Tag Archives: YouTube

NSFW: Is this a new fad? The “No Lackin” challenge…

“No Lackin” as in “I’m not lacking a gun.”

According to Know Your Meme:

No Lackin Challenge is a video fad in which people film themselves brandishing firearms and pointing the weapons at unsuspecting victims to provoke them into displaying a firearm in return. The game is meant as a way to test the readiness of people who are living in high crime areas.

According to the HipWiki, the slang expression “no lackin” was initially popularized among Chicago gang members. On June 13th, 2012, rapper Lil Mister released a song titled “No Lackin.”

On August 15th, 2014, Urban Dictionary[4] user Been Krill submitted an entry for “No Lackin,” defining the term as “Not having a firearm on you.” The exact origin of the “No Lackin” challenge is unknown. The earliest known example was uploaded by YouTuber Chase BanzVIDEOS in a video titled “Never Get Caught Lacking in Chicago ‘Challenge’” on September 11th, 2017.”

Yet according to Snopes, this is not a real thing (they say it is “unproven”):

“Teenagers are participating in a dangerous new internet craze known as the “No Lackin Challenge,” and a Memphis boy was shot in the head during an instance of the fad gone awry.

Early, local reports of the incident didn’t describe the shooting as related to the No Lackin Challenge. The internet fad apparently involves participants drawing guns on one another; in the context of the No Lackin Challenge, “lackin” is purportedly a Chicago-area colloquialism defined as being caught without a firearm.

No matter the case for the origin or validity of this challenge, it appears that this is a thing, as evidenced by the videos on YouTube.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.



How teens whose “prefrontal cortex are not fully developed” will solve America’s school shooting problem

second amendment2

Hint: Don’t expect them to provide any clear answers about gun violence other than getting rid of guns. They “want to make a difference” and “beg for change.”

Nor should you expect any definitive and clear solutions to why criminals don’t follow our gun control laws.

One teen, whose prefrontal cortex is not yet fully developed, claims that “something needs to be done to get semi-automatic guns out of the hands of civilians.”

Yet not one of these teens offered any counterpoint as to why in STRICT gun-controlled London and Australia gun crime is on the rise. Their ideal model of gun confiscation is not mentioned, NOT ONCE. Gee, I wonder why?

And of course, the terrorist organization known as the NRA which is silencing our government is to blame.

From NPR: “How teens want to solve America’s school shooting problem”

From a March 5 article: “Middle and high school students have been sharing their thoughts on gun violence with the NewsHour since the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. One thing all students agree on: Change is possible and action must be taken.

Here’s a selection of students’ solutions:

From a 12th grader at Marjory Douglas Stoneman High School: Something needs to be done to get semi-automatic guns out of the hands of civilians. Something needs to be done to get firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. It should not be so easy to obtain a gun. We should not have to beg the U.S. to stop letting our friends die. The NRA has silenced our government for too long. We will not be silenced by the media, by the government, by the president, by the NRA or by anyone for that matter.”

Something could have been done to keep the gun out of the hands of your school shooter (and it had nothing to do with the NRA). From Miami Herald:

“Nikolas Cruz threatened classmates, posted photos of himself holding guns, made violent statements online and was repeatedly described to authorities as a potential “school shooter.”

His troubling behavior gave law enforcement plenty of opportunities to investigate and arrest him — and even take away his guns — long before he shot up Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, according to interviews with former South Florida prosecutors and legal experts (read the whole Miami Herald article here).”

Maybe this student should be begging government agencies to do their jobs so your friends won’t die.

From an 11th grader in Louisiana: “After listening to a story on NPR, I encountered a fact by a neuroscientist about brain development for the average 18-year-old. The prefrontal cortex of teenagers is not yet fully developed. This is the part of the brain that helps you to control impulses and make smart decisions in times of stress.

If 18 is the legal age to buy a gun, then I see a huge problem with this. I believe we should adjust the legal age requirement for someone to own a gun. These are steps Congress needs to take so that other high school students like me don’t have to worry about experiencing another terrifying and tragic attack.”

If brain development of an 18-year-old is not yet fully developed, then how do you justify that the minimum age for US military enlistment is 18? Do you have a huge problem with 18-year-olds fighting wars and using guns to do so?

And if a teenager’s prefrontal cortex is not yet fully developed at 18, then how are they deemed to be competent to vote?

From a 12th grader in Indiana: Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against people having guns. I have grown up in a house full of firearms and hunting bows. I have had my hunting license since I was in fifth grade. However, many people my age struggle with mental health. Some take it to extreme levels, like taking guns from their home to school and shooting innocent people.

As a country, we need to make it harder to buy firearms. Only certain guns should allowed to be sold to the average joe. Not only should we add more regulations, but we should add a tax when buying a firearm, like we do for cigarettes and alcohol — items that may bring harm to ourselves or others.”

What “certain guns” would you allow to be sold to the “average joe?” Please list those certain guns with as much detail and justification as you can (including caliber, lever-action, modifications, gun barrel specification, etc.)

I’m assuming this young “prefrontal cortex are not yet fully developed” 12th grader has not purchased a firearm in Indiana. Because if they had, they would certainly be aware that EVERY PUBLIC FIREARM PURCHASE in the state has a tax attached to it.

According to the Indiana Department of Revenue web site: “If your business sells goods or tangible personal property, you’ll need to register to collect a seven percent sales tax. This registration allows you to legally conduct retail sales in the state of Indiana.”

I searched the Indiana Dept. of Revenue web site for “firearm exemption,” “FFL” and “gun exemption” and found no results that would indicate that FFL dealers are exempt from collecting taxes for sales of guns.

From a 12th grader in Chiraq: “Some individuals favor solutions that place armed guards in a defense perimeter around schools. Others want to arm teachers. And yet the idea of a “good guy with a gun” makes me more fearful of school shootings in our future.

Teachers aren’t always 100 percent the good guys. There are many accounts of teachers who aren’t trustworthy enough to be around kids. Arming them all would endanger more kids than “protecting.” These solutions seem to want to turn schools from safe environments into prisons.”

If there are teachers in your school “who aren’t trustworthy enough to be around kids,” then why aren’t you and your parents screaming at your school unions and officials to remove them?

From another 12th grader in Indiana: “Just because you make it harder to get guns doesn’t mean your Second Amendment is being taken away. The person buying the gun should have to go through mental health screenings to see if they’re stable enough to handle guns. He/she should then be required to go every six months to retake mental health exams. It should be harder to get guns or certain attachments. They should be required to take a class to make sure they know how to handle guns.

People complain that the government is trying to mess with the Second Amendment, which it really isn’t. People just need to grow up and deal with the fact that some folks may not be stable or knowledgeable enough to own a gun. The world is safer that way.”

Do tell “prefrontal cortex not yet fully developed” 12th grader, which government agency will determine the mental health of one “stable enough to handle guns?”

The FBI which admitted to failing to follow up on the Parkland shooter’s YouTube comments? Or maybe you would prefer the Broward County Sheriff’s Office determine who is “stable enough to handle a gun?” (Think REAL HARD about that choice, young one.)

From an 11th grader in Michigan: “After the Florida school shooting my friends and I were having a conversation at our lunch table. Yes, we have the Second Amendment, the “right to bear arms.” This was passed in 1789, when loading a gun took a lot longer between rounds than it does now. An AR-15 can fire dozens of rounds a minute. A legally converted AR-15 can fire 700 a minute. Guns have changed, shouldn’t our laws change with them?

The link provided to the “converted AR-15” text above is a link is to an NPR article entitled, “The Las Vegas shooter had a cheap modification that made his rifles more deadly.”

I applaud the students for coming up with some solutions yet they should probably take a civics course to obtain a better understanding of the Constitution.

And while I understand they are fearful, perhaps we should wait until the prefrontal cortex of these children are fully developed which will then allow them to make smart decisions in a time of stress.


Burger King slams net neutrality repeal in Whopper commercial

Because when it comes to understanding net neutrality, the “home of the Whopper” is the first place you think of as your go-to expert.

From Fox News: Never hesitant to share their true feelings, Burger King has called out the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of net neutrality in a new commercial, explaining the somewhat-confusing decision via Whoopers.

In a spot published to YouTube and shared across the fast food chain’s Facebook, Twitter and Instagram pages Wednesday, the fast food chain has rolled out a fictional spoof illustrating what would happen if the company repealed BK’s faux-equivalent of net neutrality with “Whopper neutrality.”

Customers grow increasingly outraged as they realize that their Whoppers will be prepared in accordance with how much they pay for “MBPS,” or “making burgers per second.” A Burger King staffer explains that “slow MBPS” costs $4.99, which “hyperfast MBPS” will produce their meal for $25.99.

“Are you kidding me? You paid $26 for a Whopper?” one disgruntled customer asks another, to which the cashier replies “He’s higher priority, so…”

A company executive from Burger King confirmed that they are proud to make their first public stand for net neutrality.

“We believe the Internet should be like Burger King restaurants, a place that doesn’t prioritize and welcomes everyone,” Fernando Machado, Burger King’s global chief marketing officer said via press release. “That is why we created this experiment, to call attention to the potential effects of net neutrality.”

This effort aims to help people understand how the repeal of Net Neutrality will impact their lives. The Burger King brand believes the Internet should be like the Whopper sandwich: the same for everyone,” BK further elaborates in the video description on YouTube.

The clip closes with Burger King’s royal King mascot drinking out of an oversized Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup mug, just like the one that FCC chairman Ajit Pai has caught heat for using.

Though Business Insider notes that the repeal of net-neutrality rules have not yet officially gone into effect, it should come has no surprise that Burger King is speaking up, as their longtime tagline was “Have it your way.”

See also:


BBC asks, “Is it discriminatory to refuse to date a trans women?”

india willoughby and ginuwine

Singer “Ginuwine” and “India” Willoughby

No. What happened to being pro-choice?

From BBC: A reality television programme kicked off a debate about whether it’s discriminatory or transphobic to refuse to date a transsexual person.

The argument started on UK reality television show Celebrity Big Brother, where minor celebrities are locked into a studio made to look like a house, then filmed 24/7.

As might be expected in such a situation, tensions run high and conversations can be fractious. One of the housemates is India Willoughby, a TV journalist who had an established career as a man before transitioning to become a woman.

Willoughby asked her housemates about their dating preferences, and the resulting conversation kicked off a social media storm.

“Would you go out with a transsexual woman?” she queried. “I believe it’s your choice… I would choose not to,” replied the R’n’B singer Ginuwine. “That doesn’t make me scared.”

“You would go out with a woman?” Willoughby asked. “Yes.”

“But you wouldn’t go out with a transsexual woman?”


The conversation rumbled on. When Willoughby suggested “Let’s have a kiss,” Ginuwine replied “no” and leaned away from her.

India was later seen telling another guest that “all this superficial stuff that you are a woman and all that sounds great and is the right thing to say. But it makes no difference if people don’t believe it – that’s the problem.”

While some housemates defended Ginuwine’s refusal to date a transsexual woman as a “preference”, the issue divided the audience on Twitter.

The debate has continued to reverberate inside the house. Viewers of the programme vote off guests one at a time until a winner is selected, and on Friday India Willoughby is one of two celebrities facing a vote and possible eviction.

Some viewers claimed Ginuwine rebuffing the notion of dating a trans woman was discrimination or transphobia – dislike or fear of transgender people.

But others backed the “preference” argument and said the singer was entitled to state his dating choices without being criticised.

The debate reverberated on other social networks and outside the UK as well. A video from New York radio DJ Charlamagne Tha God defending Ginuwine’s stance as a preference has since been viewed more than 350,000 times on YouTube.

Read the rest of the story here.


NFL TV ratings drop 10 percent, networks see revenue decline

NFL blowback

Imagine my distress.

From Yahoo: NFL ratings dropped almost 10 percent in 2017 from the previous year according to Nielsen data released on Thursday, a further decline in the decreased TV viewership from 2016 that saw an 8 percent drop.

The average number of games watched by viewers throughout the season dropped from 18.8 in 2015 to 16.5 in 2017.

Several factors appear to have influenced the decreased interest from fans in watching games, with a Los Angeles Times report pointing to evidence that suggests controversy over players kneeling for the national anthem played a role early in the season.

The L.A. Times spoke with Fox Sports executive Mike Mulvihill, who shared some numbers from the network. Fox’s Sunday package saw an 8 percent decline in Weeks 2 through 10 when the anthem controversy was at its peak, spurred on by commentary from President Donald Trump.

During Weeks 11 through 17, the drop in viewership shrunk to 2 percent for the network.

Viewers upset with players kneeling and others not satisfied with the NFL’s handling of the Colin Kaepernick situation that saw the quarterback miss the entire season appear to have tuned out.

A more compelling slate of national games and better quality of play as the season wore on and the playoff picture cleared up likely played a factor in the late-season shift as well.

Mulvihill also pointed to a changing demographic that consumes its entertainment in non-traditional media, most notably YouTube, in this case. “The audience for NFL highlights on YouTube have become pretty substantial,” Mulvihill said. “Those highlights can be eight, nine or 10 minutes long, and I do worry they can be serving as a disincentive from watching the live game.”

Mulvihill is clearly concerned about a younger audience less interested in sitting down for three-plus hours to watch a single game play out. He also theorized that more people are watching the news on Sundays with the volatile political climate being a big television draw, piggybacking on the wide-held belief that the election last year played a role in the declining 2016 numbers.

Despite the declining numbers, NFL viewership is still king on broadcast TV, by a wide margin. AdAge analysis shows that NFL broadcasts accounted for 37 of the 50 most watched broadcasts in 2017. NBC’s “Sunday Night Football” remained No. 1 prime-time show on TV.

But that doesn’t mean network heads aren’t concerned. With CBS, Fox, NBC and ESPN each paying at least $1 billion for broadcasts rights, the stakes are high. And, according to an anonymous network executive who spoke with the L.A. Times, each of those networks “made a lot less money than they expected” in 2017.


Twitter Sides With The Perverters

Read the Breitbart story here.

Elite puppeteers scramble to control the narrative

Like most people, I use Facebook, Twitter and other social media to enable communication. Facebook works for me to reconnect with friends and family and increase my sphere of influence. It has also helped me sell my artwork. And I use Twitter to enable announcements of certain kinds, LinkedIn to expand and strengthen my professional influence, and of course I use Google for a myriad 0f purposes.

These apps have grown to become seemingly indispensable. They’re cute and friendly and free of charge. What would we do without all the free Youtube do-it-yourself tutorials for home repair and such?

But increasingly the mask is removed, and we see another side of these cute, friendly, Pokemon-like characters. We see social media allowing islamists and violent revolutionaries to plan their evil deeds without any hinderance. And now we see Twitter trying to silence a brave Hollywood whistle blower.

Oh yes, did I mention the fact that these apps are free?

Antifa website calls for violence against Trump supporters

Shocker, not.

This was posted June 21st on YouTube by Tea Partiest. From their video posting:

A disturbing Antifa website is calling for physical violence against supporters of President Donald Trump and capitalists. The site “It’s Going Down,” which has become a resource for self-described “anti-fascist” activists, encourages violence against anyone it labels a “fascist.” A poster published on the site in April shows a man in a Make America Great Again hat being cornered by a bayonet, with a silhouette of a Nazi in the background. “It’s Going Down” justifies violence as not only good but necessary to the survival of minorities and the disenfranchised. A library of downloadable publications on the website offers long-form articles that call for “insurrectionary mass resistance and refusal” and militant tactics against employers and law enforcement.”

Stay vigilant.