actually is a pedophile, you’ll have been the person to have nailed them. Sweet victory! Just be aware that you might have to take a few shots with different people until one of them rings true.

So, there you go! Because you stumbled on the right article while using the internet, you’re now armed with knowledge, and ready to spot those pedo-meanies with your EAGLE EYES! Child molesters won’t be able to resist your ability to see the green-colored glow that they emanate.²

I’m glad I was able to help. I aim to please.

Works cited:

  1. I’m not sure. Some guy on YouTube probably did the legwork or something. Look it up.
  2. Do NSA-type folk actually have the ability to see green glows around pedophiles? I don’t know. I heard it somewhere, and decided that it would sound neat for this article.

Being a Voice of Reason in the Face of Drama

A few prominent Pokemon YouTubers have been accused of preying on minors. As it often goes, it started with one person coming forward, and afterwards, more people came forward claiming to be victimized by prominent members of the Pokemon community.

It’s really nothing new that some people misuse games and social media to attempt to take advantage of other people, but it’s still disappointing when it happens.

When it comes to the nature of the crimes committed, I know that it may not be popular to speak as a voice of reason, but it’s still important, considering that society would quickly break down if accusations (true or false) were allowed to run all over the place without scrutiny.

civilization doremi.jpg“And we can’t have that.”

So, considering what’s at stake, let’s be brave enough to use our heads. There are a few important points to consider as this and any similar drama unfolds.

First, accused does not mean guilty.

I don’t mean to make excuses for these guys in the event that they actually did sexually abuse a minor. If that were the case, I say throw the book at them. I’ve known a couple people who were sexually abused as children, and that’s the kind of thing that can mess a person up for a very long time.

However, people are capable of making stuff up, children included. If it turns out that at least one of the accused is innocent, this whole matter really sucks for them. Worse yet, it can ruin opportunities down the road, as their name will continue to come up in connection to crimes that they didn’t actually commit in web searches for years to come.

When it comes down to it, it’s for a court of law to determine innocence or guilt. We the public may be presented with convincing evidence, but the evidence has a lot of potential to have been doctored or be one-sided. Therefore, let’s not be too hasty to rush to conclusions, considering that we may not have the full story.

Second, if you really were a victim of sexual abuse, you need to take this information to the proper authorities.

By “proper authorities”, I mean “the police”, since law enforcement would have a better chance of stopping the predator and bring the person to justice than your Twitter audience, no matter how big the audience may be.

I know how hard it can be to come forward, considering that sexual predators usually intimidate their victims out of doing so. Making it harder still is that people don’t want to be known as the person who was victimized. Still, it’s very possible that the predator has other victims, no matter how things may seem. Because of this, it’s important to come forward.

To law enforcement, of course. Taking it to law enforcement would allow the victim to maintain their dignity and remain anonymous while an investigation can be conducted, and in the event that guilt is determined, justice may be served. On the other hand, taking it to social media comes off as a grab for attention, and law enforcement still might not get wind of it.

I know it sounds like I’m really laboring the point here, but bringing the matter to social media isn’t as productive as it may seem. People might be outraged and bang their pots and pans together, but the end result is likely the predator remaining free and picking the next victim just shortly afterwards. It’s law enforcement that gets results. Law enforcement.

Third, a few scummy people don’t define an entire community.

While we already know this, the corporate media is very predictable, and there’s a big chance that they will use this to make the case that the Pokemon community, or even gaming communities in particular, are populated by predators. We know that this is not the case, but old media tends to sensationalize things in an effort to get their audience interested.

If they pull this, just remember that they’re old media, and they don’t matter as much as they used to.

Old media makes bank off of mischaracterization, sensationalism, and outright libel. You don’t, so you have no incentive to do the same thing. Don’t be like them.

I know that there are other points to make, but that’s satisfactory for now. I’m interested in seeing how the drama unfolds, and in the outcome in the event that these YouTubers are taken to law enforcement. Come to think of it, have any of the accusers taken the matter to law enforcement? It’s kind of important that they do.

The Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory Fizzled Out

russian-collusion-club.jpgNo silly, it’s “password“. Now try again.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, there was no collusion between the Russians and the Trump administration to win Trump the 2016 presidential race. This was the conclusion that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has arrived at after having spent two years and $30 million taxpayer dollars at the insistence of Democrats.

Wow, $30 million dollars? There have been times in the last couple years that I’ve been eating macaroni and cheese to get by, and wouldn’t have minded just a few dollars to go out and buy a hamburger. And all this money was wasted in an effort to give credence to a blasted fantasy?

Now that one conspiracy theory is debunked, a set of fresh new ones are likely to emerge, such as Mueller possibly being paid off. I doubt I was the first to call it, but by now we’re familiar with how the shills think.

We all know that the reason why the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory came to be was because it was the best that the left could come up with after the DNC’s email server was hacked, and oodles of their emails were circulated, including ones showing that they screwed over Bernie Sanders to favor Hillary Clinton, bypassing the will of voters from their own party. So they blamed the Russians, and claimed that they hacked their emails and were in league with the Trump campaign.

To say that the DNC’s emails were hacked is pretty generous. If one could have called it a hack-job, it would have been one of the simplest hack-jobs in history. All that happened was someone guessed their password. That’s it. A grade-schooler could have pulled that off.


What you just read in that blockquote was the DNC’s password for their emails. I kid you not. When I say “A grade-schooler could have pulled that off”, I wasn’t kidding. They invented the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory in an attempt to hide just how dim they are with cybersecurity.

I don’t know what the code for Hillary Clinton’s briefcase might be, but I suspect it’s 1-2-3-4-5.

So, what did we learn? For one thing, liars don’t prosper in the long run. Also, don’t set your password as “password”, especially if you’re hiding evidence of a conspiracy to subvert the will of the American electorate.

Twitter Sued for $250 Million Over Anti-Conservative Bias

twitter donkey bird.png

Twitter is being sued by Devin Nunes over the platform’s anti-conservative bias, and the platform’s failure to moderate content that impersonates his mother, and his cow.

If you were to read this story from traditional media outlets, you’d have to read between the lines of their scathing bias, which wouldn’t be much of anything new if you are among those that still pays attention to them. And, naturally, they’re focusing more on the false accounts that defame him, considering that this gives them opportunity to pass along the tweets that ridicule him, as Daily Mail is doing.

But if you’re up for some old-fashioned media not giving anyone to the right of Karl Marx a chance, check out what Mashable has to say about it. The following quotation in particular caught my eye:

“Sure, maybe his feelings are really hurt, but given the fact that Trump and others have brought up strengthening libel laws multiple times — the old “you can’t take what you dish out” syndrome — it could be setting up more nefarious actions to come.”

Yeah, “nefarious actions” like making sure that the corporate media isn’t getting away with libel, which it committed against the “MAGA kids” who were falsely branded as a hate mob.

I’ve had a number of social media accounts in the past. From what I remember, impersonating someone else and posting defamatory content was against the terms of service of most of them. I know that it’s grounds for a civil case, which leads us to the story being discussed, today.

As for whether there is an anti-conservative bias in social media and the tech industry, there’s pretty much no question that there is. Shadow-banning has been a weapon of choice to ensure that conservative voices aren’t heard. If you haven’t heard of shadow-banning, that’s when a person is allowed to post, but far fewer people see the poster’s content. It’s a way to silence someone without them knowing what’s going on. It’s one of the expressions of the left-wing establishment’s control over social media.

If you’re wondering what it’s like to be a conservative voice in social media, imagine that you’re playing a game of chess against a child. Imagine that in this game of chess, you’re not allowed to move your pieces to the other side of the board. Not only that, you’re not allowed to capture the opponent’s pieces. Worse yet, the child gets to change the rules of the game while the game is in progress. More disturbing still, the child is convinced that you’re a hateful, evil person who deserves to lose for disagreeing with them about anything.

You may have wisdom and know how the game is played, but the child owns the board and can set things up so that you don’t stand a chance.

One point of view on the matter is that Twitter is a private company, and if they wanted to, they could ban conservatives altogether. Whether that’s the case or not, I would expect an American-run company to conduct itself in a manner consistent with American values, including the principles of protecting free expression on a platform conductive to the free and open exchange of ideas.

In any case, I think the rest of us can appreciate that liberals are making this about an attempt to regulate social media, and that they were finally made to admit that regulating something would be a bad idea.

The next time you try comparing someone to Hitler…

just say no

If you’ve been compared to Adolf Hitler or called a Nazi at some point, you’re pretty far from alone. The first time I was compared to Hitler, it wasn’t while discussing politics in an online forum, it was in an IRL chat about video games.

People seem eager to compare those that they disagree with to either Hitler or the Nazi party, especially the closer they are to losing an argument. But do these people really know what Adolf Hitler or the Nazis were really about?

It seems like all that most people really know about them was that they didn’t like Jews. But that in itself doesn’t make for a political ideology or philosophy, especially considering the Jews’ relative lack of influence. That’s like someone asking you what your religion is, and you answering “I’m not Zoroastrian”. There has to be more to what you believe in than you just saying that you’re not a member of a minority group.

The general consensus is that Hitler was right-wing. Those on the right usually answer that by saying that Hitler supported gun control, which isn’t a very right-wing stance to take.

But what was Hitler and his Nazi party really about?

People talk about Nazis all the time, but the topic of the Volkish party rarely comes up, even though the ideology of the Volkish was Nazism in its embryonic form. The Volkish were a folkish movement (Volkish literally means “folkish”) characterized by a rejection of urbanization and an embrace of rural and natural living. They were heavily conservationist and rejected industrialization. They were largely naturalistic in their thinking, and some of them embraced naturism, with not a few of them being nudists. Many of them were vegetarians; Hitler’s professed vegetarianism was a consequence of him belonging to the movement, though as vegans point out, Hitler didn’t really stay true to his vegetarian diet.

So yeah, the Volkish that Hitler belonged to were largely hippies. They were the most hellish hippies in history. Their beef with the Jews largely stems from the fact that Jews embraced technology, urbanization, and were meat-eaters. It also didn’t help that many of the conspiracy theories about the Jews that persist to this day were around back then, too.

The Volkish switched gears once they seized significant political control of Germany and became rebranded as the Nazi party. At that point, they seized control of the military-industrial complex and turned Germany into a socialist state.

Don’t believe me? “Nazi” is shorthand for “National Socialist German Worker’s Party”.

Next time you try to malign someone by comparing them to a maniacal dictator, check to make sure that you yourself do not ideologically align with the very same dictator.