I hereby rescind my geek status.

Fuck, no. I saw this as a suggested post and I just can’t.


To be honest, I was too old for the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles the first time around, and even Megan Fox wasn’t enough to get me interested the second time around, because when I first saw one of those dreadful Transformers movies, I didn’t watch it for more than 15 minutes tops. (I’ll admit I liked her in Jennifer’s Body though.)

So… sorry folks, if being a geek means that I’m supposed to be interested in this shit, the time has come for me to move on. I’ll stick to computer stuff, horror, superhero stuff, fantasy, scifi, even Star Wars. But not this.

What the fuck, maaaan? Seriously, I know it’s just clickbait. But fuck me, these people need to try harder. 2.8K shares though. So nearly 3000 idiots not only thought that was cool but unironically shared it.

What a time to be alive.

Do you need to be dewormed? Are you a horse? Neigh? Then you probably don’t need ivermectin.

People are galloping to take this new miracle cure for COVID-19 and some of them are poisoning themselves in the process!

Sigh. This is the second time I’m writing about ivermectin. Last time somebody commented claiming it does work. And yes, there have been studies indicating it might work against COVID-19, but there is no evidence supporting it working in humans. So maybe it works and maybe it doesn’t. But… my approach is to look at who says it works, and who is being skeptical.

At the moment, the same people who are pushing for it were once advocates for vitamin C and hydroxychloroquine. The people pushing against it believe in vaccines. I’m no expert, but it looks like this is another quack cure and that’s why I was sarcastic when I wrote about it last time.

When sources I read often, and trust, such as Dr David Gorski, use the word “quack” in relation to an unproven remedy, I tend to sway towards believing them. In science and medicine especially, relevant authorities matter.

But hey! It’s apple flavoured!

Seriously, folks… This is your life. There are times to fuck around, but when it comes to life and death, don’t be stupid. Don’t be hasty and take unproven medication because the people pushing it may very well backpedal later. “We made a mistake”, they might say (or more likely they won’t, but either way they won’t be held accountable) – meanwhile you could be dead.

And while it may be true that ivermectin hasn’t been tested in humans, that is a double-edged sword… I mean, it works on SARS-CoV-2 in a petri dish, and while I can’t find any articles about its toxity in humans, I did find one that lists the symptoms of its toxicity in dogs, and they don’t look good:

Ivermectin is a drug commonly and safely used in many dogs to treat a variety of parasitic infections. This drug is also commonly used in cattle and horses at much higher doses — which can be toxic to dogs, if they are exposed to the medication. Certain types of dogs, including but not limited to collies and Australian shepherds, are also far more susceptible to the toxic effects of the drug.

Toxicity signs include depression, disorientation, nonresponsiveness, blindness, drooling, tremors, and walking like he/she is “drunk.” More severe signs, especially in the susceptible breeds, include low heart rate, low breathing rate, coma and death.

And considering that the people who typically want to take this substance are trying to use it preventatively, that is they don’t have COVID-19, it seems like a terrible risk to me. Why take a substance that might cause blindness or death to treat a disease you don’t have, when you don’t know if a safe dosage is even possible or that a dosage high enough to be effective is safe at all, when there is a vaccine?

I hope I’ve made a strong case for not using it this time around…

Confirmation bias is something we are all prone to

This article is trending at Patheos nonreligious… It’s all based around the following picture, with the catchy title claiming that Evangelical Christians are openly worshipping a false idol.


You know that expression that says if something is too good to be true? The image is fake. Here are a couple of unmodified photos:



Granted, it’s not a lot better. Those people are loons and their idol may be false, but then so is their god anyway. The statue is real, the evangelidiots are real, but never the twain did meet.

There’s another post related to this but I’m loathe to write it. I am amused that the Evangelicals are still sticking with this guy, despite their prophecies of him winning a second term not coming true. They should be backtracking by now, but most are not. And while I have enough material to write about that, I don’t really want to. Can’t he just die already?

Still browsing with Firefox? Well, I found a Facebook video adblocker that actually works.

It seems that one needs an extension workshop login to be able to review extensions, which is kind of sucky, so I’ll write my own little review here.

One of the strange nuances of being on a Facebook ban – and I still have somewhere between 13 days and possibly another 30 to go, thanks to being flagged today for something I shared in 2018, is that Facebook actually change their user experience when you are banned. That’s right… users who are restricted from creating content themselves are given a feed with extra suggested posts, mostly in the form of videos. This time around I’m getting loads of DIY and crafts, Ladbible, and FailArmy suggested videos.

And ads. Not even hundreds or even dozens of ads. I’m seeing the same annoying as fuck ads over and over and over yet again. And then some more for good measure.

For the first time ever, I’m getting adverts in the middle of Facebook videos. The worst one is, I think, a Toyota ad, featuring some sob story about a woman adopting a disabled child – who then in the imaginary world presented by the ad, becomes some kind of word champion swimmer with prosthetic legs or something, complete with water imagery throughout. I must have seen the same tear-jerking torment some 30 times before I was motivated to find a working video adblocker so that I might never see it again.

No, but seriously… there must be some geolocation going on because this is a local South African advert like the ones I used to see on TV when I watched local TV. Besides the sentimentality of it and the creepy imagery where the floor is water and the baby has no legs and the people are all pathetic and cringe in the overreaching appeal to pity, the voiceover is a typical Afrikaans white woman speaking in English with her slight Afrikaans accent and hoarse voice that sounds like she smokes too many cigarettes and doesn’t drink enough water. Oh, please lady… drink some fucking water and clear your throat… It doesn’t help that the ad volume is about three times louder than the rest of the video. Did I mention that I don’t watch TV any more? Can you guess why? (The adverts. I stopped watching TV because I hate the fucking adverts.)

I installed and then uninstalled about 4 or 5 different Firefox extensions claiming to block Facebook ads until I found one that actually works. This one does. Praise the imaginary man in the sky and thank fuck that I never have to see and hear that annoying ad that starts with the voice-over informing the woman they have a baby for her to adopt but that there’s bad news!

That’s all. Either such an extension works or it doesn’t. I don’t care about other adverts in Facebook or about suggested posts. I can scroll past them, or when the algorithms work out well, the suggested posts are actually things that interest me. But ads in the middle of videos are annoying and this extension gets rid of them 100%. It has one job and it does that job. 5 stars from me. Thank you abdullah2993. I’d give you a 5 star rating on there too if I didn’t have to log in to the platform to rate your extension. Well done, man.

And fuck you to all you people who make adverts. If Hell were real there’d be a special place in it just for you to watch each others’ tear-jerking bullshit.

See here! This is why you mustn’t argue with an idiot.

“See here” is incorrect English. I don’t know where it came from but both my ex and her mother used to say it all the time… it’s one of the few things I remember fondly about my ex. After years of trying to correct her by saying stuff like, “You have to look before you see and that’s why it is ‘look here’, not ‘see here’, I eventually gave up and just embraced the phrase”. In fact, it’s so bad, it’s kind of good. I ended up liking the phrase and it has its uses.

Case in point… See here! This is a proper idiot.image

I mean, what in the fuck is he carrying on about? Just in case the image does not last, I’ll quote it:

Another evidence for God:  Decades ago I read, I think in microbiologist Michael Denton’s “Evolotion: A Theory in Crisis,” a letter to a world famous atheist.  She asked, “Since archaelogy has disproven the transmutation of the species, which Darwin said must have happened for his theory to be true, why don’t you accept that there is a Creator?”
He answered, “Because if I do, the next step is that He expects me to behave in a certain way and I’m unwilling to.”

Spelling errors aside, and grammar errors… Ahem, “Another evidence for” is about as wrong as “see here” but hey… this is a good day for bad grammar. So ignoring that and focusing on what he claims, which one would do if one participated in the debate…


  1. Archaeology has disproven the transmutation of the species.
  2. Darwin said this “transmutation of the species” is a prerequisite for evolution.
  3. This proves god somehow.
  4. A famous atheist rejected this because he wanted to sin.

Wow. I confess that I have no fucking clue what “transmutation of the species” is and I am not interested in looking it up either. I can guarantee that it is either an outdated theory that preceded evolution, or some kind of creationist jargon similar to when they mentions “kinds” instead of species.

Do I really need to unpack that shit? Obviously Darwin never said that and disproving some kind of misunderstanding or deliberate straw man version of science does not make your preferred magical thinking true, but you can be Christian and also believe in evolution. Not only that, Darwin lived back when most people were religious, and he was a believer.

The last bit is just a standard assertion religious apologists like to make about atheists, but applied to “a famous atheist”. Because… reasons? Edit… I initially published this thinking the claim was being applied to Darwin. It wasn’t. It was just a generic unnamed atheist in the story.

Even if I didn’t still have 13 days remaining of a Facebook ban, I would not participate in this idiot’s debate. This is a case where it would always involve me taking a screenshot and mocking him elsewhere.

Clickbait is stupid

I’ll forego the clickbait style title this time and just share the joke. (It’s the same joke as last time. Clickbait sucks but I find it amusing if you remove the link and just share the bait to mock it, and maybe yourself a little if you feel interested in knowing where it linked.)


He hops like you won’t fuckin’ believe? He has bunny ears now? Who gives a fuck?


Charcoal is abrasive so it will work as well as any other “whitening” toothpaste after she rinses it out, minus any anti bacteria and plaque effects that she’d get from fluoride. This is general knowledge and you shouldn’t need to read an article advertising some bullshit to know it.


Your personality type is: Gullible.
Because the shape of your foot says fuck all about your personality.

Ivermectin does not treat COVID-19 in humans. Don’t believe the hype.

I see there is a high profile court case in my country to get this bullshit cure approved.

Here is a well written article about Ivermectin via the US government. Relevant bit:

Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures. However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.

Please see the article… Just the bit I quoted has 3 citations.

Translation from the bit I quoted… Just because something works in a laboratory doesn’t mean it will work when taken as a medicine. In this case, the dosage would have to be 100 times the safe dosage in humans for it to have antiviral efficacy. In other words, you can also “cure” someone of the virus by pouring petrol over them and setting them on fire, but it kind of isn’t much use to be virus free when you’re dead anyway.

Edit… I hadn’t actually read the article I first linked… So the locals fighting for the right to use this nonsense treatment are AfriForum, the same goons who fight against government with their false narrative about farm murders and “white genocide”.  Amazingly they have doctors on board. They’re wrong though. Remember folks… racists are always idiots, even the ones with degrees in medicine.

When does race refer to skin colour and when does it refer to culture?

I’m so confused.

So I’m seeing all these articles trending about Sasha Calle, who has recently been cast as Supergirl to appear in the upcoming Flash movie.

Embed from Getty Images

And here we see the gorgeous Sasha Calle courtesy of Getty Images.

Like OMG… she is beautiful. And they can keep her brunette and make a great change to the character, not as great as calling her Superwoman, but still worthwhile…but that’s not what I’m writing about today. I keep seeing it written that she’s the first Latina Supergirl and that confuses the fuck out of me because to my eyes, she’s white.

But I am a white South African. I’ve heard and read others arguing about race before… white South Africans who call themselves “African”, and that upsets some native African, i.e. black people. Hence my confusion: Sometimes race refers to colour and sometimes it refers to culture, or maybe sometimes it means both. But when does it mean what?

Am I insulting Latina women if I call them white, or is the label itself used to prejudice against them, treating them as less than equal to white North Americans simply because it allows them to be treated as something other than white? I have a feeling a little of the latter is true, or at least, it may be. But how much?

Likewise, I will not refer to myself as African, ever, because black people born here can and do take offense to that. And this is even though I was born here and this is the only place I know or have ever been. (I have heard some people say we must go back to our countries, but I ignore those because I am fourth or fifth generation here from a mixture of Portuguese, Irish, English and French people. I have no country to “go back to”. This is my country.) So I’ll stick with saying I am South African. It doesn’t help that I’m named Jerome, and people who only know me through writing or other online medium sometimes assume I’m not white… apparently there was some sort of naming convention memo that my mother never read.

But I’m still confused about one thing: When does race refer to colour and when does it refer to culture? Or is that assumption a false dichotomy and is there something else I’m missing. It certainly does refer to social class and standing, always, and as much as some white people like to deny it and pretend that white privilege doesn’t exist, it is always white people at the top of this order. Because of hundreds of years of oppression and persecution, and social pressure.

And this brings me back to someone like Sasha Calle. Why is it important to bring up her being Latina? Why do I, on the other side of the planet in the Southern Hemisphere, have the impression that Latino people are often regarded as being inferior to white people, especially considering that they are often white and the only thing making them not white is a social construct?

I’m going to leave this open and not attempt to answer the questions I’ve raised here, but I do think it is important to use our privilege and teach our children to be aware of it. As long as any of us are more privileged than others because of this grossly unfair social construct, we can not afford to be colour blind. But I hope that we can teach future generations to put this behind them. Let the mistakes of the past be in the past.

The new Iron Spider movie name probably has ‘home’ in it and who gives a shit?

I’m seeing this trending all over social media…

Am I the only one who thinks the new Spider-man sucks iron donkey balls? He’s supposed to be a loner, for fuck’s sake. Spider-man is a tragic and reluctant hero, who initially uses his power to get some money so he can impress a girl, who then doesn’t stop a robber who happens to go on and kill his uncle. So he’s consumed by guilt, punishing himself for being selfish when in reality he did nothing wrong. And to top that, he is manipulated by a narcissistic, overbearing self pitying whining old aunt who is annoying as fuck and expects him to do everything for her, but who will never be happy with what he does, no matter how much. When he isn’t saving somebody or unfairly being called a menace or trying to be there for his aunt, he’s brooding on top of a gargoyle somewhere as he bawls his eyes out. We relate to him because he’s every one of us, thrust into a situation where he gains incredible powers, and despite his best intentions, he gets nothing but grief for using them. But he’s a fighter. He never gives up – he throws out the sharpest and most effective sarcasm kind of defense anyone has ever heard, and he comes out on top, somehow. So we relate to him again because he doesn’t let the haters win.

At least… that’s the Spider-man I know, after growing up reading a lot of comics mostly from the 1970’s and the 80’s. Nobody has ever really captured that in a movie, but the previous efforts at least included some parts of the character I love.

But no… this Spider-man with a magic costume from Iron Man… he’s something else. Not a bad character although not much of an actor to be honest – I’d rather see Zendaya as some kind of super hero because she’s way more talented. But he’s not and never will be much of a Spider-man to write home about, and I don’t care what version of the title they use.

Those weird Facebook double standards? (Trigger warning: White supremacy, racism)

I’ve mentioned this group before. And normally I stay away from accusations of hypocrisy, because they are almost always wrong. When people make such accusations in debates, it is almost always a Tu quoque fallacy, but this one isn’t. So I’m writing this reluctantly.

Look at this shit:


I’m not even going to comment on how wrong that is. Just – if you agree with it, fuck right off.

The point is, I and others get banned for calling these people out. We get banned for responding to this type of shit. Our responses violate Facebook community standards, but the original posts do not.

I’ve written about this before, and I will keep doing so as long as it persists… their algorithms detect strong language but are an absolute failure when it comes to detecting actual hate speech, which is rampant on the platform.

I’m currently on a 30 day ban for mocking religion with a “Jesus loves porn” meme that got taken down for nudity, and then put back up when I contested the decision, but they didn’t remove the ban. So I’m banned for a joke, but actual hatred like the meme shown is perfectly fine on the platform.