I’m a little concerned.

Leave a reply

The doomscrolling stops here. This is the kind of thing that can keep you up at night (13 minute video in the embed):

Here are the main takeaways:

  • The man being interviewed is Charlie Kraiger, a cybersecurity specialist for the White House,
  • His date was James O’Keefe of O’Keefe Media Group, whose only disguise was dyed hair and glasses,
  • Charlie spills about Biden’s declining mental state,
  • He also spills that the current administration is not confident that Biden will win, but that he will be nominated anyway, by nature of being the incumbent,
  • He blabs about how they considered removing Kamala from the ticket because she was so unpopular, but are keeping her on over intersectional optics,
  • And, oh boy, is she unpopular. So much so, that even black staff members quit en masse because of her,
  • Charlie is a sincere Covid cultist, telling other dates to bugger off because they didn’t want to get the vaccine,
  • Again, Charlie Kraiger is a cybersecurity specialist for the White House.

What is the state of cybersecurity in the White House when one of their guys spills the beans to James O’Keefe in a Clark Kent disguise?

Just how safe is our country? Who knows what all else that Charlie could have said in a busy coffee shop, where a Russian agent could have been sitting nearby?

And why do I get the idea that the guy was hired because he prefers sausages over roast beef sandwiches?

Presumably, the guy somehow got a security clearance. As for how he got it, I don’t know. but I’d like to imagine that, after this fiasco, it was immediately revoked, and he was entrusted with corrosion prevention.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t intend to pick a fight with White House cybersecurity. Those guys probably know what kind of exquisite artistry that I look up.

“Uh-huh.” -Probably you. (Source)

But I’m kinda concerned, because these are the guys that the rest of us count on for protection to not be dumb, at least for their own sakes. I’d like to imagine that they’d practice basic opsec, such as using virtual machines. But after this, I have my doubts.

Let’s get into why this incident is worrisome.

If your idea of hacking came from movies, you probably think that the majority of hacking is opening a command prompt and then keyboarding away at some code, or some shit. And maybe much of it still is. But there’s a new kid in town: social engineering.

Sure, you can go to the trouble of typing up some malicious code, and hoping that your intrusion attempt goes unnoticed. But the fact is, data security measures have gotten pretty sophisticated. You know what’s easier? Tricking people.

And that’s just what social engineering is.

If someone calls you up at work, identifying themselves as IT and asking for your password, you should be a little suspicious, even if they call it “routine” or relax you by bringing up the sports scores. If you answer them honestly, then you just gave away your account.

Or there’s this one: tricking people on social media. Like showing a chart with anime characters by month, then saying “Your birth month determines which anime character you are!”, then stupid people take to the comments and give away their birth month. Then, on another post, they give away something like the day of the month they were born on, or otherwise give away their age or other personally identifiable information that can be pieced together with other personally identifiable information that they just give away.

Stuff that could be used to impersonate them.

Or stupid shit like “If you put together the name of the first street you lived on and the name of your first pet, that’s your superhero name”, and then people proceed to give the answers to their bank account security questions.

Do you see the issue? When you have datasec measures that are as advanced as they’ve become, their biggest weakness is people.

It’s because of this that your most important datasec skill is knowing when to keep your mouth shut, especially when the person sitting across from you looks just like James O’Keefe wearing glasses.

It becomes more important still when 330 million people are counting on you to not be a dumbass.

But if the White House is staffed by people as bright as Charlie Kraiger, this country is in trouble.

Richard Wolff’s Capitalist Enterprise

Leave a reply

While this video is several years old, it caught my attention because it was trending. It has to do with Marxist Richard Wolff answering a softball question for his fellow socialists about how to debunk capitalists who say that they earn their money.

The video is about four minutes long, and here it is, so shields up:

I’ll point out, first of all, the tone with which Wolff speaks: he comes off as a mustache-twirler. He knows that he’s villainous, and he’s embracing it.

He doesn’t believe what he’s saying, he just understands the potential to profit off the economically naive who only understand Marxism because it’s the only economic school of thought that they studied, and their interest mainly stemmed from having heard a one-sided argument in favor of it.

But try asking these kids what the difference is between Austrian economics and Chicago economics, and you’ll usually just be treated to a thousand-yard stare. They’ll just lump it all together with laissez-faire classical economics and just call it “capitalism”, because like typical Marxist cultists, they just split the world in two.

But eventually, these kids are going to grow up, and realize that while the Keynesian economic system we currently have is not perfect, it’s still vastly superior to Marxism, and that a person of reasonable ability can thrive when given the opportunities presented in the current economic system. Until then, they’re going to have the kinds of minds that people like Wolff continue to prey upon.

With that out of the way, let’s get into deconstructing Wolff’s Bolshevik.

The conclusion that Richard Wolff is trying to lead you to is that because you’re not coming away with 100% of the value that you produce, you’re not actually “earning” your money, because capitalism is ripping you off.

He speaks like a man who never owned a business. Or, at least, he speaks as though he’s trying to appeal specifically to those for whom running a business is some great mystery, like a form of magic known only to rich people.

Suppose you earned commission for bicycles that you sell at a bike store, and you get $20 for each $200 bike that you sold. In a fair world, wouldn’t you get the full $200 for the $200 bike you sold?

Sure, that would be a great deal for you, but it wouldn’t work for the business that had to buy the bikes from the manufacturer to sell in the first place, or pay the taxes, rent, and other various overhead costs of running the business which includes utility costs. What’s more, the store manager would also require compensation for his own work of managing the finances, ordering merchandise, and making decisions that the staff counts on to be spot-on because they want the business to succeed so they can remain gainfully employed.

Or, suppose that you worked on the production line that produced those bicycles that have an MSRP of $200. If each person on the production line made $20 per hour, how many bikes must be produced per day to cover the wages of factory staff, such as yourself, and cover the overhead costs of running the factory? Perhaps the bikes must be sold to stores for as much as $120 just to pick an arbitrary but perhaps realistic number.

You might be getting the idea that the profit margins for running a business are razor-thin. They usually are, and many of the businesses that fail, fail by inches. Business ownership is no walk in the park.

And what’s more, the idea that a person is being ripped off because they’re getting paid what they agreed to be paid is intellectually destitute.

The next sentiment that Wolff could be dragged across rusty nails over is his implication that shareholding is some sport that rich people engage in, in an effort to extract value from the system without producing value, themselves. As though there’s no connotation of risk in trusting someone else with some of your value in the hopes that they’ll increase their value, and share some of that increased value with you. Nope, in the minds of the typical soy-cialist, the stock market is some mysterious box that goes “brrrrrrr”, and then rich people get richer.

I’m going to let you in on a little something: I’m a shareholder in my own employer. It wasn’t hard, either. All I had to do was opt into it, and a part of my paycheck is automatically invested. Does that make me some kind of wizard in the eyes of soy-cialists?

Here’s another one: if you’re reading this on a smartphone, odds are, you can download a crypto exchange app from your respective app store, then drop some of your fiat currency into a crypto of your choice. If you did, then you just invested.

Just, you know, do your research, first. Don’t be dumb about it.

To those who have not, those who have are a mystery. Where such differences exist, the gap is often filled with a combination of ignorance and resentment. Socialism is about appealing to that ignorance and resentment. It’s the main reason why it attempts to divide the world between the haves and the have-nots. Where understanding exists, ignorance and resentment dissipates, and often, the difference between the haves and have-nots begins to shrink.

It’s amazing how many people want money as badly as they do, but they’d have more if they simply spent less of their money on things they don’t need. I suppose that listening to influencers peddle divisive bullshit is more attractive than self-development.

Let’s not kid ourselves: socialist influencing is a capitalist enterprise. The lives and minds it destroys is out-of-sight of the influencers who profit from their endeavor.

Antivirus For Your Mind: Recognizing the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy

2 Replies
A motte-and-bailey town configuration, from castlesandmanorhouses.com

We know that computers can be hacked. It usually has to do with a third party installing software on your computer without your knowledge, which can then make your computer do as the hacker wants, which often has to do with collecting your data because they can somehow profit off of it.

But what about you? Can you be hacked?

The answer is yes. But while a computer can be hacked through code, you can be hacked through rhetoric. If this rhetoric has the desired effect on your mind, you can be made to perform as the hacker wills.

To prevent this, you need a defense. And usually, there’s no better defense against malicious rhetoric than to understand when it’s being employed.

It’s because of this that I’m thrilled that more social media personalities are expressing awareness of the motte-and-bailey fallacy, and are passing this knowledge on to their audiences, making them less susceptible to this tactic.

In spirit of this desire for understanding, I’ve decided to explore this topic, for to pass on this information to my reading audience. You can think of it as antivirus for the mind.

To understand the motte-and-bailey fallacy, think of a well-fortified town. This town is divided into two sections. One is a large common area, where the general population does business, which is called the bailey. The other is more strongly fortified, and is called the motte.

The idea is that, on typical days, most people will go about their business in the larger, less-fortified bailey part of town, but in the event that the town is attacked, the people will retreat into the motte part of town, for their own protection.

With this mental image, you’re in a much better position to understand the motte-and-bailey fallacy.

In debate, a motte-and-bailey is a statement that’s framed in such a way as to further a particular end, but in the event that it’s challenged, it’s defended according to an interpretation that’s easier to defend.

Once you understand the motte-and-bailey fallacy, it’ll become much easier to recognize it when it’s in use. You might even have seen it used by your own tribe. Once you know what it is, you’ll be in a better position to avoid using it, yourself.

To assist in understanding, here’s an example of the motte-and-bailey that you may see in the wilds of social media:

Zionism is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Beardy McMoonface

Decrying Zionism is a frequent rallying cry of those who promote antisemitism. So, one can easily call Beardy McMoonface out on it. But if you do, he’ll have a defense:

I didn’t mean all Jews. Just the Zionists.

Beardy McMoonface

To see through this rhetoric, it helps to understand what Zionism is. Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism that asserts that the Jewish people must have their own homeland, and that that homeland must be their ancestral homeland according to the Scriptures. While there is a greater overlap of Zionism with Judaism, not every Jewish person is a Zionist. While it shouldn’t be a problem for Jews to have their own homeland, there are people out there who have a problem with it.

Beardy is falling back on a stricter definition of Zionism when making his defense, making his initial claim seem more reasonable. While he would have been happy to have reduced Judaism as a whole with his initial statement, he has another interpretation of his statement to fall back on to make his initial assertion seem more reasonable.

So, in the case of Beardy above, the bailey is to further antisemitism by framing Zionism as a problem that the whole of Judaism must answer for, without specifically saying so, while the motte that he retreats to is that he didn’t say that he had a problem with all Jews. When it’s explained this clearly, his deceptiveness is easy to see.

At first blush, it can seem as though the best way to handle the motte-and-bailey fallacy is to directly answer the claim. However, this can be tricky to do, because depending on how you answer it, the person making the initial claim can easily make you seem unreasonable, and accuse you of jumping to conclusions.

It’s tempting to call out the motte-and-bailey for what it is when you recognize it. But this has its own issue: it often takes a lot more time, space, and effort to refute a fallacious claim than it does to make it. This can be an issue in a structured debate format, or on a social media platform with a character limit, where a person can easily Gish Gallop, then claim victory, which is another form of deceptive rhetoric to watch out for.

By the way, if you were to scope out Beardy’s social media footprint and find that it’s heavily characterized by scathing criticism of Israel, it’s not going to be hard to guess what he’s really about.

In the next fictitious example, see if you can spot the motte-and-bailey:

Stop the genocide against trans people!

AstolfoFan1978

Did you get it? The bailey is that AstolfoFan1978 wants you to believe that there’s a genocide against trans people. The term genocide connotes a rounding up and systematic destruction of an entire group of people. If it can be established that this is taking place, it’s far easier for you to see them as victims, and you’d be far more likely to sympathize with them.

Thus, your mind would be successfully hacked!

But suppose you were to call AstolfoFan1978 out by saying that there is no trans genocide. After all, it’s not like trans people are being rounded up onto trains and shipped to concentration camps where they’d be worked to death.

But if you were to call him out by challenging his claim that a genocide is taking place, then he’d (?) retreat to his (?) motte, and present Stanton’s Ten Stages of Genocide, and then make the case that the genocide against trans people is on its third stage, saying that they’re being denied full civil rights. Whether this is true or not, it remains that this is a claim that AstolfoFan1978 would pivot to, because it’s easier for him (?) to make his (?) case based on Gregory Stanton’s scale.

Of course, AstolfoFan1978 is being overly dramatic in insisting that any opposition to policy positions equates to genocide, because by that same reasoning, any politically-involved faction can claim that there’s a genocide against them if their policy positions face any amount of opposition. Welcome to politics.

Basically, the motte-and-bailey is a form of equivocation, a category of fallacy that includes the likes of doublespeak. It’s considered deceptive because it relies on rhetoric to manipulate, rather than on reason to convince.

When you understand when it’s used, you’re in a much better position to resist a hacking attempt on your mind.

Firing Off On Palworld

Leave a reply

Earlier this month, Palworld dropped on Steam, and since then, it’s raised some eyebrows with its resemblance to Pokémon.

I haven’t yet played Palworld, and maybe I’ll give it a try later on. It does look intriguing. This article is little more than my own opinion about the drama surrounding it, not my impression on the game.

In the Pokémon community, this game has stirred up some strong feelings, with many taking a side between supporting the game or not.

As I see it, Pokémon could use a bit of competition to stir them to improve. There have been issues surrounding Pokémon Scarlet and Violet, largely concerning performance issues, with some complaints being petty, and some being well-founded.

One of the matters concerning Palworld that has caught player’s attentions is that some of the pal characters bear a strong resemblance to Pokémon. As I see it, games like Digimon and Monster Rancher have done a lot more to ape Pokemon’s style, yet those games aren’t something that The Pokémon Company has had any issue with.

But there’s evidently something about Palworld that got their attention, as indicated by the following statement:

While one may interpret this as meaning that Pokémon is going to go after Palworld, what it comes down to is that it’s caught their attention, and they’re looking into it. Their statement that they didn’t grant the use of Pokémon assets is not a definitive statement that that Pokémon assets were used. It’s something that they intend to look into, and as the last sentence indicates, they intend to defend their copyright, if necessary.

And it might not come to that, because even though comparisons can be made between certain Pokémon and Palworld’s pals, they may be sufficiently different that no action would be needed to protect GameFreak’s copyright.

Remember that if a company doesn’t defend its copyright, they risk losing that copyright, hence Nintendo’s interest in defending Pokémon, which is the highest grossing intellectual property in human history.

Based on what I’ve seen, Palworld doesn’t infringe on GameFreak’s copyright, it merely imitates it, which wasn’t an issue when it came to similar games like Yokai Watch.

There have been comparisons made between the Pokémon characters and Pal World pals, and you may have seen some. Some of those comparisons may have been misleading, as one source of some more popular comparisons has admitted to scaling some Pal World models to make them more closely resemble Pokémon.

Having said that, I’m aware that there is something about Palworld that stirs up strong feelings among Pokémon fans, one way or another, particularly among those employed at Nintendo. There’s something about arming little critters with guns and sometimes eating them that goes against the established tone of the Pokémon franchise, and most games that plainly took inspiration from Pokémon. But that difference in tone can possibly be used to make the case that Palworld is sufficiently transformative to avoid legal trouble.

Another point of contention that has come up is that the developer of Palworld, Pocket Pair, has developed assets using AI. As I see it, this isn’t a big deal, as this is the direction that game development has been going in. In fact, as I see it, people in the future will be able to make their own games at home for personal use, by simple use of prompts. Imagine arriving home from work after a hard day, and asking your computer, “I’d like a dungeon-crawler JRPG.” Or, instead: “I liked yesterday’s game. I’d like to pick up where I left off.”

AI is already changing the way games are made, and the way things are looking, there’s more change to come. At some point, game design will become so trivial that you could just do it yourself.

While there has been many amusing takes on Palworld, you haven’t read the worst one unless you’ve seen PETA’s take:

However the situation develops, it’s already clear who the biggest losers are.

The MamaMax Fiasco Begins

Leave a reply

Muta, known mainly as SomeOrdinaryGamers, has expressed his disappointment with his one-time friend, MamaMax on X. Seeing what’s coming, MamaMax has attempted an apology video, but it was too little, too late.

Muta has called his video possibly the most serious one that he ever had to make. Considering that this is the same person who exposed a dubious charity operation trusted by the game community, that’s saying something.

Here is his video, if you’re interested. It’s just over an hour long:

Obviously, someone as big as Muta doesn’t need a signal-boost from me. But I do remember MamaMax’s video from when it caught my attention, late last year, which I commented upon. I would have guessed that there was drama behind it, but I was not aware how deep it went.

Apparently, Max has dropped the GODCULT branding. Seems that didn’t work out for him.

While it was already abundantly clear that MamaMax was interpersonally manipulative, I was not aware at the extent he went to to attempt to manipulate other content creators into furthering his cause, as he attempted to do with his audience.

In his video, as you may remember, MamaMax came off as a fanatic, and proceeded to split the world in two, and tried to lay the guilt down on those who aren’t joining him in combatting CSA.

But his cause was not as noble as he made it appear to be. All that he really had to go on was the testimony of a witness, and that was good enough for him to dox what could have easily been just a Vampire: the Masquerade LARPer.

I did some research into the person who MamaMax named, and it pretty much came back nothing. But before you fault me and my internet-sleuthing skills, please know that MamaMax, the very person bringing the accusation, apparently has about as much on him.

So basically, MamaMax is trying to recruit Anonymous as his own personal army, with nothing to go on besides an accusation. And it’s not just any accusation, the mere accusation he is going on is of one of the most serious crimes that can be committed.

If you don’t see the problem with that, close your browser, cancel your internet subscription, and delete System 32.

To make matters worse for MamaMax, because it wasn’t enough to bring about 750,000 subscribers an allegation that has the potential to not be true, he brought it forth in a matter that is self-serving, egotistical, and inappropriately theatrical, rather than with the seriousness that such an accusation merits.

And through it all, against the guidance of his friends who fought desperately to get him to see reason, he resisted their insistence that the matter instead be brought to law enforcement, which is how such a matter should have been handled. And he should have known better, considering that MamaMax himself has been accused in the past!

As I often say, pay attention to those who virtue signal the hardest, as they’re often acting with a guilty conscience, usually because they have skeletons in their closets.

While I could say more about this (such as how MamaMax interpreted Penguin0’s silence as a slight against him and brought that up to his audience), I’ll get to the point: I doubt that this whole matter will go down well. Max Striker has not been conducting himself with the highest level of stability. His distrust in his friends, as well as his refusal to see reason, along with his willingness to use psychological manipulation on his friends and his audience, indicates poor judgment that has a strong potential to lead to tragedy.

Or at least a strong, public, open-and-shut defamation case. If it turns out that Max’s target is innocent, I’d be all for it. Because I’m far beyond sick of this shit. And if he’s not, Max has still proven that he’s not someone to turn to when it comes to this kind of matter.

I suspect that Max is going to do something stupid. Either something tragic, or with the potential to make him more infamous than he already is. Just hearing him speak among his friends, he doesn’t sound like he understands what he did wrong. And if his judgment is that poor, his attempts at damage control might just make things worse for himself.

From his video late last year, I had a strong suspicion that Max would appear on the news, someday. We’ll see whether it comes to that.

And then, all the mouseys died.

1 Reply

This is some deeply unsettling news. I want to hear Anthony Fauci assure us that this isn’t gain-of-function research, that’s the only thing that’ll assure one with a state-recommended level of media literacy.

A team of researchers in China are at it again. Except the coronavirus that they’ve developed this time now has a 100% fatality rate in humanized mice. But hey, at least it’s not the Wuhan guys, this time.

Let me tell you, it’s a great thing that humanity has collectively learned the obvious lesson that there was to learn from the last few years. That is to say, that there are some things that you just don’t mess with.

And now, it’s on to enlightenment, from here. How? By developing another mutant strain of viruses that destroys the brains of mice in Chinese labs, that’s how. And if the unthinkable happens and the virus somehow passes on to humans, then at least there will be a lesson to be learned for the hypothetical few who are still alive.

Because science is just so important.

For those who have trouble seeing through the sarcasm, I’ll just say it: this is a vintage bad idea. Also, please don’t kill all the mice. Raichu is a mouse, and if there were no more Raichus, that would be just sad.

A couple years ago, I thought that Bitcoin was the stuff. Then I found out how much used Pokémon games were appreciating. But now, I’m thinking that maybe investing in lifeboat rations may not be a bad idea. And maybe some other survival supplies.

My Opinion of the Keffals/Chris Chan Interview

1 Reply

Just this morning, Keffals has uploaded an abridged version of his interview with Chris Chan. For those who care to view, the following is the video:

I may have indicated as much already, but when Chris Chan trails off into pseudo-spiritual babble, I mostly just trail off, assuming that he’s adding nothing of value to the discussion. But I have noticed some amount of consistency in his delusions, which indicates that he has given them some thought. Whether he sincerely believes his own bullshit, there’s at least some amount of premeditation in his spouting-off.

Having said that, when someone has a guilty conscience and therefore a motive to obfuscate, and they’re not making sense, it’s not a bad idea to ask whether their statements are truly designed to be understood.

During the interview, Chris said something revealing in a way that he probably didn’t realize. While he still vehemently denies committing the crime with his mother that he previously gave an unprompted and disturbingly detailed confession to, he stated that the crime was committed by another Chris Chan in another dimension. But this was considered important for Chris Chan to bring up, even though he denies that that other-dimensional Chris was actually himself.

For one thing, this sounds like a form of dissociation, an obvious way for Chris to cope with the guilt of committing a crime by convincing himself that the crime wasn’t really himself, but instead a different version of himself in another dimension.

What’s more, this explanation opens the gateway to potential gaslighting on the part of Chris, where Chris can attempt to convince people that their memories of Chris’ crime, and his confession to it, are actually memories that leaked from another dimension, causing us to remember things that, according to Chris, didn’t actually happen with the Chris Chan of this dimension.

Remember that Chris Chan has previously stated his belief in a “dimensional merge”. Whether he believes in it or not, it still is something that he can view as a tool to exonerate himself.

Also, at some point in the interview, Chris pivoted to talking about Donald Trump, for whom he clearly has disdain, even though nothing about Trump’s presidency or political career has had any noticeable impact on Chris, himself. Another example of how parroting left-wing talking points can melt an already weak mind.

Chris Chan also brought up Russia, making them out to be a modern-day Babylon, and in the process, sounding like so many false prophets of days gone by. He said that Putin would “fall by his own sword”. As I see it, Russia has a high likelihood of facing a collapse for some reason or another within the next few years. But the idea that Chris has any amount of special insight about it is laughable.

By the way, Chris Chan really needs to drop the whole schtick where he pretends to be Jesus Christ. Anyone of Christian background would find this grossly offensive. What’s more, Bible prophecy indicates that, when Jesus does return, the coming would be with great glory, and the entire world would become aware of Christ. This doesn’t sound like what’s happening with the author of Sonichu.

I’ve suspected previously that Chris Chan’s messiah complex was some form of malingering, an obvious attempt to further an insanity defense. Chris Chan’s insistence long after his trials indicates a sincerity in his delusion.

Chris Chan did a lot to attempt to capitalize on the discussion, wanting to convince those who block him on X that they were just going to get harassed anyway, whether they block him or not. This is, of course, shitty reasoning, as anyone aware of Chris Chan is aware that he’s the kind of guy you want to stay away from, as he tends to bring with him some unwanted attention.

Of course, Chris Chan still sees himself as the victim of his own bad reputation, which he himself did plenty to cultivate. He brought up Bluespike, even though Chris could’ve easily handled him by not responding to him. He brought up the gal-pals who were actually trolls, when he could’ve been skeptical of anyone claiming a strong interest in him in spite of never meeting him, and being scammed by multiple people with the same routine in the past.

Like many predators that have been outed, they want people to just leave the past in the past, and just pretend that they never did what they did. Because Chris can’t identify with normal people, he doesn’t comprehend how normal people handle forgiveness. If someone has had a career in grand larceny in their history, and we all collectively decide to not punish him, that doesn’t mean that we’d consider him just the same as everyone else for a position as a bank teller.

Chris Chan committed incest. While he may have avoided punishment, most people would still prefer that he not attend conventions. Especially considering that he continues to deny that he committed the crime, in spite of the evidence. We don’t want him near our kids, we don’t want him near ourselves, and we don’t want him leaving replies on our X updates.

If you’re interested in one transgender asking another transgender softball questions, the interview doesn’t disappoint. That aside, it’s plain to see that, between Chris Chan and Keffals, it’s Keffals who is operating with more intellectual horsepower. It just so happens that that horsepower is directed towards degeneracy.

The Collab Between Chris Chan and Keffals Makes Kiwi Farms Easy To Justify

Leave a reply

Apparently, Chris Chan is planning a collab with Keffals. This was according to Chris, as he posted the following on X:

You may know who Chris Chan is, as he is considered the most well-known of all lolcows. A couple years ago, he committed a sexual offense involving his own mother, becoming a case study in true crime, and ascending to horrorcow status.

Keffals is a bit more obscure, but perhaps far more enraging. He became known for making HRT drugs at home to sell to minors without their parent’s knowledge or consent, and ran an infamous “catboy ranch”.

The packaging for his bathtub-made HRT contains the phrase, “Keep out of reach of parents.”

Both persons are males who pretend to be women, and both hate Kiwi Farms with a passion, so it wasn’t terribly unlikely that the two would have eventually found each other.

If you’re unfamiliar with Kiwi Farms, it’s an online message board that initially focused on discussing Chris Chan, but has since pivoted to discussing the ridiculous things that social media personalities do. It’s often made out to be a hive for online bullies, and while it’s true that many of its members are unsavory individuals, I think the board as it is now can be justified. In fact, I’ll go ahead and do that now.

Suppose that arson was legal. As in, you could do it, and the law wouldn’t lay a finger on you. Would you do it?

If you’re like most people, your answer would be, “No!”. This is because most people would see arson as immoral, regardless of what the law allowed.

But suppose that, not only was arson legal, it was actually incentivized. Five dollars for each house destroyed. Odds are, most people would still refuse to do it, and would be outraged at such an incentive, if it were to exist.

However, some people would jump at the offer. “Five dollars, per? Hells yeah!” they’d scream, before getting to work. We would call such people “sociopaths”, because what little they’d have to gain is something which, in their minds, outweighs the suffering that they’d cause.

But suppose that homes were being destroyed, but rather than by acts of arson, instead through influence. Suppose that a level of abstraction separates the act that destroys the home from the home being destroyed, in such a way that allowed for plausible deniability on the part of the influencer.

The influencer might influence people to drink base liquids, eat laundry detergent, dive from moving speedboats, take prescription drugs without a prescription, idolize dangerous terrorists, make self-destructive lifestyle choices, and many, many more acts which, if people were to try them, the likely outcome is that families could be torn apart, property could be damaged, and even lives could be lost. And while all this is going on, influencers are financially rewarded just for the attention that they get.

If this were to happen, and if it were financially incentivized, would you see that as a problem?

Let’s drop the hypotheticals. After all, you probably knew what I was getting at when I brought up the influencers. The fact is, influencers do encourage destructive behaviors. These behaviors have caused damage that these influencers didn’t have to face consequences for. And yes, these influencers are being financially incentivized to accrete attention to themselves, even if the attention is through the promotion of destructive and socially corrosive ideologies and activities.

These influencers are the sociopaths who don’t give a damn what damage that they might cause for you or for anyone else, so long as they’re getting the attention that they want, and the money that they really care about.

These sociopaths are among the many influencers on social media.

They don’t have to believe what they’re saying. And they usually don’t. They don’t have to see the communities, families, or individuals whose lives they are destroying. And they couldn’t bring themselves to care. They might even convince you that they’re your friend, when in reality, your mere attention only slightly enables the transaction that is their sincere desire.

By now, you’re probably wondering what can be done about these influencers. The answer is to shine a light on them, and subject them to the ridicule and satire that is richly merited.

That’s where Kiwi Farms comes in.

If it weren’t for Kiwi Farms, deviants such as Chris Chan and Keffals would have a much easier time being the predators that they are.

And now that the two have found each other, it’s become much more important that an eye is kept on the two. Because if the two are the miscreants that they are independent of one another, just imagine what they can come up with working together.

Coach Red Pill Might Have Actually Died In Ukrainian Prison This Time

Leave a reply

It happened again. There’s another news story going around about how Gonzalo Lira died in Ukraine. Gonzalo Lira went by his pen name, Coach Red Pill. Remember him?

This story was brought to us by The New Voice of Ukraine via Yahoo News. As you read through the story, you’ll probably get an idea of just how things are going for journalism in Ukraine. Anyone who has ever voiced any amount of skepticism about the war in Ukraine is made out to be pro-Russian.

In a previous post, I pointed out that Gonzalo was jailed and possibly killed in Ukraine after The Daily Beast’s Mark Hay wrote a hit piece on Gonzalo, calling him pro-Putin. At the time, Gonzalo was staying in a country where if a journalist accused someone of being pro-Putin, that’s something that can stick.

I could ask Mark Hay how he feels about this development, but the fact is, when you libel someone, it’s your desire to destroy them. You know how guitarists like those decals that read, “This machine kills fascists”? Perhaps Mark Hay would want one for his keyboard, which reads, “This device kills bloggers”.

While I’m not familiar with Gonzalo’s career, I know that when he went by the handle Coach Red Pill he was outspoken about the state of world affairs, and advocated running off to another country for safety. This was some time before the Ukraine war popped off, and the country that Gonzalo chose to run to for safety just so happened to be Ukraine.

In hindsight, that wasn’t a great choice.

There is an expression that goes like this: truth is the first casualty of war. As I see it, the truth exists independent of anyone’s acceptance of it, and survives any attempt to destroy it. There are far too many journalists who are trying to do just that. And now, a blogger who was in the wrong country at the wrong time has become another casualty in a war between one bad guy and another.

I could hardly focus.

Leave a reply

Forgoing a decent attempt at an intro, here’s the madness:

Honestly, I struggled to keep focus. When someone starts spouting metaphysical pseudo-spiritual psycho-babble in the same way that Chris Chan has been lately, I have a hard time staying engaged. At that point, I just assume that they don’t have anything of value to say, and my mind drifts to something I’d rather be doing. Such as playing a video game, or modifying a recipe, or even something as normally dull as watching some soap opera that my mom liked, which goes to show how long the list of things I’d rather be doing can get when I’m stretching what politeness that I have to wait for them to just finish talking so I can say, “Hey, that was something. Thanks for sharing that. Bye.”

At some point, I caught that she didn’t quite understand how to explain the gender she felt like, which sounds like she’s under-qualified to do as much as exercise simple metacognition. Because of this, I wonder whether she was really successfully stringing her sentences together, or my mind was somehow filling in the blanks in a hallucinatory manner, similar to how holes in a wall can disappear when they are covered by a blind spot.

Now, here I am pondering whether this wonder of a person can so much as operate a microwave unsupervised, or whether this task is delegated to a handler in an institution. In either case, it’s clear that she’s not wanting for something to eat.

What I did get out of the video is that some woman out there doesn’t know how to explain a gender that’s a product of her own imagination, but she’s so cocksure that she’ll assert that she still knows it better than you.

Whatever drugs she’s taking to make her happy, they seem to be working a treat.