All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 19, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
32:30
This Week in Stupid (18⧸01⧸2015)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 18th of January 2015.
As you can imagine, last week was dominated mainly by the fallouts from the Charlie Hebdo massacre, an event not so much stupid as it was a horrible attack on free speech.
As I'm sure you're already aware, the surviving staff of Charli Hebdo magazine refused to be cowed by this attack, and did indeed brazenly feature an image of Muhammad on the cover.
This has increased the print run of Charlie Hebdo to 7 million copies now, to keep up with international demand, making sure that the pictures of the Prophet Muhammad are now spread far and wide all around the world to millions of people.
Dear Islamic terrorists, the Streisand effect is a very real thing.
If you try and stop someone from doing something, everyone wants to know what you're trying to stop.
It just draws attention to it.
If you had just not paid attention, it is highly unlikely that Charlie Hebdo would have sold anywhere near 7 million copies of their paper with a picture of Muhammad in it.
You idiots.
And obviously, this is where we go through the looking glass and into the realm of the completely insane.
Satirical religious cartoons should be illegal, says Ottawa Imam.
Well, I shall defend to the death his right to say it.
Intiaz Ahmed said it should be against the law to publish cartoons that depict religious figures in a derogatory way.
He goes on to say, of course we defend freedom of speech, but then says there has to be a limit.
To which my question is, why?
Why should I be limited or anyone be limited in in this case what they can print in a magazine because you don't like it?
Well he does answer this for us.
We believe what are you, the fucking queen?
We believe that any kind of vulgar expression about a sacred person of any religion does not constitute the freedom of speech in any way at all.
Well, since you called it the freedom of speech, I'm guessing you're not all that familiar with it.
But yes, yes it does.
Regardless of what you believe, this is indeed freedom of expression to be able to display an image of the Prophet Muhammad because it's okay to do that.
For anyone that's curious, this comes from a deep-seated fear of idolatry that's been present in Islam since the very very beginning of it.
As I understand it, you can't represent an image of the Prophet Muhammad because it may be an idol or an icon and people may start worshipping the idol or the picture instead of the Prophet, which is a thunderously stupid point.
But maybe I've just had that explained to me by idiots and maybe there is in fact a deeper and more grounded argument behind it.
I've yet to hear it.
Ahmed said there should be limits placed on freedom of speech to prevent the publication of offensive material.
Yes, because that is exactly how freedom of speech works.
It works by limits being placed on it.
That's freedom.
With limits.
Are you even listening to yourselves?
But he says that this seems to be the case for events such as the Holocaust.
Members of the public denounce those who say the Holocaust never happened.
Well, guess what, Ahmed?
That's wrong too.
I disagree with the concept of putting people away just because they're questioning the Holocaust, for example, in Germany where it is actually still illegal.
That doesn't make it right and we shouldn't use an existing wrong to justify a future wrong.
And the winner of the, well he would say that's wouldn't he award is Pope Francis saying you cannot make fun of the faith of others and calls for limits to free speech when it comes to religion.
Francis, you've been so good so far, so forward-thinking when it comes to science.
Don't start getting regressive and authoritarian when it comes to freedom of expression.
The answer is fucking no, don't make me break out the altar boy jokes.
The Pope then began victim blaming, when he says, I don't condone the attack on Charlie Hebdo, but those who ridiculed another religion should expect some sort of reaction.
Well that's all well and good Pope.
Why can't those reactions be in the form of satirical cartoons by Muslims of cartoonists satirically drawing cartoons of Muhammad?
Why does it have to be firebombs and guns and murders?
The Mayor of Rotterdam came on TV specifically to say Muslims who don't like free speech can quote unquote fuck off, which is a sentiment I completely agree with.
If you don't like it, fuck yourselves.
You do not get to dictate what other people can and cannot say, print or enjoy just because you don't fucking like it.
The best part about this is that the mayor of Rotterdam is a Muslim called Ahmed.
He said, it is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom, but if you do not like freedom, in heaven's name, pack your bag and leave.
There may be a place for you in the world where you can be yourself.
Be honest with yourself and do not go and kill innocent journalists.
He goes on to say, and if you do not like it because humorists you do not like make a newspaper, may I then say you can fuck off?
This is stupid, this is so incomprehensible.
Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here.
What I like about this is not only does this man completely understand why freedom of speech is important, he also doesn't find it incompatible with Islam.
Literally millions of people took to Twitter to use the hashtag JusweeCharli to show their solidarity and support to freedom of speech.
And of course, literally thousands of social justice warriors took to Twitter to tell everyone how racist this was.
In apparently unrelated news, the Muslim call to prayer will be chanted every Friday at Duke University.
Oh that makes perfect sense for an American university to be broadcasting a religious call to prayer.
What next?
Are you going to have church bells ringing as well?
I mean, are you going to have Hindu prayers?
What about Buddhist prayers?
What about sacrifices to Zeus?
What about remembering you are meant to be a secular institution for higher education and not a fucking temple?
So apparently, blasting out the Muslim call to prayer across the campus every Friday is a new initiative to promote religious pluralism, which I'm sure it will absolutely do.
I'm sure it's not just going to give people another religion to get really annoyed at.
And apparently enough people had enough foresight to know that this was going to be really fucking annoying to go and complain about this in advance, forcing the university to cancel their plans to institute this.
Seriously though, it being incredibly annoying aside, this couldn't possibly have been setting a good precedent.
Duke remains committed to fostering an inclusive, tolerant and welcoming campus for all its students.
Michael Schoenfeld, Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations said.
A statement so pointless to act as a sad indictment of the state of university campuses.
And there is a reason that we have freedom of expression.
Because when you have countries that don't have freedom of expression, you often get headlines like this.
Saudi cleric condemns snowmen as anti-Islamic.
A prominent Saudi cleric has whipped up controversy, issuing a religious ruling forbidding the building of snowmen, describing them as anti-Islamic.
When asked on a religious website if it was permissible for fathers to build snowmen for their children after a snowstorm in the country's north, presumably the first and only one they've ever had, someone whose name I'm not even going to try and pronounce replied, it is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun.
Quoting from Muslim scholars, he argued that to build a snowman was to create an image of a human being, an action considered sinful under the kingdom's strict interpretation of Sunni Islam.
Well, I can only say thank you for confirming the image that the outside world has of Saudi Arabia, being religious fanatics who are absolutely barking mad.
He wrote, God has given people space to make whatever they want, which does not have a soul, including trees, ships, fruit, buildings, and so on.
An edict so baffling I can only ask why?
Why?
What's the problem with people making snowmen?
It's not a snowman of Muhammad, it doesn't have a snow beard.
One Twitter user posted a photo of a man in formal Arab garb holding the arm of a snow bride wearing a bra and lipstick and said, the reason for the ban is fear of sedition, he wrote.
One of Sheikh Munajid's supporters has said, building a snowman is imitating the infidels, it promotes lustiness and eroticism.
I don't really think that's fair given that it was an Arabic guy who was just posing with his snow bride.
And the thing is, they sound like the Saudi equivalent of social justice warriors.
May God preserve the scholars, for they enjoy sharp vision and recognise matters that even Satan doesn't think about.
Even Satan doesn't know about this way of being depraved or satanic or whatever they think that it's being, just un-Islamic.
It's like saying that there's this invisible privilege and everyone has it.
And the reason no one knew about it before is because it's fucking invisible.
I think the reason that Satan isn't thinking about these things is probably because he's looking at snowmen and thinking, to be fair, no idiot's gonna think that I can tempt someone to depravity with these.
But finally, on our segment of Islam this week, we've got Sam Biddle.
Sam, bring back bullying Biddle from Gorka.
With the ISIS babies are freaking adorable, which has been filed under the headline of Propaganda.
He says, one of the things that you learn when you spend any time reading ISIS Twitter is that the ISIS Twitter is filled with the cutest darn jihadis you've ever seen.
Is that a fact, Sam?
Isn't that a fucking fact, you moron?
There's basically no context provided for any of these images popular among Twitter's thriving ISIS and ISIS sympathizer community of which you appear to be a part.
Take for example this picture here which appears to show a terrorist and his son to which underneath Sam has written number one dad.
What about this one of a kid holding a gun and a copy of the Quran?
Alu Ar Akbar.
Fucking hell Sam, they are indoctrinating kids to be terrorists for the Islamic State and you're just going like, oh isn't this cute?
No it's not fucking cute.
Do you know what else isn't cute?
Anything posted on fucking Gorka.
Here's the front page from Gorka from the other day.
Here's an alleged dad fucker on what it's like to fuck your dad.
Horse genitals taste of hay and more curious delights from a horse fucker.
Terminal ugliness.
An incredibly sad chat with a 15 year old virgin.
I honestly am at the point where I'm just like nothing surprises me with Gorka anymore.
They are the foulest, most vile publication I have ever seen in my life.
Until of course the next one.
Teenager has been dating her long lost father after two years reveals the pair are planning to get married and have children.
Damn Biddle, who got out clickbaited here.
So apparently an unnamed woman who comes from the Great Lakes region reconnected with her father when she was 16 after 12 years of estrangement.
And after the two met up, she went to go and stay with him for a week.
They had sex that week for the first time and were soon dating.
Yeah, why not?
I mean, they're not even hiding their situation.
With many of their friends and family aware of what's going on between them.
Those who know he's my dad and see that we're engaged, including my father's parents.
So your father's parents, the guy who's doing this, think this is okay.
They can see we're happy together.
They can't wait for us to have babies.
They treat us just like any other couple.
Why do they condone this?
But they're planning to move to New Jersey, where adult incest isn't illegal.
Apparently, for some reason.
Where they're going to carry on as a family and have children.
Raised by people who think incest is okay.
I can't believe that there is a state in America where incest is legal.
You know what?
I've never actually been so pleased to get back to feminism.
It's nice to hear from our old pal Cheryl Ban Bossy Leanin Sandberg.
Because apparently there's a new thing called speaking while female, which I can tell you from personal experience is something a lot of females like to do.
And they like to do it a lot.
And they like to do it a lot while at work as well.
Often to the expense of the work itself.
But apparently my observations make me a misogynist shitlord and in fact women are completely silent at work and are deathly afraid to speak.
And Cheryl Sandberg wishes to fight this newly discovered form of oppression.
She says that she's seen it happen again and again.
When a woman speaks in a professional setting, she walks a tightrope.
Either she's barely heard or she's judged as too aggressive.
And when a man says virtually the same thing, heads nod in appreciation for his fine idea.
Have you ever thought that this is a giant fucking cliché that isn't really true?
Or at least maybe it's just true for male senators with more power, as measured by tenure, leadership positions and track record of legislation passed who apparently spoke more on the Senate floor than their junior colleagues.
Hardly surprising.
But apparently female senators, power was not linked to significantly more speaking time.
Oh, it must be all those male senators cutting them off and the female senators just silently sitting there going, God, I'm just a meek woman.
I wish someone would just let me talk.
Suspecting that powerful women stayed quiet because they feared a backlash, Professor Bresco looked deeper.
She asked professional men and women to evaluate the competence of chief executives who voiced their opinions more or less frequently.
Male executives who spoke more often than their peers were rewarded with 10% higher ratings of competence.
When female executives spoke more than their peers, both men and women punished them with 14% lower ratings.
As this and other research shows, women who worry about talking too much will cause them to be disliked and are not paranoid, they are often right.
Have you considered what you are saying?
You say you- you are presenting this as if all speech is equally valid.
As if anything anyone says in an office environment is 100% valid and is never stupid or wrong, and therefore it's just the sheer amount of time you spend talking, as if talking more would produce better results.
All this study is actually saying is that women are more likely to say things that aren't correct, or at least aren't perceived as being correct, by the people around them, both men and women.
And she finishes with, as 2015 starts, we wonder what would happen if we all held Obama-style meetings, offering women the floor whenever possible.
Doing this for even a day or two might be a powerful bias interrupter.
Bias against things being said that aren't stupid.
Yep, no, that's fine.
You can have bias against that all you want.
Demonstrating to our teams and colleagues that speaking while female is still quite difficult.
For fuck's sake, Cheryl, you make it sound like being female is a disability.
You make it sound like women aren't the equals of men, which is really embarrassing for women who are the equals of men.
But it's not just in the Senate that women should just be allowed to speak first because they're women.
It's in university classrooms as well.
The only thing I'm surprised about here is that these rules are only just being implemented.
Women should be first heard in the classroom, a forum on misogyny at Dalhousie University said Thursday.
Men should not be allowed to monopolise these forums, St. Mary's University Management Professor Judy Halvin said.
She suggested several ideas to combat misogyny, all of them centered on promoting female participation at events.
I don't know why you allow male participation at these events.
I mean, if men weren't raging misogynists, then none of this would be necessary, would it?
None of this would be even remotely necessary.
A forum on misogyny.
I mean, would Halvin be speaking?
If we weren't thinking of ideas to combat misogyny, maybe if it was just people treating each other as normal people, then Judy Halvin would have nothing to talk about.
Her idea that women should always speak first in classroom discussion and at public events was brought up several times during the forum, presumably by Halvin.
And unsurprisingly, being the sexist that she is, she already tries to apply this idea in her own classroom.
Halvin's idea was met with a round of applause, but not everyone agreed with her suggestion.
The panel fielded a question from Twitter asking whether the idea would just perpetuate the problem the other way.
Yes, I suppose at some point that could happen, Halvin said.
Halvin, you know you are promoting an idea that is bad by your own admission.
But she then said, but right now what we see is women generally don't come forward and speak up at meetings.
We are seeing women taking a back seat.
We see that there has to be some kind of affirmative action so that women, I hope, take a more active role in the classroom and running things in various student affairs.
We've got a real problem.
Well, I have to ask, A, is it a real problem?
I mean, what is actually happening that's a real problem?
You yourself and Cheryl Sandberg are living proof that there is nothing stopping women from taking an active participatory role in these things, but that a lot of women just choose not to.
And secondly, the majority of students are female.
If you now have to take affirmative action to help the majority of students, I kind of start to think that this affirmative action thing is bullshit and always has been.
Maybe you shouldn't be proposing bad solutions to non-existent problems that will in fact create an injustice where none actually exists.
Jacqueline Skip Tunis, vice president, academic and external for the Dalhousie Student Union, said that she personally has been hesitant to talk in group discussions.
My god, she has personally been hesitant to talk in group discussions.
That's never happened to a man.
That has never happened to a man.
Not one man in all of human history has ever been hesitant to talk in a group discussion.
Just can't happen.
Men are immune to that.
When she did speak up, her statements were often questioned, which is a classic sign of the patriarchy.
Men always questioning women, but when a man says something, men just sit around and golf clap.
Yes, that's exactly how it is, gentlemen.
Yes, women, remember, remember.
It's like she thinks that men are incapable of thinking other men are wrong.
And it degenerated into a competition as to who's the master of the progressive stack.
Jude Ashburn agreed with Halvin.
You can see how this is a fucking echo chamber, can't you?
I think that women of colour should be the first to speak in class, Ashburn said after the panel discussion.
Of course they should.
Women of colour because they're black and they're women, so they're disadvantaged, aren't they?
Your arguments are fucking racist, social justice warriors.
They're fucking racist.
You are picking them out based on their gender and their skin colour, and you're saying these things that you can do nothing about are holding you back.
We're going to have to take special measures to make sure that you are treated equally.
Do you see where this is going?
Special measures to make someone treated equally.
And so they get to versus even if they've got nothing to say, even if they think that that's wrong.
I mean, listen to this.
When I do activist circles or workshops, I often say, okay, if you're white and you look like me and you raise your hand, I'm not going to pick you before someone of colour.
So I do give little disclaimers like, people of colour will have priority, or if you're a person with a disability, you're pushed to the front.
I mean, you know, bros fall back, she said with a laugh.
While she was just there being racist and sexist and just judging people based on characteristics they have no control over.
Jude Ashburn, that's fucking horrible.
But you have to understand, women are now the majority at universities, dude.
So it's actually going to have to be the other way around.
You're all for affirmative action, so now we need to help the minority, which is actually straight white men on campus.
I know, it's actually they're in minority to straight white women, isn't that fucking amazing?
So now you're going to have to sit there and shush, sweetheart.
Because this is how the progressive stack works.
And you are in a majority now.
She has had complaints filed against her for her restorative justice approach.
She says, I do think in general that there are a lot of studies that indicate women and girls are not socialised to speak first.
Yes, I'm sure that these studies aren't cherry-picking or manipulating their data in any way.
And so make a conscious rule, a deliberate rule that is explicit, that men are not allowed to speak first, is certainly a strong way of addressing that issue, but one that will at least get people thinking about it.
That's already some progress, I believe.
Oh, absolutely.
It's very, very progressive to make it so that men have to speak after women as a rule.
Not even just a social courtesy, just as a rule.
I mean, that doesn't scream second-class citizen or anything.
If anything proves that professors are vastly out of touch from reality, it's the poll that says, what do you think of women speak first?
99% of the people that read this article disagree with the idea.
Only 1% think it should be required in classrooms.
I don't want to make an argument from popularity, but I think that when you've got this many people ranged against your idea, and they're all saying it's sexist and probably racist, maybe it is at least worth thinking about reconsidering whether your ideas are as fair and good as you think they are.
Women's College cancels vagina monologues because it excludes women without vaginas.
See, this is why women always have to speak last.
It's always the women without vaginas speaking first.
Since the 90s, students from Mount Holyoke College, an all-woman's school in Massachusetts, have staged an annual production of the vagina monologues.
Not this year.
The college is retiring the ritual over concerns that the play, penned by Eve Ensler, a radical feminist, in 1996 as a way to celebrate the vagina and women's sexuality is not inclusive enough.
Well, I don't see why it would be.
It's there to celebrate the vagina.
But I also don't see why it should be.
The complaint is, at its core, the show offers an extremely narrow perspective on what it means to be a woman.
Gender is a wide and varied experience, one that cannot simply be reduced to biological or anatomical distinctions, and many of us who have participated in the show have grown increasingly uncomfortable presenting the material that is inherently reductionist and exclusive.
My goodness, how awful that is.
Something written by a radical feminist that's reductionist and exclusive?
I can barely believe it.
See, what modern-day progressives don't understand is that in 1996, none of this bullshit existed.
literally didn't exist no one knew what there was no tumblr There was none of this kind of gender-fluid headkin bollocks.
None of it existed.
So it's no surprise that when the Vagina Monologues was written, it didn't feature any of this shit.
But she goes on to say that last January, a fundraiser for Texas Abortion Advocacy Group came under fire because of its title Night of a Thousand Vaginas, which some argued was hurtful to trans individuals.
But they didn't actually say who it was hurtful to or how these people have been hurt.
Just that it was hurtful to trans individuals in some kind of nebulous, unqualifiable way.
In both cases, the argument is premised on the idea that A, not all women have vaginas, and B, some men do have vaginas.
Because some trans individuals identify and live as a different gender, that they were born without getting genital reconstructive surgery.
Ergo, a trans woman is a woman, full stop, but she may have a penis.
A trans man is a man, full stop, but he may have a vagina.
Okay, so at least we can understand how it works.
It doesn't matter how you are physically, it literally matters what you say you are.
And you know what?
That's fine by me.
I really don't give a fuck.
I'm literally at the point where I just don't give a shit what people do with their vaginas.
I just want hard and fast rules.
I want to know what the rules fucking are for this shit.
And now the author realizes why this is all a problem.
Yet I'm a woman with a vagina.
And it becomes an area of concern when people start saying that I shouldn't reference or acknowledge that.
That it's in fact bad and intolerant, so 20th century to even speak about it.
The fact that some trans women don't have vaginas doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority of women do.
Oh no, is this bullshit coming to butt you in the ass now?
Now, in the name of feminism, female validating talk about vaginas is now forbidden.
Yes!
Yes, it is.
It is going to keep consuming itself over and over down and down and reducing to minutia to the point where you literally are not allowed art because someone somewhere might be offended.
But that's misogynistic under the guise of progress, apparently.
Another student countered with, we can't present a show that is blatantly transphobic.
Blatantly transphobic.
The vagina monologues, according to modern-day feminists.
There's certainly nothing wrong with wanting to stage a women's show that includes trans perspectives on genitals or whatever else, but that doesn't make a show without those perspectives transphobic.
I'm afraid you're wrong.
Anything that doesn't include those things is transphobic, according to modern feminists.
And you don't have a Pope, so who's going to rule whether it's right or wrong?
It just makes a show without those perspectives.
Which is what men have been saying about things that don't have women in the whole fucking time.
In this case, one written almost 20 years ago.
While it might be hard for today's students to imagine, in those days, discouraging people from talking openly about female sexuality or suggesting that gender was anything but a social construct is what would earn you the approbation of feminists.
No, gender is completely a social construct.
There's nothing physical about gender because apparently you can have men with vaginas and women with penises now.
So, I mean, it must be socially constructed.
I mean, given that it's so socially constructed, I can't really see the point of transgender surgery.
Why wouldn't you just say, well, you know what?
I'm just going to become a woman.
Makes you wonder why transgender surgery even exists.
And with all this talk of gender being a social construct, we come to Scandinavian countries aren't utopias.
Are they not?
I was under the impression that they were.
So what exactly are the problems with Scandinavian countries?
Well, apparently the taxes are between 58% and 72% of your income.
And cost of living is generally all around very high.
The suicide rate is 50% higher than the US and double the UK rate.
And many, especially the Finns, are prone to violence and alcoholism.
And lastly but not least, Sweden, which has been dubbed the least masculine country on earth, so maybe it is the least.
A place where male soldiers are issued hairnets instead of being made to cut their hair.
But that's not really the shocking part.
For me, it was almost a third of the Swedish population are immigrants.
A third.
I mean, fucking hell, Sweden.
You are the whore of the world.
And with immigrants being poor and far more likely to commit crimes such as murder, tension between ethnic Swedes and immigrants is growing and so it's no wonder that Sweden needs its own Gestapo.
There are after all a bunch of plebs who are getting a bit above their station saying things like are you sure unlimited immigration is actually good for the country and and when exactly is this going to stop?
The security police of Sweden Part of Sweden's police force protecting citizens against terrorists and extremist plots for decades, have recently become uncoupled from the police force themselves and now apparently report directly to the government instead of answering to the public.
The article does confirm that there are no jackbooted death squads dragging people away in the dead of night but say however it is concerning that a democratic government would choose to adopt the same framework favoured by dictatorships.
Why the change?
And this is in the context of vastly expanded authority of the secret police to conduct surveillance against the citizenry where they now have unlimited access to all phone, web and postal traffic and the rights to place cameras and audio bugs in non-public settings.
And now they no longer answer to the public, remember.
It's like they've been taking cues from America because laws have also been changed so that they can at the discretion, should they deem the matter urgent, call upon the military to fight domestic targets.
The only prerequisite is that the targets are classified as terrorists, which is not that far of a stretch from Prime Minister Lofen's claim that the nationalistic party is anti-democratic and fascist.
Even though these people are literally setting up secret police to spy on the public, they have the gall to call other people anti-democratic and fascist.
Unfucking believable.
And finally this week, my favourite thing, Sweden warms to gender equal snowplowing.
Because anything can be gendered.
Anything can be a gendered problem.
And anything can be an inequality between men and women.
Even where the government plows snow.
Stockholm is a modern city and needs a modern way of plowing.
Stockholm's shadow city commissioner Daniel Helden of the Green Party told the local.
We need access for everyone in the city.
Today it's mostly men who are prioritised when it comes to snowplowing.
What we want is more gender equal snowplowing system.
Is it men or is it people going to work?
Stockholm typically targets areas frequented by men, such as roads.
Because women don't use roads in Sweden apparently.
But such as roads rather than the entries to daycares, footpaths and psychopaths, which men don't use, footpaths and psychopaths, which are more often used by women.
I mean you know how it is.
And in central Sweden, a local government last year shifted the priorities of its snow removal practices to put more emphasis on areas often frequented by women.
It didn't incur any extra cost and has produced promising results.
What are those promising results though?
In the old system, key roads were cleared first, followed by areas where men typically worked, such as construction areas and lastly, areas used by pedestrians and cyclists.
So key roads to make sure that traffic can flow around the city, work areas, work environments, and then civilian environments.
That really rather seems to be the logical progression.
It's not about whether men work there or not.
So after reviewing this, the Carls Koga prioritised daycare centers where parents usually go first in the morning, followed by areas around the largest workplaces regardless of gender, which it probably was before anyway, followed by schools and then by the main roads.
As a result, the municipality noted that it had become more accessible for everyone during and after the snowfall, particularly children.
Statistics apparently show that each winter in Sweden, there are three times as many people injured on footpaths than on roads.
Which in turn increases the socio-economic costs involved.
Really?
Well, for a start, maybe there are more people injured on paths than roads because the roads are being properly cleared.
And what is the severity of these injuries?
People get more severely injured on roads than on footpaths, I have no fucking doubt.
I'm sure it will spread further.
As Stockholm is a big city, it can show the rest of the world how to do this and lead by example.
If there is one thing I don't want Sweden doing, it's leading by example.
Sweden is the canary in the coal mine for the crazy shit that's going on in the extreme progressive left.
If Sweden does it, it's probably a bad idea.
Fucking gendering snowplowing.
Fucking hell.
Oh, but it's mostly men that use the roads.
▲
Export Selection