What grinds my gears

Recently PewDiePie posted a serious video where he asked for the "subscribe PewDiePie" meme to stop. A "meme" that garnered him something like 20-30 million new subscribers on YouTube over the past year or so. The thing is, "subscribe to PewDiePie" is more than just a funny little "meme". A lot more. It is, essentially, a revolt against the modern political climate. The two major important messages that this revolt is pushing forward are: 1) Individual independent YouTube personalities vs. soulless giant megacorporations. The "meme" may on the surface be a revolt against the YouTube channel T-Series , where people are campaigning to keep Pewds as the #1 most subscribed YouTuber. However, when we look deeper, it's more than just that. It's more than just this one random Indian music megacorporation. It's a statement against all megacorporations, including Google itself. Google wanted to disassociate from Pewds after th

Nintendo recently added support for a level editor and the sharing of user-created levels to their Super Smash Bros Ultimate video game. Obviously, as is always the case with these things, it took approximately 2 milliseconds before the first inappropriate levels were submitted (and probably quickly removed by Nintendo). In this day and age, however, not very surprisingly it took maybe another 2 milliseconds before people started creating levels with a "progressive" political message. And, for some reason, the political message that has been the most common during the past years is "trans rights" (whatever that means). Nintendo decided to ban those levels as well. This is the most crucial part of that article: Twitter user MomBot reported that not only was Nintendo removing stages with trans flags, but was removing all stages “with political messages.” Yes, yes, one million times yes! This is exactly what video game companies (and all companies produci

During the past two or three years the political left in the United States has been drumming on and on about their conspiracy theory of Russian meddling with the American presidential elections, and how it's the worst thing in the world, and how Trump was elected because of it. Of course Russia did not meddle with the American presidential elections in any significant way (not any more than any other country), but that's not really even the point. They don't really care if there was meddling. They only care about getting some kind of political weapon against Trump, no matter what it is. The whole thing is just a big bunch of hypocrisy. (If Hillary Clinton had been elected, and the conservatives presented claims of Russian meddling, of course the left would just dismiss it and laugh at it.) Do you know what's even more hypocritical? Silicon Valley tech megacorporations meddling with the United Kingdom parliamentarian elections, and nobody, especially not the leftis

Here's a speech by a man who was convinced by a doctor to go through sex reassignment surgery, he went through it, and now he deeply regrets it. He also presents his opinion on the current trend in the west of parents and doctors not only enabling but encouraging children to "transition". I highly recommend watching it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlRkLtKqSrY He is not a unique case. He has, in fact, created a website full of real life stories of people who are in the same position: They went through the surgeries, and later regretted it. Pretty much invariably the lives of these people have been permanently ruined. Also pretty much invariably there were underlying reasons why they were convinced to change their sex (such as having been sexually abused as children, the sex change becoming a coping and defense mechanism against it), reasons that should have been dealt appropriately, rather than doing drugs and surgeries. The absolutely horrendous thing happening to

Since its very first version, published in 1992, the Mortal Kombat video game series has always been notorious for its over-the-top graphical brutality, never shying away from showing the most egregious and brutal ways to maim your opponent. Cutting people in half, ripping their arms or head off, ripping their insides out, impaling them or beating them to a pulp... anything goes, in all gory detail. Rather than toning this down over the years, if anything, the game series has only emphasized it. The "modern gen" of sorts installments of the series, starting with the 9th game in the main series (named merely "Mortal Kombat" without a number, although subsequent games did start using Roman numerals again) took the graphical violence to the next level, by not only showing the brutality of the finishers in high-definition modern 3D graphics, but introducing even more gory detail by, among other things, using a gratuitous "X-ray vision" in the finishers, sho

A terrorist attack is done against an Islamic mosque. How do famous politicians respond? No problems whatsoever talking about "the Muslim community". So, what happens when a terrorist attack is made by Muslims against several Catholic churches and hotels? What the fuck is an "Easter worshipper"? I have never, ever heard such a term used anywhere before. Nor hasn't many other people either. Why does it seem so hard for these politicians to use the term "Christian" or "Catholic"? They didn't have any problem in using the term "Muslim". What is the difference? Well, of course that's just a rhetorical question. I know perfectly well why they have such an aversion to using the word "Christian". It's obviously because in the social justice ideology "Christian" is as much a synonym for "white people" and "oppressor" as "Muslim" is a synonym for "b

In the recent parliamentarian elections the more conservative, "right-wing" (if you want to call it that) biggest such party in Finland, Perussuomalaiset, became the second biggest party in parliament, almost tied with the first. They have only one seat less than the biggest party (39 versus 40, out of a total of 200 seats.) While the party has been relatively big in a couple of past parliamentarian elections (which are held each 4 years), this time they became really popular, no doubt due to the current mental insanity that the EU is going through. One slightly annoying problem with the party is the name, "Perussuomalaiset". It's not annoying in Finnish. It's annoying in that it's surprisingly hard to translate accurately to English. The prefix "perus" is difficult to translate while retaining its cultural meaning and tone. Perhaps the best word that I have come up with that, in a way, retains the most of its meaning, is "archetypal&

As might have become apparent from several past blog posts, I love watching so-called "First Amendment Audit" videos on YouTube, where people, primarily in the United States, go to public places to film and see if their right to do so is respected, and to educate security guards etc. if they try to stop them because they don't know the Constitution and the law in such matters. There are many misconceptions that many people seem to have about the law. One of the most prominent ones is that they think that in order to photograph or film somebody, you need permission from that somebody, and that person can deny permission, in which case the photography/filming is illegal. Of course that's not the case. In most countries (very much including the United States) you can photograph whatever you can see from a public place, and that includes people. There is no expectation of privacy in public. Another common misconception that you often see in these videos, especially fr

I have noticed a particular trend among regressive leftist social justice ideologues that not many people, even their critics, have noticed or is commenting on. I already noted in a past block post, " Where do babies come from, progressive edition ", how the book "What makes a baby" uses the word "body" instead of the word "person" (or "man", or "woman", or any other humanizing word.) This is not just a fringe oddity in this one particular book. I have noticed that trend in many other places as well. Consider for example, the infamous article in The New York Times: I Broke Up With Her Because She's White . That article is all kinds of messed up, and hundreds and hundreds of people have commented on it, and how it reflects the absolutely horrendous state and racism of the regressive left. I have never bothered writing a blog post about it because so many other people have done that already. However, I would like to po

Marvel Comics has been very infamous in the past 10 or so years for their ever-increasing identity politics in their comics. The company has pretty much been invaded by social justice activists, and this has been seen in their comics. Comic series after comic series has been ruined by injecting real-life identity politics into them, changing long-established iconic characters with more "diverse" ones, and so on. At the same time, the quality of writing (and often the quality of the artwork) has gone down. Unsurprisingly, sales have also come down like a lead balloon. (In fact, over the past couple of years over 50 comic book stores in the United States alone have closed completely because of decreased sales, and the fall in overall interest and sales of Marvel Comics products has been a very significant factor.) This new "Marvel Comics" has been often named by the critics with the moniker "SJW Marvel". Starting from around 2008 Marvel Comics forayed in

Due to the huge advances in technology, we have become a society where most people have a video camera in their pocket, ready to be used at a moment's notice (at least if they have got acquainted themselves with this functionality). This is completely unprecedented in human history. No longer are we restricted to eyewitness accounts and the occasional blurry security camera footage whenever something of notoriety happens on the streets. More and more frequently we get crisp high-resolution footage, often from many angles, of any important event that may be happening. In many ways this is a quite good thing. Whenever some kind of crime happens at a crowded public place, such as an assault or some other kind of ruckus, it's almost guaranteed that there will be clear footage of it. No longer is the police restricted to unreliable eyewitness accounts and blurry security camera footage (which is quite often filmed from very far, if at all, and without sound). Now they can quite of

Dissenter is a browser add-on that simply allows people to post whatever comments they like on any web page. Note that the add-on does absolutely nothing to the web page itself, or the server hosting it, or anything. It's simply a completely separate and independent app where people can write comments, and other people who are browsing the same URL can see them. So it's essentially "the comment section of the internet". It works separately from anything else, and does nothing to anybody else's web pages. Of course there's one big "problem" with it: It has no censorship. Anybody is free to comment whatever they want about any web page, without limitation. It was available at the add-on page of both Firefox and Google Chrome. It became quite popular, with an estimated one million users. To basically nobody's surprise, both Mozilla and Google banned the app from their add-on store. Pretty much at the same time. What reason did they give to

In order to avoid any sort of confusion, let me preface this blog post with a statement: Yes, global warming is a very real thing, and it's very heavily influenced and accelerated by human activity, and it's going to cause a huge amount of very bad problems for the entire world in the long run (perhaps even sooner than we want to admit), and if we don't do anything about it, we are completely fucked. There is no conspiracy among the scientific community related to this. It's completely idiotic to think so; it's impossible on so many levels. All the conspiracy theories out there related to this do the same thing as all such conspiracy theories do: They cherry-pick tidbits of information and remove them from their wider context, and manipulate them and put them together deceptively to give an incorrect picture of what's happening. Now that that has been made clear, to the question at hand: Should Finland in particular do something about global warming, and ho

Social justice warriors and in increasing amounts some other groups, like Islamists, are regularly engaging in mass-flagging campaigns against people they don't like on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. What happens is that dozens, even hundreds, of people will report posts made by the persona non grata . In many cases the argument for the report may be extremely flimsy, and even completely false, yet it often does result in a sanction, often a ban. (For example, there are examples of people reporting someone on Facebook for "sending nudes" even though the person has never done anything of the sort. And get this: It was a successful report. The person got a temporary ban from Facebook, even though there was zero evidence.) Why does this work? Why do these people get banned even though they have not broken any of the rules of the platform and the reports are extremely flimsy and often in fact completely false? The reason is that these huge megacorpora

It's quite ironic that the social justice ideology is supposed to fight racism and strongly opposes it, yet it actually causes people to become racist. I'm not here talking about them becoming racist against white people. No, I'm talking about these people, social justice ideologues and their sympathizers, becoming racist against black people (and "ethnic minorities" in general). In this case I'm not talking about racism in the sense of discrimination (eg. discrimination in hiring or providing services), but racism in the sense of being negatively prejudiced towards people because of their race, and having all kinds of negative preconceptions and a condescending attitude towards them. As I wrote in a previous blog post , a study conducted in the United States showed that left-leaning Liberals tended to simplify their speech when they thought they were addressing a black person, compared to when they thought they were addressing a white person. In other w

Western governments will become more and more totalitarian. This will manifest itself by these things, among others: More and more countries will ban VPNs, Tor, and any technology that allows people to browse the internet bypassing governmental supervision, control and censorship. Internet Service Providers will be demanded to completely block access to known VPN servers. More and more countries will ban encrypted connections, including SSH and the HTTPS protocol, except for a list of allowed websites. ISPs will be demanded to block access to non-authorized HTTPS hosts. More and more countries will ban access and demand censorship of non-authorized social media services such as Gab, Bitchute and so on. They may also ban access to non-authorized crowdfunding services such as SubscribeStar, as well as non-authorized payment processors and banks. As with everything else, these bans will be done at the ISP level. And, on that same note, more and more countries will start banning cr

For many years now the social justice ideology has tried to co-opt, invade and impermeate every aspect of society, and inject their political ideology into everything. This includes, of course, works of art and fiction. However, rather than being content with creating their own original works of art, they want to take existing, long-established franchises, and change them to suit their political agenda. Most usually these changes are motivated and driven by both misandry and racism. But what is the main motivation behind changing existing well-established franchises, changing them to conform to their politics, and co-opting them? There are many minor reasons for this (such as jealousy, and wanting to use art as a form of propaganda for social engineering), but there is one major reason. The core underlying reason for this is an act of dominance and exerting their power. By taking away things from "white men", they are saying to them "this is not yours anymore, this

In general, in a good majority of the world, including most of the western countries, we consider "female circumcision" and any form of genital mutilation to be barbaric, especially when done on underage children. It's explicitly and expressly forbidden in the law of most western countries, and many countries have for a couple decades now struggled with the problem of protecting the children of immigrants from it, given how common the practice of these immigrants is to take their children to their home country to be mutilated. Some countries will prosecute citizens and residents who engage in this barbaric practice (even if it's done outside the country), and there have been many such cases. Other permanently mutilating procedures have also been either banned, or at the very least generally phased out and condemned by the medical community, again especially if done on children. A good example of this is lobotomy. Lobotomy was promoted by some medical professionals i

It's curious how in the modern world the political campaigns of many politicians have changed quite a lot. The parliamentarian elections are currently ongoing in Finland, and of course streets are littered with ads for candidates. Such ads usually consist of a poster with the face of the candidate and a short slogan or mission statement. While many of these are rather traditional and stereotypical (even boring) ones, I have noticed a shift in tone with many of them. For example, one of them just says "rasismi rikoslakiin", which translates roughly to "(add) racism to criminal law" (ie. "criminalize racism"). That's it. Those two words, and nothing else. (Not very surprisingly it's a candidate for the Green Party.) If I were to meet this candidate, I would seriously ask him what exactly he means by that. In other words, what exactly would become illegal that's currently legal? My guess is that he wants to go the same route as the Un

How do you know someone has severe insecurities and self-esteem problems? When that someone is a world-famous big-name multi-millionaire renowned actress, and she gets so triggered by the Twitter comment of some random nobody dude that she feels the need to defend herself by listing her own film industry credits as a response and in her defense. Well, at least that's pretty much effectively what happened. A random dude in Twitter, with something like 350 followers (which is quite small compared to someone like Brie Larson), wrote a random tweet expressing his opinion about a movie directed by Larson, and for some unfathomable reason the official Netflix Twitter account decided to respond to that random tweet by doing nothing more than listing Larson's film industry credits ("58 acting credits, 53 award nominations" etc.) Brie Larson proceeded to retweet that Netflix tweet, effectively defending herself against the comment by touting her own horn and listing her own

The TV series South Park has always been famous for being absolutely irreverent and unhinged, with scathing parodies and satire of all kinds of ideas, ideologies, movements, cultures and people. Nothing seems to be off-limits, no matter how "politically incorrect" it may be. Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Jews, social justice ideology, transgenderism, Donald Trump... You name it, South Park has probably satirized it. The authors have never shied away from criticizing ideologies and movements in the form of parody and satire, even when it might even be dangerous for them to do so, such as in the case of Islam (and, in the modern world, social justice activism). With one exception. I have seen the entirety of South Park, from beginning to end, every single episode, and it appears to me that even though they aren't afraid of satirizing almost anything, there's one movement that they won't touch with a ten foot pole. Namely, the "Black Lives