As a wise ambassador once said, there are three sides to every story. Your side, his side, and the truth. This blog is dedicated to always showing you the third edge of the sword.
More like licensed doctors, pharmacists, dentists, lawyers… even chiropractors. Not licensed on the basis of their opinions but on the basis of their training and adherence of strict principles of competency, professionalism and ethics.
Emmett Macfarlane thinks he knows what a journalist is.
He doesn't know very much (which is why Rat Bastard 2.0 hired him to write the criteria for selecting Supreme Court judges), which is why he thinks that conservatives can participate in journalism because....well, something something something. That for every mistake you can find in any Rebel News or True North story (as we are all human: if you looked really hard I'm sure you could find one mistake in 3700 blogposts I've submitted to date) you'll find dozens more in the same number of stories on CBC or Global or the Globe and Mail. His argument seems to be "they're a poopeyhead" even when they expose truths that his favourite media misses.
It's bad enough that doctors and pharmacists are stifling science that disagrees with their own dogma without also requiring the journalists who can tell us in a newspaper article or podcast that doctors are full of shit sign onto the same mindset.
Sorry to break it to you, but illegal immigrants to the United States don't do any of my gardening: I do that.
Illegal immigrants to the United States don't take care of "my" seniors: I do that.
Illegal immigrants to the United States don't even pick my food: the aforementioned seniors do a bit of that from their own gardens but that's a side hustle. My food is generally pulled from abattoirs and wrapped into cellophane by my local Safeway employee.
Illegal immigrants to the United States certainly don't clean my home. I clean my own home....I'm going to say even though it's not especially true as a few of you know.
I suspect that this is part of the reason that Indians get so upset about sports teams being named after their racial group: the vast disconnect between their ancestors proud fighting ways, and their more modern SJW nonsense. Unlike Vikings, who didn't actually wear those funny hats, Mohawk warriors of old actually looked far more bloodthirsty than their cartoon representations look today. The Huron, who they stole the style from, looked even more sinister. The problem isn't that these are false images of who Red Indians used to be, the problem is that they are true. Pace the T-shirt Hell image posted above, the stereotype of what Indians used to be is a positive one regardless of its truth. As I noted in the Issue 2 discussion, sports teams are chosen based on positive characteristics whether stereotypical or not. The Berea College sports teams are called the "Mountaineers" which imparts a mental image of stalwart and strong men like Paul Bunyon able to forge across a great untamed frontier. In reality Berea College (alma matter of NCIS actor Muse Watson) is a "Fair Trade Unviersity" that spit out a Secretary of State until Jimmy Goddamned Carter. Likewise when you think of the Chicago Blackhawks you think of the legend of Black Hawk, the Sauk Indian who fought U.S. Settlers and formed a group of feared warriors uniting the Fox and Sauk clans. You don't think of his predecessor Quashquame who got piss drunk and gave away his entire nation in return for a partiularly good vintage of Lysol, nor his rival and contemporary who betrayed Black Hawk and became the only Indian from the Sauk tribe who the Americans dealt with. Perhaps the Black Hawks were the exception to the rule while the Quashquames were the norm? Which would you prefer, a false image of nobility or a realistic depiction which just falls under a different stereotype. Not that "stereotype" is necessarily a bad thing anyways. You have a stereotype of a Ukrainian but not of a Kazakhstani...not because you have a more rounded view of a Kazakhstani but because you don't have any view of him at all! Talk about being "marginalized". Indian team names are keeping this race in the collective consciousness. You might think that you would prefer to be recognized individually for your own individual achievments, and that's fair. But there are surely successful folks from Kazakhstan. I can't name any, can you?
Oh weren't those happier times? Now the Cleveland Indians (and the Edmonton Eskimos, and the Washington Redskins) have been pressured into a renaming because some nigger in a completely different state died while high on drugs and suffering from COVID.
Oh, and Gennady Golovkin is a famous and successful Kazahkstani boxer, and of course, there's Elena Rybakina who was born in Moscow and lives in Moscow but competes from Kazakhstan and has a vagina that you really really really want.
The default position on all of these race hoaxes is to assume they’re lying:
1. They always are. 2. If you actually uttered a racist phrase against a black person in America today, your entire life would be ruined. Nobody would risk it. https://t.co/jclBaXnt24
The session is moderated by SFU Assistant Professor Travis Salway (he/him) and hosted on unceded lands of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish) and səl̓ilw̓ətaʔɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations.
Travis Salway is a pathetic and preening faggot. She can and must be stopped. Neither she nor her pathetic legislation will stop us from making sure that she and the children who she's lying to are aware: those feelings are morally repugnant and you can be made better again. The way you are is wrong and you are right to feel ashamed of it.
We never stopped, Travis. You'll get a lesson in person soon enough.
This year I didn't get around to seeing any plays, but did spend...checks notes...three days at the Fringe grounds this year. It was...okay...
This was the first year the festival had legitimately been held in the era of the Alberta Tailgating Law (technically, unlike Ontario's law it was a change in the regulations at the discretion of the Minister; technically-technically that change was quietly made in the spring of 2019 but the 2019 Fringe grounds were already planned and it was deemed too late to change them), so the biggest difference of course is no more beer gardens.
This had some positives and some negatives. They also no longer had to use the "buy a ticket and carry it 10 feet to a bartender" system, however in practice lines were worse as the volunteers running the bar had to also be capable of both operating the machines and helping the (surprisingly large and young) numbers of people who in 2022 still haven't figured out how they operate. Also, possibly due to being out of practice (or my own memory of days gone by being too optimistic) it seemed like the concept of queuing up for the drinks was more than a lot of people could handle. You'd be in a line of people lined up roughly halfway between two people with payment machines (one of them awkwardly close to a table) with dozens of people in long lines clearly waiting for something, and you'd constantly get this green arrow jackass just assume that the long line must not be for that spot because otherwise they'd be lined up directly behind it standing over tables: it cannot possibly be that the person at the front of the line would go to whichever of the two payment options opened first.
On the bright side, you could take your beer from the main (central) beer garden and walk all 'round the (central) grounds with it. For a while you could even walk onto 83rd Avenue until they realized they didn't have any "no alcohol beyond this point" along the south tip of the food vendors. It wasn't (sadly) a full free for all: the north sidewalk at 83rd avenue was the barrier going south, with the gating south of Orange Hall and the EPL was the barrier going north. This northern barrier was the one which really made absolutely no sense: for one thing, several of the (unlucky) food vendors was north of the barrier: Maltz really wanted to eat at one of them, but we all had beers so we couldn't, so he had to settle (and the vendor lost one of probably several customers). Further north of Orange Hall was the TransAlta fringe patio, which presumably was selling the exact same beers at the exact same price. North of there was (after an interlude we'll get to) another beer tent, in the more traditional fenced off style, up where the old volunteer beer tent was a decade and change ago. Other than the streetcar tracks, I'm unsure why exactly you couldn't take your beer all the way between the two beer gardens: or for that matter south to the wine garden. Possibly some legal mumbo jumbo crossing the roadway/railway despite both being within the Fringe grounds and effectively closed off.
Do you remember what used to be a mainstay just north of the TransAlta Arts Barn? I mean besides that tent where some guy literally kept showing other men his cock? That's right, another beer garden...some may argue, especially on the hotter days when the trees provided much needed shade and some grass amongst the concrete, the best beer garden.
That's right, it's gone. Kaput. Vanished into the aether. So what's in it's place? Absolutely nothing!
Isn't that just a kick in the teeth? As a result of this and the continued now decade-long trend of nothing but maybe a food truck or tent between the furthest north beer garden and KidsFringe, the grounds are considerably shrunk: if not in a literal square footage sense at least where people are and what they do. The "fringe grounds" now are basically just Gazebo Park and that little patch of 83rd Avenue.
It's unclear how much of this is what they wanted, and how much is what they settled for. It's worth remembering that you have to plan this festival months (indeed close to a year) in advance, and while it feels like a lifetime ago now it's entirely possible they were having to coordinate details such as number of volunteers and supply contracts around the same time the Freedom Convoy was in Ottawa changing the world's opinions about lockdowns. Buskers were few and far between, and it's worth noting that the Fringe crowd tends to be anti-freedom and pro-lockdown, so it's possible nobody wanted to arrange to have even less of the much-ballyhooed "social distancing" than we already had. Finally don't forget that the buskers don't just appear out of thin air: some of them (the pretty goth girl molesters at the very least) have to come from overseas in general and Australia/New Zealand are popular origins. Those buskers also have to plan long ahead, and let's not forget that Aussies were trapped in their island prison until...oh, look, that same February that Tamara Lich and Pat King were waking up the planet.
Finally, there was a nice isle of food trucks which was good to see, including a popular Red Indian stall where you could get bannock and bison smokies. I don't know how the food is, they wouldn't serve me despite me pointing out to them I've already given them billions.
He didn't lay a hand on her even though he'd be justified in beating her to death with a lead pipe.
He didn't say he would physically harm her even though he'd be justified in beating her to death with a lead pipe.
He just yelled at her, got a little worked up, and got at least part of what he wanted to say off his chest. He left out the lead pipe bit, but nobody's perfect.
So Kees calls for him to be thrown in prison. What absolute nonsense. After years of gleefully participating in a government which denies its citizens fundamental human rights, one guy gets in Freeland's grill and suddenly it doesn't fall within freedom of expression? This is exactly what freedom of expression was created for. These "limitations" Kees thinks he's creating are to stop citizens who have to endure the impact of Freeland's public policy nonsense from speaking out against it. That's tyranny and we want no part in it: that's why he was mad at her in the first place!
(It's worth noting of course this was all theatre: it turns out Kees Govers is okay with actual violence when "the cause" is just. Well that guy in GP's cause is far superior in every way to the #NiggerLivesMoreImportantThanSocietyMotherFucker movement and therefore those same tactics times 1000000000 are all on the table)
The city of Prosser, Washington rescinded its annual entry to a local Halloween decorating contest after a woman complained to the city management. The display in question was a "Karen-cature," including a scarecrow in a garden wearing a "Can I Speak to the Manager?" t-shirt and a name tag that read "Karen."
The woman who "complained to the manager," Maricela Sanchez, insists the scarecrow is an effigy of her because she leads a group called "Friends of Prosser," which fought City Hall in opposition to their $16.8 million bond package to replace Prosser's City Hall and Police Station.
Now while you do have to sympathize with a woman who possiblywas being insulted and slandered for daring to suggest a particular municipal expenditure was a bad idea and needed to be halted/reconsidered/downsized, and that the City of Prosser shouldn't be ridiculing any of its citizenry, it's just too perfect that it all aligns.
Pierre Poilievre (as suspected) won the Conservative Party of Canada leadership race in early September. As a result, leftists (as usual) went crazy with their angry denunciations.
Bananas is one of the typical ones. Poilievre supporters, you see are "racist and bigoted", unlike enlightened folks like him who can "think for themselves".
Which is why, surely, there are aspects to Poilievre's policy platform which they can disagree with: nothing about Poilievre the person, or nothing about his supporters. He could attend every rally in full Nazi/Pierre Trudeau getup, all of the attendees could join him in chants of "sieg heil" while waving "we are literally Nazis" banners, and instead of land acknowledgements he could denounce nonwhite races as mentally inferior to kick every one off...
...and none of that would be any argument against the policies he's proposing. Intelligent people can analyze actual policies and critique them. So can Bananas? Let's take a look (and all you far-left PP haters can participate) from his website (as crawled by Archive.org the week before the leadership race was decided, as the site appears to no longer be kept alive):
The details of each plan (some of the title summaries are kind of horrible) are included in the links. Let's see how these "can think for themselves" can go through these policies and analyze them. Much like when we play this game with Donald J. Trump, it's hard to get these serious independent thinkers to look at policies straight up and give their opinions of whether or not they achieve desirable goals.
I had planned to write about the unparalleled UK crisis this week. Well, not entirely unparalleled, and we'll get to that. However when I had some time this evening I was planning to jot a few things down.
So much for that idea.
I still can, of course. Liz Truss, the last British Prime Minister to meet with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, has been forced out. There's a lot of talk, a lot of uncertainty, and quite a bit to chew on.
Mark Steyn's GBNews show on Wednesday had a lot of sport with the resignation of Home Secretary Suella Breverman:
His "hang on didn't we" gag probably got a lot of repeats on yesterday's show (I haven't had the time to watch it yet) when 105 days after Boris Johnson resigned as Prime Minister Liz Truss herself resigned as Prime Minister. She only had won the leadership bid 45 days earlier, and as Steyn has previously noted the first three weeks of her premiership were spent in mourning of HRHQE2 which meant she really didn't have to do anything during them. This is a two-and-a-half week trainwreck coming to an end.
It all started, in retrospect, when they made such a big deal how the "Big Four" in the Palace of Westminster were not straight white dudes. As has been noted many times before, this is always a bad idea.
Reminder: The least problematic employee continues to be the straight white male.
Then on Tuesday, after a scandal which may well have been deliberately engineered, Suella Braverman was forced to resign after routing government emails through her own personal email. Hillary Clinton, call your office. The list of straight white males to take the job forms to the left.
Since we brought up the SheBeast, I guess it's a good time to get into the parallels (ie. not her): Liz Truss' government has been extremely unpopular, and after winning the leadership race to take the job from a Prime Minister who had won a very significant conservative majority, Conservative Party insiders have been (very publicly) warning that they were looking at a "Canada in 1993" moment.
For yet again a female PM (Kim Campbell, Liz Truss) replaced a male PM (Brian Mulroney, Boris Johnson) via a leadership race after he was forced out due to scandal most people would have trouble describing (Airbus affair, a high ranking faggot in cabinet tried to fondle a man at a party and they didn't just cut his fingers off...2022 is weird), and the long-standing Conservative Party was garbage in the polls over an unpopular tax measure (GST, 45p rate cut). Meanwhile a populist party with less than 2 MPs in the House of Commons is nipping away Conservative popularity from the right (Reform Party, UKIP), and there's a risk of a rout by the traditional centre-left party (Liberals, Labour) with the role of the Official Opposition going to an ethnocentric separatist party (Bloc Quebecois, SNP) located only in one small region (Queerbec, Scotland).
At least this parallel looks to be nipping itself in the bud with Truss's resignation: indeed until yesterday the previous paragraph was to be the central thesis of this blogpost. So now instead lets look at some other parallels that are of note.
The Labour MP Chris Bryant raises a point of order accusing senior Tories of “bullying” backbenchers to vote with the government. He calls for an investigation and provides a photograph of the incident to the Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, who is said to be taking it “very seriously”. In an interview with Sky News, Bryant elaborates, alleging that Jacob Rees-Mogg and Thérèse Coffey were among the group “physically pulling” an MP through the door into the lobby. Rees-Mogg denies this. He says he is “not entirely clear” whether Morton is still chief whip.
Now it's hard to be sure what happened: as a leftist, Bryant thinks its "bullying" when somebody says Ezra Miller is a man, so it's possible we're in another Star Trek Discovery case where a couple cruel words were said.
However if UK Parliamentarians are physically attacking each other, that's the first time in almost a hundred years (April, 1923) and possibly only the second case since...are you ready? Are you ready?
...
Are you sure?
...
Okay: it was 1629 during the Short Parliament of King Charles I, when the John Finch the First Baron of Fordwich was physically held down in the Speakers chair by the MPs during a vote on the taxation of tonnage. That means that of the three times in recorded history that British Parliamentarians have had a physical altercation within the chamber, two of them have been under odd-regnal-numbered Kings named Charles.
We told you that you should have become George VII.
Unfortunately, the medical establishment that was instructed to push the WuFlu panic couldn't have that, so they had doctors punished for prescribing it (in violation of medical ethics) and as a result many people were forced to use the easier-to-obtain veterinary version. Knowing a large number of farmers, I had access to the substantial black market network of ivermectin rural Albertans kept each other stocked with. Kurn used it when he and his family got COVID, Maltz and his mother both used it, while Kamarag got it just in case (he never ended up using it). There were additional risks, to be sure: due to a variety of technical issues the dosages could be difficult to do correctly. You cannot give a human the same quantities of a medicine you can give a horse or even a pig.
The actual medicine of course is just that: medicine. The same crowd who claims to parrot "science" so much is apparently unaware how biochemically similar we are to many mammals: it's why we test stuff on bunnies and monkeys so much. Aspirin works just as well on animals as it does on us (though it has to stop being provided within 30 days of slaughter). Allie's little "livestock medication" slur is decidedly anti-science: the dosages are different and you have to make sure you keep a close eye on the ingredients list, but it can be done. The FDA keeps an entire list of human drugs that can be used on animals (fun fact: while aspirin is fine, dogs and cats in particular can't handle acetaminophen).
Veterinarians estimate that 300 drugs have been approved for use in companion animals like dogs, cats and horses.
Many of the compounds contain active ingredients that are identical to those in human drugs; some are used for the same purpose, but have different brand names.
The anti-inflammatory etodolac, for example, is prescribed for osteoarthritis in dogs and humans. The human product is called Lodine; dogs take EtoGesic.
Yet even when it comes to these parallel drugs, there are risks of taking animal medications, doctors say: The dosages for animals are different from human doses; the drugs are often made by different manufacturers, and the production standards may vary.
Ivermectin is one of those drugs in the etodolac category. One of the reasons people were comfortable taking it was that it has been used endlessly in humans and therefore the risks are well understood. It is in fact being used on humans right now. Quite a lot of them, in fact. Wow, Allie is going to love this! She's going to get to find a whole group of humans and make fun of them for being just like farm animals. That's how she describes people who seek out the treatment by reading up on the medical literature, learning from a crowdsourced effort how to safely adjust the doses from veterinary to human, and then making their own medical decisions without approval from health bureaucrats. Just imagine how much fun she'll get making fun of people who are so dumb they just take it because some dude in a labcoat says so!
Whoops.
Yes that's right, ivermectin is often used en masse on Africans. Which means every time AmazonAllie is laughing at a Freedom Convoy supporter's use of the drug, she's also laughing at how niggers aren't particularly smart.
How about Daniel Shaver? Maybe Duncan Lemp? Or maybe Edward Bronstein? There's plenty of examples but you don't hear about it because the media is only interested in furthering the anti white woke progressive narrative that portrays blacks as perpetual victims of white violence
Far-left ignoramous Joan of Bark actually thought that George "Gorilla" Floyd was killed only because of his skin colour.
When his (justified) death sparked #NiggerLiveMoreImportantThanSocietyMotherFucker riots across the globe, the planet shrugged and acknowledged that white lives don't matter by comparison. We know this because of Tony Timpa.
The similarities with Gorilla Floyd were creepy: Timpa's footage didn't get released until 2019, at which point angry white people....
...did nothing at all. No mass protests which turned into riots. No fawning coverage on mainstream news and late night TV shows. No white celebrities raging how this was evidence Caucasians were being killed by police. And absolutely no repercussions to the officer involved and no apology to the victim.
It almost sounds like there's a thing called Black Privilege doesn't it?
Indeed it wasn't until late 2021, long after Derek Chauvin was imprisoned, that the Timpa family won the right to a civil trial. Criminal charges were dropped long earlier and oddly enough no activist attorney generals came along to "right the wrong" even though it happened in conservative Texas.
U have a choice, but like w/ every choice there r consequences. Same idea as 🚫shirt 🚫shoes 🚫service. Business’ get 2 decide to serve u if they decide vaxx is needed. AND ALL the mandates are lifted so wtf r y’all whining about. The vulnerable remain at risk but u got ur way
The Wuhan Flu madness may be subsiding, but that doesn't mean Viro Fascists like Shadow have gone away. When @Archeygoddess1 asked a different Viro Fascist how government vaccine mandates didn't reflect "government coercion", the extreme leftist she asked tried claiming "no there was no such thing as a mandate" while this different extreme leftist took the "there is coercion but it doesn't count because you can always violate the rule and simply be punished". That's a curious argument to make.
On the bright side, that means that a Prime Minister Pierre Poilievre or Prime Minister Leslyn Lewis can bring in rules prohibiting anybody who has ever had an abortion from going into a bar or restaurant confident that Shadow will defend them for merely giving businesses the choice to serve you (and lose their business) or refuse to allow you in the doors. Meanwhile women who want to murder their children in the womb still have a choice (this policy is eminently pro-choice), but like every choice there are consequences: like going to jail or being forever banned from restaurants and airplanes.
The second half of Shadow's complaint, what was happening isn't happening now so relax, certainly is another brave and bold statement to make in the wake of Residential School Appreciation Day a couple weeks back. Indeed, Shadow needs to remind her younger self that "wtf are you whining about":
Why are we not talking about the 5296 residential school children found? This must stay news. This must be witnessed. How can we begin to help the healing process if our news system stays biased and ignores this. #allchildrenmatter#indigenouslivesmatter
The reason for this social whiplash, as Rowling alluded to in her tweet,
is her opposition to transgender ideology, including sex-change
procedures and hormonal manipulations being committed on minors through
Orwellian-named "gender affirmation surgeries." As a self-professed
voice for lesbians and gays, Rowling contends that the core belief of
trans activists – that the gender binary (male/female) is a bigoted
social construct of the patriarchy – will effectively erase the identity
of both groups. There can be no such thing as a lesbian if there is no
such thing as a woman.
However...
The moral justification for the gay rights movement, as it sought to
undo both centuries of cross-cultural tradition and the prevailing
Christian familial ethic of Western Civilization, was rooted in the
subjectivity of self-indulgence, individual pleasure-seeking, and
personal fulfillment. It sought to carve out a new identity predicated
entirely upon the narrowest of traits: lust, romantic desire, and sexual
gratification.
Any belief that a societal permissiveness which accepted that kind of justification would not subsequently lead to other
identity appeals made upon the same grounds was painfully
short-sighted. And any refusal to now acknowledge that the slippery
slope was real is an intentional charade aimed at obfuscating and
complicating an indictment of their own complicity in our current
predicament.
In
other words, I agree with J.K. Rowling that it is absurd to consider
her political leanings and social sensibilities right-wing. But in the
end, she has, among others, herself to thank for it.
You know what's hilarious? Mark mentioned that paper decomposes, versus plastic which doesn't. Dan Sideen responds with the true statement that because that paper decomposes, it releases CO2. Mark, who seems to think that CO2 is the worst thing ever, claims that it's made up junk science.
In reality of course both paper and plastic are just fine (I prefer plastic): CO2 isn't a problem to begin with, and both types of bag have a small impact on CO2 independent of their end state. CO2 is extracted from the ground in oil, CO2 is used turning it into a bag, CO2 is put back in the ground when I throw a plastic bag onto the lawn of the guy down the street with the "hate has no place here" sign out front. In paper bags it's reversed: the tree stores CO2, CO2 is used turning it into a bag, CO2 is released back into the air when the bag decomposes.
Yet if Mark really thinks CO2 is so bad, so be it. He's an idiot, but we can forgive him an idiotic take. What is unforgivable and a sign that he should be locked up for his own personal safety is that he had just finished saying plastic doesn't decompose (or at least takes 'hundreds of years') which means that the carbon contained within all polyurethanes is indeed stored. He might no like where it's stored, but it's still stored.
Mark says paper decomposes and plastic doesn't. That's just him dropping truth bombs.
Dan says paper decomposes and plastic doesn't. That's O&G disinfo obviously.
I maintain there's only one way to get through to these people.
Ann Coulter brings up a good point that seems to have been missed:
Take the Venezuelan illegal aliens whom DeSantis sent to Martha’s
Vineyard. Biden’s press secretary and human kewpie doll, Karine
Jean-Pierre, repeatedly referred to the briefly loved illegals as
“people who are fleeing communism, who are fleeing hardship … desperate
people — people who are trying to come here because they’re fleeing
communism themselves.”
Twenty years of Chavez’s Diversity, Inclusion and Equity (DIE!)
produced this: “a country whose economy has collapsed … malnutrition and
disease are soaring [and m]illions have emigrated to escape the grind
of finding enough to eat, of living without reliable electricity or tap
water,” as Bloomberg News put it in 2019.
Venezuela is sitting on the largest oil reserves in the world, and the communists still couldn’t get it to work.
Who could have seen that coming??? Oh, anyone with two functioning
brain cells. There were little hints, like Chavez promising his very
first year in office “to follow the path of Fidel,” and describing Cuba
as “a sea of happiness, social justice and true peace.”
Millions of Venezuela’s poor thought that sounded just peachy, and
the rest did nothing. They act as if this 100% predictable catastrophe
was a natural disaster for which they bear no responsibility.
Yeah, I definitely want these people as my fellow citizens. They’ve shown solid judgment.
Now that their own choices have wrecked their country, they demand free admission into ours.
"Elections have consequences" seems to be something a certain halfbreed mentioned once, yet when it comes to Venezuela nobody seems to buy that line anymore. They made bad electoral choices and while it ended up bad for them they just decided to take the convenient spillway.
Chavez rose to power on a platform of "solving inequality" and now everybody is starving in the gutter. Progress!
And coming to a left-governed jurisdiction near you...
“Let's be clear, ppl advocating for 'education vs indoctrination' are actually suggesting the complete opposite. They want teachers to stick to the 'basics' which they define as binary ideas that are shared w/no room for discussion or actual education. Don't fall for it.” 🧵 👇 https://t.co/48ICBGZvSa
Jayne Herring claims that he's going to advocate for "discussion and actual education" in Ontario public schools. Cool. Sounds fun.
Wait, though: he's linking a thread where the entire premise is based on a mentally ill child thinking she's a different sex than she really is: the far-left teacher then (to make the student "feel safe" in her delusion) pushed the entire class to make up "genders" and start using them. Gives leftists the warm fuzzies, sounds great.
What if another child really started reading the Bible, was really getting into it, and decided that she wanted to really spread The Word? Do you think the teacher would be equally supportive? We know that Jayne wouldn't: he's already established he hates pushing the Christian religion in schools. One student wants to express her belief she's "nonbinary" (even though she isn't) and everybody has to play along. Yet would this newly enlightened Christian student who really is feeling evangelical and wants to quote Ephesians 5:22 be given such an "accepting" environment? Otherwise, to borrow a phrase from TheMaker's own tweet thread, the teachers are creating a toxic learning environment by ignoring the needs of their students.
Only one religious ideology (tranny lunacy) gets permitted in the classrooms of today. Parents who want "education vs. indoctrination" have it exactly right: the garbage ideology of Jayne is already being pushed in public schools. Either they let our superior ideology in, or they get theirs out.
— 🇺🇸 Trump is getting indicted 🇺🇸 (@BabyTrump45) May 3, 2022
Having control over your own body is a right.
— 🇺🇸 Trump is getting indicted 🇺🇸 (@BabyTrump45) May 3, 2022
Baby seems to think a couple of contradictory things here. When Deanna Rigano makes a comment regarding where human rights regarding a body begin and end, he claims it's "religion". Yet when he makes a similar comment he then confuses the colloquial terminology for "baby" to exclude a fetus. I guess he doesn't like to follow the science that clearly shows that a human fetus is a human life form.
However this control of your own body, seemingly without restriction, sounds great. I've got a subhuman (who clearly doesn't meet the strict definition of a baby) I'm looking forward to aborting too.
Is GOP domestically produced disinformation preferable to the imported Russian brand? I have a feeling they’re both the same product packaged differently.
“A lie by any other name would smell as rancid.” - Shakespeare’s campaign manager.
There's a lot of leftists who don't understand...okay, I understand this sentence can end in a trillion different ways.
There's a lot of leftists who don't understand...how borders and citizenship works. Jay (that's Jay Nonymous, not Jay Gallé whom he's responding to) is one of them. His question is whether or not there should be a distinction between how United States government agencies treat people who say untrue things (such as, say, #NiggerLivesMoreImportantThanSocietyMotherFucker riots were "mostly peaceful" except for all those secret Trump supporters) different based on where they are produced from. There are four possible answers to this question (in descending order of sanity):
No, both domestic and foreign misinformation should be treated the same: utterly ignored
Yes, domestic misinformation should be treated less severely than foreign misinformation
No, both domestic and foreign information should be treated the same: vigorous state control
Yes, foreign misinformation should be treated less severely than domestic misinformation
Option (4) is clearly not anything anybody is particular interested in. Therefore Jay basically picked the worst answer to his own question (in other words he shouldn't have asked it). There are arguments to be made in favour of restricting the political speech of foreign entities: particularly entities owned or operated by a foreign government. As a semi random example, President Monkey broke American law by deliberately allowing foreign citizens to contribute to his election campaigns. The understanding is that American citizens choose American legislators, and with an influx of money from people whose interests may be served in American policy favouring non-Americans it becomes far more likely that such policies be implemented. While it's certainly possible for a government to naturally enact policies which explicitly harm its citizenry without discernible benefit, it's generally understood in a democratic system that this isn't the norm.
So if keeping "foreign money" out of elections (because it can be used to buy campaign ads, for example) is deemed a valid action, then it's likely that foreign political commentary can be tagged along for the ride. (If this carryover makes you feel a little squishy, remember that Citizens United was successful because it performed the line integral in the other direction). In the same way that I wasn't allowed to buy an authentic "Make America Great Again" hat, I similarly am not allowed to move south and immediately start making just any political expression I feel like.
However, those arguments utterly and completely end when we switch from foreign to domestic. There should be as little (ideally zero) restrictions as possible on citizens of a nation to communicate politically. They can promise a chicken in every pot even if they know that's impossible. They can scream up and down that God-Emperor Donald Trump is a Russian spy even though that's a complete and made up lie. They are even allowed to foster rebellion against the democratic system by supporting explicitly fascist or communist (but I repeat myself!) political parties. This is not, one might note, an exclusively American phenomenon: Britain routinely bans the import of speakers (even from Commonwealth countries!) who are planning to say things that remain legal to say in Britain by British citizens. The European Union banned Russian TV station Russia Today (RT) from broadcasting within its borders despite the right to free political expression being enshrined in law: it's still legal however for a Greek or Belgian to stand on a street corner and read a transcript of last night's broadcast. Indeed it was perfectly legal for U.S. citizens to start/join political movements inspired by information directly or indirectly provided to them by Russian media/agents/citizens.
So it's generally understood, whether morally justifiable or not, that foreign speech can be treated differently than domestic speech. Part of this is the same reason people get so (justifiably) upset when an immigrant (particularly an illegal one) commits a heinous crime, and often argued that he should be removed immediately and ideally changed so people like him don't come in. Which is where we swing back to Jay's angry charge of "misinformation".
If Jay is correct and the GOP was guilty of "misinformation", then that's tough titty toenails. As we've already covered, lying U.S. citizens such as Jay are allowed to spread all the false information they like. Americans might wish people like him weren't in the country, but there's no way around that: as a (presumed) citizen you can't keep him out or send him anywhere. AOC and Marjorie Taylor Greene and Richard Glossip and Bill Cosby were all born in America: like it or not, you're stuck with them. Piers Morgan and Javier Bardem and Jean Macean and Gerson Fuentes are not: they don't have to be allowed in which makes any actions they take kind of your fault.
Hilariously enough, of course, Jay is lying about "GOP misinformation". The Hunter Biden laptop story was real. It was suppressed by social media who claimed it was a Russian fake. While no smoking gun has yet emerged indicating that Facebook (or other sites) did so implicitly or explicitly on the direction of state actors, such a thing does constitute a serious breech of the First Amendment specifically.
So while Jay claims to fear the false bogeyman of GOP misinformation (and, meanwhile, exaggerates the almost-entirely-false bogeyman of Russian misinformation), he really should be devoting his time to learn more about the border.
He's already admitted that he doesn't want to give the right of unfettered political speech to foreigners: now time to understand that has left him only morally justified to hold Option (2).
You see, even though the crime procedural scene had plenty of nonsensical technobabble, there were still recognizable character types with an easily understandable problem that could plausibly exist in the real world. The Law Enforcement Officer was trying to catch some criminals, and the Lab Tech gave him some information to help with that. But what the heck is going on in the Star Trek scene? The character types and situation are familiar enough to sci-fi fans, but to the average viewer it's nigh-incomprehensible. And here's a fun tidbit from Television Writing 101: if your show makes no sense to 85% of the viewing public, you have a problem.
He notes, of course, that the Trek franchise has a bit of a ranking of technobabble BS brought out of nowhere (though this specific list is mine)
Star Trek The Animated Series
Star Trek
Star Trek Picard
Star Trek Deep Space Nne
Star Trek The Next Generation
Enterprise
Star Trek Strange New Worlds
Star Trek Lower Decks
Star Trek Discovery
Star Trek Voyager
The beloved and quality series (at least in the more nuanced and understood fan circles) generally respects the franchises with the least technobabble and is equally frustrated with the most: NuTrek obviously the giant exception to the rule, and the Animated Series was sort of it's own thing (I've heard it argued it was essentially a fantasy kiddie cartoon show). In the crowded 90s Trek universe of course, you had Deep Space Nine with the least and Voyager with the most. DS9 in particular would use technobabble on occasion for brief periods but the audience was generally allowed to get what they were doing. Let's look, as Landon does, at two brief scenes to illustrate the point. First, from DS9:
EMH: They caused a temporary dielectric effect in the outer epidermal layers which neutralised some of the biogenic energy. Not much, but enough to make the Captain's altered biochemistry an effective defence.
KES: Then how was I cured?
EMH: The metabolic treatment I administered protected you against the full impact of exposure to the field when the Captain took you through. That exposure functioned like a natural cortical stimulator and reactivated your synaptic pathways.
Voyager remember is the show that SFDebris once translated the technobabble (I think for the episode "Threshold") and discovered that the ship was going to be literally powered by rainbows ("multi-spectrum emissions" or something). In the DS9 script they explain that they're going to fool the bad guy's sensors: the scifi equivalent of repainting your van so it no longer matches the description filed by all those witnesses. You may not know what the induction stabilisers or booster modulators are anymore than you understand what a couple components of your car is when the mechanic tells you how he's going to fix your problem: but you at least know that your brakes squeaked because the pads are worn and he's going to replace the pads and also some other things near the pads that also took damage.
But what the hell was wrong with Kes and/or Janeway? Your guess is as good as mine. That was just a whole bunch of meaningless babble. The distinction between the Voyager and Deep Space Nine approaches is subtle but also vital. While DS9 isn't innocent and often similarly fell into the technobabble trap (particularly in the first season), Voyager and from what I understand Discovery just swim in technobabble without grounding it in reality.
The classic DS9 avoidance of that comes from Improbable Cause, the third season episode where we are investigating a possible bombing attack on the shop belonging to Garak, who is believed to be a former Cardassian super-spy forced into exhile (Khashoggi style) for angering the current regime. Odo performs a little innocent (as it so often is) racial profiling: one of the compounds in the bombing is tied to the Flaxian race and a Flaxian recently came to the eponymous station. Odo questions him, he claims to be a perfume merchant, but our favourite dogged investigator knows a little chemistry and has figured out that three particular perfumes can be combined to create a deadly poison that would be difficult to detect in an autopsy. This particular Flaxian, who has been a person of interest in other murder cases, is looking more and more guilty (and he himself is killed, possibly in response to his failure). Later in the episode, in one of the iconic DS9 moments, Odo questions the bombing victim Garak and in a moment of frustration reveals that he has discovered the identity of the bomber:
ODO: I've had enough of your dissembling, Garak! I am not Doctor Bashir and we are not sparring amiably over lunch. Now, you dragged me into this investigation and you are now going to cooperate with me.
GARAK: Dragged you in? I don't know what you're talking
ODO: You blew up your own shop, Garak! Well, I don't think I've ever seen that particular expression on your face. Is it surprise?
GARAK: Yes, Constable, it is. I'm surprised that you could come this unlikely conclusion.
ODO: Drop the pretence. I knew as soon as I spoke with the Flaxian. Assassins don't like varying their methods. He planned to poison you. I think you spotted him on the station and then blew up your own shop so that I'd begin an investigation.
GARAK: That seems like a very elaborate way to get you involved. If I needed your help I could have just asked.
ODO: But you couldn't be sure that I'd take you seriously. Or that I'd help you. Besides, I think you secretly enjoyed destroying your own shop.
It's a beautiful scene and here's the important thing about it: the audience could figure this out ourselves, because this exact same scene could have taken place on CSI or NCIS or Castle or Bones or any other police procedural. Unlike so many Voyager plots the solution doesn't depend on a magic piece of technology we don't know about because we've never heard of it before and we wouldn't encounter it in 1998 (or even 2022). Instead, it comes down to a fundamental character thing we have seen and heard in media before: we don't know anything about Flaxians, but the idea of a killer with an "MO" is baked into our understanding of the world. So it goes back to the "Television Writing 101" from above: just because it takes place in a world that isn't ours doesn't mean it has to take place in a world incomprehensible from ours.
Now in fairness to Landon he does note that the technobabble didn't come out of nowhere. Star Trekfans were technically minded people by and large: they watched the 79 episodes and were hungry for more:
A lot of these fans didn’t just see these technical details for what they were: necessary window-dressing to make the Star Trek universe feel like a real place. These details were, in themselves, the main reason they watched the show. I’m not saying they were enjoying Star Trek wrong; part of the show’s genius is that it can be enjoyed simultaneously by different people on different levels. But I believe that their passion for the technical details for Star Trek affected how the spinoffs were produced.
These more technically-minded fans peppered Gene Roddenberry (and sometimes even James Doohan, the actor who played Scotty) with technical questions about the Enterprise and how it worked, both in person and through letters. And they were quick to point out any mistakes and inconsistencies. So when work started on Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1986, the production staff was keenly aware that their work was going to be endlessly scrutinized and freeze-framed, and any little mistake that might be made in the rush of television production would be instantly noticed. So if there was a throwaway line of dialogue referring to the main Hydroponics Lab on Deck 25, then that piece of information had to be preserved and added to some kind of a knowledge base so a future writer wouldn’t mess up and mention the main Hydroponics Lab being located on Deck 11.
He is, however, being a little disingenuous: nobody got upset by technobabble being used when somebody told us what floor of a building somebody worked on. The continuity error discussed would be no less ridiculous if, after endless references to Abigail Sciuto working in "the basement" on NCIS an episode in the 4th season featured Gibbs and McGee climbing up the stairs but instead of entering MTAC entering Abby's lab.
For example, in the sixth-season episode “Second Chances” we meet a transporter-created duplicate of Will Riker. Something similar happened in the Original Series episode “The Enemy Within” and the technical explanation was basically “a guy beamed up with some weird alien dirt on his clothes and it made the transporter act all funny”. But on TNG we had to sit through a wordy, complex explanation involving annular confinement beams, pattern buffers, distortion fields, and phase differentials. Why? Because the transporter was no longer the “black box” it had been on the Original Series. The Technical Manual explained its inner workings in great detail, and therefore those details had to be present in the obligatory “where Riker’s duplicate came from” scene. Because the fans would notice (and complain) if they weren’t.
Let's apply this equally to our NCIS analogy (and by "us" I mean the one that Landon started with and I'm rolling with). Is "Major Mass Spec" a "black box"? Fans of House don't get upset when the doctors (briefly) describe the medicine in "great detail" either: and that encapsulates every scene of the Scoobies or whatever cutesy term House fandom (spoiler alert: doesn't include me) uses to describe all those doctors in a room. Watching Foreman and Taub suggest wacky diseases that match the symptoms isn't that much different than the explanation of where Riker's duplicate came from. Most critically, unlike Voyager, that The Next Generation episode used technobabble to explain the crazy scifi premise but the resolution of the story had nothing to do with the science of how it happened to begin with: it was just two men who 7 years ago were the same dude having to deal with each other.
Technobabble is just internal lingo. It can work well (ie. DS9 or House) style or poorly. It's important for our suspension of disbelief that the characters understand how this stuff works. If Gibbs asks Abby what the analysis of a piece of mold on a rope said and she responds with a nontechnical answer, then we lose faith in her. If LaForge can't explain the technical fix he's doing to a warp drive, we're just as suspicious as when the mechanic can't explain the technical fix he's doing to your car. It's not dramatic and its not in and of itself a story but it is the answer to the question all art has to convey to its audience: what the hell is happening and why do the characters (so, by extension, us) care?
Yes, there is a full baby at 6 weeks. The "clump of cells" may not look like a person to you, but try to keep up with the science.
This is no longer the dark ages or even for that matter the Enlightenment, where physical size is some sort of metric which we use to determine what species an animal is part of. Though let's be fair, a newborn deer mouse is less than half an inch long which puts him about the same size as your 6 week old baby.
Indeed we know that what makes a life form a specific species isn't their size or what they look like (or, obviously, whether or not they are literally dependent on a landlord) is genetics. The crazy thing about genetics, you see, is that we can identify which species a cell is from even when it's detached entirely from the rest of its body. We can take a cell from your (physically) adult body, take a cell from a 6 week old fetus' body (well as a practical matter we don't yet have the technology, though there are techniques to obtain it around 12-16 weeks from other sources), send them both to a genetics lab and the researchers can tell us all sorts of things about the two human DNA packages they received. They can tell that one of the cells is from a fetus, true, but that would be the same if we sent them packages from an adult and fetal horse as well. At no point are they going to look at the fetal cell and think its from anything other than a human.
So now that we've established that the cells are human cells, what else are you looking for? You've already admitted that they are a "clump" of cells, thinking it was some sort of snark. But so what? You're also a clump of cells, just a bigger one. Remember we came in here pointing out that "bigger creature cannot be the same creature" is a long-discredited piece of biological fact. Now it's true that if we, say, cut off an abortion-defender's arm it wouldn't be a separate human being, it would be a detached human arm. Clearly there are clumps of cells which we would call a person and another clump of cells we would call just a part of the person, right?
An organism refers to a living thing that has an organized structure, can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, adapt, and maintain homeostasis.
Your detached arm isn't a living thing that can grow and reproduce. Is it even a living thing?
A living thing pertains to any organism or a life form that possesses or shows the characteristics of life or being alive. The fundamental characteristics are as follows: having an organized structure, requiring energy, responding to stimuli and adapting to environmental changes, and being capable of reproduction, growth, movement, metabolism, and death.
Admittedly this starts getting circular fast: an organism is a living thing which ____, and a living thing is an organism which ____.
So is the fetus an organism, yes or no? Notice that "being dependent on a landlord" doesn't factor into this at all. In fact, a living thing "requires energy" which makes a fetus no less of a lifeform for needing nourishment from his/her mother than an adult is less of a lifeform for needing nourishment from DoorDash. Does a fetus have an organized structure? Yep, Arya already admitted it. Requires energy was implicitly included in his tweet, the fetus does respond to stimuli and adapts to environmental stages and in fact does this even before implantation occurs, and obviously it's capable of reproduction as it is in fact reproducing as it grows. It's not capable of having sex and producing another offspring, but neither is a 7 year old boy and nobody is claiming children aren't alive until they hit puberty. That the fetus is capable of death is of course the whole issue with abortion!
By any biological definition that wasn't written on papyrus, the fetus is a living organism. As I am sure I've written before yet cannot find any posts on the topic (because Google is now horrible at the thing they were founded to do), we can pinpoint the exact moment when a fetus becomes its own living organism:
This is now what's called a single-cell embryo which begins mitosis. In other words, once the first sperm penetrates the egg this lifeform begins to exhibit everything required to be life: the egg itself is no longer part of the mother in the same way an abortion-proponent's arm is part of the abortion-proponent (before we take a hacksaw to it). Every cell in that arm has the same DNA as the cells in the other arm, or the legs, or the kidneys, or the colon, or the nipple (barring cancer or some other exotic thing which doesn't disprove anything). The egg cell had the same DNA (but the wrong number of chromosomes) as the cells in the mother's arm or kidney as well. Until Burt Raccoon the sperm shows up. The fertilized egg now combines the genetic material from both progenitors (to borrow the insane Spanish terminology) into a unique new organism. It's what we refer to as a miracle, both in the religious sense but also believe it or not in the scientific sense. It happens, but its also kind of astounding.
It's the creation of a new life. It's science, some of that new stuff they've been working on the past couple hundred years. Arya needs to try and keep up.
They have the shooter's manifesto, which literally reads like a Fox News script, and yet Fox News is linking the shooting to video game violence, where no empirical link has been established. https://t.co/TZQ6MDMS9c
Interviewer David Pakman claims that the May 2022 shooter in Buffalo NY, Payton S. Gendron, wrote a manifesto which "reads like a FOX News script" and then chastises FOX for discussing other theories.
Pakman was confident in his ability to lie about this, because the Big Tech censorship regime immediately blocked anybody from linking to the manifesto in question. As a result, he was able to spew his vile nonsense confident that 99% of potential readers would be unable to locate the manifesto to verify, and more critically that no conservatives could comment to his tweet linking to proof of how wrong he was.
Indeed Google takes active steps to hide the websites which provide the document. Heaven forbid you should read it! For those curious, you can read it in full here [PDF]. He's explicitly pro-fag, pro-Green Party, and in some cases sounds like he would have been part of Occupy Wall Street:
Civil war in the so-called “Melting pot” that is the United States should be a major aim in
overthrowing the global power structure and the Wests’ egalitarian, individualist, globalist
dominant culture.
In the United States, perhaps more than anywhere else in the world, the cult of the
individual has been practiced for the longest time and with the deepest devotion.
Luckily for us, the end results of this deracialized, irreligious and deculturized program
show themselves.
The United States is in turmoil, more so that at any other time in history. States hate other
states, the electoral college is under attack at every turn and the races are at each other's throats.
On top of this is a two party political system, split by racial, social, cultural, linguistic and class
divides.
The end result is a nation in gridlock, unable to respond to any great change, unable to
commit to any great projects. A political and social stalemate that makes any advancement
impossible.
At no point did Pakman ask why MSNBC didn't address the fact that the shooter's manifesto "read like one of their scripts" now did he?
Ultimately the reason this level of censorship and suppression exists is to hide the truth. It's worth noting that the same orgs which constantly refer to The Great Replacement as a "conspiracy theory" when conservatives comment on it suddenly fall over themselves to "champion diversity" when liberals comment on it. So why isn't Pakman pointing out that Gendron was reading like a PBS script?
Their mission gets much more difficult when "here's why more diversity is bad" is allowed the same natural ebb and flow in the discourse that "here's why more diversity is the bestest ever". Being able to go back to the source material is a key driver of that.
It's how Pakman is able to continue to get away with lying to you.
