I Was Able To Buy A Razor in 12 Minutes

Considering the large problem this country has with suicide, and we all know how slitting your wrists is considered a popular method among youth, I decided to see how easy it was for me to purchase one of these death machines. It was an unnaturally breezy summer morning. I hit nearly every red light on the way there, but I eventually made my way into the plaza where “Target” was located. Just the name of the establishment gave me chills. It was almost like I was being taunted the moment I walked through the automatic sliding front doors. I felt like I was next.

As I entered the building I was blasted with cold air which made the hair stand up on the back of my neck. The floors were so white and polished that they reflected the LED lights hanging high above me. There were people in gore-colored vests checking people out at the registers to my left. It took all I could muster to continue pressing on. As I passed by the Yu-Gi-Oh cards and make-up aisles a person sporting the previously mentioned blood tinted garment asked me if I, “needed help finding anything.” They were practically begging me to buy this irrefutably disgusting product. I was sickened to my core so much that I declined and decided to find it for myself.

Unfortunately, as I made my way through the aisles I found the “kitchen” section. I saw a kitchen knife set and I had to immediately make my way to the nearest bathroom. I twisted and I turned through the overtly bright corridors. I thought I heard a young child mutter something along the lines of, “Mommy, what’s wrong with that man.” If only that poor little kid knew. If only they knew. I finally found the bathroom. I busted into the closest stall and emptied the contents of my stomach into the toilet. Just seeing that array of slaughter made my morally sound guts wretch. This was no time for quitting.

I steadied myself and left the restroom after wiping my face with a damp paper towel and headed straight for the toiletries. My heart and mind were racing. My adrenaline began kicking in and I turned the corner to see an entire pack of disposable razors. They were just placed on a shelf in a plastic bag, as if you couldn’t cut through plastic bags with a razor. I picked up the bag. It crinkled slightly. I felt my stomach turn again. Racing as quickly as I possibly could with horrifying scenes of bloodshed running through my tormented skull I finally reached the cash register.

“Sir, are you okay? You’re panting and sweating an awful lot” the cashier snidely remarked. He was mocking me already. I slammed a ten dollar bill on the table and screamed “KEEP THE CHANGE” as I ran through the door into the refreshing summer breeze. That was it. An average citizen was able to purchase a razor in a store that sells them in twelve minutes. Where have we gone as a society?


My Response to “The Alternative Hypothesis”

I noticed that you made a video discussing my older video on how Race Does Not Equal Culture.

Original here: https://youtu.be/V4LWQ3TIl5I

So I thought I’d just make a quick aside to you acknowledging that you’ve made this and that I’ve watched it and give you my thoughts on why any educated person, or anyone who understands how the basics of this topic function will never take you seriously.

You are very keen on leaning on studies that simply cite things that correlate. For example, you cite a study which makes the claim that IQ correlates with political view. However, clearly this study does not control for all or even most outside factors so there’s no way to determine that IQ is a deciding factor on what political views one holds.

Then you decide to drag it into race, like you seem to always do. But you’re doing exactly what Zennistrad used to do in regards to lobbing studies at me and you, and a lot of your commenters, seem to have an issue with my saying “Correlation doesn’t imply causation” in regards to a lot of your points. Even though they are actually valid points.

And someone else decided to take it upon themselves to tell me to “stop pretending that regression analysis doesn’t exist” which, of course, i’m not doing. I’m just saying that the things you’ve sent me that correlate don’t prove that there’s any sort of causal relationship to be had. You just assume that to be true because of the studies you’ve actually cited to me.

If you want to prove that (just to use an analogy) Asians are genetically predisposed to prefer collectivism. You can’t simply cite something that states “Asians tend to prefer collectivism.” There is absolutely zero genetic aspect involved within that.

Also, regression analysis is a statistical estimate, not a biological experiment or study. So when you ask me to stop remaining skeptical towards a shaky estimate, I’m going to have to politely refuse that request.

You also have not scientifically even quantified “culture” which is another problem for you. You seem to be under the misapprehension that culture is not the very definition of nurture. When trying to decide whether or not something is nature or nurture it’s pretty daft to try and claim that nurture is in fact nature and therefore nature wins. It’s absolute lunacy, sir.

I have seen zero separated at birth studies trying to see whether people of a certain race still tend to prefer the culture that corresponds with their race, I guess, or any twin studies. That being, twins growing up in completely different cultures and seeing which they are more predisposed to when they are adults.

Culture is a product of people discovering what works and doesn’t work within their environment. When humans were in their infancy, they had to make dyes out of the things they had (before trade flourished), they had to eat whatever would grow the best in their respective environment. But now, update that. Update that to the 21st century where people of different races are still being born and co-mingling within different cultures.

You’re taking something that occurred when people were generally restricted by location, and applying it to people who live today and it’s retarded. It’s just absolutely retarded. In my estimation, the only reason you see a correlation between race and culture is because people tend to be brought up in the culture that their biological parents happen to be in, and people are biologically the race, of their parents.

I mean, I don’t know how to make this simpler for you. You can’t just assume environment away because it hinders what you wish to be true. It doesn’t work that way ever.

Full Circle

What do you think when I say “grown women around little girls in bathrooms?”

What comes into your mind when I say “grown men around little boys in bathrooms?”

What pops into your head when I say “grown women around little boys in bathrooms?”

Keep those thoughts fresh in your mind. Let it simmer. Stop reading for a few minutes if you have to. Now what pops into your head when I say the phrase “grown men around little girls in bathrooms?” If your brain went straight to pedophilia then you have a serious prejudice that you need to get rid of. This introduction is probably assumed, by you, to be an argument against some new SJW argument. How women are just so terrified about how some evil men use their bathrooms accidentally, and it scares them. How they are petitioning someone somewhere to do something about this scourge of indecency.

No, it’s conservatives doing something remarkably similar. There is an argument floating around in conservative mind-spaces about how male to female transgendered people using the women’s restroom is dangerous. The people who say these types of things are indistinguishable to me from modern feminists. First off, they equate being transgendered with being a pedophile. As if there is going to be more danger to little girls in their bathrooms if transgendered people are present. What bothers me about this kind of thing is, no matter which sex you actually call this person the argument still falls flat on its face.

Let’s say you think this male to female transgendered person is male. Well, what you’re saying in this case is that you think that these little girls will experience more danger if they are in their presence. Well, this brings up the obvious fact that grown men are around little boys in the men’s room all the goddamn time. It shows that they either care more about little girls, or they are just using that as political rhetoric.

Let’s say you believe that this female to male transgendered person is female. The argument still falls on its metaphorical face for slightly different reasons. This is just someone actually using the bathroom that corresponds with their gender. What I have seen a rhetorical lack of, in mainstream conservative idea clouds, is female to male trans people. I have seen exactly zero people express a concern for little boys being in the bathroom with grown women. Because clearly, it’s men who do the child rape, never the other way around.

These particular conservatives are supporting laws that would require transgendered people to use bathrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate in public areas. They are not the proponents of freedom in this case. They are the ones arguing that the government should step in and bar people from taking a shit in a particular toilet. Businesses are free to do whatever they like (which was facilitated by the overturning of certain anti-discrimination laws), but in North Carolina, on public sites people are barred from using bathrooms designated for the opposite sex, of course argued for under the guise of “safety.” (Full Law Text Here)

I have no idea what the penalty would be for doing so. I suppose I won’t eat any Mexican or Indian food before going to a public museum of any type. Emergencies do happen, folks and sometimes the only toilet you care about is the closest one.

Even using this pedophile argument is absurd to begin with. Do you think pedophiles look at a “women’s room” or “men’s room” sign and think “Darn it. If only I were allowed in this restroom. But this sign, it says it’s for women so getting into this room is impossible.” No, they’ll walk through the door anyway. If they are deciding to do publicly whatever awful thing they are going to do, do you think a sign is going to stop them? It’s similar to making the argument that a “no pedophiles” sign is going to stop them. They can always just make the excuse that they went in there accidentally. Conservatives could make an argument for an additional “children’s bathroom” if pedophilia truly is their main gripe here (I have a feeling it isn’t). Every thinking person knows signs don’t stop criminals. Not in “gun-free zones” or in “[insert sex here] bathrooms.”

In any case, conservatives are now feeding into the “men are inherently dangerous to little girls” narrative. If you are concerned about your child, go into the bathroom with them. I would rather it not become some sort of state-sanctioned offense for someone to accidentally enter the lady’s room when they aren’t paying attention. It’s stupid. It’s childish, and I honestly don’t get what the big deal is. Go into a bathroom, take your piss like an adult, and leave.

Don’t Be Afraid of the Offense

I’ve gotten into the habit of watching debates on the topic of social justice. I know, I’m a masochist, but what to you expect? My eventual inevitable descent into madness is your entertainment. Putting that off to the side, I discovered a very prominent tactic that is taking place. A tactic that needs to be done away with immediately. The tactic of a good defense. Generally, when one imagines combat one imagines a trading of blows coupled with maneuvers away from attacks and successful blocks and parries. As cringy as that sounds it is exactly what a debate is like. But I’ve noticed a trend that has been occurring across college campuses and I couldn’t simply stay quiet on the matter.

There is a specific video I would like to briefly address. There was a debate that occurred where white life was mentioned and whether or not we should “affirm” it. Which I can only assume means something along the lines of “recognize it as valuable.” This should be a question that has an obvious answer to anyone with a moral compass not skewed by any ideology’s interruptive magnetic field. The answer would be a resounding “yes.” Human life should be affirmed, and regarded as valuable, regardless of the race of the specific human being. This is a basic moral proposition that, personally, I believe any moral person would be hard pressed to disagree with. But those who certain people are debating need to figure this out as soon as they possibly can.

Now, I don’t know the names of anyone in this video, but generally, the question that befalls them is “Is white life worth affirming?” Now, the problem with those confronted with this question on a professional debate stage, is that they think remaining high-minded and grounded in logic will win them the argument. It won’t. Especially with the audience present. Instead of lifting up the metaphorical shield, they need to parry the strike and slash their opponent across the chest. When confronted with the question “Why should we affirm white life?” the response should be “kill yourself.”

While some might write this off as irrelevant reactionary trolling, there is actually a substantial point to be made from this type of response. Telling someone to kill themselves forces them to think about a world in which they have killed themselves. It shoves them into a mental state where they must think about the hardship it would cause their family, friends, and other various loved ones. Hopefully, it will trigger a state of empathy, or at least anger in response to the realization that what they said was an example of some of the most disgusting evil nonsense ever uttered. Ultimately, in the end they will get defensive towards the statement you threw at them unexpectedly. But, if they are on the defensive, that means you at least have the upper hand. As “zen” as it sounds, forcing someone to understand the basic Golden Rule in the midst of a debate, when they are violating it, resonates far more than simply trying to get out of the debate without being called an “-ist” of some type.

Short Rambling on the Alt Right

The Alt Right tends to make the fundamental mistake the Internet nearly always makes, which is the conflation between “triggering people” and “winning an argument.” Before I get started in my jumbled criticism of this movement I want to get a few things out of the way. I am opposed to mass immigration. I think that Western values/cultures are worth preserving. Finally, I think that multiculturalism is a bad idea. Those tend to be explained as the core beliefs of the Alt Right, and they are entirely agreeable. This curtain however, is swiftly yanked away whenever one speaks with someone who isn’t a prominent figure within the movement. Then it devolves into racial divisiveness, political propositions bordering on 19th century European racial fascism, and flat-out authoritarianism. Many people who oppose the authoritarianism of the radical left, are only opposed to it because it isn’t “their” authoritarianism. Hence, the underbelly of the Alt Right exposes itself.

There are reasons some positions are met with an immediate harsh reaction, because they are stupid ideas that have been tried and end in either slaughter or injustice. For example, if I were to expressly advocate genocide on the internet, was met with harsh logical rebukes, and simply screamed “Triggered” that doesn’t make my position any stronger. I simply don’t understand why this attitude is being taken in regards to this type of thing. The Alt Right tends to fancy itself as a movement that advocates “reals over feels” which is simply a repurposing of anti-SJW points, and are mainly used incorrectly. I’ve noticed a common trend of movements using these points where they don’t belong in order to end discussion with honest critics.

One can be angry with you (“triggered”), and factually correct. Just ask any of Donald Trump’s supporters. It’s strange that a movement basing itself on “reals over feels” would cite how angry and frightened they are so consistently. Members of the movement commonly express that they are necessary in order to fight the rise of the radical left. But what is over-looked is that the radical left arose from combating actual racism and bigotry. The Alt Right is in the process of building a movement functionally equivalent to the radical left, to fight the radical left. One can’t expect they will simply dissolve after reaching their goal, no movement does.

There is also a tendency towards the “Motte-Bailey” strategy within this movement as is customary with nearly every movement throughout history. If you notice someone from the Alt Right making claims which state, “It would be better for everyone if black people just went back to Africa,” and you criticize that particular point you will be swarmed with various irrelevant accusations. Some of these accusations include, but are not limited to:

“You’re a cuck”

“I guess we should just open our borders then”

“Sure, let Muslims just come in and rape your women”

“((( Your name here ))) so typical” [The parentheses are a reference to a Jewish person]

And last but not least: “Disgusting anti-white behavior”

This is entirely expected from any political movement where there is a strong need to hide behind the collective in order to defend your individual insanity. The same sorts of responses are seen from feminists who make insane claims about men:

“You’re a misogynist”

“I guess women just shouldn’t have rights”

“Typical man”

“Disgusting anti-woman behavior”

Why are we currently treating people that simply looking to seek an angry reaction as intellectual power houses? Why are we currently treating any view that is “edgy” and in the minority, by default, more correct? Why in the world are we treating anyone who can make someone angry online a salient dissident voice? Finally, why are we treating any enraged buffoon that opposes the radical left like a genius worthy of praise?

An Allegory

A book is on the ground in the middle of a lush green meadow. It is leather bound and although it has been sitting on the ground it seems relatively unscathed. It doesn’t have a title, but the artwork on the front is spectacular. It’s the most beautiful piece of art you’ve ever seen. You, our observer, see a few people walk up to this book and pick it up. They begin reading the book and they are all enthralled by the stories, promises, and lessons encased in it. The passages blow their minds and make them think about the Universe in its entirety, and they finally realize where they belong in the world. But one of them isn’t too impressed. They think the book is contrived, it’s idiotic, the plot doesn’t hold together well, it’s not believable, and some of the characters aren’t that great. Well, in the back of the book there is a provision that reads, “If anyone you come across in your travels doesn’t recognize the wonder that is this tome, you must whip them until they die, or else I will not keep my promises of riches and paradise to you.”

A whip mysteriously pops out of the book, and the person who likes the book the most begins whipping the dissenter. One person originally in the group runs away in fear and disgust. But the rest stay. They watch the whipping take place. Occasionally they will wince and ask the whipper politely not to whip the poor innocent man so hard. The whipper turns to them and says, “Don’t you want all of those wonderful things in the book?” They reluctantly agree, and watch this nightmare go on. With every lash the man suffering this travesty begins to look less like a human and more like a corpse. Blood flies off of the whip, and they’ve been standing there for so long that the grass beneath their feet begins dying. Every drop of blood that hits a blade of grass in the meadow acts like a poison. Although, with every twenty lashes the man receives, one of the believers standing behind the whipping gets hit by the backlash.

A stranger passes by and sees the horror that is taking place in this formerly green pasture and begins shouting at the person delivering the blows. This stranger begs this man to stop. This stranger calls the person doing the whipping an awful human being. The stranger then gets shouted at by the other book believers. They scream, “Why do you hate us?” “our book is peaceful” “you just don’t understand,” and “not all of us are doing this.” Then, they get hit by the backlash and scream “Do you see what you’ve done? This is what happens when you hate us like that. We get hurt.” The stranger desperately tries to explain that he doesn’t hate them, he just wants the whipping to stop. But as soon as those words leak from his lips the man being whipped draws his final breath. His back looks like it has been stripped of all of its skin, the grass has died around him, and the arc that the blood was flying in created a semi-circle of death.

The man with the whip then slowly turns to the stranger, with blood speckled on his face and asks, “Do you like our book?”

Trump’s Big Deal (Read: Con)

Donald Trump is a figure in politics that has been talked about nearly incessantly with myself being no exception. Anyone with the ability to rub two brain cells together realizes that Donald Trump hardly ever means what he actually says. He seems to become the most passionate when defending himself on a personal level, specifically his hands (allegedly so stubby it looks like he is missing a knuckle). It is tough to pin down what Donald Trump actually believes, considering he spent the first four decades of his life dishing out checks to Democratic politicians. One of these politicians being Hillary Clinton. There are sentiments floating around that he is “anti-establishment.” Well, from his own lips he uttered that he was part of establishment until he decided to run for President. He has switched his position many times throughout the election cycle. Including but not limited to, H1B visas, forcing the military to obey illegal orders, and disavowing David Duke et al (KKK). One of these positions he switched on stage prefacing it with “I’m changing” as he proceeded to weaken on illegal immigration. Not to mention his debacle with the New York Times where he said off the record, “Everything’s negotiable.” Except when he appears on television where he says certain things aren’t negotiable.

Why are people buying into this clear and present con-man? An innocent reason could easily be established. First off, perhaps they aren’t paying attention to the race as a whole and only see Trump when he presents one of his many faces, and they enjoy that face. Another reason is simple idol worship. For some reason, Trump has a certain portion of his following hanging on his every word as metaphorical gospel. No matter the switch Trump is always in the right. He was right to be tough on H1B visas, until it was stupid to be tough on H1B visas because Trump decided so, and therefore Trump was right again. Although, this switch could mainly be due to the fact that Trump has hired foreign workers in the past over American citizens for a quick buck. Thus is the issue with being ideologically wedded to candidates as opposed to having principles and choosing the candidate who most exemplifies those principles. One final reason, is that people are willing to side with whoever says they hate politicians the most, as they proceed to act just like who they claim to hate.

The media frequently report on Trump’s every word as well. They report when he takes an extreme position and then walks back the decision. This candidate is treating everything, even his electorate, as simply people he is negotiating with. He comes out with the most outlandish stance possible, then walks it back if the polls don’t show that position much favor. Just like in a business dealing, you start with a large number so you can implant that range in your partner’s head as reasonable. Trump is not a man of principle, he is a man of “make the best deal,” though instead of dollars riding on this deal it is votes. He is willing to do or say anything in order to make this “deal” possible. Now, detractors to this piece will say that this action is simply what all politicians do in order to get votes. Although with that statement they have admitted that Trump is just another politician. So the only thing you are trusting here is not fact, reason, or anything of that sort. You’re trusting Trump’s word. Pardon me, but Trump’s word is worth less than a German Mark in late-1923. Depending on the day, poll fluctuations, and his mood, Trump will cite whatever media report showed him giving the most convenient position for him at that moment in time. Just forget that he took the opposite view a mere week beforehand, for that’s completely irrelevant.