What grinds my gears

I wrote in a previous blog post about how "gender non-binary" is such a fuzzy, vague and meaningless term, and based on completely arbitrary and undefined concepts, that it actually doesn't mean anything. Any concrete meaning that can be attributed to it is so vague that it could just as well be applied to all people, and thus it doesn't distinguish anybody from anybody else, and thus it's not any sort of categorization, and thus it doesn't really have any significant meaning. Recently I expressed this same opinion in a forum, and some leftist objected to that claim, ie. that it doesn't mean anything, and gave a definition: "A gender identity that's neither male nor female." To this I responded: "Ok, so please define 'male gender identity' and a 'female gender identity'." Instead of answering she (I'm assuming she was a she, as she sounded a lot like a she) started arguing that I asked what the definition of ...

When Trump was elected President of the United States, the vast majority of the American mainstream media, which happens to be far-leftist, engaged in a literal non-stop smearing campaign against him. Every single day, without fail, for the entirety of the 4 years of presidency, plus months and months afterwards. Most of the major mainstream media pundits (CNN and MSNBC on the forefront) did not miss a single day of the entire presidency without spending literally hours on a massive smearing campaign. Among the literally hundreds and hundreds of things they came up with in order to attack him, one particularly childish and ridiculous tactics they used was to try to put his mental abilities into question (in the desperate hope that he would be removed from office because of being too mentally incompetent). And they tried to cling to every little thing they could. In one video clip Trump was drinking from a water bottle, and according to them the way he was doing it was somehow indicativ...

A good portion, perhaps even the majority, perhaps even the overwhelming majority of American conservatives, and people elsewhere in the world who align more or less to the same political principles, hate Japanese cartoons, ie. anime. Most of them seem unable to give any rational reasonable explanation or reason why they hate it so much, and some of them say that it's "evil" and depraved and corrupts children. Which sounds like the most stereotypically conservative thing one could say about anything. Is this all complete hogwash and just your typical "get off my lawn!" "in my youth everything was better" conservative old fart talk, or is there any aspect to this antipathy and these claims that might actually have some rational basis in reality? It's certainly true that claiming that all anime is depraved just because there are some individual anime movies and series that are (quite arguably) depraved is as silly as claiming that all live-action mo...

I don't consider the term "free speech absolutist" to mean "someone who thinks that everything that can be said should be legal and allowed, without exception." Rather, I think means someone who has maximal free speech principle (ie. not "everything", but "as much as reasonably possible") and, most importantly, is extremely consistent about it. In other words, a free speech absolutist is someone who thinks that free speech is universal and irrevocable . There are no exceptions, when it comes to the person, on whether free speech applies or not. No matter who a person is, or what he has done, or what he has said (even if what he has said has legitimately been highly illegal), he still as the exact same right to free speech as everybody else. No exceptions. No excuses. The right to free speech is not something you can remove from someone, not even someone who has abused that very right. Likewise I consider a free speech absolutist one who c...

It's a quite prominent fact that modern far-leftism is a deeply, deeply racist ideology to the core. It's not merely that they absolutely hate, loathe and are disgusted by white people. They are racist against pretty much all people. This takes many forms (such as, for example, the so-called "bigotry of low expectations": They think that eg. black people can't be assumed to be educated and intelligent, and thus they need special treatment, special privileges and favoritism eg. in hiring and enrollment. When writing about complex subjects to people they think are black, leftists will use much simpler language than if they think that the recipient is white, because apparently they subconsciosly think that black people don't understand big words. Heck, they think that black people don't even have IDs because they don't have access to the internet. I'm not even kidding.) One of these forms is subdividing people into groups based on their race, and cons...

During the 1990's and early 2000's the far left talked a lot about "equality". Everything was about "equality". However, if you have been paying attention you'll notice that they have pretty much stopped using that word almost completely. You don't hear them using that word anymore. Instead, they have replaced it with the buzzword neologism "equity". As I have written before , "equity" is pretty much the opposite of "equality". While "equality" is the principle of treating everybody the same way completely regardless of irrelevant physical characteristics like sex and race, "equity" is the opposite: It's about dividing people into groups based on such characteristics and treating people in these groups differently depending on the group, giving some people special treatment and privileges and discriminating against others. The amount and severity of the privileges and discrimination depending hea...

The far left has been for erasing all country borders since at least the 1940's (just listen to Charlie Chaplin's ending speech in the movie The Great Dictator from 1940. While 99% of that speech is very agreeable, there's shoved in that one part about erasing all country borders, as if that were somehow in line with the rest of the speech. I might make a separate blog post about that speech one day.) This narrative of opening and erasing country borders got a quite big boost in the 1980's and especially 1990's (no doubt because the generation that experienced the horrors of war was dying off, replaced by the younger generation that had not experienced anything of the sort). This was the time when some western countries (with Sweden and the UK on the forefront) started their crazy massive immigration campaigns. This campaign kind of plateaued off for a couple of decades until it absolutely exploded 2015, when the number of "refugees" and foreign nationals...