What grinds my gears

Who is Lindsay Ellis? Once upon a time, a long time ago, Doug "Nostalgia Critic" Walker, during the raising heyday of his Channel Awesome video sharing website, opened up a position at the website for a female video creator for essentially the same role of Nostalgia Critic, but to make videos about a more feminine category of movies and TV series that he himself hasn't watched nor followed. Many people sent audition videos, and Lindsay Ellis was chosen as the winner for that position. (Several other auditioners eventually also were chosen to the website on their own merits.) However, it turned out that Ellis was not actually the kind of video producer who's just a female version of the Nostalgia Critic, because her videos were pretty much nothing like those (her videos are way too "academic" and with very little quirky humor), but she got to stay anyway and became one of the "top" video producers of the site. It turns out, however, that Lindsay Ell...

Some time ago Joe Biden addressed the nation with a speech about the efficacy and importance of the Covid-19 vaccination. He described how effective the vaccine is at protecting people from the disease. He told how only about one in a thousand vaccinated people get any symptoms from contracting Covid-19, and only one in like a hundred thousand need to be hospitalized (if I remember the numbers correctly. Even if they aren't the exact numbers he mentioned, they were in that order of magnitude.) He reassured people about how safe and effective the vaccine is. Then, in the very next sentence he talked about how "unvaccinated people put us all in risk". He talked about how dangerous it is for some people to refuse to get vaccinated, and how they are a danger to everybody. Wait... what? First he tells how well the vaccine protects people against the disease... and then immediately after he says how dangerous it is for everybody if the disease is still being spread by unvaccin...

The YouTube channel Lotuseaters recently did a video about the situation in Barbados , which I found quite interesting. Barbados recently declared its complete independence from Great Britain, and elected its first president. For some reason there's a big amount of far-leftist BLM activists in the country advocating for... I don't even know what. The population of the country is 91% black, and something like 4% white, with the rest belonging to other ethnic groups. The country is currently a single-party state, with 100% of parliamentary seats belonging to one single political party. A leftist party. 100% of the members of parliament are black. 100% of the government is black. It is my understanding that 100%, or very nearly 100%, of police officers in the country are black. In other words, there doesn't appear to be a single person in a governmental position of power who is not black. Or something else than a leftist. Economically the country seems to be relatively wealthy...

I have lately had a morbid fascination towards the story of Jim Jones and his Peoples Temple cult (which quite infamously ended in the murder-suicide of over 900 of his followers, including himself, in the so called Jonestown massacre). I have written about this once before in this blog, but I think it deserves a more in-depth look. Why have I been morbidly fascinated by this tragic event? Because of the eerie and uncanny resemblance of what Jim Jones believed in and preached, and the modern far-leftist "social justice" ideology and movement. Indeed, much of what Jim Jones preached in the 1960's and 1970's, before the massacre, would have in no way been out of place in the current political climate, and would have fit perfectly into the far-leftist "social justice" activist narrative. Jim Jones's cult arose and rode on the wave of the civil rights movement of the 1960's in the United States, tapping onto the unrest, protests and sentiments of that ...

If you are one of the (very few) readers of this blog, chances are that you are a critic of the far left and likewise watch quite many anti-leftist YouTube videos and read the writings of critics. Perhaps even write such yourself. When one engages in watching, reading and even writing such criticism a lot, one may easily get the impression that society is pretty much divided into half: Those who accept the core tenets of the left (and sometimes everything they claim), and those who do not accept them and are critical of them. In other words, that the vast majority of people are aware of the politics going on, and have an opinion on it (even if it's a very neutral middle-of-the-line opinion). Unfortunately I don't think this is true. It's much more probable that the people who are political activists and/or are very acquainted with current sociopolitics and follow them closely are actually a small minority. The vast, vast majority of people don't care about politics, don...

Some time ago I made a blog post about "The Try Guys" , which is the YouTube channel of four men who act like stereotypical little girls, in a very exaggerated manner, for no rhyme or reason. (And it's not like they are doing some kind of parody or playing a role. They seem to be "genuine" in their demeanor and behavior.) Adult men don't normally behave like this. Adult women don't normally behave like this. Even very young boys don't behave like this. Some little girls might behave a bit like this. It's very unusual and extreme immature behavior. I got reminded of this when I recently watched a video by Pentatonix, The Prayer , which is nice and all, but I couldn't help but notice their somewhat similar demeanor and way of speaking at the end of the video. Not even close to the extent of The Try Guys, but still much more than is normal and usual for adults. Even the deep bass singer behaves like that there. (They don't behave exactly ...

Over the years, the more I have understood the intricate details of notion and concept of universal constitutional human rights in a free democratic society, the more admiration I have grown for the incredible vision, wisdom and foresight of the so-called "Founding Fathers" of the United States, especially when it comes to their crafting of the United States Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights. And from the Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment. While the fundamental notions established by the First Amendment were not completely unprecented even when it was drafted (in 1791), it was still quite groundbreaking and way ahead of its time, and it showed an incredible amount of foresight. The First Amendment consists of five fundamental rights of citizens (freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peacebly assemble, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances), limiting the actions of the government, som...

Representative Jackie Speier, who was shot at by cultists at Jonestown in 1978, recently compared Donald Trump to Jim Jones in an interview. Quite naturally the YouTube video comments are stock full of people agreeing with it, and many of them saying things like "I have been saying this for four years" (which I don't believe for a second, because it's literally the first time I have ever heard anybody make that comparison, and believe me, I have followed way too much of the American leftist narratives and talking points.) They also compare American Republicans to the Jonestown cultists. Both Representative Speier and the army of brainwashed drones parroting the same three things over and over in the YouTube comment sections are completely insane. Jim Jones was a hard-core hard-line far-leftist Marxist Socialist who absolutely hated and loathed capitalism and the American government. He made this amply clear in his sermons, and it was one of his main talking points, an...

Recently I wrote in a blog post a concise summary of what I understand the fundamental right to free speech to be . It can be summarized by four rules. The third one (which I go more in detail here ) stated that you should not be forced to say what you don't want to say. In other words, that compelled speech is fundamentally against the concept of free speech. This particular aspect of free speech might seem mostly theoretical. Sure, in a free society where free speech is a fundamental right nobody should be forced to say anything they don't want to say, but surely that doesn't happen in practice, especially from the part of the government? The rule is important, of course, but surely it's one of the aspects of free speech that doesn't really get infringed, especially not by the government, and thus it's mostly theoretical? What government would force someone to say something he or she doesn't want to say? Except it's not just theoretical. It does happe...

The International Olympic Committee recently published "transgender guidelines" for all of its national members essentially saying that any man should be allowed to compete in women's sports, pretty much no questions asked. No demands whatsoever. No surgeries, no hormones, nothing. The man merely has to state that he is a "woman", and that's enough, he should be allowed to participate in women's sports. What's most baffling, and telling, is that these guidelines suggest that there's no evidence that men have an advantage in sports compared to women. You know, disregarding the hundreds of years of quite clear evidence, including thousands and thousands of competition results, world records, averages and so on, that indicate otherwise. As some people have aptly put, this current insane movement is pretty much ending women's sports, and we are quickly becoming a world where there are only two categories of sports: Men's sports, and mixed spo...

In a previous blog post I wrote a concise but complete definition of what I understand the concept of freedom of speech, the right to free speech, to be , in a short and concise format that's handy to refer to. This definition consisted of four rules. In these subsequent posts I'm delving deeper into each rule. This post is about rule 4, which said: These rights should be universal (ie. they apply to everybody equally regardless of anything) and inalienable, ie. irrevocable (these rights cannot be taken away from anybody, no matter the circumstances and no matter what they may or may not have done, or who they are). This is actually one of the most important aspects of the principle of the fundamental right to free speech, and it's something that I have seen even some fervent advocates of free speech forget. Every single person must have the same right to free speech (all the rules I have delineated should apply) as everybody else, no matter what. It does not matter who tha...

In a previous blog post I wrote a concise but complete definition of what I understand the concept of freedom of speech, the right to free speech, to be , in a short and concise format that's handy to refer to. This definition consisted of four rules. In these subsequent posts I'm going to delve deeper into each rule. This post is about rule 3, which said: You should not be forced to say anything you don't want to say (ie. compelled speech). You should not be forced to listen to any opinions you don't want to listen to. This second part only applies as long as it does not infringe on any of the other rules. This principle could be summarized as "freedom of speech also includes freedom from speech". The very word "freedom" means having the right to make your own choices freely, without compulsion, coercion and intimidation (eg. with the threat of punishment). Thus "freedom of speech" does not only mean that you can freely express your opini...

In a previous blog post I wrote a concise but complete definition of what I understand the concept of freedom of speech, the right to free speech, to be , in a short and concise format that's handy to refer to. This definition consisted of four rules. In these subsequent posts I'm going to delve deeper into each rule. This post is about rule 2, which said: You should be able to listen to any opinions you want, by anybody you want, without impediment or restrictions, and without punishment or negative consequences. (Again, nobody has to provide you with the means of doing this, but likewise nobody should try to actively stop you from doing it by deliberately putting obstacles or impediments in your way, or trying to stop the opinions from being heard.) Many people forget (or might even be unaware) that the concept of freedom of speech does not encompass only the fundamental right to express your opinions in a public forum, but also the fundamental right to listen to any opinio...

In a previous blog post I wrote a concise but complete definition of what I understand the concept of freedom of speech , the right to free speech , to be, in a short and concise format that's handy to refer to. This definition consisted of four rules. In these subsequent posts I'm going to delve deeper into each rule. This post is about rule 1, which said: You should have the fundamental right to express your opinions in a public forum to anybody who is willing to listen, without impediment or restrictions, and without punishment or negative consequences. (Nobody has to provide the means for you to do this, but neither should anybody try to actively stop you from doing it by deliberately putting obstacles or impediments in your way, or trying to stop the opinions from being heard.) Public forums vs. private property People who want to restrict free speech (especially the far left) often present all kinds of objections to the concept, or its definition. I have tried to proactiv...

I have written about this very subject several times in this blog, but I think it deserves a clear well-written summary. One that I (or anybody else) can easily refer to, when needed. (Note: "Listen" and "hear" in this context refers to all forms of receiving information, not solely to the physical sense of hearing sounds.) The concept of the fundamental right to free speech can be divided into its legal definition and the philosophical principle that one can believe in and uphold. The legal definition ought to bind and restrict the actions of the government. The philosophical principle is a higher ideal and ethical belief that one can support, believe in, defend, and advocate for (especially when it comes to defending other people's rights). In either case, the right to free speech , ie. freedom of speech , can be defined as consisting of four basic rules: You should have the fundamental right to express your opinions in a public forum to anybody who is will...

When leftists, such as leftist university students, are asked about whether socialism would be a good idea or not, one topic that often comes up is that they think that "wealth redistribution" is a good thing and would make things more equal. Indeed, this concept of "wealth redistribution" is one of their main talking points. However, they don't seem to know what they are talking about. They talk about it like "wealth" were some kind of thing, like a natural resource, that just exists on its own, like it emanated from the ground on its own, and which some people are simply hogging for themselves, stopping others from getting their share of it. As if "wealth" were like a water spring in a desert, which just emanates crucial life-saving water, and which some bandits have appropriated and taken for their own, and extorting exorbitant prices for from the locals, rather than distributing it fairly and equally with everybody. They indeed seem to th...

There are many people, some of them of high status and influence (such as some politicians in the government of some countries) who are advocating for the Covid-19 vaccine to be made mandatory. This would raise a lot of ethical, constitutional and human rights issues and questions. However, let's approach this question from a more practical perspective. The thing is, we have an example of a good that mandatory vaccination can have. You see, smallpox was completely eradicated from existence via a worldwide aggressive vaccination campaign between the 1950's and 1970's. Smallpox killed millions of people every single year (it's estimated that during its last 100 years of existence it had killed about 500 million people). Thus its complete eradication from the face of Earth has saved millions of lives every single year. In some places people were essentially forcefully vaccinated against their will. While perhaps ethically and morally questionable, this action has undeniabl...

Some time in 2020 in one of the myriads of riots by the far left, a guy with a rifle was attacked by three people (who, by the way, were all convicted criminals, including a child rapist) and he shot them in self defense, killing two of them and wounding one. Because the riot was, once again, far-leftist extremist terrorists burning buildings down because of some perceived injustice against a black person, the entirety of the far left, very much including the leftist mainstream media and most leftist politicians, decided to make this guy their scapegoat of the week and launched a year-long vicious attack against him full of slander, lies and distortions. This vicious smearing campaign was so effective that it pressured the state prosecution to file charges, even though there was essentially no case against him. It couldn't have been a clearer case of self defense as a last resort. The prosecution was laughably weak, because they just didn't have a case. (Ironically, the prosecu...

On the 9th of November of 2021, the 83th anniversary of Kristallnacht (which was a violent riot against Jews organized in Germany by the Nazi Party's SA paramilitary forces on the 9th of November of 1938), the Israeli ambassador Tzipi Hotovely was giving a speech in the London School of Economics. When she exited the building after the speech she was violently attacked and harassed by a mob of rioters who chased her, causing her to have to get to her car as fast as possible and flee the scene. This was not just some random unrelated riot in which she just happened to be caught in the middle of. No, the rioters were there precisely because of her speech, and were targeting precisely her and nobody else. Was this a group of skinhead neo-Nazi right-wing extremists targeting her because she's a Jew? Nope. This was a group of left-wing extremists targeting her because she's a Jew. Which, in my books, makes them neo-Nazis all the same. There's little difference. Modern lef...

I was recently watching a YouTube video by Ben Shaphiro, where he (is tormented by his staff to) watch insanely "woke" TikTok videos . One of the videos was a woman making a pro-choice argument. I would like to object to that argument more than Ben did. The argument in the video was this: "If life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin?" "It doesn't matter, Brandon, it has never mattered. At no point ever has it mattered whether it's just a clump of cells or a fully-fledged person already accepted to Harvard University. It has never ever matter when did life begin. The point is that a person cannot use another person's body without their permission. By forcing women to share their bodies with fetuses to keep them alive you are actually suggesting that fetuses should have more rights than any other person in the world, and that people with uteruses should have less rights. If you want a fetus to have the same rights as other people, I h...

It seems that every time I think I have figured out the mentality of the current "woke" far-leftist social justice ideology, and that nothing they do surprises me anymore, time and again they prove me wrong, by becoming even crazier than they were before, reaching new heights. It seems that there's no upper limit to how much of a clownworld they are capable of creating. This time the absolute pinnacle of utter jaw-dropping stupidity and craziness doesn't come from some university "feminist" social justice academic writing yet another braindead article about yet another silly idea. Nor does it come from some twitter feed of some anonymous social justice twitter mob. Nor does it come from some small "feminist" online publication. It comes from none other than Microsoft, one of the largest and riches megacorporations in the world. In what must be the absolute pinnacle of stupidity and mental insanity, in their recent "Microsoft Ignite" onlin...