atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#6713: There is too much of it for one man to cope with

Today's news is full of Democrat fuckery that I am finding unusually infuriating. For the most part, I have grown used to it, and outrage has been dulled by overuse into mere discomfort. I simply avoid watching the mainstream news, because it's about 80% Democrat propaganda, and get my news elsewhere.

But this is one of those kinds of things I can't ignore. That useless, horse-faced communist is claiming that the camps we've set up on our southern border to deal with the tide of illegal aliens are nothing better than the Nazi concentration camps from WW2.

I lack the time and energy to deal with that utter nonsense in detail, and that article does a yeoman's job of demolishing it anyway. What really griped my wagger about this was George Takei coming out and saying, "I know what concentration camps are. I was inside two of them, in America. And yes, we are operating such camps again." As the article then retorts, "A man who was thrown into a concentration camp by Democrats as a child comes out to defend another Democrat for trivializing concentration camps."

The Japanese internment camps, that was a Democrat program. (Or "pogrom".) Just like Jim Crow was a Democrat thing. Like the KKK was a Democrat thing. Like--

All of this is part and parcel of Democrats wanting to oust Trump any way they can, and giving illegal aliens the ability to vote is, too. This is an attempt at nullifying the votes of American citizens, diluting it with as many illegal votes as they can--confusing the issue so that it is impossible to clear the voting rolls of illegal votes. It's stuffing the ballot box which is yet another Democrat thing.

Here's a good one. "Please don't complain about deporting children if you support murdering them...." If you're for unrestricted abortion--but hypocrisy is an essential component of being a Democrat.

And by the way, attention you fucking incestuous, islamic savage bigamist but "alien" is a legal term referring to anyone who is inside a country that is not a citizen of it. I'd like to think that a member of Congress could understand that, but since the House of Representatives is the lower house it's not all that surprising.

"Incestuous"--married her brother. "islamic savage"--I've dealt with that a million times. "Bigamist"--married someone else while still married to her brother. So, yeah.

However, there starts to be a bit of pushback after a while. The people who actually pay taxes in California are beginning to see a downside of always voting with their feeelings, because their state government is going to force them to pay for the healthcare of illegal aliens. Originally the bill was meant to cover illegals all the way to the grave, but as a "compromise" they've limited it to age 26.

Taxed enough yet, assholes?

* * *

And from illegal aliens we now go to the other favorite protected class that isn't islamic.

If a male says he is a female, he must be allowed in female sports. Which, of course, will result in male-to-female transsexuals dominating womens' sports for the foreseeable future.

It will be interesting to see which way the Olympics go with this one. There's no doubt in my mind that a M-t-F transsexual will dominate whatever sport in which it chooses to participate, so getting to that level is not in doubt. The question is, when faced with this, what do the Olympic rules say? What will they say?

Will they be altered to allow it? Or will they go against the tide of international leftism and ban it? Will it be okay but only if the individual tests below X for testosterone?

No one seems to give a rip about the girls who work their asses off to compete in these sports. I mean, the actual "born with two X chromosomes and a vagina" girls.

And further? If you refuse to date a transsexual, you're a bigot and you're "dehumanizing" them.
Unsurprisingly, 87.5% of those polled said they prefer the first two options depending on which way they swing: Cisgender man or woman, respectively. Non-binary and transgender people were at the bottom and typically were only chosen by people who identified as bi-sexual, gay, or some other type of sexuality. For heteros, the results were other cisgender heteros. The authors find this deeply problematic and believe that attitudes need to change.
Of course they do. Apparently it's even dehumanizing to transsexuals if a person won't date them because he wants to find a mate with whom he can have children--something that is right fucking out even if a normal heterosexual person dates someone who has transitioned to the opposite sex. Regardless of what sexes we're talking about.

A certain stripe of feminist actually has this right but naturally the left is trying to ostracise them for not having the right attitudes. The left does not care if these feminists only want to be with other women; the left is telling them they must accept sexual partners who have penises because they identify as female.

And no one seems to understand why "gay pride" means showing assholes to small children.
You are telling me that being gay and gay culture is inseparable from libertine fetishism. For straight people to accept gay people that means that straight people have to accept grotesque displays of overt sexuality in front of children. That is not going to happen.
* * *

Meanwhile, you want another huge fuckin' surprise, NASA paid Boeing big money even though SLS' first launch keeps slipping further into the future. The budget keeps going up, the launch date keeps slipping, and so far we have no test flights of any of the hardware nor do we even have a good handle on when that test flight will be.

As I said, big fuckin' surprise.

* * *

Missouri is taking steps in the right direction.

* * *

This is not a "new" problem, though. If you pull the circuit breaker for the power elevator trim on a 737--such as in a case where the avionics insist on commanding full "down" in them and won't let you adjust it back neutral--human strength is not enough to adjust it manually. That is true of every variant, not just the "MAX 8".

* * *

In the "stopped clock" files we have an actual nugget of wisdom from none other than Whoopi Goldberg, who says that people should not take and store pictures of themselves naked.
Of course, Goldberg was right. And yet, she was not supposed to say it. In our current state of moral decline we believe that you should be able to do anything you want, and that if anything bad happens, it is always someone else’s fault. In part, this is true. If someone shares your intimate photos, he should be indicted. It is not your fault that you were the victim of a crime. But, that is not really the issue. The real issue is: if you indulge in risky behaviors you are in part responsible for the consequences. Not because you wanted to be victimized. But because if the photos had not been stored on a device or in the cloud, no one would ever be able to share them with the world. It ought to be a self-evident truth. It no longer is.

As I say, Goldberg was right. Nowadays young women routinely take pictures of their naked glory. Sometimes they share with their closest friends. At times, these pictures are passed around the schoolyard. And adults are too afraid to tell these children not to do so. It is moral dereliction of the first order.
If you don't take the picture, no one will see it. If you take the picture, and send it to a friend--that's out there forever. If you take the picture but never share it, but someone hacks into your account--well, sorry, bub.

In this particular case, Whoopi Goldberg is blamed for "shaming" the brainless twit starlet. The starlet herself says, "Shame on you for putting that public opinion out there like that for every young girl to think that they're disgusting for even taking a photo like that." No one said "disgusting".

But I find the starlet's brainless mewling instructive:
"I'm not gonna lie, I want to say I feel pretty disgusting, ya know... I feel pretty disgusting, Whoopi," Bella explained while crying.

"Knowing everyone seen my s**t. And I just want to say that me watching this interview made me feel bad about myself. And I hope you're happy. I hope you're so f***ing happy."
It used to be that people had a sense of shame, you know? There used to be a sense of decorum and dignity that people had. In that world, you could no more have a gay man in a leather thong displaying his anus to children in public than you could have a young woman taking nudes of herself and then crying over the exposure.

In that world, a young woman who took naked photos of herself, and crying about their distribution, would not get any sympathy. "What did you think would happen if you did that?" People would ask her. The pictures were taken to be viewed. Their existence means they could be seen by other people, even people whom you don't want to see them.

This is not "blaming the victim". It is a simple explanation of cause and effect. You took those pictures and kept them in an unsecure place. Now someone else has them. All Whoopi Goldberg did was to explain your own complicity in the situation; and if that makes you feel ashamed?

Well, good! Maybe next time you'll think twice about taking those kinds of pictures in the first place!

That is what shame is for. It is a negative reinforcement that makes us behave in a more civilized fashion.

* * *

John C. Wright is correct. This alone is worth the price of admission:
Trump drives the News nuts. Seeing the grown up hippies of my youth now calling Russia a threat, saying we must trust and obey the FBI and CIA, defending the idea of federalist separation of powers, and defending the right of Big Business (Google, Facebook) to run as they wish without government oversight is simply a sign of their total hypocrisy and total mental breakdown.
The very people that said "Stop the CIA", that wanted to crush Big Business, that said Russia just wanted to be left alone--now they're saying the opposite. It's fucking hilarious.

* * *

Fake meat is not better for you than the real thing which should come as a surprise to absolutely no one.

* * *

Bernie Sanders doesn't understand the difference between revenue and profit or, more likely, doesn't care. Bernie Sanders is an extremely rich man; of course he's a communist.

* * *

On content moderation. Yeah, I get it.

By the way, as a former Cognizant employee, the working conditions and shitty pay are absolutely not surprising at all. Nor is the infestation with bed bugs. The site I worked at had been infested--before I worked there, thank God.

* * *

First graders are, at most, seven years old. I just don't have words.

But, hey! The guy can at least rest easy in the knowledge that the DSM doesn't list pedophilia as a mental illness, but instead says it's an "alternate sexual preference". Just like homosexuals in the 1960s! Progress, baby!

* * *

Now it's almost 3 and I need to go cut the grass. Before I can cut the grass I must buy gasoline. Off I go.

Recent Posts from This Journal

  • #9228: AC ON!!

    Before going to bed, I set the house up for AC operation (changing unconditioned air returns, configuring thermostat, etc) and told Mrs. Fungus that…

  • #9227: THEY EMERGE!

    Oooh boy, do they: This is the north side of the tree in the front yard. This is the south side of the tree. Three of them moulting on…

  • #9226: I haven't managed THAT for a whle

    I slept until it was almost noon. I didn't get up at 3 or 4 or 5 AM and have a PBJ and go back to bed; I just got into bed and slept, punctuated only…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.