Happy Blasphemy Day!

Hooray, today is blasphemy day!

As you may remember, back in 2005 (on this day) a Danish newspaper published a bunch of cartoons depicting Mohammed. There were a lot of Muslims upset by the depiction of their prophet as a violent jerk, and so they engaged in the only rational response: violence.

Since then, there have been a number of attempts by various governmental bodies around the world to enact anti-blasphemy laws, designed to stifle this sort of free expression. Ireland, for instance, has a pretty nasty new anti-blasphemy law.

There are no enforceable blasphemy laws in America, of course. They'd be blatantly unconstitutional. But the sentiment exists here as well. Some people believe they have a right not to have their beliefs mocked and ridiculed. They don't. There is no right to not be offended.

Obviously, people's rights to believe in stupid things should be respected. They're free to believe whatever they like. But there's no reason the ideas themselves deserve respect. This isn't about making "converts" to whatever belief system you may hold, it's about freely expressing that some ideas are just really dumb.

You wouldn't respect the ideas of someone who thinks slavery should be legal, or who thinks lightning is created by some dude with a hammer, or anyone who thinks that disobedient children should be stoned to death. It doesn't matter that all those beliefs are based on religion, they're still stupid and you have every right to say so.

So, won't you please join me today in blaspheming whatever religion you feel like blaspheming?

While I think they're all utter nonsense, you don't have to agree with me to get in on the blasphemous fun. Lots of Christians enjoy blaspheming Allah, for instance. If you're a more timid sort, you could always pick a religion few people still believe in. It's about time Zeus and Odin were taken down a notch! Scientology's an easy target too, since it's pretty socially acceptable to make fun of it. Or you can pick on the most irritating local religions, like Christianity. You might offend some people, but that's your right!

You could also just post humorous/blasphemous videos, like this:



See, it's easy and fun! Happy blaspheming!

More lies about marijuana legislation

It's about that time again.

Ever since marijuana was decriminalized (not legalized!) in Massachusetts, some people have been trying their hardest to subvert the legislation by creating ridiculous bills intended to recriminalize it, or at least to exact further punishment upon those who dare to smoke it.

Fine. They're allowed to do that, even if it's against the will of the voters and subverts the intent of the law. They can bring up all the bills they want, no matter how stupid they are.

It's even conceivable that there are good arguments to be made for changes to the law as it stands. Unfortunately, I haven't heard any of those arguments (the closest we get is "there are loopholes," which is pretty meaningless in itself). Instead, we get a lot of lies.

Let's look at some, as displayed in the Sentinel's Bill would fine drivers caught with marijuana article. First a little background on the bill in question:

A bill up for debate today in the Legislature would slap drivers caught with marijuana in their vehicle with a $1,000 fine. Those found in possession of the drug while driving would also have their licenses suspended for up to 90 days.

The bill slated for a hearing today at the Statehouse before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary was filed by state Sen. Scott Brown, a Wrentham Republican who is running this fall for U.S. Senate.

Not that I needed one, but there's yet another reason not to vote for Scott Brown!

Here's Brown's argument for why his dumb bill isn't just a waste of everyone's time:

Brown says he thinks driving under the influence of marijuana is just as dangerous as alcohol. He thinks the state should crack down on driving with pot just as it does against open alcoholic beverages in cars.

What does that have to do with fining and suspending the licenses of people who merely possess marijuana in their car? By all means punish those who are driving under the influence, but just because you have pot in the car doesn't mean you've been smoking it, or that your passengers (if there are any) have been blowing smoke in your face. There are already laws to deal with driving under the influence, how about we stick with those?

Brown is also wrong about it being "just as dangerous as alcohol." Here's a nice epidemiological study (pdf) about just that issue. I'm not going to go over the whole paper, so let's just skip to the end and give their conclusions:

Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence
indicates that:

1) There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2) The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
3) It is not possible to exclude the possibility that use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.

Yup, there's no evidence that cannabis use alone (as opposed to cannabis + alcohol) increases the risk of traffic fatalities or serious injuries, and it may even reduce those risks. Cannabis use may increase the risk of minor accidents, but even that is unclear.

So no, it's nowhere near as bad as alcohol. Scott Brown is wrong. I'm going to assume he's just an ignorant twit and not a liar, but the effect is the same. He's introducing legislation based on a false premise.

It would be nice if he were the only guy to be spreading falsehoods in this article, but as usual we need to hear the fact-free meanderings of some poorly-informed cop too.

"When you look at the laws we are passing that outlaw smoking, this law just doesn't make any sense. You can't smoke a cigarette outside a hospital, but you can smoke marijuana," said [Lowell Police Superintendent Kenneth] Lavallee.

This just isn't true. I'm going to assume that a Police Superintendent actually knows the law still prohibits possession of marijuana. If someone is smoking pot outside a hospital he or she can be fined and the pot can be seized.

If Lavallee doesn't know that, he should probably seek a new line of work. If he does know that, he's lying to you.

Because that's what these prohibitionists do. They don't have data to back up their assertions. They don't have evidence for their claims, nor have they generally even sought such evidence. They just make false statements that support what they want to believe, and expect people to fall for it.

Once these people can actually formulate a cogent argument, based on facts and not just what they personally believe, then maybe we would have a reason to take them seriously. As it is, they're just a bunch of liars and fools, spreading falsehoods to promote their own prohibitionist leanings.

Don't fall for it.

Filth in the newspaper!

Look, I'm not going to contest that a moose looking for love is an important news event. It plainly is, and I wish there were more stories like this.

But did you really have to disparage the moose's sexual mores that way?

Shameful.

Hey Streetlight-Lovers, Here's an Idea!

I've made no secret of the fact that I think the whole focus on streetlights in Fitchburg is silly. For all the catastrophic predictions and hand-wringing, there's still no good data to support the claims streetlight proponents are making.

On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that there are a lot of people in Fitchburg who really love their streetlights. Or the concept of having lots of streetlights, anyway. They want those lights on, whatever the reason. Even if it doesn't have a real effect on public safety, it would at least make them feel better.

Unfortunately, lit streetlights cost money, and the city doesn't have a whole lot of that to throw around. What's a streetlight-lover to do?

One option is to whine incessantly about how awful it is that there are unlit streetlights. This is a popular choice, but it has the notable disadvantage of not actually getting any lights turned back on, as well as just being really annoying. So here's perhaps a better idea.

A couple of days ago I received an email from the president of the Fitchburg Institute for The Common Good. Here's a quote from their webpage.

We can do something. Already something is being done. We can organize and fix this problem.

Not by whining, not by complaining and not by agitation. We can fix the problem the same way we fix any problem, by rolling up our sleeves and getting to work--just like we do every day.

The Fitchburg Institute for The Common Good is pleased to announce its Lights On, Fitchburg! Campaign. We are raising funds to pay the power company to turn back on as many of our city's streetlights as we can afford. Already we have arranged to have several streetlights on the East Side of town powered up and we are looking to expand the scope of our project.

However, we can't do it without your help. This problem is too big for any individual or group to tackle alone. Besides, we're all in this together.

This, in my eyes, is a sensible approach. People can already pay to have individual streetlights turned on, but not everyone may be able to afford it, and even fewer may want to deal with the hassle of actually doing it. The FITCG's approach is to pool donations from multiple sources and put that money into turning lights back on.

Now, anyone with 15 bucks can buy a domain and stick a Paypal button on it, so how do you know this isn't a scam? Well, they are registered with the state as a nonprofit corporation, which is good. As you can see from that link, they're still a small group.

I also emailed the president of the group--Mr. John F. Triolo--with a few questions, and as far as I can tell things are on the up-and-up (if I didn't think so I'd be attacking them, not promoting them). Mr. Triolo seems like a well-meaning guy with some big ideas, and an honest desire to improve the city. I wish him luck.

Here's an added bonus: If you're a conservative/libertarian-type who thinks that government sucks and the private sector should handle everything (and I think it's safe to say that plenty of those demanding the city turn on streetlights are of that persuasion), this is a chance to put your money where your mouth is. There's no need to suckle at the government teat when there's a private group you can support in helping to attain your goals!

Even if you're a dirty big-government liberal like myself, there's nothing that says you can't help the government. The city doesn't have a lot of money, and the less they have to spend on things like this, the more they can spend on buying us all puppies and candy. Don't pretend that you don't like puppies and candy!

So there you have it. If you want streetlights back on, check out the Fitchburg Institute for The Common Good. If you're comfortable with them, I'm sure they'd be happy to have you as a supporter. If you're not, that's okay too, but what better way do you have of getting lights turned back on? And if you don't care, well just carry on then.

Pointless Primary Provides Predictable Poutcome

So, yesterday's primary election for councilor-at-large is over. Ron Dionne lost, despite having a fancy book on city council procedures or something.

He probably shouldn't have spent his time on FATV whining about the former mayor and complaining that the primary cost thirty grand to get rid of one person. Instead, he should just have dropped out and saved the city thirty grand. Dumbfuck.

This outcome is surprising to nobody, especially if you read the psychic predictions of Mr. Lincoln.

Per the Sentinel, the breakdown went like this:

1. Stephan Hay
2. Thomas Conry
3. Marcus DiNatale
4. Dean Tran
5. Rosemary Reynolds
6. Michael DiPietro
7. Robin Streb
8. Dan Mylott
9. Stephen Seney
10. Robert Boutwell
11. Ron Dionne (eliminated)

Personally, I like exactly two people on this list (Streb and DiPietro, though I have a certain fond sympathy for Boutwell). It's depressing to see lunatic Rosemary Reynolds above them, but it's pretty nice to see Mylott and the deeply-irritating Seney down near the bottom.

Thus ends the obligatory boring-as-fuck post-pointless-primary post.

Awesomeness

I can't express how happy I am that we have a president who does stuff like this:


Watch out, Cheney!

Are black people really abandoning Obama?

Fairly frequently, the Sentinel prints editorials by Star Parker. They're always pretty full of self-delusion and crazy god-babbling nonsense. I suspect that her main appeal is that she's an ultraconservative black woman, which allows other conservatives to claim they're not racist or sexist if they agree with her. That's just my theory, though. She might just be cheaper to syndicate or something, due to sucking.

Today we get a prime example of just how flawed her thinking is. It's actually pretty remarkable. The editorial in question is entitled Blacks are changing their minds about President Obama, and as we'll soon see, even the title is wrong.

Let's begin with the quoting!

Americans of all political persuasions agree that the nation has problems. Big problems.

And here's where we all part company. The political left, who now control our government, thinks we need more government -- a lot more. Those on the right see our problems as the result of excess government and want to move things in the opposite direction.

That's about the most superficial and inaccurate assessment of the political divide that I've ever seen, but whatever.

The important part, and the premise of the editorial, is the idea that blacks are abandoning the president. Here's what Star argues:

According to the Pew Research Center, the president's approval rating nationwide is now 10 points lower than last April. Included in this is a three-point drop in his approval among blacks.

You might say, Star, a drop in approval ratings among blacks from 95 percent to 92 percent is trivial. But I say not so.

If we assume this reflects the 16 million blacks who voted for Obama last November, a three-point shift means there are about a half-million blacks who now have buyer's remorse.

Star Parker does not understand polling at all.

You can see the study she's talking about here (pdf). If you go down to the race part, you do see that Obama's approval has dropped from 95% to 92%.

Of course, if you go down to the bottom of the whole thing, you find this:

For the total sample, the margin of error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence is plus or minus 2 percentage points. The margin of error for subgroups will be higher.

So we've got a 2% margin of error on the whole thing, and higher than 2% on subgroups, one of which is race. Which means a 3% "drop" is utterly meaningless. It could be an actual 3% drop, or it could be no drop at all, or it could be an increase. There is no discernible change that you can detect from this poll.

It sure as hell doesn't mean there are half a million blacks with "buyer's remorse."

So, Parker's entire premise is fundamentally flawed, because she either doesn't know how to interpret polling data or chooses to misrepresent it in order to promote her own deluded thinking. With such a faulty premise already debunked, it's almost unfair to continue to point out how dumb this editorial is, but there's a part that just can't be ignored.

Parker babbles on for awhile about how blacks supposedly can't not be Democrats, because the big Democratic goon-squads will make fun of them. Or something like that, anyway. She apparently thinks that it's social pressures that keep them in the Democratic party, and not the fact that it's always Republicans who do shit like this (view the whole slideshow, it's fun!).

Here's the part that really gets me, though.

According to a Pew Research Center report, almost a third of blacks consider themselves conservative. [*]

However, these folks have always been inclined to be quiet because of the social pressures and intimidation.

But this is changing.

Despite slurs, intimidation and widely reported physical attacks from union thugs, a few brave black souls have shown up at tea party protest rallies.

What. The. Fuck?

Parker is actually suggesting that it's the left keeping black people from going teabagging? I had to read it a few times to make sure that's what she was suggesting, but it must be. She's not blaming the right for intimidation or slurs, and she certainly doesn't consider unions to be conservative, so she must be blaming the left.

That picture up at the top of this post is from a teabagger event. The following pictures are also from teabagger events:





These are the people that Parker thinks blacks are being prevented from hanging out with, by those nasty liberals in the unions.

Doesn't that look like an inviting environment? If I were a black man, I'd definitely want to run right out to teabag with all those people! No damn union thugs could keep me away from the warm and loving embrace of people who think that a tax decrease for the middle class equals "white slavery"!

Ms. Parker, after you finish reading "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Margins of Error" you might want to consider the idea that the people keeping blacks away from teabag parties are the teabaggers themselves. Most people don't seek out locations where they're going to be treated like shit by a bunch of racist assholes.

Parker craps out some closing bullshit about abortion and Israelites and so forth at the end, but it's the same impenetrable drivel she usually produces and not really worth commenting on. This is a mind not in touch with reality. Not even close to it.

That's really all you need to know about this editorial. It has a false premise and ridiculous conclusions, and my dog has a better understanding of race relations than Parker does.

No, black people are not abandoning Obama. Star Parker has simply abandoned reality.



* While 32% of blacks do indeed self-identify as conservative, it's worth noting that this Pew study makes no differentiation between social and fiscal conservatism. Generally, the black community tends to skew towards social conservatism, with more liberal economic views.

Stop indoctrinating our schoolchildren, Mr. President!

So, President Obama is giving a little talk to schoolkids today. It's a totally innocuous little pep-talk that of course has the right wing up in arms about how he's supposedly "indoctrinating" kids into the socialisms or something like that.

If you follow that link up above and read the speech, you can see it's not true. But surely some jerkass president was interested in indoctrinating kids to their political ideology via the teevee, right?

Ah, here's one!

Let's see what Ronald Reagan had to say to kids back in 1986:

As you know, my remarks are being broadcast live over radio and television to high school students throughout the country. While I was in Tokyo at the economic summit, I found myself thinking about all of you, and I decided that when I got back it'd be good to report to you -- share some thoughts that I've been having about the future.

In general, conditions in our country are about as bright as this very bright afternoon. I was worrying when I put that line in there that it might start to rain, and I'd have to say something else. [Laughter] We've been working to take an economy that was in bad shape and get it moving and growing again; take our national defense and make it first-rate again after a long period of decline; and to restore reason, respect, and reality to our foreign policy. And I think it's fair to say that we've made a good deal of progress.

Only 5 years ago our economy suffered from high inflation, high interest rates, mushrooming government spending, and steadily increasing unemployment. A lot of people couldn't find jobs, and people on fixed incomes were finding it harder to buy the basics, such as food and shelter. Well, we got inflation down, interest rates down, and our economy created over 1\1/2\ million new jobs just last year alone. The poor are now increasingly able to dig themselves out of poverty, and that's been good economic news.

The good news in defense is that our Armed Forces, which were suffering from neglect and low funding, have now made a comeback. Morale is up in the services, and the quality of our men and women in uniform has never been better -- and I mean never. As a matter of fact, we have the highest percentage of high school graduates in uniform today than we've ever had in the history of our nation, even back when we had the compulsory draft. In addition, our nation has encouraged a more realistic sense of defense needs.

In foreign affairs we've kept our friends close and the lines of communication with our adversaries open. We've tried to give the world the sense that the United States has a coherent and logical foreign policy that reflects our respect for freedom and our opposition to tyranny.

The point is that all we've done has had, and will continue to have, a direct impact on your lives. And the fact is, it's your future, not ours. And all that we've done, we've done with an eye toward how it would impact you. We want to make your future better, because tomorrow belongs to you. And since you're the leaders of tomorrow, I wanted to talk to all of you as a friend about the things you'll have to do to ensure a prosperous nation and a peaceful world. And I'm sure that peace and prosperity must be at the top of your agenda for the future.

You have some special responsibilities ahead of you -- very important responsibilities. America is back, yes, but we still face major challenges in the world. And it's your generation that will have to accept the primary responsibility for tackling these challenges. It's important that you're fit for the future and that you be all that you can be. So, go for it! In the area of education you have a responsibility to try to learn and care about scientific and intellectual inquiry. The world is an increasingly competitive place. And if we're to compete, we'll have to do it with brainpower -- your brainpower. So, keep learning and hit those books.

We have to remain economically competitive, and that means being aware of two things: first, what makes economies tick, and second, what works in other societies. We've been trying very hard in Washington to make America even more economically fit by really overhauling our entire tax structure. When we came into office, the top personal tax rate that the Federal Government could put on your income was 70 percent. Now, you can understand, I think, that if you were getting up in those brackets -- there were 14 different tax brackets, depending on the amount of money in each bracket you earned. And when you could look and say, ``If I earn another dollar, I only get to keep 30 cents out of it,'' you can imagine the lack of incentive there. Well, we lowered it to 50 percent, and the economy really took off. Now we're trying to lower it yet again so that families can keep more of their money and so the national economy will be lean and trim and fit for the future.

And it's your generation that will defend freedom from its adversaries. The biggest contribution you can make to that quest is to become a good citizen. Good citizenship is vitally important if democracies are to continue. Good citizenship means trying to understand the issues and great questions of your day. It also means voting. To vote is to take part in this grand experiment called democracy in America. It's your right and your responsibility to take part. Good citizenship also might mean considering going into teaching as a profession. There's a teacher shortage, as you may know. You could help ease the situation and give to others the advantages you've been given if you become a teacher yourself. And it's also important that you stay in school. That diploma counts. And I just want to personally congratulate those who have overcome some disadvantage and who stuck it out and will graduate this year.

And part of being a good citizen, part of being fit for the future so that you can meet America's agenda for the future, is seeing to it that you live your life with a clear mind and a steady intellect. And that means saying no to drugs. Nancy has traveled across the country talking to young people like you. And many of them have talked to her about the allure of drugs, about the drug culture, and the kind of peer pressure that you come under to experiment and try out drugs. But when you come right down to it, drugs are just a dead-end street. They have nothing to offer you. I think you also ought to remember we only get one set of machinery. If you wear this set out, you can't take it and trade it in someplace for a used one or a new one. So, what you do now and early in your life decides how able you're going to be to enjoy yourself when you get to be my age.

And I want to tell you, I'm enjoying myself. I've talked to young people from China to Europe to the islands in the Caribbean. And let me tell you, they're incredibly bright and talented, and they're going to create quite a future for themselves. And you can't keep up or catch up if you allow your mind to be clouded by drugs.

Well, that's more or less what I wanted to say to you today. I'll be talking to many young people over the next few months, and I'll be expanding on certain points and amplifying certain themes. But for today, before your questions, I just want to let you know that I have been thinking about you very much. You are a special generation, and you're facing special challenges. And the biggest is to be ready for a future that will prove to be demanding and exciting. Soon, we'll enter the 21st century, a time that'll have more than its share of great wonders. The next 10 or 15 years may well be the most exciting and challenging in the history of man. There's the continuing revolution in technology, the possibility of curing diseases that have stalked us from the caveman era. There's the marvelous conquest of space, a rich frontier whose riches we've barely glimpsed. And there's the struggle between the democracies and those countries which are not democratic.

All of these possibilities bring with them questions. And it's your generation that will have to answer them. That makes you all very important, indeed. You have much before you. And all I can say is that you've begun brilliantly. Continue to pursue excellence. Be proud of your country and its heritage, and be proud of yourselves, as we are proud of all of you.

Yup, nothing political about that! Kids just love hearing about tax brackets!

Crazy people are now driving our public discourse

Several months ago, I posted a video by a crazy person. I mean an actual crazy person, not a hyperbolic crazy person. The video was about Obama, Satan, the swine flu, the NWO, Ba'al worship, the area code 616, and other stuff that crazy people talk about.

That was just a silly little Youtube video. It didn't get a lot of hits, and it's no longer even available. Which proves it was right, and the poster was rounded up by jackbooted thugs in black helicopters.

But I digress.

The idea behind that post was "ha ha look at what crazy people think!" It's funny* because nobody could possibly take it seriously.

It's a whole hell of a lot less funny when crazy people have their own tv shows that get millions of viewers. Yet that's what we have here.



This man is either the most dedicated satirist ever, or someone whose brain is so muddled he's turned to finding conspiracies in every little bit of art and architecture he walks by.

In closing, Barack Obama should be ashamed of himself for going back in time to make all these terrible communist / fascist / progressive (the words are interchangeable) works of art!


* Admittedly, not all that funny.

Rush Limbaugh's Foreskin

First, my apologies for making you think about Rush Limbaugh's genitals. If I could make you unthink it, I would.

Why am I talking about Rush Limbaugh's junk today? Simple. It's because he thinks the government wants our foreskins.

Let's quote the corpulent fart-balloon!

RUSH: By the way, leave our penises alone, too! This is getting out of hand. There is a story that some officials in the Obama administration are pushing for circumcision for all boys born in the USA to fight HIV/AIDS. Not that I'm against circumcision, but it's a family's decision. Leave our penises alone, too, Obama! [...] So here's Obama out there saying we have to have circumcision of every young boy born in the country.

Trust me Rush, nobody wants your flaccid penis.

Some background would be sensible at this time.

The CDC (known to fearmongers as "officials in the Obama administration," apparently) are debating whether to recommend male circumcision as a potential way to reduce the transmission of HIV. They haven't made any recommendations at this point, and may or may not end up actually recommending it.

So yeah, that part about Obama "saying we have to have circumcision of every young boy born in the country" is quite simply a lie. Nobody's saying that. Nobody will say that, ever. If the CDC recommend circumcision, it's about as relevant as when they recommend not eating a dozen eggs every day. Decent advice, but it's up to you whether or not to follow it.

The evidence does suggest that male circumcision decreases the relative risk of transmission of HIV via penile-vaginal sex. But these studies are mostly on African populations, where there's a greater rate of HIV in the population, relatively few circumcised males (compared to the US), relatively little condom use (thanks, Catholic Church!), and where the majority of HIV infections are transmitted through heterosexual sex. In other words, it may not work the same in this country.

Notably, circumcision doesn't appear to make much difference in penile-anal sex. Since the majority of HIV cases in this country are found in males who have sex with males, we have a very different situation. We also have a lot more circumcised men, a lower rate of HIV, and more condom use. What works in Africa may not make any difference here. Or it may. That's why it's being debated.

There's this weird thread running through an awful lot of conservative bullshit these days, and this is yet another example. For some reason, conservatives seem to believe that whenever anyone even tangentially associated with the government makes a recommendation, that means they're going to force you to comply with it.

This is, of course, ridiculous. Even if they actually wanted to force everyone to get circumcised (which they don't, because c'mon), it's not like the CDC have a legion of jackbooted thugs they're going to send out with foreskin-snippers to make sure all foreskins are harvested (for use in kosher hot dogs).

Going a step further, even if you're batshit crazy and think that CDC goons are really going to come after you with pinking shears, it wouldn't work. It's just not something people would comply with if they're not willing to do it otherwise. For a guy who thinks the government is incapable of doing anything right, Rush sure seems to think they're capable of some pretty extraordinary things.

Of course, the idea that the government would force men and boys to cut off their foreskins is just totally objectionable. Yet Limbaugh has no problem at all with telling women what to do with their genitals. Seems like a little double standard there. Or for Rush, maybe I should say a teensy-weensy little "are you sure that isn't a Jujube?" double standard.

Furthermore, what's up with these conservatives constantly focusing on things that make them so terribly easy to ridicule? Does Limbaugh not realize that his status as a Viagra-popping sex tourist means that when he makes up lies about circumcision people are going to make dick jokes at his expense? Similarly, are teabaggers blind to the fact that taping teabags to their hats makes them laughingstocks?

Concerned citizen or scrotum aficionado?

You can't make up stuff this stupid. If you did, nobody would believe it.

Should I even go over the long history of white fears about black men cutting off their penises? The history of lies about sexual abuse perpetrated by black men being used as a fear tactic to fight racial integration? The implicit racism in this whole "a black man is going to cut off your penis!" bullshit?

Nah, dick jokes are less depressing.