Is equality a scale or a bar?

In the past 100 years, there has been more social change than ever before. People of colour have equal rights, you can get married regardless of sexual orientation, women have become presidents of countries and CEOs of Fortune 500 businesses, abortions are legal, there are dozens of recognized types of gender, and so much more. None of these things would have even been a seed of a concept all those years ago.

However, the mindset of society is starting to split off into multiple directions. Planned Parenthood is losing funding if it provides assistance with abortions, there is an endless debate over the racial profiling and the police, women aren’t paid as much as men, millions of people denounce any gender that isn’t male or female, and all of this and much more is leading people to revolt and form groups against the constant progressive chance.

All of the issues of today boil down to equality, and in the news, I’ve seen a lot of different opinions on social issues. One of the biggest reasons many arguments on these issues end in stalemates is because both sides define equality in different ways. To properly debate social equality, both sides need to agree on what the definition of equality actually is. So that poses the question – is equality a scale or a bar?

Let me explain.

To even out a scale, you need to put enough weight on both sides of the scale until it balances itself out. For example, If I put a one pound weight and a seven pound weight on the left side of the scale, and then I put a five pound weight and a three pound weight on the right side, both sides equal eight pounds, and therefore, both sides are equal, and the scale is balanced.

Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 11.28.19 AM

If we look at equality as a scale, every type of person doesn’t need to have the same programs, platforms, and privileges but need the same value when you add them all up. If we applied this logic to social equality, men making more money than women would be okay as long as they pay more for dates, groceries, gifts, childcare, etc.

Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 11.28.29 AM

On the other hand, equality is also seen as a bar. This logic means a standard (or bar) is set, and to achieve equality everyone has to reach it. If you see social equality as a bar, men and women should make the same amount of money for the same amount of work because the standard pay for that job requirement is set at X amount.

So equality is a bar, right? Well, it’s not that simple.

When you look at the example of equal pay, it’s easier to see equality as a bar because we are all human, and humans should be paid the same regardless of gender, ethnicity, or religion.

But now let’s look at scholarships. Milo Yiannopoulos started the Privilege Grant. It’s a scholarship only available to white men. The media has a field day with this news, criticizing him for being a sexist white supremacist.

Before I continue, I just want it on the record that on almost every issue I am in opposition of Milo Yiannopolous. However, is it fair to label him a sexist white supremacist on this issue alone? Obviously, he has done other things to back up that theory, but block out everything you know about him and try and focus on this one stance.

NerdScholar conducted a study on demographics of university scholarships. They discovered there are four times as many scholarships for women than there are for men. If you see equality as a bar than this should be appalling to you because men are at a severe disadvantage when it comes financial assistance from schools. There are also thousands of scholarships exclusively available for African-Americans, Asians, Latinos, and Indigenous, and scholarships only available for people of a certain religion as well. If equality is a bar, then offering a scholarship for white men is a step in the right direction.

“Well, that’s different because white men have had it good for so long.”

Ah, but now you’re looking at equality as a scale because you’re weighing the centuries of higher social status and opportunity against the surplus of scholarships for minority groups. But then that begs the almost impossible-to-answer question – how much is either side worth?

“Well, why can’t it be a scale in some cases and a bar in others?”

Because that’s the problem!

Everyone has their own take on when equality should be a scale and when it should be a bar. This leads to confusion between the parties involved in the debate because depending on the argument, people will flip flop between seeing it as a scale or as a bar to suit their personal agenda.

So what’s the right answer?

That’s something we need to decide as a society. If it’s a scale, then some groups can have more than other, but it’s harder to manage because now we need to numerically add value to social equality, which is highly subjective depending on your background. If it’s a bar, then everyone gets the same programs, platforms, and privileges regardless of the past, present, and future.

Discussing this dilemma is imperative, so please comment below and let’s start this conversation together. It’s the only way to solve the problem.


What makes a country happy, and who is the happiest

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an international association that provides a forum in which governments can work together to share experiences and seeks solutions to common problems.

Since 2012, they have created and released the World Happiness Report, a study measuring the 155-member country’s well-being. The OECD believe the happiness of a country’s people is a direct cause of social and economic development and works with countries to propel their financial and social status in the right direction. I’ve broken down the most important points for you, but there is a link to the report at the bottom of the article if you’re interested.

So, what makes people happy?

The OECD measures a person’s happiness through a series of questions getting and individual to evaluate their own life on a scale from 0 – 10. They do many other things as well to calculate the long-term effects of their studies, but that’s the gist of it.

According to their report, the main factors that make people happy are their levels of:

  • Caring
  • Freedom
  • Generosity
  • Honesty
  • Income, and
  • Good governance

However, the 6 key variables that affect the factors above and help explain the measured differences between a country’s levels of happiness are:

  • The GDP per capital
  • Social support – the number of people in your community you can count on in times of need
  • Healthy life expectancy
  • Social freedom – the amount of freedom one has to choose what they do with their lives
  • Generosity – people donating their time and money to help the community
  • Absence of corruption in business and government

Who is happy?

The world’s average level of happiness is 5.310. The top three regions are Northern America & ANZ with a mean of 7.046, Western Europe at 6.593, and Latin America & the Caribbean at 6.342.

The bottom three regions are the Middle East & North Africa at 5.117, South Asia at 4.442, and Sub-Saharan Africa at 4.292.

The top ten happiest countries are:

  1. Norway – 7.537
  2. Denmark – 7.522
  3. Iceland – 7.504
  4. Switzerland – 7.494
  5. Finland – 7.469
  6. Netherlands – 7.377
  7. Canada – 7.316
  8. New Zealand – 7.314
  9. Australia – 7.284
  10. Sweden – 7.284

Other notable countries
14. United States – 6.993
16. Germany – 6.951
49. Russia – 5.63
79. China – 5.373
155. Central African Republic – 2.693 (Last)

Taking in the key variables mentioned above, it’s not surprising the top ten countries are all first-world progressive nations, and 16 of the bottom 20 countries are in Africa where social and economic development is the lowest.

Another notable statistic is that only 70 out of the 155 countries had increasing happiness levels (Canada actually decreasing by a small margin).

Is this data reliable?

Personal surveys are very subjective. However, happiness is a feeling so one’s subjective response is one of the only ways to can analyze it. You will get people taking part in the survey that are having great days and horrible days that would skew the results, but the OECD’s sample size was large enough to negate that issue.

Regarding accuracy, it makes a lot of sense when you look at the data. For example, the Ukraine’s happiness level went down almost an entire point over the past 10 years. What’s been going on in the Ukraine? Continuous riots and protest against the government and Russia taking Crimea. These issues have had a serious impact on all 6 of the key variables.

Compare that to Nicaragua, the country whose happiness has increased the most over the past 10 years (by 1.354). They’ve invested heavily in technology, infrastructure, and tourism. This has boosted the country’s economy, brought people from all over the world to explore the country and meet the people, and helped developed the social tolerance and standing of the nation.

The main takeaway

Any community looking to further itself has to take care of the people first. Create an environment where people feel free to take chances and be themselves, and the economic growth will follow.


The report:

OECD’s website:

Should not disclosing HIV be illegal?

On February 22, dozens of protesters stood outside the Attorney General of Canada’s office demanding the law stating HIV-positive people needing to disclose their status to all potential sexual partners be revoked.

Currently under Canadian law, not informing your sexual partner you’re HIV positive can land you an aggravated sexual assault charge, which is anywhere from 5 years up to a lifetime in jail. This offense has been enforced before, one example being Marjorie Schenkels, a woman who is HIV positive was charged with aggravated sexual assault charge for having unprotected sex three times with a friend in 2014. That being said, there is no official law stating the correct punishment for someone who doesn’t disclose having HIV.

When I first heard about this, I didn’t understand how people could protest this law. How could people want this law to be scratched and increase the chance of people contracting HIV?

Well, let’s dive into both sides of the argument because it’s more complicated than you might think.

The Arguments

The easier side to understand is people who are in favour of the current law. Their argument is simple: HIV and AIDS are deadly diseases. People should be well informed before being put into a situation where they might contract them. It’s the only real argument they have, but that’s all right because IT’S A VERY GOOD ONE.

Once you venture into the other side of the argument is when thinks start to get more complicated.

The first point people against the current law make is HIV isn’t as transmittable as people think due to general misconceptions surrounding it. According to a scientific consensus statement on, there are three main factors that contribute to the transmission of the virus:

  • Type of sexual act
  • Condom use
  • Antiretroviral therapy use and viral load in the HIV-positive person

The type of sexual act increases or decreases the chance of transmission. For example, oral sex has a significantly lower chance than vaginal and anal sex because HIV isn’t transferable through saliva. Is only transferable through semen, vaginal fluid, and anal fluid, and even then is only transferable these fluids come into contact with specific cells in an HIV-negative person.

Condom use is important because as long as the condom doesn’t break, HIV cannot pass through the latex barrier. However, they recognize condoms do tend to break from time to time.

Antiretroviral therapy is how people with HIV are treated. The goal of this type of treatment is to stop the virus from making copies of itself. Viral load is how contagious someone with HIV actually is, and the goal of antiretroviral therapy is to have an undetectable viral load, meaning little to no HIV.

The scientific community against the current Canadian law says the combination of these three factors can lead to HIV almost being completely non-transmittable. You can read the detailed report discussing these factors and more about HIV prevention here:

The other argument is the law surrounding HIV creates a stigma that does more damage than it does good. Protestors say shaming people for having HIV and making them afraid of the social and legal consequences deters them from wanting to tell anyone about their HIV status, especially when they can be legally labelled as people who committed aggravated sexual assault.

What do I think?

I think both sides have very valid points. Being labelled a rapist for not telling someone of a condition you’re ashamed of is harsh. You could create a specific category in the Criminal Code of Canada addressing HIV transmission, but giving it its own section could further add to the stigma surrounding the virus. On the other hand, unlike chlamydia or other STIs, HIV and AIDS are deadly. I still think you should make people fully aware of what they’re getting into before they make a decision that could possibly end their life – no matter how low the risk is.

So, what do you think? Am I right? Am I wrong? Should it continue to be illegal not to disclose your HIV to sexual partners? Should the Canadian government trash the law surrounding it? Should there be a new section introduced into the Criminal Code of Canada addressing this issue? Let me know in the comment section below, and make sure to get your friends and family in on the debate by sharing this article.



Having your period? Just… glue it shut?

Yep, you read the title right.

Mensez is a product developed by Dan Dopps, a chiropractor in Wichita, that is supposed to revolutionize the world of feminine hygiene and possibly do away with tampons and pads entirely.

According to the company’s website, it’s a lipstick-like applicator that uses a combination of natural oils and amino acids to seal your labia shut. The seal dissolves when you pee, releasing all of the fluids stored inside and making your trip to the bathroom much more efficient.

This product is patented and Dopps claims several manufacturers are interested in the product. Although, many women aren’t.

Women on Twitter haven’t been a huge fan of the product. Comments range from asking Dopps to glue his mouth shut to asking if he understands female anatomy at all.

Dopps claims he have spent years of research perfecting the product and is surprised pads and tampons are the best solution women have been able to come up with.

Ashley Robbins, an OB-GYN (obstetrics gynaecologists) at the Mid-Kansas Women’s Center, says Dobbs is trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exists and believes the product would be unsafe and ineffective.

What do I think? I think it doesn’t take a doctor to realize you shouldn’t try this product.

I can see how this product could save women time, money, and the inconvenience of using tampons and pads, but there is so much grey area to be addressed before I would feel safe with my female friends and family using this product. What if the glue doesn’t work? What if you spill a drink on your shorts? What if you have a large flow and it burst through the glue, or worse, keeps it inside and causes you health problems? What does a chiropractor know about women’s reproductive organs?

Also, from a corporate perspective, the amount of liability damage you’d have to pay if this product turns out to be damaging to women could astronomical.

When it comes down to products like this, don’t just look at the problem it can solve. Think about all the problems it can cause. There are a lot of products out there that sound like they’re home runs, but after you think about it, turn out to be complete duds – and Mensez is one of them.



Company website –

The Wichita Eagle –


Time to Talk: Cop Hate

Do you trust your local police force? Do you like your local police force?

If you’re a Winnipegger, you probably have heard the story about Trent Milan. He is a police officer that is charged with 15 counts of possessing a prohibited weapon, breach of trust, attempt to obstruct justice, and theft, and drug trafficking.

This isn’t the first time a report has come out about a dirty cop, and it won’t be last.

If you’ve been on the Internet in the past ten years, you’ve probably seen a video of a police officer being overaggressive, whether it is one of them beating an unarmed individual or shooting people without cause. You’ve also probably seen videos of cops acting like complete power-hungry dickheads.

This has added to the mentality that all cops are dirty and abusive; a mentality that is all too prevalent in today’s culture. is a website that allows people to vote and add their opinions to create top ten lists regarding a certain topic.

The “Top Ten Biggest Reasons People Hate Police” list

1. They are working for politicians and not the people
2. They’re stupid (mainly false)
3. They think they can talk and treat you however they want
4. They’re criminals in disguise
5. They hate black people
6. They beat you during interrogation
7. They’re more annoying than math teachers (really? are you 5?)
8. They think they own you
9. Police in third world countries make money by taking bribes
10. They always want to be right conducted a poll in the United States and when asked the question “Do Police officer routinely lie to serve their own self-interest?”

• 30.9% agree
• 43.8% disagree
• 25.2% were unsure

It also concluded 37.3% believe police officers unfairly target minorities, and only half believe they are fair and just.

So is all this cop hate justified?



Yes, but that doesn’t make it right.

The reason why all these abusive police officers are in the news is because their actions are out of the norm. CBC, CTV, FOX, etc. don’t report on cops doing their job correctly because it’s not newsworthy or interesting. The news wouldn’t report you walking to school because you do that every day. If you were walking to school and were hit by a bus, now there is a story to talk about because that shouldn’t have happened.

There is more than 765,000 sworn personnel (people with the ability to make arrests) in the United States alone. Even if there was an abusive/dirty police officer case talked about on the news every singled day in the past ten years, that would still mean under 0.01% of police officers have been reported as abusive/dirty.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not blind. I know that there are racist, dirty, abusive, paid-off, terrible police officers in the world. I am in no way ignorant to that fact. But they are the minority.

At the end of the day, the reason you have the freedom to whine about the police is because the majority of them are good citizens that protect your freedoms. There are some that are bad at their job and should be jailed for what they’ve done, but most would give their lives to protect you.

Could you give your life to protect innocents if it came down to it? Would you?

I’m not saying you should start placing your faith in them. I’m not even saying you should stop protesting. In fact, I encourage it. It’s an issue that needs to be dealt with it will never get dealt with until the government realizes how much it matters to you. All I’m saying is before you start spouting off cop hate, realize that for every shitty police officer that beats a black individual for no reason other than to get a rush out of it – there are 1000 that do nothing but try and keep you safe at night.

Time to Talk: #AllLivesMatter

If you have even one social media account that you use regularly, you must have come across #AllLivesMatter at least once in recent history. Looking at the hashtag on its own, it’s harmless. Of course, all lives matter and all people should be treated equally.

So why has #AllLiveMatter been getting so much flak?

A lot of people already know why and have formed their opinion on the subject. However, there is still a large portion of people I’ve come across that still doesn’t understand. I mean, what’s the big deal?

Now I’m not tackling this to start up a race war. I’m just trying to illustrate the type of people that try and justify #AllLivesMatter as a better alternative to #BlackLivesMatter.

First – what is #BlackLivesMatter?

Because the eruption of #AllLivesMatter happened in the past year, people think the Black Lives Matter movement began just before it. It actually started back in 2013 in response to the Trayvon Martin shooting. After the killer didn’t face criminal charges, members of the African American community decided to protest against:

  • Racial profiling and police brutality by police officers
  • The unfair treatment of black people in the judicial system

As the years past, more African Americans were shot and killed by police officers and the movement continued to grow. But, like with most movements, the larger it became, the easier it was to pass on its message and have that message can be misinterpreted. People started thinking that the Black Lives Matter movements focussed too much on the injustices done to African Americans (go figure) and that everyone has problems – and so began #AllLivesMatter.

Some of you might be thinking – Well, They’re right. All Lives do Matter. Everyone has his or her problems.

Well, I’ll let these people explain why replacing #BlackLivesMatter with #AllLivesMatter makes you kind of a dick:



Yes, all lives matter. No one is questioning that. But the topic of discussion is about injustices to African Americans. Changing the subject just belittles the problem and does nothing to fix it.

Many people have used homicide reports and statistics to try and accomplish this by saying “Cops kill more white people than black people,” and “Black people kill more black people than cops kill black people.”

These are both true statements. However, black people only make up roughly 6% of the population in the United States, and white people make up the majority, so obviously more white people are killed – there is way more of them. And yes, Black on Black crime is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with.

But that’s not what we are talking about right now

The Black Lives Matter movement isn’t saying these other problems don’t exist. It’s trying to address the problem of racial bias in the eyes of the judicial system. That’s it. So, let’s keep the topic of discussion related to that issue.

This juvenile way to debate can be traced back to childhood. It’s like when a classroom just finishes a race in gym class, and Johnny won. The teacher congratulates Johnny and then Jake says “Well, my brother is faster.”

Well, that’s great for your brother Jake, but we are praising Johnny right now.

I hate talking about this because I think the majority of police officers are heroes risking their lives for us. When you are walking the street and all of a sudden somebody whips out a gun, you get to run away and go home to your family. They have run into the fray so you have that luxury. But there is a small portion whose actions are influenced by race and need to be stopped. And the #BlueLivesMatter, the cop support movement in response to Black Lives Matter, is similar to tweeting #AllLivesMatter. Yes, they are important, but it’s not the topic of discussion.

Sadly, when a movement or social issue goes on long enough, people stop caring. It’s just a fact of life. And when it goes on for too long, people stop thinking its a big deal and try and belittle it in an attempt to make it go away.

If your sick of a problem, instead of ignoring it until it goes away, solve it so it never comes back. You can keep putting coasters until a wobbly table to keep it upright, but the table will never be level until you fix the fucking leg.

Stop tweeting #AllLivesMatter. And if Black Lives Matter offends you, or you think it’s trying to cop shame, just remember the graphic below.





Time to Talk: Rape accusations

This piece isn’t going to dive into all the analytics surrounding this subject because with all the undocumented physical and mental abuse cases out there, I feel I can’t use stats to justify any argument. I’m not going to give my opinion on who I think is or isn’t guilty in any of the recent rape cases. I’m only going to give my opinion on the public’s attitude surrounding sexual assault claims.

I’d like to start with the Toby Turner case that just came to light a few days ago.

If you are aware of the Toby Turner story, you can skip to the “Why bring this up?” portion of the blog post. Be warned, I’ll be referencing and summarizing the videos I mention below and they will be an important part in the “Why bring this up?” portion

What happened?

Toby Turner is a YouTube gamer, songwriter, vlogger, and entertainer. He owns three channels: Tobuscus (6.3 million subscribers), Toby Games (6.9 million subscribers), and his Toby Turner vlog channel (1.98 million subscribers).

A few days ago, AprilEfff, a songwriter/YouTuber wrote a Tumblr post talking about her five-year on and off relationship with Toby Turner.

In the post, she talks about how while she was dating Turner, he cheated on her dozens of times, abused drugs and alcohol, would force himself on her to the point where her clothes would rip, drugged her once to prevent her from leaving, and would force her to stand in front of him as he used her as masturbation material.

April started out as a fan of Turner and explained how she wasn’t the only one. He would make women feel they were the most important people on the face of the earth and then use his power to toy with them. He would scream and throw fits, calling her a “dumb fucking blonde” and not allowing her to go public with their relationship, only to then beg for her to come back whenever she tried leaving him.

The full post:


After this post came out, a couple other women made videos and said they had similar experiences with Turner.

After those videos, YouTuber and ex-girlfriend Jaclyn Glenn (400,000 subscribers) made a video supporting the claims of cheating and sexual aggression, but defended Turner on the other charges. She also said April was the one who introduced Toby Turner to drugs in the first place.

The full video:

Toby Turner finally uploaded a quick one-minute response video afterward claiming that the allegations were completely false.

The full video:

The last video I’ll mention is Philip DeFranco’s video. He is a popular news YouTuber (3.6 million subscribers) and owner of SourceFed, SourceFedNerd, and For Human Peoples and used to work with Turner early in their careers. In his video, he didn’t comment on whether or not he thought Turner was guilty of rape but did shed light on Turner’s character. He said Turner was known to cheat on all of his girlfriends, use molly and cocaine at public events, and was a sad man seeking validation from others in any way that he could (mostly sexual). DeFranco claims most people that know Turner in the YouTube community have at least one to five stories involving him and drug use and DeFranco even had to kick Turner out of a Super Bowl party he hosted three years ago because of an act of indecency Turner committed to one of DeFranco’s female employees.

The full video:

Why bring this up?

Again, I’m not making this post to discuss whether I think Toby Turner is guilty. I’m going to talk about the attitude and reaction towards the videos posted and the overall view on Internet rape culture from my experience as an avid YouTube fan.

There are three types of rape accusations. There are the accusations that are true, the accusations that are false but aren’t malicious, usually misinterpreted by the victim and have some element of truth, and the accusations that are false with the intent to damage the image of the accused.

Even though most cases have some element of truth to them, sadly, there are a few cases that are completely false.

In typical Internet fashion, once some people heard about the first false rape allegation, they began to treat all cases as such.

The Internet is split in half because of the Toby Turner allegations. Many people Tweeting at April supporting her and praising her bravery, while others mock her and say she’s just an “attention whore” and “a dumb bitch trying to stay relevant.”

The comments on the videos made by the other two women and Jaclyn’s video (which actually defended Turner to some regard) were similar. They were either along the lines of “You so brave” and “I’ll never look at Toby the same way again,” or along the lines of “Stupid bitch” and “If he did these things, why didn’t you go to the police? You dumb whores.”

“Why didn’t you go to the police?”

This question is the whole reason I’m making this post. Why didn’t they just go to the police? Well, the answer isn’t that simple.

Some of you might be reading this thinking that you wouldn’t put up with this shit and would 100% go to the police, and you’d be right. Some of you think you’d go to the police but probably wouldn’t, and some of you know exactly what these women are going through.

Love makes people do crazy things, especially celebrity love. These women started out as fans of Toby Turner. They weren’t on the same playing field. The women idolized him and thought he was godly in some regards. He devoted his time and love to them. He made them feel like they were special and deemed worthy of his time. When you idolize someone and they give you their love, that’s a strong hold that can’t just be easily broken. These women started a relationship from a psychological disadvantage.

This doesn’t just happen with celebrities and their fans, but anyone who starts a relationship thinking they are the lucky one. Thinking that the person they’re with is so far above them.

When these people are so enthralled by another and then are mistreated by them, it’s not as easy as “Well I’m over them now.” These people begin to believe they either deserved the mistreatment or that the mistreatment is justified, even when it’s obvious that it isn’t.

They also sometimes feel terrified to come forward because they believe the police won’t be able to do anything, the police and their peers won’t believe them, or are just flat out embarrassed and don’t want to be seen as a victim by their friends and family.

And who can blame them? Let’s do a quick run down on some of the comments left on these videos:

  • “Her story has so many holes in it, Toby couldn’t even fill them all.”
  • “What a load of shit. Stupid ‘girl cried rape’ scenario all over again.”
  • “I’ll give these women something to cry about.”
  • “God, who hasn’t been raped these days?”
  • “If I raped these bitches, they wouldn’t dare rat.”

Those are just five of the disgusting comments I found.

It takes a lot of courage for these women to come forward and state that they are being abused. They feel embarrassed and ashamed but also feel it’s their duty to protect others from being exposed to the same physical and emotional damage.

Instead of being met with love and support, they’re treated like liars and whiners.

Imagine a waiter gives you the wrong order. You tell him it’s the wrong food but he denies it gets mad at you for bringing it up. You go to the manager and he says he can’t prove that the waiter did anything wrong so you can’t get your meal for free or the food you actually ordered. As you walk back to your seat, the other waiting staff and customers start pelting you with food and yelling things like “freeloader” and “fat ass.”

Would you ever try and send back food again?

This applies to both genders but even more so to women because the Internet sees them as the main gender behind these false accusations, which is only true because women are the main victims of sexual assault.

Let’s compare the comments on the women’s videos to the men’s.

On Toby’s video, some people attacked him for the crimes he’s accused of, but many of his fans flock to support him. They say things like “I’ll always support you,” and “These girls are just trying to piggyback off your fame.” On DeFranco’s video, the people praised his video for being well put together and for being very informative.

DeFranco’s video was very well done and I don’t want to knock him at all (especially because I’m a huge fan on his), but Jaclyn’s video was done in a similar style and she was met with lots of criticism and negative/sexist comments, much like the ones I listed above,  because she’s a female linked to the story that tears down the beloved Toby Turner.


It’s hard to tell what is right from wrong anymore. It’s hard to tell whose lying and whose telling the truth. But when you discourage those from coming out and telling their side of the story and treat them like the enemy; they and others like them will live in a hole for their entire lives, and the people who abuse them will continue to abuse them and others like them.

I don’t know if Toby Turner is guilty or not, and if he is not guilty then I feel bad for the damage his image and career have taken. But if he his guilty, then it needs to come out because people who abuse others in such a heinous degree need to know that they aren’t just hurting objects that inflate their ego; they are hurting and warping the minds of people with feelings and we shouldn’t discourage the ones brave enough to stand up and say “enough is enough.”

I believe people are innocent until proven guilty. It applies to the accused, but also to the accuser.

“Reservations” review – ego over story

Reservations is a local play written by Steven Ratzlaff about the struggles of the Indigenous community.

It begins with a young white woman complaining about her father’s decision to give the land she thought she was getting as her inheritance to the Indigenous community it once belonged to before colonization. It then tells the story of a white woman fighting viciously to keep her Aboriginal son in her care when an Aboriginal social worker comes to take it from her, showing the mother that her adopted son never really felt like he belonged. It then ends with the Aboriginal social worker giving a speech at the University of Manitoba about the importance of Indigenous rights.

Let’s quickly run through the positives. Yes, I mean quickly.

The acting was a little shaky in the beginning of the play, a few missed queues and annunciation issues, but by the second act, it was really strong. The actors hit the notes hard exactly when they needed to and you could feel the emotion behind each word. My hat especially goes off to the two female leads, Sarah Constible and Tracey Nepinak, for carrying the play and making you pay attention to the meaning behind the words they were saying.

The sound was great for the most part. The beautiful tribal tunes playing ominously in the background helped add the punch some of the scenes deliver. At times it was unnecessary, but it wasn’t so out of place that it took you out of the play.

Unfortunately, you can’t have a great play when the writing and direction are so pretentious and in your face.

I understand what the writer and director were going for. They wanted to show multiple stories to better illustrate the point of these white people complaining about the same things the Indigenous community has been suffering from for years. The white woman is getting her land taken away, just like it was from the Indigenous. The white woman is getting her kid taken away, much like the Indigenous during the residential schools era.

If they kept illustrating that message through examples and great dialogue, it would have been fine. Instead, they begin telling you a story at the beginning that is kind of boring, but then they start dropping details about the characters lives and add colour to it, and the boom, they cut to the next story just as it’s getting interesting with no resolution.

Then the second story starts to turn preachy when the indigenous woman starts dragging on and on about Indigenous rights. Now I want to make this perfectly clear – Indigenous right are very important. But what do people tend to remember, a great lecture or a great story?

Instead of painting a beautiful picture in your mind with metaphors and great writing, it becomes just short of a woman standing a soapbox with a megaphone begging for you to pay attention to her message. It felt like it was a boring lecture, and then it actually became a boring lecture in the last thirty minutes. I’m not kidding. The last thirty minutes was a woman presenting a slideshow about Indigenous rights. People pay to see great storytelling, not to get a history lesson.

It only had three actors and limited set pieces, but that’s no excuse to poor storytelling. Take The Fly Fisher’s Companion for example. It was a Winnipeg play about two old friends that go on a fishing trip. It starts out with a lot of laughs and as the play goes on, they begin telling stories about the long life they have lived. It eventually turns into an emotional rollercoaster as these old men talk about moments they truly regretted and how life could have been so much easier if they did things differently.

The beauty of that play was the actors never once mentioned the message of the play, which was “live life to the fullest” and “You don’t to regret missing out on anything.”

Reservations was the exact opposite. I starting counting halfway through, and they actors mentioned the phrase “Aboriginal rights are important” eleven times (with slight variation). Instead of telling me they are important, show that to me with through the magic of imagery and dialogue.

Cutting about forty-five minutes of the play would have helped exponentially. I’m all for adding colour to a story to liven it up, but the little details in this play just muddied it up. For example, the first half of the play focussed on the land issue I mentioned in the introduction. Slowly throughout the story, little facts like the father never telling her about his multiple heart attacks are only interesting if they eventually lead somewhere. Instead of using these little details to enhance the story and lead up to a compelling climax, the first act ended and the second story started, leaving you to wonder what the point of it all was.

It seemed the writer was just writing extra poetic lines just to show you how good of a writer he was. He was serving his ego over the storyline and that’s just wrong.

I could have forgiven most of the issues, I really could of, but the talk back session after the play was just atrocious. The writer was asked at least seven questions and answered only one of them with actual concrete information.

I personally asked him a question about why he spent so much time building up the first story and dropping little hints of interesting plot points and character developed only to leave it unresolved. His response was “I thought it was resolved,” and then moved on to the next question. It was like answering a math question in high school and leaving it blank where it says, “show you work.” He had no defense for anything and even made me start to doubt he wrote the play in the first place. I know not all writers are the most social people, but this wasn’t anti-social behaviour, this was riddled with “I don’t care” or “I don’t have to explain myself to you” attitude.

The most important thing to take away from this review – the best stories don’t tell you the message, they illustrate it for you. Indigenous rights are very important, but this play didn’t affect me more than a Canadian history textbook would have.

“White only” dating site isn’t racist

Before if you wanted to meet exclusively white singles, you’d have to go to places like a Michael Buble concert, a Trump rally, Abercrombie and Fitch, anywhere they sell juice, or Virginia.


Now there is, the new site for white people that are looking to date other white people.

billboard white ppl

Ever since the billboard above was discovered, the social justice warriors of the Internet went into frenzy posting article after article about the inexcusable racism and how the site should be taken down.


Sam Russell, the founder of the website said in an interview with The Washington Post “The last thing I am is a racist. I dated a black woman once. I help raise a young black man,” and later goes on to say “I just believe it’s hypocrisy to say ‘one group can do this, but another group can’t.”


Although I think it’s funny when white people use the “I’m not racist, ONCE I did this thing with a coloured person” argument, I actually completely agree with him.


I know the topic of race is a sensitive and there are a lot of problems regarding racism in the world today. This is not one of them. Before you cast me as a racist, just hear me out.


When you look at all the exclusivity in dating websites out there, it gets very specific when it comes to finding traits in someone you want to hook up with or spend the rest your life with. A part from the pages worth of questionnaires dating sites require, there are already sites out there that are geared towards satisfying exclusive needs.


There is if you who want to date specifically Jewish people.

There is if you want to date specifically Christians.

There is if you want to date specifically Black people.

There is if you want to specifically tall people.

There is even if you want to specifically douche bags (Just jokes, settle down).


The reason dating websites getting more and more specific these days are because certain people are no longer willing to wait to find that special someone. Some generic dating sites put some people in a position to go on date after date with loser after loser until they found the right person. How do we bypass this problem? Make the requirements and field of view so specific that now you’re picking from a much smaller pool of people that are guaranteed to have at least a few similar interests as you. If you’re a black person looking for another black person, that’s you’re preference. Why should it be frowned upon the other way around?


When you are dating someone you hope to spend the rest of your life with, you want to be attracted to that person. Some people like brunettes, some people like blondes; some people like tall people, some like them short; some people like them fat, some like them skinny; some like them black, some like them white.


Racial equality is a two-way street. 1 has to equal 1. Obviously white only groups haven’t had stellar reputations in the past (for good reasons), but this site is a non-issue. People liking certain skin tones has always been a thing. Some white girls only date black guys, some black girls only date white guys, Indian parents only wanting Indian partners for their kids is an ever-real fact, and so on. People just heard the phrase “white only” and decided to get offended because The Walking Dead is a re-run and they needed something to kill time. I understand the negative stigma surrounding the term “white only,” but it doesn’t apply in this case.


The dumbest thing of all is the majority of people writing these articles and losing their minds on twitter are OTHER WHITE PEOPLE. It’s other white people who think it’ll make them look good to stick up for racial equality when they’re really only after retweets and comments praising them for their courage. “OMG, you’re such a good person Ashley ❤ ;p.” No Ashley, you just know how to fool people in 140 characters or less.


Lets put it into perspective. There are thousands of pornography sites out there with loads of categories dedicated to the wildest of things. There are broad categories like Teen, Lesbian, Gay, MILF, BDSM, Cartoon; and other categories that get ridiculously specific like feet, left-handed hand job, aquatic animal, and even (I’m not making this up) depressed clown. People are willing to go to into such specific detail when finding these videos to watch, and that’s only a 30-45 second commitment. Why wouldn’t people go into specific detail when choosing who they want to spend the rest of their life with?


I guess the whole point of this article is you should try to look at things from multiple perspectives. When it comes to physical attraction, preference doesn’t equal racist.


If you liked this article, please give it a like, share it with your friends and family, and if you hated it, all the more reason to share it. Show the world just how much of an asshole I am. Go get ‘em tiger. Lovers and haters alike, let me know what you think in the comment section down below.


That’s all I have to say and I just wanted to thank everyone who makes this blog a part of their weekly routine. The amount of views I’m getting surprises me every time I check the stats page and I thank you for it.


Thanks again and I’ll see you guys next week.



Why “Frozen” is a terrible movie: come at me internet

This post strays away from the original entertainment news I do, but I feel like I need to get this off my chest. (possible Disney movies spoilers, but come on, you would have seen them by now if you wanted too).

Frozen has grossed over $400,000,000 in the domestic box office and billions on billions of dollars worldwide in ticket sales, DVD sales, and merchandise. It’s also won 2 Oscars including Best animated film.

Well that doesn’t mean jack shit. You want to know some other films that made a lot of money?

  • Twilight: New Moon – $300,000,000 In the U.S – IMDB rating: 5.2
  • Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull – over $750,000,000 worldwide – IMDB rating: 6.2
  • Fifty Shades of Grey – $167,000,000 In the U.S – IMDB rating: 4.2

You want to know some other films that won Oscars?

Birdman won best picture over:

  • American Sniper
  • The Imitation Game
  • Whiplash
  • The Grand Budapest Hotel
  • The Theory of Everything

The Artist won best picture over:

  • Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
  • The Help
  • Moneyball
  • Hugo

Shakepeare in Love won best picture over:

  • Life is Beautiful
  • SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (seriously, wtf)

Not saying all these movies are terrible, but sometimes the academy gets it wrong, and they definitely did with Frozen.

So lets do a quickie break down the plot of Frozen:

Anna Get’s blasted by her sisters ice power. Her parents take her to some rock troll things that have magical powers. They cure her sickness and warn them to make sure she never gets blasted in the heart and that only true love and cure a frozen heart (holy shit someone give me a razorblade). They take out Anna’s memory of Elsa’s powers, and her parents lock Elsa away until she can control her ice magic. Her parents go sailing and die because god forbid anyone with superpowers has living parents. 10 years later, she speaks to her sister for the first time when Elsa is crowned queen. The people of her kingdom find out Elsa has powers and she runs away after freezing over the entire kingdom. Anna puts a hot guy who she just met, who is not even from her kingdom, in charge while she looks for her sister. Elsa learns to “Let it go”, makes herself a castle, a pretty dress, and a snowman that comes to life (because apparently she can create life too). Anna then finds another hot guy (go Anna), and the snowman Elsa created, and they go after Elsa. Through of a series of events, you guessed it, Anna gets in ice blasted the heart, starts dying, and gets cured when she sacrifices herself for Elsa who is about to be killed by hot guy #1. They both live through the act of true love, the kingdom is saved, and everyone gets to go ice-skating, yay!

So, why does Frozen suck?

Well Frozen has more plot problems than Arabian playboys have colourful shirts, or Dr. Pepper has flavours (please pay me. I’ll gladly be a sell out for any Dr. Pepper reps reading). Here are just a few of them; as well as some general nitpicks.

  • The very first scene, before Anna gets blasted with her powers, there is a completely unnecessary scene where a bunch of guys are breaking ice and singing about how they live off it. Not only does this never come up again and makes the movie longer, why would they be later whining about having their kingdom frozen over when their main money making method is selling ice?
  • The main conflict isn’t introduced until 35 minutes into the movie. The movie is only 90 minutes.
  • The True love plot line has been beaten to death. A movie that comes out in 2013 should be held to a higher creative standard. True love is the answer is as much of a cliché as white chicks loving Starbucks, Donald Trump saying something edgy, and college kids acting super informed (myself included).
  • The kingdom has a just accepted the fact that Elsa and Anna are alive and well, even though they haven’t seen her either of them in 10 years. A kingdom would just accept this? Also when both of the princesses are gone, they just accept Hans, a complete stranger and outsider is in charge? I’d riot.
  • Somehow Elsa will freeze anything she touches… except apparently gloves. And don’t give me that bullshit that they’re magical gloves, because the movie doesn’t say dick about that.
  • The troll rocks were only added in to introduce the stupid true love plotline, which could have been done so many different ways; and to force a love triangle between Anna and the two guys, which is obligatory because one hot guy turns out to be evil later. Also they sing a stupid song in an attempt to get Kristoff some action instead of immediately helping a dying Anna.
  • The only reason Anna’s memories were erased was to keep her from playing with Elsa’s powers. Once she grew up, why couldn’t Elsa just tell Anna the truth? She’s a grown ass adult. Why couldn’t their Parents, the KING AND QUEEN OF THE KINGDOM, just order their six-year-old daughter not to use ice powers anymore? surely if a couple crossbowmen are enough to mess around with adult Elsa, a couple guards could keep kid Elsa at bay.
  • When she makes her dress, why isn’t she freezing? It’s made of ice, isn’t it? If she’s immune to cold, it still doesn’t make sense cause she makes ice and snow. Snow wouldn’t be able to stick together and would melt instantly, making her have to make a new dress constantly, and Ice is too solid and would break every time she moves. (I know this is a huge nitpick but I really hate frozen).
  • The fact she can create life is just added in only to make way for a c-rated sidekick. Also Anna remembers who Olaf is, even though she had her memory erased.
  • Hans somehow locks Anna in a room from the outside. If she’s locked inside, just unlock it dumbass.
  • A kingdom that shunned Elsa for having these powers accepts her later because she unfreezes the land. That’s nice she solved the problem, but she is still technically a dangerous freak. Burn the witch? Also, the whole movie she can’t control her powers, but somehow can unfreeze the kingdom just like that?
  • If Elsa can create life, why doesn’t she just make a huge snowman army to defeat the bad guys? She created a humongous terrifying monster to scare Anna away. Why not make that to knock a blade out of Hans’ hands when he comes after her?

There are many more plot issues but I have more to talk about and I don’t want this post going too long.

The soundtrack is meh. Ya I said it, it’s only okay. Other than “Let it go” the other songs are just passable, and “Let it go” doesn’t even crack the top 10 of best Disney songs ever.

Tell me it’s better then any of these:

Circle of life – Lion King

Can you feel the love tonight – Lion King

Hakuna Matata – Lion King

Go the Distance – Hercules

I’ll make a man out of you – Mulan

Still here – Treasure Planet

Part of your world – The Little Mermaid

A whole new world – Aladdin

You’ll be in my heart – Tarzan

Strangers Like me – Tarzan

And there are so many more. Also, “Let it go” can be summed up with one word, YOLO, and that’s shameful.

Another thing Frozen was missing? The big tearjerker moment that most Disney movies have (very few exceptions, Frozen is not one of them). The Lion King had the death of Mufasa, Tarzan had him leaving his mother, Mulan had her Father saying he was finally proud of her, and so on. Frozen has Anna toss herself in front of a blade, but it’s so painfully obvious she’s going to live that it doesn’t even tickle the tear ducts.

You might be saying “It’s just a kids movie”, But that’s biggest reason why Frozen is nowhere near the one of the best Disney movies. It’s just a kid’s movie.

The best Disney movies are the ones that incorporate the whole family. In the Lion king you had cute animation and a great music for the kids, and drama and touching dialogue for the parents. In Inside out, you have beautiful colours and funny characters for the kids, and complex brain anatomy jokes for the parents. In Beauty and the beast, you have scary monsters and furniture coming to life for the kids, and a gripping tale of a beast that just wants to be understood for the adults.

Frozen has some cute little things that kids will like, but the True Love bullshit and the clunky dialogue make it a chore adults to sit through.

You might be thinking, “Well, what came out that year that was better?”

The Croods. It was a touching story about a caveman family, with a father accepting that his kids have to grow up, but its okay cause they will always love him. It also touched on how people need to advance and adapt as technology does. Also, the ending when the father had to sacrifice himself for his family, but then through his determination actually gets to survive the end of the world and live a new life with his family. I mean, it just punches ya right in the feels.

Frozen blows. If it was a stand alone from a new company, it would be a good start. But Disney has been a powerful house in the feels industry. They can do better than this. Make like Frozen and let it go from your movie library (ends on a pun like a boss).

Am I wrong?  Am I right? In your opinion, what is the best Disney movie? Comment below, and thanks for tuning in to this non-newsy type post.