To say California is the epicenter of batshit crazy is an understatement of Michael Moore sumo wrestling Rosie O’Donnell proportions, but there are still some times when I have to say, “No fucking duh!” This week, the San Francisco Chronicle reported due to “safety concerns” employees of the Nancy Pelosi Federal Building were advised to work from home.
No fucking duh!
Once one of the shining cities of the West Coast, San Francisco is starting to look like a crack whore once you sober up, only with more shit. What caused the downfall of the backdrop of many a “Full House” episode? I’m glad you asked!
San Francisco
What the Left thinks it means – a beautiful progressive city that exemplifies the best of Leftist causes
What it really means – a literal shithole that exemplifies the best of Leftist causes
If you really want to know the history of San Francisco prior to going further into this week’s Lexicon, here’s the Wikipedia entry. And try not to giggle too hard at the “commercial, financial, and cultural center” part.
Meanwhile back at 2023, San Francisco is not doing so hot. Depending on who you ask, crime is either a serious concern or not nearly as bad as some would lead us to believe. At one point, drug overdoses more than doubled COVID deaths in 2020. There were 7750 homeless people of various backgrounds as of 2022 in a city of 715,717, or for you mathheads out there, a little over 1% of the population.
But if you look at the chart in the previous link, you will notice San Francisco’s population has been declining since 2020. Which, of course, is Donald Trump’s fault…
Or it might be who the voters put into office. Nahhhhh!
Seriously, for all of the cultural diversity San Francisco is known for, this doesn’t appear to translate to ideological matters. After all, two of the favorite Leftist institutions of higher learning, Stanford and UC Berkeley, are housed in the Bay Area. And considering some of the graduates of said campuses, maybe they should be considered institutions, if you know what I mean.
And speaking of insanity, there are two elements that have made San Francisco (and California in general) into Thunderdome with more rainbow flags. We start with Proposition 47, an initiative to reduce penalties for non-violent crimes like shoplifting from possible felonies to misdemeanors. And, of course, this proposal passed because…reasons. Although Proposition 47 didn’t decriminalize shoplifting, it did act as a deterrent for police officers to investigate such crimes and for attorneys to prosecute them.
Then, there’s the second element: store employees trying to stop shoplifters are the ones who could be getting in trouble, thanks to the California Senate. Seems they passed a bill that would prohibit store employees from stopping shoplifters. And Leftists wonder why companies are pulling out of San Francisco?
Well, to put it simply for the Leftists, it’s your fucking fault this is happening. Not only are you creating an environment where you’d have to be insane to try to set up shop in San Francisco, but you’re disincentivizing companies to stay there. And what do you think will happen if those who generate income (i.e. a tax base) decide to pack up and go to greener pastures? Here’s a hint, kids: it doesn’t get better from here. And nothing the idiot used car salesman you elected Governor can say or do will fix that.
And that shitstain criticizes how Ron DeSantis governs in Florida? And he wants to run for President so he can bring his Leftist incompetence to the nation?
Sorry, Leftists. I’ll pass.
The sad thing is Leftists actually think San Francisco is a utopia, and they’re right. It’s just the utopia they see doesn’t involve going anywhere near where the problems are. Say what you will about Leftists, and believe me I do, but they are exceptional at living in more protective bubbles than John Travolta. (And if you got that reference, I thank you.) As long as they’re doing well, that’s all that matters.
But there’s a problem with that. Once the non-Leftists realize they outnumber the Leftists and get pissed off enough to do something about it, they tend to revolt. And I’m not talking about the pussy-ass Portland CHAD/CHOP bullshit, either. I’m talking French Revolution. The only thing stopping Reign of Terror 2: Electric Boogaloo is the Left keeps promising free stuff to the less fortunate to keep them docile and voting Democrat. And considering the last Republican mayor left office in 1964, it seems to be working.
However, Atlas is starting to shrug because there is only so much a population can take before they start looking for new leadership. Even as blue as the Bay Area was in 2020, turning it into Calcutta East isn’t a winning strategy, and you can’t keep offering free stuff while forcing businesses to keep items locked up due to shoplifting. The breaking point is coming, maybe not now or in 2024, but it is coming. And when Atlas finally shrugs, the people ignoring the problem right now are going to be the ones overwhelmed and needing help.
Until that happens, avoid San Francisco if at all possible, but also keep an eye on your own cities. For better or for definitely the worst, what happens in California tends to take hold in the rest of the country sooner or later. The only way to stop this insanity is to make sure it never takes hold. Easier said than done, I know, but if you arm yourselves with the facts, you can spot the San Francisco freak…I mean treat long before it hits Main Street.
And if that fails, invest heavily in hip waders because you’re gonna need ’em to navigate Brown Street, if you know what I mean…
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Presidents often get legislation or policies named after them. Ronald Reagan had Reaganomics. Barack Obama had Obamacare. Donald Trump had lots of bullshit indictments.
And our pal Puddin’ Head Joe has Bidenomics.
While Leftists are bending over backwards to make Bidenomics look successful, even to the point of saying Puddin’ Head Joe doesn’t want to take credit for the success and telling people things are better than they seem. And in between suggesting the average American isn’t smart enough to realize how great things are right now.
Well, put on your hip waders, kids, because this shit is gonna get deep.
Bidenomics
What the Left thinks it means – Joe Biden’s successful economic plan that is bringing us out of the dark economic times following COVID-19
What it really means – trillioning down on a failed economic model that only works in theory
There once was an economist named John Maynard Keynes. And unlike the man from Nantucket from the dirty limerick, Keynes is entertaining for a completely different reason: his economic theories. Normally, this shit would be as boring as a mayonnaise sandwich on white bread, but in his time he advanced the radical notion that the government had the ability to create wealth and stability by spending money. This idea, called Keynesian economics, has been lauded by Leftists as valid. There’s just one problem.
It doesn’t work. Ever.
The major flaw in Keynesian economics is it overvalues the power of the government to fix economic problems while undervaluing the power of the government to cause economic problems. When government spends money to create jobs, it’s always our tax dollars at stake, and we don’t have the power to fire them when they fuck up like Hunter Biden’s Narcotics Anonymous sponsor. Throw in the sometimes confusing and no-competence-needed approach to government contracts, and you have the recipe for work not getting done well, thus wasting our money.
Can you say The Big Dig, boys and girls? I knew you could.
As far as the government controlling/stabilizing the economy through spending, they can’t even follow the laws they pass, let alone the laws of economics. At best, the government can move the needle in one direction or another by taking certain actions, like cutting taxes or spending money on a government grant to research why modern pop music sucks. The real power of any economy lies with the consumers. Just ask Bud Light.
When a private entity spends a dollar, it’s done in the expectation it will stimulate growth. When government spends a dollar, it’s done in the expectation it will stimulate growth…of the government itself. In other words, a private dollar spends differently than a government dollar because of the purpose of the expenditure. Keynes didn’t see the distinction, which has caused many a Leftist to follow suit.
Unfortunately for us, Puddin’ Head Joe seems to be a Keynes groupie, considering much of Bidenomics is right out of the Keynesian playbook. Then again, he was caught plagiarizing, so it may not be that surprising after all.
What is surprising, however, is how the Left is trying to portray Bidenomics as a raging success. They tout lower unemployment and decreased inflation as proof, and it’s hard to argue with the numbers.
That’s why I’m going to do it.
The same Puddin’ Head Joe administration that is taking credit for slashing inflation saw it hitting a 40 year high of 9.1% waaaaaaaaaay back in July…of 2022. As far as unemployment, Leftists tell us it’s at a historic low. But no one on the Left is digging into why it’s so low, mainly because it may be more due to job recovery than job creation. Nor are they willing to admit Donald Trump did it before Puddin’ Head Joe took the oath of office.
This leads to several questions, none of which the Left is prepared to answer. Let’s start off with the obvious: how in the Wide World of Fuck did Puddin’ Head Joe become President? More to the point, though, is why don’t people believe the economy is getting better. Well, aside from having to take out a third mortgage and work 14 jobs a week just to buy a day’s worth of groceries, I don’t see where they are getting the idea the economy is a dumpster fire the size of two sumo wrestlers or one Lizzo.
Seriously, though, I do see why. For all of the economic successes we’re allegedly having, it’s not translating to success at home. And, no, it’s not because Bidenomics has been rolled out worse than the Obamacare website. It’s because, like the Obamacare website, it’s being run by people with no business running it.
Look at who Puddin’ Head Joe put in charge of his economic policy. I don’t know them personally, but judging by their backgrounds and the results going on in real time, I wouldn’t trust them to run a 5k, let alone an economy. Why not go all in and appoint Paul “The Internet’s Impact On the Economy Will Be No Greater Than the Fax Machine’s” Krugman to run the economy. At least we know he will be wrong from the jump instead of having to wait for more proof. And if we do the exact opposite of what Krugman says, we’re guaranteed to be successful.
If you take a look at the people behind Bidenomics, though, you should notice not a lot of them have actual work experience outside of government and think tanks. They don’t seem to know what Joe Six Pack and his family deal with on a regular basis, which taints their thought processes. Well, that, and being part of the Leftist Hivemind. That disconnect between the policy makers and the policy victims drives a lot of the feelings that the Left doesn’t understand what’s going on outside of the Beltway Bubble.
So, instead of trying to close that information gap, the Left simply tells us to shut up and look at the numbers. Oh, and vote for Puddin’ Head Joe in 2024 to keep the good times rollin’! Of course, that’s assuming you can afford to pay for gas to get you to the polling place in 2024 without having to betroth your daughters to a Washington bureaucrat in exchange for dowries.
Or your sons because DC swings all ways, baby!
I do have to agree with Puddin’ Head Joe on one aspect of his economic philosophy. He once said, “Don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.” And he’s exactly right. Based on recent spending requests, Puddin’ Head Joe’s values apparently involve Ukraine, but not so much America. So, sleep well knowing our President is working hard…for another country.
On the bright side, Puddin’ Head Joe proves Keynesian economics is bullshit, so yay, I guess?
Bidenomics is a Jar Jar Binks level stupid idea based on ideas that have been tried by previous economic illiterates and failed every time. It’s cold comfort when your monthly expenditures look like a telephone number, but like a kidney stone, this too shall pass. And it will be just as fucking painful until it does.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As a recovering Leftist, I have an insight on how the Left thinks (which is usually not at all). Even then, there are times when I shake my head in “what the absolute fuck are you thinking” mode.
This is one of those times.
I present to you a new Leftist group called Unpull the Trigger out of Portland, Oregon. Although they haven’t reached the sheer dumbfuckery of Everytown for Gun Safety or, well, being Hunter Biden, they are quickly rising up the charts with a bullet, or more accurately, with an AR-15. See, Unpull the Trigger has the brilliant idea of buying every black man an AR-15 as a means to make Republicans back gun control.
And it was at this point my head started shaking like a Jello mold on the San Andreas Fault during an 8.9 on the Richter Scale.
Unpull the Trigger
What the Left thinks it means – a Progressive group trying to get Republicans to finally get on board with sensible gun control
What it really means – another idiotic Leftist group based on an erroneous assumption about the Right
So far, not much is known about Unpull the Trigger, mainly because people are too busy laughing at them to do any actual digging. But, from what I’ve been able to find, they are a non-profit anti-gun grift…I mean group, and run by fucking idiots. Their big-brained idea I referenced above is called, and I swear I’m not making this up, “Scare the Racists Straight.”
See what I mean by “what the absolute fuck are you thinking”?
As you might expect, all Leftist anti-gun groups lack one essential piece of information: knowing any actual gun owners who aren’t one of them. Oh, sure, you’ll find a Leftist gun owner who thinks there needs to be stricter laws on the books because fee-fees, but that’s not the same thing as Bubba McMAGAHat, who is a proud gun owner and wouldn’t be caught dead voting for anyone to the left of Pat Buchanan.
Okay, bad example. Let’s go with Ronald Reagan.
This lack of actual knowledge leads to blind spots that lead to dumb decisions like assuming Republicans would be against arming blacks or naming an organization Unpull the Trigger. Once you start digging a bit, the blind spots become so obvious Stevie Wonder can see them.
Although whites make up a significant percentage of gun owners in America, there are still a number of blacks who are according to the Pew Research Center. I’m sure the NRA would appreciate the expected increased membership, but it doesn’t work if your goal is to prevent people from having guns in the first place. But only a complete dipshit would want…oh, the President of Unpull the Trigger wants that.
I have to give them credit, though, for thinking outside the box. Of course, their initiative will wind up the same way the other gun control efforts have: failing worse than Michael Bay doing a “Heidi” remake.
But here’s where shit gets really weird. If we look at the stats (and I do because my social life makes Boo Radley look like a TikTok “star”), there is a significant number of young black men who are in gangs, with a majority of them being over 18. Granted, these numbers are over a decade old, so the percentages may be different, but it’s immaterial to the larger point I’m going to make here. Unpull the Trigger wants to give these gang members AR-15s, which will undoubtedly change the dynamic of gang culture, i.e. allowing people with zero problems offing another person to have access to a weapon Leftists say are only made for killing people.
But not every black man belongs to a gang, so we can’t use that broad brush. However, we can look at how giving every black man a gun might affect Leftist groups like…oh, I don’t know…Black Lives Matter. Surely an organization that wants to defund the police wouldn’t use guns in a violent matter, right?
David Dorn could not be reached for comment.
What about ANTIFA? Although primarily dominated by whites, there are blacks who are either members or sympathetic to the cause. And ANTIFA isn’t above violent methods to achieve their goals or to make a statement.
And Unpull the Trigger wants to arm these assholes.
Oh, but it gets better! Notice Unpull the Trigger wants to arm black men…but not black women. Isn’t that sexist? Are these Leftists assuming black women a) don’t want to be armed, or b) are incapable of using a gun properly? And what about black trans people (as opposed to Shawn King and Rachel Dolezal, who claim to be trans-black)? If gender is a spectrum or a social construct, why are black men the only ones who get the guns? That’s patriarchy, motherfuckers! Not to mention, it’s trans erasure! And, I’m sorry kids, but that means Unpull the Trigger has to be shamed and run out of the public square.
Hey, I didn’t write the rules, but I can’t abide by your obvious hatred, so off you go!
Now, remember when I said earlier this whole concept was based on an erroneous assumption about the Right? Well, hold onto your hats because we’re finally getting to the good part.
The Left assumes the Right is full of racist bigots because the Right tends to oppose Leftist measures to “fight” racism and bigotry. And by extension, Leftists believe gun owners are racists. So, Unpull the Trigger wants to make more black men gun owners and, thus…make them racists?
Remember, kids, I am a trained professional. Do not try to make sense of Leftist logic at home.
And this is where the Leftist blind spot kicks them in the dick. There are racists who are gun owners if only due to the law of averages, but the Venn Diagram of racists and gun owners really doesn’t have a lot of overlap because gun owners care more about their guns than they do about the color of who owns them. I’ve been to a couple of gun shows and have known many gun owners in my 53 years of life. I even have had a gun owner or two in my family. You know what I found in interacting with actual gun owners?
They’re regular people. Well-armed people, I grant you, but regular people. Sure, they have differences as people often do, but when it comes to gun ownership, the only colors that matter to them are those of the guns themselves. Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, but it’s a damn sight better than the pulling ideas out of their asses that Unpull the Trigger is using.
Ultimately, Unpull the Trigger will become a laughingstock like David Hogg, and much for the same reason: they know jack shit about guns and gun owners. Assuming anyone on the Right would freak out about blacks getting AR-15s is not the sign of an intellectual giant, no matter how much the press writes glowing puff pieces about them. At some point, they will fade into the background like all the other gun control groups and struggle to remain relevant.
The only hope for their salvation would be if it came out they were trolling the Left just to see how much support they would get from them. If not, I have a much better solution for Unpull the Trigger. If you really want to stop gun violence, don’t ban guns; ban Leftists from having guns.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I would never want to be a White House Press Secretary under any circumstances. First, you have to communicate with members of the press, which is like going to Chuck E Cheese during a big toddler birthday party on a good day (and working that same birthday on a bad day). Second, you might have to address a scandal that involves the President and his/her family.
And then, there’s the third reason: I’d have the same title as the current Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, who makes Jen Psaki look good by comparison. Recently, Jean-Pierre responded to a question about the ongoing legal troubles of Hunter Biden, who I’m lead to believe is related in some way to President Puddin’ Head Joe but I’m waiting until the mainstream media confirms because I’m thorough like that. Apparently, I’m still having to wait since Karine Jean-Pierre referred to Hunter Biden as a “private citizen” and the press hasn’t asked a follow-up question about it.
While we wait on reporters to, you know, do their fucking jobs, let’s talk about private citizens for a bit. Maybe by the time this piece is done, we will be able to confirm the First Crackhead is related to Puddin’ Head Joe.
private citizen
What the Left thinks it means – people who should be kept out of the public spotlight to avoid unnecessary attention
What it really means – how Leftists describe one of their own when he/she/it royally fucks up
The concept of what constitutes a private citizen has been the subject of a lot of good natured debate within First Amendment scholarly circles. And, as is the case with such scholarly debates, nothing’s really come of it except more debate. Fortunately, the law gives us a bit more clarity:
The term “private person” means— (A) any individual who is a citizen or national of the United States; and (B) any corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity organized or existing under the law of any State, whether for profit or not for profit.
And by “a bit” I mean none at all.
Generally, the rule of thumb is a person who is not well-known would be a private citizen. In short, anybody who still uses Mastodon as a Twitter alternative. Once that person gets a bit of fame or infamy, the protections afforded a private citizen get worn away. Still, even someone well-known in Monkey’s Ass, Wyoming, would not be as well-known in New York City, so venue matters.
Or it used to. Thanks 24/7 news and social media.
Then, there are celebrities. In exchange for fame, fortune, and the occasional appearance on talk shows, they give up expectations of privacy for as long as they’re in the public consciousness. Some, like Dustin “Screech” Diamond, never quite escape. Others, like Dustin “Screech” Diamond’s stunt double, reclaim their privacy by giving up their celebrity.
The thing about celebrity, though, is it can be extended to members of their families. The children of politicians fall into this category, especially if they fuck up in such a way it makes the news. Ask the Bush Twins about that after their underage drinking fiasco. That means, Hunter Biden, if he truly is the offspring of Puddin’ Head Joe, would not qualify as a private citizen.
Wait…nope. Still no mainstream media confirmation of that yet. But hope springs eternal.
So, why would Karine Jean-Pierre lie to us about Hunter Biden being a private citizen? I mean, aside from it’s her job to unconvincingly lie to the White House Press Lapdogs…I mean Corps. The short answer is because she can get away with it. The politically obvious reasons are, well, Hunter Biden is a crackhead embarrassment that makes his dad look even worse than he already does, thus handing Republicans an easier win than any woman against a Leftist man in an arm wrestling contest. The more people connect Hunter to Joe, the harder it is for Hunter to be considered a private citizen.
At its face, the idea is absurd. But these are Leftists we’re dealing with here, so it’s not surprising. The Left wants you to believe Hunter Biden, who has a well-documented history of being a shitty person, somehow isn’t famous enough to be covered as a news story, hence he’s a private citizen. Yet, his art that sells for $500,000 a flop…I mean pop gets people all over the world to buy it, so he logically can’t be a private citizen because he’s known worldwide.
This is why I don’t recommend trying to make sense of Leftist logic without hard liquor.
Now, it’s nice to know Leftists care about protecting private citizens from undue attention. If only they weren’t fucking hypocrites on the subject when it suits their needs. If you’re a Colorado baker who happens to be Christian and refused to bend over (figuratively and literally) to a same-sex couple, you get put on blast so everyone knows how much of an evil no-good right wing homophobe bigot Hitler wannabe you are. If you’re a member of ANTIFA who gets caught on video attacking someone with a bike chain, the Left will go out of their way to hide that information.
Hmmm…if only there were indicators of when the Left will flip-flop on what constitutes a private citizen…oh, wait, there is! They always flip-flop like John Kerry cooking at a beachfront IHOP working straight commission.
As unsurprising as the Left’s duplicity regarding private citizens is, the scary thing is it may be too late to protect private citizens, actual and hypothetical, due to the advent of social media. Any dick with a cell phone can film you doing something horrible (or at least make it look like you did something horrible), post it online, and make you famous before you can say “YouTube Shorts.” Then, you are known as Fat Guy Yells At Burger King Employee While His Shorts Fall Down forever and you have to delete your online presence and start blogging under the name of Thomas…
I’ve said too much.
Anyway, with privacy going the way of anyone not fawning over the Barbie movie, we need to get on the stick to address how this impacts private citizens. Unfortunately, we’re lightyears behind and no one else is thinking about this issue because there’s a Barbie movie, you guys! That, and the fact more people want to be seen on social media like TikTok, so they’re willing to trade their status as private citizens for fame, no matter how temporary it is.
Yep. We’re fucked.
Until such time as society decides to give up on being famous, it’s up to us to keep the idea of a private citizen alive. That means keeping your head down, being aware of your surroundings and the people in it, and not drawing attention to yourselves. Live your life as much off the grid as possible, or if that’s not possible, be smart with what you share. Yes, this will make you massively unhip to the rest of the world, but when you consider what is considered cool these days, it’s no big loss.
On a larger scale, we have to recognize what a private citizen is and why Hunter Biden isn’t one. No matter how the Left tries to spin it, this situation is like a Lindsey Lohan drug story, only with shittier art. And considering Lohan’s acting career, that’s saying a lot!
This just in! Still no mainstream media confirmation Hunter and Puddin’ Head Joe are related. Like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As a semi-kinda-sorta-famous blogger, people come up to me all the time and ask my opinions of the issues of the day. Most of the time, the questions are “Where are your pants, sir?” but lately another question has crept in there: What is your opinion of the Writers Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists strike going on right now?
I’m glad you asked, mainly because there are only so many times you can talk about trans issues, climate change, gun control, and other common Leftist squawking points before you get burnt out. This topic has some political elements to it, so we’re not completely out of my wheelhouse here.
So, by popular demand (and by “popular” I mean because 3 people asked me), here’s the hottest take I can give on the subject.
the WGA/SAG-AFTRA strike
What the Left thinks it means – writers and actors banding together to ensure writers get fair compensation for their work
What it really means – the result of a fucked up system that makes the powerless knuckle under to the powerful
Off the top, I have to say my opinion differs from most of my conservative compatriots, but I have reasons instead of disdain for the actors driving my opinion. But don’t worry, kids. I will show my disdain for the actors later!
I feel sympathy for the striking writers for the most part. As a writer myself, I understand the time and dedication it takes to produce even a remotely good story. Hell, anybody can churn out another Madea movie. Oh, and while we’re here…Tyler Perry, I’m thinking the only reasons you continue to put out the Madea movies is so you can dress in drag. It’s okay, buddy! Dressing in drag is some of the least creepy shit coming out of Hollywood these days!
Bob Iger aside, the writers’ enemies aren’t the studios themselves, but the Hollywood system itself. I’ve seen slasher movies less cutthroat than Hollywood, which is ironic on levels I can’t even begin to comprehend fully. Everybody involved in the entertainment industry there is competing for a spot in the big time, and that leads to a lot of backstabbing, undercutting, and fucking over. The big brains behind the big box office movies aren’t the directors, actors, producers, or even the studios.
It’s the writers. They’re the people with the ideas (albeit bad ideas sometimes), and they’re the ones who try to make sense of a story. And if you’re not high profile enough to print money for shit content, you’re not likely to see your project go from writer’s room to screen without a lot of interference from the Hollywood system. And the movers and shakers of the system know that, so they treat writers like most people treat used chewing gum.
And even if you get your vision on the screen, if it doesn’t make money or garner attention that can be translated into money, you’re not ever going to move up the food chain. You are stuck writing scripts for movies and TV shows that would get cancelled before the opening credits start. Meanwhile, those writers who find themselves within the Hollywood system are making bank for coming up with yet another “Scary Movie” sequel.
That’s where the Writers Guild of America comes in. Or, rather, should.
The WGA is a labor union with presence on both coasts who are supposed to represent the writers. And they do, but they’ve done a shitty job keeping up with the times when it comes to payment for new media. If you look at the Wikipedia link I provided (which, I grant you, is like trusting Hunter Biden to keep an eye on your cocaine while you go to the bathroom), you’ll noticed six strikes since 1960, and all six have dealt with residuals, i.e. getting paid for your work.
Maybe it’s me, but I would think a labor union that represents media writers would be able to, you know, keep up with the changing landscape of media and adjust accordingly.
Just because I’m a curious individual, I dug a bit deeper into who is running WGA West, the union that covers Hollywood. Guess what? The top three officers are part of the Hollywood machine. And if you look at the Board of Directors…same fucking thing! No wonder the rank and file of the WGA have to keep fighting and striking for their money in perpetuity; their union is helping the “enemy.”
This is where I have to part company with the writers out there. Yes, Hollywood is beholden to the labor union system because of their Leftist nature, but they aren’t the only game in Tinsel Town, just the easiest. And when you settle for easy, you don’t control the vertical nor the horizontal. You will get what the system will allow you.
Going off on your own is going to be tougher, but it can be done while retaining your artistic freedom. That’s why I respect people like Tommy Wiseau, Lloyd Kaufman, and Roger Corman. Sure, their work doesn’t match up to a big Hollywood production…with the exception of the “Transformers”… or later “The Fast and the Furious” movies…or recent Marvel movie and TV projects…or the bulk of the Disney “Star Wars” projects…
I take that back. Wiseau, Kaufman, and Corman are much better.
Anyway, the reason I respect these and other independent filmmakers as much as I can is because they prove it can be done outside of the Hollywood system. You might not get more than a credit at the end of the movie and maybe a hot dog out of the deal, but you’re still free of the system that makes it impossible for you to afford a hot dog in Hollyweird.
That brings us to the SAG-AFTRA members marching with the WGA. They’re doing their best to show their solidarity with the writers, as evidenced by their Twitter and Intagram posts. But, the operative word in that previous sentence is “show.” These people get paid to pretend, and right now they’re pretending to be strikers. They don’t go back to a one-room apartment so cramped the cockroaches have hunchbacks. They go back to the homes they purchased with money earned off the word processors of the writers. How many of them are opening their homes to writers? None that I’ve heard so far. Are any of them using their clout to force the machine pay writers better? Of course not! That would make them pariahs in the industry, and they need to keep up their lifestyles, so they’re ultimately on Team Machine.
Sucks to be a struggling WGA member, doesn’t it?
But, I have come with a solution, one I call the Sinatra Solution. Back in the 1950s, Las Vegas was segregated by race, including the talent. After Sammy Davis Jr. was denied a room at the Sands, the Chairman refused to perform there until Davis got a room. It was a huge risk at the time, considering how vital Frank Sinatra was to the elevation of the Las Vegas nightlife and image. But, it paid off because Sinatra was so vital to Las Vegas. He used the leverage he had to make things better for everyone.
If enough actors, producers, big-name writers, or studio heads had the balls to do it, they wouldn’t march on the picket lines and take selfies; they would pull a Sinatra and refuse to work until the writers got paid better. Hollywood would grind to a halt if the Avengers (the actors in the movie series, not the comic book characters) collectively told Disney to fuck themselves until every writer got paid well for their work.
And don’t think it would stop there. Hollywood right now is a house of cards (a house of playing cards, not the TV show of the same name), and one gust of wind from enough powerful people slamming the doors on the corrupt system would cause it to all fall down around them. And as long as the WGA/SAG-AFTRA folks are part of that system, they will be left to pick up what’s left.
Aside from the Sinatra Solution, let me also posit the idea that the WGA should be phased out in favor of a group that doesn’t suck Hollywood’s dick while pretending to be working for the writers. All it takes is enough people to tell the WGA to shove their efforts up their collective asses and there’s a chance they would get the hint.
You know, in a few years after it happened.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Before we begin, I feel obligated to warn you a lot of what I’ll be talking about this week isn’t pleasant and may stir strong emotions in people. If you feel you aren’t down for a serious (well, semi-serious because…me), this may not be the week to read the Lexicon, and I completely understand. I promise to return you to your regularly scheduled chucklefest next week.
This week, child sex trafficking came front and center from a couple of sectors, and the Left had an…interesting response to it. Not “gee that’s fascinating, tell me more” interesting. More of a “what in the Wide World of Fuck are you thinking” interesting.
It started with a new movie, “Sound of Freedom”, that came out on July 4th and has as of this writing a decent box office. The film is based on a true story about a man who went from government agent to warrior in the fight against child sex trafficking. Then, our good fiends…I mean friends in California had Democrat members of their Assembly Public Safety Committee block a proposal that would recriminalize child sex trafficking.
Oh, yeah. It’s about to get serious up in here.
child sex trafficking
What the Left thinks it means – a serious issue that must be dealt with
What it really means – an issue the Left won’t touch any time soon
To put it mildly, sex trafficking is a disturbing practice affecting millions of people worldwide, with a significant number being children. The fact it’s a global issue and yet one that doesn’t seem to get as much attention as climate change, starvation, or the latest Taylor Swift album makes the issue that much more painful to consider.
Yet, the Left are concerned about our children, right? I mean, they’re trying to create an inclusive environment where all races, gender identities, religions, etc. are respected, right? (Offer void with white straight Christian men.) They absolutely want the very best for future generations!
Not so much.
See, Leftists see children as tabula rasa in Garanimals, or if you’d prefer, toddlera rasa. For those of you playing along at home, a tabula rasa is a mental condition where no ideas have been formulated on a person’s mind based on his/her environment. Essentially, a brand new Etch A Sketch. Once this mind is exposed to incoming data from the senses, ideas and personalities form.
This is why Leftists have turned public education into indoctrination factories. As early as they can get them in the door, children’s minds and opinions form, even if they contradict what their parents believe. In other words, Leftists are attempting to create a child’s reality in their own twisted image.
“But Thomas, what does any of this have to do with child sex trafficking?” you might be asking. And if you are, I’m glad you are. If you aren’t, you might already know where I’m going with this, so don’t spoil the ending, okay?
At their cold black hearts, Leftists see children as a commodity, a purely transactional entity, an entry on a ledger. The value of a child is directly related to how closely he or she follows Leftist doctrine or can be used to advance it. Take Greta Thunberg (please). The Left gives zero fucks about her as a person, just as a figurehead they can use to advance their frequent (and even more frequently wrong) hysteria. Once Greta is no longer useful to the Left, she will get jettisoned out the closest air lock never to be catered to again.
By the way, Greta, check with Cindy Sheehan to get an idea of your future with the Left.
When you consider this angle, it makes the Left’s approach to child sex trafficking a little more understandable and a lot more creepy. And by approach, I mean either utter silence or claiming it’s a right wing fantasy.
And this brings us back to the Leftist Flow Chart of Dealing With An Issue.
1. Deny it’s happening.
2. Claim it’s made up by political opponents
3. Admit it’s happening, but it’s not as bad as it’s been made out to be
4. Admit it’s as bad as it’s been made out to be, but it’s not that bad
5. Admit it’s that bad, but it’s grossly misunderstood (i.e. anyone could make that mistake)
6. Paint those who were right all along as hateful bigots while painting the bad actors as victims
For a recent example to illustrate the point, the Hunter Biden cocaine story is heading into Stage 6. Right now, child sex trafficking is between Stage 1 or 2, depending on the outlet. Some outlets like CNN and Rolling Stone who are well into Stage 2, not taking issue with the subject matter “Sound of Freedom” so much as the people connected to it, namely Jim Caviezel. Now, if you haven’t been paying attention to his career, he’s one of those Hollywood actors who didn’t go woke and has been steadfastly conservative since making a name for himself.
Because a guy who played Jesus acting in a film trying to bring attention to child sex trafficking is clearly the bad guy.
Putting that biased and utterly stupid idea aside, we are left with an important question: why doesn’t the Left take child sex trafficking seriously? Granted, the “children as a commodity” perspective gives us a clue, but it’s not the whole answer. For being simple-minded, Leftists motivations to do or not do something tend to be more complex.
Enter our good friend Occam’s Razor. (I liked it so much, I bought the premise!) This idea boils down to simplifying an issue down to its simplest components to reach a conclusion. As faithful readers know, Leftists love money, power, and control, and if they take a position it’s because they think it’s going to work in their favor.
Now, I’m not saying Leftists have a child sex trafficking issue. I mean, it’s not like a big-name Hollywood producer or a famous financier had connections to high profile Leftists or anything, right?
By staying silent or attacking those trying to bring child sex trafficking to the forefront, Leftists keep the money flowing, which helps them maintain control and power. Even with former child stars like Corey Feldman, Elijah Wood, and others coming forward and exposing how Hollywood treats kids, you aren’t going to see too many Leftists coming forward to do anything about it.
Granted, many of the examples I’ve presented are tangentially-related to child sex trafficking, but I don’t think it’s too far of a leap to believe an industry that hides child sex allegations might also have an issue with how they get the children in the first place. Still, we must be fair and assume innocence until guilt can be established. Yet, we cannot rule it out as a possibility because, well, Hollywood is full of scumbags with enough power to make even the weirdest sexual deviancy go away.
Especially if they have friends in high places, like…oh I don’t know…Washington, DC?
Here’s the thing that confuses me, especially now. This issue is a slam dunk for Leftists if they really thought about it (Spoiler Alert: they didn’t). The electorate is hearing multiple news stories about children being groomed by Leftists, so they should be aware of the potential political bonanza they could see (as well as the ability to keep the “groomer” talk down for a while) by just coming out against it publicly. Plus, it would show the Left is willing to work with the Right on important issues regardless of political differences.
But they just can’t bring themselves to do it. After all, if they concede child sex trafficking is an issue, there’s a good chance it would open up further scrutiny and discussion about border security, sex trafficking in general, whether there is a culture of sex trafficking in Leftist strongholds and among Left-leaning groups, and a lot of other shitstorms the Left doesn’t need right now. After all, they’re too busy trying to cover up the daily shitstorms from the Biden Administration.
But, Leftists, staying silent, attacking a film about child sex trafficking, and blocking legislation that makes child sex trafficking illegal aren’t the way to win hearts and minds of the general population. The political losses you perceive pale in comparison to the sheer evil you’re allowing to young people who aren’t even old enough to vote for your shitty politics. You are politically shooting yourselves in the feet with a Gatling gun, all to protect people who might just be at the heart of the problem in the first place.
But look on the bright side. You got the sick pervert vote locked up!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The US Supreme Court has been busy making Leftists cry lately. In addition to their recent decision regarding Affirmative Action (my coverage available here), they also ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of a Colorado businesswoman who wanted to do wedding websites, but didn’t want to them for same-sex weddings. Seems it would violate her religious beliefs, so she challenged Colorado’s law and eventually won.
Which royally pissed off the Left!
While Leftists started in on their “expand the Supreme Court” and “extremist right wing Court” recycled rhetoric, others cheered the decision as a “victory for free speech.” So, why were Leftists (who proclaim themselves as free speech champions) upset?
I’m glad you…errr I asked.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
What the Left thinks it means – a Supreme Court decision that makes it legal to discriminate against people
What it really means – the mask slipping on the Left’s commitment to free speech
Our good friends at Twitchy give us a nice breakdown of the case and the stipulations the businesswoman was willing to make to comply with Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws. The Reader’s Digest Condensed Version is she was willing to work with anyone, but not to make websites that would go against her faith.
Wait. I seem to remember a similar situation with a baker in Colorado and the Left’s response being “Bake the cake, bigot.”
Both the baker and the businesswoman were subject to what might best be called coerced free speech. I take that back. The best term for this is bullshit, but you get the idea. The idea behind free speech is to allow everyone a chance to speak their minds up to the point it inspires violence (i.e. “fighting words“). Where the Left takes the, well, left turn off the freeway of free expression is when others say things they don’t like. Then, they will stop at nothing to prevent those evil mean nasty Nazi ideas from getting traction, including collaborating with Big Tech to silence them. Of course, they’ll use any excuse they can to justify it and if you disagree, you’re just dag nasty evil.
Or in the case of COVID-19 hysteria, most likely telling the truth.
This brings us back to the “bake the cake” mentality of the Left. There are segments of the Left (namely the LGBTQA+ABCDEFGOHWEOHWEOHGIRLIWANNAKNOWYOUKNOWYOU crowd) who will use the judicial system to force certain groups (namely Christians) to do what they want in some weird flex of their protected status. And until fairly recently, the courts have let them get away with it, stating a protected class’ “right” to services trumps the Christian’s right to religion.
When you’re coerced to speak under threat of judicial or regulatory reprisal, free speech is compromised to the point of being ineffectual. This is why the “bake the cake” argument is so fucked up in the first place. Although business do have the right to refuse service, it’s limited to situations where it’s not considered discriminatory. And thanks to the aforementioned Alphabet Soup Group, anything short of total subservience to their cause is discriminatory.
Not surprisingly, though, this runs smack-dab in the face of their attitudes about Twitter banning conservative users. Back then, it was okay to silence conservatives because “Twitter is a private business and can make decisions to deny someone a platform.”
Soooooo…I have a question. Why is it okay to silence conservatives because of Twitter’s status as a private business, but also okay to force private businesses to give Leftists a platform for their ideas? The short answer is it’s not because it’s hypocritical and counterintuitive to the idea of free speech. Regardless of how tasty the medium may be, you cannot force compliance one way without forcing it the other way and still be intellectually consistent.
And now, you can’t do it while being legally consistent.
Look, I get the idea behind Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. It’s how it’s being implemented that’s the issue. If you’re using it as a cudgel to attack people who don’t agree with you, it’s being used incorrectly. Laws like the anti-discrimination laws are meant to be more of a legal shield and a method to provide legal recourse should the laws be broken. Using it the way Colorado Leftists have, though, turns a law with good intentions into one with bad application, which puts it in proximity of “fighting words” in my semi-learned opinion.
Where the majority opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis diverted expectations is that it was ruled on as a free speech rather than a freedom of religion issue. But the true brilliance comes when you consider the Left’s opinion of religion in general (save for Climate Change Cultists). In arguing against religion in the public square, the Left has taken one of two approaches: demanding an all-or-none approach (except when it comes to Muslims), or demanding freedom from religion. After all, you have to account for those who don’t want religion shoved down their throats, right?
Wellllll…let’s apply this to another idea, freedom of association. As this link shows, the Supreme Court has already ruled there is a freedom from association as well as a freedom of association. In other words, the High Court has already laid the groundwork for future challenges to Colorado’s law if some plucky attorney with time to kill and a client willing to test the law would put it in motion.
Not that I’m hinting someone should do that, mind you…
Nevertheless, the 6-3 ruling (with guess who making up the minority) is going to stand for now, and the Left can’t handle it. Not only can’t they force people to do their bidding because reasons, but the arguments put forth in opposition to the ruling are…how can I put this delicately…fucking stupid. But remember, Leftists are smarter than us. Just ask them.
In this case (and, to be fair, in most cases for that matter), the Left got this one wrong, and instead of figuring out how they went wrong, they blamed the “right wing Supreme Court.” You know, like mature adults do? Yet, something tells me they aren’t going to understand the implications of their insistence people have to be forced to platform their ideas. I mean, if their ideas were so popular, wouldn’t people want to give them platforms?
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is a victory for actual free speech and a blow to the coerced speech the Left want to make the norm. No matter how the Left tries to spin it or muddy the waters with absurd claims, this is an L for them, which is a given.
After all, you can’t spell “Leftist” without an L.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
When it comes to finding topics for this weekly excursion into Leftist insanity, patience can be a virtue. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had a topic in mind only to have another topic jumping to the head of the line. (Then again, it might have something to do with me not being able to count, but that’s neither here nor there.)
This week was one of those times. I intended to write about a potential Presidential candidate getting shafted more than a gay porn filmed in an elevator when our good friends at the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision striking down race as a factor in determining college admissions via Affirmative Action..
Thank you, Jesus.
Of course, Leftists freaked out all over the place, which means not only does it give us the topic for this week, but gives us an opportunity to mock the Leftists into the Stone Age! Yay!
Affirmative Action
What the Left thinks it means – a necessary program to address racism in social, academic, and political arenas
What it really means – a program that fights racism by being racist
Affirmative Action began in 1961 due to Executive Order 10925 issued by President John F. Kennedy where he called for “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” But before you could say ” color-blind society,” Leftists took the idea, twisted it, and turned it into a way to legally discriminate to address grievances, both real and imagined.
Then, it went from letting blacks have a chance to seize the American dream to letting them have all the chances. And it worked well for a while. Eventually, other races wanted in on the Affirmative Action gravy train, and Leftists being Leftists let them. And it worked even better.
Until Asian-Americans entered the equation. (For the purposes of this piece, I will be focusing on the educational aspects of Affirmative Action since that was the issue before the Supreme Court.) Seems when it came to college admissions with institutes of higher learning that adopted Affirmative Action in said admissions (like Harvard and the University of North Carolina, just to name two completely random universities), Asian-American students kept getting passed over for…you guessed it, blacks who didn’t exactly match their Asian-American counterparts, but did have the right skin color.
And guess how that turned out. Oh yeah, it got slapped down by a 6-3 majority like a narc at a biker rally.
Granted, the Asian-American community is understandably split on whether Affirmative Action is a good thing. A majority of those who have heard of it think it’s a good thing, but they don’t think race should be a factor in college admissions. So, they’re working at cross purposes, like your fingers in a Chinese finger trap.
And the Left won’t let that go for a second.
Of course, when they’re trying to explain the dichotomy/duality/hypocrisy, they resort to letting members of the Asian-American community do the whitesplaining for them. And, not surprisingly, they all seem to parrot the same squawking point: Affirmative Action good, Supreme Court decision bad.
But here’s the thing. Affirmative Action in education is racist by definition. Colleges and universities literally used race as a means to determine entry, thus favoring one race over another.
Literally racism. And I do mean literally, kids.
Affirmative Action as the Leftists practice it pulls an Animal Farm by suggesting some racism is more oppressive than others, so they put different weight to certain racial elements in order to rectify the racial injustices of the past. By being racist.
And people wonder why I’m so fucked in the head after being a Leftist.
Regardless, Leftists were pissed at the Supreme Court decision. Some, like Chief Running Mouth, lamented what is being presumed as a loss to black and Hispanic students. Others, like President Puddin’ Head Joe, told the truth without knowing it. Still others, like California Governor Gavin “Human Smarm” Newsom, tripped over his state’s own laws while blasting the decision.
But the general consensus among Leftists is, well, melting down in racist ways, with an “expand the Supreme Court” twist for good measure. (By the way, Erica Marsh, you might want to call the office and let them know you’ve dug yourself a hole and need a really long ladder to get out. And you can’t blame MAGA Republicans for you being stupid.)
Never let a crisis, even one of their own creation, go to waste, amirite?
And believe me, this Supreme Court decision going against the Left is a crisis of their own creation by not really getting the whole “racism is bad” thing. Even if you think you have the best of intentions, racism will get its ass kicked by the law sooner or later. And when you consider how often Leftists have invoked the 14th Amendment as a means to try to punish politicians they say were part of the January 6 “insurrection,” you would think they would have read the first parts of it dealing with, oh I don’t know…equal protections under the law. You know, the very fucking thing the whole Amendment was about?
Nevertheless, this Supreme Court ruling is going to be a bitter pill for the Left to swallow because it’s the same thing that happened when Roe v Wade was sent back to the states. Leftists overplayed their hands and got away with it for decades because they made it socially unacceptable to oppose them. What they didn’t (and still don’t if I’m being honest) think about is when enough people say “fuck it” and stand up anyway. Then, we see how paper thin the Leftist tigers actually are. If the Left hadn’t twisted the original intent of Affirmative Action into a bean-counting system, they would have been fine and no Supreme Court case would have come forward because there wouldn’t have been grounds to do so.
Of course, this wouldn’t be an Affirmative Action ruling without Leftists singling out Justice Clarence Thomas because Leftists say he benefited from Affirmative Action practices to get into law school. Pretty big assumption, as Thomas has shown himself to be a keen legal and Constitutional mind (which might be one of the main reasons the Left hates him). It’s possible he got into law school through Affirmative Action, but it’s just as possible he got in on his merits. Only Thomas knows for sure.
Even if Thomas recused himself, the outcome would be the same, just with a 5-3 outcome. Nothing would have changed.
By the way, have you noticed how Thomas is the only one who’s questioned about whether he would have gotten into law school without Affirmative Action? Not Sonia “Wise Latina” Sotomayor. Not Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Just Clarence Thomas. Of course, Sotomayor and Brown Jackson vote the “right” way, so they obviously got into their respective law schools totally on their merits and not because of their skin colors.
Wait. Aren’t Leftists complaining about blacks and Hispanics not getting educational spots due to this ruling? Yes, but I’m sure it’s just an amazing coincidence…
Nevertheless, using Affirmative Action for educational purposes usually winds up the same way using it in the private and pubic sectors go: a small handful of diamonds in a metric shit ton of, well, shit. Of course there’s a simple way to grab more diamonds than shit in this case. Something about hiring the best people for the job regardless of race. But I’m sure that will never work. I mean, when has hiring competent people ever been successful? You know, aside from just about every time it’s done.
But the Left keeps expecting hiring incompetents for high profile positions will wind up elevating them into the roles. But it never works that way. The incompetents will get a false sense of achievement and the overinflated egos that come with it, and as long as Leftists keep letting them either advance or spin their wheels where they are (and vote/rule the way the Left wants, of course) these folks will be harder to remove than a Jehovah’s Witness tick with Super Glue on its jaws who moonlights as an IRS auditor.
This is made worse for college students who don’t have the luxury of a job to fall back on yet. For them, this is a do-or-die environment, one that is constantly being enabled by Leftists who want to feel good about “helping” minorities without actually doing anything. Once these students graduate, they are ill-prepared to handle a world where results matter. Skin color and misguided application of Affirmative Action can get your foot in the door, but if you can’t do the job, it’s going to cost money sooner or later.
But at least white Leftists feel good, right?
Say what you will about the Supreme Court, they got this decision right. Affirmative Action has no place in academia because it guarantees someone is going to get hurt by being coddled by a system that they will never allow to be applied to themselves.
Good luck with that, Leftists.
In the Meme Time
Back again with another Leftist meme to ridicule and show off it’s falsehoods. Like most Leftist memes this one too has a hint of truth in it to fool those who can be fooled.
This little meme pops up every June sooner or later. An attempt to put a false idea in your head from the LGBTQ+ movements about their actions and sin.
Let’s look at it:
First of all the imagery is deliberate of course. A US flag to invoke feelings for America. And following the meme would then be patriotic. A pig dressed in a flag is still a pig. A lie with a flag background is still a lie.
The opening statement is true. Every human being that has ever existed, except for Christ Jesus, was born a sinner. The truth ends there however. As the meme goes on to state that the persons sin is mentioned in the Bible 25 times. But this is not true.
No where. And I mean in no place at all. Is left-handedness ever called a sin. In fact, no genetic trait is ever called a sin in Holy Scripture. All sins are actions a person takes that separates them from our Holy Creator. And the Bible does mention quite a few of them.
Doing something against the commands of God. Either deliberately or even in ignorance. Those are sins. Left-handedness is not a sin.
Yes indeed Left-handedness is mentioned in the Bible in a number of places. Yes, society has been cruel to it’s lefties for centuries before adapting change and understanding about those who are left-handed.
So again at the end. The meme is truthful again about society changing for the better when it comes to left-handed people.
The meme wants us to associate sin with left-handedness which society now accepts over all. And then associate other sins with things that society now accepts somewhat. This is due to the false narrative that like a left-handed person, they were born this way.
And lastly, another falsehood, the supposed author of the statement is an Educator. He is obviously not educated in Scripture.
Discord vs IRC
I’ve written about a few of these topics in the past and I’m sure they will be revisited again in the future. In our modern world connected as we are through the technology of the internet. There is still a need for text only based real time chatting between 2 or more people.
Text only based chatting has many advantages over both voice or video methods of communication. Far less bandwidth is needed is the biggest advantage. It can work on even the worst internet connections and the slowest of PCs.
In the days of Dial-up internet, were AOL was the king of providers, they had a multitude of chatrooms for many topics and communities across their membership. And outside of AOL and accessible to it, and all other providers were the many servers and networks of Internet Relay Chat (IRC).
During the height of IRC’s popularity it had over a million users signed in across the multitude of networks and servers. Today, with the rise of Social Media, this number has been reduced to a quarter of what it once was.
A vast majority of IRC users are now found on the Discord service. It has a number of similarities to IRC that allows users to feel “at home” there. However there are a lot of differences too between the 2 platforms.
Here are some of the similarities and differences:
Discord has a native “pretty” interface. Granted IRC does not but it’s totally depends on which IRC client one uses to access IRC.
Discard has audio and visual communications options. IRC does not have these functions at all. They are left to other services to provide them.
Discord has Avatars and Profiles. Although IRC at its base level does not. There are IRC clients that provide similar functions.
Both services have bots running on them in multiple channels performing a multitude of various tasks.
Discord requires registration in order to use it. IRC does not require registration, but many networks and servers have registration available and it’s recommended.
Discord has the ability to create channel threads. Topics that filter out of the main channel discussion into a sub-channel without leaving the channel. IRC does not have this unique ability. In IRC one would have to chat privately or form a separate channel with the smaller number of users.
Both services offer the ability to chat privately between users.
IRC is independent. There are networks and stand alone servers. Each one is unique. Discord “servers” are all part of Discord and ran on the same equipment as all others.
This one fact can lead to a single point of failure for Discord. If the Discord service goes down. All of the Discord “servers” are done. Not true at all with IRC since each server and network are independent of one another.
And with the independence, IRC is individually owned. Where as Discord is corporately owned and could change any aspect of its service with a board member vote. Including making the entire service a paid service.
On Discord you can @mention another user of the “server” you are connected to and they would be notified of the mention. IRC doesn’t have this as a built-in function. However, like other functions that are built-in to Discord, many IRC clients have similar functions.
On Discord, if you join a “server”, you are automatically in all the channels save for ones that are role restricted which can cause unwanted notifications of chats. One IRC when you connect to a server you only join the channels you want to join or none at all.
With IRC, anyone can create a new channel just by joining it. And that person gets admin rights in that channel automatically. If there is registration available and the user desires they can register the channel and make it permanent. But on Discord, only Admins can create new channels. It’s the same role given to create, destroy, or modify any channel so it’s not given out to everyone.
Discord has a history feature. Once you join a “server” and are in the channels you can infinitely scroll up to see what was previously said in that channel by anyone. On IRC, there is a +H mode that can be set on some servers or networks that allow a similar functionality but it’s usually not infinite.
Discord admins have the ability to delete chats in a channel. IRC doesn’t have this ability. Once the chat is there it’s there. But new users generally wont see it because of the lack of history available.
Bots are on both services as previously mentioned. And bots are very handy to have to provide functions and features that aren’t part of the system. With Discord, you have to have Dev permissions to create a bot. And that bot cannot run on a regular member’s account. Doing so would get the bot and user banned from Discord. On IRC however, there are a variety of scripting options available. Some are based on the client program use to connect to IRC and others are dependent on the bot being used. And you can run scripts from your own client as well.
This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to comparing IRC and Discord. Just looking at this list the favor leans towards IRC over Discord despite some of its unique features. Many Discord features can be duplicated or simulated in IRC with a bit of scripting or simple options enabled on one’s client program.
I will always be an IRC enthusiast. After all I have ran my own IRC network/server for 25 years. And in this day and age of cancel culture, the freedom of an IRC server is just what is needed.
I am sad to say that I have lost a few IRC channels to Discord. And looking at those Discord “servers” I could have over a 1000 users on my IRC network if they stayed or came back.
But if you are looking for a place to have an online real-time text based chat. I’m happy to help you get setup on IRC. You can connect via a browser at https://web.communiti.chat or point you favorite IRC client program to irc.commuinit.chat and get setup to go.