What grinds my gears

The more police interactions in the United States that I see over the years, the more convinced I become that American police officers are complete cowards. By far the most infamous recent example is the Robb Elementary School shooting incident. All the way since the Columbine high school shooting massacre in 1999 the instructions to police forces is that in an active school shooting situation the procedure is to form a team of four officers in body armor who will enter the school as quickly as possible and move towards the sounds of shooting as quickly as possible, ignoring everything else, and take down the shooter or shooters as quickly as possible, to minimize casualties. However, while this sounds all well and good, there's a huge flaw in this tactic: It requires actual courage from police officers. The tactic doesn't work when the police officers are fucking cowards. Which, like pretty much all police forces in the United States, the police of Uvalde, Texas, where Robb El

I happened to make a Google search for the expression "don't be that guy" in a browser with no prior search history (which could influence the results), and I noticed a quite clear pattern in the results that the engine gave me. Out of curiosity I also made the same search on DuckDuckGo to compare. Here's a summary of the first 25 results from Google. For convenience, I have highlighted in bold those results that are not somehow related to "male sexual assault on women": Some website dedicated to sexual assault by men. A The Guardian article about an anti-sexual-assault campaign by the Scottish police. An anti-sexual-assault web page of the Nottinghamshire Police. Another website dedicated to sexual assault by men. The Twitter page for that Scottish police anti-sexual-assault campaign. A humoristic book sold at Amazon.com. An explanation of the expression at quora.com. An article at news.stv.tv about the Scottish police anti-sexual-assault campaign. A comed

Video after video is being uploaded to YouTube showing parents in elementary and middle school board meetings complaining about and reading aloud text from books available in the libraries of those schools, for any underage person, even preteen child, to read. Books with extremely explicit and graphic pornography, even ones that you'll probably have hard time finding in a normal city library, some of them even bordering the illegal if not outright illegal (by the fact of being deliberately and purposefully provided to underage people). In one example a father reads aloud a book that gives underage people quite specific instructions about how to send their nude photos online without being recognized and caught . In another absolutely astonishing example a grandmother reads aloud a book that has extremely explicit and graphic descriptions of incestual child pornography , in extreme detail. And not even "child pornography" as in someone under the age of 18 involved. No, some

I recently had a conversation online with a socialist retard who seemed to think (like so many socialists do) that complete governmentless anarcho-capitalism is the only possible form and definition of "capitalism", and anything that deviates even slightly from that is "not capitalism" (and, obviously, a form of "socialism", because apparently in their view there exist only two economic systems in this world: anarcho-capitalism and socialism, and if something doesn't fit in (their definition of) the former it has to belong to the latter). (Of course in reality there are more forms of capitalism than just complete anarcho-capitalism, such as laissez-faire , and welfare capitalism, for example.) Anyway, during that conversation the concept of "public property" came up, and I realized an interesting irony about that concept. In general, anything owned by the government is "public property". This is in contrast to "private propert

I have written several times about a pet peeve of mine, which is how Matt Parker, a popular youtube author and math popularizer, at some point was apparently convinced to start a social engineering campaign to push the pronoun "they" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun , and he started using it for pretty much everybody, even for people for whom there is zero doubt about the pronoun, and for very close friends. He started this campaign some time towards the end of 2019 , and was at worst extremely obnoxious about it, littering his speech with that pronoun way more than would even had been necessary. At worst his videos were so annoying to watch because of that, that I couldn't even watch them. After a year or two it appeared that he toned down this fetish a bit. He clearly started using the pronoun less frequently than before, instead phrasing things such that he didn't need to use the pronoun, or by using people's names and, in some cases, even outright using &q

One of the stranger features of far-leftist social justice ideology is the idea that "traditionally beautiful" women in media are a bad thing, and thus they need to be hit with "the ugly stick", ie. uglified. This happens, for example, when a female video game character is deliberately made objectively more homely than the real-life actress that served as the character model. One of the first infamous examples of this was the female main protagonist in the Mass Effect Andromeda game: This was especially egregious in that the male protagonist was quite clearly not uglified in any way compared to the actor who served as the model. It appears that there's another quite infamous recent case of female uglification, but this time in reverse: The original game character was arguably traditionally very beautiful, and in a later live-action TV series an actress was chosen who is arguably significantly uglier. Yes, it's not very nice to call a real woman "ugly&qu

I wrote in an earlier blog post that in my experience there are mainly two types of YouTube videos where the comment section contains boatloads of comments saying nothing other than thanking the author for making the video. Just a "thank you for making this video" (or a close variant) and pretty much nothing else. These two types are creationist/flatearther videos, and videos made by far-leftist SJWs. I also mentioned a third type, psychology videos that offer help to the viewers, but I don't count these because in this situation the "thank you" comments are reasonable and make sense, and are most certainly not a form of "dick sucking". However, I have recently noticed a genuine third form of video content that seems to elicit such comments. Perhaps not in the sheer amounts as those other two, but in great quantities nevertheless. Namely, someone making a well-crafted video talking uncritically about the "UFO evidence" put forward by the US

I have written about this very subject in this blog several times already, but I think it's such an astonishing and appalling thing that it deserves repeating and elaborating. There was a relatively brief moment in the western world history, spanning very roughly from perhaps the 1970's to the early 2000's, when it looked like society was finally over with the most extreme forms of widespread racial ideology and bigotry. While individual racists did, obviously, exist even in that era, they had become more and more of a very small fringe minority with no influence, no power, no public acceptance. In other words, for a moment it looked like we, as a society, had finally moved a step up culturally and socially, as the human species as a whole. Thus, it's completely appalling to see that it was just temporary, and the old racist instinct of humans is once again raising its ugly head. The targets of the racism may have changed, but pretty much nothing else. It's all eeri

I saw someone comment in a forum how things that were previously considered disorders and health problems are no longer, and "transgenderism" was given as an explicit example. That tempted me to ask: If transgenderism is not a disorder, then why does it require medical intervention?

Given the absolute extremism and over-reacting of the modern far-left to everything, which is full of distortions, exaggerations and outright lies and fabrications (including numerous hoaxes), it's very easy to succumb to the thought that there is absolutely no basis to anything that they are saying. For example, the far left, especially in the United States, has been for many years now claiming that racist crimes are completely rampant in the country, they are a daily occurrence, they happen all the time, and that no non-white person is safe. Yet, they have very little evidence to show for it. And there have been numerous proven hoaxes of "racist hate crimes" that were actually staged by non-white leftists (such as numerous examples of "racist" graffittis painted on some wall of some university. Ironically, while there are many such instances, I am not aware of a single one, not one, that was actually genuine. Every single one has been proven to be a hoax perpe