What grinds my gears

There's a comic strip that summarizes the approach at studying the physical world taken by the scientific method and by creationists: The scientific method: "Here are the facts. What conclusions can be draw from them?" The creationist method: "Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?" The modern far-leftist neo-Marxist "social justice" trans-activist ideology takes this exact same approach when it comes to the science of human biology. This includes a good majority of scientists who have been brainwashed into the cult. They have already decided on the conclusion, and are trying hard to make evidence fit this conclusion. And if they can't find the evidence, or the evidence is not convincing enough, they'll just fabricate and lie about it. Scientific American is a popular science magazine, one of the biggest in existence. Recently they created a documentary video "debunking the myth of the sex binary". One of th

It seems to be that the far left can only think in extremes. If they see something as being bad, they will sooner or later take it to its absolute extreme, no matter how unrealistic or contrary to reality it is. If they see something as good, they will likewise take it to the absolute extreme, no matter how delusional, unrealistic or even harmful that may be. Two particular examples of taking what they consider bad things to their absolute unrealistic delusional extremes are their concept of and attitude towards capitalism and white people. (This extremist thinking might not yet be completely universal among the left, but it's gaining traction and becoming more and more widespread by the month.) At least some of them seem to think that pretty much everything that's bad, negative or difficult in society that's related to economics is because of capitalism. And only because of capitalism. Poverty? Caused by capitalism (obviously). People living in poor conditions and having

The modern view about men, especially among the far-leftist feminist social justice warriors (and especially in certain countries like the United States), doesn't paint a pretty picture. All kinds of claims are made about men, and men are always depicted as the violent oppressors and women (and "minorities") as their victims, and having a much easier life than women. Like all religious cults, cult members never research and verify the claims made by the cult (especially those about "the enemy"). They just assume those claims to be true, and repeat them blindly. On very rare occasions, however, this pattern is broken, and someone dares to actually research and test the veracity and accuracy of all those claims. For example, one Cassie Jaye decided somewhere around 2015-2016 to research and make a documentary about so-called "men's rights activists". She said that she isn't herself some kind of hard-core man-hating feminist, but apparently she di

Some people have pointed out a rather curious thing about Donald Trump. You see, extremely rich people, and people in positions of power, tend to have quite many skeletons in their closets. While not universal, it's pretty common for extremely rich and extremely powerful people, the people at the top, to bend the law a bit from time to time, to make some shady deals, to do things under the table, to evade their legal responsibility. There's always something. Now, consider that Donald Trump has been investigated for crimes, any crimes, for the better part of six years now, by multiple giant press organizations absolutely set on finding any dirt on him, by the full power of the Democratic Party of the United States, and by the full power of federal law enforcement. Any crime, no matter how petty, no matter how inconsequential, no matter when it was made. You can be god damn sure that if they had found anything , no matter how small, they would have blasted it full-on, front page

This time it's not really me who is predicting this, I'm just summarizing what others are predicting. For some reason the Democratic Party of the United States appears to be morbidly afraid of Donald Trump. Even though Trump did pretty much nothing of what they predicted he would, and his presidency went pretty much without much incident (and, ironically, was internationally one of the most peaceful presidential terms in many decades, as Trump was the first President of the United States since Jimmy Carter who didn't start a single war), they have built up this fictional image of Trump that's so utterly evil that they are morbidly afraid of him, and especially of the prospect that he will run for president again in 2024, and they want to stop that at all costs. Now think a bit what that implies: It implies that the Democratic Party does not care about the will of the people. They do not care if the majority would make their own decisions and choices and actually vote fo

One would think that western society has become more enlightened during the past century when it comes to things like racism. The vast majority of racist attitudes that were common in western countries in the earlier decades of the 1900's have been diminishing by the decade, and with it is gone racist segregation, racist laws and, overall, normalized systemic racism. ("Systemic racism" means that discrimination based on race is entrenched in law and is commonly accepted and upheld both in governments and the population in general, and seen by large as normal, acceptable and desirable, and is widely adopted and enforced, by governments, by institutions, by corporations, by schools and by individual people. In other words, it's part of the prevailing culture and the prevailing norms, legal and cultural.) The western world has been pretty much free of actual systemic racism since about the 1970's and 1980's forward. In most countries segregation and discriminatio

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, founded in 1920, is one of the biggest and most influential human rights organizations in history. They have been famous during their entire history for defending people's fundamental constitutional rights. No better example of this is a case that happened in the 1970's: A group of neo-nazis protested some kind of Holocaust memorial, and were arrested and prosecuted. The ACLU sent one of their lawyers to defend them and he successfully had all the charges dropped, as this was a clear case of freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment. The kicker? The lawyer in question is Jewish. (When asked about this case in a recent interview, he responded, paraphrasing, "I abhor what these people believe, but they have the same right to free speech as everybody else. That's why I defended them.") In the past ten-to-twenty years, however, the ACLU has made a complete 180-degree turn on their principles and not only do not s

The only existing (at the moment) children's hospital in the United Kingdom that's performing sex change castration surgeries on adolescents (and giving puberty blockers and hormone therapies to children who don't need them) is being forced to close. Perhaps a bit surprisingly, they aren't forced to close because of threats or even heavy criticism by the public. They are forced to close because of the UK authorities evaluating the hospital as not meeting the standards of medical quality and patient care of the United Kingdom. And not because of safety violations, lack of proper hygiene or the like, but because of the outright activism of the doctors. (In this day and age it might be a bit surprising that in a country like the UK the government still dares to close a transgenderism hospital because they deem the doctors putting their personal politics over the health of their patients, but kudos to the UK for doing so, at least still at this point in time.) Several whis

In the 1980's laws were passed in the United States establishing the so-called "qualified immunity" for police officers. What it means is that a police officer cannot be personally sued for minor rights violations in situations where the actions of the officer were reasonable considering the circumstances. In other words, if a police officer happens to commit a minor rights violation against a civilian by accident or due to the circumstances of the situation, if that action is deemed to otherwise be reasonable and justified considering the entirety of the event. Likewise if the police officer simply didn't know that particular aspect of the law (such as, for example, that he had no right to demand ID from someone in that particular situation, thus making it technically a Fourth Amendment violation.) A civilian who has been wronged in this manner might be recompensed (eg. monetarily) by the police precinct or by some other government official, but the police officer hi