All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 3, 2014 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
43:56
This Week in Stupid (30⧸11⧸2014)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 30th of November 2014.
I'd like to offer my apologies for how late this episode is, so without further ado, let's get stuck into it.
The UK Independence Party was mocked after mistaking Westminster Cathedral for a mosque.
Party activist red-faced after angry tweets at the BBC.
Oh well done you bloody idiots.
A party activist complained that a BBC survey about Nigel Farage had taken place outside a mosque, which was in fact Westminster Cathedral.
The BBC's Daily Politics show posted a photo of a social experiment on their Twitter feed and the UKIP party's South Thanet branch raised the concern.
Believing Westminster Cathedral to be a mosque, they accused the BBC of unfair bias.
Needless to say, this has left the South Thanet branch of UKIP looking particularly retarded and the exchange has been satirised on social media with the launch of the hashtag Things That Are Not Mosques.
Yes, well done you morons.
There is something about this that UKIP really should have picked up on.
Westminster Cathedral is fucking Catholic!
Jesus Christ UKIP!
Get your shit together!
If there's someone who's worse than the Muslims, it's the bloody papists!
I'll dig up the bones of William of Orange and we'll drive these bloody continentals back into the sea.
In less important news, Nobel Prize winning racist James Watson, the discoverer of the helix structure of DNA, has to sell his Nobel Prize because he is now a persona non grata after declaring that black people are simply less intelligent than white people.
He's auctioning the Nobel Prize medal that he won in 1962 because no one really wants to admit that he exists.
Auctioneer's Christie said that the gold medal, the first Nobel Prize medal to be sold by a living recipient, could fetch as much as $3.5 million when it is auctioned in New York on Thursday.
He told the Financial Times that he'd become an unperson after he was outed as believing in IQ in 2007 during an interview in which he said that people of African descent were inherently less intelligent than white people.
Wow.
I mean, I personally have no idea whether that's true or not, and I think it's probably not.
I imagine that there are probably a whole number of socio-economic factors that link to it.
I mean, Africa is more famous for its child soldiers than it is its marvellous education systems.
But even if all the data conclusively said that, you must have known, James, you must have known that it was going to be career suicide to say it in public.
Watson insisted he was, quote, not a racist in a conventional way and said it had been stupid of him not to realise that his comments on the intelligence of African people would end up in an article.
I apologised the journalist somehow wrote that I was worried about the people in Africa because of their low IQ and you're not supposed to say that.
And the Sunday Times ran an interview with him in which he said he was inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all of our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all testing says not really.
And you know what?
I kind of believe him.
I don't think he doesn't seem to hate Africans.
He doesn't seem to hate black people.
He seems to be living out some sort of modern version of the white man's burden, where he, in his mind, is compassionately looking at the world and saying, well, the data isn't in line with our opinions and the political environment.
And so I don't think the problem will be solved while we're not taking what, in his mind, is a more realistic view of things.
I think there are probably a lot more factors involved.
And I don't know personally if anything links this to genetics.
I've got no particular reason to think that it does.
Or it might just turn out that he is a regular old racist when he says he told the newspaper that people wanted to believe that everyone was born with equal intelligence, but those who have to deal with black employees find this not to be true.
I put this down to racism because frankly I've worked with a lot of people and most of them were absolute cretins regardless of the race they came from.
So see James, this is your problem.
What you need to do is just become an equal opportunity misanthrope.
Speaking of racism, is it any wonder that a social justice warrior, quote-unquote community manager, is a complete racist?
This is Nicole He and according to her Twitter bio, she is a community manager for Kickstarter.
So when one racist tweets, please tell me more about how hard you have it, she replies with, Kevin, don't be so hard on white men.
It really hurts their feelings when you call them out on their garbage thoughts.
I mean that is pretty damn racist, but maybe we're jumping the gun.
Shit, did I just say jumping the gun?
Gunpowder is invented by the Chinese.
Was that racist?
Anyway, but she did confirm that she is actually a giant fucking racist by saying, the funny thing about this is that he almost gets that whiteness is bad.
Okay, well, we're not considering that English might not be her first language.
Maybe she just doesn't really understand what she's just said.
No, she understands exactly what she's just said.
When challenged, whiteness equals bad, she says, you got it.
Round of applause.
Well, I've really got to question the integrity of Kickstarter after this.
But seriously though, how do these social justice bigots manage to get into these gatekeeping positions?
I don't understand why people allow them to do these things.
And like all social justice warriors, she is prone to phenomenal amounts of projection.
Happy Thanksgiving.
It's cool.
I got to experience what I imagine is the traditional Thanksgiving experience, brackets, being yelled at by racists.
That came from your imagination, Nicole.
It didn't come from anyone else's.
You demented harpy.
In fact, speaking of Asian racists, Arthur Chu got his ass absolutely handed to him by rampant white hater Sue Park.
Yes, the cancel coal bear, you're a white man, I'm not going to enact any bloody labor, Suey Park.
He'd written some piece that frankly I should look up, but I really can't be bothered to do, that apparently criticised Sue, which led Anna Joe, which appears to be another Asian social justice warrior, to white knight for her.
Oh shit.
Is that racist?
I can't tell anymore.
And start a social justice bitch fight on Twitter.
Being both Asian, they couldn't really go at each other from a racial dimension, so Anne went straight for the sexism.
Of course, it's all too easy for gender uplift by lift and punch.
I don't know what that means.
But Chu responded in quite dramatic fashion by saying, yeah, I went for an asshole tone because I was new to writing for a Natal, they know what that means, audience, and insecure.
I'm sorry.
See, I think that's actually an aggressive move by Chu.
He got the sorry in early without being prompted.
What are you going to do, Anne?
What are you going to do?
Look at those likes.
Public approval was through the roof.
Chu has got Anne right on the ropes.
But Anne isn't down and out yet.
She says, it's never excusable to let misogyny genuflect before racism.
Which is apparently something many men committed to anti-racism deploy.
It's a hell of a punch, and I think it says a lot about the progressive stack that Arthur now is pretty much outgunned.
Or you would so think, except he co-opts her argument and says, and I have been greatly disillusioned about the reasonable voice myself since that time.
Masterful, Chu.
Absolutely masterful.
The and just completely takes her argument and makes it his own, and boom!
He's in there with four retweets and seven favourites to her two retweets and six favourites.
Suck it, Anne.
Chu wins this round.
Suey Park comes storming in with what she thinks is an absolute haymaker when she says the reasonable voice is hegemony.
Let's history one and history two be a part of history two.
I think it's called her story, but um either way it's it's too little, too late.
Chu has already brought this up and while Park obviously has her supporters, Chu walks away with the title.
Bravo Arthur, bravo.
In other news, Jessica Valenti has turned into Frederick the Great when she asks, when everyone is a feminist is anyone.
It's suddenly cool to be a feminist, but what does that mean for feminism as a movement?
Who the fuck knows Jessica?
No one can seem to adequately define what feminism is as a movement, what it wants as a movement, where it's going as a movement, or who even is a feminist.
But let's see what you have to say about this, shall we?
She goes on to say that feminists are infesting Western civilization like rats on a sinking ship.
And in some ways, feminism's current popularity is a dream come true.
Feminists, herself included, have been working for a long time to convince people, younger women especially, that they are in fact feminists.
Let's be honest with ourselves here though, shall we?
You're fucking brainwashing them.
Believe in gender equality, we asked.
Congratulations, you're a feminist.
And I swear to God, if it stopped there, I would probably be a feminist too.
But I actually have a memory that goes back longer than one week.
So I remember when Jessica Valenti was saying, why don't we just pay men less?
Because they're men.
And someone else told her, it's because that would be illegal, Jessica.
To which Jessica went, bummer.
Because she's some kind of fucking sociopath.
The thing is, Jessica's actually finally discovered the problem with this method of recruitment.
In our haste to convince the world that feminism is a simple shared value, it may be that we didn't draw clear enough boundaries.
Because if everyone is a feminist, is anyone.
Along with the broader goal of gender justice, whether reproductive rights, economic justice, or ending sexual violence, the last 15 years of feminist work has also been largely focused on making a long maligned movement more accessible.
And you've had such wonderful successes, like Emma Watson appearing before the UN and saying, why does everyone think that feminism means man-hating?
But because of the confusion around what a feminist is, people who would normally and understandably be seen as foes of feminism are calling themselves and being accepted as feminists.
Holy fucking shit, feminism.
You need to get your act together.
And I swear to God, of all the people you should choose to lead you, Jessica Valenti is the fucking last.
She says, for instance, Christina Hoff Summers, who has found her calling in defending Gamergate misogynists.
That's wonderful.
I mean, as if the only thing Christina Hoff Summers has ever done with her career is defend Gamergate.
She was literally doing nothing until then.
And as if GamerGate is just nothing but a, what, three, four, five million tweet, three month hate movement against women.
It's just, honestly, I'm actually genuinely impressed at the dedication of internet misogyny.
Because seriously, I don't know how else you could galvanize so many woman haters around the world to carry on such a sustained campaign against women if it wasn't under the guise of demanding ethical journalism.
But it's a good thing this isn't coming from the press.
Wait a minute.
I think I see the problem.
But anyway.
She calls herself the factual feminist, which we all know is actually nonsense.
Because modern feminism has absolutely nothing to do with facts.
They, in fact, really despise facts as Jessica proves to us now.
Or, Julie Bindle, who recently claimed that feminists focus too much on the vilification of individuals, she sounds like a heretic, doesn't she?
Has no problem suggesting that feminists need to oppose the very existence of trans individuals, and even Sarah Palin, who would deny women reproductive rights, would she, would she actually, though?
Well, I suppose she would, because she'd cut funding to a shelter for teen mums, laid claim to the word feminist.
You know what?
Say what you like about Sarah Palin, but she was governor of Alaska and in the running to be vice president of the United States.
I'm not saying I have any great love for Sarah Palin, but these are accomplishments she has actually achieved.
All while being a wife and mother, so I mean, that's pretty fucking empowered, isn't it?
Of course, it's fucking not.
Sarah Palin is hardly the first woman to both express decidedly anti-woman views and call herself a feminist.
Listen, Valenti Pumpkin, the term anti-woman does not mean what you think it means.
It merely means anti-feminist.
But mainstream feminism itself has a storied history and present, unfortunately, of homophobia, transphobia, and racism.
Well, we all know that anyway, but it really makes me wonder why you are so desperate to persuade young women to be part of your homophobic, transphobic, and racist movement.
But it is apparently important for feminists to be able to say someone's actions are not feminist, or the term loses all meaning and no one knows what it stands for.
Fucking well done!
You have finally, finally reached the stage where you understand that actions speak louder than words.
I really do feel like I'm watching some kind of organism gain sentience and try desperately to understand what it itself is.
A writer with the Krunk Feminist Collective, an organization that not only sounds legitimate but also innocent of any hate-mongering, told Jessica that she believes this is an important moment for feminism to engage the people who identify as feminists without the movement having to be co-opted and losing all meaning.
That's a good start.
Let's see where the Marxism comes in, shall we?
Because she added that any feminism that doesn't include a race, class, gender, power, and privilege analysis is complete.
Bravo, thank you.
There we go.
There we have it.
Rebecca Traister, senior editor of the New Republic, explains to Jessica that there's no keeping people out of it or moving people in because there's no controlling body and there's no controlling definition.
It's always been a term used to describe what has always been a contentious and cacophonous movement which has also had intense internal differences.
Holy shit, what's the point?
Or, I think what she's actually really asking for is a feminist pope.
Feminism absolutely does need a pope because without some boundaries for claiming the word feminist, it becomes meaningless.
You're right, and heretics can just take it over.
So once and for all.
Wait, is Jessica self-appointing herself as the pope of feminism?
Wait, that's not right, is it?
She's the mater of feminism.
So can you be an anti-choice feminist?
No.
A Republican feminist?
Unlikely.
Really?
Okay.
A feminist who thinks that the issues of importance to women of colour or gay women or trans women or disabled women aren't feminist issues?
Well, to quote Flavia Zodin, my feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit.
I think you mean and.
But that's fine.
I'm glad we can agree that, once and for all, feminism is not for everyone.
There are definitely people who are excluded from the feminist movement.
Which makes it all the more hilarious when she goes on to quote from a book called Feminism is for Everybody.
Fucking hell, Jessica.
Are you really this stupid?
I mean, I thought that you were just monumentally un-self-aware, but I'm honestly thinking that you just...
I don't understand how you see the world.
It must be so terrifyingly confusing.
I actually kind of feel sorry for you.
I'm actually thinking that maybe you should just be given a puppy and a soft room to play with it in.
But okay, since you are now the self-proclaimed mater of feminism, let's have a look at what your glorious new feminist world order is going to do.
I mean, what are the top issues that feminism is most concerned with?
How about snoring?
Snoring is definitely a feminist issue.
Apparently, a survey conducted this week has revealed that 93% of women in relationships say their partners snore.
Holy shit, I think they need feminism.
And three quarters complain that it affects their life in some negative way.
Could there be a more nebulous statement?
It affects their life.
Yes, I hear snoring.
That is affecting my life.
And is it a positive or a negative thing?
Well, I don't really like snoring.
Well, that's negative.
Boom.
Right.
This woman is being affected in a negative way by snoring.
Call the feminists!
Which begs the question, why are women taking this lying down?
That's right.
Why haven't they considered murdering him in his sleep?
Hashtag killallmen.
Once, on a five-day break with one particularly nasally challenged ex, I paid for a separate room on day three just to get some catch-up.
It saved the holiday, but oh the protests, accusations of neglect, complaints of lost intimacy, repeated questioning of what's wrong.
There was no grudge on my behalf though.
I was perfectly chirpy and still in love, brackets, just.
The problem wasn't his snoring.
The fact that we were sleeping in separate rooms was seen as such a taboo.
Mainly, I should add, by men.
Poor.
Ugh, it's always those fucking men saying, I have needs, I have desires.
Why are you acting like such a selfish bitch?
Why won't they just become feminists?
But it's not just this author though.
A friend of hers recently told her how she misses the quality restorative sleep she used to enjoy before she moved in with the boif.
Because obviously this article was written by a teenage girl.
The pair are blessed with a spare room.
Hang on, blessed, blessed.
Who works?
Who works hard?
Who works in a full-time job?
Is it your friend?
Because I get the feeling she's like, oh, I'm suddenly in a three-bedroom house.
This is magical.
And her husband's like, yes, I have to work overtime next week.
But they're blessed with a spare room.
And the few times she's used it, he complains.
Obviously he complains.
Because why wouldn't he?
That this isn't natural for young, fresh, loved up couples to sleep apart.
She says that it sounds to me like he may have confused what is natural with what we have made into a societal norm.
Did you know that humans are the only animal to sleep and have sex in the same place?
Right, substantiate that claim, you cretin.
If my friend's bloke is so concerned with what's natural, perhaps he should read about the benefits of sleeping according to one circadian rhythm.
What what are you talking about?
Kind of seems that he just wants to be intimate with his wife.
9% said they'd considered murdering him in his sleep, and then it descends into an advert for snories for some reason.
And apparently, this is great if you can sleep in harmony, but there are many more facets to love and partnership than lying next to each other unconscious.
Fucking.
I'm so glad you told me.
Fucking... Fucking...
This is so retarded.
The only selfish person in a discussion about separate beds is the one who refuses to acknowledge what a serious issue sleep deprivation can be.
Bravo feminism.
Let's have a look at the government though.
I mean, Theresa May, the Tory Party's resident feminist, is busy enacting legislation against her own husband as bullying husbands who shout at their wives could be found guilty of domestic abuse under new crackdown.
Bullying husbands who make their partners' lives a misery through emotional insults face up to 14 years in prison under a new crackdown on domestic abuse.
Holy shit, does this sound like projection?
I mean, bullying husbands I would have thought are normally more physical, but I'm not saying they don't exist.
But I have met far more bullying women and wives in my life who use emotional insults to control the other partner.
This just seems, and it just seems to apply to fucking men as well.
This is just complete double standards, which is precisely what I would expect with feminism.
Partners who use controlling behaviour as well as violence to subject their partners to a life of misery could be convicted of coercive control.
Honestly, I don't know that many men who do this.
In fact, I can't really think of any men that I know who do this, but I can literally think of like a dozen women off the top of my head that I know personally that do this.
I mean, I know that's just anecdotal bullshit, but seriously, is this really a male trait, a predominantly male trait, or is this a predominantly female trait?
Seema Malhotra, Labour's new shadow anti-domestic violence minister.
What?
Is domestic violence really such an issue that we need a minister dedicated entirely to it?
Said that such abuse could be part of a wider pattern of controlling behaviour, which can be as bad as a physical attack.
Well, if it could be and it can be and it might be, maybe, let's definitely fucking enact legislation about this.
I mean, they're so fucking certain.
But more to the point, it really does sound like fucking projection.
These are normally the tactics of women.
And I don't mean that in a bad way, it's just my observations of the world.
Oh my god, I'm turning into James Watson, but for women.
It can be part of a pattern of controlling behaviour, can, you see, that leaves people feeling fearful and terrorized in their own homes.
People.
Miss Malhutra said that repeatedly criticising a woman's appearance could be seen as an indicator of physical abuse in the future.
Wow, well, I would like to see the evidence that supports that fucking batshit insane assertion.
So let's catch up with how feminism's doing in academia.
Men who have been raped still have more privilege than women.
That is something a student at university has said.
An actual student at an actual university who is actually brainwashed.
This nonsense came from an Arizona State University student in a recent editorial.
Kaylin Pollock Kirkpatrick wrote that while victims of sexual violence should never be silenced, men do not belong in feminist conversations on that topic as they still inherently have more privilege.
Well, that's great.
That's wonderful.
That fits just perfectly with the grand mater's not everyone is a feminist scriptures.
Feminism provides a safe space for women to cope with and fight back against the oppressive society in which they live.
I had no idea that Arizona was in Saudi Arabia.
And it exists because oppressed people often need support from others who can empathize with their struggles.
Men have privileges that prevent them from being able to empathize with the struggles of women even when they are the survivors of sexual crimes.
Holy shit.
That is the most unempathetic thing I have ever heard.
I mean, talk about a just colossal lack of sympathy there.
Yes, you were raped, but there is a woman here.
No, she has not been raped, but she gets to talk over you.
Why?
Because there are other men and they are successful, which therefore gives you male privilege.
No, there is no counselor available, nor are there any doctors available to soak your shattered cornhole.
Deal with it, Mr. Privileged.
She alleged in her piece that when men participate in feminist conversations about sexual violence, women feel uncomfortable as men are taking up much needed space in their community.
As according to the student, women are most often the victims and men are most often the perpetrators.
That's right, because other women have been raped and other men raped women.
Your destroyed butthole is not of any importance.
Fuck off.
You are taking up too much space.
I can hardly believe that this author even exists.
When men want a space in this feminist conversation, it indicates the already prevalent patriarchal desire to control how oppressed groups fight their own battles.
Fuck me!
You are talking about a rape victim!
When one comes forward to report and discuss the atrocities they have experienced, this should not mean that they take up the space of others in the same conversation, even within the feminist community.
And then she goes on in her article to blame men's rights activists for accusing feminists of not caring about male victims of sexual assault.
That's right.
The blame for the leveling of the accusation that you do not care about male victims of sexual assault probably has come from people who are, if not di jour, at least de facto men's rights activists because they give a fuck about human beings who happen to be male who have also been raped.
That doesn't mean you can sit there and go, well, I blame the men's rights activists for this accusation and it makes it go away.
You are a fucking sociopath, Pollock Kirkpatrick.
Jesus fucking Christ!
And then they cite a bunch of statistics as if this somehow unrapes this poor man or excuses why he shouldn't be given any kind of counseling.
According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, you'd think they wouldn't really have a network for that.
Think they keep that secret, but if that's what they want.
One in six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape.
So fucking what?
So what?
We're talking about a single individual who has been raped.
In this case, he happens to be male.
In another case, it might happen to be a female.
In either case, should it not be that they both get the treatment and comfort and counseling that they require to make it through this incredibly traumatic ordeal?
But of course not, because in 2013, there were nine forcible sex offences on campus reported to ASU campus police.
The number is down from 2012 when 15 happened, and in 2011, there were 13.
As if that fucking matters.
But even then, are you honestly saying that you don't have like this is barely more than one a month?
Is there no time or space to treat this poor male victim that we are discussing?
But this absolutely terrifying article finishes on the most excellent notes.
Earlier this year, an ASU event discouraged women from learning self-defense and instead encouraged men to convince other men to go on taco runs instead of potentially bringing a girl home from a bar.
I am presuming that taco runs is not a euphemism.
The event similarly encouraged men to convince friends that drunk women are ugly in order to prevent a possible sexual assault.
Yeah, but is that not like drunk shaming or is there not some sort of sober privilege involved here?
Let's be fair though, this really isn't quite enough.
So why not rape by fraud?
Earlier this month, some fucking retard introduced a bill that would create the crime of sexual assault by fraud, which it defines as an act of sexual penetration to which a person has given consent because the actor has misrepresented the purpose of the act or has represented he is someone he is not.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Don't teach women to judge character or to spot lies.
Teach men not to lie.
I truly believe that we have to look at the issue of rape as more than sexual contact without consent.
Ah, I see.
The man who was being refused treatment due to the fact that this was a feminist space and he had more privilege than women wasn't actually raped, was he?
What it was is that a woman had lied to him perhaps about the perkiness of her boobs when she took off her wonder bra and he went running to the feminist counselor and he was like, I've just been raped.
She told me, she got me into bed on the premise that her boobs were incredibly perky and I took off a bra and they sagged.
They fucking sagged.
I am just traumatized.
But anyway, this moron goes on to say, fraud invalidates any semblance of consent, just as forcible sexual contact does.
Oh, well, well fucking done.
No one consents to be defrauded.
Good thing you've got a fucking expensive education, isn't it?
You dip shit.
As written, the bill doesn't consider sexual assault by fraud any less serious than other kinds of sexual assault that are already on the books.
So gang rape is just as bad as someone lying to you about their bank balance so you will consent to sleep with them.
This is what social Marxism is, right?
This is what the problem is.
And it might maybe Marxism is not the right term, but this is what they use, okay?
This is what they use.
They literally break everything down into stupid fucking categories, into their base categories, and say, well, these are now all in categories.
And therefore, all of these categories must be equal, regardless of the complete lack of reflection of reality that they have now created in their minds.
As if, as if, a man lying to a woman to get her to consent to sex is as bad as a brutal rape.
Just fuck me.
I are these people.
I mean, he did say that he's open to refining the bill so it's not abused.
Thank fuck, because I don't know how you're going to prove that this didn't happen.
Woman says, he told me he was a millionaire.
It turns out he's not.
He raped me.
Man says, I didn't say that.
Who's fucking right?
Short said one of the main objections that people have to the idea of sexual assault by fraud is equating it with violent sexual assault.
Perfectly valid criticism.
My response is that there are many ways to sexually assault a person.
That doesn't make them equal.
You fucking Cretan.
You absolute butt-fucking retard.
You are such a fucking moron.
It is dangerous that you are left to roam around on your own affecting other people.
Let alone be given the opportunity to enact legislation to change laws other people must live by.
You are a fucking dangerously retarded individual and you need to be sectioned for your own fucking good.
This is not rape.
This is at worst deception.
If you want to make lying a crime, just come out and say it, you pillock.
Americans are lucky they have a constitution because apparently this bill is far too broad and would probably not survive a constitutional challenge.
If a man were to say to a woman, I love you, and engaging sex and he really didn't love her, it could be as simple as that.
The definition is so broad that it doesn't put the citizens of the state on fair notice of what it is that constitutes the crime.
Exactly.
This is fucking retarded.
Literally, I can't think of any other word that actually adequately describes just how dumb this is.
This is the sort of thing I would expect someone who literally was missing parts of their brain to say.
Let's why was this even engaged?
Why wasn't this person like no, no, just sorry, just get out of the room.
Just no, we're not even laughing.
Just out.
Shoo shoo shoo.
Shoot.
Back to wherever you came from.
Roll up a newspaper, whack him on the nose with it, chuck him out.
This is fucking madness.
What am I talking about?
There is always something worse.
And in what I can only describe as the most cringeworthy act of self-flagellation I have ever seen, student mugged said he deserved it because of his privilege.
Why not?
Just why not?
Why wouldn't he say that?
A Georgetown University student said who was mugged at gunpoint says he can hardly blame his assailants.
This is what your universities are producing, America.
At what point do you say, you know what, we have made a terrible mistake, we have to turn around and go back or get the petrol and burn the whole thing to the fucking ground.
Not once did I consider our attackers to be bad people.
I trust that they weren't trying to hurt me.
In fact, if they knew me, I bet they'd think I was okay.
What kind of fucking person needs validation from the people mugging him?
What is wrong with this person's brain?
Frodfeld claims that it is the pronounced inequality gap in Washington DC that has fueled these types of crimes.
It is in no way these individuals' actions.
It is a statistic that is responsible for this.
He also says that as a middle-class man, he does not have the right to judge his muggers.
Of course you fucking do.
They are mugging you.
They have clearly made a series of terrible life decisions.
Don't get me wrong, they probably did start from a position of poverty.
Quite possibly.
But that doesn't mean there is no way to escape it.
It is not inevitable that they will always remain poor.
But even though, right?
But who is he to stand from his perch of privilege, surrounded by million-dollar homes and paying $60,000 for an education?
I tell you what, middle class has got a much different meaning in America than it does in England.
To condemn these young men as thugs.
Well, frankly, they mugged you at gunpoint.
So I think you are actually justified in doing so.
But it is precisely this kind of otherization that fuels the problem.
Hang on.
Didn't you just say it was the pay inequality gap that was the problem?
The problem is that they're poor, not that you consider them the other.
They could be rich people who you considered the other, and they wouldn't be mugging you.
Therefore, it's not the problem of otherization you cret in.
And police are obviously not the solution to crime either.
If we ever want opportunistic crime to end, we should look at ourselves first.
Simply amplifying police presence will not solve the issue.
I beg to differ.
I think more police around might actually lower the amount of muggings that take place.
But police protect us by keeping those bad people out of our neighborhood, and I'm grateful for it.
Which would indeed lower the amount of muggings, wouldn't it?
But yet I realize it's self-serving and doesn't actually fix anything.
Now, that's true.
It is self-serving.
And yes, there are greater societal issues at hand.
But to then suggest that the privilege adapt to normalized crime until the wrongs of the past are righted is insane.
He's not joking either.
The millennial generation is taking over the reins of the world.
And thus we are presented with a wonderful opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past.
Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins.
I can hardly blame them.
The cards are all in our hands and we're not playing them.
Why don't you just give your fucking money and house away then?
If you are that concerned, what kind of innate loathing must you have for yourself to say, you know what, I should really just get comfortable with the fact that I might wake up in the middle of the night with a burglar in my house.
It's just normal.
I mean, yeah, I was mugged at gunpoint, so this burglar might well have a gun and I don't know his motivations, but he's probably a decent person, just down on his luck, burglarizing my house.
Jesus Christ, I tell you what, I really think the problem is that Generation X completely dropped the ball.
My generation has completely just, they were just like, you know what?
I don't agree with corporate power structures.
I think this is all bullshit.
This is all about selling out and bollocks like that.
I'm not going to bother.
I'm just going to get a minimum wage job and live for myself.
Which was terribly selfish because look what's happening.
The millennials are taking over from the baby boomers and they are fucking crazy.
I'm sorry for any sane millennials that are listening to this video.
I'm really sorry.
But look at your peers.
Okay, let's end with something funny and not absolutely crazy.
Who has said if we're going to grow up as an industry, we're going to need the consumer to grow up a bit as well?
I'll give you a second or two to guess.
I'm sure you got it.
The gaming industry's greatest adversary.
And she's just getting started.
Anita, don't you think there's a bit of a problem with what you're doing when business week, a newspaper outside of the gaming industry, looks at you and says, this woman looks like the gaming industry's greatest foe.
And as someone on Twitter pointed out, if there was ever a face that said, I'm going to come along and suck the fun out of everything, it's yours, Anita.
Also, seriously, how fast are you aging?
So, most of the article is the normal bullshit apologetics.
So, I'll get straight to the interesting bits.
She set a goal of $6,000, reached it in less than 24 hours.
Two weeks later, she passed 22,000, but that clearly wasn't enough because she posted a video describing the project on YouTube, and it started to draw the attention of hardcore gamers.
Thousands of comments flooded YouTube, Kickstarter, and Sarkeesian's own website.
Yeah, I don't believe that.
She turns them off, but okay.
Some asked why she wasn't looking at male characters and argued that the things she was pointing out weren't sexist, necessarily, but realistic or historically accurate.
But that doesn't matter.
In fact, good questions are harassment, which is why she took screen grabs of the comments and posted them, which in turn drove more comments and more people to contribute money on Kickstarter, which then ultimately raised the $158,000 we are all familiar with.
This is literally a description of someone who is playing a professional victim.
This is directly showing how she took advantage of people asking her questions about her project in a tone that she didn't like to raise more money from people under the guise of, oh my goodness, I'm being harassed.
The article then goes on to detail how she cherry-picks examples out of the games to compile them to create a false narrative.
Getting the right snippet of a game, the appearance of a particular character, for example, can require playing it 10 to 15 times to drive the narrative up to the desired point and in such a way that the footage will be clear to anyone watching it later.
Listen, if sexism in games is so fucking endemic, you should not have to do this.
But it's no surprise because this was done with the help of her co-producer and notorious propagandist Jonathan McIntosh.
Although, on a side note, I really think we might have the cart before the horse here.
Who's the manipulative one and who's the crazy idealistic one?
I think that Sarkeesian might actually be puppeteering him.
I'll probably actually do a video on this later because I've actually read Macintosh's blogs and he doesn't actually seem manipulative.
I actually think he might be like the idealistic idiot and she the more Machiavellian, money-hungry person who clearly does not give a fuck about gaming.
In fact, she seems like the sort of person who wants to destroy gaming, at least in the eyes of Business Week.
It's not really all that surprising when she publishes an op-ed in the New York Times called It's Game Over for Gamers.
Seriously, Anita, it really looks like you're trying to end gaming.
Obviously, the rest of this article is just the same old, same old that you've heard before from people who have no idea about the video game industry.
Much like these people.
What exactly is this story about?
Well, Anita Sarkeesian, who's the woman I've profiled in this piece, is essentially an academic.
And she sat down and she watched every single video game.
She played them for hours and hours.
She's got about 10 different consoles in her apartment.
And she created a series of videos basically criticizing the way these games portray women.
And she's isolated a number of, she calls them tropes.
It's very academic.
I think these tropes, but they're basically things that just appear over and over.
The women are always very hypersexualized.
They're often victims of very graphic serious violence.
They are very rarely actual characters you can play or engage with in the games.
And you would never really know this if she hadn't sat down, watched them all, so we didn't have to, and sort of laid them all out together in these videos.
And what happened is when she published these pieces to the internet, she put them out there for free, a lot of hardcore video game fans got really, really upset and started to sort of target her with threats and harassment.
How so?
Hardcore being the important term here.
It ranges from very sort of standard, offensive, kind of graphic insults, rape threats on Twitter and social media.
People tried to post her home address and phone number.
Rape threats?
Oh, it gets much worse.
I mean, people made videos of her with death threats.
Do you have any idea who these people are?
Because the stereotypical image of the hardcore gamer is some unemployed kid in his late teens, right before all of that, right?
And a man in his late teens or early 20s, sitting around him everywhere.
▲
Export Selection