Skip to main content

Posts

The constantly-changing SJW mind: Addendum 2

Some time ago I wrote a couple of blog posts about how consistency is not one of the strong points of far-leftist "social justice" ideology. They will strongly defend and fight for a particular position today, and do the same thing for the exact opposite position tomorrow. Whichever position suits their agenda and gives them most power, that they will defend. The exact same people can extremely strongly say one thing today, and the exact opposite a year from now, and they will not even bat an eye (and, of course, they will be completely silent about their past opposite opinion.) There are several examples behind that link above, but here's yet another one: Many years ago the far left was strongly advocating for the notion that there is no such thing as a "male brain" and a "female brain", that both men and women have literally identical brains and it's impossible to distinguish between the two. Many articles were written about how scientific study

The utter hypocrisy of anti-book-burning puritanism

The Nazi mass book burnings are and will probably forever remain as one of the most remembered and symbolic events of recent history. They are one of the most prominent symbols of totalitarian ideology that stands as the polar opposite to the principles of free speech and free expression, and freedom in general. As is so common, totalitarianism and other similar oppressive ideas can only withstand and survive by suppressing, censoring, gatekeeping and destroying all dissent, all criticism, all contradicting opinions and ideas. There's no more striking image that symbolizes this act of censorship than a bonfire made of books that are considered "harmful" to the totalitarian ideology. The destruction of literature for the purpose of censorship and gatekeeping is considered abhorrent and against the core fundamental ideals of freedom and liberalism. Good ideas can survive and, in fact, welcome criticism and scrutiny. Bad oppressive ideas can only survive by banning and destr

One of the major problems with American policing

I have written quite many posts in this blog about the absolutely ridiculous mentality and behavior among American police forces. This mentality and behavior seems to be very uniform across the entire country, even though local cultures otherwise can vary very wildly from state to state and even within a state. The United States is one of the very few countries where you can actually refuse to identify yourself to a police officer if he doesn't have an actual legal reason to demand your ID (ie. a reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime). This is a direct consequence of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution (something that most other countries lack). Most other countries are so-called "stop-and-id states" where you are legally required to identify yourself to a police officer if he demands it, no matter what the situation, no matter why he is demanding it. If you refuse, you can be issued a fine. The United States is one of the very few countries in the world that is

Why you should NOT use people's "preferred pronouns"

Far-leftists, especially those who are enamored with roleplaying all kinds of "sexual orientations" (and who have a gazillion made-up neo-words to compartmentalize their very specific brand of it), also love to come up with all kinds of "preferred pronouns". Unfortunately far-leftism has got such a strong hold in western society, especially in the United States and the UK, that there are more and more places where these "preferred pronouns" are being displayed among people's names. In fact, there are already some organizations that pretty much force their employees to announce their "preferred pronouns" in their private and public information, wherever their names appear. (Recently there was a controversy when a long-time worker of a big charity organization in the UK was asked to add her "preferred pronouns" to her bio, and she, being something like a 70-years-old woman and not being up to date with the latest fads, asked what it

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