Ban Feminist?

November 17, 2014

So Time Magazine didn’t like the result of their own poll of ‘which word should we ban in 2015‘.

When they pulled the plug on their poll, the word ‘feminist’ had almost 50 % of the entire vote.  Indeed more that 10x as many people thought the word we should ban in 2015 should be ‘feminist’ as those who thought ‘bossy’

feminist poll


Naturally I don’t approve of banning words, however in this case I’m willing to make an exception just to see the incensed outrage of the feminists who think only THEY should have the right to ban words!

Plastic from the Air, Global Warming Solution or SCAM?- Transcript

August 16, 2014

MANY thanks to Linda for supplying the transcript for these videos!

[0:00] news clips: “Well it’s a simple idea with big potential, turning polluted air into actual products that most of us will use every day.”
“Absolutely! Here in a Southern California plastics factory you are NOT gonna imagine WHERE this comes from. Just wait until you see this story.”
“We connect to a Newlight through our technology innovation funnel at Dell . . . who’s doing, of all things, making plastic out of carbon in the air. It almost seemed like it was too good to be true.”

[0:26] Thunderf00t: WOW. So the solution to global warming is here:

[0:31] clip from “Plastic made from air may help solve carbon emissions crisis” (CBS): “This building in Costa Mesa, California, looks unremarkable. And what’s happening inside sounds unreal.”
“So that’s plastic? That was literally made out of thin air?”
“We would be breathing this right now.”

[0:46] Thunderf00t: A way of turning carbon in the air into plastic. And the GREAT thing is, it’s gonna be CHEAPER than regular plastic. And it’s been featured on USA Today, The Guardian, The Weather Channel, CBS, and of course, Fox News, and the computer company, Dell, is promoting this AMAZING new technology, hard—so it can’t be complete bullshit. Right? I mean surely, someone must have fact-checked this. Right?

[1:16] So, firstly they claim that they’re gonna be making this plastic out of exhaust gases:

[1:21] clip from The Weather Channel: “-supposed to be a big game-changer for climate change, and Dave, you were telling us earlier about how they take the carbon out of the atmosphere and turn into plastic. How exactly do they do that, and Stephen our producer said, ‘well, why don’t they just hook up kind of a vacuum to, you know—smokestacks—and just get it right like that?’

[1:38] Thunderf00t: Well, that’s great. So now we know what we’re talking about: carbon dioxide.

[1:43] clip from The Weather Channel: “Yeah, that would be the way to do that. And they ARE doing that. In the future they hope to get it from a concentrated source. Right now they’re taking it from the air and they’re taking it from concentrated sources. But everything you see here—the cups, the bag, the plates—even, in fact, the chair that I’m sitting on right now, it’s all made from this plastic that comes from the air, and it’s one man’s dream.”

[2:07] Thunderf00t: And here’s their CEO saying that, just like trees take carbon dioxide out of the air:

[2:13] clips from Weather Channel, Dell: “pull Southern California’s polluted air from the roof and make something with all that carbon coming from cars, power plants, and farms.”
“Plants do this every single day. The way a tree grows is by pulling carbon out of the air.”
“Every single thing that you see that’s green—that’s ALL produced by pulling carbon out of the air. So we do precisely the same thing. It’s all around us. We just found a way to pull it out of an airstream and then turn it into a plastic molecule, and that plastic molecule we can then turn into shapes and things like that.”
“The environmental impact has the potential impact to be massive.”

[2:47] Thunderf00t: Yeah, that’s mostly right. Trees take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere AND water and a load of energy from the sun, and turn that into sugar—which is then polymerized to make things like cellulose, which is essentially wood.

[3:03] Now, plants GET that energy from the SUN. They are solar powered. Where’s he gonna get his energy from? Solar Roadways [LOL] , thorium-powered cars? Because the one place he can’t get it from is burning fossil fuels, ‘cos that would dump about as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as he’s going to be sequestering.

[3:24] As of rough chemical compositions, most plastics are basically petroleum-based polymers. And their chemical composition is basically that of oil; which is approximately this:

[3:37] Sugars and their polymers, which is cellulose, make up things like wood. And can, at a simple chemical composition-level be looked at as partially combusted hydrocarbon. That is, IF you could simply transform these petroleum-based polymers into wood, it would release a load of energy. And then of course you can simply finish off that oxidation in a very simple manner just by burning wood, which everyone knows releases a load of heat. I mean, it’s basically turning wood, into carbon dioxide, water, and a load of energy; effectively reversing what photosynthesis did in the first place.

[4:16] But energy is conserved here. There are no free lunches. If you wanna turn that carbon dioxide back into wood, you gotta put a load of energy in from somewhere and it will cost you AT LEAST as much energy as you got out from burning it in the first place.

[4:34] And the same thing is true if you’re trying to turn carbon dioxide into hydrocarbon-based plastics. WHERE is this energy going to come from?

[4:46] Secondly of course, this would just be a drop in the ocean. I mean from my last video you’ll recall that humans breathe out about 1 kilogram of carbon dioxide per day. That’s just your carbon footprint for being alive. And then you have all these people from CBS just gasping with awe at how someone has maybe sequestered 50 or so grams of carbon in a cellphone cover:

[5:13] clip from CBS “Plastic made from air may help solve carbon emissions crisis”: “So I know this sounds more like magic than science, so I wanted to make sure you guys could actually touch and feel this . . .”

[5:35] I mean, seriously, that’s only about 1/20th of their personal daily metabolic carbon footprint and they’re impressed by it!

[5:43] news clips: “Newlight is selling its plastic to companies such as furniture maker KI, which uses it to create chairs. There are also air carbon cellphone cases, soap dishes, and even plastic bags.”
“a big game-changer for climate change, and Dave, you were telling us earlier about how they take the carbon out of the atmosphere and turn into plastic.”
“At a recent Fortune Magazine event, Michael Dell announced he will use Newlight’s air carbon bags to wrap his Dell computers.”

[6:17] Thunderf00t: And just a personal metabolic carbon footprint is peanuts compared to the total carbon footprint. I mean, like I was saying, this is a drop in the ocean AT BEST. I mean let’s keep this in perspective:

[6:32] clip from Weather Channel: “2011, the U.S. alone generated almost 14 MILLION TONS of plastic. Only about 8 percent was EVER recycled.”

[6:39] Thunderf00t: 14 million tons might sound like a lot. Until you realize that the U.S. carbon footprint is about 5,000 MILLION TONS, which was achieved by burning about 2,000 million tons of oil. Yeah, ALL of the plastics that you consume are give-or-take only take about 1 percent of your ENTIRE carbon footprint. If we were talking about carbon dioxide, he’s simply talking crap.

[7:12] Buuut it turns out that all that speak about basically doing what trees do—not entirely honest. Turns out that this process is actually gonna run on methane. That’s right—it’s basically turning hydrocarbon into plastic—which sounds exactly like what the oil industry is currently doing.

[7:32] So, what’s the difference? Well, they claim that they’re gonna get the methane OUT of the air:

[7:38] clip from Dell: “We connect to a Newlight through our technology innovation funnel at Dell . . . who’s doing, of all things, making plastic out of carbon in the air. It almost seemed like it was too good to be true.”

[7:48] Thunderf00t: And I simply call BULLSHIT on that. Well you’ve gotta understand that there really isn’t much methane in air—and for good reason—it gets oxidized away in our atmosphere really quite quickly with a half-life of about 10 years.

[8:01] Now, while it’s true methane IS a very big greenhouse gas, it’s also true that its concentration in air is very low—only about 1 part per million. There is just bugger-all methane in the air.

[8:16] So, I mean, just some ballpark numbers, the cubic meter of air is what this girl is essentially sitting in, weighs about 1 kilogram. So if you wanted to make about 1 kilogram of plastic, you would need to harvest the methane of 1 MILLION cubic meters of air with 100 percent efficiency. I mean, look, this is the tube they claim they’re sucking all our air through to make this plastic:

[8:41] clip from Weather Channel: “pull Southern California’s polluted air from the roof and make something with all that carbon.”
“This plastic comes from the air.”
“And this is it right here, more than 50 percent of THIS plastic right here came from the air on top of this building.”

[9:01] Thunderf00t: So let’s do a real simple back-of-the-envelope calculation. For a TRIVIAL task of say, producing 1 kilogram of plastic per hour—that means they’ve gotta suck 1 MILLION cubic meters of air through that tube. That tube, if you’re generous, is about 0.1 meters by 0.1 meters. So if they’re gonna achieve the paltry task of making 1 kilogram of plastic per hour, iiit turns out they’d have to be sucking air through that tube at about 100 TIMES the speed of sound. And that’s just the flow problem. Unless they’ve got some magic method for extracting the methane out of the air, it’s simply pointless.

[9:41] Now, 100 times the speed of sound—about a 100 times the speed of a bullet—might not sound impossible to some people. So let me put this into more human dimensions. So, we basically need about 1 million cubic meters of air to create a single kilogram of plastic. Well, by happy coincidence, the volume of the Empire State Building is also about 1 million cubic meters. So the bare minimum you would have to do is pump a volume of air the size of the Empire State Building—ignoring all the stuff about extracting the methane and turning it into plastic.

[10:20] But just for the moment, let’s just take a look at the costs of pumping that sort of volume of air. It’s actually going to take a sort of industrial pump that can pump about 2 cubic meters per second, and it runs on about 2 kilowatts. So this pump would take about one week to pump that million cubic meters of air. And just the grid electricity to pump that volume of air would generate about 200 kilograms of carbon dioxide—the equivalent of burning about a 100 kilograms of oil to generate 1 KILOGRAM of plastic.

[10:58] And just to put that into some perspective, the petrochemical industry basically works by taking about 1 kilogram of oil and turning it into about 1 kilogram of plastic.

[11:08] clip from “Dell AirCarbon Plastic – Made from Air, Not Oil”: “Gone from doing less harm, to do no harm, to ‘let’s make it better than we left it’.”
“Newlight’s technology is such a great partner for that, but they’re making it better.”

[11:22] Thunderf00t: This really is the problem that you face, that you have essentially 1,000 tons of air, and you’re trying to extract from that 1 kilogram of methane, which can maybe be converted into about a kilogram of plastic.

[11:36] Look, this is the thing—you can get methane from the petrochemical industry fairly cheaply. But these ‘air carbon’ people claim that their process is cheaper than the petrochemical industry:

[11:47] clip from The Weather Channel: “although Mark truly believes he has found a way to make air plastic cost less than oil plastic.”

[11:55] Thunderf00t: In which case, the obvious question, if your air methane is cheaper than petrochemical industry methane, why not just sell it as ‘fuel’? You know, just for burning. It would be incredibly bio-friendly, as methane’s about 30 times as bad a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.

[12:15] I mean there’s just something about this that REALLY stinks. That is, I simply don’t believe that there would EVER be a cost-effective way of extracting methane from the atmosphere like this.

[12:27] Now if you were doing this with BIO sources of methane—weeell, now that’s a little different. But that’s MUCH more what the petrochemical industry is essentially doing at the moment. And calling it “air carbon”, you know, pulled out of the air:

[12:40] clip from The Weather Channel: “Right. So this is actually air carbon.”
“Air carbon is the product name they use for this white powder.”
“How does this become plastic though?”
“Heat it up, and air carbon becomes a plastic called, PHA.”
CBS clip: “So that’s plastic that was literally made out of thin air?”
“We would be breathing this right now.”

[12:58] Thunderf00t: -seems to be ENTIRELY misleading.

[13:01] So, in summary, if they’re talking about making plastic from the carbon dioxide in the air, then they’re simply talking crap, as it could NEVER be cost-effective unless you can find a cheaper source of energy than fossil fuels. If he’s talking about methane in the air, then he’s MORE full of crap than the Empire State Building is full of air. And if he’s talking about bio methane created on a farm IN A BIOLOGICAL REACTOR—you know, to generate the methane in the first place—he’s talking about bio methane generated on a farm and he’s not talking about pulling it out of the air. And all those claims about ‘carbon out of the air’—not really true.

[13:47] clip from Dell: “Almost all plastics today come from fossil fuels. So, the difference with air carbon is, air carbon is made from air and carbon that we would otherwise be breathing right now.”

[13:56] Thunderf00t: Look, there’s ONE polymer that is the UNDISPUTED claim to call itself ‘air carbon’. It’s the most abundant biomolecule on Earth: cellulose, created by plants and the key structural component of trees—you know, wood. You wanna use ‘air carbon’ to wrap your computers, use paper. THEN at least the carbon GENUINELY came from the atmosphere and not some fraudulent claims about being able to make plastic cost-effective out of thin air. But I still just wail with despair at just how much scientific illiteracy there is throughout the mainstream media.

[14:38] clip from CBS: “So I know this sounds more like magic than science, so I wanted to make sure you guys could actually touch and feel this.”

[14:45] Thunderf00t: And just how a large company like Dell can promote this pseudo-science without even a cursory look as to if those claims are even remotely possible.

[14:57] clip from Dell: “We connect to a Newlight through our technology innovation funnel at Dell . . . who’s doing, of all things, making plastic out of carbon in the air. It almost seemed like it was too good to be true.”

Lose 1kg/2lbs per Day! Diet Tips!- Transcript

August 16, 2014

Many thanks to Linda for supplying this transcript!

[0:08] Thunderf00t: So what if I were to tell you that there’s quite literally a way where you can lose 1 kilo—that’s like 2 pounds—per day? With no fuss, no tricks, no dieting—just literally breathing the weight away.

[0:24] ‘Crazy!’, I hear you ask, ‘you’ve got to be selling me something!’ I hear you say. Actually, no; not even close. This is using knowledge gained through the Apollo space program.

[0:36] You see, if you can put three men in an oversized Coke can and fly them off into space for a week or so, the one thing that you REALLY need to remember is to pack enough supplies before you leave. And the supply that you’ll miss the most the first, is air.

[0:52] clip from Garbage, The Trick is to Keep Breathing

[1:02] Thunderf00t: -specifically, the oxygen in the air. So NASA really needed to know how much oxygen they should put in their space capsule. Now it turns out you need about a kilo—that’s about 2 pounds—of oxygen per day to survive.

[1:17] Or looked at another way, you breathe out about a kilo—about 2 pounds—of carbon dioxide per day. Now just think about that for a second. If you breathe out about a kilo per day that means that you’re breathing about 365 kilos per year. That’s a THIRD of a TON of carbon dioxide is how much [Equation] your breathing out PER YEAR. That’s FIVE times my own body weight. And just so you know, this chemical reaction is doing what your body is doing EVERY single day. It’s essentially burning sugar and it’s releasing about how much energy your body releases per day. And that’s about how much carbon dioxide your body is producing PER DAY.

[1:59] Which does bring about this really quite odd question that if I excrete five times my own body mass of carbon dioxide per year, is there really anything left of me that was there at beginning of the year? I mean, just ignore for a second the water that you take in and put out. The majority of the mass that you actually excrete comes out as carbon dioxide. That is, if you’re going to lose weight, it’s gonna come out of the same hole that it went in through.

[2:25] clip from Garbage, The Trick is to Keep Breathing

[2:29] Thunderf00t: This has a very global impact. I mean YOU—just you—your metabolism alone is producing about a THIRD of a ton of carbon dioxide per year. That’s HALF the mass of a small car, and there are 7 billion other people doing almost exactly the same thing. How that carbon footprint compares to your total carbon footprint, and how the energy dumped into the atmosphere from your burning metabolism compares to the total amount of global heating that you’re gonna get from that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, are points that we’re going to address in an upcoming video series called “The Universe in Perspective”.

Anita Sarkeesian, Glenn Beck, Jack Thompson DREAM TEAM! -Transcript

August 16, 2014

Many thanks to Linda for supplying this transcript!

[0:00] Thunderf00t: You know, Anita Sarkeesian has recently found herself in some goood company. According to her, just like Jack Thompson and Glenn Beck, games are actually a direct and significant influence on people’s behavior.

[0:14] So Glenn Beck was convinced that just merely pushing the buttons on the gaming control in the game Watch Dogs was actually teaching people how to hack mobile phones and computers!

[0:24] clip from “Glenn Beck: Violent Video Games”: “Watch Dogs allow the players to hack into cell phones, ATMs, drawbridges, even helicopters, to wholly envelop the lives of others . . . the idea here is they’re teaching you to hack, and then become the ultimate voyeur in other people’s lives—including their bedrooms—by hacking into their phones, and everything—everything that we talked about.”

[0:51] Thunderf00t: And Jack Thompson was declared by Machinima to be the number one enemy of gaming for his long history of claiming that video games actually teach people how to become school shooters.

[1:03] clips from “Jack Thompson on Nightline”, “Top 10 Enemies of Gaming”, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”,: “Though the 130 million dollar suit was dismissed, Thompson is still convinced that these images inspired three murders.”
[1:10] “NUUMBER OOONE! Jack Thompson! Disbarred attorney Jack Thompson has long been an advocate against obscenity in pop culture . . . But this Jack Thompson fella, he sees obscenity as something different than you or I. Basically ANYTHING that offends his own delicate personal sensibilities. Over the years he’s sued or threated 2 Live Crew, N.W.A, MTV, Madonna, and recently he’s turned his attentions towards the video games.”
[1:36] “To him, this is not entertainment. It is a murder simulator.
[1:41] “Once a person is reduced to the status of objecthood, violence against that object becomes intrinsically permitted.”
[1:47] “You’re kicking, punching”
[1:49] “Violability occurs when, as Nussbaum points out, the objectifier treats the object as lacking in boundary-integrity, as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into.”
[2:01] “Ultimately shooting, cutting the heads off of people with machetes of people you don’t even know and don’t have a motive to be violent against.”
[2:07] “Since these women are just objects, there’s no need or reason for players to have any emotional engagement with them. Meaningful relationships or interactions are not even possible.”

[2:16] Thunderf00t: Indeed, not only did Machinima declare him the “number one enemy of gaming,” they claim that he was the ultimate end-game villain:

[2:24] clip from “Top 10 Enemies of Gaming”: “He is the ultimate level-boss to the gaming industry. Using videogames as scapegoat for tragic school-shootings, he said: “In every school shooting, we find that kids who pull the trigger are video gamers.
“He even suggested that the PS2 controller’s vibrations help condition gamers’ minds to enjoy killing.”

[2:42] Thunderf00t: Now Anita Sarkeesian must have watched all of this with a deep sense of envy, because she has declared herself to be the ultimate villainess—ah, sorry—correction, she claims that gamers have declared her to be the ultimate villainess.

[2:59] clip from TEDx Talks, “Anita Sarkeesian at TEDxWomen 2012”: “So, in their minds, they concocted this grand fiction in which they’re the heroic players of a massively multiplayer online game, working together to take down an enemy; and apparently, they casted me in the role of the villain.”

[3:12] Thunderf00t: Oh, I know, vanity and aspirational victimhood in one package. Yeah, damn straight, Anita Sarkeesian is pretty much exactly what you would expect from an unholy hybrid of Jack Thompson and that crazy woman from Amy’s Baking Company:

[3:29] clip from “Kitchen Nightmares Amy Bouzaglo Season 6 Episode 16 Part 1”: “I have issues with customers that are trying to be online bullies and say horrible things.”
“Online bullies?”
“I told them, I thought he was a loser, he was a moron.”

[3:38] Thunderf00t: So Jack Thompson claims that video games CAUSE SHOOTINGS. Glenn Beck claims that videogames CAUSE HACKING. And Anita Sarkeesian claims that videogames CAUSE SEXISM. Hey fellas, got a great question for ya: did the game Batman make you wanna dress up like a bat and fight crime as a vigilante?

[4:01] clip from “Jack Thompson on Nightline” “Centuries ago, it was the pamphleteers who were scolded for dragging down society. In the 50’s it was comic books, in the 60’s it was The Beatles.”

[4:10] Thunderf00t: However, meanwhile in reality with the sheer number of computer games played, the one thing that we CAN say with surety is that if there IS any link between behavior and playing computer games, it’s BLOODY weak.

[4:28] clip from “Jack Thompson on Nightline”: “Game industry lobbyists are quick to point out a total of 9 Federal Courts have rejected so-called “studies” that video games cause aggression.”

[4:35] Thunderf00t: But just so we’re clear how dishonest Anita was willing to be to come to this conclusion: she claimed that in the game Hitman: [Absolution] men were meant to get their rocks off to beating up the dancers and then controlling their dead bodies:

[4:49] clip from “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. It’s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality.”

[5:05] Thunderf00t: The problem was that no one who played the game DOES that. Trust me, I watched at least 40 playthroughs and none of them attacked the dancers, ‘cos in Hitman, you’re not meant to kill innocent people. Indeed, you get penalized for it. So how can Anita then claim that this game is making people sexist?

[5:26] Well, obviously she’s gotta go beat the living crap out of these virtual women herself, then drag their bodies around in a big circle—and you know it’s her doing it, because the body starts right by the body locker that she’s eventually going to put it into, and then she drags it around in a BIIIG circle over the other body to make it seem as nasty as possible. That is, in reality the only people who play Hitman as a fantasy to kill women and desecrate their bodies, are feminists like Anita Sarkeesian. Indeed, it’s kind of ironic that if you actually listen to what she says:

[6:01] clip from “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “-derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. It’s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal, connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality.”

[6:16] Thunderf00t: Anita’s footage of this part of Hitman is quite literally the only footage that I’ve seen anything even remotely like this. And quite how Anita’s strange fetish for violence against women in computer games proves that games cause sexism—I’m not quite sure. But yeah, with arguments as rigorous as that, it’s quite CLEAR why she’s got the same winning ratio as Jack Thompson. I mean, Anita’s arguments here are about as convincing as suggesting that team games encourage team killing. And just to prove it, here is some POWERFUL footage of Anita going on a team killer killing spree.

[6:55] clip

[7:08] Or it’s like her going griefing in Minecraft—that’s the practice where assholes go and destroy worlds which took people DAYS to make—simply so she can claim that the game is there to encourage and reward people for going griefing in Minecraft.

[7:24] clip from “Jack Thompson on Nightline”: “And it makes him an object of scorn in the gaming world. Kids who wear ‘I hate Jack Thompson’ t-shirts can trade blows with his likeness in the game Mortal Combat.”

[7:37] Thunderf00t: Interestingly though, while Jack Thompson was being inserted into videogames as a character who could be killed in numerous, violent ways, like having his body fed through grated, grinding, bloody wheels of one sort or another—that really didn’t offend Anita’s sensibilities. Apparently men being fed into thrashing machines doesn’t count as sexism, or harassment, or online bullying. However, when someone made a much simpler version of that game with Anita:

[8:07] clip from “16×9 – Dangerous Game: Tropes vs Women bullying”: “The games are not meant as a threat. They’re not meant to intimidate. He goes on to say he was criticizing your project as a person in the media.”
“To make a game to beat me up and then hide behind this idea of ‘we’re just trying to have a conversation’—I mean, I don’t think anyone would buy that. Or anyone would think that that was an acceptable form of communication.”

[8:28] Thunderf00t: Oh no! This must be a unique hatred of women in gaming! Because remember, if there’s one thing that Anita has taught us, it’s that it’s ONLY sexist when it happens to WOMEN. Well, I’m done. Can I have another $160,000 now?

[8:45] “This videogame character is dressed too sexily. I don’t like it! Change it!”
“I’m dressed too sexily and you don’t like it? STOP OPPRESSING ME!”

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 11). – Transcript

August 16, 2014

Many thanks to Linda for supplying this transcript!

[0:03] clip from VenomFangX: “Jesus spoke about a second death. There are two types of death: mortal death, which is when our soul is separated from our body; and spiritual death, which is when our soul is separated from God. Adam and Eve had their souls separated from God the day they ate from the forbidden fruit. That’s why God kicked them out of the Garden. Now, that is also why we are born spiritually dead in our sins. You are dead in your sins, and that’s why Jesus said you have to be born again right now by repenting of sin and putting your faith in Jesus Christ. You will then be born again of the spirit of God and be able to remain with God forever. If you don’t do that now, during this life, you will remain separated from God forever.

[0:41] clip from The Terminator

[0:52] clip from VenomFangX: “I’m gonna make a challenge for ya. Do you wanna debate with me? Live? We’ll record it, post it on YouTube, make it a big event. We could even have one of those Mortal Combat screens, you know, me on one side you on the other. It’ll be crazy right? Let’s do it. It’ll be fun.”

[1:05] Thunderf00t: Well, it’ll be fun for me. But then again that’s because I’m not so stupid as to say that the Grand Canyon was formed at about five times the speed of sound.

[1:14] clip from VenomFangX: “If the planet flooded like the Bible says, the Grand Canyon could have been formed in about five minutes. The Grand Canyon could have been formed in about five minutes.”

[1:28] Thunderf00t: However the reason I have little interest in humoring you with a debate is exemplified by these videos. Put simply, someone who has repeatedly demonstrated such a crass lack of scientific understanding as yourself, is not in need of a debate, but an education.

[1:45] However you shouldn’t feel bad about this attribute as it’s so much pervasively true of all young earth creationists. Let’s see what gems you have for us this time:

[1:56] clip from VenomFangX: “The Bible says Noah only had to bring things that breathe with their nostrils. Fish don’t breathe with their nostrils, and I bet you even know that.”

[2:03] Thunderf00t: Aaaah, Noah’s Ark. It’s almost shameless that anyone could try and defend this. But let’s look at the facile point that Noah took nothing onto the ark that didn’t have nostrils. Well, sure that would’ve meant that Noah wouldn’t have to take any bugs on the ark. But then again it would’ve also meant the extinction of almost all insects and plant life on earth, and of course the humble earthworm and thereby ensuring that Noah and everything else on the ark would’ve starved to death on a dead planet.

[2:33] But then again, what about the whales? They breathe through their nostrils. Shown are the nostrils of the largest creature ever to live on the earth, the blue whale. I really would’ve loved to see how Noah got all the animals that

[2:45] clip from VenomFangX: “breathe with their nostrils”

[2:46] Thunderf00t: on the ark.

[2:47] clip from VenomFangX: “The Bible says Noah only had to bring things that breathe with their nostrils. Fish don’t breathe with their nostrils, and I bet you even know that. So insects breathe, not through their nostrils but through their skin, so no insects either. Now, the seas get saltier at an increasing rate every year. And if you take the rate in which they’re getting saltier in reverse time, about 4,400 years ago the seas would be totally freshwater.”

[3:08] Thunderf00t: Aaah, so the water was totally fresh 4,000 years ago, eh? Well, where did these come from? These are chalk cliffs. They’re known to be composed of microscopic shells of a form of creature similar to the modern phytoplankton called coccolithophores. These phytoplankton require two materials to make their calcium carbonate shells: firstly, calcium, which is dissolved in the sea water. Secondly, carbonate, which is usually obtained from carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

[3:41] The geological period of time in which these deposits were laid down is named after these chalk deposits; the Latin name for chalk being ‘creta’. In the Cretaceous period these areas were covered with oceans and the chalk deposits were laid down between 150 and 70 million years ago.

[3:59] Now comes the amusing bit. The raw materials required for coccolithophores to make chalk, or calcium carbonate, are a salt solution of the iron calcium and carbon dioxide. Now if the oceans were purely fresh water, as the creationist states, then where did these calcium carbonate deposits of coccolithophores come from?

[4:20] clip from The Matrix

[4:23] clip from VenomFangX: “Jesus spoke about a second death. There are two types of death: mortal death, which is when our soul is separated from our body.”

[4:31] Thunderf00t: I can only assume that by ‘death’ he means ‘brain death’. We’ve known for decades now that the only thing that causes irreversible death is the death of the brain. Once the neurochemistry goes south, it doesn’t come back.

[4:45] However, this is the thing: animals have brains that function on a very similar fashion to our own. Yet I somehow doubt that the creationist would argue that it’s impossible for animals to die, because they have no souls to separate from their bodies. Next of course comes the obvious question: we know our brains make our decisions, so what’s the purpose of the soul that the creationist speaks of? Why do those who claim that they have been ‘born again’ with souls have behavioral characteristics that are indistinguishable—or worse—than those who haven’t been born again with a soul? For instance, divorce rates and the such like.

[5:20] clip from VenomFangX: “-and spiritual death, which is when our soul is separated from God.”

[5:24] Thunderf00t: Okay, so the creationist is now saying we have a soul, and that there is a god. And that having your soul separated from god counts as death. Umm, okay. Well, I’m still struggling to see how if god is omnipresent and omnipotent, how you can ever be separated from him.

[5:40] clip from VenomFangX: “Adam and Eve had their souls separated from God the day they ate from the forbidden fruit. That’s why God kicked them out of the Garden.”

[5:47] Thunderf00t: Okay, so Adam was born with his soul alive, and killed it by eating forbidden fruit. So what did we learn? Well, in creationism it’s possible to kill your soul by eating.

[6:00] clip from VenomFangX: “Now, that is also why we are born spiritually dead in our sins.”

[6:04] Thunderf00t: Okay, so in creationism it’s not only possible to kill your own soul by eating, but it can also cause ALL the children you have to be born with dead souls.

[6:15] clip from VenomFangX: “You are dead in your sins, and that’s why Jesus said you have to be born again right now by repenting of sin and putting your faith in Jesus Christ.”

[6:23] Thunderf00t: Okay, so when you’re born, your soul is automatically tied to your body, but it’s dead. Then when you choose for your soul to come alive, uuh, how? What makes the choice? The dead soul, bad chemistry of life? Well let’s leave that for a minute and see where this goes.

[6:40] clip from VenomFangX: “You will then be born again of the spirit of God and be able to remain with God forever.”

[6:45] Thunderf00t: So your soul is born into a piece of bad chemical machinery, thanks to your ancestors not being picky enough about their diet. And now, if you manage to get your soul to come alive by some undescribed process, then you get to become a part of god.

[7:00] clip from VenomFangX: “If you don’t do that now, during this life, you will remain separated from God forever.”

[7:05] Thunderf00t: And if you don’t obey the creationist’s fantasy, then his fantasy will punish you for your disobedience. But of course the funny thing is the creationist’s fantasy would automatically kill the souls of all the babies who haven’t chose to have their souls born yet. That’s a pretty unpleasant fantasy.

[7:22] But now let’s compare what we know, and can PROVE with the physical evidence, to the creationist’s fantasy.

[7:30] clip from VenomFangX: “If you don’t do that now, during this life, you will remain separated from God forever.”

[7:35] clip from The Terminator

[7:49] clip from VenomFangX: “The Bible says Noah only had to bring things that breathe with their nostrils . . . 4,400 years ago the seas would be totally freshwater.”

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 10)- Transcript

August 16, 2014

Many thanks to Linda for supplying this transcript!

[0:03] clip from “LEE STROBEL The Case for a Creator Full documentary”: “If the universe looks like it’s fine-tuned for complex life, maybe there’s a fine-tuner. Maybe it was fine-tuned for life.”
“If we didn’t have the electromagnetic force you would have no bonding between chemicals. You would have no light and the list goes on. So you need all these sorts of fundamental principles have to be in place in order for life to occur. Wipe out one of those principles, wipe out one of those laws—no life.”

[0:28] Thunderf00t: Okay, so he’s saying that there’s only one unique way for life to exist. This of course is purely speculative creationist tosh. To demonstrate this point I’m going to go to the microscopic level of molecular dynamics. Shown is a molecular dynamic simulation of the bee sting protein called melatin. These simulations that are routinely used are very useful for the interpretation of experimental results and the predictions of microscopic behaviors of such systems. It’s a well-established and mature field of chemistry. There’s just one thing: there is no gravity whatsoever in these calculations. Nor is there any gravity whatsoever in the more detailed quantum mechanical calculations.

[1:12] Gravity is about 1000 billion billion billion billion times weaker than the electromagnetic force. It’s an irrelevant factor in the molecular forces which determine molecular dynamics. Which is why you can leave it out of the equation altogether.

[1:28] It’s also notable that life is remarkably robust to the absence of gravitational fields, functioning almost as well on the earth as it does in microgravity. Put simply, there is no reason whatsoever why you couldn’t get life functioning perfectly happily in a universe with no gravity.

[1:48] There are just four forces that we are aware of. That’s gravity, the strong, the weak, and the electromagnetic force. Now I’ve just shown that gravity is not necessary for the functioning of life. Further, a recent paper has suggested that a universe without the weak force would look largely indistinguishable from our current universe (Harnik, Kribs, Perez, A Universe Without Weak Interactions).

[2:09] So half of the forces that we know about are not essential for the functioning of life. So much for the creationist statement that everything needs to be perfect for life to function.

[2:22] But now let’s move on to the simple deceit of creationists:

[2:26] clip from “LEE STROBEL The Case for a Creator Full documentary”: “One example of this fine-tuning is the force of gravity.”
“Imagine a ruler divided up into one inch increments, and then stretched across the entire universe, a distance of some 14 billion light years. For the purposes of illustration, the ruler represents the possible range for gravity.”

[2:51] Thunderf00t: Yep, you always need dramatic music if you’re gonna play god and choose a new gravitational force constant to the universe. However if you want to play god, as the creationist seems intent on doing, then the limits for the gravitational constant is zero and infinity.

[3:06] However you cannot put an infinite number of finite-sized inch strips together on a finite distance—it’s impossible by definition. Like say, for instance a square with five sides. What the guy’s describing is simply mathematically impossible.

[3:23] clip from “LEE STROBEL The Case for a Creator Full documentary”: “In other words, the setting for the strength of gravity could’ve been anywhere along the ruler, but it just happens to be situated in exactly the right place so that life is possible. Now if you were to change the force of gravity by moving the setting just one inch compared to the entire width of the universe, the effect on life would be catastrophic.”

[3:45] Thunderf00t: Weell, in fairness, the animation was neat and the music was fine. However it’s still pointlessly speculative mathematical nonsense. The creationist demonstrating that he doesn’t understand mathematics is Lee Strobel, author of such books as The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and The Case for a Creator. The title of these books and his gesturing are unsurprising given that Strobel’s highest degree was not in physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics—or any other scientific discipline for that matter—but law.

[4:16] Yep, that’s right. The creationist fielding the case for creation is a lawyer. Now at this point an inquiring mind will be asking ‘what is a lawyer doing making predictions about diddling with the fundamental force constant to the universe when he has no real scientific understanding of the one he currently lives in?’ In this sense, Strobel’s mathematically impossible speculation on the gravitational constant has about as much academic credibility as a burger-flipper lecturing a brain surgeon on cerebral aneurysms.

[4:47] The principle difference between lawyers and scientists is that scientists gain their reputation on track record based on what they can establish from the physical evidence and logical deduction. However for lawyers, truth is an irrelevance as the criterion that determines a successful lawyer is their ability to present a successful case, not their ability to establish truth; although obviously it helps for those who harbor a conscience if the two coincide once in a while.

[5:17] clip from A Few Good Men

[5:26] Thunderf00t: But let’s take another look at this case for a fine-tuned universe. There’s about 75 cubic kilometers of life on earth, while the volume of the earth is approximately one trillion cubic kilometers. That means that by volume the earth is approximately one billionth of a percent life.

[5:48] For me, this device is an example of fine-tuning. For this object, each of the thousand billion billion billion billion atoms are arranged—sorry, fine-tuned—for the purpose of human transport. Now if you found a rock of comparable size and found a fleck of iron in it the size of a pinhead that’s approximately the equivalent volume fraction of life on earth, would you conclude that the rock was fine-tuned for the purpose of being a car? So why would you conclude that the earth is fine-tuned for the purpose of life?

[6:23] However, it’s better than that, as the creationists in this video go on to argue that we are the only life in the Milky Way. Fantastic. The volume between us and the nearest galaxy is about five times [Equation]cubic kilometers. That means that the creationists are happy to argue that something where you find one part in [Equation] that works, means that that object is fine-tuned for that purpose.

[6:51] Now for the creationist to call this a fine-tuned universe for the purpose of life is like taking a billion earths and finding a single iron atom on one of those earths and then concluding that these billion earths are fine-tuned for a purpose.

[7:08] In summary, it is deeply unconvincing to try and argue that a universe which has essentially no life in it is fine-tuned for the purpose of life.

[7:24] clip from “LEE STROBEL The Case for a Creator Full documentary”: “Wipe out one of those laws—no life.”
“Maybe there’s a fine-tuner. Maybe it was fine-tuned for life.”

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 9)

August 16, 2014

Many thanks to Linda for supplying this transcript!

[0:03] clip from “RRS vs. Kirk Cameron / Ray Comfort Nightline FULL”: “Listen to what two of the greatest scientific minds in history said about the design in creation: Sir Isaac Newton: “the most beautiful system of the sun, the planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Albert Einstein—he said, “in view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no god.”

[0:33] Thunderf00t: Aaaah, quote mining; another favorite ploy of the creationist, using partial or misleading quotes from real scientists in the hope that some of their academic credibility will rub off on them. It’s trivial to do. For instance, these are the words of the devoted creationist Kirk Cameron and his partner Ray Comfort:

[0:52] clips from “RRS vs. Kirk Cameron / Ray Comfort Nightline FULL”: “You guys who believe in god are idiots. You’re small-minded people who are unintelligent. You don’t think.”
“There’s no god.”
“I’d rather go to hell than to believe in a megalomaniac like god.”

[1:08] Thunderf00t: This is the worst kind of deceit; worse in many ways than actually lying in that it is specifically designed to intentionally mislead people by either misquoting people or misrepresenting academic discourse (which is essential to the progression of science) as a weakness of a theory.

[1:25] It is also very noticeable these creationists plead with you to accept their views. In academic circles this would be instantly interpreted as a man with no case to present, which is why he resorts to such snake oil-salesman-style techniques.

[1:40] In academic lectures on research science, it’s taken that any argument presented stands on its merits. The lecturer is expected to present his case clearly, but any attempt to suggest that his arguments should be accepted based on the pleading or scoffing of the lecturer would be instantly greeted with academic skepticism.

[2:00] This sort of thing might fly in the pulpit and in political forums, but it has no place in the academic arena.

[2:11] clip from “RRS vs. Kirk Cameron / Ray Comfort Nightline FULL”: “You know if a Coca-Cola can was MADE, there must be a maker. When I look at a painting, how can I know there was a painter? Well the painting is absolute, 100 percent scientific proof there was a painter. Well a building is absolute, 100 percent scientific proof there was a builder.”

[2:32] Thunderf00t: Yeaaah, tell it brother! Just like rocks are 100 percent absolute proof of a rock-making god. Just like sunsets is 100 percent absolute scientific proof of a sunset-making factory. Yeah, just like a nearly perfectly spherical Mars is 100 percent absolute proof that there is a Mars-maker. Oh yeah, that’s right. I remember now. The reason we don’t think that sunsets are made by a sunset-making god is because we understand the origin of sunsets. We can still say that god did it. It’s just that that doesn’t advance our understanding of the world any. And it’s a path that leads to an intellectual dead-end.

[3:10] clip from “RRS vs. Kirk Cameron / Ray Comfort Nightline FULL”: “If it’s designed, there MUST be a designer.”

[3:14] Thunderf00t: This statement is of course tautological. But the question is how can you recognize design? For instance, crystals are among the most ordered objects in the universe. Yet we do not instantly reach for a crystal-making god to try and explain the existence of these highly ordered structures. Again, the reason we do not reach for a god to explain these structures is because we have a perfectly satisfactory naturalistic explanation of the origin of crystals.

[3:41] There is nothing wrong with a tautological statement that designed objects are designed. There’s nothing wrong with the statement that paintings, etc. are designed, simply as they have no plausible naturalistic explanation for their origin. However, there IS a naturalistic explanation for life. It’s called evolution. And before the creationists start coming out with their unfounded tosh about how ‘it’s never been observed’ and so on: it’s more than observed. The principle of evolution is used by the likes of engineers to design aerodynamic bodies—a sort of design without a designer.

[4:16] Indeed, even I myself have written such pieces of code. All you need is reproduction with variation, and environmental attrition and evolution intrinsically follows. This is not just some animation about the front end of an evolutionary algorithm, where the bugs are actually evolving to the environment.

[4:38] Well let’s just highlight the logical flaws of this typical creation argument that ‘designed objects such as paintings, buildings, etc. require a designer. Life looks designed, so it must have a designer’.

[4:51] Let me parody this creationist logic. Let me take a load of pebbles, and see if any of them perfectly fit a shot glass. The answer is no. Indeed I could keep on trying to get pebbles to fit the shot glass in perpetuity and never find one that fits it perfectly. Indeed, I could happily conclude that the only way for a pebble to fit the shot glass perfectly is if it were designed to fit the shot glass.

[5:17] Liquids however fit a shot glass perfectly every time. So, by the creationist’s logic, liquid must be designed to fit the glass. Now the reason this argument is bogus of course, is simply because the two objects being compared have different critical properties. In my case I am comparing deformable matter such as liquids to solids, and drawing the bogus conclusion that liquids must be designed to fit the glass.

[5:45] In the creationist’s case, they are comparing objects that are known to be manufactured, with objects that can evolve—that is, objects that suffer environmental attrition and reproduction with variation—and then drawing the bogus conclusion that life must be designed.

[6:08] clip from “RRS vs. Kirk Cameron / Ray Comfort Nightline FULL”: “When I look at this building, how do I know there was a builder? You can’t see him, hear him, touch him, taste him, or smell him. I mean, what evidence is there that there was a builder?

[6:18] clip from “Bob the Builder”

[6:27] Thunderf00t: Yeah, that’s right. You know there was a builder because you CAN see him, hear him, touch him, taste him, and smell him—although few builders would allow you to go that far. But even if you couldn’t see him, hear him, touch him, taste him, or smell him, you can watch builders building buildings all the time. And even if you couldn’t do that, you go down to the planning department and get the blueprints for the building and get the date the building was erected on and how it was made.

[6:53] clip from“RRS vs. Kirk Cameron / Ray Comfort Nightline FULL”: “When I look at this building, how do I know there was a builder? You can’t see him, hear him, touch him, taste him, or smell him. I mean, what evidence is there that there was a builder?

God Loves you enough to BURN YOU WITH FIRE!: Transcript

August 16, 2014

Many thanks to Linda for providing this transcript!

[0:00] Thunderf00t: You know, I can put up with A LOT of fiction in a good story. Like blue god-like quantum men, or hundred year old girls fighting werewolves in subways. Or, people in computer games who can stop bullets if they believe it, and so on. However what I can’t take, even in a fantasy, is internal inconsistency. Like say, for instance when these agents—they can punch through walls—and they wanna kill everyone in this car, and this is what happens when he jumps on the first car; he utterly destroys it. And of course, that’s what happens when he jumps on the car with everyone in it he’s trying to kill, right? Nah, he just nimbly lands on the hood, merely making a mess of the paintwork, and so on.

[0:42] Or the time where the car he wasn’t trying to kill the people in is a mangled, bullet time wreck. In films, these are just kind of annoying and they’re called plot holes—it’s an internal inconsistency, and it’s the hallmark of bullshit. And people who can hold these internal inconsistencies in their mind in the real world—and even justify them—are idiots.

[1:05] So, let me just give you an example like: ‘my boyfriend only beats me because he loves me so much.’ Actually, no that’s a bad example because that’s pretty emotionally driven. Let me give you another example, that ‘God loves me so much, that he will torture me for eternity if I don’t do what he says.

[1:24] Huh, now that’s exactly the same thing just for the fictional character. Now it’s just come to me. I’ve got a famous example of this. Like when John Paul II claimed that it was a miracle that saved him from dying when he was shot, and that it was the Lady of Fatima who diverted the bullet away from a critical artery. To which Richard Dawkins famously retorted in The God Delusion that:

[1:48] clip from “Richard Dawkins Reads The God Delusion”: “When he suffered an assassination attempt in Rome, and attributed his survival to intervention by Lady of Fatima, “her maternal hand guided the bullet”. One cannot help wondering why she didn’t guide it to miss him altogether. Others might think the team of surgeons who operated on him for six hours deserve at least a share of credit.”

[2:19] Thunderf00t: Hell, if he wanted a miracle thing, why didn’t he just make like Neo? I mean believe me, if the Pope could do this, there would be a hell of a lot more Catholics in the wide world. But the reason I bring all this up is ‘cos this YouTube video I saw the other day.

[2:35] The creationist Kent Hovind is currently in jail after being convicted on a host of federal offenses mostly related to not paying his taxes. In fact, he’s been in jail for the best part of the last ten years. So some of the religious folks were discussing this:

[2:50] clip from “New 911 EMERGENCY! Dr. Kent Hovind 07/10/2014 Truth Serum Talk Radio Show Club Creation”: “And if you’re not everyone, priest [?] please lift him up in prayer. God has kept his hand of protection on Kent. Kent has been with some of the most violent offenders in this nation, and he’s not been harmed.”
“Mmhmm. Yes, exactly. And that just shows you the power of the Holy Spirit and the power of God at work here.”

[3:13] Thunderf00t: So did you get that? The fact that Kent has not been harmed in jail—just like tens of thousands of other prisoners who haven’t been harmed in jail—is actually the work of god. However, it would seem that even though god is powerful enough to keep Kent safe in prison, he’s not quite powerful enough to free him from prison.

[3:33] clip from “New 911 EMERGENCY! Dr. Kent Hovind 07/10/2014 Truth Serum Talk Radio Show Club Creation”: “But then again, you know, we do have an enemy and it’s not flesh and blood. Our adversary is the Devil and it’s his objective, um, to clearly to shut Dr. Hovind up and lock him away from the world so he can’t continue winning souls.”

[3:50] Thuderf00t: I mean, really, an all-powerful being who you think has personally intervened to keep you safe in jail, can’t get one man out of jail. I mean DAMN, the sheer self-centeredness of it all. If you’re gonna pray for something, DAMN pray for an end to childhood cancer! Not to get Kent Hovind out of jail. Or even better—get off your knees and actually DO something. ‘Cos as the old saying goes, a single pair of hands at work achieves more than a billion clasped in prayer.

RE #LikeaGirl: Transcript

July 21, 2014

Many thanks to Linda for supplying the transcript to this video! :-)

[0:00] Thunderf00t: First we had that fantastic Dove commercial:


[0:03] clip from “dove evolution” 


[0:16] Thunderf00t: Then we had “Ban Bossy”:


[0:19] clip from “Ban Bossy”


[0:23] Thunderf00t: And now following close in its footsteps we have #LikeaGirl. The format is pretty generic, you wanna get this behind-the-scenes feel to make it seem less staged and more authentic. You know, “trustworthy”. And you know, maybe get a clapper board in there or something . . . Like the girl sitting down while someone says that you’re “recording audio” . . . despite the fact that that’s the only audio used in the entire video, which, by the way, cost about $130,000 to make. And then take a point that everyone can agree with, you know, like say for instance that women on magazine covers are Photo shopped and then just hope no one spots that the title of these, um, uh, PRODUCT PLACEMENT!


[1:18] I mean I just kind of scratch my head at this one. Are these people really getting upset about people using Photoshop to make themselves seem more beautiful than they actually are, when the very product that they are trying to sell you is meant to make you appear more beautiful than you actually are?—you know, appearance-enhancing cosmetics.


[1:40] I mean, to be honest, if you don’t find this being transformed into THIS a problem, then why do you really care about the Photo shopping? And that of course is just ignoring the fact that the whole thing was just a Unilever marketing campaign time “to coincide with the expansion of Dove brand artificial appearance-enhancing cosmetic soaps and cleansers” (Wikipedia “Dove Campaign for Real Beauty”). Uh—sorry, no, nothing to do with that at all. It was just about how much Dove brand cosmetics agrees with you about just how wrong it is for other women to try to be more beautiful than they actually are.


[2:17] clip from “An Apology to America from Newcastle and Elizabeth Hurley”


[2:31] Thunderf00t: Now we have another corporation with an ENTIRELY philanthropically motivated message. This time they want young, confused girls—about the time they get their first period—to know that a sanitary towel manufacturer knows and understands their problems. And it’s got nothing to do with all that hormonal shit that kicks off in a woman’s body about this time. No, it’s all down to people saying ‘throw like a girl’.


[2:57] clip from “Always #LikeAGirl: “So when they’re in that vulnerable time, between 10 and 12, how do you think it affects them when somebody uses ‘like a girl’ as an insult?

“I think it definitely drops their self-confidence and really puts them down, because during that time they’re already trying to figure themselves out. And-”


[3:14] Thunderf00t: Well isn’t that nice of them, to know that the corporation like this has your best interest at heart. In that sense, it’s a perfect viral advertising campaign for something that is intrinsically difficult to market.


[3:29] clip from “Bodyform Responds :: The Truth: “I’m sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there’s no such thing as a ‘happy period’. The reality is, some people simply can’t handle the truth.”


[3:38] Thunderf00t: You get to engage with your audience without having to deal with all that icky stuff that’s usually associated with the subject.


[3:46] clip from “Bodyform Responds :: The Truth: “In the past, we tried to be more honest in our approach. In the 1980’s we ran a series of focus groups to help us gauge the public’s reaction to periods: the cramps, the mood swings, the insatiable hunger—and yes, Richard, the blood coursing from my uteri like a crimson landslide.”


[4:02] Thunderf00t: They get what they want, which is for teenage girls to have a positive association with Always sanitary towels. That is, as long as they don’t think about it too much. Buut we’ll come back to that in a second. If you wanna see how eye-rollingly badly this game can be played, just watch the Pantene commercial. Pfft. No clapperboard. Amateurs.


[4:22] clip from Not Sorry | #ShineStrong Pantene


[4:33] Thunderf00t: -where it insists that women keep apologizing like this isn’t something that EVERYONE does just to be polite—no, no. It’s only women who ever do this. Then, of course, what if women didn’t say sorry?


[4:45] clip from Not Sorry | #ShineStrong Pantene


[4:59] Thunderf00t: Yes, Pantene wants you to be one of those people who never says sorry.


[5:04] clip from “ORIGINAL VIDEO – Bitchy Resting Face: “Because if we wanted to be constantly misunderstood, we’d try and talk to a deaf person.”

“Hey, Taylor—I think you might actually be a bitch.

“In real life.”

“You should’ve all been aborted.”


[5:24] Thunderf00t: Oh yeah! Everyone loves someone who never says sorry. Ain’t that so, Liz?


[5:29] clip from “An Apology to America from Newcastle and Elizabeth Hurley”


[5:50] Thunderf00t: Buuut joking aside, and coming back to the thinking about the ‘throw like a girl’ commercial—as much admiration as I have for how well-executed this marketing campaign was, it’s still BULLSHIT. Annd maybe this would be a good time for those ‘meee tooo’ Tumblr-type feminists to get a box of Kleenex in, because if you think the expression “like a girl” is what destroys the self-confidence of young women, then a hard stare at reality will likely cause a gendered panic-attack of apocalyptic proportions.


[6:24] The expression ‘throw like a girl’ probably has its roots in fairly obvious biology. You know, guys tend to have almost twice the upper body strength of girls (Wikipedia, “Sexual dimorphism”). I know—it’s hardly rocket science. Add in there a spot of culture. You know, girls having less historical need to throw stuff than guys. And the fact that sports mostly focus on higher, faster, and stronger; which on a level playing field, with NO SEXISM whatsoever, is actually men in every category. And you would need a very special class of feminist idiot to say otherwise:


[7:05] clip from Feminist Frequency “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender, is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth; which of course is completely false.”


[7:13] Thunderf00t: Aww, I know, let me taste those sweet, juicy, social-justice-warrior tears. Let me just say that again: on a level field, with NO glass ceiling and absolutely no sexual discrimination, men are faster, stronger, and better throwers. Yet, that’s not sexism you’re looking at. That’s just the reality of being a sexually dimorphic species.


[7:40] So, in demographic terms, little girls tend to be the weakest throwers of all. So guess what, this is simile—or metaphor, or whatever—for someone who throws weakly.


[7:51] Whoa—I know, rocket science! ‘But noo, the fact that little girls are the weakest throwers is clearly wrong because little staged girls in Barbie-pink and rainbow girl here can throw stuff too! to uplifting music which includes important demographics including sporty and token!’ And as with all advertising campaigns, absolutely no fattys and no uglys; because although you’re courageously battling for the self-esteem of young girls, the last thing that you want is your product associated with fat or ugly people. And the fact that you can confuse a teenage girl or actor or whatever into not understanding the difference between the meaning of ‘a girl throwing’ and the simile of ‘throw like a girl’


[8:35] clip from “Always #LikeAGirl: “Yes, I kick like a girl, and I swim like a girl, and I walk like a girl, and I wake up in the morning like a girl because I am a girl. And, that is not something that I should be ashamed of.”


[8:45] Thunderf00t: I know, poor girl must go white with fear when someone says she’s ‘into shit’, or someone ‘eats like a pig’ or ‘I would kill for a royale with cheese’. But anyway, no—girls’ plummeting self-confidence is all down to the devastating metaphor of ‘throw like a little girl’.


[9:01] THIS is why girls’ self-confidence plummets during puberty. Well, that and of course being called bossy:


[9:08] clip from “Ban Bossy”: “When I was growing up, I was called ‘bossy’”

“I think the word ‘bossy’, is just, a squasher.”

“Being labelled something matters.”

“By middle school, girls are less interested in leadership than boys.”

“And that’s because they worry about being called”



[9:22] Thunderf00t: And as many a feminist has pointed out, when women have such heavy crosses to bear, and the fact that they think that women are such weak and fragile creatures that they really need to have to have their hands held to deal with these horrific social burdens, it must truly amaze feminists that ANY women make it to adulthood at all. All the while having that perplexed look on their face as to why the term ‘feminism’ has inexplicably acquired a reputation of being a CULT, where the only tenent is that you whinely embrace victimhood. GOOD JOB feminists. That’s EXACTLY the role model that young women need.


[10:03] But as for the viral marketing campaign, yet it struck a great blow. And it’s certainly fighting against propagating harmful stereotypes. And it’s made #LikeaGirl mean amazing things, like how you can destroy a teenage girl’s self-confidence simply by using the expression ‘throw like a girl’ or ‘bossy’.


[10:24] clip from “Ban Bossy”: “By middle school, girls are less interested in leadership than boys.”

“And that’s because they worry about being called”



[10:31] clip from “The Doctor Vs The Prime Minister – Doctor Who . . .” and “Ban Bossy” [LOL!]


[10:49] Thunderf00t: Well, in this new age of gender equality they should just learn to ‘take it like a man’. Always. Good job.



Why ‘feminism’ poisons EVERYTHING (#cancelcolbert) :- transcript

July 12, 2014

Many thanks to Linda for creating this transcript ;-)


[0:00] Thunderf00t: So meet Suey Park, the instigator of the #cancelcolbert. And she’s quite clear about one thing, that she’s NEVER claimed to be an educator.


[0:10] clip: “And I’ve never claimed to be, like, an educator. Um, I’m an activist and I think”


[0:15] Thunderf00t: However when she was sending a question to President Obama, she obviously felt that ‘#activist’ might sound, well, kind of pathetic. I wonder if there’s a way that she could make herself sound more important?


[0:27] clip: “Hi! I’m Suey Park, and I’m from Chicago, Illinois. A month ago, I started the hashtag, #NotYourAsianSidekick that sparked global conversation for, and by Asian American women. I’m an activist, an educator, and a writer”


[0:40] Thunderf00t: (LOLing) that’s just EPIC.


[0:43] clip: “And I’ve never claimed to be, like, and educator”

“I’m an activist, an educator, and a writer”


[0:48] Thunderf00t: So, Suey is one of those precious social justice warrior flowers, always so hair triggered to be outraged at the most trivial of things. And always so, so rational.

[1:01] clip: “And not just shift it to another group, is that we need to understand how genocide, and slavery, and orientalism, all work together to uphold white supremacy”

“how genocide, and slavery, and orientalism, all work together to uphold white supremacy. It’s really kind of the way that I understand my work. Which is why a lot of my work isn’t essentially with these mainstream Asian American activist groups. #NotYourAsianSidekick was actually not a call for Asian American visibility or Asian American celebration. It was actually a call to not be a sidekick to white supremacy”


[1:35] Thunderf00t: We have the great market out there for the professional victims. Giving keynote talks at places like Purdue University about their first-world problems and getting their articles in places like TIME Magazine. But I’ll come to those shortly.


[1:51]: The principle role in this was a keyboard social-justice-warrior, revolutionizing the world one ‘mee tooo keystroke at a time.


[2:00]: She’s best known for being the instigator of the #cancelcolbert. And she really, really believes in this online activism stuff making a difference, as can be seen in this Tweet here, of ‘(yawn) another online petition about me’.


[2:16]: Yes, it’s clear that she thinks that this hashtag activism about first-world problems can change the world. As long as the online activism isn’t about her racism. Or sexism. Or whatever. But yes, Suey. Claiming that people cannot understand things, based solely on their skin color, or their sex, is what we call racism and sexism.


[2:38] clip: “-especially as a white man, I don’t expect you to be able to understand what people of color are actually saying”


[2:43] Thunderf00t: So understand, Suey, that when you look in a mirror, that the person looking back at you, is what a sexist, and a racist, looks like.


[2:52] And then you gotta foil that up with an expert petulant and dishonest display:


[2:56] clip: “You just called my opinion stupid. That’s incredibly unproductive, and I don’t think I’m going to enact the labor of having to explain to you why that’s incredibly offensive and patronizing”


“I just told you I wouldn’t enact that labor”

“Okay. Thanks for being with us, Suey”


[3:12] Thunderf00t: -where she reports this interview, where she says that the interviewer couldn’t understand things because of his skin color, and his gender, like this: “In case anyone thought I was censoring Colbert, please know I was just talked down to, muted, and silenced by @joshzepps and @huffpostlive.” To which Zepps actually told it like it actually happened: “Ahh, the righteousness of professional umbrage-takers. @suey_park wasn’t muted or silenced. I invited her to explain herself & she declined.”


[3:47]: At which point Suey really threw her toys out of the pram and just took the high road with: “You are so pathetic, @joshzepps”


[3:56]: In case you’re wondering what silencing tactics ACTUALLY look like, just see how feminists deal with an opposing viewpoint.


[4:04] clip: “It’s my hope that as a result of my talk, a few of you may decide to–okay, you know, it’s the signature—it’s a signature of a totalitarian ideology to attempt to quash descent. So every time you interrupt, you’re merely showing your repressive tendencies. You’re not showing anything about your virtue . . . So you think this is a victory? Yeah, why are you so frightened of hearing an opinion different from your own?”


[4:43] Thunderf00t: And you’ll be happy to know that Anita Sarkeesian, popped up to suggest that the backlash was nothing to do with the stupidity of what she said, or the racism or the sexist things that she said. No, it was entirely because she was a woman.


[4:58]: Oh, professional victims of the world unite! Interestingly, the article she links to describes the above interview like this:


[5:06]: “Her treatment on Huffington Post Live by Josh Zepps illustrates how even the mainstream media decorousness could not restrain the impulse to publicly punish and shame a disobedient woman of color”


[5:21]: However, other than the article being hilariously over-the-top, there’s links to a screenshot of a petition, which looks curiously like a White House petition. The curious thing is though, I can find no such petition on the White House. And my suspicions are further aroused by the fact that by the time this very low-resolution screen shot was taken, only ONE person had signed the petition.


[5:44]: I mean, let’s be real. A natural, next-phase in the lifestyle of these professional victims is if they can’t actually get a real threat narrative going, is just gonna be to invent one wholesale.


[5:55]: However, even if the petition was one hundred percent legit, let’s just remind ourselves of some of the other online petitions of the White House, like for Obama to do the Hokey Pokey, or for the U.S. government to build a Death Star. The latter receiving some thirty-thousand signatures and actually got an official and very funny response.


[6:14]: But OH NOES when there’s a petition with just ONE signature to deport Suey Park and remove her first amendment rights, this is actually a real threat against women! And that it’s therefore entirely reasonable for these professional victims to lose their shit.


[6:30]: Now, to a degree, she may have a point about this hashtag activism changing the world. But probably not in the way that she thinks. In this interview here, this is the pertinent bit:


[6:42] clip: “-already”

“Wow. It’s so funny because I feel like there’s new change happening, um, with new media where, social groups that haven’t necessarily had a voice—ever, before—now has a platform.”


[6:58] Thunderf00t: Yes, giving a voice to AFFLUENT, middle-class women in their twenties, still living with their Moms:


[7:05] clip: “One second. My Mom just came home”


[7:07] Thunderf00t: -who NEEDS something to be neurotic about so they can Tweet about their therapy; and how they’re soon to be getting a therapy animal. OH MY god, really—she’s getting a therapy animal and she has the gall to call anyone else PRIVILEGED. I mean, I can see the architecture of the internet now, gently sobbing in a moody basement somewhere:


[7:27]: ‘We invented the internet to make society a better through communication of information. We never—in our most hideous nightmares thought it would be used by the most whiny, and self-righteous losers on the planet to unite in the mother-of-all outraged-about-nothing PITY PARTIES. We just didn’t KNOW!’


[7:50]: But occasionally these whiners do hit the big-time. Well, for fifteen or so minutes anyway. But for ALL of the WRONG reasons. For instance, Suey Park got her opinion into TIME Magazine. An interesting article to be sure. Especially if you do a word analysis on it and you find that the most used word in the entire article, is ‘white’. Followed in second place by, ‘racism’, ‘satire’, and ‘racist’. And in third place with, ‘you people anti-liberals’.


[8:20]: But mainly the star sentence in the whole thing is, “These white liberals are not mad that we pointed out racism, they are mad that they now have to consider the ways in which THEY may be racist.”


[8:34]: OH, SWEET MONUMENT to passive-aggressive irony. Berating people for being racist in the VERY sentence where you were judging people SOLELY on their skin color. Seriously, just Google #cancelcolbert or Suey Park and you’ll get pages and pages of this stuff.


[8:55]: The amazing thing is though, that it gets as much support as it does for these utterly vacuous arguments.


[9:01]: Now let me just say for those people with no discernable skill or talent—for them, playing the professional victim is probably the best option they have available to them. And that the people who really are paying that much attention—to them, all they see is someone saying that ‘I’m being victimized by an evil majority’. And these folks immediately put it into the David –versus-Goliath category and root for the underdog.


[9:27]: Now thankfully, it’s not a long-term winning strategy, and that as time goes on it becomes clearer and clearer—this is actually more The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Oh maybe more aptly, the professional victim who cried ‘sexism and ‘racism over their first world problems.


[9:44]: And yeah, sure, all of this does wonders for the credibility of REAL victims of sexism and racism.


[9:53]: But the verpidity of these morons—I mean, they think that THIS is a good argument for sexism:


[10:00] clip: “Men occupying the highest ranks in virtually every industry in the world


[10:05] Thunderf00t: -then just immediately gloss over the fact that men also make up 90 percent of the prison population. I mean, I guess that just must mean that the entire criminal justice system is SEXIST against men. I mean, how else could you explain it? Yes, these are EXACTLY the sorts of sexual partitionings you would expect in a fair but sexually dimorphic species. That is, if you want to claim sexism, you’ve got to demonstrate sexism.


[10:33]: And no matter how many times you bounce up and down and say ,‘look, there’s inequality of outcome’, that simply doesn’t cut it as evidence of sexism. Because in a sexually dimorphic species, even when there IS equality of opportunity, you do not necessarily expect equality of outcome.


[10:50]: Or the vacuous nature of Suey Park claiming everyone else is privileged. I mean, can you imagine her outrage if she was told to ‘check her yellow privilege’ because Asians are universally the BEST PAID demographic in America.


[11:05]: And actually, yes they are. Earning on average twice as much as blacks. Maybe you need a new hashtag, Suey; maybe something along the lines of your ‘BETTER PAID Asian sidekick. Especially when you’re talking about privilege, of the back drop of the immensely well-stacked FINE CHINA teacups.


[11:23]: But fundamentally, yes. Saying ‘check your yellow-woman privilege’ is dismissive, and racist. For EXACTLY the same reasons that THIS is dismissive and racist:


[11:35] clip: “-especially as a white man, I don’t expect you to be able to understand what people of color are actually saying”


[11:39] Thunderf00t: Now let me say this in PLAIN language, so there can be absolutely no ambiguity. Suey Park is not only a racist, and a sexist—I think we’ve covered that already. But also a WORLD CLASS hypocrite. I mean we’ve already seen how she dismisses other people’s online activities “yawn”. But thinks that her hashtag activism is gonna change the world.


[12:05]: In her own words: “This is not reform, this is revolution”—OH, sweet mother of delusion of grandeur! But back to the hypocrisy. You will remember her outrage when someone just called her opinion ‘stupid’.


[12:19] clip: “No. No one’s minimalizing your experiences. No one’s minimalizing your right to have an opinion. It’s just a stupid opinion. I mean, it’s a misunderstanding of what satire is—it’s a misunderstanding of what irony is”

“You just called my opinion ‘stu-piiid’”

“You just called my opinion stupid. That’s incredibly unproductive. And I don’t think I’m going to enact the labor of having to explain to you why that’s incredibly offensive and patronizing”


[12:40] Thunderf00t: Yes, that’s INCREDIBLY patronizing and offensive to call someone’s opinion stupid. It’s demeaning and so forth. Unless of course you’re Suey Park, then it’s perfectly acceptable for you to call other people’s questions stupid: ‘“When white men ask me stupid questions—I zap them into trolls and put them in my garden”’


[13:01]: Suey, tell us what you think of that argument:


[13:03] clip: “You just called my opinion stupid. That’s incredibly unproductive. And I don’t think I’m going to enact the labor of having to explain to you why that’s incredibly offensive and patronizing”


[13:12] Thunderf00t: But for me, the one that sealed the deal that she’s just formally unplugged from reality, was in her interview with Salon. And it went like this:


[13:22]: ““Interviewer: What do you think is the best way to work with white people, to get them on our side?”

“Suey: I don’t want them on our side”

“Uhhh. You don’t want them on your side?”

“This is not reform, this is revolution”


[13:38] Thunderf00t: I’m not quite sure what you’ve got in mind here, Suey. A society free of racism where absolutely everyone is equal—uhh apart from the white people. Really, when you were given that keynote talk at Purdue University at the Conference on Diversity:


[13:53] clip: “I’m an activist, an educator, and a writer. And this spring, I’ll be travelling to all different colleges in the U.S. to connect with students”


[13:59] Thunderf00t: I’m just curious—did you hang a sign outside saying: ‘whites not welcome’?


[14:04] clip: “I think that facebuilding and dialogue are necessary in continuing to build an inclusive movement”


[14:09] Thunderf00t: But this one REALLY knocks the whole thing out of the ballpark in that she’s on a whole new level of bat-shit crazy:


[14:18] “Yes, because I think it’s important. A lot of white America and so-called liberal people of color, along with conservatives ask, “Do I understand context?” And that’s part of wanting to completely humanize the oppressor. To see the white man as ALWAYS reasonable, ALWAYS pure, ALWAYS deliberate, always complex and ALWAYS innocent. And to see the woman of color as literal””


[14:46] Thunderf00tHOLY CRAP woman, what planet are you ON!? Always see the white man as REASONABLE!?


[14:52] clip: “Tide goes in, tide goes out—never a miscommunication. YOU, can’t explain that”


[14:57] Thunderf00t: Always see the white man as, REASONABLE!?


[15:00] clip: “I know that human being, and fish, can coexist peacefully”


[15:04] Thunderf00t: Always PURE, always—always INNOCENT!?


[15:07] clip: “It appears, that, there were not weapons of mass destruction there”

“You said you knew where they were”

“I did not-”

“-know where they are, in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and-”


[15:20] Thunderf00tWHAT PLANET are you ON? Here on planet earth, we judge arguments based on their merits. And we call those who judge arguments based on skin color, RACISTS because it’s a STUPID way of judging if an argument is valid or not. Nor do we judge arguments on “privilege”.


[15:38] clip: “Because they live in white privilege”


“And they live, like, so deeply in white privilege that they can’t get their asses out of it”


[15:44] Thunderf00tThis woman, is a BILLIONAIRE. She’s as privileged as they come. But bizarrely, when she does something stupidoutrageously stupid—we don’t judge her actions based on the fact that she’s a woman. Or that she’s rich, and privileged, and entitled. We judge her actions based on their merits. Or, in this case, the lack of them:


[16:07] clip: “When I was growing up, I was called ‘bossy’”


[16:09] Thunderf00t: ‘Yes, I was called ‘bossy’ when I was a kid. And now I’m a BILLIONAIRE and one of the most powerful women in the world! So let’s get more women involved in leadership by banning the word ‘bossy’.


[16:20]: And this man is a billionaire, and as privileged and white as they come. But, according to Suey, we must regard “the white man” as ALWAYS reasonable, ALWAYS pure, ALWAYS deliberate, ALWAYS complex, ALWAYS innocent. BULL SHIT!


[16:36]: If he claims that vaccines cause autism, then his opinions are moronic.


[16:41] clip: “You just called my opinion stu-piiid”


[16:43] Thunderf00t: Sure, Suey. And I don’t say that because he’s white, or a man, or a privileged billionaire. I say it because his arguments are demonstrably WRONG. And only morons and social-justice-warriors would base an argument’s validity—well, lack of it—on whether someone is poor or privileged. That is, only a moron would dismiss someone’s opinion simply by saying, ‘check your privilege’ because it’s a matter of supreme irrelevance to the validity of an argument.


[17:14]: Just like saying someone’s skin color—or if you have girl parts or boy parts—is a matter of SUPREME irrelevance to the validity of an argument.


[17:23]: But for Suey, it’s of almost NUCLEAR face palm proportions. And they are supposedly trying to END racism in a revolution in which white people will NOT be welcome.


[17:36]: Oh, and #NuclearFacepalm!



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 30,480 other followers