@Dominowarlock - AIDS kills poofters, so it's okay if I do as well then?

Human pregnancy isn't easy. It's actually kind of shocking when you think about it, in part because our fellow members of the animal kingdom don't have to put up with it nearly as much.

Scientists figure it's a lot to do with our abnormally sized brains. I prefer to presume it's caused by domestication: I linked to horses above, cows are notoriously bad at giving birth. Considering how long it takes mammals such as cows and humans to produce new offspring (ie. 1 per mother per year) you'd think we'd be better at not dying during it, or having the kids die in utero. Yet here we are.

It's something we as a civilization spent centuries working around and in the last couple of centuries spent seriously solving. Yet despite the death rate of pregnant women collapsing, the deathrate of the baby itself is going down but not at nearly as dramatic a rate.

What does this have to do with abortion? Er...nothing.

Yes yes, I know Stacey seems to think so. She's maybe a little out of whack with her "gotcha" moment about death rates though. It implies there's some sort of number of natural miscarriages that would make it "not okay" enough to morally justify an abortion: in her mind we are well over that imaginary line and therefore it's all fine and good to suck an unborn baby into a sawblade. Hey there's a one-in-three chance God was planning to get around to this anyways always seems like a sound bit of thinking.

After all, as I noted in the post title, you can say that about a lot of things. Sodomites are killed by all sorts of diseases, so if I can put this 33% up as a very high end of the "allowable percentage chance of dying" it means Stacy here is totally okay with me machine gunning a whole bunch of them into chunky bits. Somehow I get the impression that course of action wouldn't be as popular.

It's what happens when you try to listen to a moral argument from somebody who accepts the killing of babies just because they really crib Brenda's style. It's another case of the evil and mindless left not really thinking three seconds about the other point of view: because again if Stacy had put any serious inquiries to herself or others, her last sentence would leap out at her as a really really really silly one.

Because the answer is "yes, of course".

Why Stacy would think that people who know (not think mind you: know because the science is on our side) that a fetus is merely a term we use to describe an unborn human baby, and therefore understand that its a person the same as any other, wouldn't think that its death was caused by God (or, if Stacy wants to get full retarded atheist on us, "mother nature")?

No matter what the percentage is of naturally occurring miscarriages is, the baby at the heart of it is very clearly dead. So yes, God killed the baby. I'm sorry, do you again think you've found some sort of gotcha question?

When your uncle Gary had a blood vessel burst in his brain while driving four years ago, God killed your uncle Gary too. Did you think we thought it was somebody else? We all live on this mortal coil, in the end God (or, again, "nature" if you want to be a granola muncher) kills every single one of us, along with all of our ancestors and all of our descendants and all of our friends and all of our enemies.

That's not exactly an argument: if it was, then you couldn't oppose any murder since God inevitably was going to get around to doing it anyways. At the very top of the Twitter thread Chris Hayes hit the nail squarely on the head (or if not squarely on the head, that thing where the nail bends a bit but also drives in pretty deep): if you know life begins at conception (again he says believe like he isn't sure what the science says) then there's exactly one acceptable reason to get an abortion: the mother has reason to believe her own life will be jeopardized.

Once you get a first principles understanding like that (as I recall, President Donald Trump mentioned once that's how he came to change his mind on abortion) the rest of it falls into place, and silly statistics about miscarriages and non-sequiturs about whether or not God killing you is a murder fall completely by the wayside. You stop agonizing about what you realize are semi-interesting factoids like rape and incest cases or partial birth or not being economically/emotionally "ready" for the pregnancy.

You only have to learn a single statistic and you never have to demand Yahweh explain picking one random number instead of another.


@AllieSwearengen - Stick around, you might learn something

Leftists like Allie aren't very smart.

Okay, you knew that. You also know leftists like Allie aren't very knowledgeable. I'm not doing good at surprising you today am I?

How about this though: Allie does know one thing. He knows that exposed to more knowledge and experience will cause him to lose his ridiculous worldview. And since Allie's worldview is so precious to him, he can't possibly handle exposure to it.

He knows it. That's why Allie and so many of his ilk run and hide from (superior) conservative viewpoints. In a straight up debate they lose every time.


One of the things Allie thinks he knows but doesn't is what a "Nazi" or "white supremacist" are. That's why he's attacking poor Sydney Sweeney, an actress who dared to...checks notes...spend time with her mother on her 60th birthday party.

There's no mention, amazingly enough, of any of the things Allie thinks he sees in the article. People at Mrs. Sweeney's party were wearing "Make Sixty Great Again" hats and one participant had a "Blue Lives Matter". So what?

This is where Allie's lack of critical thinking skills come into play. What's "white supremacist" about the shirt, to say nothing about the hats? The answer, of course, is that he doesn't have an answer. And since he can't answer the question, it's critical that he stay away from anybody who might ask it. Therefore, the decision that not only anybody with these mythical "white supremacist" beliefs but anybody who is in contact with them or in contact with those in contact with those in contact with those in contact with those in contact with those in contact with those in contact with those in contact with those in contact with those in contact with those in contact with them!

It would get exhausting very quickly living this way: meanwhile, those who support the Blue Lives Matter movement don't get the opportunity to teach Allie exactly how stupid and wrong he really is. The argument may work or it may not (we've established Allie's kind of dumb). But the hope would be with a small amount of exposure Allie might learn things like...there's no racially targetting component to law enforcement in the United States (which you can, of course, realize without also endorsing all police actions or indeed all laws). Who knows? Maybe the Blue Lives Matter guy never got a chance to talk with Sydney and educate her about this, which would have (ass-covering careerism aside) prevented Sydney Sweeney's inevitable (though admittedly and pleasantly weak) apology. After all, MSNBC columnist Zeeshan Aleem isn't going to be able to educate anybody about it with empty claims such as:

Why would Sweeney be surprised at objections to an emblem that signals authoritarian militance and hostility to an inclusive society?

That brainless assumption by Aleem relies on the false premise that police in the United States are "hostile to an inclusive society" (with "inclusive" only applying to far-left bugaboos like queers and niggers). Sounds interesting except there's a lot of reason to believe its exactly the opposite of that. After all, if police were really dedicated to stopping criminal ass pirates, why are they having to be deliberately excluded from their little sodomy parades?

Whoops, there's that use of critical thinking to examine examples (and observe the lack of counter-examples, which only our side is apparently capable of doing), which is much harder to skip over when you insist that your table has to be free of people who just might be able to persuade you that we're better than you.

That we are doesn't change: only your own failures continue in this manner.


When a Lame Monkey is also a Lame Duck

Editors Note: this blogpost was supposed to be published in November of 2014, but got caught up in draft status. Now, 8 years to the day later and following another round of midterm elections where Democrats need to wrap things up before they lose the House of Representatives in January, the post is reproduced. Hey, remember when KeystoneXL was still an untouchable thing?

Last week, President Monkey unveiled his plan to combat facilitate en masse illegal immigration across the U.S. southern border.

Earlier that same week, the House and Senate both voted in favour of Keystone XL, though not with enough Senate votes to overrule President Monkey.

What do these two stories have in common? Easy, they occur during the infamous "lame duck" session where legislators are allowed to legislate even though they have been defeated in an election. The Keystone vote was symbolic, a way to push Democrats who were no longer worried about reelection into having to go on record opposing a deal that would likely pass soon after, humiliating their party despite almost certainly having no likelihood of passing. The immigration executive orders were a way to force in changes that had been summarily rejected by Congress and were far more likely to be heavily rejected in the next session starting in January.

First off, let's get this out of the way right now: America, this lame duck thing is ridiculous. No other country does this. In Canada or France or...well, anywhere...within a couple of days of the election, the loser goes home. They certainly don't get eleven weeks of time to legislate and do things. How crazy is that? These are the legislators that the electorate has fired. In today's well-connected world, these 10 weeks are a really really really really long time and need to go away. Presidents and Senators and Congressmen have too much time to do too much real damage.

While Keystone XL is a good idea long overdue, the Republicans pushing this ridiculous vote through was silly: it had no chance of passing, it was just using the legislative body for cheap political posturing. The time to move on Keystone XL is after your new guys are in the position, not when their old guys are leaving. If you want one of the reasons that the United States is in debt, remember that legislation like this costs money: the more work you give your civil service the bigger it has to be to perform it. As a general principle, the fewer laws you have to pass the better. I know that the various assistants and pages and staff that keep Congress (and Congressmen!) running aren't paid on a contract basis, but even full-time employees are subject to capacity restraints in their workload. If the Republicans didn't keep them busy with this silly lame-duck Keystone bill, they could have been doing work in preparation for the next session and reduce the overall workload. A 10.58% reduction in their workload (11 weeks out of the 102 weeks in between elections) should ultimately allow a 10.58% or so reduction in staffing levels. Again, when your country measures its debt with a trillion-dollar-yardstick it's the things like this you need to do to fix the problem.

Of course, this is a minor quibble compared to the despicable executive orders President Monkey enacted. For one, speaking of U.S. debt, this move is likely to increase the level of entitlements the government pays out more than the taxes it will take in. For another, while the executive orders themselves are (probably) not illegal they are certainly far more unilateral and overreaching than any executive order has any right to be. Most importantly, of course, is that this is almost entirely solving the wrong problem. The problem with the United States immigration crisis isn't that these people are undocumented, it's that the undocumented workers already have advantages no other American has.

Don't believe me? Here's Adam Carolla:

His point, that there's excessive government regulation in the US and that illegals are managing to avoid them, is a valid one. The only reason the "illegals" want to be legal is that they get extra government benefits that way.


@legant66 now do the same for queers and Injuns

Once you "make your point" with a protest, Dave figures, your protest should end.

He's specifically referring to the (Truckers) Freedom Convoy from Ottawa earlier this year (currently under a so-called inquiry where Rat Bastard 2.0 has just finished perjuring himself) but there's no reason indicated in his tweet that it's unique to protests he disagrees with (there seems to be a lot of that going around).

For example, for years we were told that faggots wanted legal recognition for their fake marriages. That happened (over the wishes of the MPs representing the people of Canada) in 2003. So with that, protesting sodomites have had "more than enug time to make their point". Unlike the Freedom Convoy protesters who didn't get their demands for federal mandates to be lifted for half a year after their protests were criminally shut down, faggots continue to protest this twice a year. Despite abusing their position (and tens of thousands of underage boys) repeatedly, neither Dave nor his leftist buddies are calling for anybody who protests in favour of special rights for faggots to have their bank accounts seized.

Of course poofters in Canada are a minor blip compared to Red Indians, who consistently and violently protest that they are....treated differently even though that different treatment is both demanded and beneficial. If Dave thinks that a bunch of trucks protesting in the middle of the national capital is "criminal" and "terrorist" wait until he hears what the Wet Soup Tribe have been up to. Or the "largest civil disobedience in Canadian history" a mere year earlier: hardly "benign opponents".

There's also quite the laugh in Dave thinking that a quote from far-left lunatic Farley Mowatt complaining about the Right Honourable Stephen Harper (pbuh) is part of his "entire agenda has been revealed" blather. That's right, the convoy protests are "revealed" by an activist author complaining about a Prime Minister who's entire tenure was nothing but rational and incremental centrist changes. Indeed his failure to understand that Dave and his fellow retards hate him just for existing was why he's not particularly well regarded in Canadian conservative circles these days: he did an even-handed and competent job, but that hasn't been a useful skill for Prime Ministers since Sharon Tate died.


@FleggDerek - If the RCMP could do both that jackpine savage would have been flogged in jail, not stabbing across the prairie

Derek isn't as good as a Freedom Convoy supporter. This inferiority complex of his is unfortunately causing him to lash out at people who notice that the same RCMP who made mistake after mistake during the Nova Scotia shootings of 2020, and who have been under fire for not correcting any of the issues discovered from previous screwups, clearly can't both persecute Tamara Lich for the crime of holding a successful political protest and also take actions to keep uncivilized Red Indians from killing people.

They literally couldn't do both, they could only do one. You'd think that after being so incredibly incorrect in his first sentence that Derek would realize his mistake and stop, but no he didn't. He then went on to accuse Lich of having something called Oppositional Defiant Disorder based solely on the face that she...checks notes...committed civil disobedience in order to try and persuade the government to change a policy she disagreed with.

Shit, every nigger in America apparently has it.

It's worth noting that the (presumably) banned conservative Derek was replying to apparently made a small error by singling out the RCMP. After all, the RCMP isn't who let Myles Sanderson out of jail, they just turtled after it started with the same politically correct bullshit that they usually do these days to protect Red Indian criminals from political wrongspeak being directed against them by their (usually white but not in this case) victims. That would be the broken parole system, aided by dozens of judges who -- inspired by R. v Gladue -- never gave Sanderson the penalties a white defendant would have been assigned. Indeed, for Derek's mindless "crackhead" comment it seems that Myles Sanderson had (surprise surprise) a drug and alcohol problem that the justice system kept hoping he would cure himself of in between early releases. He certainly didn't take his meds, and we can take our usual guesses about how much schoolin' he attended.

Oddly enough, when Metis Lich was in the sights of the justice system, Gladue had never been heard of before. Inferior pieces of trash like Derek didn't waste any time accusing her of having a longrunning psychological disorder just because she opposed the greatest discrimination of our time. She was given outrageous bail conditions and then on the flimsiest of pretenses Ottawa police flew across the country to re-arrest her, resulting in her pre-trial prison sentence exceeding that of every environmental activist arrested this decade. And then Derek accuses her of being "spiteful and vindictive?"


@MostafaSweed123 - So I can only offer spousal benefits to heterosexual employees?

Sodomites are leaving me alone? Sweet! So I can hold a nice straight pride march in Boston without incident, as they are now leaving me alone? As the post title asks can I only offer spousal benefits to heterosexual employees without incident, as they are now leaving me alone? Can I have my local sidewalk painted with a giant "LEV 20:13" using municipal tax money and not have to worry, as they are now leaving me alone?

No? Can't have any of these things?

Well in that case, I will continue to tell every uranist I meet that their lifestyle choice is evil, conversion therapy can and should be used to cure them, and that since they aren't keen on leaving me alone (as all the broken fingers I've had to impart after being inappropriately touched by them can attest) I won't be returning the favour.

This Mostafa chick is just too slow to understand justifiable "saltiness".


Who's the latest hot/attainable combo?

A movie star...and the rest. With that immortal intro ("the rest" being a whopping two more names) one of the 1960s classic sitcoms was launched.

And with that sitcom came one of the great debates from the 60s: Ginger or Maryanne? (As a fun aside, the pilot episode didn't mention Ginger either).

Ginger, as played by the real-life crotchety Tina Louise, a movie starlet torn from the Marilyn Monroe mold. She had style, she had flair, she...wait, wrong character. Anyways she was the gorgeous voluptuous celebrity who every man wanted. Maryanne/Mary Ann/Marianne, played by the late Dawn Wells, was just a girl, y'know? She was just another girl to add to the cast, nothing particularly special about her, she was the plain ordinary one to bounce the movie star plots off of (don't forget, Ginger in the original concept was the main character).

So naturally the audiences...oh, wait, all flocked to Mary Ann. Given the choice between the hot model that everybody in the world should want and just the sort of girl you might bump into at the supermarket, the audiences defied the well-laid plans of the producers and soon Wells' fan mail far dwarfed Louise's.

“All the other folks were extreme characters,” Schwartz, who is the son of Gilligan’s Island creator Sherwood Schwartz, said. “But Mary Ann seemed like the girl next door. The girls loved her because she was like their best friend. And the guys loved her because she was cute and accessible to them. Ginger (Tina Louise) was a voluptuous movie star. She almost seemed untouchable to mere mortals. But Mary Ann was the cute one who you could easily be friends with.”

This wasn't the first time this happened. The UR-example, as they say is Betty Cooper vs. Veronica Lodge (TV Trope references them). Do you choose the sweet and loyal girl next door in Betty? Or the flashy gorgeous and high society girl who will drain your bank account at the same time she drains certain spherical parts of your anatomy?

Betty or Veronica was the 50's version. The 60's had, of course, Ginger and Mary Ann. Did it happen again in the 70's?

The late 60s/early 70s sort of got this with Velma vs. Daphne on Scooby Doo. For live action you have to wait until 1978, when a little TV show about a wacky radio station in southern Ohio lept into our collective imaginations thanks to a lovable cast of characters plus one woman who was so unbelievably gorgeous you'd murder your Deputy Prime Minister just to go on a date with her.

Jennifer, as portrayed by Loni Anderson (unlike Tina Louise, she actually resembled Marilyn as well after dyeing her hair), was the ditzy buxom blonde who didn't care about her job, knowing that her looks were all she needed to get ahead in life. By contrast, the only other female at the radio station was the goodnatured but driven Bailey, a plain dark haired girl who had to work for everything she wanted since the boys didn't give her a second glance.

This time, generally the audience behaved as the producers would have expected: Loni Anderson got all the fan mail, became the subject of posters and rumours, and was front and centre on all the advertising for the series. All poor Jan Smithers got for playing Bailey Quarters was a marriage to James Brolin and a house in Halifax Nova Scotia. There is some "Bailey vs. Jennifer" back and forth, but the blonde won out this time.

The fracturing of the media landscape has made this particular media trope (it doesn't have a name: Betty and Veronica is specifically about love triangles) less and less culturally relevant. Faith vs. Buffy maybe in the 90s?

The early 2000s do have a fairly decent example courtesy of Brannon Braga's sex drive. When Star Trek: Enterprise debuted just a couple weeks after 9/11, Jolene Blalock was carted around in a skintight catsuit just as they had done with Jeri Ryan a half decade earlier. She was pushed onto all the magazine covers, she was front and centre in the media blitzes, she got all the "everybody wants to have sex with her" storylines (that also generally were Jennifer's WKRP plots)...and how did fans react?

"It looks like someone beat the sh*t out of her...and then starved her for three weeks. Poor girl."

Yes, it was Linda Park's Hoshi Sato that the nerdy Star Trek fans were paying attention to (surprise surprise). Like Bailey she was shy, cute, and not trying so bloody hard all of the time. However after that....I got nothing.

Is this even still a thing in media? Do teenagers today watch One Tree Hill or Ms Marvel or whatever and have to choose between two women of which one is conventionally hot and supposed to be the fan favourite only to have a second less flashy character take her place?

Or does woke Hollywood have trouble even creating that combination?


@MeaghanBm #MeaghanBilodeauCondonesRape

Just another regular reminder that anybody who uses "incel" as a perjorative is telling men that they are better people if they go rape some unwilling chick.



@DanielMicay I'm old enough to remember when "it's a private company they can ban you for any content they deem unacceptable" was still a thing

Why shouldn't morally superior conservative Christians, who would be best capable of determining what is and is not appropriate, be in charge of this service?


@adamkotsko should be running Canada's Injun policy

Adam Kotsko hates personal choice. This much is clear from his crazed rant where he demands rural people stop living rural lifestyles because they don't like dying in urban transit systems.

Sure you might have a lot of good reasons for living where you do. But those don't use transit, so Adam wants you to suffer so that he feels better knowing fewer people are out driving around and enjoying themselves. (He must be a real treat on road trips).

As always though, there's a silver lining. You see, the delusional fantasies of Kotsko and his followers that rural people are being "subsidized" (the same people who falsely claim the oil industry is subsidized) actually do apply to a particular group of people. They not only demand government support for their rural lifestyle but also increase that support and throw in a bunch of ridiculous other schemes from legally mandating their religion to refusing to allow local democracy.

I'm talking, of course, about Red Indians on their reserves. They keep insisting on staying on the patches of ground Her Majesty Queen Victoria had allowed them to live on and more or less keep their own backwards culture intact. Do they like living there? Generally yes, though with things like Inuvik and Davis Inlet they demand we spend money to move them and then just rehash the same mistakes.

Sorry, we won't support you living out there. Either move back or else we'll cut off the spigot.

That would be a harsh thing to do to rural white people. Red Indians and their fake nations? Sounds like the best thing to happen to them since 1492.

@JustJeani - Are you going to tell your fellow leftist screechers or should I?

Ron DeSantis' Martha's Vineyard stunt is the gift that just keeps on giving.

America is overrun with illegal immigrants. To be fair, one is two too many, however they are looking at millions of invaders who shouldn't be there.

How many is an interesting question. VDARE noted in 2011 that the number was mysteriously holding steady at 11.4M illegal immigrants, virtually the same as 2009. In 2017 the number had...fallen...because...well, they insist it's fallen despite nobody finding a mechanism by which it happened (and very very very political state actors collecting it: the deep state is more than just the FBI). The border patrol catches 300-800 thousand per year (and few ever get kicked out), news stories about thousands of people per night crossing at a single location abound. Crossings are "always at an all time high" blowing away previous records without any apparent increase in the overall levels.

There's a reason many pick 20M as a good round number of illegal immigrants and...oh, wait, sorry. Jeani is talking about legal immigrants. I'd hate to be accused of "knowing shit about what they're talking about". After all, 100.000% of the Venezuelans in Martha's Vineyard were legal asylum seekers (it's a question for the reader whether or not they should have been allowed in). You heard it right there from Jeani. They're all legal immigrants.

Whether this is strictly true is kind of up for debate. They are apparently one of the 1.9M asylum seekers in the U.S. illegally but not yet verified if they quality for asylum or not (if asylum takes 4 years that sort of implies 500,000 annual asylum seekers which again blasts the "11M" number to shreds). Their status is a bit of a Schrödinger's cat.

However, here's a little bit of a problem. Jeani's buddies, using the spaghetti against the wall technique, have argued that DeSantis and his administration have committed a criminal act by transporting the migrants from Florida to Massachusetts. While some have tried to use kidnapping charges on the theory that unless a government agency tells somebody exactly where it's taking them and why then its coercive (where were these people with vaccine passports?) others have clung to this obscure law regarding transport of noncitizens within the United States.

The ones who stick to this "Section 247" argument are pretty unhinged. Really really unhinged. You think Jeani's unhinged, just look at them.

Section 247 only works if the Venezuelans are violating American law, and more critically if the scheme is to help them to continue to do so. If shipping questionable scumbags to Martha's Vineyard constitutes "the defendant acted willfully in furtherance of the noncitizen's legal violation" then what does, say, providing actual sanctuary to them mean? Doesn't that mean everybody who gives an immigrant a ride around town when ICE isn't allowed in is more guilty than DeSantis.

I hate it when leftists think they know shit they have no idea about.

Post #3700, Baby!

Yes that's right: while we're unlikely to hit 3800 until the spring, let's for now bask and enjoy the three thousand seven hundredth posting to this blog.


@timpetrou - Cool story, bro

Everything Tim says in this tweet is pure fantasy. Tolkien could barely invent better.

Doug Ford, for those who don't know, is the (barely) conservative premier of Ontario. You may remember his more famous brother Rob, the late Toronto mayor. Like so many Canadian premiers, his opponents such as Tim have all of these weird sci-fi notions of who Doug Ford actually is.

Doug Ford was first elected in June 2018, sweeping evil dyke Kathleen Wynne out of power faster than she abandoned her loving husband as a result of her mental illness. Therefore he has roughly four years of governance under his belt (two under the Wuhan Flu) and we can get a sense of what his governing record will be.

In 2018 the Ontario budget was created before the election, so we have a good picture of what the provincial expenditures were. Likewise we have the 2022 budget document. Let's compare how much "cutting and stealing from budgets" took place, shall we? (all data in the chart is in billions)

Sector Dyke 2018 budget
Ford 2022 budget
Health spending 61.3 75.2
K-12 spending 29.1 32.4
Postsecondary spending 11.8 10.8
Social Services spending 17.9 18.3
Justice spending 5 5.3
Income tax 32.3 44.6
Sales tax 26 32.3
Corporate tax 15.8 19.7

In 2018 total revenue was $158.5B, in 2022 it was $179.8B (13% higher). In 2018 total expenditures were $158.5B, in 2022 it was $198.6B (25% higher). Inflation has been 13% over the same time period (but most of that this year since the budget was being released, it was 6% between 2018-2021. So Doug Ford, "at war" with schools and public health, increased the spending on each by 5% and 22% respectively, despite the fact that for two years neither of them has been doing their damned job!

That same (overpriced) union labour, of course, is one of the reasons the money keeps flowing into this broken system: privatizing it and firing every single nurse is a good first step. As for teachers, if we've learned anything about schools in Ontario its that Doug Ford needs to be at war with them using real bullets but sadly isn't.

One day, I swear, we'll get a conservative leader who actually does all the things the left keeps promising they'll do: recriminalize sodomy, ban abortion, slash healthcare spending (anything less than 90% isn't far enough), slash education spending (anything less than 90% isn't far enough), declare war (perhaps even literally) on unionized teachers and nurses, end public workers legal privilege to strike, disband the CBC, disband the CRTC, repeal workplace safety laws, and end immigration. Yet over and over and over again the things leftists threaten don't happen, and I'm sick of it.


@AuntTifa_419 - you fascist pinkcoats still can't answer the Spanish question

As we've mentioned before, this "everybody who fought the German Empire and her allies in World War Two were anti-fascist and therefore Antifa" is lazy and retarded. Auntie T is just the latest in a long line who make a couple rather basic categorical errors. There are an awfully large number of American (as well as a smaller number of British and Canadian) soldiers in WWII who never went anywhere near a soldier fighting for Adolf Hitler: the Japanese certainly weren't fascist: in fact, there was a fascist political party operating in Japan opposing the conservative government throughout WWII: unsurprisingly attacking from the left.

So as always, here are the two basic questions Auntie T and her ilk need to be able to answer:

  1. When "neo Nazis" first appeared on the scene in the 70s, why did none of these WWII vets get particularly worked up? Indeed how come nobody had ever heard of this "antifa" thing even then? Isn't curious your little "Antifa" organization of terrorists only started after almost all actual WW2 vets died?
  2. If your European Theatre WWII ancestors were so Antifa that they "fought fascism" why did they twice sail past fascist Spain without nary a second thought?


@sixmacs6 I'm glad to see you opposed the Wuhan Virus lockdown regime!

Forcing businesses to close! That sounds serious!

Cathy is, of course, doing the usual blather about how a hugely successful internationally celebrated protest -- the Freedom Convoy in downtown Ottawa -- was some unique-in-this-world evil "occupation".

Forget, for example, that homeless have been "occupying" cities across North America for the last 5-6 years without any heavy-handed government action. Forget, also, that climate whining losers have been getting friendly media coverage while shutting down city cores for a decade (despite us having "less than a decade left" at the start of it). Forget #NiggerLivesMoreImportantThanSocietyMotherFucker burning down businesses, forget CHAZ/CHOP/CHIAPET, forget all of that.

Didn't the government lockdowns as part of the mass global hysteria around the China Cough force businesses to close? Like...a lot? Didn't that disrupt the lives of residents?

Well, sure, but fortunately for us Cathy isn't just using the emotional buzzwords of "disrupting" and "occupation" for cheap and lazy assaults on conservative activists protesting the loss of fundamental human rights. Perish the thought! Indeed, it's part of her longstanding and first principles dedication to the notion that no matter why you do it, forcing a business to close and making citizens' lives miserable -- even for two weeks -- is an unforgivable sin. She was right on the front lines with those of us who thought any COVID lockdowns were evil and unnecessary from Day 1.

Oh, no, wait, her only complaint ever about lockdowns is that she idiotically accuses the people who got COVID right from Day One from causing them, and not the far-left government and Viro Fascist medical advisors pulling their strings. By that same logic shouldn't she blame any downtown Ottawa disruptions during the Freedom Convoy on Justin Trudeau, Kieran Moore, and Tony "Teresa" Tam?

Well this is sure awkward. It's looking more and more like Cathy doesn't actually oppose forcing businesses to close, disrupting residents, even large protests that shut down urban areas.

Look lefties, we all know your only principle is to lie, but at least once and a while can you make an effort to pick a belief and run with it?


@EWDocParris - So Rolling Stone needs to stop writing about Snoop Dogg?

"Doc" is upset that one of the first teachers speaking out against tranny nonsense was temporarily reinstated. (Loudon School Board and Tanner/Byron Cross reached a settlement a few months later, and of course Loudon ended up propelling social conservative Republicans into office, a story which continues to feel repercussions).

Doc thinks he's scored a point here though it's not immediately clear why. I've written about this topic before in a way superficially aligned with Doc's comment: Ellen Page is still Ellen Page and she will always be Ellen Page

The "she" there isn't just an overly verbose qualifier (despite the fact the sentence can literally work without the word in there): it's a fundamental statement about who Ellen Page is. The issue isn't whether she could have said she wanted to go professionally by Elliot Page, the issue is that calling her Elliot is to participate in the fundamental lie that she's a man.

The Tanner/Byron schism isn't quite in the same league. After all, nom de plumes have been around for a while (check who wrote this blogpost, for example). Stage names are of course a similar thing. While calling Tanner Cross by the name Byron Cross isn't necessarily wrong (neither is referring to the voice actor who played the bad guy in The Simpsons Movie as Albert Einstein), it may be said to be unclear.

There could be said to be a spectrum, to borrow a hip phrase, with using the name a person chose rather than their real one. Abdullah Shah (who died this spring) occupies one spot on the "kinda wrong" side of the spectrum. Elliot Page is even further down the wrong side. On the other, there are stage names like Stefani Germanotta's or Calvin Brodeus' or Albert Einstein's. At the far end of this good side would be people who go by their middle name because their first was too similar to a living relative.

Tanner Cross can safely be said to be on the same right side of that ledger. Maybe we need to use a simple metric: if Twitter lets you use the person's old name, then it's not a big deal to use the new one.


Hated? Most hated?

You misspelled "Bakula".

While the upcoming season of Picard got most of the attention during Paramount’s Star Trek panel, the producers of Prodigy (Kevin and Dan Hageman) also appeared letting on that a Star Trek Enterprise captain would be returning. They revealed that actor Ronny Cox, who played Edward Jellico (a one-time Enterprise captain), would reprise his role as a recurring character in upcoming episodes of the first season, according to a report by Trek Movie. The animated children’s series returns to Paramount+ for the second half of its first season on October 27.
I'm reminded of Rich and Mike's discussion of Jellico on one of their TNG review videos where they pointed out the thing about Jellico wasn't that he turned out to be evil but that he just had a straight up command style that the crew wasn't accustomed to.

The character is certainly polarizing (61.8% thought he was a good guy when Trek BBS did a poll a few years back, though one notes that 61.8% is a higher margin than all but three U.S. Presidential races and none in coming up on 200 years), but "most hated" captain is really a stretch. I joked about Bakula above, but other "hated" captains in Trek lore include Lorca from Star Trek: Discovery and Harriman from Star Trek Generations.

It's worth noting, as I have on many occasions before, that my assumption (admittedly a lone voice in fandom) is that Harriman wasn't the full-time future commanding officer of the Enterprise-B, but rather the guy who handled the sea trials. His job wasn't to be taking starships out to boldly go where no man has gone before but rather to just keep giving these things their shakedown cruises before handing them off to the full-time Captain. Had I been in charge of the production of that movie (and didn't feel like making any other changes), I would have made sure he was wearing Commander or even Lieutenant-Commander stripes to make it more clear. In the current U.S. Navy, the equivalent to what the Enterprise was doing was "sea trials" which do not typically feature any of the regular staffed crew.

Lorca is a bit of an edge case, but from Garth of Izar to Captain Maxwell to Captain Ransom there have been a few "bad" captains in the Trek universe. This isn't necessarily to be directly correlated with "hated" though. Gul Dukat was "hated" in the sense that in-universe he was a fairly unlikable guy, but in fandom circles he's beloved and with good reason. He did a good job of making you believe in him, which Ronnie Cox and Alan Ruck mostly accomplish while the Bakula and Issacs don't.

@joe_sewage that's because you're inferior to us. Change.

Ken Bensinger is one of the many leftists who has been assigned a beat to study conservative media as if he was some anthropologist trying to ascertain obscure religious beliefs in the Amazon jungle. There are a few problems with this approach (and indeed, anthropologists are willing to accept and rationalize any cultures which go against their own biases, which isn't about to happen here), but it's at least better than the Joe Sewage approach which is to just decree that what's in it cannot be "rationalized" or "normalized" and then move on in pure ignorance.

After all if it wasn't for the conservative media you'd never know that the WuFlu vaccines were underperforming with side effects more serious than commonly known. If it wasn't for conservative media it would be news to you that Fakepresident Biden's son was involved in questionable Chinese dealings. If it wasn't for conservative media you wouldn't know that January 6th protesters were (like Freedom Convoy protesters) being held in worse bail conditions than violent killers. Conservative media told you that wind and solar panels weren't cutting it as mass power generation techniques, conservative media explained to you why Kyle Rittenhouse was clearly not guilty, and conservative media is the reason anybody knows about Lois Lerner's hard drives.

Fauci's dog experiments? Laith Marouf? Swimming champ William Thomas? CHAZ media policies? No bodies were discovered in Kamloops and Camsell? Ottawa apartment fire inconsistencies? Voting irregularities in swing state capitols? UK grooming gangs? Hey who was it who raped that 9 year old in Ohio?

What good does it do to allow people like Joe to think that people flat out better than him deserve to be ignored and hidden from? It doesn't help Joe, he's clearly dumb and never getting smarter. It doesn't help conservative media to have one fewer eyeball. It doesn't help the overall state of the world by having more ignorant Joes pulling levers in voting booths (as he's more than likely to do in a couple days).

I just don't understand the constant effort to rationalize and normalize the garbage that comes from people who aren't good enough to lick the toes of conservative media personalities.


"Private company can fire you for any political beliefs they like" doesn't work in reverse?

The Daily Dot is outraged, absolutely furious, that a political litmus test is being applied in an American business.

In the video posted by TikToker and Florist Lady Botanical (@lady_botanical) on Oct. 11, she shares a clip of her sitting in her car after an interview with a local nursery, where she alleges she was asked to disclose whether she has any children, is married, or if she “believes in free speech.”

“Upon coming into the interview, they didn’t ask me too much about my experience with plants. I did, however, get asked if I had any kids, if I was married or if I was a liberal or conservative,” she says in the clip. “When I said that I leaned more towards the liberal side, I was then asked if I believed in free speech.”

She notes that “you can’t legally ask” a prospective employee about their political beliefs and personal life, saying that she plans to “contact the labor board.”

However, that same Daily Dot didn't have any issue with a police officer being fired for his political views on Facebook, or an Attorney-General employee being fired for writing his political views on a receipt in a diner, or a manager fired for criticizing mentally ill men in dresses online.

Now to be fair, author Rebekah Harding didn't write any of those other articles. However isn't it funny that all the legal experts saying you can't ask about outside-business-hours politics says the exact opposite when they don't like the politics in question?

@trentderrick11 - My oral history trumps your oral history

I asked my dad, who is older than your dad, about trannies historically. He said 175 years ago a Gitxsan Indian Chief named Derrick told my great-great-great-grandfather that there was only two sexes and everybody who said otherwise deserved to be hung from a tree.

On a related note, that same Chief also said that he surrendered all of his tribe's land to us and all of his descendants were to be our slaves forever.

Get to work, bitch.


@JUNlPER - Stop banning conservatives and it will all stop

The left often can't decide whether deplatforming (superior) conservative views is a great thing and it's wonderful they are happening, or a nonsense conspiracy theory that isn't even true.

The necessarily corollary, as Juniper highlights above, is expressing shock and derision that conservatives are reacting to the deplatforming. "Ha ha all you conservatives who said Bruce Jenner was one of the greatest male athletes of the 70s are joining this Truth Social, why not just stay on Twitter (which bans the conservative/intelligent practice of 'misgendering')?" In this particular case, it's related to a conservative-themed dating app (which the Toronto Star hilariously claims, pace Juniper, was setup by those evil conservatives to conceal great right-of-centre catches from the liberal men and women who are desperate to find them).

As always with leftists you're left wondering "are they stupid or deliberate"? After all, there have been a lot of news stories related to conservatives being banned from dating apps just because they have (again, superior) beliefs to the powers that be.

People who participated in a "mostly peaceful" protest in June 2020 are more than welcome on Tinder while both it and Bumble banned people who participated in a mostly peaceful protest in January 2021. A Seattle-area conservative commentator was banned from Tinder despite not participating in any so-called "attack on democracy". Jack Posobiec was banned from Bumble, Chris Cantwell was banned from OKCupid: neither had done anything wrong or violated any terms of service.

Not that "TOS violations" are an excuse: after all, much like the Twitter "misgendering" the terms of service are written either specifically to exclude conservatives or be nebulous to include conservative accounts just for existing. Hinge prohibits conduct which "could reasonably be deemed to be offensive or to harass, upset, embarrass, alarm or annoy any other person": posting a picture of yourself at the Ottawa Freedom Convoy protest meets the definition while a picture of yourself in front of a "TERFS fuck off and die" poster does not. OKCupid admitted Cantwell's ban was because they just didn't like his opinions on Robert E. Lee statues, not because he broke any rules.

The right needs these so-called "safe spaces" only because leftists like Juniper hold (and exercise) the control levers in 2022 society to ban them from the existing spaces. Stop using or even possessing those levers and you won't have to worry about Truth Social or The Right Stuff: conservatives will be on the same platforms as you and you'll get your individual chance to "swipe left" on Chris Cantwell or Katie Daviscourt without imposing that will on everybody else.

Another thing only conservatives warned you about

That whole "assisted suicide" nonsense that they assured us couldn't possibly be abused is being abused.

If only somebody had said something....

Or if only we had seen this fail elsewhere...