Stop Words

That is, “when you hear these words, you know it’s safe to stop taking someone seriously”. In no particular order:

  • Cis
  • Male Gaze
  • Intersectional
  • Misgendering
  • (qualifier) Justice
  • Gender Binary
  • Cultural Appropriation
  • Woke
  • Mansplaining
  • Misogyny
  • Heteropatriarchy
  • Diversity
  • Rape Culture
  • Zionist
  • Manspreading
  • (whatever) Is A Social Construct
  • Whitewashing
  • Triggering
  • (made-up personal pronoun)
  • Privilege
  • (whatever) Denier
  • Disparate Impact
  • Heteronormative
  • Patriarchy
  • Fascist
  • Structural (whatever)
  • Homophobia
  • Inclusive
  • Gender Identity
  • Nazi
  • Transphobia

What did I leave out?

(note that it is possible to use some of these words and phrases in a way that is not meaningless blather, but that’s not the way to bet)


  • Sustainable
  • Organic
  • Vegan
  • Fair Trade
  • GMO-Free
  • Gluten-Free
  • (insert latest virtue-signaling buzzword here)
  • Agency
  • Problematic
  • No True Scotsman (fallacy most often committed by people who are accusing others of committing it…)
  • Ally
  • (whatever) Traitor
  • Toxic (whatever)
  • Voting Against Their Interests (which always means “voting against my interests”)

United’s PR Roadmap


Senate Theme Song

Dear Democrats, you chose poorly.

Taking away their ‘W’

A common tactic of activists opposed to US military engagement (often falsely mislabeled as ‘anti-war’) is to libellabel their opponents ‘chickenhawks’, insisting that if they’re not personally going over to fight, they lack the courage of their convictions.

So, a ‘social justice’ activist who wants the government to forcibly silence their opponents surely can’t be called a ‘warrior’. ‘Chickenhawk’ has a nice cognitive dissonance to it, don’t you think? I mean, if you’re not going to personally put a gun to my head to keep me from disagreeing with you (a proposition sure to end in prison or morgue time), how dare you demand that someone else do it for you?

Mental substitution of other C-words is acceptable, of course.


Nate Silver on global warming consensus…

"That's because a position that seems to have deep backing from the evidence may really just be a reflection from the echo chamber. You should be looking toward how much evidence there is for a particular position as opposed to how many people hold that position: Having 20 independent pieces of evidence that mostly point in the same direction might indeed reflect a powerful consensus, while having 20 like-minded people citing the same warmed-over evidence is much less powerful."

Oh, wait, my mistake, he was talking about liberal media bias. :-)

Après le déluge, nous

California drought map, one year ago:

This week:


Welcome to Earth!

Too self-aware to be real, most likely, but still fun:

Protest karma


Spillover Country

The next time someone argues that low-population rural states shouldn’t count as much as densely-populated (ahem) ones, ask if the ~200,000 people evacuated from below the Oroville Dam have been well-represented in Sacramento.

Of course, if they’re the kind of bigot who uses the phrase “voted against their interests” (and yes, everything north of Sacramento is a “red county”), this may not make much of a dent in their worldview, but maybe it will shut them up for a few minutes.

“Need a clue, take a clue,
 got a clue, leave a clue”