Getting Back To Reality

Start off by reading this article (excerpt below) and then we can continue:

A British tourist has told an Italian court how she was raped by a barman in Naples after stopping for a meal at a pizzeria while on holiday. 

Returning to the southern Italian city to testify before a judge, the 22-year-old tourist this week told the court how she was holidaying in July when she suffered ‘the worst experience of my life’.

Some time back, I also commented on a stupid bint who was raped in Paris after leaving her party to relieve herself behind some bushes, and that leads me to my main point:

Women shouldn’t be on their own outside their homes, because they are not safe.

When I say “on their own”, of course, I mean in a deserted or isolated spot where they could be attacked — such as in a restaurant’s back room, or in a park hidden from view behind bushes.  Or walking back home alone from a party / dinner.  Or jogging along a lonely road, or through a park.

I think you get my drift.

Now let me address the thoughts of the people who might disagree with me on this point.

I know, I know:  women shouldn’t be at risk in the above situations, and men shouldn’t prey on women when the women are solitary.

Unfortunately, the world just doesn’t work like that.  Men (of a particular sort) often succumb to their baser instincts when confronted by such situations.  This is an unfortunate fact of life, and this is especially true of men who come from, shall we say, less civilized backgrounds and societies (e.g. Mediterranean countries, the Middle East, all of Africa, Russia, the Balkans, Muslim countries, most of South America, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, North America, Central America… actually, pretty much anywhere in the world).

And women are vulnerable in all those places and circumstances because they are… the weaker sex[pause to allow the angry feministical screams and expostulations to die down]

This, by the way, is why I fervently support the idea that women should carry guns, because of all forms of self-defense, guns are the best equalizer.  It’s why I have helped train literally hundreds of women how to shoot, and helped them purchase their handguns and shotguns.

If guns are not available to women (and this would apply almost universally outside Second Amendment Country), then they need to seek safety in numbers and not stroll around by themselves, because it’s just not safe.

It’s the same reason, for example, that I avoid walking through specific downtown areas at night, and shun all back alleys even if they’re a shortcut.  And I’m big and tough and armed.  How much more ridiculous is it for an unarmed woman not to do the same?

There are times when a woman finds herself in a position when she feels she has to walk by herself — e.g. to get to her car in a deserted parking lit or parking garage after a night shift — but she shouldn’t.  She should instead try to find a man (security guard, workmate, whatever) to accompany her.  Fortunately, I don’t think we’ve reached the stage yet where a man would refuse to do so.  (Yeah, I know, chivalry is so outdated and demeaning to womyns [/feministical] shuddup).

It’s got to the point that whenever I read about such events of a woman being attacked / raped / whatever when she’s on her own in some foreign country / strange city / walking back from the pub, I just shout at the page / TV screen:

“What did you think was going to happen?”

This air of unreality that seems to be so prevalent in modern society needs to end.  People need to grow up and understand that when reality meets philosophy or theory, reality is going to win, every single fucking time.

Even for (or especially for) feministicals and their adherents.

Evil Totalitarians Etc.

“But what about the Chiiiiiildren?”  I can hear the wails already, in response to this latest example of Antipodean totalitarianism:

Cellphones will be banned in schools across New Zealand, conservative Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said Friday, as his fledgling government looks to turn around the country’s plummeting literacy rates. The move would stop disruptive behaviour and help students focus, he said.

New Zealand’s schools once boasted some of the world’s best literacy scores, but levels of reading and writing have declined to the point that some researchers fear there is a classroom “crisis”.

Luxon declared he would ban phones at schools within his first 100 days in office, adopting a policy tested with mixed results in the United States, United Kingdom and France.

I know the thinking behind this:  what has changed with schoolkids since (say) 1980 when literacy rates were X, but which are now X/5?

Cell phones!!!!!!

So it’s to the banning table we go.

Of course, what has also changed in the interim is that (dare I say it) teacher quality has plummeted, teaching methodology has deteriorated, and classroom educational standards have dropped.

But those are sehr schwierig (nay, even impossible) issues to tackle, because we know that all teachers are dedicated professionals who have only the kids’ best interests at heart, teaching methodology is much better now that we’ve dropped silly things like rote learning of arithmetic tables and lowered spelling standards in favor of feelings, and we won’t even talk about topics like strict grading and corporal punishment (eek).

It’s so much easier just to ban cell phones.

Now understand that I’m actually in favor of banning the fucking things in schools because at best, children have the attention span of gnats and the blessed ability to Goooogle stuff is so, like, cool and easy and twenty-first century, Dad;  while old-fashioned learning is difficult and so, like, nineteenth century.  (I’m hopefully assuming that the modern generations are actually aware of the existence of a 19th century, but let’s move on.)

And I’m not interested in the supposed safety of the Chiiiiildren that cell phones are supposed to bring.  In fact, the proven negatives of cell-phone slavery amongst kids outweigh every single aspect of supposed in-class student safety, so there ya go.

Have the little shits turn their precious phones in at the school doors, to be returned when they leave the premises.  And have “backup” phones permanently confiscated when found.

So go for it, KiwiPM Luxon:  ban the poxy things.

And then, when literacy rates remain stubbornly in the basement, you can tackle the real problems, as outlined above.

Actually, Yes

As with the above article, here’s a story which makes my fists clench involuntarily:

A female American Airlines employee was left permanently scarred after a male passenger repeatedly punched her, according to a report.

The reported incident happened on Monday night when Bruce Luke Machiavelo, 29, from Fairfield County, Connecticut, was on a flight from Miami to LaGuardia Airport in New York.

Machiavelo had told a flight attendant that he suffers from panic attacks and that he wanted to retrieve his medication that was in his checked luggage, according to a Miami-Dade police report.  Once the attendant explained to the passenger that he wasn’t going to be able to get his medication, he told her that he ‘took planes down with panic attacks in the past’, the report said.

Machiavelo was then escorted off the aircraft, arrested and hit with multiple charges including aggravated battery, battery, disorderly conduct and resisting an officer without violence.

When he was taken off the airplane, Machiavelo reportedly pushed and screamed at the American Airline’s manager who approached him, police said.  He punched her several times in the face before he threw her to the floor, causing her to bash her head on the gangway, according to authorities. As he rushed off the plane, Machiavelo also shoved a gate agent to the floor, leading her to injure her hands.

The manager was taken to a nearby hospital with permanent scarring to her face and head, the report said.

So you know you suffer from panic attacks, yet you pack your meds into checked luggage and not in a carry-on bag?

And then go Full Raving Psycho Loony when your ridiculous requests aren’t met?

Here’s my first question:  would anyone have a problem with the cops giving this punk a savage beating before slamming his ass in a cell?

Second question:  would anyone have a problem with this asshole being forced to pay for the hapless woman’s medical treatment and plastic surgery?

If you say “No, I have no problem with your suggestions, Kim”  to both the above questions, then we can be friends.

To be honest, I’ve sometimes wanted to go nuts when some airline employee enforces some ridiculous airline regulation on me.  The difference is that I haven’t.  And nor should this asshole, but clearly he’s been accustomed to have his every wish granted in the past, purely because of his “panic attacks”.

Well, fuck him and all the people of his ilk.

Personality Hires

Gawdallfuckingmighty.

Apparently, Gen Z has decided that a skillset isn’t the most important thing you need in the workplace because morale and smiles are more important than all that efficiency nonsense, right?

I remember “personality hires” back when I was in the supermarket business.  We referred to them as “baggers”, because a) they didn’t need much in the way of job skills, and b) customers liked it when they interacted with young smileyfaces at the end of their transaction.

The best part was when these inkstains on the corporate blotting paper decided that they “deserved” either a salary increase or promotion just because they’d been on the job for a couple months.

It’s been a while, so I’ve forgotten the corporate-speak for “you must be out of your fucking mind”  or its companion statement, “fuck off and come back when you’ve proved why I shouldn’t fire you right now”.

If the only thing you’re bringing to a job — any job — is your “personality”, you may as well resign yourself to a life of poverty.  Or prostitution (e.g. in the public relations industry, don’t get me started).

Fucking entitled wankers.

Unreality

Time again for one of those stupid polls done by some organization I’ve never heard of, which ranks the “Best of” — this time, of cities around the world to live in.  The criteria seem quite reasonable:

The results are based on scores across three key categories – liveability, lovability and prosperity, with dozens of factors taken into account. These include educational attainment, GDP per capita, poverty rate, the number of quality restaurants, shops and nightclubs; walkability, the number of mapped bike routes, quality parks and museums.

They cock it up somewhat by including “number of recommendations on sites such as Tripadvisor, Google, Facebook and Instagram” because those are generally driven by booster bots and paid “influencers” (same thing, really), but whatever.  Here are the Top 20:

1 – London
2 – Paris
3 – New York, U.S.
4 – Tokyo
5 – Singapore
6 – Dubai, United Arab Emirates
7 – San Francisco, U.S.
8 – Barcelona, Spain
9 – Amsterdam, Netherlands
10 – Seoul, South Korea
11 – Rome, Italy
12 – Prague, Czechia
13 – Madrid, Spain
14 – Berlin, Germany
15 – Los Angeles, U.S.
16 – Chicago, U.S.
17 – Washington D.C., U.S.
18 – Beijing, China
19 – Istanbul, Turkey
20 – Dublin, Ireland

…and to my Murkin Readers, at least, this would cause coffee-splattered screens and keyboards, because the five U.S. cities listed are the ones showing the greatest outward migration and desertion by the people who actually live there.  (And this is also true of the other U.S. cities in the 30-50 group.)

And where are these “refugees” going, according to actual census data?  To Orlando (53), Miami (55), Atlanta (65), Houston (68), Nashville (71), Dallas (73) and Charlotte (92).  And it’s got nothing to do with the warmer weather, either.

It is, as they say, to LOL.  If the list was entitled “Nice Places To Visit (but you wouldn’t want to live there), then it might have some (but not much) credence, with regard to the U.S. cities anyway.

Forty years ago, this list may have been true — and maybe not even then — but today?  As they say in New York (3):  fuggeddabahdit.

As for the furrin cities, and based solely on my experiences there, I’d have no issue with living in London or Paris, but certainly Amsterdam (9) would rank higher than either, and Vienna (21) would be in the top 5.

Probably the only ranking I agree with is Baltimore (100).  It’s a total shithole, and deservedly placed well below such garden spots as Beijing (18!) and Bogotá (81).

Keeping It Anonymous

POTUS-wannabe Nikki Haley and some others have come right out and said that Internet anonymity should be banned.

I think that’s bullshit, despite the fact that I myself have eschewed Internet anonymity (for the most personal of reasons).  I think that while anonymity can breed mischief, it can also protect someone from retaliation when, for example, shining light on the inner workings of an institution.

Whistle-blowers in large institutions (especially government and large corporations) would almost certainly be silenced because of (justified) fears that they’d lose their job by so doing — even if they were exposing extreme malfeasance or negligence.  That cannot be a good thing.

Of course, anonymity affords trolls and other such excrescences the ability to say awful things — such as defamation or character assassination — not to mention unacceptable utterances such as… racism?

Oh yeah, and that’s the problem.  Because the minute you say “You can say this and not that”, there’s a little question of who decides the parameters of accepted speech.

We have a First Amendment that addresses that issue, I believe, and it was thoroughly covered in the Anti-Federalist by — ho! — the anonymous “Brutus”.

There is a vulnerability in that freedom, of course, just as there’s vulnerability in all our social and political freedoms.  But confining ourselves to speech for a moment, we know the old adage that a lie travels round the world before the truth can get out of bed, and anonymity is the prime facilitator thereof.

Online commenter “Fred_The_Wise” can post on Xwitter that he has proof that Bill Clinton is a serial molester of underage girls, and even Clinton’s feral lawyers would have a problem stopping that “untruth” from spreading and “contaminating” Clinton’s good name.  “Kim du Toit” can do no such thing, of course, unless he has the actual proof that Bill Clinton is such a pervert.

The problem, as we all know, is that “Fred_The_Wise”, even if he has actual proof of said molestation, is not going to be the next “suicide” at the hands of the Clinton “Hit Squad” because nobody knows who he is;  whereas “Kim du Toit” would have to be extremely careful of slippery soap in the shower and random nooses hanging from trees, if you get my drift.

That “Fred_The_Wise” might just be indulging in a little gratuitous character assassination is just a malevolent by-product of the freedom of speech.

Which is terrible, but unfortunately for goons like Nikki Haley, they’re just going to have to live with it, as we all have to do.