What grinds my gears

I have written previously how Wikipedia is ridiculously politically biased when it comes to people, groups and movements that the extreme left opposes, and how Wikipedia is being used as a propaganda machine against these things, and how they ban people who protest against this . As I mention in that in-depth analysis behind that second link above, biased articles can be quite easily distinguished by how many negative traits about the person or group in question are listed in the lead (and often in the table of contents) of the article, and overall how much irrelevant minutia there is in the article listing these negative things. Another common trait that I have noticed in these articles is the unencyclopedic tone that they often use to disparage or discredit the person or group, usually by making strong unverified (and unsourced) assertions that sound more like someone's opinion on Twitter than something that should be written in an encyclopedia. Consider, for example, thi...

I have always liked the English actor Patrick Stewart, especially for his role as Captain Picard in Star Trek: The Next Generation. However, I would lie if I claimed that my admiration of him has not been marred in any way by his open pro-EU anti-Brexit opinions. (Quite naturally, and obviously, he is 100% entitled to his opinions and I would, quite literally, defend to the death his right to have and express those opinions. But that doesn't mean I have to like those opinions and agree with him.) Extreme leftism seems to be disproportionately prevalent among actors, for some strange reason. From what I have seen, it appears that at least 90% of all actors, at least in the biggest western countries, are very leftists, spouting all the radical left-wing rhetoric. (This seems to be in drastic contrast with comedians, who seem to be more keen on opposing extreme leftism. Perhaps because the extreme left hates comedy and wants to kill it, because comedy is "offensive" and ...

On October of last year, in my Predictions for the near future, part 17 , I predicted that in the near future the modern regressive leftist feminist social justice culture will start advocating for the eradication of the concept of family, of "mother" and "father", because modern feminism absolutely hates and loathes anything that's traditional to western cultures and seen as their core values. They will advocate for children not having singular parents, and everybody being everybody else's genderless "parents". Well, that didn't take long. We Can't Have a Feminist Future Without Abolishing the Family . "Lewis imagines a future where the labor of making new human beings is shared among all of us, “mother” no longer being a natural category, but instead something we can choose." "In Lewis's utopian future, the family as we know it no longer exists. Everyone, regardless of gender, is a surrogate; we mother each ...

Phil "Thunderf00t" Mason has the recognition of being one of the first big anti-feminist youtubers, starting his youtube career over ten years ago, and becoming rather notorious for his criticism of feminism, especially (but not exclusively) among the atheist community. Back in those days he became quite notorious for being one of the biggest and loudest critics of the "Atheism+" movement. This was a relatively small (and as far as I know now mostly defunct) movement among the wider world-wide atheist community which tried to inject radical regressive leftist intersectional feminist social justice ideology into the community. It operated online primarily at the "free thought blogs" website, which their primary pundits would use as a "base of operations" for their activism. Thunderf00t joined this blog website with an invitation from the members, but was quite quickly kicked out and banned when he started to create blog posts that were highly ...

One of the less nice aspects of human psychology, of the human condition, is that when people are scared they don't always act rationally, and may resort to doing quite stupid things. When people are scared and feel powerless, they have an instinctual need to gain some level of control, to "do something about it", and in some cases, with some individuals, they start acting irrationally. In some cases this irrational behavior may not only be limited to acting in a stupid and embarrassing way, but in a way that's actually harmful to others. During the "swine flu" epidemic some people, including some farmers, started massacring pigs, for the sole reason that the disease was called "swine flu", and no other reason. Ironically, humans could not contract the flu from pigs, it could only be contracted from other people. (Even more ironically, pigs could contract the flu from humans. The virus was zoonotic, but only in that one direction.) But who car...

There's a common sense adage that says "don't put all your eggs in one basket". Most commonly this refers to spreading your resources (of whatever your task, endeavor or property may be) among as many independent targets as possible, as to minimize the risk of a singular point of failure causing an enormous amount of damage to whatever you are doing. For example, if you are investing a significant amount of money on capital stock, it's inadvisable to buy stock from one single company. If your business depends on producers (such as for example farmers), it's inadvisable to have one single producer and have your business depend solely on that one. For a few decades now quite clearly huge manufacturing megacorporations have yet not learned their lesson. Pretty much everything is nowadays manufactured and produced in China, and pretty much all megacorporations are heavily dependent on that one single country for the vast majority of their business. This is a r...

There's a well-known fact in economy (which is actually often taught at economy classes in universities etc) that no matter how big your corporation is, and how popular your product brand is, you need to keep constantly advertising it. Have you ever wondered why multi-billion-dollar brands like Coca Cola and Pepsi, which are absolutely ubiquitous and constantly sell like hotcakes, keep producing humongous advertisement campaigns, spending literally millions of dollars every year on these campaigns, even though their product is already enormously popular? Given that they sell millions and millions of bottles of their products every year, and it's a word-wide multi-billion dollar industry, they still keep constantly making advertisement campaigns, for products that are already popular and in theory wouldn't need to be advertised anymore. The reason for this, which the advertisers and economists behind all of it know quite well, is that the intent is to keep the brand ima...

Probably no person who follows even a modicum of the even slightly popular YouTube channels has been spared from a sponsored advertisement by the channel creator about the mobile phone game "RAID: Shadow Legends". It's so widespread and so ubiquitous that it has essentially become a joke and a source of memes. For some reason the developers of this game in particular seem to be throwing literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe even literally millions of dollars, into an absolutely massive advertising campaign consisting mostly of offering sponsorship deals with hundreds and hundreds of YouTube channels. And many of these creators have agreed to it. And why not. It's easy money. Regardless of all the non-disclosure agreement mumbo-jumbo (that inevitably comes as a matter of course with such sponsorship deals), unsurprisingly the details of these agreements have been leaked several times, so we know pretty much all the details. The payment that the youtube...

One of the talking points of Bernie Sanders, which he loves to repeat over and over at his rallies, is how Donald Trump is the most dangerous president in United States history. Ironically, if Sanders were to become the next president, it would actually be him who would be the most dangerous president in the country's history. I'm not joking. I'm dead serious. Also ironically, it wouldn't be because he's a strong leader who would push his way. It would be because he's so weak . He's a complete pushover that commands no respect nor authority, not even from his own followers. Some time ago he was giving a rally speech at Seattle, when activists stormed his speaker podium, interrupting him in the middle of his speech, and demanded to be able to get the platform. He was completely unable and/or unwilling to push back, and couldn't do anything but stand on the sidelines while the bigots were using his platform for their message. Recently he was...

One of the most archetypal, traditional and culturally deeply-ingrained perceptions in most cultures related to snow, of winters in areas where snowfall is common, is that of a snowfight: Making snowballs and throwing them at each other. This picture is so prevalent and so deeply-ingrained into popular culture and the social consciousness that it's almost inevitable that when a group of friends goes outside during a very snowy day, they will throw snowballs at each other. Yet, for some reason I cannot really comprehend, nobody seems to ever think or be aware of that this quite often leads to the most asshole thing that one could ever do to a friend (or anybody for that matter). Throwing a snowball at someone's face, especially if he isn't paying attention and is unsuspecting, is absolute and complete assholery. For some reason people seem to think that snow is soft and harmless like fluffy balls of cotton. In reality a snowball is quite heavy and solid, and if one hits ...

In February last year I predicted that if Trump re-runs for president, the regressive left will start harassing, intimidating and even assaulting people at voting places. Well, what do you know, it's already starting. Man charged with crashing car into Trump voter registration at Florida shopping center. It's only going to get worse, mark my words.

It's not very surprising in the current political climate, especially taking into account how heavily Hollywood seems to be slanted towards the extreme left, that time and again some big-budget blockbuster movie is being marketed as a "feminist" movie, using all the buzzwords in the book, with a hefty amount of misandry, accusations and insults towards men. And, of course, if the movie fails to meet profit expectations, men are always blamed for it, and more insults are hurled at them. But the thing is, I would say that in the vast majority of these cases 99% of all this feminist social justice activism is happening in the marketing of the movie, rather than the movie itself. In most cases when you actually watch the movie, it might have some SJW elements to them, but they tend to be an extremely minor part of the movie (often with a feeling of having been artificially shoved in, in an otherwise unrelated movie). As a quintessential example, the 2019 Captain Marvel ...

There's a rather significant difference between the American and European (at least in most of Europe) court systems in that in the latter when someone sues someone else, the loser is automatically sentenced to pay all of the winner's legal fees, in addition to whatever punishment was imposed for the crime, while in the United States that's not the case. The former is the case for example in Finland. Whichever party in the lawsuit loses is automatically required to pay all the legal fees of the other party. The reasoning behind this principle is rather simple and straightforward, and two-fold: Firstly, someone who is innocent of any wrongdoing, or someone who has been wronged, should not be penalized in any way, such as suffering a monetary loss due to the lawsuit. It's wrong to punish the innocent, and it's wrong to have them suffer heavy monetary losses for something they haven't done, or for being the victim of a crime or injustice. (Especially in the l...

Sometimes incels (and some other men who are chronically lonely) are asked a question like "do you think you are entitled to sex?" Sometimes this question is even asked in their own forums. This is a notionally and categorically wrong question to ask. It's essentially a nonsensical question. (In certain particular contexts it could be a valid question to ask, but generally not in the contexts where it's usually asked.) It's essentially no different from asking "do you think you are entitled to food?", or "do you think you are entitled to social interactions with people?" Asking it like that is fundamentally wrong. It's essentially asking if the person thinks that he deserves food, or social interaction with people, by some merit, or as some kind of reward or fundamental right, or because who that person is as a person. Food is a daily urgent biological necessity for survival. It's not optional. It's not a question of whethe...

When Trump was elected the President of the United States and inaugurated into office almost four years ago, riots ensued, vandalism was rampant and cars burned. From the several thousands of people who rioted, about a hundred were arrested by the police, but eventually no charges were pressed. Not a single one. What will happen if Trump gets re-elected? Based on what happened then, and all the events since, I predict that a repeat of the above will happen, but at a worse scale. Once again cars will burn, store windows will be broken, public and private property will be destroyed and vandalized and, for the most part, the police forces will just stand by the sidelines, watching it all happening without doing anything about it. Maybe in a few cities the police will actually do their jobs, but in most of them they will do nothing, and just allow it to happen. Perhaps a few people will be arrested, just for the show, only to be quickly released and then later no charges pressed, once ...

Let's face it, Donald Trump is not perhaps the best and smartest person who has been the President of the United States (he certainly has had his share of completely stupid utterances and opinions, both prior to and during his presidency), and he is a businessman rather than a politician, but he has undeniably achieved many good things during his presidency, including improving the country economically, as well as achieving international diplomatic feats thought impossible (such as successfully starting negotiations between South and North Korea). However, I would say that he is one of the most important presidents, and people overall, of modern history not because of he has done, but just by merely having been elected president. The 2016 campaign victory was a slap in the face of the regressive leftist mainstream media. It was a message to them saying "you do not elect presidents, the people do". The mainstream media was so sure of itself that they laughed and sneere...

As I have written several times before, Wikipedia is ridiculously politically biased when it comes to political topics, and the Wikipedia articles of pretty much all people, institutions and ideologies that the regressive left doesn't like are pretty much nothing but smearing pieces and propaganda against them. Moreover, if you dare to protest this political bias in Wikipedia, they will ban you , with lies and without being able to give any good reasons or references to Wikipedia rules . Unsurprisingly, this is only becoming worse and worse as time passes, since Wikipedia is being administered by politically biased leftists, who find Wikipedia an extraordinarily powerful tool for their political propaganda. This propaganda often manifests in sentences, paragraphs, sections and even entire separate articles that are absolutely not encyclopedic, and are nothing but smearing pieces and propaganda against an individual or entity that the left does not like. (Conspicuously, general...

This is not really something that just happen to emerge by chance over the last couple of years. In fact, the leftist media was already drawing parallels between Trump's presidency and Brexit back in 2016 and 2015, even before Trump was elected. Both things were discussed side by side, even within the same articles, as if they represented pretty much the same thing. There was even an opinion piece on some newspaper with a title along the lines of "don't worry, Trump will not become president and Britain will not leave the EU" (which, of course, is a source of laughs now). I don't really understand why the regressive left was so adamant in making all these parallels between the two seemingly unrelated things. What does Trump's presidency have anything to do with Brexit? Yet, they did, and they still do. In both cases the result came as a complete surprise, and shock, to the left. Both people who voted for Trump and who voted for Brexit were named by the ...

For several years now I have been saying that I don't believe for a second that the UK will ever leave the EU. The British government will do everything in their power to delay and then reverse the decision. Anybody who thinks otherwise is just a deluded fool. I have been also saying that if I'm ever proven wrong, I will openly, and gladly , admit having been wrong. Well, here it is: I was wrong. The UK did finally leave the EU. It took a whopping 4 years for them to leave (almost a year longer than originally planned), but finally here it is: The UK is no longer a member of the EU, and can be removed from all EU maps. And you wouldn't believe how happy I am for having been wrong! Good for them! I only hope other countries dare to follow suit. This is a good place and moment to comment on how astonishingly hard it is to leave the EU. It's like trying to leave the Mafia. Or a religious cult. I am old enough to have lived in my adulthood in the pre-EU era. Back...

I wrote in an earlier blog post about the abysmal and astonishingly slow adoption rates of RTX in video games, even though the technology has been out for well over a year now. Even as of writing this, there are essentially just three games with full serious RTX support: Battlefield V, Control, and Metro Exodus. (I don't count Shadow of the Tomb Raider as a game with "full RTX support" because there it's used only for shadows and nothing else, nor Final Fantasy XV, because there it's actually not used at all. I also don't count existing old games with third-party patches to add RTX support.) I commented on that post how I'm not really interested in Battlefield V (reviews of the single-player campaign are less than stellar, and it's an SJW game), and how Control is an Epic Store exclusive, so they can go fuck themselves, I'm not buying it from there, which leaves only one potential game with full RTX support: Metro Exodus. Well, I have to iss...