Skip to main content

Posts

American police officers are cowards, part 10

I have written quite many blog posts about how the average American cop is an absolute coward and a 50-IQ bumbling moron who is scared of his own shadow. Sometimes this results in absolutely hilarious events that just show that they are complete clowns. This is when, luckily, nobody gets murdered by them. Othertimes these cases would be hilarious if they weren't so absolutely tragic because they end up murdering someone. This example is, luckily, one of the former kind. However, it was really, really close to become the tragic kind, where the coward 50-IQ clown almost murdered someone because of his own cowardice. It was likely up to mere inches. So this cop pair go to someone's home to arrest him, and the male cop puts the suspect in handcuffs and takes him to their police cruiser and locks him in there, in handcuffs. The police cruiser is parked under an oak. An acorn from that oak happens to fall at that moment onto the roof of the car. Because of the sound that it makes,

Why you should oppose "equity"

If there is one thing that the modern far left loves, it's wordplay. They love to take existing words, change their meaning, and then confuse people by conveniently leaving it unclear which meaning they are using, letting people believe that the word is being used with the old meaning (and thus the old connotations and implications) even though they are using their own replacement meaning in order to advocate for their own political agenda. Sometimes they are more subtle, though. The perfect example is one of their most favorite pet words: "Equity." Organization after organization, company after company, institution after institution, activist after activist, is loudly proclaiming how they support and engage in "equity" (and other beloved buzzwords, like "inclusion", "diversity" and yada yada.) This is especially devious because the average person has never before heard that word, "equity", and easily gets fooled into believing that

An ACTUAL solution to reducing emissions that almost nobody is considering

I have zero problems with climate science and the research, studies and measurements made by climate scientists, as well as their conclusion that we are in an almost catastrophic man-made climate crisis that's soon approaching (probably in the next 50 or so years). However, I do have a problem with many of the measures (and non-measures) taken especially by several western countries in order to combat this crisis and reduce human-produced harmful emissions. This is because many of these measures consist of severely hindering local production of food and goods, by putting sometimes extreme restrictions on them, making the price of locally produced food skyrocket and putting many local farmers and local businesses out of business. That, all in itself, would be bad enough. However, the worst part about it is that hindering so severely local work only causes the demand for cheap products from abroad to likewise skyrocket. And the problem is that most of these other countries that prod

Leftist politicians are trying to ban criticism of them

One of the core principles of a free democratic constitutional country is that criticism of the government, of the people in charge, is a fundamental protected right. In fact, it is well established in most free democratic countries that criticism of the government (and the people running it) in particular has even more protections than things said to other people. The threshold at which someone could be prosecuted for saying something about a politician in government is generally much higher than when said about some other person. In other words, criticism of the government, and the people running it, is one of the core pillars of a free democratic constitutional society. In several countries the far left is quickly trying to change this. They are trying to remove your right to criticize them. In more and more countries politicians, pretty much solely far-leftist politicians, have been talking more and more about how "dangerous" it is to throw caustic criticism at a politic

All "reality TV" shows are staged

Since at least the 1990's a genre of television show that has been named "reality TV" has been wildly popular, only gaining popularity in the 2000's. The concept of "reality TV" can be hard to define exactly, but the key characteristics are that they are mostly unscripted and involve participants or contestants who are just everyday people rather than professional actors or other people who do TV content as a profession. The distinction from a "TV game show" (such as "Wheel of Fortune" or "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?") can sometimes be hard to define clearly, but the unscripted nature of the show is the key. (After all, even game shows are fully scripted even if the answers or actions by the contestants are not known in advance.) And, generally, "reality TV" shows try to depict something from real life, or the lives or (unscripted) actions of people in real-life settings, rather than it all being just a TV play or m

People can't explain what "owning a game" even means

Recently a comment made by an Ubisoft executive that "gamers need to get 'comfortable' not owning their games for subscriptions to take off" caused, once again, a lot of furor among gamers and gaming youtube channels. This is nothing new, of course. This always seems to be an extremely touchy subject among gamers. The idea that they would somehow "not own" the games they have purchased, and instead the game companies dictating how, when and if they can play those games. The funny (and ironic) thing about this is that nobody seems to be able to explain what "owning a game" even means. Seriously. I have asked many people online, who are outraged at such a preposterous proposition as uttered by that Ubisoft executive, what exactly they mean by "owning" a video game. Some of them never answer the question and instead go to unrelated tangents, being outraged about the idea of "subscription based" games, and companies being able to re

American police REALLY needs to stop with their ID fetish, part 3

I have written several blog posts about the rather incomprehensible obsession that almost every single police officer in the United States seems to have about demanding people's IDs, and being astonishingly insistent about it, often in situations where they don't have the legal right to do so. (The United States is one of the few countries in the world where the police actually needs a legal reason to demand people's ID, and can't demand it willy-nilly, just because they want to. This is a direct consequence of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.) Examples of previous blog posts about the subject include a cop threatening to arrest a suspected victim of an assault if he refuses to identify (and speaking to him like he's being suspected of some kind of crime), a cop mistaking a woman for a 10-year-old girl from behind and then handcuffing her when she refused to ID, for absolutely no suspicion of any crime , and another cop mistaking the cane of