Archive

Archive for the ‘Reason’ Category

More Thoughts on the Upcoming and Intentional Demise of Tumblr

December 8, 2018 4 comments

In the previous post about this topic, I wrote that the apparently suicidal behavior by current leadershit of Tumblr is actually the default as far as corporations in USA (and the few other decaying anglo-saxon countries) are concerned. This type of behavior also has a lot to do with the culture in those countries as well as a number of changes (such as laws and regulations rewarding financialization and oligoppolization) that have occurred since the late 1970s. To be clear, I am not implying that other countries are free of parasites, conmen and sociopaths in suits. It is just that the general and corporate cultures in those countries does a far better job of keeping these creatures under check. But now let us get back to the ongoing implosion of Tumblr.

As I hinted in the previous post, all those “changes” which Tumblr’s “credentialed” leadershit wanted were guaranteed to drive away its most heavy users as well as piss off many others who would not have cared otherwise. Turns out, that is exactly what is happening. For starters, it’s “AI” filters cannot tell the difference between porn and popular cartoons. I am sure that some of you have read about other examples of their “AI” filter being unable to distinguish between porn and what is clearly not porn. Consequently many people, including SJWs who might have cheered on the ban of porn, find themselves in the same situation as those they were trying to look down upon. In the near future, I plan to write a post on SJWs and other types of corporate cucks.

But perhaps the biggest hole in their “plans” was the belief that Tumblr would be viable without porn. See.. it is my opinion that they pretended to believe that only a quarter of their users were searching for porn. Except that this is another example of solipsistic bullshit pushed by allegedly “objective” data scientists. As some of you know, scientists in the west are now a more pathetic group than even meth-addicted streetwalkers who will suck your cock for a couple of twenty-dollar bills. They will concoct “data”. “experiments” and “studies” to support whatever batshit insane belief those who pay them want to hear. In this case, they conveniently overlooked two issues. First, the heaviest and most prolific users were there for porn. Secondly, many of those who logged on for other reasons also consumed a pretty significant amount of porn.

There is also something else about Tumblr that many of you might not know. You see.. the golden age and peak of Tumblr (and porn content on it) was between 2009 and 2013. That is right, Tumblr has been going downhill ever since it was purchased by Yahoo in 2013 who hilariously promised to not to screw it up. And guess what.. they started doing that within a year. Before Yahoo started screwing things up, Tumblr only removed porn that was clearly problematic- specifically if it contained sexual acts involving pre-pubescent children. You really had to try to get your Tumble account suspended or tagged as NSFW. But after Yahoo took over in 2013, they started doing that to pretty much anybody who was reported by moral busybodies. While a percentage of the heavy users kept creating new accounts and reposting, most never came back.

This is the reason that ImageFap and other similar sites (often hosted from or based on central and eastern Europe) gained such a huge amount of content between 2013 and 2015. Anyway, the result of this slow-motion porn purge was that most of the porn you could find on Tumblr after 2015 was either heavily recycled or SJW-friendly. In other words, Tumblr was slowly dying as a platform even before the greedy idiots at Verizon made their decision. In fact, most of the new porn content I have collected for the past two years comes from sites that are not Tumblr- which is huge change from the golden years of Tumblr. In my opinion, this change is good because a decentralized network of distribution is far more resilient (if a bit cumbersome) than a centralized one. But let us get back to the fate of Tumblr.

Another mistake made by the myopic “credentialed” leadershit concerns their apparent belief that enough users will stay with Tumblr because creating an alternative platform would be difficult and expensive. As it turns out, that is not the case today. To understand what I am talking about, let us rewind to the state of the internet and its infrastructure about a decade. Long story short, a decade ago it appeared as if the USA and some parts of western Europe had an apparent monopoly on the IT infrastructure necessary for reliable hosting and other services. Fast forward today and that is no longer the case. While some of the more unique arrangements for cloud services and hosting are still a bit easier to get in USA, the rest of the world has caught on and in many cases exceed what the IT infrastructure in USA can deliver.

To put it another way, the successors to Tumblr will be transnational and likely have a significant peer-to-peer networking component. Furthermore, the software design and functionality necessary to make something like Tumblr work and scale is now well understood and has been successfully reverse engineered (including in open source) for a few years. Also, unlike FaceBook most people on Tumblr were interested in connecting to others based on their shared interests and beliefs rather than family or real-life connections. But perhaps the most important reason that Tumblr is going to go down the drain is because it has broken the trust of its users- who are somewhat different from the average users of most social media platforms. In the next post on this topic, I will talk about Tumblr is just the latest example of internet and technology companies losing popular goodwill by being too greedy, too stupid or willing to satisfy ideological nutters.

what do you think? Comments?

Initial Thoughts on the Upcoming and Intentional Demise of Tumblr

December 4, 2018 18 comments

As many of you might have heard by now, Tumblr has decided to ban all “adult” content on its platform starting December 17th of this year. I am sure that all of you, on first hearing about this yesterday, must have said something along the lines of “why would anybody use Tumblr if it had no adult content”? And that is a very valid question, because most people correctly see Tumblr as a vast curated and user-updated repository of pictoral pornography. Of course, some idiots in the dying corporate media want to pretend that this will have no long-term effects on the viability of that platform or its brand. Some others see it as another example of insidious censorship (which it kinda is), Apple removing its App from their store over concerns about “child pornography” or one more unfortunate consequence of Verizon purchasing that brand some time ago.

While each of these conventional narratives about the decision contains some elements of truth, they cannot see the overall picture- much like the protagonists of that story about six blind men and an elephant. Yesterday, a couple of acquaintances on Twitter wondered if management knew that banning “adult” content from Tumblr would destroy that business and brand in very short order. After all, which sane person would like to destroy a functional business.. right? Some of you might counter this by saying that Tumblr has never made profit for its owners. But if you use that metric- neither has Gmail, Google Maps, WhatsApp, Android, Uber, Lyft, SpaceX, Tesla and most Silly Valley corporations “valued” over a billion. Over past two decades, the ability of any large american business to stay solvent has been slowly divorced from its ability to make a profit.

So how do large american corporations make any profit at all? Well.. that depends on what you define as profit, but if you use its most commonly understood definition, they do so through a number of means all of which have absolutely nothing to do with providing a good product or service. Furthermore, the only groups that all american business consistently make profit for is their upper management, lenders and financial intermediaries (often the same or related). But don’t corporations such as Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook etc make real money and profit? Sure.. they do by being either a government-favored monopoly or part of an oligopoly. And that is true for other corporations such as Ford, GM, ‘insert any large defense contractor’ right down to your local medical clinic, hospital and “health insurance provider”.

But what does any of this have to do with the apparently suicidal decision by people currently at the helm of Tumblr? As you will soon see.. a lot. Let me start by asking a somewhat rhetorical question? Why does it seem that I am running down american (and more generally, anglo-saxon) corporations? Don’t corporations in other parts of the world also make huge mistakes? Aren’t they also staffed with greedy morons? Well.. yes, USA (and the anglo-saxon world) most certainly do not have a monopoly on greedy assholes and grave-robbers. The difference lies in how the rest of system in those countries handles them. Confused? Let me explain with a simple example. Ever wondered how far a CEO who ran an OK business into the ground would be allowed to go in an east-asian country versus USA? Consider the case of somebody like Marissa Mayer.

In case you are wondering, she was the CEO of Yahoo from 2012-2017 before that brand (and its acquisitions such at Tumblr) was sold to Verizon last year. While I am not saying that she is brain-damaged, it is clear that her initial success at Google came from being at the right place at the right time. In other words, any other moderately intelligent person in her position would have also won that lottery. The rest of her “achievements” look like the type of resume-padding you see from ivy-leaguers. It also helped that she was a woman at a time when corporate boards wanted a few token women for the purposes of showing ‘diversity”. To be quite blunt, her real skills were kissing ass, being a woman in addition to acting super busy and competent. And that is how she landed her first big solo gig as the CEO of Yahoo in 2012. When she had left Yahoo in 2017 after running it (further) into the ground, she collected about 260 million.

To be fair, Yahoo had been on a steadily downward trajectory since the mid-2000s. While the simple-minded might blame the rise of Google for Yahoo’s slow implosion, the reality is vastly different. Yahoo.. you see.. was not really in competition with Google for search engine market as early as 1999. Instead, it had diversified into personalized services (such as news, sports, social media and yes.. what we today know as ‘cloud’ storage) pretty early on. But the people who ran it before her were equally incompetent and short-sighted. They did have not a unified strategy and ignored user and employee feedback about designing their platforms and services. That is why for example, they let Flickr slowly fail when they could have made into FaceBook before it even existed. I could go on about their other failures, but that would take a book.

And this is where the difference in how corporations in various countries handle incompetent leadership matters. See.. in USA (and other anglo-saxon countries) CEOs, senior board members, top management etc who make bad decisions make tons of money regardless of whether they succeed or fail in their mission- usually the later. They then go on to other still healthy corporations, do the same shit and make even more money. The rest of the system stands by (and often rewards) them as they keep on destroying more healthy corporations and tens of thousands more jobs. This is allowed to happen because the allegedly elected governments in these countries (and senior bureaucracy) are themselves on the payroll of these parasites.

In contrast to that, east-asian systems while famously tolerant of corruption and personal quirks do hold even the most senior corporate people accountable for their failures and incompetence. And while they almost never openly fire or humiliate failed corporate leaders, they do make sure that such people cannot cause more damage. That is why for example, the quality of Japanese and Korean automobiles rarely suffer more than the occasional downward hiccup. That is also why the quality and availability of many other things, from supermarkets and restaurants to medical care and affordable housing, is usually higher in East-Asian and West-European countries than USA. To reiterate- the quality of people is not better in those countries. However their governance systems are significantly better at protecting people from parasitic corporate-types.

Which brings us back to the subject of this post. Did you realize that the title contains the word ‘intentional’ in addition to upcoming. Wonder why? Well.. have you considered the possibility that the current management of Tumblr is counting on its recent “rule changes” to destroy it? But why would they do such an apparently stupid thing? Here is a hint: they can make a lot though performance bonuses if they manage to “sell” the ruins of Tumblr to some private equity firm or some other shysters for further strip-mining. Given that Tumblr is not making them a large profit right now, or in the near future, it makes more sense to destroy it such that its ruins can be later sold to another group of con-artists. There is of course the other possibility, namely that they do not care and believe in their own bullshit. Remember, these are the same self-delusional types who knew that HRC would defeat Trump in 2016. Or maybe, both possibilities are at play..

In the next post on this topic, I will talk about the effect of this decision on current Tumblr users, general availability of pictoral pornography on internet and rapidly worsening public perception of large internet monopolies and oligopolies.

What do you think? Comments?

Virtue Signalling by Famous Male ‘Feminists’ has Comical Consequences

December 2, 2018 15 comments

As regular readers might know, hypocrisy has always been especially repulsive to me. I would go so far as to say that it makes even the most depraved actions that much worse. As many of you also know, we live in an era defined by virtue signalling aka hypocrisy. Malicious corporations are constantly pretending to be your best friends, incredibly corrupt politicians never stop trying to portray themselves as paragons of honesty and every “celebrity” or wannabe is fully on board with anything which sounds remotely fashionable, hip or ‘woke’. In the age of ubiquitous social media and internet access, such virtue signalling often leads to darkly comical consequences. It is, therefore, not surprising that Harvey Weinstein loved portraying himself as a left-wing political champion, member of the #resistance and yes.. even a ‘feminist’.

Before we go into the whole issue of male celebrities supporting feminism, let us first talk about the problem.. I mean the issue.. of male ‘feminists’. Who are these people anyway? Some of you might think that everyone in this category looks like one of those spineless, pussy-whipped and young white guys holding signs proclaiming their support for feminism or wearing T-shirts with similar slogans. But as is often the case, they are just one public manifestation of a much deeper and larger problem. The problem.. you see.. is that most white guys are secret male ‘feminists’. But why I am dunking on white guys? Don’t self-proclaimed male feminists come in a number of skin colors? Well.. yes, but the percentage of non-white guys believing in this ideology are quite low when compared to white guys. But why is that so?

And this is where we get into a topic some would prefer to avoid. Pedestalling white women has a deep connection with racism, specifically the belief that whites are somehow superior or more desirable than others. That is for example why black men do not have an especially high opinion of women (black, white etc) or why for example continental European white men do not pedestal white women to the same extent as american white men. The extent of pedestalling white women in a given country is directly proportional to its legacy of racism, colonialism and slavery. And yes.. ‘feminism’ as practiced in the west is largely about benefiting white women and virtue signalling alleged “moral superiority” to other nations. It is therefore darkly comic to watch the biggest supporters and cheerleaders of this performance art now getting thrown under the bus.

Let us now move onto the issue of “celebrities” or more precisely the conditions enabling their mass production. It has long been my belief that celebrities are the logical consequences of large corporations trying to sell their products in an atomised society full of mass media. I do plan to, hopefully soon, write another post on the connection between increasing social atomisation and rise of celebrities. For the proposes of this post, we will restrict ourselves to the fact that most celebrities owe their rise due to some combination of luck and corporate (or institutional) greed. However they have no special talent and can be easily replaced or eclipsed by many other who would love to replace them. Hence the need to remain in public eye through a combination of controversies, endorsements or anything that makes them seem relevant- at least to themselves.

Over the last few years, a convergence of some superficially unrelated trends with others has made it almost necessary for any male celebrity to publicly proclaim himself as a feminist- whether he believes in that ideology or not. Combined with the rise of ubiquitous social media and internet access, this has given rise to many darkly comic instances of famous men with peculiar histories concerning their interactions with women being exposed as hypocrites. It is, for once, nice to see that those who once publicly supported idiotic ideas such as “believe all women” and “due legal process is injustice” are hoisted by their own petard. Don’t feel sorry for those idiots who were happy to throw other men under the bus, but now find themselves in that same predicament.

The world will not be a poorer place if a mediocre comic with a penchant for masturbating in front of women, while simultaneously vociferously supporting feminism, loses his career. Nor will we miss an OK director-producer who loved to preach about female empowerment to others, while cheating on his wife with a number of actresses who worked under him. Or that other comic who was pathetic enough to beg a groupie to have sex with him than just blow him. He too was into all that feminism stuff before it bit his ass. And now we hear that a well-known popularizer of science.. I mean an “astrophysicist”.. has been accused of sexual misconduct. While he denies those claims, he too was a open supporter of feminism and related causes.

My point is that those who provide uncritical support to ideas and causes should not expect to be insulated from the consequences of pushing them to their logical endpoint.

What do you think? Comments?

Varna and Jati aka ‘Caste’ System Was Hugely Damaging to Indians: 10

November 30, 2018 4 comments

In the previous post of this series, I mentioned that Indian kingdoms had no problem repelling and defeating foreign invaders upto the beginning of the 12th century AD. Yet somehow, in the absence of any technological or tactical breakthroughs on the other side, their record of success against foreign invaders becomes really bad between 1192 AD (defeat of Prithviraj) and around 1650 AD (dawn of Maratha empire under Shivaji). And then the (initially) materially poor and numerically far smaller armies of that emergent power somehow end up systematically destroying most Muslim Kingdoms in India and prevailed in a two decade long war against the much larger and prosperous Mughal empire to become the predominant power in India.

Have you ever wondered why the Maratha Empire succeed in doing what had eluded other groups and aggregations of people in India for almost half a millennium? For starters, it helped that they had an extremely competent and visionary founder in Shivaji. But it was his successors (and those who believed in the cause) who kept fighting and winning till they reached their goal. After reaching that point, the empire slowly came apart due to infighting and other bullshit- but they did achieve the initial goal of permanently erasing almost every single Muslim kingdom in India. So we come back to the question as to why they almost completely succeeded where many had failed before. What made their efforts different from others who had tried before.

To understand what I going to talk about later, let me introduce you to a seemingly unrelated historical fact. Ever wondered why a region so divided and engaged in almost constant low-level warfare such as the Italian peninsula between 1494-1559 was never successfully occupied by the much larger and prosperous Ottoman Empire- even when the later was at its height of power in the early 16th century? Also, why was the Ottoman Empire never able to effect worthwhile levels of religious conversions in most of its erstwhile European territory with the exception of tiny pockets such as present-day Albania and Kosovo. Why was its grasp on the Balkans always so tenuous and why did it choose to govern indirectly in most of those places?

What makes this inability of the Ottoman Empire to successfully invade and occupy Italy even more peculiar is that, as early as the 1480s, north-western boundaries of the Ottoman Empire were less than 200 km from Venice. And yet, for a number of reasons, they only got a bit closer to that city over two hundred years- after which the Ottoman Empire slowly shrank and went into decline. Why was such a rich, dynamic and populous Empire (at least between late 1400 and mid-1600s) unable to occupy a region full of small-ish kingdoms and duchies who were in almost constant conflict with each other? Why was no kingdom on the Italian peninsula unwilling to cooperate with an external invader from the east in order to prevail against its rivals?

Some of you might be aware that the extreme eagerness of Indian kings (and most Indians) to cooperate with foreign aggressors to screw over local competitors was one of the major reason behind why it was so easy for the later to succeed in spite of having far smaller armies. And let us be clear about something, this also occurred on the Italian peninsula- but with one major difference. See.. during that period, various small Italian kingdoms and city states did sometimes seek assistance from the French, Spanish and Hapsburg kingdoms to prevail over their rivals. But they never seriously considered doing so from the Ottoman Empire, even though many Italian kingdoms had pretty good trade relations with it. But why not?

It comes down to religion, specifically how monotheistic religions work. Though France, Spain and the Hapsburgs were frenemies to Italian kingdoms, they were (religiously and culturally) on the same side. The Ottoman Empire, though more religiously tolerant than contemporary Christian kingdoms, was fundamentally a Muslim Empire. It also helped that the Italian kingdoms were aware that other European kingdoms were not capable of occupying and ruling Italy indefinitely. Furthermore, there was a massive social stigma and fear of popular revolt if they were seen to be collaborating with Ottomans. In contrast to that, the lack of a real monotheist religion in India as well as massive internal social divisions caused by the ‘jati’ system made it trivial for Indian traitors to collaborate with any foreign invader. And there was no shortage of them in India.

Moreover, any serious attempt by Ottomans to invade Italian peninsula would have resulted in many disparate kingdoms within Italy and western Europe joining up to fight them. And then there was the effect of the ‘jati’ system on social cohesion within military ranks. In previous posts, I have mentioned how the ‘jati’ system resulted in Indian armies being deeply fragmented and non-cohesive. The various Italian kingdoms and other European powers of that era did not suffer from this handicap, because in spite of class divisions, they were all on the ‘same’ side. Furthermore, they had no issues with developing and fielding newer weaponry as well as adapting their strategy in response to their adversaries.

It is already close to 900 words, so I will wrap up this post now. In the next part of this series, I will explain why the Maratha and Sikh Empires were finally able to erase almost every single Muslim-ruled kingdom In India. You will also see why they, and not some other groups, achieved that objective. Hint: it has far more to do with the social organization of both communities rather than martial valor. And yes.. both communities had far fewer internal divisions due to the ‘jati’ system than other contemporary groups around them.

What do you think? Comments?

Establishment Democrats Covertly Love Suppression of their Voter Base

November 25, 2018 9 comments

Over the past twenty years, and at an increasing frequency, the democratic party loves to blame its electoral losses on voter suppression by the republican party. At first glance, this accusation is completely justified and supported by all available evidence. There is indeed a systemic effort by the republican party to suppress voters who are more likely to vote for democratic candidates. But have you ever wondered why we hear the same accusations during every national and almost every state election in the past twenty years? Why has the democratic party done almost nothing about republican attempts at voter suppression, other than blame their electoral losses on them?

Let us start by addressing the first peculiarity of the democratic process in USA. Why are voter turnouts in american elections so low when compared to other countries with a functional voting system? And let us be honest about something else.. they have always been rather low when compared to other countries for a number of reasons such as the legacy of slavery and the fact that racial apartheid was law in USA until 1965. Yes.. USA as a society, until 1965, was similar to the odious racism-based regime which existed in South Africa until 1994. But why did the voting percentages in USA not improve in a consistent manner after 1965? Why are they still low?

The more establishment-worshiping types among you might mutter something about most voters being stupid or lazy. But then why do countries with an almost non-existent history of democracy such as Brazil have high voter turnouts as well as speedy transparent vote counting? The Indian system, in spite of many other shortcomings, is very good at conducting elections and the entire process is widely seen as fair and transparent by its citizens. And, as usual, the electoral process in USA looks shady, compromised and antiquated when compared to its counterparts in western Europe. So why is it this bad in USA and, more importantly, who benefits from this status quo?

While it is tempting to heap all blame for this miscarriage of democracy on the republican party, there are some problems with doing so. For example, the democratic party (at least at national and state levels) was not especially concerned about the issue of voter suppression until that infamous presidential election in 2000. But why not and what changed after 2000? Superficially, it has something to do with changing patterns of party affiliations among the shrinking white population. But more importantly, reduction of turnout among voters who will vote for candidates espousing a populist platform is an important feature of whatever passes for “democracy” in USA.

Have you ever wondered why establishment democrats never give anything more than lipservice to the idea of increasing voter turnout among people who have given up on the system? Have you ever reflected on why they hate rising candidates among their own party who are to the “left” of their center-right electoral platform? Are you now starting to understand why Bernie Sander’s challenge to the ‘anointed candidate’ aka HRC during the 2016 democratic presidential primary so upsetting to corporate media presstitutes and “public intellectuals”? Are you starting to grasp their obsession with appealing to “centrist” white suburban voters while simultaneously ignoring outreach to groups who would actually vote for them if they ran on a populist platform.

In case you have not, let me spell it out. Establishment wing of both political parties are willing and enthusiastic participants in the Kayfabe of american “democracy”. To be fair, it has always been like that.. to some extent. However it was not especially blatant or problematic from 1934 to the mid-1980s, for reasons that have much to do with far larger global events (Depression, WW2 and Cold War). However starting sometime in late-1970s, both parties were slowly subsumed by the very rich and large corporations. Since then, for an increasing number of people, it did not matter much if they voted for the democrat or republican candidate or not.

For the next two decades, establishment democrats were happy with this status quo because it freed them from having to appeal to working class voters (irrespective of race). They could now focus their attention on bipartisan dealmaking such as signing an endless number of “free trade” agreements, gutting many thousands of factories which provided decent jobs in flyover country, shredding the social safety net, incarcerating millions of black men, spending trillions on the military and fighting endless an unsuccessful wars in other countries. More importantly, it allowed them and republicans to maintain the facade of a two-party democracy and regular elections.

The infamous presidential election of 2000 provided the first unmistakable sign that this two-decade old bipartisan consensus (to screw over the 90 %) was breaking down. But nobody in the establishment wing of democratic party wanted to believe that this beautiful dream was over, so they kept playing the old game. To that end, they approved and supported every stupid war and atrocious law pushed by the Bush43 administration. Some of you might remember that they did not dare to question Bush43 until after the debacle of Katrina and well after it was obvious to everybody with half a brain that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were unwinnable.

But it gets worse. During the 1990-2016 period, the democratic party kept on losing at the state level to republicans in parts of the country where they had historically done very well (even after 1968). And why was did this happen? Well.. because the democratic party had become as pro-corporate as their republican counterparts while pushing for unpopular measures such as gun control. Also, establishment democrats were openly hostile to candidates in those states who could have won by running on populist platforms. After the 8-year long fuckup of Bush43, the election of somebody who pretended to be populist (Obama44) was seen by some as a sign that establishment democrats had finally learned their lesson. As we know, that was not the case.

Instead they just picked up from where they had left and started singing those same rotten paeans to “bipartisanship”, beginning with the passage of an even sadder version of RomneyCare and culminating in Obama desperately trying to strike a deal with Republicans to gut Social Security and Medicare. You do know that the deportation system being used by the orange-haired buffoon was created and deployed under Obama.. right? Let us also not forget how he (and establishment democrats) bailed out banks while screwing over homeowners, did not give a fuck about mass incarceration and police brutality, kept on signing more “free trade” agreements and actively assisted further concentration of wealth by the rich while impoverishing everyone else.

And yet, democratic party cheerleaders.. I mean supporters.. are upset at the low voter turnout and their losses during the 2010, 2014 and 2016 elections. They could start by asking themselves why Obama got a few million fewer votes in 2012 than 2008. What about asking HRC why she did not campaign in the three or four “safe” mid-western states which she lost to that buffoon in 2016. Maybe they should demand answers as to why states controlled by democrats have been loathe to make voter registration easy- even when it clearly benefits them. Perhaps they should ask why establishment democrats figureheads like Pelosi and Schumer are so willing to tow the corporate line, even if it is not working for the party.

And don’t even get me started on how they treated Bernie Sanders during the 2016 democratic primary. It was disgraceful.. and yes, he would have won against Trump. Then again, it is far easier to blame the devil and other magical creatures when your crops fail or people get ill.. I mean blame Putin, Russia, Assange and Wikileaks for HRC losing to that dumbfuck. Seriously, how rotten does a political system have to be for an obnoxious troll such as Trump to win the party primary and presidency. Think about it.. the very fact that people without brain damage willingly voted for Trump says volumes about how rotten the status quo is for most people.

What do you think? Comments?

Watching Most Female ‘Comedians’ Perform is About Virtue Signalling

November 21, 2018 14 comments

As readers might recall, a couple of years ago I wrote a post stating that most female comedians were not funny. To be clear, I did not say that they were all talentless or their male counterparts were more talented. I also said something about how those who promoted and patronized such female comics did so because of their worldview rather than because their actual talent or ability. And let us be honest about something else.. show-business is NOT a meritocracy, never has been and is unlikely to become one anytime in near future. Having said that, let us get to the topic of this post- namely, my contention that those who attend performances by the majority of female comics are doing so for reasons of virtue signalling rather than personal enjoyment.

My initial awareness of this phenomena was a byproduct of watching too much YouTube at night. While I usually view videos about topics that are of specific interest to me, occasionally I like to find out where the related video sidebar will take me. To make a long story short, while searching for clips of famous standup male comics, I also came across similar clips of supposedly famous female comics. It was then that I started to notice a peculiar difference in the type of audience reaction to male and female comics. While very competent male comics usually got a noticeably stronger positive audience reaction than their mediocre male counterparts, their response to female comics was oddly uniform.

To put it another way, really good female comics got almost the same reasonably good audience response as their mediocre counterparts. Some of you will say that humor is subjective, but it was pretty hard to ignore a persistent pattern of disconnect between the quality of comedy act and audience applause for female performers, but not for their male counterparts. Even more oddly, the type of audience reaction was also subtly different for female performers. Confused? Let me explain. You see.. audience members listening to male comics almost never react to any given joke at the same time or intensity- some audience members react before others and certain jokes elicit a far bigger reaction than others.

With female comics, the audience response is unusually constant and consistent. It is almost reminiscent of parents cheering on their kids at school performances and sporting events. The point I am trying to make is that a lot of the people who attend standup comedy acts headlined by women comics seem to be more interested in being there and cheering on the performer than enjoying the act. But why is that so? Here is a clue.. you also see similar behavior when a brain-damaged or dying kid is allowed to throw the first pitch at some baseball game. Almost nobody in the audience is really interested in watching it, but everybody is trying to project the image of being a good and compassionate person.

But having a limited patron base has its.. well.. limitations. Many of you might have noticed that the more recent NetFlix specials by Amy Schumer have not been especially successful, and to be quite blunt- nor have her films (especially when compared to the massive amount of free media hype and promotions she received). After the first season of ‘Broad City’ things haven’t really picked up for Abbi Jacobson and Ilana Glazer- at least not in comedy. Tig Notaro and Margaret Cho now appear on TV more often to give their opinions on LGBT issues and male comedians who jerk of in front of unwilling women than for their comedic talent. Whitney Cummings and Chelsea Handler are now more well-known for their political positions than comedy. Chelsea Peretti is more famous for who she married and the career of her brother than her own.

Then again.. they all have financially benefited from their willingness to assist a certain section of the american population to demonstrate their moral and ideological superiority to those “other” people. In that respect, this behavior is no different from some people buying expensive art by some ‘famous’ artist or going to a restaurant owned by a ‘famous’ chef.

What do you think? Comments?

Democratic Party Obsession with ‘Gun Control’ will Cost Them in 2020

November 18, 2018 8 comments

Some of you might remember that just over a year ago, I wrote a post about why establishment democrats seem to obsessed with “gun control”. And yes.. there is a reason I put that term in quotation marks because, let us be honest about it, they do want to ban all guns and criminalize civilians who owned them. In case you are wondering how that could happen, let me direct you to how SWAT teams became an integral part of the “law enforcement” in USA or how petty criminals and retards are now charged under the hilariously-named PATRIOT act. My point is that history definitely shows us that powers given to large and unaccountable institutions (public or private) will always be abused, regardless of under which socio-economic paradigm they claim to operate.

It has long been my stated belief that the seemingly excessive number of deaths attributed to guns in USA are really due to the misery and hopelessness caused by living in a decaying, dying and imploding society- not unlike the deaths due to opioid overdoses and alcoholism. Also, most (almost 75%) deaths due to guns are suicides. If you add up them up, somewhere between 100-150 thousand people In USA kill themselves each year due to the high and endemic levels of despair and hopelessness caused by late capitalism aka neoliberalism. Did I mention that we have seen something similar happen in Russia after the collapse of USSR in 1991. Then again, there is something darkly funny about USA following in the footsteps of USSR.

But what does any of this have to with establishment democrats likely losing the 2020 election due to their obsession with “gun control”? Doesn’t having a president as unpopular and pathetic as Trump virtually guarantee a democratic party victory in 2020? Isn’t the possibility of having another 4-year dumpster fire sufficient to motivate democratic voters. Well.. let us have a look at results from the just-concluded 2018 elections. While the democratic party did win a majority in the house, a few governorships and about 300 seats in state legislatures- it has still not recouped the losses suffered during eight years of Obama. In other words, the low popularity of that atrocious orange moron did not translate into a massive pro-democratic party wave.

But why not? Surely, all that wall-to-wall coverage by corporate media of the latest bad decision made by the white house or talking heads communally masturbating over the most recent faux-pas by Trump must have changed some minds.. right? Who in their right minds would say that the Trump presidency is anything but a sad, but highly entertaining, dumpster fire? Why did all that talk about “Mueller”, “Russia”, “Putin” etc have so little effect on the electoral results? As it turns out, I have a theory to explain why the absolutely atrocious performance of Trump had a far smaller effect on the electoral results than many establishment democrats had hoped. And guess what, it connects very well with the subject of this post.

As I intimated in a previous paragraph, the biggest problems facing most people in USA have nothing to do with Trump, Russia, Putin or any other bullshit concocted by establishment types. Instead they are all linked to living in a system caught in a terminal death spiral. Sure.. things have never been better for the top 1% and are still acceptable for next 9%, but they suck for everyone else. Between the ludicrous cost of post-secondary education, ever-increasing levels of non-dischargeable student debt, rapidly increasing cost of what passes for “health care”, lack of stable and well-paying jobs, increasingly unaffordable housing- most people are fixated on issues which matter to them rather than what these so-called “public intellectuals” circle-jerk around.

You might think that any real opposition party in a functional democracy would take advantage of such a situation and make viable promises to fix these problems and thus get swept into power at the next election. As it turns out, there are two problems with that assumption. You see.. the democratic party is not a real opposition party and USA is not a functional democracy. Instead, the establishment wings of both political parties are part of the same party- one which owes it allegiance to the very wealthy and corporations. Both pretend to be opposed to each other so that they can maintain the illusion of a functional democracy- not unlike what one sees within professional wresting leagues. It is all political Kayfabe.

Let me remind you that establishment democrats have always colluded with their republican counterparts to push through legislation and rules which benefited the wealthy and corporations, but hurt everyone else. They colluded with republicans to push every “free-trade” agreement and treaty you can think of. They colluded with them to pass laws which enabled mass incarceration and the overt militarization of police in USA. They colluded with them to deregulate financial institutions and screw over common people. They colluded with them to make student debt non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. They never saw a military project too expensive to approve. In short, establishment democrats are basically republicans with better stylists and speechwriters.

But what does any of this have to with the issue of “gun control” and its adverse effect on electoral prospects of democratic party in 2020? Well.. it comes down to the only two real policy differences between the two political parties. In case you are wondering, access to abortion and gun rights are the only major differences between the two parties. As far as access to abortion is concerned, the democratic party position is going to win out in the future- largely because even republican voters below 40 are majority pro-choice. Gun control, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. While that policy had decent amount of public support during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the situation has changed a lot since then.

Many states have made it easier to buy or carry guns since the early 2000s, and this change has not resulted in an increased rate of gun-related crime. In fact, by many measures, rates of violent crime are significantly lower than in the late 1980s and early 1990s. More importantly, the trust of average people in american institutions (public and private) has declined considerably and irreversibly since the early 1990s. To make a long story short, all those bullshit “common sense gun control” laws have far less support in non-coastal states than even thirty years ago. This has however not stopped the democratic party establishment from trying to use every instance of some person shooting up random people to push for more “gun control” laws.

But.. some of you might say.. how is this any of this relevant to the 2020 election season? Here is why.. See, establishment democrats have refused to learn anything from their defeat in 2016, 2014 or 2010 etc. Any why would they? After all, they get paid the same by their rich backers irrespective of whether they win elections or not. It is all political Kayfabe. Anyway, the central rule of Kayfabe is that both parties must keep acting as if the alleged rivalries are “real” and “meaningful”. Also, neither party wants to bite the hands that feed them. Consequently, it is extremely unlikely that democrats will advance (let alone pass) any legislation which actually helps the average person. In any case, the average establishment democrat and republican legislator is far too removed from average people to give a fuck about them.

So forget higher minimum wage, healthcare for all, student loan relief, money for infrastructure, augmenting social security and medicare and say hello to increased spending for weapon systems which do not work, more bases in god-forsaken parts of Africa, more investigations of Trump, “bipartisan” agreements to cutting “entitlements” and nothing more than lip service to all the progressive causes they pretended to support while campaigning. So how do they plan to make up for this betrayal, at least in their minds. Well.. by cynically trying to pass the most insane “gun control” laws which they know will never pass the senate, let alone Trump. But why is this such a bad thing, at least from the point of winning elections?

Because it will energize gun owners to vote against them en masse. But won’t this be balanced by those who vote for tougher “gun control” legislation? To be blunt.. unless you are living in the Bay Area or some parts of NY or NJ, not really. But it get worse. See.. establishment democrats will either dither over or reject any attempt to (let alone actually) pass legislation in line with their progressive and populist pre-election promises. In other words they will disappoint enough people who voted for them in 2018 to an extent where they will not vote in 2020 (like what happened in 2010 after 2008). And you know what.. they don’t care because their rich corporate backers will keep paying them the same whether they win or lose. It is all about keeping this pathetic and now very obvious game of make-believe “functional democracy” going.

What do you think? Comments?