I’ve talked about this before, but here I will vent about why I think lots of people (both in the media and ordinary citizens) are enforcing the two party establishment.
Lots of bitter Hillary fans are saying ‘if you didn’t vote for Hillary (e.g.,. voting for a third party or not voting at all), you voted for Trump. The funny thing is, in the previous election I didn’t vote at all, and a Republican relative of mine told me that meant I really voted for Obama.
In this election, I actually voted for Bill Gates (read the home page on this site to find out why). It sounds crazy, but I would easily prefer him as my President over Trump or Hillary. And the Trump people saying ‘well Trump is a jackass, but I voted for him to make sure Hillary wouldn’t win,’ have absolutely no excuse. You could vote for a third party, do a write-in ballot like I did, or simply not vote at all. Voting for someone you don’t like just to piss someone else off is like shooting yourself in the foot because you hope the blood will ruin some poor bastard’s pants.
Personally, I’m at the point where both the Republicans and Democrats are pathetic jokes, and I’m not sure I could support either one of them. I’m not going to help perpetuate the two party system. Voting for Hillary (or Trump) is not only endorsing them as a candidate but a vote for the establishment that controls the strings of the system.
And maybe you actually like Hillary or Trump. And that’s fine. But don’t tell everyone else they have to play your game even though they aren’t interested. I’ve read that somewhere around 50% of eligible voters won’t vote at all. And talking heads in the media are making that sound like a bad thing. I think it isn’t. If someone hates all of the candidates, they are entitled to that just as much as you are allowed to believe that they’ll save us.
And the Hillary supporters really don’t have a point when you consider the corruption to cheat Bernie out of the election. I could be talking here till the cows come home, but I’ll give the best example. The DNC actively collaborated with Hillary to make sure Bernie would lose… Then when they got caught, Hillary not only didn’t apologize but promoted the former DNC chairmen (who was the ringleader in this cheating scandal) as her campaign manager. Once you do that, I’m not voting for you even if the Republicans are running Hitler and Satan. Of course, I wouldn’t vote for Hitler and Satan either, but I wouldn’t vote for you.
The Democrats and Republicans (but especially the Democrats this time around) have made it abundantly clear that they are NOT run like a fair democracy during their primaries. So if you then argue that people should only be allowed to vote for the R or D, then you are saying we shouldn’t have a democracy.
Butthurt Democrats complained about Ralph Nader making George Bush win in 2000, even though Nader has just as much right to run as Al Gore. Similarly, a lot of conservatives blamed the libertarian and constitution parties for Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012.
If a law was passed that, 1) everyone has to vote whether they like it or not, and 2) you can only vote for the Republican or Democrat, we would become less democratic, not more. Don’t kid yourselves.
Now, all that .’, the Hillary people do have a right to feel mad. But not at me. Hillary won the popular vote (and by a wide margin) but lost the election. The idea that a country where that is possible would call itself a ‘democracy’ is absolutely hilarious. Blame the electoral college system that we hold onto for reasons beyond my understanding. Not me.
Is it a hate crime or a normal crime?
I am no lawyer, but my understanding is ‘hate crime’ means when you commit a crime on someone based on their race, gender, orientation, religion, etc. If it’s a non-hate crime, that means those things weren’t a factor.
The problem is, some people seem to scream ‘hate crime’ every time a minority gets attacked, regardless of whether their minority status was a factor or not.
Let me give you some examples.
Let’s say I shoot a gay guy. But I killed him because he said something bad about my mother, I didn’t give a damn that he’s gay. I would clearly deserve to go to jail for this regardless, but it isn’t a hate crime. Now, if I kill him just for being gay, that’s something else.
Let’s say I go to Portland, Oregon (which from my research, is one of the whitest cities in America). Based off Wikipedia, they are roughly 77% percent white. If I go there and start shooting people trigger happy, and my victims match the racial demographics of the town (77% white 33% minority), it is far more likely that I was going to pop everyone in my path regardless of who they are, rather than shooting those minorities for being minorities. Even though the majority of my victims would be white, it wouldn’t be fair to say I was specifically targeting white people either. Not unless I explicitly stated otherwise.
Now, this is not the same as the guy we kept hearing about who said all kinds of anti-black prejudice, said the specific words “I hate black people and want to kill them,” went into a black church, shot 9 people, every one of them black. You couldn’t call all of that a coincidence. If he isn’t racist, nobody is.
I know this is going to sound massively unpopular, but this is also something where I sometimes disagree with the whole ‘violence against women’ thing. Before anything else, let me say I am entirely sure women have it worse than men. They are far more likely to be sexually assaulted, catcalled, and paid 77% to the dollar for the same thing that a man would do. All of these are sexism against women. This can be assumed because they are a universal phenomenon that happens far more often to women than they do to men. But if I sucker punch someone and walk off with their wallet, that’s not necessarily sexist. Because men are victims of that stuff just as much as women, and the reason it happens is that you just wanted their money. Of course, you’d deserve to go to jail if you did that, but we cannot jump to conclusions that you are a sexist for it. Hell, it’s possible that a sexist would do it. But we would need more evidence to work with than ‘the victim happened to be female.’ Like, anyone could be held at gunpoint and/or robbed. Maybe their attackers were racist and sexist or maybe not. You’d have to make a compelling case.
Then they would probably say ‘women are weaker than men so they shouldn’t be held to the same standard.’ I can see where they’re coming from, but I would still dispute it. Let’s use my fictional character, Daniel, from my story Pax Romana, City of Angels. He was learning mixed martial arts at a very young age, and stronger at 15 than most 20 something men. He is used to the thug life on a regular basis, has served in the Army, been a private mercenary, has been a professional boxer, and has an extremely short temper. I am of the same gender as Daniel, but I wouldn’t be able to feasibly defend myself against him either. He could probably beat the snot out of me with his eyes closed. But if he does, it should not automatically be assumed that he’s sexist against men either. Anyone like Daniel in real life is gangster as fuck. They’d be a danger to everyone, not just women. In fact, I’d wager Ronda Rousey (female world champion mixed martial artist) would have a much better chance against him than I would. Rousey herself could probably put me in the hospital in less than 10 seconds. If I went up to her and started messing with her just to stir up trouble, I’d be a dumbass. Now, if I minded my own business and she was the one that started bothering me, that’s different. If you hurt anyone, you deserve to rot in jail. But we should not automatically assume sexism or racism unless we have a good reason to think otherwise. If a man beats up a woman, he definitely should rot in jail (and in hell for that matter). But if he beats up a fellow man, I would feel the same way. That’s where I’m getting at. I also think the issue of violence in America is very complicated, and I think a ‘violence against women act’ 1) is oversimplifying the issue. 2) won’t fix it. There are several reasons why. First, 80% of homicide victims are actually men. This surprised me because I would imagine people can defend themselves easier than women. Then I did some research and found out what could be the reason. The vast, vast majority of violence that takes place are people like my character Daniel fighting other men of the same background. Men stuck in the cycle of poverty, with absolutely nothing to lose. And they are typically more violent to women as well. Gang warfare is a real thing. If you lived in Beverly Hills, you would barely know what I’m talking about. If you grew up in the ghettos of Oakland, California, you would be used to it. And women stuck in the cycle of poverty would be more likely to sell their bodies. Perhaps giving all of these people a fair chance at life would be mutually beneficial for everybody. According to my research, this is what I have found. First, countries with less absurd income inequality than the United States typically have fewer rates of violence. Social safety nets for those who need it, so they aren’t forced to result to a life of crime would also be beneficial. The other issue is guns. Men are using guns to wipe out a lot of each other, and some women too. Countries with better gun control laws do not have nearly as many homicides. The gun might be the worst invention ever made and has caused an unbelievable amount of suffering to everybody. So a ‘violence against women act,’ surely has the best of intentions. I am just skeptical about the results, especially when there is no sufficient data to say it is helping. But if there is, I am all for it. In case I haven’t made myself abundantly clear, I DEFINITELY don’t think men should be allowed to attack women and get away with it. My problem with the ‘violence against women act,’ is it seems like a placebo scapegoat from implementing the real solutions that would minimize the problem.
What bothers me (and what led me to write this) is there seem to be some Tumblr social justice people who scream sexism, racism, and everything else, every time a minority gets attacked. Then you have some white supremacists/sexist people on Breitbart, among other horrible places, who won’t call it a hate crime even if the evidence is abundant. Where you want to be is somewhere in the middle.
Gun control and the military
This should probably be two different blurbs rather than one, but I’m lazy.
First I will mention gun control. I am really on the fence about this and see the truth to both sides. The freedom to own a gun is in the bill of rights, and I support the constitution. However, this has gotten out of hand. I think the best summary of my position is “I support gun rights, but you must be responsible for it.” For starters, lock it up when it’s not in use. If you have children in your house and you don’t lock it up, that’s even worse. It’s like this: You have the right to own a pet, but you don’t have the right be irresponsible and forget to feed it. Criminal background checks are a splendid thing as well, and I’d personally support not letting people diagnosed with depression from having guns, even though that would specifically exclude me, and I think guns are badass.
I can tell you there are several times in my life where I would have already killed myself if all I needed to do is pull a trigger. If you’re going through a major depression, a gun might not be a good idea. Blowing your brains out will have a near 100% success rate. If you didn’t have a gun and you ate a bunch of pills, at least your friends might be able to rush you to the hospital.
Which brings me to my next point, the military.
The military has enormous rates of both suicide and homelessness. If you have someone with PTSD, was brainwashed into having a ‘tough guys can’t cry or show weakness’ mentality, and is not getting help because the VA is massively underfunded, this is a recipe for destruction. He could be a danger to either himself or someone else. As a side note, I hope any veterans who have read this blog and are aware of my unpatriotic views still realize that I know you are human beings. The way veterans get treated in this country are nothing short of a national disgrace. If taking guns away from a veteran who has mental issues could save his life, I think we’re doing him better in the long run.
They aggressively recruit kids as young as 15 to sign up for a huge commitment at poverty stricken high schools (if you came from a wealthy one you may not know what I’m talking about). They tell them this is their only ticket out of it, and that they’ll take good care of them. Even though what’s really going on is very different.
On tanks, battleships, and things like that, the United States literally spends about as much on the rest of the world combined. To get these people who fight in the wars some help when they come back, we barely want to give them anything. There are a lot of things we could do to fix the problem. A good place to start would be adopting the attitude “these people are human beings with feelings and bleed like the rest of us, they are not disposable pieces of meat.” If all you do is put up bumper stickers that say “God bless the troops,” that’s nice but is not gonna cut it. Here are some better ways: For starters, you could donate to a charity. You could write your local congressman and threaten to vote them out of office unless they take action. You could join an organization that raises awareness.
Now back to guns. The supporters of unlimited gun rights say ‘it’s not just in the bill of rights but in the original 10, which are the most important.’ And that the original founding fathers were saints of God. I dispute this. I think the emancipation of slavery and giving women the right to vote are just a little bit famous, among other things. On the other hand, I would be really devastated if I was forced to let some soldiers come to my house and fool around on my Xbox.
My problem with David Futrelle
I’ve said before that I don’t identify as a feminist in spite of supporting equality, and people like David Futrelle are exactly why. For those that never heard of him, he runs a popular blog called ‘We hunted the mammoth.’
I’m going to be super lazy here and not even provide direct links to his stuff, but I promise I’m telling the truth.
My first problem with him is he makes broad sweeping generalizations. For example, the website Reddit. He seems to think the whole thing is a sausage fest of women haters and white supremacists. As someone who uses Reddit on a regular basis, I can tell you this isn’t true. I always doubted his crap, but I looked it up on Wikipedia which confirms it. Reddit is 53% male. That’s a male majority, but not a decisive one. He makes it sound like a ‘no girls allowed club.’
He cherry picks only the very worst parts of Reddit and makes it seem like that speaks for everybody who uses the site. I did a quick google search and found Reddit had 243.6 million unique users accessing the site in 30 days. With THAT many people, some of them are going to be racists or sexists or whatever.
The vast, vast majority of Subreddits on Reddit don’t even mention race/sex/gender identity at all, and when they do, almost all are against discrimination. He spends nearly all his time in the MensRights and RedPill and digs up other garbage like that. These are a minuscule fraction of the users on the site.
It’s kind of like this: Tons of people do their shopping at Walmart. Probably millions of people across America go to Walmart every day. Surely, some of them are racists. Walmart is only in it for the money, and they will let anyone buy their stuff as long as they aren’t breaking the law. This is not the same as a store built from the ground up for an explicitly racist purpose. Actually, similar to the difference between the American flag and the Confederate flag. The American flag has some history of racism, but the Confederate flag exists for no other reason than to enslave an entire race of people. Likewise, Reddit just wants ad revenue from everybody. They are not the same as Return of Kings or A Voice for Men. Would it be nice if Reddit cracked down a little harder on the baddies? Yeah. But this guy is ridiculous.
This would be like dropping a nuclear bomb on New York City because you met a few racist or sexist asshats there.
Another generalization he’s made is he associates Anime (an entire genre of an art form) with misogyny. There have been TONS of animes made. Surely, some have been misogynistic or racist or whatever. But again, he’s talking out of his ass. And then even when he almost has a valid point, he goes too far with it. Example: I can see that watching animated girls get fucked in the ass by octopus tentacles is creepy, weird, and probably sexist. But I’m not going to say it directly leads to rape in real life. You’re going to have to provide a lot of evidence. Especially when Japan has some of the statistically lowest rates of sexual assault in the world.
He also has a dreadful habit of comparing everybody to Hitler. I’ll use Milo Yiannopoulos as an example. Milo is extremely racist, among other things. But knock it off with the Hitler comparisons. Hitler is responsible for the death of 6 million people. Milo makes racist statements such as calling Leslie Jones an ape, but it’s not even close to Hitler. And since Milo is both Jewish and gay himself, that’s really being insensitive.
Edit: Since I wrote this, there has been a video revealing that Milo defended pedophilia. Even then he is not quite the same as someone responsible for the death of six million people. Although, he’s even worse than I initially thought.
Another problem I have not just with Futrelle himself, but with his fanboys, is when Trump won the election everybody in his comments section blamed people who went Jill Stein/ third party/ whatever for Trump’s victory, and I thought that was wrong.
Finally, I read a tech article by him unrelated to racism or sexism. He said Mark Zuckerberg shouldn’t be the CEO of Facebook. Holy shit, that’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.
Conservatives and their idea of ‘political correctness.’
Now that I took some time trash out Futrelle and other liberals like him, I’ll pay the same respects to conservatives.
They are always complaining about ‘political correctness.’ They do not seem to know what the word means. Politically incorrect just means you take an unpopular standpoint. Almost everything on this blog is extremely politically incorrect. But these people are mad that they don’t get to say “black people are niggers and women are sluts.” George Carlin was politically incorrect. He was not a bigot.
I identify as a conservative myself. Here are my conservative characteristics: I think being politically incorrect is acceptable, I think socialism doesn’t work and (non-crony) capitalism does, I don’t identify as a feminist and some other things, and I have Christian values.
But what the Republican party (and mainstream conservatism in America today) has become is something that I’m not comfortable with. Not only are they horribly prejudice against everything that doesn’t look like them and they’re not used to, but they’re proud to be dumb. They actually say things like “I don’t give a damn who is the president in the such and such country, America is all that matters.” All they can do is parrot back Fox News, and share photos with others on Facebook saying “aren’t you glad Jesus is back in the white house,” as if Donald Trump even remotely resembles Jesus. As an actual Christian, I am offended.
It breaks my heart as a conservative to say this, but intellectualism within the conservative movement is borderline dead. Maybe this is just a little bit arrogant, but you’re going to need someone like me, capable of critical thinking if you want to properly trade blows with the left. These ‘conservatives’ are an embarrassment.
I don’t necessarily agree with liberals, but I would be willing to sit down and have a reasonable discussion with them. But these ‘conservatives’ are never willing to change their mind even when evidence is presented. To be a better conservative, you must have some self-reflection. It also applies to liberals, of course, they just seem to be better at it.
What people have said about me
“Not offending people appears to be pretty low on his list of priorities.”
“In 10 years, he’ll be politically unrecognizable.”
“If it’s possible to be too honest, this guy is it.”
“Rather than liberal or conservative, he is horribly confused.”
“He takes ‘thinking outside the box’ to a new level, probably too much.”
“Voted for Bill Gates? What?”
“This guy is absolutely a feminist. His interpretation of it is a fringe minority.”
A problem I have with American politics today
This criticism I’m about to make is particularly the case of Democrats, although, to a lesser extent, it applies to Republicans too.
That is: Everybody is saying they want Michelle Obama to run, or Hillary Clinton’s daughter. My issue with this is they think they should run only because they’re connected to somebody else. I want a candidate who has done something with their own life, not someone who parades around based on the accomplishments of their parents or spouse. The Clintons, Obamas, Kennedy’s, Bush’s, and a few others, should not have more power than everybody else. Talent is not hereditary, no matter how bad you want it to be. The founding fathers were viciously against this kind of ‘dynasty.’ They’d be laughing their asses off to see what we’ve become.
My opinion on the social justice warrior ‘triggered’ thing
There seems to be a lot of people (especially on the far left wing of the political spectrum) that use the word ‘trigger warning.’ I have noticed this on various internet sites and discussion forums. My understanding of the term is something you see ‘triggers’ a reaction which disturbs you.
Here is my opinion: If you served in a war, then a violent war movie comes on that “triggers” you, you would have a valid reason to be triggered. Because war is a horrible thing.
If you were raped or otherwise severely sexually assaulted and then a movie/book/whatever comes on that depicts this, you would have a valid reason to be triggered. Because sexual abuse is a horrible thing.
If you get ‘triggered’ every time someone makes a slightly politically incorrect joke, you are a crybaby. So to me, ‘triggered’ is just a relative term. Sometimes valid, sometimes not.