What grinds my gears

For years now people have been pointing at the giant Silicon Valley tech megacorporations, who probably control well over 90% of all internet traffic and services (with, perhaps, the exception of certain totalitarian countries like China), showing how they are becoming more and more political by the month, and abusing their power to control what people see, and to control who gets a voice and who doesn't, banning, censoring and unpersoning people with the "wrong" opinions, and blocking them from having any kind of online presence or platform, and blocking them from having any sort of income from this online presence. All of these giant megacorporations are extremely politically biased towards the left, and are in effect in a war against anybody of any notoriety or fame who is on the other side of the political spectrum. The amount of censorship has escalated and escalated. You only need to look but a mere year back in time, and they still only removed content that the...

Assume that one day, out of the blue, the police handed you a fine that you have to pay, or face jail. This is the first time you hear of it. At no point were you questioned, arrested, prosecuted, or anything. Instead, the government just gives you a fine out of nowhere. Moreover, nowhere in the paperwork for the fine does it say what the actual crime that you allegedly committed was. What law did you break? What exactly did you do? When did the crime happened? There's nothing. The paperwork simply says that you broke the law, and thus you have to pay a fine, but it does not say what your crime was, or which law you broke, or when. I think anybody would agree that this would be completely ridiculous, unjust, and against the most fundamental of civil rights. At the very least you should know which law you broke, if you are going to be fined for breaking it (besides being given an opportunity to defend yourself.) Yet, this is exactly what YouTube is doing. Time and again YouTub...

In a previous blog post I commented on how a term, "gaslighting", which had a rather clear and unambiguous meaning in the past, has been co-opted by the regressive leftist feminist academics as, essentially, a tool for the leftist masses to discredit all criticism of their ideology. "Do not listen to them. They are just trying to make you doubt your convictions. They are gaslighting you. Ignore everything they say. It's nothing but deception." Relatively recently they have come up with another fancy academic-sounding term, which is once again being used for the exact same purpose. In this case, it's the term "dogwhistling". Originally, this word means some kind of word, sentence, expression, gesture or action which all in itself sounds innocent, but is a covert signal to likeminded people, people with the same ideology, people who know what it means. Like a codeword, or an euphemism invented among the people holding that particular ideology. R...

I have previously written a couple of blog posts about the difference in rhetoric and tone in social media between typical SJWs and typical anti-SJWs. (You can see those blog posts here and here .) As you might guess from this blog, I quite often watch YouTube videos that are critical of SJWs and their policies and actions. While I'm not all that interested in watching videos from the other side (I have too little time to waste my life watching them, really), I sometimes stumble across them. As you might guess, I have noticed a drastic difference in the average tone and rhetoric in the comment sections of these videos. On anti-SJW videos you get semi-regularly your archetypal American conservative comments, typically about the 2nd Amendment (as if guns solved every problem, which just isn't true ), and some comments may be outright mockery of the people or person being talked about in the video (if it's talking about a group of people, entity, organization, or a part...

While theoretically there are multiple political parties in the United States, it's nevertheless a de facto two-party goverment, with the Democratic and Republican parties controlling the vast majority (and often all) of congress, and every single president having been of one of the two parties. These two parties have always disagreed on many key issues, but there's one issue they have both always agreed on, since very long time: Tough immigration policy enforcement. Meaning enforcing a strong border security, stopping people from entering the country illegally, and deporting those who have succeeded in doing so. Every single president and presidential candidate from both parties have always had that as one of their main policies. Including very much all the Democratic Party candidates and presidents. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton... all of them. Stronger border control and deportation of illegal immigrants was one of their main policies, both during their p...

People have started noticing recently that Anita Sarkeesian has repeatedly alluded at her "non-profit" organization, Feminist Frequency, being in financial trouble. I have always been quite cynical about that "non-profit" status, tending to think that it's "non-profit in legal status only", in that yes, it's legally registered as a non-profit organization (which, as far as I know, means that the company itself cannot make significant yearly profits, which I think means it cannot have some kind of investors and shareholders who earn money from the company; in other words, the assets and capital of the company cannot significantly raise, all earnings going to justified expenditures). One has to wonder, however, where all that money is going to, because as an organization it's not doing much. Luckily, in the United States one requirement imposed onto non-profit organizations is that they have to be 100% open about their earnings and expenditur...

Shaft is a new installation, made in 2019, in the long series of films of that name. Famously, it's one of the best-known movie franchises with a black protagonist. The 2019 movie was directed by a black director, Tim Story, and stars the famous Samuel L. Jackson. In fact, the majority of the main cast is portrayed by black actors. Naturally, the leftist SJW journalists love the movie, while the general population, the racists they are, absolutely hate it and... Wait... What? Those numbers can't possibly be right. The professional critics are absolutely trashing the movie (34% is extremely low when it comes to aggregated movie scores) while the general audience is absolutely loving it (likewise 94% is an extremely good audience score). How can this be possible? This is impossible! Well, of course it's not impossible. If there's one thing that you can be sure of nowadays is that if the professional critics hate a movie or TV series, while the audience ...