Category Archives: Uncategorized

Do Current Events Reflect an Old Simpsons Halloween Special?

In what may be the most famous Simpson’s Treehouse of Horror episode, the animated sitcom parodied Soylent Green.

The episode started with Bart being sent to detention. But because detention was getting to be too full, the staff decided to get creative in how they punished miscreants.

One thing led to another, and the students soon discovered that “Sloppy Jimbo” was on the cafeteria menu, while Jimbo himself was nowhere to be found. Shortly afterwards, another student was sent to detention, and the menu afterwards featured an item seemingly named for him.

What was happening was that the staff had decided to deal with detention students by adding them to the menu. Worse, they were developing a taste for them.

Soon, the few students that were left were gathered together in the same room, overseen by an overweight teacher. At this point, the students were being sent to detention over the slightest infraction, because the faculty had tasted blood, and couldn’t get enough.

By the time the few students left had realized what was going on well enough to do anything about it, there wasn’t much they could do.

Sound like anything that’s happening today?

How to Get Moral Busybodies Off Your Entertainment

Their first-century equivalent

From time to time, you hear about someone who criticizes entertainment, but with a twist: they’ll attempt to use religion in an attempt to prop up their smug sense of self-righteousness.

It’s usually something inane, like ignorantly accusing Pokémon of being satanic, or some other mainstream video game of having harmful moral side-effects.

Oftentimes, gamers will cite studies that conclusively show that such claims are bogus. This is an effective defense, but in the long run, the busybodies keep coming back, and that’s because they love picking fights.

This can leave quite a few people perplexed. Just what does a person have to do to drive these people off, and keep them away?

The problem is that people respond to them by remaining on the defensive. In order to have a lasting effect on these people, you have to go on the offensive, with a counter-argument that’s especially designed to make them sorry they messed with you.

Here is what you say: You point out that they are complaining about specks that they perceive in other people’s eyes, when there are beams in their own eyes (figuratively speaking, probably).

Point out that if their own Christianity is like what most people call Christianity, then it has the following doctrinal problems:

  • They observe Christmas, Easter, and a handful of other holidays with obvious pagan origins rather than what the Bible says they should observe,
  • They likely also ignore the fourth commandment, and observe Sundays instead,
  • They likely believe that God is a trinity, a concept the Bible nowhere teaches,
  • Their church likely demands more in tithes and offerings than they are entitled to.

There’s more, but that would usually suffice. Then you follow up with this:

That your entertainment wasn’t intended to inform a person as to what their religious, ideological, or philosophical ideals should be, so your entertainment is actually more harmless than their religion.

That one-two punch scores a knockout, in most cases. The first argument wouldn’t work so well on the few Christians that actually do keep it Biblical, but they should also be smart enough to understand that going after a person’s entertainment is actually counterproductive.

After delivering this, you’re done talking to them. They might try to bait you or argue against what you said; it’s a fight they’re after, after all. At this point, they’d be looking for any way to save face. So, don’t take the bait. By engaging them no further, you deny them that opportunity, and their main takeaway becomes what their religion gets wrong.

This works as well as it does because it forces the false Christian to confront what they’re afraid is true about their religion, and the possibility that the truth about it is no longer being obscured by the dark mists of history.

In case any of you are wondering whether I’m Christian, yes, I am. But I’m interested in seeing the Christian world return to the real thing. Also, it would be better if those who claimed to be Christian stopped bothering with pointless, counterproductive fighting over stuff that isn’t causing any harm, anyway.

Spiritual bullies are like any bully; if you’re only on the defensive, they can just keep going at it without any repercussion. To defeat them, you need to dish out a strong counterattack, preferably one that highlights their shortcomings and makes them learn some respect.

Then you leave them to contemplate what just happened.

Vogue Posts Article Questioning Whether Childbearing is Environmental Vandalism

There is an old technique used when questioning captured terrorists: While detained, they’d be exposed to news stories showing things going badly for their movement. This inspires a why-not-tell-all attitude in the terrorist that they might not have developed if not provided with this perspective.

Recently, legacy media outlets have come to the awareness that birth rates are falling to crisis levels. What’s more, the current government of China has come to this same awareness.

In light of these developments, the uber-environmentalist neo-eugenic depopulation movement has suddenly found itself under pressure, and we’re starting to see the quiet part spoken out loud.

A contributor to Vogue, Nell Frizzell, has straight-up declared her doubts as to whether her pregnancy was environmental vandalism, declaring in no uncertain terms that she viewed her first-world child in terms of the resources that he would eventually consume.

Does anyone have any doubt that this poor child will turn out normal?

Here’s a blurb from the article:

For the scientifically-engaged person, there are few questions more troubling when looking at the current climate emergency than that of having a baby. Whether your body throbs to reproduce, you passively believe that it is on the cards for you one day, or you actively seek to remain child-free, the declining health of the planet cannot help but factor in your thinking.

If by “scientifically-engaged” you mean someone who consumes data presented through the opaque lens of environmental activism, which is usually distorted or outright misleading.

If science did factor into a person’s thinking, their question is how to achieve the breakthroughs to ensure a brighter future for a child born into a world which, at the bare minimum, has the ethics to permit his birth.

And, make no mistake, if it so happens that the world is ethically-lacking, that concern takes priority over any scientific development. Every single time.

Nell is pretty far from the first person to make the claim to be scientific insofar as science can be tortured into a neo-eugenic worldview, but if I were to hear that she were the last, this would be news that I would welcome.

The food he ate, the nappies he wore, the electricity he would use; before he’d even started sitting up, my child would have already contributed far more to climate change than his counterpart in, say, Kerala or South Sudan.

But rather than make the move to South Sedan, where she and her child could consume few resources (largely because South Sudan has few resources), she prefers to remain in the developed world, where she can continue to consume as many resources for her child, and herself, as she wishes.

Apparently, Nell is okay with continuing to live in the world of Big Macs, high-speed internet, SUVs, and air conditioning, and I suspect that this has a lot to do with the fact that that very society provides her with a platform she can use to continually complain into the digital abyss on the off-chance that her inanities will be read by someone. And, to my vexation, I was among those who happened to find them.

What I’m about to share may not sound very romantic, but it’s an observation that’s easy to make. In today’s connected world, there’s a new form of “natural selection” which, rather than going specifically for the physically unfit, instead weeds out the gullible. Due to the nature of today’s world, the ones more likely to have their genes passed on to successive generations are those less likely to fall for bullshit.

Considering this, there is a certain irony in that the depopulation movement, due to its intrinsic nature, removes from the gene pool those who believe in it with sincerity.

They will be the architects of their own destruction.” -Grand Admiral Thrawn

The US Post Office is Now Yet Another Surveillance Agency

A package that I’d ordered from Canada has been sitting in Chicago for about nine days. I’ve wondered what was going on, but now it seems like the Post Office has better things to do.

Like spying on your social media posts.

It seems like the Post Office is now yet another agency of the US government that spies on US citizens, because apparently it’s not enough that we also have the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. doing just that. But the Post Office? What gives?

Email and social media has done a lot to push the Post Office to obsolescence. People have even wondered when the institution would die out, altogether. But the thing about government is that it seldom allows itself to shrink, even when what’s propped up loses its value. That’s because the government is an employer, and employers are made up of people. It’s the tendency of people to stick to their own, and they usually prefer to keep their own employed, if they can help it.

Interestingly, some Republicans have expressed concern that the Post Office has taken to spying. No surprise there. Republicans are the party that has long run on the position of limiting government, and for there to be yet another addition to the collection of massively inefficient government agencies that spy on ordinary people is just superfluous.

The World Atlas lists the US Federal Government as the largest employer in the world. Yet, the government doesn’t usually produce its wealth by offering a service or product, as the Post Office does; rather, the government extracts its wealth through taxation. As a private employer, the Federal Government is an interesting case of a special interest which has an interest in maintaining high tax rates. Because the Republican party has historically favored reducing taxes and limiting government, things that government agencies can be threatened by, it’s easy to see how government agencies wouldn’t be politically impartial, and why the likes of the IRS have historically acted in clear left-wing interests (targeting conservative groups in particular).

And, what do you know, the surveillance is of social media posts, which were already a hostile environment overseen by social media outlets and a tech industry which already have a clear left-wing bias.

At this point, leftism has infiltrated society on just about every level, almost to the point that they can push through nearly anything on their agenda. The only things that slow them down in government is the courts (which they threaten to pack) and the filibuster (which they threaten to do away with). If leftists were to have their way with them, the inefficiency of the government would be the only thing that could slow them down.

And if you think that sounds ugly, think about what it would take for that to change.

Hey, Post Office, thanks for reading my stuff. I like having an audience and all, but do you think you can get back to shipping my package to me?

Neil deGrasse Tyson is Not a Scientist.

The following tweet from Neil deGrasse Tyson is ignorance, distilled:

Neil deGrasse Tyson is not a scientist. He is a social commentator. He is distinct in that his opinion is delivered with a flavor of science.

What’s interesting about his above statement is that it’s almost true, if one would only make a simple word substitution. If one were to replace the word “Science” with “truth”, he would be entirely correct.

There are three great things about truth:

  1. The truth exists regardless of whether anyone accepts it.
  2. The truth exists independent of anyone’s opinion of it.
  3. The truth exists whether “Science” agrees with it, or not.

The implication that “Science” must always be agreed with is dangerous to actual science. Real science is not about determining something to be true, then refusing to further question it. Actual scientists are skeptical, even when it comes to observations that have been repeated and are taken for granted.

Again, Neil deGrasse Tyson is not a scientist, regardless of what his accolades or diplomas actually are, or how he got them. He is a social commentator. He has an opinion, it is an opinion that is central to his commentary, his opinion is not difficult to figure out, and once you know what it is, you already know much of what there is to know about him.

Real science requires skepticism, and Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn’t have any.

Sharing From My Playbook: How I Argue Against Idiots

Sometimes, you get into an exchange with someone who is trying as hard as they can to justify themselves. The effort is there, but the capacity is not.

What does one do when they are arguing against someone who is plainly an idiot?

I can tell you what I do. Normally, it’s not a great idea to share from your own playbook, but I think that this approach is so effective, that the benefit to be had outweighs the setback that comes from putting it out there.

When I argue against an idiot, what I do is I allow them to take the floor. I ask them to explain their position, and allow them to spend as much time as they wish to do so. But as for me, my participation in the exchange is minimal.

This works well due to the misconception that if only one person is participating, then the one person who is contributing wins by default. That very assumption is simply not true.

Simply put: The more time a fool spends with his mouth open, the greater the potential for him to put his foot right in it.

Because you’re allowing the idiot to ramble on and on, you’re giving him more opportunity to slip up. There’s no need to call him out on it, either. The foolishness of their position and every blunder that they make are all immediately evident to anyone who is of at least average intelligence.

And what makes this work so well is the fact that, when you allow an idiot to speak to his heart’s content, he’ll think you’re doing him a favor.

When you allow idiots to argue long enough, you tend to notice a few things about them. For one thing, they tend to be characterized by illusory superiority. From what I’ve seen, they tend to be proud of whatever accolades they have, such as a college education. Most of us know that the hard part of most degrees is paying back loans afterwards, and most college programs amount to just showing up and wiping from front to back. Yet, an idiot would proudly boast of their accomplishments in an obvious effort to validate their superiority.

They also tend to appeal to authority quite a bit. Often times, they’ll think that their position is the pro-science position, and assume that any idea that’s scientific (by their reasoning of how science works) must be universally accepted by anyone who is of a sound mind. In many cases, they’ll get their “scientific” ideas by reading about studies on some content-aggregator website, not aware that what data that was trickled down to them was what made it through the filter of the aggregator’s biases.

They’ll let other people do the legwork for them, unaware that they’re merely being served a narrative under the guise of science.

Another thing you’ll notice about them is that they tend to simultaneously hold conflicting viewpoints. That’s not that unusual for people, but the nature of the conflict tends to be more egregious among those who think too highly of their own brilliance.

A notorious example is among intersectional feminists. They claim that they are about women’s liberation, but at the same time, they insist that all women do things their way. If a person insists that an entire category of people must march in lock-step with them because they believe that their ideas are better, they’re not about liberation, at all.

In other cases, it’s the ironic atheist who fancies herself a non-mystic, has plenty to say about your religion, but still attends dormroom seances and checks her daily horoscopes.

Another way that an idiot shows their hand is through psychological projection. This is particularly the case among the intersectionalists, or really just about anyone who tends to assume that the worst qualities are an innate feature among all human beings.

Often, the idiot would assume that if given the opportunity to commit a crime and get away with it, most people would go ahead and commit the crime. When you understand how idiots tend to project their shortcomings onto others, it becomes clear that the idiot is revealing more about themselves than other people. This is particularly revealing when it comes to the people who assume that people are inherently racist, or, more alarming still, those who believe that humans are rapists by nature. And it pretty much tells you what you need to know about those who believe that strangers are child-abuse waiting to happen.

What they fail to comprehend is that not everyone has their sensibilities, and the real problem is with themselves, and not so much with the people that they observe.

As I’ve pointed out before, those who virtue-signal the hardest usually do so with a guilty conscience, often because they themselves have committed the crime they speak so vociferously against.

There’s an expression: Never correct your enemy when they are making a mistake. In time, you learn to recognize those who err the most (and the hardest). In many cases, they’ll attempt to speak over you. But what they don’t realize is that, when you allow them to do so, you’re really not doing them any favors.

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

Diversifying Energy: Stating the Obvious

Sometimes, someone says the most obvious thing, and it’s just what everyone needs to hear. In this case, it’s former Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette, in an interview with Fox News.

Yes, Fox News, the program that impressionable morons teach other impressionable morons to piss all over, because it might expose them to ideas that aren’t their own.

On Fox Business, Brouillette points out that it’s better to have more than one source of energy, which may even include non-renewables:

Within days of taking the President’s seat, Joe Biden pulled the plug on the Keystone Pipeline, putting 11,000 people out of work, because his idea of pursuing renewable energy is destroying what’s established while work on alternatives is still underway.

As if it weren’t already obvious that this was a stupid strategic move, Texas is paying the price for its over-dependence on wind power after having seen its wind turbines freeze during a winter storm. It gets worse: while many Texans are still without power, another winter storm threatens the state.

While leftists might just make Biden out to be a victim of poor timing, Texans are the greater victims of left-wing ideas.

Don’t get me wrong, I think renewable energy sounds great. However, it’s implementation should be strategic, which may even take the admission that fossil fuels may be the most practical choice for a little while.

Environmentalists like to say that there’s a lot at stake. But if that’s the case, then all the more reason to take a more deliberate, thoughtful approach. Surgery is performed with a scalpel, not a battle axe.

Two Different Terrorist Bomb-Making Classes Go Awry Within Days

It’s already apparent to most of us that Islamic terrorists are on the wrong side of things. But if they are the type of religious folk that are dim enough to consider coincidences to be signs, these past few days would give many of their kind pause for thought.

Days ago, ISIS held a training class on how to make bombs. But just because they held a training class doesn’t mean that they know what they’re doing. A class went wrong when a bomb detonated, killing 21 of them. And because the blast alerted authorities to their presence, another 23 of them were arrested.

Not enough schadenfreude? Mere days later, a Taliban bomb-making class also went wrong, lightening the world by thirty incompetent terrorists.

The cultures of both groups are characterized by a certain grim fatalism flavored by overly-legalistic religion, and they had every intention on killing other people with their craft, which makes it kinda hard to feel bad for them.

According to their theology, had they died while actively engaged with an enemy, each of them would have been treated to 72 virgins in paradise. Doing the math, a product of 3,672 virgins would have missed out on the opportunity to perform favors for a small group of cave-dwelling fanatics.

If being religious to you means making financial decisions based on things like the contents of fortune cookies, that’s just stupid. But if you decide not to become an Islamic terrorist because they’re accidentally blowing themselves up out of hilarious incompetence, then you obviously think too hard to join the world’s deadliest flat-earthers.

The Star Wars franchise is still being threatened with Rian Johnson’s trilogy.

Rian Johnson, passing up the high ground

If at first you don’t succeed, keep chugging away at what resulted in failure. That seems to be Disney’s approach with Star Wars.

Sariah Wilson has announced on Twitter that Rian Johnson’s trilogy of Star Wars films is happening:

This news comes days after Disney fired Gina Carano for having a non-establishment opinion. That in itself was a poor choice, which makes the Rian Johnson announcement seem like a poor attempt at damage control. But it doesn’t make the situation any better for Star Wars, because the fans don’t want Rian Johnson making another Star Wars film, in light of the disaster that was The Last Jedi.

The indications we have so far is that Rian Johnson’s trilogy won’t involve the “legacy” characters. If his stories were to take place in a separate galaxy, then perhaps we can take relief in knowing that Johnson can’t do much more damage to the established material.

By Johnson’s own admission, things like world-building don’t interest him. That’s really a shame, because that’s one of the finer elements of writing. That also makes him the kind of person you wouldn’t want directing a Star Wars film, and certainly not a trilogy of them.

If you’ve cancelled your subscription to Disney Plus, it seems like your timing was great!