You might be a contemporary, Anglophone conservative if…

  • …you’re still a member of the Republican party.
  • …you’re more concerned with decorum than policy.
  • …you can read National Review without laughing or groaning.
  • …you’re actually subscribed to National Review.
  • …you attended CPAC and weren’t ejected for politically incorrect heresy.
  • …you honestly believe that baizuo and other progressives are just confused people who might someday be suaded with that hitherto unheralded, apropos dialectic or rhetoric.
  • …you donate to the NRA in exchange for tacky swag cheaply manufactured in China and zero resistance to the curtailment of one’s right to bear arms.
  • …you sent your daughter to college.
  • …you’ve actually voiced a platitude that contained the phrase, “we all bleed red” or “diversity is our strength.”
  • …you’re still calling leftists (including progressives) “liberals” decades after all genuine left-wing liberals were hounded to political fringes.
  • …you’ve convinced yourself that fandom for coddled, moronic, violent felons outfitted with plastic armor and televised when they throw a ball across a field is vital to the preservation of cultural masculinity.
  • …you honestly believe that any of the wars in which the United States participated in the past 120 years weren’t disastrous wastes of life and materiel, the immediate corollaries and repercussions of which alike redounded to that nation’s disrepute and downfall.
  • …you privately complain about welfare, yet never contemplate the pecuniary black holes of every American war and occupation.
  • …you were convinced that Muslims half a world away hated Americans “for our freedoms,” but have never dared to utter dissent against cartoonishly censorial, defamatory organizations such the ADL.
  • …you treasure and seek to preserve the values and existence of a tiny, belligerent, parasitic ethnostate in west Asia that brutally enforces apartheid, and whose diasporic proxies actively, overtly lobby to outlaw and eventually extinguish your own.
  • …you know that a single Republican candidate anywhere will capture the majority of a black vote any day now.
  • …you actually believe that “hate speech” exists.
  • …you’ve never considered that expenditure and taxation should be slashed pro rata.
  • …you imagine that police would necessarily protect you if they could.
  • …you’re still wondering why Cubans, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans haven’t equivalent electoral preferences, because Latinos and their cultures must be fungible.
  • …you refer to the Democratic Party as a contemporary “plantation” for black voters for its exchange of welfare benefits for votes, yet never once consider how the tax donkeys who reliably vote for Republicans in exchange for nothing far more aptly fit this analogy.
  • …you laugh at Marxists for refusing in perpetuity to acknowledge the ideological constant of every calamitous Communist state, while never noticing the obvious comparison between Marxism’s and conservatism’s centenary traditions of failure.
  • …you’re certain that anyone opposed to free markets and open borders is a “Communist” or a “Fascist.”
  • …you imagine that Russia’s present government seeks reprisals for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  • …you’re concerned that Russia’s influencing American elections, without a single thought regarding AIPAC, the Open Society Foundations, etc.
  • …you’re still upset that your Twitter account was deleted, and don’t know what to do.
  • …you celebrate the life and exploits of an obese, plagiaristic, whoremongering black dissident who promoted reparations for slavery as much as any other Communist.
  • …you’re terrified that somebody, somewhere believes or has alleged that you’re racist.
  • …you’ve gradually adopted nearly every radical, egalitarian, leftist premise expounded over the past century.
  • …your every other action is an expression of cupidity or hypocrisy.

Feel free to submit a few hallmarks of this stereotype…!

How (and How Not) to Curb Abusive Javabloat

One of many reasons why abuse of JavaScript has become as planted as pernicious is an oddly common inability to properly appraise and endorse solutions to this godforsaken trend. In an article he contributed to Brainleaf, Ben Shepardson reveals that his heart is nearly in the right place, but he’s stymied by his lockstep conformity to the hateful conventions established and perpetrated by horrible industries.

“In a world where UX is king, it’s curious to note that slow-loading websites are still a growing problem. Sadly, our benchmarks for what’s acceptable increase every year as we inch ever upwards towards larger and heavier sites.”

This is incontestable, and though the “our” and “we” never apply to me, websites of governments, small businesses and individuals are often as bloated and ugly as those of corporations.

“Yesterday’s bloated monster of a slow-loading behemoth at 1 megabyte becomes today’s sleek and light example of what to aim for. Back in the day, 100 KB was considered too big.

When I accessed sites at 56K in the mid-’90s, I didn’t adjudge 100K as excessive. Does “back in the day” denote the mid- to late-’80s, when images and audio uploaded to FTP servers and BBSs occasionally exceeded this length?

Today’s Tweets are heavier than yesteryear’s web pages.”

Microblogging is an inherently inferior concept worsened by the coded obesity characterizing nearly every site that provides such a service. At a fraction of their size, most message boards provide their users with far more flexibility and freedom than Twitter, Gab, Tencent Weibo, Plurk, Parler, Facebook, etc. Mastodon is a notable exception to this trend, but it was founded and it’s almost entirely administered by psychotically hypersensitive baizuo who practice ideological censorship as a lifestyle (and probably hate women).

“Of course, we have Moore’s Law to thank for ever-increasing web capabilities. Modern hardware and internet infrastructure can handle an entire galaxy’s worth of extra data transfer. But, like ever-expanding suburbs and the highways that connect them, extra capacity soon gets filled up as we expand in every direction.”

Avarice, stupidity and mundane incompetence is as responsible for this trend as expanded and advancing usage…

“Needless to say, any developer caught ignoring the principles of UX and unleashing megaton websites on the browsing public should take a serious look inwards. It’s simply bad form.”

Obviously, this is because no such principles or protocol thereof have ever been widely or formally acknowledged, much less observed by the vast majority of web designers.

“There are now layman’s tools for helping solve bloat on your own website, even when your web developer has sold you a heavy behemoth. Anyone can lighten up their own load by using code minifiers and image-handling techniques.”

Alternatively, they can actually solve rather than merely mitigate problems by demanding more HTML, CSS, PHP, et cetera, and less JavaScript.

“But this isn’t about tidying up your white space or decreasing pixels in your image carousel. This is about unwanted (read: unnecessary) javascript functionalities that are crashing websites, left and right.”

More trouble’s suffered from crashed and frozen browsers than sites.

“JavaScript is not to blame: unnecessary and therefore unwanted functionalities are the real culprit here.”

Those functionalities are but symptoms of this matter’s actual problem: excessive use of JavaScript to perform functions that are more efficiently executed via HTML, CSS, and other languages.

“No matter who you are – user or developer – you probably love JavaScript. It makes the Web what we need it to be today: fulfilling and dynamic, personalized and fun.”

No, it doesn’t. It can conduce to such qualities in moderate application, but notwithstanding its ubiquity, it’s obviously as demonstrably unnecessary for frolic as for utility.

“Nobody wants to go back to the days when all we had to work with was HTML.”

When was that?! It certainly wasn’t when Internet became popular. PHP and JavaScript were introduced contemporaneously in 1995; the W3C published CSS 1 a year later.

“Without dynamicity, that world would appear sad and flat to today’s users.”

One can intuit so much about a person by cursory observation of their diction and lexicon, and especially neologisms so encompassed in the latter. Dynamism can be a circumstantial virtue; “dynamicity” smacks of moronic corporate attempts to further befoul our living language.

“And marketers? They’d be completely lost without being able to serve up those highly-targeted ads we’ve all come to expect when we browse the web.”

Imagine that you’re in attendance at some soiree or other, and some drone burdened with a retreating hairline, micropenis and IQ of 95 opines from across the dinner table, “To be fair, industries really need to consider the needs of marketing departments when we design and test products and services, because that benefits consumers.” You’d be morally, if not legally justified to rise from your seat in a fit of pique, circumambulate that table and break his stupid face.

Hey, asshole: nearly everyone possessing an IQ above room temperature dreads rather than expects embedded advertisements, highly-targeted and otherwise. You can’t credibly shill JavaScript by promoting solutions when you support the problems that it enables.

“We couldn’t even eradicate JavaScript from the Web if we wanted to.”

We probably could, though that’s hardly desirable. After all, some other language will eventually supersede it.

“It is now a fundamental building block of the web. Almost every browser supports it, and almost every website uses it. Increasingly, mobile and app development are forever entwined with JavaScript as well.”

It’s no such thing, and the notion that JavaScript is fundamental, much less indispensable for its omnipresence is at best specious.

“Plus, we have derivatives like the jQuery library and Node.js (which takes JavaScript to the server side). Both are further evidence that JavaScript is here to stay.”

This is naive; present popularity is no reliable indicator of future preponderance. Incidentally, I freely concede that the development and adoption of jQuery is largely a tremendous boon.

These consecutive, contradictory statements are essentially a caveat for proofreading:

“JavaScript is, however, responsible for some of the weight gain of today’s websites.

“It’s not JavaScript itself to blame for the extra weight, but rather the way it’s being used.”

That latter declaration is true, but…

“In short, many of the functionalities of JavaScript can be handled in different ways, thereby lightening the load across the board for all kinds of websites.”

If “handled in different ways” connoted a decrement of implemented JavaScript, I might agree.

“So, what’s a developer to do? Here are some ideas of how JavaScript can be used in better ways to trim the fat so to speak. These don’t cover all of the creative ways you might tackle this issue, but they will point you in the right direction.”

Wrong! Our trouble isn’t merely that JavaScript’s abused, but that it’s overapplied.

“1. Wean ourselves from jQuery addiction

“jQuery is a wonderful, time-saving convenience, but it’s overused. Using it for simple tasks is often not necessary with today’s browsers. These kinds of tasks have surprisingly robust native implementations that perform jQuery-style functionalities all by themselves. Stick to native JavaScript whenever possible.”

This won’t happen for awhile, for jQuery’s appeal inheres in not merely its convenience and usefulness, but also its novelty. Developers disposed to use jQuery won’t dispense with it until something just as commodious succeeds it.

“2. Limit surveillance scripts

“Third-party tracking code is responsible for much of the weight gain of the internet. We all know it to be true, yet web developers are still held hostage to clients who insist on loading up their seemingly wonderfully optimized and fast-loading newly designed site with cookies, tracking code. Online marketing companies don’t always realize the weight that elaborate advertising code can cause. If you’re not using it, let it go.”

If “limit” read as “eliminate,” I might agree.

“The moral of the story is that JavaScript is great when used properly. What’s more, it’s here to stay, so we may as well learn to get along with it.”

“BLAH BLAH JavaScript is our lord and savior now and forever; accept its love and providence, heathen BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.” Whatever!

Here are four tips by which everyone can actually lighten their load:

  1. Don’t use JavaScript as a succedaneum for any of HTML’s elements or attributes thereof, or any function that may be executed more efficiently with CSS or PHP. Nota bene: HTML and CSS are intended and optimized for their respective purposes. If you’re writing JavaScript to replace HTML’s a, img, video or any other block- or text-level elements, you especially deserve the pillory, shitbag.
  2. Never write scripts that enable a server to surveil, track or cryptojack public visitors. If this seems revolutionary, good. Usury and marital infidelity aren’t moral for their legality either.
  3. Stop animating with JavaScript; use embedded videos, GIFs, APNGs, or even MNGs instead.
  4. Don’t be a dunce who renders the title in a user agent’s window caption as a marquee with JavaScript, or anything else.

Per se, JavaScript is a great tool, and in certain ways comparable to firearms, abortion and automobiles: respectively unsurpassed means of self-defense, eugenics and personal transport which have been misused horribly by senseless and sordid people, and consequently prohibited or restricted by governments who’d better serve their societies by stamping out the people who abuse these technologies, and curbing the causes of their pathologies. JavaScript is no different: web bloat won’t cease to exist until societies coerce those who perpetuate it to surcease. Bullycide a web developer today.

Contemporary Lexicography Sinks to No Nadir

Yesterday, I purged numerous second-wave feminist neologisms suffixed with -woman and -person from my unparalleled personal dictionary. Furthermore, the preposterous postpositive -adjacent was newly tabulated in my Douche-English Dictionary. Some cursory research regarding this adjective’s newly daft definition led me to a strikingly (if typically) asinine article published by the New York Times, and penned by yet another of its innumerable unsightly, bewhiskered, gormless pressmen:

Why Is Everything ‘Adjacent’ Now?

What, exactly, are all these things next to?

By Jonah Engel Bromwich

Isn’t this already just adorable? If Maddox were more healthy and hirsute, and a vampire of Nosferatu’s mold, he’d perfectly resemble this clown.

As we find ourselves stuck hopelessly online, our lexicon grasps back toward the physical world. An example: The word “adjacent” has recently packed its suitcase and taken the short trip from the literal to the figurative.

Translation: numerous Anglophones under fifty are so lexically nescient (in this instance, of prefixes quasi- and semi-) that they’ve ineptly misused a word en masse.

It used to be that “adjacent” meant “next to,” as in buildings, or city blocks. These days, it is more likely to signify a more conceptual and vague relation, which the speaker or writer would rather not describe in depth.

Accurately, the extension of this word’s definition from a spatial to relational meaning only denotes its speaker’s susceptibility to trends and inability to adequately articulate.

The following nauseating, inane instances only demonstrate the subliteracy and ideological monotony of mainstream journalism:

On Christmas Day, the CNN commentator Chris Cillizza called Michelle Obama “probably the most popular politics-adjacent figure in the country.”

“Quasi-political” would be too revealing, too sincere in its rightful relegation of the former first lady and her many moronic, uninformed tirades, wouldn’t it? Just as oblivious, neoconservative boomers are the only people who can stomach the Bushes, Obama and his brood are admired exclusively by leftist cretins. I can concede that fewer people likely loathe Michelle Obama than George W. Bush, only because she’s not a criminal bellicist. Anyhow, this merely exposes how cheaply euphemistic this bilge can be.

A few months before that, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said that Megyn Kelly’s remarks on the use of blackface in Halloween costumes were “not quite racist, but racist-adjacent” and also hate crime-adjacent.

I can’t relate to anyone who’d squander a minute of his retirement sequent to a great career whining about some fatuous, faithless, televised twat, but Abdul-Jabbar would’ve sounded less dumb (though no more cogent to anyone with a functioning brain) if he’d denounced her comments as “semi-racist” or “implicitly racist.”

Some months later, Max Newfield, a writer for Heartland Weekend, a Missouri publication, took readers on a tour of “wellness-adjacent” beers available for purchase from Southern breweries. (Because beer isn’t actually good for you, no matter its adjacencies!)

Who the shit can even fathom that gibberish?

“We almost might need to write a new subsense for this,” said Peter Sokolowski, the editor at large of Merriam-Webster, of the flock of “-adjacents.”

Anyone who essays to reconcile erudite and exoteric objectives or prioritize popularity in the field of lexicography is either a pseudo-intellectual or a brazen fraud. In the two articles featured in this post, Sokolowski exhaustively confirms that he’s both.

(Subsense is dictionary-world jargon for a secondary meaning of a word.)

Those of us who actually read know that subsense is a hyponymous or otherwise subordinate division of a more general definition. We also don’t type sophomoric terms like, “dictionary-world jargon.”

The usage, he said, was “so new it’s not in the damn dictionary.”

It shouldn’t be listed in any dictionary. Of all the horrid English dictionaries in print, Merriam-Webster is the most notorious for their inclusion of any popular slang to shift a few units or attract people to their ugly, bloated website. New American Heritage is more politically correct, and poorly written besides, but Merriam-Webster has become in the past forty years the trendiest reference book available. It’s a dictionary for dopey teenagers and bottom-feeders of contemporary pop culture.

“Adjacent,” in this usage, is a postpositive adjective. That just means that it comes after the noun it modifies. This is unusual in English, but standard in French and Latin syntax.

Contributors employed by the NYT are now obliged to clumsily define postposition for the uneducated simpletons that constitute their dwindling readership. Does anyone remember when this outlet’s output was characterized by a modicum of learned assumption? I don’t, but I was born in the late ’70s.

Because the conventions of those languages can often read as fancy in English, calling something “cannabis-adjacent” or “cosmetics-adjacent” grants a nifty sheen.

Ergo, millennials striving for a veneer of sophistication once again betray their stupefying idiocy and ignorance. I’m shocked.

“Like the technical vocabulary of law and medicine, the Latin nature of this word brings the discourse up a notch,” Mr. Sokolowski said. “It makes it seem more formal and technical.”

Patently vacuous pretensions don’t elevate language or discourse, but upon observing a commercial opportunity to exploit, Sokolowski needs to palaver and pander to rubes in one of the most amenably gullible demographics.

Such shifts in meaning irk purists like Lionel Shriver, a writer who recently decried in Harper’s what she called “semantic drift.” In an interview, Ms. Shriver described her reaction to the use of “-adjacent” and “space,” another term she said was increasingly being used in a figurative sense.

How is Shriver a “purist” for opposing semantic drift of such a witless stamp? What purity is she attempting to preserve in our language’s rich and irreparable farrago?

“The weird thing is that it’s imposing geography on what could not be more abstract,” she said. “It’s almost like a need for geography in the digital world, where everything’s floating around. We’re living increasingly in a world beyond space, beyond physicality.”

This is a valid analysis, but Shriver’s perhaps abstracting too much of what may be imputed to simple stupidity, pliancy and inscience.

(Incidentally, Shriver’s novel We Need To Talk About Kevin and Lynne Ramsay’s eponymous filmic adaptation thereof are fine fiction on the disastrous repercussions of parental dereliction.)

Ben Zimmer, a lexicographer, said that he began to notice the usage more and more about five years ago. He thought it may have originated with “real-estate talk, where, say, ‘Beverly Hills-adjacent’ indicates that a property isn’t actually in Beverly Hills, but close enough.”

At least this is casually condonable, neither too silly nor inapplicable, but…

Others see the word as useful in Silicon Valley, where start-up founders can’t quite be sure what it is their companies are making, even as they’re selling it to investors. It’s best to keep options open in case the need to pivot suddenly arises. The chat application Slack, for instance, was once TinySpeck, a gaming start-up with a particularly sophisticated chat feature; it was chat-adjacent. It left the gaming space, entered the chat space and became a billion-dollar company.

Ah, more “spaces.” These are the successors of people who daily uttered neologistic, corporate portmanteaux without a trace of irony for decades.

Erik Torenberg, a founder of the early stage venture capital fund Village Global, said that he sees technology entrepreneurs use the word as if they are preparing for a similar pivot (to use their favored jargon for “change in strategy”).

Big tech is the new Hollywood: a sector as flush with lucre and avaritia as it’s bankrupt of intellect.

“When people are trying to pursue one path, that path doesn’t necessarily work so they go into an adjacent space, a space next to that path,” he said.

Christ, but the millennial’s impoverished parlance is revolting! Every phenomenon is “a thing,” every locus (be it physical or figurative) “a space.” This is a corollary of three consecutive generations composed primarily of “book virgins.”

(Mr. Torenberg said that, when it came to the frequency of the phrase’s usage, it was a seven or an eight on a scale of 10. A 10 out of 10, he said, was the term “doubleclick,” which investors use as handy shorthand for “let’s go deeper or zoom in on this topic!”)

If anyone actually verbalizes that in my presence, I’ll need to decamp.

Ms. Shriver said that “-adjacent” was probably useful in a climate where businesses were “started up in the spirit of going fishing.”

If anything, its utterance is a valuable sign by which an interlocutor’s intelligence and superficiality may be assessed.

“It’s something between angling and gambling,” she said. “Rather than setting out with a specific intention to produce a product and sell that product, it’s capitalizing on vagueness.”

I concur: sleazy marketing can’t be compassed without at least a heaping dose of ambiguity.

This post probably wouldn’t be indited if I hadn’t — by complete coincidence — chanced upon another that’s far more aggravating earlier today:

Missouri woman says she contacted Merriam-Webster to change dictionary definition of racism

By Louis Casiano | Fox News

An email from a Missouri woman has prompted Merriam-Webster to update its definition of “racism” to include the systemic aspects that have contributed to discrimination, according to a report.

Who needs standards when crumbling institutions have brainless laymen to counsel them by petition?

Kennedy Mitchum, 22, of Florissant, told KMOV-TV that she was inspired to email the dictionary publisher after getting into arguments with others about the definition.

Naturally, because she’s as overtly incorrect as brainwashed.

Merriam-Webster defines racism as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

If one were to replace, “produce an inherent superiority” with “define the comparative nature,” that definition would be correct. Not only are races (and ethnic groups thereof) distinguished by thousands of physiological differences, but all of them are in some way inferior and superior to others by virtue of their respective deficiencies and aptitudes. No other datum is so heterodox to our rotten, ruling elites, and few are so evident — hence their attempts to muddle by redefinition racism with racial supremacy, which is as banefully immoral as racism is honest.

Mitchum, a recent graduate of Drake University, felt the definition was too simple and too surface-level, according to the news station.

When aren’t collegians ruled by their irrational emotions, especially when they can’t prevail in debate?

“So, a couple [sic] weeks ago, I said this is the last argument I’m going to have about this,” she said. “I know what racism is, I’ve experienced it time and time and time again in a lot of different ways, so enough is enough. So, I emailed them about how I felt about it. Saying this needs to change.”

In clown town, acceptation must suit the disingenuous needs of some imbecile who stultifies herself in her little squabbles. Okay, hon.

“I basically told them they need to include that there is systematic oppression on people. It’s not just ‘I don’t like someone,’ it’s a system of oppression for a certain group of people,” she added.

Yeah: systematic oppression in academia and the dating market is suffered by overachieving east Asian males. That’s it. This woman will never know what oppression is unless I ascend to predominance as a powerful warlord governing the monocracy of Buchanistan. Under the heel of my dictatorship, she’d probably come to love my tyranny, if only because she’d be subjected to actual human nature.

The change comes as the United States is grappling with nationwide protests over racial discrimination following the death of George Floyd.

Whereas the original definition of racism is a person’s individual belief in the superiority of one race over another,

As explicated above, that’s a lie.

the second definition will be expanded to include the types of bias that have contributed to racial discrimination, said Peter Sokolowski, the editor-at-large at Merriam-Webster, in a statement to Fox News.

Imagine my surprise, to find this diddling peddler of substandard scrivening the following afternoon, preaching to the progressive cult’s choir.

(Of course, he’s one of these. Genuine progressives who are either attractive or intelligent are as rare as four-leaf novels.)

“Our second definition is divided to express, first, explicit institutional bias against people because of their race, and, second, a broader implicit bias that can also result in an asymmetrical power structure,” he said.

Even if he was referring to the actual systemic bias in government, academia and legacy media that promotes corporate feminists and a few largely dupable ethnic minorities, and sustains our plutarchy at the expense of everyone else, rather than Bonald Blumph’s imaginary AmeriKKKan white supremacist patriarchy, the equational leftist argument that power+privilege=racism is still wishful fantasy.

“This second definition covers the sense that Ms. Mitchum was seeking, and we will make that even more clear in our next release,” he added. “This is the kind of continuous revision that is part of the work of keeping the dictionary up to date, based on rigorous criteria and research we employ in order to describe the language as it is actually used.”

Your sales have been in the toilet for years, so you may as well keep flushing.

Look, I’m fully aware that this is probably just a publicity stunt. Who knows whether this purported email ever existed, or whether this querulent is a paid shill? However, this article does prompt certain questions. Does “rigorous research” involve the receipt of dumb emails from jaundiced, mentally challenged women as valid recommendations? Which “rigorous criteria” prescribe political trends as viable influences on a resource that’s supposed to be definitive and impartial?

Stick to Random House’s publications, which are largely dispassionate and far superior, faults notwithstanding.

Herbalife and OnePoll Partner to Feed You Bullshit

Yet another survey as biased in execution as results emerges from a private, foreign firm specializing in gainful disinformation:

Survey: More Americans Eating Less Meat, Opting For Plant-Based Options Instead
by Ben Renner

“New research shows “flexitarian” diet growing in popularity as more adults prefer to eat meat only on occasion.”

Starving gruesomely to emaciation in your suburb or city of the first world, baizuo? Flexitarianism will save your life by permitting you to ration yourself essential nutriments, only reducing you to mere etiolation!

“NEW YORK — Cheeseburgers, steaks, and hot dogs are synonymous with American cuisine, or at least they were at one time.”

Renner cuts to the chase, immediately confirming his professionalism by opining baselessly.

“According to a new survey of 2,000 Americans, if these dishes are a common part of your diet, you’re now in the minority. Less than half (47%) of the survey’s respondents said meat is a major part of their diet.”

Not an abject sap, I’m minded to question information deficiently detailed in this article. Where were a majority of these respondents located? Were American citizens in every state or most states canvassed proportionally? What’s the specific range of their ages? How many of them reside in metropolitan areas, and in which districts thereof?

This old ruse scarcely illudes anyone anymore: feed baizuo statistics about baizuo.

“The survey, commissioned by Herbalife Nutrition, found that many Americans (23%) are adopting a ‘flexitarian’ approach to eating. This means eating mostly vegetarian foods with the occasional inclusion of meat. Another 18% of respondents said they were fully vegetarian.”

Gallup also skews their polls, but here’s another they’ve produced just a few months ago asserting that “5% of U.S. adults consider themselves to be vegetarian.” Furthermore, it predicates:

“Though plant-based diets and meat alternatives have been featured in some recent high-profile forums, including the United Nations and Democratic presidential debates, and are becoming a staple even on fast food restaurant menus, the percentage of vegetarians has remained stable over the past two decades. A 1999 Gallup survey that asked the same question found that 6% of Americans identified themselves as vegetarian.”

That’s quite a discrepancy, so why should this poll be at all rated reliable?

“So, what’s fueling this shift in Americans’ eating habits?”

Widespread dysgenics spanning four generations that have engendered plummeting IQs and attendant credulity.

“Among survey participants, flexitarians were the most likely group to say their food choices stemmed from trying to be more environmentally friendly (40%) or ethical (31%).”

Slavishly trendy, baizuo still immediately believe everything their teevees and pundits feed them — forever Boomerist cattle to their trough. Ugh! Of course, the overharvest that veganism, vegetarianism and “flexitarianism” compels is hardly sustainable, and the unintentional mass slaughter of animals eventuating from such harvests exceeds that of any abbatoir, but so long as baizuo feel righteous — and especially supercilious in their unblemished, imaginary integrity — what else matters?

“Young people are also a factor; 36% of surveyed flexitarians said they adopted their new diet because their children encouraged them to do so.”

I won’t read anything more repugnant this month. If you’re actually changing your dietary habits at the advice of your glaringly inscient, imbecile offspring, you’ve failed as a parent and a human.

“Even among those still regularly eating meat, the survey shows that more Americans than ever are willing to experiment with more plant-based food sources. In all, 71% of respondents expressed this sentiment.”

How many of them were only humoring obtrusive pollsters? Given the evidence above, this percentage is as improbable to credibly relate such a majority’s inclination as any other.

“But, what about protein? For so many of us, meat is our primary source of protein, but the results of the survey make it clear there are plenty of other ways to build muscle.”

Sure, you can also victual eggs. Without consumption of meat, one omits from their diet thirty to fifty essential nutrients that can’t be otherwise obtained.

Also, who permits these doltish hacks to initiate a sentence with a punctuated conjunction? It’s the worst common solecism known to me. Just read it aloud.

Among survey participants not regularly eating meat, 65% get most of their protein from shakes and protein bars,

To live this way is to entertain supreme malnutrition. Whenever you publicly observe some gaunt, slumped, balding, barbate, misshapen goon grimacing at his iPhone or purchasing his weekly surplusage of 400+ fruits and vegetables, you can wager reliably that his protein’s derived from some saccharine swill.

“and 56% just eat other foods known to carry lots of protein like rice,

Now this article veers into pure falsehood. I love rice, but it never contains “lots of protein.”

“beans,

Why not just consume a daily allotment of plaster, if you’ve such contempt for your digestive tract?

“and soy.”

Of course! Diurnal consumption of every baizuo’s favorite protein can nearly castrate preteen boys and ensure in men enervation for dangerously low testosterone. Thanks, but some of us still expect a functioning libido, penile tumescence and procreation.

“‘Protein is an important component of every cell in the body, helping to support healthy bones, muscles and organs,’ says Susan Bowerman, senior director of Nutrition Education and Training at Herbalife Nutrition, in a statement. ‘So whether you obtain your protein from shakes, bars, animals or plants, your focus should be on the quality of the source, to help ensure your body is receiving maximum benefit'”

She can’t help but overstate by anteriority the nutritional prominence of shakes and bars. After all, Herbalife doesn’t raise cattle, and needs to shift those units!

Get it?

“Generationally speaking, millennials are the most likely age group to try out more plant-based foods,

That’s to be expected from the most ignorant generation of dupes the developed world has ever beheld.

“but across all ages more people than ever before are open to the idea.”

Oh, no overestimated percentage noting that millennials represent only 200% of all vegetarians?

“Interestingly, the survey also noted that Americans living in the West (20%) and Northeast (19%) are the most likely to frequently eat “meatless” meat.

These numbers are even more ludicrously distorted than those precedent, especially when collated. “18% of respondents [in the U.S.] said they were fully vegetarian,” but 19% of northeasterners are most disposed to eat faux flesh? If vegetarians represent 18% of the population, wouldn’t that percentage skew higher in leftist regions, where greater numbers of vegetarians are indisputably concentrated? As corporate propaganda comes, this is as sloppy as most.

“Individuals from those areas were also found to be the most open to trying plant-based foods as well (51% in the West, 55% in the Northeast).”

Yet precisely how are “plant-based foods” defined? Do these include salads, perhaps a regularly munched apple or pear?

“It’s clear that meatless meat is here to stay, with 70% of all respondents stating they believe it will continue to grow in popularity moving forward.”

We’re supposed to believe that a significant majority replied to the question of sham meat’s future popularity not with an insouciant, “Oh, I don’t know,” but positive affirmation? Sure.

“Of course, there will always be some resistant to change.

That fatuous, lordly insinuation is galling enough, but the statement is true: plenty of people, in this instance an overwhelming majority, are resistant to imprudent, unhealthy, asinine trends.

“For example, 16% of respondents said they “never” eat meatless meat.

That’s almost certainly false. I personally know only two people who’ve sampled it, both only once.

“Perhaps, though, these respondents are so hesitant because they don’t know what is inside meatless meat. Less than half of respondents (45%) knew that meatless meat usually contains soy, and only 41% knew that wheat gluten is another common ingredient.”

If so, those hitherto unaware would likely be even less apt!

“In fact, only 55% of respondents knew that meatless meat is intended to taste just like real meat. Puzzlingly, 38% incorrectly said meatless meat is grown in a lab.”

Not “puzzlingly,” but “mendaciously,” these are teetotal fabrications purposed to image for typically moronic baizuo some construct of whoever hasn’t embraced bogus beef — their mean grandfather or Richard Spencer salivating over a hamburger. “Just envision the stupid Natzees, too dumb to know that meatless meat isn’t supposed to taste like meat! If they’re so dumb, you must be real, real smart!”

“The survey was conducted by OnePoll.”

Nota bene: OnePoll‘s a British subsidiary of South West News Service whose market research consists primarily of online survey. They’ve only expanded their research to poll American, French, German, Italian and Spanish respondents in the past few years, and only do so via an iPhone app. So in light of the firm’s provenance (after Australia, the second most vegan country worldwide), the demographics who most commonly use the hardware by which they poll, Herbalife’s obviously emporeutic imperatives and the contrariety between the figures of this survey and those more reputable, as well as others which are blatantly absurd, I can’t help but speculate that this surreptitious promotion of cheap products and a slave’s diet is no more convincing than artful in its artifice.

Protected: Third-wave feminism: exhibit #3 — Vaginal Vainglory

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

0 of 1 finds this acceptable

IMDb serves four functions, below ordered in prominence and priority:

  1. Advertising
  2. Interviews
  3. Documentation of productional data pertaining to motion pictures
  4. Aggregation of cinematic and televisional trivia

Those latter two functions, now distant in significance from the first, are in their neglected ulteriority often poorly performed, usually in deference to the first’s primacy. In no few pages where trivia for popular features is itemized, one may encounter one or both of the following blurbs:

These certainly are trivia, especially for their negligibility, but no less so than they are advertisements. Either Ebert and Schneider (in the mold of all popular hacks) or their publicists clearly hired someone to interpolate them among the trivia of every flick detailed or listed in their respective products. Whenever I skim these in passing, I still roll my eyes. That so many users of IMDb vote these items interesting is as much evidence of widespread dysgenics that plague the Anglosphere as is their presence of the site’s almost impossibly low standards.

If any site’s content was ever so desperate to be readapted, it’s that of IMDb — preferably for a resource as swift, spare and substantial as the private Japanese Movie Database, an exemplar for all such online databases. Shouldn’t we ask not whether this is possible, but why it’s not inevitably impendent?

Pettish, Presumptuous, Philistine Pope Pans Qualifiers

Quoth the petulant pontiff:

“The third thing I take from what I said earlier, which I am slightly allergic to: ‘This is something authentically Christian’, ‘this is truly so’.”

Does anyone need a spiritual leader who speaks as reviewers of Goodreads type?

“We have fallen into the culture of adjectives and adverbs, and we have forgotten the strength of nouns.”

Hardly! This monoglot won’t assume trends pertaining to qualifiers in other tongues (be they those of preponderantly papal nations or otherwise), but Anglophones should apply nominal phrases comprehending legitimate attributives instead of qualifying nouns. In almost every instance — “lexical list” in lieu of “word list,” “electoral dates” for “election dates,” “cardiovascular disease” rather than “heart disease,” et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera — the utilization of a proper modifier is always more accurate, efficient, instructive and aesthetically felicitous. We haven’t “forgotten the strength of nouns;” we’ve simply misused it!

“The communicator must make people understand the weight of the reality of nouns that reflect the reality of people. And this is a mission of communication: to communicate with reality, without sweetening with adjectives or adverbs.”

This is one pluperfect paralogism. Sincere, effective communication requires adjectives and adverbs to elegantly and succinctly preserve specificity. If Frankie actually reflected rationally on this matter, he might’ve instead denounced prolixity (esp. circumlocution) or magniloquence rather than indispensable parts of speech.

“‘This is a Christian thing’: why say authentically Christian? It is Christian!”

Whyever not, when the present pope is so readily disposed to preach bogus, circumstantial, politicized, contemporary “morality” in neglect of canonical virtues?

“The mere fact of the noun ‘Christian’, ‘I am of Christ’, is strong: it is an adjectival noun, yes, but it is a noun.”

This broaches the crucial question: is the present pope a simpleton?

“To pass from the culture of the adjective to the theology of the noun. And you must communicate in this way.”

Oh, must we? Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, et al. surely sleep easy.

“‘How, do you know that person?’ – Ah, that person is like this, like that…’: immediately the adjective. First the adjective, perhaps, then, afterwards, what the person is like. This culture of the adjective has entered the Church and we, all brothers, forget to be brothers, by saying that this is ‘this type of’ brother, that one is ‘the other’ brother: first the adjective.”

Here’s the implicit burden: “never judge, for only God may judge through me. Never discriminate, so to remain an intellectual, moral and ethical slave.”

“Your communication should be austere but beautiful:”

Any writer or orator who aims to exercise both precision and concision, whether florid or otherwise, needs qualifiers.

“beauty is not rococo art, beauty does not need these rococo things;”

Are we to accept that a substantial proportion of the finest Catholic painting, literature and architecture isn’t genuinely beautiful because a papal puppet seeks to propitiate and control his most benighted followers?

“beauty manifests itself from the noun itself, without strawberries on the cake! I think we need to learn this.”

Well, I dissent: when ably authored, austere and aureate prose or speech alike are beautiful, and necessary in discrete applications and spheres. By inveighing against requisite parts of speech, pope Frank opts for a very aberrant and asinine species of verbal, lingual, and lexical veganism.

“Communicating by witness, communicating by involving oneself in communication, communicating with the nouns of things, communicating as martyrs, that is, as witnesses of Christ, as martyrs. To learn the language of the martyrs, which is the language of the Apostles. How did the Apostles communicate? Let us read that jewel which is the Book of Acts of the Apostles,”

Which translation? Look out, Frankie: some of them are awfully purple!

“and we will see how it was communicated at that time,”

That’s not terribly likely.

“and how it is Christian communication.”

Since when was any prosaic style especially Christian? Isn’t this prescriptivism contrary to Francis’ nauseatingly incessant call for mindless inclusivity, irrespective of detrimental repercussions?

Look, I’m not oblivious; this harangue is essentially the retort of one pedantic prescriptivist against another. Obviously, the holy pappy is guilty of far worse, such as the prospective canonization of a fraudulent socialist despot, didactic tolerance of jihadist barbarity, promotion of globalist elites’ migratory and economic agenda, support for popular climatic pseudoscience, and consortium with an abusive, subhuman nabob (see below).

For the past six years, we’ve beheld the outrageous imprudence of Francis on a daily basis. Evidently, his word is no more tolerable than his acts.

Theodore Dalrymple has also addressed this subject with decidedly greater civility and consideration.

Designer Hellhole

Annusya discovered the above abomination as advertised by Home Depot. Just as we anatomize eximious and execrable interiors alike weekly courtesy of dedicated scanners such as JPEGFantasy and Manila Automat, I couldn’t help but likewise scrutinize this stabile calamity’s every ill-conceived element:

  • That tetragonal, post-’60s motif besmirching the floor and wall alike breathes a rancid nostalgia that gormless, suburban millennials agonize to imagine; to their boomer parents or grandparents, it’s a hideously effective reminder that they’ll soon be dead.
  • What appears to be vinyl or aluminum siding flanking the washbasin is almost innovative in its inanity. Who needs quality wainscot when you’re reimagining the wheel as a scissured brick?
  • Not quite clashing, the gray of the mirror’s frame and sink’s cabinet subtly yet powerfully enhances this collective unsightliness.
  • Who wants to see a lovely print whenever they approach their throne when they can settle for two ugly, grayscale photos of sere skeins evocative of the worthless falderol accumulated by someone’s senile great-grandfather?
  • Like all furnishings composed of perennially contemptible wickerwork, that wastebin belongs in another, or perhaps a fireplace. In a household occupied by a human family hailing from planet Earth, it couldn’t contain more than a few hours’ refuse.
  • Its design ought never have maculated an interior after 1975, but that suspended lamp really does befit postwar pastiche of this hideosity.

Prior generations — even Boomers and Xers largely devoted to indiscriminate rejection of tradition — usually possessed and exercized a measure of discernment so to omit irredeemably horrible artifacts of prior popularity whenever resurrecting others. On those rare occasions when Millennials actually retrospect — or worse, essay to revive the past in maladroit mimicry — they exhibit all the acumen and authenticity of a stupid and sheltered child.