All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 15, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
33:25
This Week in Stupid (15⧸02⧸2015)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 15th of February 2015.
I swear to God, to the best of my knowledge, all of the following stories are true.
For example, queering agriculture, food security in the nation's capital and the crisis of reproductive American familiarism.
Sounds like a lot of word salad from Bailey Keir, American Studies and the University of Maryland.
You're probably thinking this is made up, but I swear it's not.
The first question is actually, so why queer agriculture?
I have no idea.
Why queer agriculture?
I mean, this seems like an odd question, a queer question, if you will, but becomes more obvious with research and analysis, does it?
This talk highlights vital ways queering and transing ideas and practices of agriculture are necessary for a more sustainable, sovereign and equitable food system for the creatures and systems involved in the systemic reproductions that feed humans and other creatures.
Fucking why?
I just want to point out that it's not systemic, it's systematic.
But let's continue.
Since agriculture is literally the backbone of economics, politics and civilized life, I think you mean figuratively, and the manipulation of reproduction and sexuality are a foundation of agriculture, it is absolutely crucial queer and transgender studies begin to deal more seriously with the subject of agriculture.
Obviously, I mean it's not even something we can debate really, is it?
I mean it is crucial that queer and transgender studies begin to deal with agriculture.
That is just common fucking sense.
I can hardly believe they don't already deal with agriculture and animal husbandry as well.
Thank God this talk highlights the normative ways that popular culture, food activism and government regulations have framed sustainable food systems in the United States.
I've got no doubt that they have and for no good reason I'm sure.
By focusing on popular culture representations and government legislation since 9-11 for some reason, it will become clearer how the growing popularity of sustainable food listen, I don't think that sustainable food is growing in popularity.
I think that was the purpose of farming.
But it's laden with an anthro-heterocentric assumptions of the good life coupled with idealized images and ideas of the American farm and gender, radicalized and normative standards of health, family and nation.
Which is of course fantastic.
I absolutely agree that we need to apply critical theory to agriculture.
I mean they don't tell us about the anthro-heterocentric assumptions that they are trying to deconstruct, but one would presume they are possibly humans need to be fed and most human families comprise of men and women who are of course raising children.
I mean just so you know, Bailey Keir, the person giving this talk, is a PhD candidate in American studies and an administrative coordinator at the University of Maryland.
Keir did their dissertation on An American River, a queer geography of the Potomac River Basin and environmentalism in the nation's capital and examines how mainstream environmentalism has not merely been the benevolent project is represented as, but instead can be more accurately described as the management of populations, resources and species.
I'm sorry, I don't really know how to mock that.
A queer geography of the Potomac River basin.
There's just nothing I can say to make that more ridiculous.
But it gets better.
Keir's work has been published in Women and Performance, the Transgender Studies Reader 2 and the New Inquiry.
Kier's research interests include queer ecologies, hydrology, natural history, transgender studies and studies of science, and somehow they think they can mix all of these up into one.
Queer Ecology is fucking hell, just, there are some psychotic ideologues prancing around academia at the moment, aren't there?
Just looking at the about section for the Center for the Study of Sexual Culture shows you that they are fucking mad.
Absolutely barking mad.
The Center for the Study of Sexual Culture was founded in 2001 to support research and critical conversations concerning sexuality, sexual culture, and their mutually determining relationship to institutions, social practices and norms, and modes of representation.
We understand sexuality to essentially inform diverse fields of social life such as the state, the economy, civil society, family norms, social identity, and the cultural modes of representation.
All well and good you might think.
But what the fuck is this?
What is this?
What the fuck is going on here?
Why is this Mexican dude getting off with a fucking strawberry?
Jesus fucking Christ.
Have I ever told you that universities are fucked?
Because universities are fucked.
Stephen Salita tells UNC Chapel Hill audience that civility is a racist term.
Oh yeah.
Oh yeah.
To more than 100 students, faculty, administrators and political activists packed into a lecture hall at UNC Chapel Hill last Thursday to hear controversial Indigenous studies professor Stephen Salita speak about academic freedom and censorship.
This is going to be good.
Unsurprisingly for anyone who can be called a controversial indigenous studies professor, Salita has become the poster child for those who define academic freedom so broadly as to set virtually no boundaries on the words or actions of professors.
Earlier in his speech, Salita claims that those who refer to his tweets as uncivil are actually perpetuating a deep-seated colonial racism.
According to the professor, the word civility as it has been used in the context of post-16th century North American civilization sets up a hierarchy that distinguishes between those who are capable of entering moderninity and those who are incapable of entering into such a passage.
He says that the University of Illinois administrators were unaware of those new world racist connotations.
They thought civility was an innocuous word.
Of course, those of us who don't live in crazy academia are well aware that civil is actually an innocuous word, having the definitions of either relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters, which I just want to state does not preclude the native civilizations of the Americas from being part of this definition, or the second definition which obviously people were using in this context, which is courteous and polite.
I really want to point out how racist this statement is.
Sets up a hierarchy that distinguishes between those who are capable of entering into moderninity and those who are incapable of entering into such a passage.
I don't think there is anyone incapable of that, especially not based on their race.
But that seems to be the entire career arc of this indigenous studies professor.
But hell, maybe, maybe I just don't understand what he's saying.
Maybe he has gone so fucking loopy that the words he's using don't mean what I think they mean.
He sounds like a firebrand preacher who is denouncing witches or something.
Throughout his hyper-political lecture, which was more of a rant against Israel's government than a commentary on academic freedom and censorship, Salatia attacked capitalism and decried what he called the corporatization of higher education.
Each time he received nods and claps from the audience, even though he had not defined what he had meant or explained his reasoning.
So in our interview, I asked him to elaborate on higher education's alleged corporatization.
He responded by saying that state governments have slashed their higher education funding in recent years, which has led to some universities to seek outside funding.
Funding, which he says often comes with strings attached.
And this is a genuine concern.
I too am concerned about this.
I don't think that universities should be corporatized.
I think a lot of things that are being corporatized shouldn't be corporatized, like healthcare systems.
But screaming about how the word civil is a fucking colonial racist term is not going to get these things changed.
Ranting and raving on from a pulpit in a university instead of a church is not going to change things for the better.
It's just going to turn you and your flock into a different kind of irrational, unthinking, book-burning cult.
Salita thinks that his programs are under threat by state policymakers who desire an unthinking robotic people that go to the polls every few years and then go to the mall and spend a lot of money.
And he's probably correct.
They probably do.
But what does this maniac want?
He wants his programmes that have attracted people that have a purpose that goes beyond the creation and dissemination of knowledge, which that should be the ultimate purpose of these things.
That is a purpose directed towards social and political change.
Salita said that the students and professors in those fields are not separated from the communities that they study, but are deeply devoted to them.
As in, they are certainly not, in any way, free of any kind of bias.
In fact, the idea is probably monstrous to them.
The idea that they aren't biased towards the things that they study is probably alien in every way.
But this is the state of affairs in American universities.
This is what the humanities looks like.
And you know what?
It's not just American universities.
Take for example this one from Canada.
Sex assaults reporting on Canadian campuses worryingly low, say experts.
I love this.
This is everything that's wrong with the extreme progressive left.
Now that they have achieved their goals, it's time for some good old-fashioned witch hunting.
Experts say that the number of sexual assaults reported to Canadian post-secondary schools is surprisingly low, and an indication that they are doing a poor job of encouraging students to come forward.
Because if there's one thing that we know, it is that Canadians are incredibly prone to rape.
Canadians rape a lot.
They're a fucking nation of rapists.
They rape so fucking often, it's just a surprise they even bother to try covering it up.
In fact, it's so common these days Canadian women don't even bother coming forward.
There is just so much goddamn rape happening in Canada.
For example, at Ryerson University, which is situated in downtown Toronto, 57 assaults were reported between 2009 and 2013, and Ryerson had a full-time student population of almost 24,000.
So obviously there must be so many goddamn rapists there.
Experts say that the figures can have more than one meaning, and for that reason caution against coming to conclusions based on the raw data or the per capita comparisons.
Totally agree.
For example, while schools with higher numbers could have a higher rate of sexual assault compared to other campuses, it could also mean the school is doing a better job of encouraging students to come forward and report incidents.
That's true.
That could be the situation.
It could also mean that a university has a good system for keeping track of what is reported to them.
That's true as well, that it could mean that.
But the problem, of course, is that experts say the number of students reporting sexual assaults to university and colleges is well below the national averages, which must mean that there are a bunch of secret rapists out there getting away with their crimes.
At a certain point, we noticed there was something strange, which was that the rates of sexual assaults on campuses were considerably lower than the rates of assaults for the surrounding cities.
I mean, I can't explain it.
It's not like there was a concerted effort to warn men away from sexually assaulting women on university campuses.
I mean, don't you guys remember that?
Don't be that guy that was partnered with the, say, Vancouver Police Department and spread around universities in Canada.
It just, it was such a big deal and you seem surprised that it has had an effect.
And instead of thinking, you know what, maybe men are actually raping less after we asked them to rape less, now they've just, I don't know, gone underground?
What are you suggesting?
I mean, did you not think that your campaigns against rape were going to have an effect?
You just sat around in your feminist meetings going, well, you know, we can try, but it's not going to work.
Men just can't stop themselves from raping.
Men just love to rape.
Everything, we live in a rape culture, obviously.
It's patriarchy.
So of course men are going to rape.
And then when you go on a concerted campaign to try and stop men raping in universities and it works, now you're like, well, Jesus Christ, the rapists just must be hiding.
They just must be operating outside just for some reason.
The women aren't reporting it or something.
It can't be that the rates of rape on campuses are lower.
It just can't be that.
It must be something else.
Because everything about your fucking jobs is reliant on the idea that there are a lot of rapes happening.
I mean, just look at this.
The CBEC survey found such a variation across the country.
I think that it can open up an important conversation.
It could also open up a conversation about how we are recording them and how we are responding, asks Holly Johnson, a criminology professor at the University of Ottawa.
The very concept that there is less rape happening or less sexual assault happening, despite the fact that, as they say in this article, the reports of sexual assaults on campuses are low, but the numbers also demonstrate the reports are on the rise, they are trying to find any other reason other than there are just less sexual assaults happening.
Literally, they are just refusing to accept that maybe all of their efforts over the last 10 years have amounted to anything.
Experts say schools ultimately need to do a better job of encouraging students to come forward and report a sexual assault, and they need to be more transparent.
Do you think there is any stigma attached to it anymore?
It is just all you do is talk about this, getting people to trouble.
And I agree, I think that's a great thing.
It's a really great thing.
But now you have to understand that your efforts have been successful.
But you don't want to.
Because if you do, then suddenly, well, we don't really need you to do your job anymore, do we?
Now we've kind of solved the problem to the extent that it can be solved.
So let the witch hunts commence, you fucking idiots.
We're not done with universities yet, though.
University of Michigan spends $16,000 telling students not to say offensive words like crazy.
Students at the University of Michigan encounter banners and posters warning them against using non-inclusive language like, that's so gay or retarded.
The full list of inappropriate phrases includes less obviously offensive things like, I want to die.
That test raped me, and also includes downright inoffensive words like crazy and insane.
Again, I stress to the best of my knowledge, this is real.
And they do this with a campaign that says, would you say this if you knew that?
For example, would you say, I just need to work the kinks out if you knew this sentiment is rooted in racism?
Kinky hair is beautiful.
Natural hair is powerful.
Hair is political and so is the personal.
My god, it's the most feminist fucking thing I've ever heard.
This is not a political issue at all.
The getting the kinks out is nothing to do with black people's hair.
Would you say, can you teach me how to twerk if you knew that people of privilege consume, appropriate and reject what?
The culture of minority convenience.
They consume, appropriate, and then reject.
They're not appropriating then, are they?
Idiots.
But Jesus fucking Christ.
Would you say this?
Don't be a worse take some shots if you knew that my father was an alcoholic.
Well, most people's fathers aren't actually alcoholics, so it's not really something you need to worry about, is it, you fucking dingbats?
Jesus Christ, I can't believe these things.
I just, this is a university.
The campaign asks students to pledge not to say offensive things to each other.
It's reminiscent of the University of California Davis words that hurt activity, with the crucial distinction that participation in the program is voluntary.
Thank fuck.
It did cost the university $16,000 to implement though.
But my favourite bit was when university representatives stressed that the program doesn't trample anybody's free speech rights.
The program is intended to be educational, not regulatory.
Fitzgerald said of the campaign.
We hope there is only the understanding that we all participate in and have the power to influence campus culture.
Indeed.
So we must all self-censor.
We must not say things like, oh, there is a kink in this because that is racist.
But it gets better.
Asked if the campaign stifles free speech, Fitzgerald said, we believe this program has just the opposite effect.
Oh, that's right, Fitzgerald.
If you say, please don't say these words, that is just encouraging free speech.
You fucking mongoloid.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
What kind of fucking doublethink is this?
He goes on to say, and I'm going to say this in the voice I imagine him saying in, we believe it will make discourse more constructive by respecting views and perspective of others.
A campus conversation about the impact of words is a good for everyone.
Good for everyone.
Good for everyone.
Honestly, they seem like absolute fucking cultists.
Just the definition of words just doesn't matter anymore.
What matters is what they believe.
They believe it will do something.
Therefore, that doesn't matter what you say.
It doesn't matter what the effect is, doesn't matter what the rational way of looking at this is.
They believe it.
And so, fuck your opinions.
You're joining the cult whether you like it or not.
So that's the roundup of what's been happening in academia.
That is the intelligentsia that is conditioning the next generation to be absolute psychotic freaks.
Let's see what's going on with the politicians.
How about this?
MPs call for Facebook and Twitter trolls to be silenced with an internet Asbo.
Oh yeah, because we know how well ASBOs worked in the real world.
An internet Asbo doesn't go any way to show that MPs are completely out of touch with the real world as well.
A group of MPs has called for people spreading abuse on social media websites to be slapped with an internet ASBO, which would ban them from using Facebook and Twitter.
You know what, dipshits?
I think Facebook and Twitter already do that.
I think it's about as effective as you'd expect because they can, believe it or not, just register a new fucking account.
The panel argues that there was a rise in incidents against Jews in the past year, noting that Hitler and Holocaust were among the top 35 keywords used on Twitter last summer.
And there is only one way to talk about Hitler and the Holocaust, and that is in abject glowing terms.
Complete, unflappable support.
If you are going to mention Hitler and the holocaust, you must be in support of these things, otherwise why would you even talk about them?
Checkmates, holocaust deniers?
The report reads, if it can be proven in a detailed way that someone has made a considered and determined view to exploit various online networks to harm and perpetrate hate crimes against others, the accepted principles, rules and restrictions are that relevant to sex offences must surely apply, Which is great, but the very next question is also, how is this going to be fucking policed?
Given the scale of social media content produced on a daily, let alone minute by minute basis, we have some albeit limited sympathy for the companies that are responsible for hosting it.
Whilst there is rightly an expectation on the companies to act, there is also on government police and prosecuting authorities, so too civil society has a crucial role to play.
In other words, they have no fucking idea how they intend to police this.
As things stand at the moment, people have to report it when they see it and that is probably the best way it can possibly be done.
This is in fact exactly how much they don't know what the fuck to do.
David Cameron, who has recently called for an online panic button to curb the threat of terrorism, however that's going to work, described the report as hugely important.
Yes, I'm sure it is hugely important.
But nobody seems to have an answer.
No one understands what to do.
So why are you doing anything?
You look like you're fucking flailing.
Okay, so British MPs are retarded.
What about an international news?
Kiev MPs trying to fool US Senator with proof of Russian tanks in Ukraine.
MPs in Kiev hoodwinked a US senator presenting his office with photos of columns of Russian military hardware allegedly roaming Ukrainian territory.
I want to stress just how big a deal this is.
If the Americans had bought into this hookline in Sinka, we would currently be in the middle of World War III.
The photos were presented to the Armed Services Committee from a delegation from the Ukraine in December.
Thankfully someone decided to check this, and it turns out the images of the Russian convoys turned out to be taken years ago in the 2008 Georgia-South Ossetia war.
The Ukrainian parliament members who gave us these photos in print form as if it came directly from a camera really did themselves a disservice, Senator Inhofe said in a statement.
I was furious to learn that one of the photos provided now appears to be falsified from an AP photo taken in 2008.
But just because they've been caught out with their bullshit doesn't mean that he can't toe the political line.
At the same time, the revealed forgery, apparently, doesn't change the fact that there is plenty of evidence Russia has made advances into the country with T-72's tanks and that pro-Russian separatists have been killing Ukrainians in cold blood, the senator maintains.
Well, where's the evidence for that?
The evidence, you know, the evidence that would support this statement.
Because I've seen no evidence of Russian tanks rolling through Ukraine, and you've seen no evidence of Russian tanks rolling through Ukraine from your own words here, so why are you saying it?
The Washington Freebeaan said that it regrets the error and claims that it has obtained new exclusive photos of Russian military forces that have been involved in arming and training of the eastern Ukraine self-defense militia.
The new photos allegedly taken between August 24th and September the 5th in the midst of the Russian-backed incursion into eastern Ukraine clearly display Russian troops entering Ukraine with advanced military hardware and weapons.
And you know what, that's not even beyond the realms of possibility.
It's entirely possible that they've done that.
The thing is, you can't prove it.
And if you could prove it, you would prove it.
Especially given the American push to try and arm the Ukrainians, which just in case anyone forgets, are currently ruled by an ultra-nationalist coalition and are quite happy to lie to the American government in order to serve their own political agenda.
And don't think that the Americans aren't considering arming Ukrainian troops.
You know, I'm sure you remember CNN apologising for calling Ukrainian troops pro-US forces in their graphic here.
The apology was, the debate in the Western capitals is actually whether the United States and other NATO countries should send arms to the Ukrainian military, which is trying to protect its territory from separatists, whom the government in Kiev says are backed by Russia.
The recipients of any military equipment and aid would be the national military of Ukraine and certainly not pro-US troops.
I regret that error, but it's not really your fault, because what I think we've seen here is the terminology of the establishment leaking out into the public domain.
And I don't think there can be any doubt that there are definitely forces in governments that are currently cooperating together trying to encourage a war with Russia.
Let's not forget last week's attempts at claiming that Putin had autism.
I don't know about you, but I'm finding very little of what any of them say believable.
Okay, so agenda-driven idiots from the political establishment are trying to drive us into World War III.
Let's see what the plebs have been doing.
50 Shades of Abuse.
Protesters demonstrate outside UK Premier, claiming explicit film glamorises domestic violence.
I know enough about 50 Shades of Grey to know that it is not domestic violence that it glamorises.
If it's glamorising anything, it's BDSM.
But what's the betting that these protesters are feminists?
Feminist campaigners called it, 50 Shades is Domestic Abuse, say the novel dangerously romanticises the idea that women can fix broken men.
A handful of men and women stood outside the central London Premiere in Leicester Square today, unfurling a banner that called Christian Grey a rapist, as stars made their way along the rape carpet.
Oh, for fuck's sake, I've got to now defend 50 Shades of Grey because these idiots, these censorship-happy idiots, are just unable to just fuck off and leave people alone.
Don't tell me, this is what a feminist looks like.
Defending the film on the red carpet, Dakota Johnson, who plays Anastasia Steele, worst name ever, said she wanted the demonstrators to see the movie.
I don't think they're going to do that, love.
There is no part of the movie where Anastasia is abused.
All the choices she makes are her choices, and it's all consensual.
God damn it, you don't understand, Dakota.
That makes Christine Gray a rapist.
Natalie Collins, some absolute pleb who runs the campaign group 50 Shades is Domestic Abuse, said the story portrays an abusive relationship.
To which everyone is like, so fucking what, Natalie?
It's a story.
She said that if readers considered the lead character Christine Grey's behaviour out of context, it would appear extremely alarming rather than alluring.
Yes, but it's not real and it is in fact a rape fantasy.
A rape fantasy that a lot of women are enjoying.
So why don't you fucking let them enjoy it?
Because ultimately, it's not real and everyone knows it.
In fact, one of the major complaints men tend to have about Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey and all that sort of stuff is that the main character's behaviour, Christine Gray's behaviour, is freakish and they don't want any part of it.
It makes them uncomfortable, but it makes women wet.
So you explain it to me.
What really annoys me about this is the conflation of this lifestyle with domestic violence, which it absolutely is not.
Miss Collins, who is a consultant working to the end of the abuse of women, which good luck with that, said that after reading all three books she was left deeply concerned about the amount of domestic violence that was being romanticized and celebrated.
There was not domestic violence in 50 Shades of Grey.
I have read parts of it, I've been told about the story, and it's not domestic violence, it's just fucking fetish.
That's it.
I fucking hate these moralizing puritans who can't seem to separate fancy from reality and one person's particular choices from their own.
Of course, the double think is real.
It's not about censorship.
What are you complaining about?
What are you complaining?
Are you trying to raise awareness?
Well, awareness raised.
Now piss off.
Let these poor people enjoy their porn in peace.
She further expressed her concerns that the franchise had become a part of everyday life, with some cinemas even hosting mummy and baby screenings.
Wait, what?
What?
Mummy and baby screenings of 50 Shades of Grey?
Moving on.
After the recent Black Lives Matter protests, there is a new brownie troop in Oakland.
Instead of selling cookies, they are spreading a message.
Oh good God, I know exactly where this is going.
On a Saturday afternoon in Oakland, a handful of 8 to 10 year old girls are gathered, in brown uniforms, giggling and eating cupcakes.
They look like Girl Scouts, but it's not just fun and games.
No, it's also conditioning them to be racists and to think exclusively along racial lines.
White policemen are killing black young folks such as women, men and children, one of the girls said.
Yeah, white policemen do that.
Black policemen don't kill anyone, ever.
Another girl said, Mike Brown, he was shot because he didn't do nothing.
Is that why he was shot?
Don't get me wrong, I'm the first person to criticise the American police for their heavy-handed tactics, but they weren't driving by and said, hey look, there's a black guy doing nothing.
Let's fucking shoot him.
He goes on to say, only the police officer shot him because of his skin colour, which actually isn't true.
The officer actually did have a tussle with Mike Brown before Mike Brown rounded on the officer and then they had an engagement and then Mike Brown was shot.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's good or bad, but I am saying it wasn't over nothing.
These girls are called the radical brownies and instead of learning sewing, they're learning social justice.
Well, I'm not surprised you may as well get to them while they're young and properly indoctrinate them into your fucking cult.
Even their uniforms have a message.
The beret, it's a Black Panther Brown Beret twist, said one of the radical brownies.
I think it's very appropriate.
A lot of work the Black Panthers did was community oriented.
Radical Brownies co-founder Marilyn Hollandquest told KPIX5.
Yeah, I mean if you can ignore the racially motivated murders, then yeah, I mean a lot of the work they did was community oriented.
Hollenquest and her friend Martinez co-founded the group about a month ago after their daughter Kwataloop told that she wanted to join a girls group.
So yeah, if yeah, you want to join a girls group, well you know what we should do?
We should start a radical sect where we indoctrinate kids to hate whitey.
That seems pretty reasonable and normal, doesn't it?
I mean I don't see any problem with that.
How amazing would it be to have a girls troop that was really focused around social justice and where the girls could even earn badges, Martinez said.
Yeah I definitely think having a troop where the girls are indoctrinated with social justice lies and half-truths at best is not going to cause problems further down the road at all.
The girls felt really just like passionate about the topic and loved being there, Martinez said, which completely validates everything.
I mean if they enjoy being part of a cult then that makes it okay to be part of a cult.
When asked about the big issues they're tackling, Martinez says, they're big issues, but we also feel like they're conversations they are not too young to be having.
Of course they are.
They have no idea what they're fucking talking about, and they're just parroting your bullshit back at you.
They have no idea.
The radical brownies have triggered, unsurprisingly, an avalanche of criticism online.
This being part of it.
With some accusing the group of brainwashing.
No.
There's no way that could be the case.
I mean these young girls are really concerned about social justice.
All eight-year-olds are.
We did strike a nerve.
We definitely did strike a nerve.
HollandQuest said.
Yes, because you're brainwashing young girls.
But HollandQuest said they are not telling the girls what to think.
Bollocks.
Absolutely fucking bollocks.
The kids wouldn't be thinking anything of the sort if you weren't telling them what to think.
Kids already understand fairness and unfairness, so we take that understanding at an age-appropriate level, she said.
Bollocks!
Bollocks, do you?
The girls said they feel like they're a sisterhood.
It's really good for me because it brings out who I am, one of the girls said in the creepiest way possible, I can only presume.
Holy shit, why is this allowed to be happening?
Why is this allowed to be taking place?
Shouldn't the authorities be saying, listen, you have to stop brainwashing these children?
Because that's clearly what you're fucking doing.
But of course, they are planning to start other chapters.
The Radical Brownies Facebook page received 10,000 likes, and there have been requests from as far away as France and Bermuda to start chapters there.
Well, that's brilliant.
I just don't know why people would be complaining about radicalizing young girls.
I just can't imagine why that's an issue.
It must be the white men of the patriarchy complaining about it, right?
Oh, that's all it is.
And what do white men of the patriarchy know?
They're just here to oppress you.
They're just going to shoot you because of your skin colour.
So fucking be radicals.
▲
Export Selection