Archive

Archive for the ‘Critical Thinking’ Category

GPS Ankle Monitors are Redundant in Era of Ubiquitous Smartphones

February 21, 2019 3 comments

Sometime ago, I came across an article which documented how smartphones can now perform many functions which once required physically separate devices. For example, smartphones now universally have acceptably good video and sound voice recording capabilities- thus replacing the still camera, camcorder and pocket voice recorder, at least for non-professional users. The same can be said of their ability to access GPS and other radio-navigation data, making it unnecessary for most users to own a dedicated GPS receiver. While I am fine with technological advancement and convenience, I am also cognizant of their downsides and potential for abuse.

As many of you know, one of the many peculiarities of what passes for “law enforcement” in USA is its strong attraction for technological “solutions”- especially if someone who is already rich can make more money from it. That is why, for example, the carceral and borderline third-world state of USA is by far the largest user of GPS ankle monitors. It occurred to me that this is one more device that has been made redundant by smartphones. See.. Google, Apple, almost every single one of your smartphone apps and internet monopolies such as FakeBook are already spying on everyone 24/7, and this includes geolocation. Why keep using an old technology such as GPS ankle monitors when people will pay to buy the latest smartphone and privacy-invading apps?

What do you think? Comments?

Skeptical and Rational Look at Story of Loch Ness Monster on YouTube

February 13, 2019 1 comment

Over a year ago, I came across a YouTube channel which, among other things, has a decent two-part dissection of story behind the Loch Ness monster. FYI- the guy behind this YT channel is a rationalist (who, by his own admission, was once a creationist nutter) and likely has a tendency to go too far in whichever direction he is going. In any case, given my belief that everybody has some good ideas and insight- I will post links to both his channel and the two relevant clips.

So why am I not endorsing him unequivocally ? Well.. he has often let his enthusiasm for certain beliefs such as all dinosaurs- both Ornithischia and Saurischia having feathers or proto-feathers. To be clear, there is evidence that feathers (or more likely proto-feathers) were widely distributed among dinosaurs. However, it is also true that not all dinosaurs had them- especially the really large ones. Think of it as somewhat similar to situation with hair in mammals.

While most mammals, even large ones such as bears, have tons of body hair and fur- more than a few (elephants, hippos, rhinos, dolphins, whales, humans etc) have very little to no body hair. To make matters more complicated, animals (dinosaur and others) who lived hundreds of millions years ago do not neatly fit in our taxonomy which was originally devised to classify existent ones.

For example, animals such as the four existing species of Echidna do not neatly fit into current classification system, since they have many features that are mammalian but also more than a few that are not- such as laying eggs rather than giving birth to live young. Also, their brains, eyes, digestive systems etc are rather different from mammals (both placental and marsupial). But why and how do such animals exist, anyway?

The thing is.. existent mammals, reptiles and archosaurs did not start out on independent paths from day one of their divergence from parent species. Instead, there was once a whole spread of species with amazing mixtures of features. Those which became extinct left gaps which were usually not refilled. Think of it as luck pruning the tree of life to create distinct main branches by removing intermediate branches. But let us get back to the topic of this post.

Link to his channel- TREY the Explainer

Here is part I of the series.

and here is part II..

What do you think? Comments?

Intersection of Narcissism, Attention Whoring and Extra Woke SJW-ism

February 7, 2019 4 comments

A few years ago, I wrote a short post about my thoughts on why female “celebrities” appear to have high rates of self-reported sexual abuse. The brief version of that article is as follows: show business attracts people with certain personality types- which is a nice way of saying that people who stay and succeed (even modestly) in that sector are pretty narcissistic and crave constant public attention or fame of any sort. Combine that with “gatekeeping” by rich and connected but largely talentless assholes (Harvey Weinstein etc), and it is a pretty ugly place to work. Also, let us stop pretending that women are “innocent” victims. They know exactly what is expected of them. There is a reason we have terms such as ‘casting couch’ and ‘stage mothers’.

Now let us extend this observation to its next logical outcome. Ever wonder why so many actors, actresses, musicians etc are into personality-based cults, alternative religious beliefs or various social causes? While some might want to believe that this has to do with them being nice human beings- the reality is far more sad and banal. To make a long story short, the type of outwardly pro-social behavior you see in showbiz has much more to do with the intersection of narcissism, attention whoring and increasingly pathetic trying to remain relevant. There is a reason why the “celebrities” who support allegedly pro-social causes are either way past their prime (Alyssa Milano, Chelsea Handler, Debra Messing etc), not attractive (Amy Schumer, almost all female comedians, Lena Dunham etc) or trying to get back in public eye (almost any female celebrity).

So how bizarre can this sad intersection of narcissism, attention whoring and extra woke SJW-ism get? Well, let me illustrate with a story. But before we go there, here is the standard boilerplate disclaimer. This story, all names, characters and incidents portrayed in it are completely fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places or products etc is intended or should be inferred. Any why did I put this disclaimer before telling you the story. You will see..

The story starts with an attractive busty girl in her late teens who was pushed into modeling by her mother whose ambitions to become a famous model never came to fruition. So she gets into print catalog modeling, is reasonably successful and moves into TV ads. So far so good. She ends up having a very brief marriage in her very early 20s which ends in a quick divorce. Again.. that, by itself, is unremarkable. Then by a stroke of luck, a respectable adult magazine recognizes her physical attributes and pays her a low six-figure sum to pose nude. This exposure results in her getting some acting roles and more modelling contracts. At the top of her acting career, she is a C or D list celebrity. So far, her career path is neither unusual or remarkable.

But biology, you see, can be a bitch. The same genes which gave her a busty figure and mature look when she was in her late teens starts making her look a decade older. She tries networking in showbiz to get bigger roles, with some initial success. At around this time, she becomes one of the.. well.. regular non-exclusive sexual partners of a famous showbiz couple. However this gig does not translate into her getting the guy or bigger movie roles. After a few years, she decides to quit or (or is thrown out of that arrangement) and ends up dating and then marrying a C or D list actor- but one with a regular and decent paycheck. She immediately decides to have a child and within a year or so, gives birth to a male child. For the next 3-4 years, things appear normal.

And then the fun begins.. a few years into the marriage, she decides to start dating other women. Once again, this is not especially unusual by the standards of showbiz. However, for reasons that will be apparent later, she ends up with a lesbian showbiz type who goes out of her way to look masculine and has expressed interest in “transitioning”. Did I mention that this new person has apparently no talent and seems to have found success entirely due to her identity as a lesbian woman. Then again, many in showbiz have no talent.. so who cares. And this is where things start to get interesting. Within two weeks of starting this relationship, the once D-list actress abruptly declares that she has become a vegan and activist on all her social media profiles.

And then things take an even more interesting turn.. if you can call it that. She starts posting photos of her young male child in increasingly feminine hairstyle and clothing. In the beginning it is quite subtle, but then it starts becoming really obvious. Over next few months, she transforms her male child to the point where she starts referring to him as her daughter. The male child in question is less than 6 years old. What makes all of this a bit peculiar is the timing, specifically the fact that it started almost immediately after she dumped her husband and starting dating a lesbian woman who tries very hard (and in vain) to appear masculine. Also for some reason the publicly posted photos of her child start having lots of rainbow symbolism.

What makes this even more peculiar is that all publicly posted videos of child (by her) do not show any obvious feminine body language. Then ways things are going, there is a pretty good that this male child will end up getting puberty-blocking drugs and gender reassignment surgery or become totally estranged from his mother.. or maybe both. Who knows? The point I am trying to make is that this situation is almost entirely due to the desire of his mother to regain some popular relevance and attention, which feeds into her narcissism and compensates for the fact that she looks 10-15 years older than she should look- and will therefore never have the showbiz career she dreamed about in past. We also cannot forget the role of her partner- who has her own sordid past. But ya.. it is still mostly about the mother.

Readers might have noticed that I did not make any claims that the woman is abusing her child. Why not? Well.. because I don’t care about this sordid saga beyond its value as an interesting short story in the depths of human depravity. And make no mistake, what she is doing is no worse than female genital mutilation as practiced by people belonging to a certain religious faith who originate from some middle-eastern and north-African countries. Some mutilate their child to, ostensibly, satisfy a bronze-age deity.. others do it to express their enthusiastic embrace of a new secular religion. What is the difference? And one more thing.. This story, all names, characters and incidents portrayed in it are completely fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places or products etc is intended or should be inferred. Kapish?

What do you think? Comments?

On Establishment Democrat Hypocrisy and the Ralph Northam Scandal

February 2, 2019 10 comments

While I prefer to write on topics which are more intellectually satisfying than some stupid piece of current news, there are times when the later have some relevance to former. Most of you must have heard that the current governor (as of the time of writing), Ralph Northam, posed as either a blackface character or KKK klan member for some photo taken at some party in his mid-20s. It does not help that he selected that photo as one of four to appear on his personal page in 1984 yearbook of his class. And let us be clear about something.. wearing either blackface or KKK klan garb at any public occasion in USA was a bad idea, even in 1984. Having said that, let us look at this mini-scandal from a different angle- especially at establishment democrats feigning outrage.

But before we go there, let us quickly talk a bit about why wearing either of those two costumes is a bad idea. To make a very long story short, the history of reprehensible institutional racism in USA make any attempt to celebrate or glorify that period highly unpopular in the contemporary era. That is why, for example, we saw all those recent agitations against continued public display of confederate statues in certain southern states. That is also why people see the confederate flag and other symbols of the “old south” as racist. The confederacy and its symbols occupy the same space in post-1965 american history as Nazis and their symbols in post-ww2 Germany. Everyone knows what happened, but only idiots wish to glorify and celebrate the worst part of their history.

Which brings us to Ralph Northam and his lack of judgement in playing racist dress-up in 1984. The very recent leak of those photos appears to have been timed to hurt him because of his pro-choice stance, however the reaction of establishment democrats says a lot more about their own hypocrisy than this poor cosplay choice in 1984. Let me explain that point in some detail. A lot of establishment democrats from Bill Clinton and Joe Biden to Kamala Harris have done far more to perpetuate the inequities and suffering caused by racism than putting on a highly racist costume for drunken cosplay. Bill Clinton, as many of you know, was instrumental in passing laws which perpetuated structural racism such as Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act aka the 1994 crime bill and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act aka welfare “reform”.

Did I mention how he gave an important campaign speech in 1992 using the background of a few hundred incarcerated black men at Stone Mountain, Georgia? Or remember how he showboated the execution of a mentally retarded black man to increase his support among potential white voters in 1992 presidential election? Meanwhile the 1994 crime bill, which he strongly supported and signed, caused the largest sustained increase in number of jailed black men in american history. And yet somehow he was the first “black” president according to some cock-sucking loser in the mainstream media. Moving on.. did you know that Joe Biden was the leading proponent of the 1994 crime bill and he spent a lot of effort making it as punitive as possible for black people?

But we are supposed to believe than an idiot wearing a racist cosplay costume in 1984 is far more worthy of public damnation than two people who have screwed over the lives of millions of black people. What about Kamala Harris, who spent her whole career enthusiastically prosecuting tons of poor and usually nonwhite people for minor “crimes” and then laughing about it? Of course, her alleged zeal for fighting crime did not extend to rich white criminals especially those who donated to her political campaigns. And somehow, the democratic establishment sees her as a viable presidential candidate. My point is that establishment democrats have perpetuated structural inequities of racism almost as much their republican counterparts in post-1965 era.

But that idiot wearing blackface/ KKK outfit in 1984 is the source of all our problems *sarcasm*.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Difference in Outcomes for China and India in Post-1945 Era: 2

January 30, 2019 5 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote that India and China started from about the same level, and with a host of systemic problems, as nascent modern nation states in 1947 and 1949. While India might have initially seemed to be the more successful of the two, China slowly but surely outpaced it in almost every aspect from about the mid-1960s. The gap has now grown to such levels that the real difference between these two equipopulous Asian nations now appears unbridgeable. In the previous part, I also said that majority of difference in outcome between the two can be attributed to difference in quality of leadership and administration between them. For starters- Indian leaders, while superficially more erudite than their Chinese counterparts, came from families who had previously gotten rich by collaborating with British colonizers.

The majority of those who came to power in India had also never been tested under real life-and-death situations. In addition to displaying uncritical belief in whatever any white person wearing a suit told them, they had no real interest in improving the condition of their fellow country men and women. Indeed, most of them did not see themselves as part of India.. well at least not ‘that other’ India. They saw themselves as darker white sahibs carrying the “white mans burden” and ruling over a hopeless bunch of subhumans. Some of you might wonder as to how I reached this rather dim view about that allegedly “great” generation of leaders which India had in aftermath of gaining independence in 1947, from the now defunct British empire. Easy.. look at their behavior and actions, rather than their words- because the later is cheap unlike the former two.

1] Both India and China started life as modern nation states with very high levels (over 80-85%) of illiteracy. So how did Indian leaders go about trying to fix this problem? How about.. by doing almost nothing. That is right! While Chinese leaders put a lot of effort and force into projects such as simplifying the Chinese script, ordering translations of everything they could find into Chinese, improving primary school attendance and childhood literacy among its population by any means (including force)- their Indian counterparts gave speeches and raised slogans about removing illiteracy. While it is true that Indian leaders did fund a few elite universities and educational institutions (IITs, IIMs etc) earlier than China, they largely ignored the primary and secondary educational sector. But why? Well.. think about which educational institutions their progeny, and those of their flunkies, would attend. It is that easy.

So why didn’t the Chinese leadership behave in such an utterly selfish manner? The answer is.. because they were pragmatic. While creating elite educational institutions for your own children sounds like a good idea, doing so without creating an equally extensive non-elite educational system would almost certainly lead to them remaining a poor country. Chinese leaders were always interested in true global power and prestige. It is not possible to be powerful and feared (or respected) on the international level if your country is an un-industrialized and materially poor country full of illiterate people. Indian leaders, on the other hand, were incapable of visualizing themselves as anything other than second-rate ‘whites’ in charge of a country predestined to be poor because some white guy in an expensive suit told them so.

2] It is no secret that the administrative system and bureaucracy in India, along with its laws and regulations, had been designed to exploit and abuse Indians for the benefit of the now extinct British empire. Any person with half-a-brain who was genuinely interested in improving conditions in India after independence would have liquidated everyone in the administrative system, except its junior-most employees, and built a new one- if necessary by copying from countries where things worked. That is, however, not the path taken by Indians leaders after ‘independence’. Instead they retained almost every single part of the incredibly abusive and dysfunctional system including its pathetic white-worshiping personnel. And this is how India ended up with a shitty and incompetent bureaucracy which benefits nobody other than its employees.

Their Chinese counterparts, on the other hand, went on quite the cleaning spree after 1949. They started by getting rid of bureaucrats who were, should we say, not sympathetic to the new order or problematic collaborators to previous regimes. They reformed laws, rules and regulations to make them more useful and internally self-consistent. Moreover, they were willing to reform their system as the situation changed- for example after 1971 and 1979. Some people say that it was helpful that China has a long history of competent bureaucracy, unlike India. However, after the ‘century of humiliation’ they had to start from scratch to build a modern secular bureaucracy and so their history is not especially relevant to what happened after 1949. Let me reiterate that the Chinese leadership did not educate their people and build a good bureaucracy because they were altruistic. They did so because they wanted to be leaders of a powerful and respected nation.

In the next part of this series, I will write about how the lack of imagination and ability displayed by Indian leadership over every single decade since ‘independence’ contrasts with the willingness of their Chinese counterparts to take calculated risks, persevere along initially suboptimal routes, keep thinking big and have a viable plan (or two) to get there.

What do you think? Comments?

Large Corporations and Governments are the Real Clients for 23andMe

January 26, 2019 24 comments

Over the past 3-4 years, many of you must have seen tons of advertisements (both in traditional and new media) for DNA testing services such as 23andMe, ancestry.com and many others who offer seemingly reasonably priced DNA testing services to help you find your “real heritage” and other liberal-idiot friendly bullshit. These ads usually contain some actor, often of mixed-ancestry, touting how he or she was able to find his or her “real roots” by taking a “simple DNA test” to the accompaniment of new-agey music and other bullshit advertising tropes. So.. what is going on? Why are these sociopathic entities (corporations which offer DNA testing services) interested in helping you “find your real ancestral roots” at apparently reasonable prices.

Think about it, a bit. What is in it for them? Also, how can so many business which offer the same or very similar services able to afford their extensive advertising campaigns and offer relatively inexpensive tests- and all of this while ostensibly operating under operating principle of making ever-increasing profit. Doesn’t smell right, does it? Now ask yourself, which other corporations have a similar business model. Let us start by talking about other corporations which offer “free” services to their average user such as Google, FakeBook, Twitter etc. How do they make their profits. Well.. by collecting and selling data about their users to corporations who want to extract more money from them via advertising or otherwise scamming them or those who want to surveil them for purpose of abuse and discrimination- in other words, various governmental agencies.

And this brings us the next logical question- what exactly has the so-called “genomic revolution” of past 20 odd years achieved? What I am about to tell you is not going to please idiots who believe in the fairly tale of technological progress. Long story short, the “genomic revolution” of past two decades has been a costly and hilarious failure- as far as delivery of original promises is concerned. See.. I am old enough to remember what was being promised in very-late 1990s, when I was in my early 20s. At the time, human (and other organism) genome sequencing was touted as to the magic key which would help us identify genes for common diseases, protein targets for new drugs, targeted cancer therapy, develop super crops and all sorts of other futuristic nonsense- not unlike what you hear for “artificial intelligence” today.

Things did not turn out that way.. to put it mildly. After a few years in early-2000s, it became painfully obvious that finding genes for common diseases such as various types of Heart Disease, Diabetes, Alzheimers etc was a fool’s errand. Even worse, the results cast doubt on what many so-called “experts” claimed to know about those diseases. At best, genomics helped us better understand and sub-classify rare single-gene diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis etc. Even the area in which genomics is most often touted to have “improved” disease management, namely anti-cancer therapy, has not seen worthwhile improvement in outcome for majority of patients. And oh.. vast majority of drug targets identified by genomics have proven to be totally worthless.

The point I am trying to make is that entire fields such as genomics, bioinformatics etc have not delivered even a small fraction of what was confidently promised in 1999. And ya.. I think we are going to see something similar happen to current DNA-editing technologies such as CRISPR and other hyped scam such as Gene Drive etc. Turns out that getting something to work properly and reproducibly in non-model systems outside the laboratory is a real bitch. Here is another insight.. technologies that were not hyped during their initial and often rocky development such as the modern computers and the internet, monoclonal antibody drugs, better use of existing drugs etc usually have a much larger impact than those hawked as (next) ticket to riches and utopia.

So why would large corporations and governmental agencies be interested in genomic data? Isn’t it almost completely useless? They can’t be that stupid.. right? Well.. let us start with the “are they that stupid” part. The answer to that question, sadly, is a resounding YES. The leaders and underlings of large corporations, you see, have to pretend that they are doing something useful while robbing those corporations. The simplest way to give the appearance of real work and making important decisions involves them promoting any shiny scam which is currently making rounds of the corporate circuit. This is why for example, corporate executives are always touting the newest management techniques, employing consultants, promoting mindfulness, talking about corporate responsibility, “making the world a better place” and all that BS.

Also, the vast majority of people who end up in the leadership of, or other high positions, in large institutions are very likely to be bad at anything other than lying, kissing ass, backstabbing and self-promotion. Look at how easily a CONartist such as Elizabeth Holmes was able to extract money, validation and support out of allegedly experienced and seasoned top ex-bureaucrats and CEOs. It never ceases to amuse me when I hear libertarian idiots (usually white guys who also believe in other scams such as “IQ”) try to explain their hilariously reverential mental image of corporations and other supposedly “meritocratic” institutions. The situation inside large institutions (private and public) has far more in common with the movie ‘Office Space‘ than the toilet-paper dispenser known as ‘Atlas Shrugged’.

But what does this have to do with not using DNA testing services to find your “real roots” . Well.. think of these services as corporate- and government- funded fronts for collecting your genomic metadata. But what harm could come from providing DNA samples, especially since genomics has turned out be a very expensive damp squib. As it turns out- a lot! The pretense of knowledge has, historically, caused much more problems than real insight into problems. In case of genomic metadata, this would translate into denial of “healthcare” insurance coverage in the third-world country of USA. Then there is the certainty of discrimination when applying for jobs, getting loans and many other interactions with corporations. Remember that their decisions and “algorithms” don’t have to be based in reality as long as they have more lawyers and money than you.

The abuse of genomic metadata by Governments will take a different direction. Don’t be surprised if the DNA of non-violent “troublemakers” starts to appear at the site of various unrelated violent crimes. Or government bureaucrats come up with some cockamamie scheme of classifying people based on bullshit data analysis performed by using “deep learning” techniques. In case you are wondering, police in USA still regularly plant fake evidence to imprison and convict black men and governments in the past have based large-scale policies (eugenics, the final solution, residential redlining and most rule/ laws passed in USA before 1965) on bullshit beliefs such as “inherent” superiority of some racial groups over others. In summary, there is no upside to getting your DNA tested to find you “real roots” or “true ancestry”. There are however many downsides to letting corporations and governments collect your genomic metadata.

What do you think? Comments?

Quick Thoughts on the Continued Imbecility of Covington HS Students

January 24, 2019 18 comments

As anybody who does not live under a rock must have heard by now, a bunch of imbeciles from Covington HS (somewhere in Kentucky) got thrust into the media spotlight for a series of video clips which went viral on social media platforms. The first, and most widely circulated clip, shows what appears to be MAGA hat wearing idiot confronting an old native american man. And yes.. there is a very good reason I am using words such as imbeciles and idiots to describe members of the student body from that Catholic HS who participated in an anti-choice march in Washington DC. As you will see later in this post, their actions at the event, and since, are almost textbook examples of what a person with more than half a brain should not do in 2019.

So let us get back to the interaction which started this chain of events. But before we go there, think about the real reason that clip went viral in the first place. Here is a hint.. it has almost nothing to do with the other party in that interaction being an old native american guy. Indeed, the video clip would have gone viral even if the other party was a black man, black woman, asian guy, asian woman, white woman.. anybody other than a white man. The real reason that clip went viral, and will haunt the lives of the white boys in it for many years, comes down to their choice of headgear. To put it succinctly, the MAGA hat is now seen by a majority as the modern version of a KKK hood. Yes.. that is how a majority of people saw it.

I am sure that there are many who will vehemently claim otherwise or say something about their ‘freedom of speech’ etc. But let us get real.. those who have made up their mind about the MAGA hat being a modern-day hate symbol simply do not care and happen to be more numerous than those who believe otherwise. And there is historical precedent for such a change in association. For example, Italian Fascists of early 1920s wore black shirts and specific gear because it was associated with the Arditi crack troops of WW1. Similarly, the ‘brown shirts’ of the proto-Nazi movement in 1920-era Germany wore that uniform because somebody found a big consignment of unused discount brown denim shirts and other gear meant for German soldiers in Africa when that organisation started looking around for official uniforms in 1924.

You are welcome to put on the full uniform of Italian Fascists and German proto-Nazis and walk around in those countries, but don’t start complaining if the locals give you strange looks or call the cops on you. This is especially true in Germany.. and while wearing a brown denim shirt alone won’t raise any eyebrows, wearing one tailored in that style and with accompanying insignia will very likely result in being questioned by the local police. I would also strongly recommend against wearing an armband emblazoned with a certain symbol in contemporary Germany or pretty much anywhere in Western Europe. The takeaway message from this part is that symbol association change and evolve over time, and it is a good idea to acknowledge this fact.

So how did the MAGA hat become so toxic a symbol in 2019? Well.. it was a problematic symbol right from the start in 2015- but at that time, it was not as despised. The thing is.. between late-2015 and early-2019, a lot of things happened. While the really problematic events occurred mainly after January 21, 2017- that hat has now come to be associated with, and symbolize, everything negative and despicable about Trump. Let me put it this way.. wearing that hat is the equivalent of going around wearing a T-shirt saying that you are an incompetent racist asshole who enjoys putting non-white children in cages, while sexually assaulting women and being a huge public embarrassment. I am not trying to claim that previous presidents were good or even competent- but ya, Trump has generated more public hate than any president in living memory.

Regardless of what you think or want to believe, walking around wearing that hat in a non-rural part of USA is going to get you negative attention. You have to be cognitively challenged to think otherwise, and yet most boys in that group were wearing MAGA hats. And it gets worse.. they were doing so as students of an all male and almost-completely white catholic high school from the south while attending an anti-choice march in Washington DC. Did I mention that some of these geniuses were shouting “It’s not rape if you enjoy it” in public, even though they were being filmed. They might as well have large signs labelled “future Brett Kavanaugh” or “frat boy rapist” handing from their necks. But their cluelessness and stupidity go much further.

See.. these idiots are young enough to have grown up in the era of smartphones, ubiquitous internet access and social media. They cannot claim ignorance about the effects of everybody having a decent camera in their smartphones. In other words, they should have known that their behavior while wearing MAGA hats and participating in a public march would be filmed to be later scrutinized. Which brings us their next stupid act- reacting to other idiots. Tell me something.. regardless of how ‘alpha’ you imagine yourselves to be- would you react (or even acknowledge the existence) of otherwise harmless hecklers? My point is that it is perfectly justifiable to react with force to anybody who poses an imminent physical threat, but it hard to justify escalating a confrontation with loud idiots who are otherwise harmless.

And it gets even worse.. if that is possible. As many of you known by now, a whole bunch of alt-right CONartists.. I mean.. “celebrities” such as Mike Cernovich, Cassandra Fairbanks etc and black performance artists such as CJ Pearson got in on this story and were busy putting forth an alternative version of events. But why is that a bad thing? Well.. for the same reason that having neo-Nazis support you in a case where you are accused of racial discrimination does not help your public credibility. Such support, if anything, makes it far harder to put forth an acceptable and reasonable defense. Which brings us their next fuckup.. hiring a PR firm and dressing like a 13-year old to go on TV with a sympathetic white newscritter.

The thing is.. over past 2-3 decades, most people have heard so much PR agency bullshit that they have now come to associate their time-worn tactics with confession of guilt. Of course, the clueless kinda-rich parents of these idiots in Kentucky probably did not realize it. In any case, hiring a PR agency and then putting their failson on TV dressed as a 13-year old boy (in spite of most people having previously seen normal photos of him) was a really bad idea- because it provided another opportunity to reignite public outrage against him and that group. What made it even worse was how that stupid white newscritter treated him with kid gloves- a very sharp and obvious contrast how these same losers treat non-white adolescents. Maybe, they did not get the memo that it 2019, not 1999. And then that idiot fucked up even more..

Instead of framing that interaction as a misunderstanding or crankiness due to being tired and hungry, that dumbfuck said “I had every right to stand there”. While I am no PR professional, verbalizing your right to stand your ground against an old non-white man (with your friends around you) while wearing a MAGA hat was a really dumb idea. See.. the last thing you want to do when accused of being a racist prick is to sound like a whiter version of George Zimmerman. He could have just skirted that question or said something to the effect of being in an unfamiliar situation. That way, he would be seen as an immature idiot rather than an entitled white racist.

In conclusion, the Covington HS idiots do not seem to realize that they have figuratively painted a big target on their foreheads- for many year to come. Overtly racist behavior by whites, you see, is no longer cool like it was even a decade ago. While they could get into places like Bob Jones University after graduating high school, you can be assured that every one of them (save the richest) will have problems getting into anything approaching a decent university- especially one on, or near, the coasts. Furthermore, they can expect very high levels of future public scrutiny of their behavior and actions- even if they remain in Kentucky. And that you see, is going to be far worse than it sounds. Imagine some girl accusing one of those guys of sexual assault a couple of years from now. And all of this could have been avoided if they had not worn that stupid hat.

What do you think? Comments?