Aug 092020
 

If there’s something that really shouldn’t be worthy of notice by the outside world, it’s YouTube “celebrities” going after each other. But sometimes it gets interesting, especially when the courts get involved and start setting legal precedent. it’ becomes especially interesting when you can tell that one of those involved in the spat is clearly the villain of the piece… and that they Keep Not Learning Valuable Lessons. Such is the case in the fight between “Akilah Obviously” and “Sargon of Akkad.” Short form, Sargon is a white anti-SJW, while Akilah is an anti-white SJW, and when Trump defeated Hillary in 2016 Akilah posted a video that Sargon took clips from for the purpose of satire. She sued him for copyright infringement; the court not only threw the case out, it recently awarded him legal costs. Doubling down on stupid, Akilah is claiming to be preparing an appeal. This is double dumb… not only because the case is essentially unwinnable for her on the merits, the judge who ruled against her has been bumped up to the appeals court and thus the appeal would go to *him.* Triple dumb, she has publicly smack-talked the judge. Yeah, she really is just that smart.

If you’ve got an hour to kill, or an hour to listen to something while you work (as I’m doing… for Book 2 I was successfully doing one diagram a day, but the most recent diagram tool the better part of a month… the average diagram runs about 800 kilobytes, this most recent one is a whopping 40 megabytes, so, yeah, a whole lot of bits), and you want to be amused by just how unaware of reality a professional SJW can be, check out this summary:

Note: in the thumbnail image for the YouTube video, that’s Akilah doing “whiteface.” Not unintentionally; she’s mocking the appearance of white folk while doing so. Not too long after, she said that she would never do white face, apparently having forgotten that she’d already done it. Way to go, Akilah! A winner is you!

 Posted by at 10:02 am
Jul 042020
 

Well this was pretty much  inevitable… two protestors struck by a car moving at high speed and flung a comically high distance up and out with resounding “thumps” both up and down. This was made possible not because the car was on the sidewalk, but because the protestors were on a darkened Seattle freeway at night.

Edit: original tweeted video seems to have been yanked.

 

The driver will of course have to answer a lot of questions. But as to whether the driver is at fault here? Dunno. Lots of possibilities:

  1. Driver saw what was up ahead and maliciously plowed into them
  2. Driver was drunk
  3. Driver simply didn’t see what was up ahead until too late to avoid (cars don’t exactly stop on a dime, especially when moving at freeway speeds).
  4. Driver saw what was coming at the last second and decided not to be Denny’d

My guess based on nothing is Number 3, with a dash of Number 2. But then I read THIS ARTICLE which indicates that the highway was already closed down and that the driver came onto the freeway by way of an *OFF* ramp. Considering that the car in question is a Jaguar and probably costs a fair chunk of change, my thinking transmogrifies into wondering if what we have is a car thief out joyriding.

But whatever the drivers story is, the dumber story is necessarily that of the protestors. What exactly did they plan to achieve by blockading a major high-speed freeway at night? This sort of thing is dumb and malicious enough when done during the day before slow-moving gridlocked or stoplighted vehicles. When done *literally* under the cover of darkness, it’s just…. stupid.

One can always hope that this sort of thing will *finally* lead to new laws, such as “intentionally blocking traffic is now a major felony with a minimum ten year sentence followed by stripping of citizenship and deportation to Somalia,” but I bet it won’t. Idiots and their enablers and co-conspirators will continue to falsely claim that protestors who block traffic are within their Constitutional rights to do so, and will thus be complicit in the injuries and deaths that will continue to mount.

Don’t play in the streets, kids.

UPDATE…

BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE!!!

Not exactly what one might have in mind when assuming the incident was an attack by a white supremacist Trump supporter.

And then there’s this… left without comment.

 

 Posted by at 7:45 am
Jun 272020
 

It has become a sickeningly predictable event: someone says something that upsets the unthinking unteachable mob, and then they – and pretty much anyone even tangentially associated with them – issues some sort of public apology. The apology is usually a combination of lame and embarrassing. But does it actually appease the mob?

Survey Sez: Nope.

Does apologizing work? An empirical test of the conventional wisdom

Overall, the evidence presented here suggests that the effects of an apology are close to neutral or negative depending on the context and the demographic group. If this is the case, we may wonder why public officials do in fact so often ask for forgiveness in the face of controversy. It is possible that they apologize in order to receive better coverage from the media or even to make a story go away. In one experiment, individuals judging performances in a presidential debate were influenced by the nature of commentary they watched after the fact when compared to a control group not exposed to the opinions of pundits (Fridkin et al., 2007). Likewise, if an individual apologizes for a comment that the media finds offensive, future coverage of that individual may be better than it otherwise would be. This requires the assumption that while members of the public are hostile or indifferent to those who apologize, members of the media will provide better coverage of an individual who shows repentance. There may be little reason to assume that this is the case, however, especially considering that most of the media lean to the left (Groseclose & Milyo, 2005; Groseclose, 2011) and that liberals in this study appear to be those most likely to want to punish individuals for apologizing.

Emphasis mine.

Sometimes people do or say some reprehensible things, and in those cases an apology *may* be appropriate… *if* the person in question is actually sorry for what they did. And “sorry” because they realize they did/said something bad, not because they’re being forced into an apology. But then, it certainly seems like the bulk of the calls for public struggle sessions these days are driven not because someone did something objectively bad, but because they did or said something “offensive” (example: the artist who recently groveled because racists were tearing her down for having painted herself as a comic book superhero… with a *tan*). In which case an apology is not just bad for the apologizer, it’s bad for society in that it helps to feed the beast of fascistic cancel culture. Respond some other way.

 Posted by at 4:17 pm
Jun 262020
 

As a general rule, it is better to try to understand, *truly* understand, the whys and wherefores of the world. But on occasion problems are such  (as today, when confronted with a Computer Issue That Should Not Be) that figuring them out is simply too troublesome, time consuming or expensive, and it makes a lot more sense to simply replace the problematic thing and move on with life. Sometimes it’s just not worth the bother of trying to truly understand. And thus…

 

 Posted by at 2:22 pm
Jun 152020
 

The Amazing Randi uses shreds of styrofoam to demonstrate that a “psychic” is a fraud.

THIS sort of thing should be taught in public schools. Teach kids skepticism, teach them to question and to test and to use their damned brains rather than just believing whatever superstitious rubbish gets tossed at ’em. I had a materials science teach who was also a pretty good magician, and in retrospect a whole lot of engineers – not to mention a *vast* number of poli-sci and libarts students – could have benefited from a whole lot of that sort of thing.

Other ways Randi could have done this:

1: Some sort of tiny candles that produced a relatively large volume of smoke, placed between the “psychic” and the page

2: Streamers made of *really* lightweight paper, fabric or some kind of film

3: Put the book in a plexiglas box

 Posted by at 9:25 pm
Jun 132020
 

Truck Drivers Say They Won’t Deliver To Cities with Defunded Police Departments

Seventy-seven percent of truck drivers say they will refuse to deliver freight to cities with defunded police departments.

Good, goooooooood………

Cities that tolerate packs of degenerate genetic defectives hijacking their local politics should get to experience the full consequence of their mind-boggling stupidity. Truckers should take note and should avoid these hellholes. That a lack of shipping of food and important supplies to such regions will only accelerate their collapse… well, all to the better.

Bonus round:

Survey says: Truckers love their guns

 

 Posted by at 1:46 pm
Jun 102020
 

The wokescold fascists sometimes don;t play by their “1984” playbook. “Dude” is a way to *simplify* speech, compared to the never-ending intersectional expansion of gibberish that they want to inflict on daily conversations.

 Posted by at 1:07 pm