All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 24, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
59:34
This Week in Stupid (22⧸02⧸2015)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 22nd of February 2015.
This week we will see that there are extremists on all sides.
But first, some pop culture.
Beards and armpits.
The silly sexism of The Walking Dead.
Feminism isn't just about first world problems.
It's just mostly about first world problems.
Before we go on, I will say that I am someone who watches The Walking Dead, although I wouldn't necessarily classify myself as a fan of it.
There's too much really poor writing for that to be the case.
I might actually do a casual video addressing the issues with the writing in The Walking Dead at some point in the future, actually.
The article starts as a means to go on.
The Walking Dead, like any show, has its problems.
While it is one of the most diverse shows on television, many have criticised its revolving door of people of colour.
Killing one off before adding the next, as if having too many non-white people on screen at one time would be too much.
You're a fucking moron.
You just said it's one of the most diverse shows on television, as if they've gone out of their way to make it as diverse as possible.
As if the writers somehow wrote the script as it is and then looked back and thought, we have too many black people on screen, I can't believe we accidentally wrote so many black people on screen.
Let's kill some of them.
Just you fucking whining idiots.
That's what you are, a whining fucking idiot.
And we are one sentence into this article.
And while there are lots of women on screen, including women of colour, there is another small thing that continues to irk me when I tune in every Sunday.
You're getting exactly what you want.
Exactly what you want.
A very diverse show that has lots of women, including women of colour, who kick ass.
It's literally not possible to pander to your progressive sensibilities any more than they have done, and you're still going to complain.
And it's not just a small thing, really.
It's a giant fucking article on this tiny issue that you have written.
It makes you look like a pathological whinger.
But anyway, Rick Darrell and the other dudes look fit for an apocalypse.
Their scruffy faces get scruffier every season, and the flashbacks to the smooth-faced Sheriff Rick of season one are almost shocking in their stark difference.
Why is that a problem?
Well, you already know why that's a problem.
So why then?
If the dudes are forced to wander around the ruins of the US with castaway beards, do the ladies have underarms as smooth as baby Judith's cheek?
Yes, someone puts metaphorical pen to paper to complain about this.
The answer is of course, shut up, nobody gives a fuck.
You child trapped in an adult body.
It's a small beef I know, but one that is repeated in too many post-apocalyptic science fiction and dystopian films to go unnoticed.
It's not that it doesn't go unnoticed, it's that nobody cares.
In the last episode of The Walking Dead, the group couldn't even find water.
You mean to tell me that women not only shaved but dry shaved?
No, I can't believe that.
I don't think any woman would be that desperate.
That is really the stupidest and most petty thing to notice in that episode.
It was an awful episode for multiple reasons.
The fact that they had shaved their armpits being the least of them.
The fact that the group was saved not by one, not by two, but by three.
Deus ex machinas is the problem with that episode.
But no, it's the fact that women don't have hairy armpits that is the suspension of disbelief breaking problem with the episode for you.
Part of this problem is the writers.
I could find reference to only three woman writers in a list of over 20 accredited for The Walking Dead.
Much has been written about the mixed results of male writers painting female characters, and we see the results in the media we consume every day.
Female characters who are unrelatable and lacking complexity who shave their armpits during the zombie apocalypse.
Hey idiot, did you miss the part of your own article where you lauded them for Michonne kicking ass as well as kicking the ass of stereotyped writing?
But it's not just the male writers of course.
Of course it's not.
Even many female writers wouldn't stop and think, hey wait, the women should be fuzzier.
No they don't.
Not everyone agrees with your ridiculous feminist shit.
Some people were focused on the bits that are important, like the group looking for water.
That is the important bit in that scene, you fucking idiot.
The thing is this article just keeps getting better and better.
In the past, I've written about the limits of the white imagination when it comes to imagining characters of colour in fictional worlds.
And the same is true for the collective imagination when it comes to women.
Our imaginations are stunted by the isms of our time.
The white imagination.
I can't believe this racist bullshit is given a platform.
We're not done though.
Perhaps this is why there are so few stories, books and film that tell the stories of women and people of colour in worlds beyond our own.
Maybe they should fucking write them love.
Maybe it's actually not someone else's job to write fiction that you would like to see exist.
Maybe it's your fucking job.
You insanely entitled bint.
Whether the scenario is alien invasion, zombie apocalypse or government gone mad, the story tends to center on white men, with everyone else in their role rotating around them in their, quote, proper place.
Who are you fucking quoting?
Who fucking said that?
Nobody.
That's who.
You fucking made this shit up.
That's what.
Would it be a stretch to point out that Glenn in The Walking Dead is the least bearded of the men in the cast?
A reminder of the traditional emasculation of Asian men in American media.
What are you fucking talking about?
He just doesn't have much of a beard.
You mental.
You absolute fucking mental.
But this, this is the best bit of this entire article.
This is why I never stop hunting for science fiction and post-apocalyptic fiction that gives a glimpse of another vision of the future.
Kenyan short film Poomsie is one.
Really, is it full of Kenyan people?
Being that it was made in Kenya, shot in Kenya, and set in Kenya?
Perhaps the upcoming sci-fi romance out of Ethiopia crumbs is another.
Is that set in Ethiopia?
It's that majority Ethiopian.
Is there any fucking chance?
Anything by Nindendi Akafara, which I think is probably an African name.
Anything by Octavia Butler?
I don't know who that is.
I'm not clicking a fucking link.
Chang Rai Li's recent book on such a full C re, is it set in the Orient by any chance?
I mean, are we starting to see why this is the case?
I mean, you say, there are others, but there are not enough.
It sounds like there are fucking plenty.
But why don't you just admit to us exactly what your problem is?
She goes on to say that our sexism and racism is ingrained in us.
No.
Your sexism and racism is ingrained in you.
Because, like all social justice warriors, everything you say is fucking projection.
You are the one who wrote an article talking exclusively about women in The Walking Dead and how many black people there are in Walking Dead and the limits of the white imagination.
It's your racism, you fucknut.
I didn't write this article, you fucking did.
And it's this article that, the roborous, that is, social justice, is kind of just showing why Harriet Harmon is so out of her depth when it comes to modern feminism.
Because Harriet Harmon's Barbie bus, the new face of feminism, is an attempt to empower women to do something.
And she's attempting to do it by appealing to what she sees as being traditionally female.
Harmon is an idiot politician, not an idiot academic.
A pink bus?
On a campaign for women, Harriet?
Women are allowed to like pink, but why didn't you use any other colour?
Pink's just a colour.
Anyone could have used any colour.
But the very notion of using pink.
Oh, that's stereotypical now, Harriet.
So this brilliant idea was probably Harriet Harmon's, an attempt to bring politics to the schoolgate and shopping centre by sending a fleet of these pink transit vans up and down the country to try and encourage women voters to vote Labour.
Apparently pink is a colour reserved exclusively for Barbie now because it's not Barbie themed, but with its bizarre Barbie theme, this campaign represents another van-based faux pas from the Labour Party, only this time the vehicle in question is pink.
Labour's assumption is that an eye-catching shade and a few cups of tea with the local shopping centre will pull women into the polling stations, and it's been met with fierce criticism.
There were cries of sexism on Twitter.
Fucking told you.
While The Guardian claimed that the campaign was patronising, because these people are never fucking happy.
Harmon's girly campaign was remarkably out of step with the current PC hatred of reinforcing gender norms.
But it beggars belief that this misjudged campaign was ever allowed to roll off the forecourt.
Yeah, I agree.
I mean, I can't believe that she would have thought that this was a good idea.
Feminists hate the colour pink, especially when women use it, because that is a gender norm, apparently, and for some reason that is a bad thing.
But as ever, Twitter's feminist critics are missing the crucial point here.
I'm sure they are.
I've got no doubt they are, and I'm sure that this is going to explain to us exactly what the point was.
Harmon's campaign isn't dangerous because of its colour scheme, but because it attempts to isolate women as some kind of special interest group with needs, demands and aspirations separate to those of society as a whole.
How could they be anything else?
How could you suggest that women's needs and aspirations are exactly the same as all of society?
What you're saying is men's needs and aspirations.
How could they be the same?
How could that be the case?
It's not about gender norms, it's about gender reality.
Women want and need different things to men on average.
I don't know why that's a bad thing, but apparently it is.
And the fact that you point this out is what they hate, Harriet.
They absolutely hate reality being pointed out to them.
They do, however, have a very accurate view of who feminists are and who they represent.
The new generation of hashtag wielding feminists are largely young and middle class, swapping their sexual identity and political affiliations as often as they do their androgynous hairstyles.
Working class women are largely non-plussed by trendy feminist campaigns.
They're not non-plussed.
They think they're fucking stupid.
They want equality, not a safe space to breastfeed in clarities.
You mean they are the actual feminists here.
What's more, they want to say in how society as a whole is run, not just how they as women are treated.
So you are literally saying that they are the actual feminists by definition.
In other feminist-related news, Mel B of the Spice Girls is the latest celebrity to say, look, I'm not a crazy man-hater.
Another day, another woman who says she's not a feminist because she doesn't really seem to understand what feminism is.
I disagree with you.
I think that she knows exactly what feminism is.
Quoting Mel B, she says, I wouldn't call myself a feminist.
I try to live by the girl power motto.
It's about believing in yourself no matter how bad a day you're having and lending your support to other women.
It's empowering to have that camaraderie with other women.
You'll notice, feminists, is that she didn't use the word men.
She didn't mention race.
She didn't say anything about oppression.
She just said, I'm going to be the best person I can be.
Which is why she's not a fucking feminist.
Of course, the author of this article can't see that.
And she says, funny, that sounds like exactly what feminism's all about.
No, it's not.
No, it's not.
She never said anything about the patriarchy.
She never said anything about white men man spreading on the train.
How is this anything to do with feminism?
Nothing about what she said is anything that feminists ever talk about.
But then she says, it's not a dirty word people.
Well, really depends who you are.
If you're a sociopathic ideologue who sits in an echo chamber all day, you probably think feminism is a great word.
If you're someone on the outside of that, well.
But she's not the only person who's not being a feminist online.
Feminist writers are so besieged by online abuse that some have begun to retire.
As well they would.
I mean if I considered people disagreeing with me as abuse, I'd probably retire too.
The first sentence shows us exactly why so many women are refusing to identify as feminists.
Jessica Valenti is one of the most successful and visible feminists of her generation.
No need to go on.
I know exactly what the problem is here.
So stories today about internet abuse inevitably elicit cliches about heat and kitchens, demands that women toughen up and grow thicker skin.
And why would they do that?
Why would they have to be?
I mean, it's not like, oh wait, punditry and activism, after all, are relatively cushy gigs.
Yes, yes they are.
And I absolutely love this.
Reading nasty virtual tweets is far better than being an undocumented immigrant, trying to feed your family in America, or somebody who's wrongfully incarcerated, or any of the issues I used to work on, acknowledges Sally Cohn, a Daily Beast columnist, who they then try and portray as a victim, saying she was previously the only left-wing lesbian feminist contributor at Fox News, making her an especial target for trolls.
Yes, but we just established that being a target for trolls really isn't that big a deal.
Punditry and activism after all are relatively cushy gigs, aren't they?
Once a woman is singled out by a men's rights group such as A Voice for Men, the misogynist Reddit Forum, The Red Pill, or even just a right-wing Twitter account like Twitchy, never heard of that, she is deluged with hatred.
The barrage in addition to scarring its target serves as a warning to onlookers.
Fucking hell, disagreements are so troubling.
If only the feminists could wipe them out for good.
Remember, feminists already know everything there is to know about anything that they're talking about, so you talking back to them is misogyny and hatred.
They are talking at you and you would do well to listen.
Philip Ovik, the former editor of the blog Feministe, says, I doubt myself a lot more.
You read enough times that you're a terrible person and an idiot, and it's very hard not to stop believing that maybe they see something that you don't.
What did I tell you?
Not only do they know everything, but they are totally self-aware as well.
Women who want to brave the toxic stew face a dilemma.
Online, the easiest way to get their message out is to make it personal.
From Dunham to Sandra Fluke to Emma Solkowitz, the most prominent feminist figures of recent years have all fiddled with kids.
I mean opened their lives to public scrutiny.
I have tried to mentor a couple of young female writers, Valenti says.
They were trying so hard to get their first pieces published.
And when they write something about their vagina, all of a sudden the doors open up.
Well, what can we say?
Feminists are interested in talking about their vaginas.
Honestly, look at any feminist art and it's invariably going to involve a vagina.
Which is weird because art made by the patriarchy rarely centers around penises.
I said rarely, Jacques Louis David.
For fuck's sake, they weren't naked at Thermopylae.
So on to education.
Physics teacher develops units about racism, white privilege and social justice.
After feminist biology, it was only a matter of time, really.
John Burke, a physics and math teacher in Delaware, wrote on his blog that he met a physics teacher, Moses Rifkin, at the University of Prep in Seattle at a people of colour conference.
Well, I can see where this is going already.
I learned about the incredible unit he teaches his senior physics students that brilliantly brings lessons about social justice, privilege and institutional racism into the physics classroom and leads to an immeasurable change in student understanding and attitudes about this subject.
Sick.
Which means that's how he wrote it because he's a fucking moron, bringing ideology into a physics classroom where it is simply not needed or even relevant to the fucking subject.
Rifkin wrote a series of guest posts for Burke's blog, Quantum Progress, and writes that he felt jealous of my colleagues in English and History, who got to talk every day in class about society and how it worked, and how to be moral, caring, and kind.
Honestly, I...
Yeah, social justice is about being moral, caring, and kind.
It's absolutely about that, nothing else.
I mean, just as an example, let's take this social justice healer, who's too polite and kind and made the incredibly successful Stop Gamergates 2014 hashtag, which absolutely stopped Gamergate dead in its tracks.
His idea of social justice is saying things like this.
The lives of people of colour are more important than the lives of white people.
I'm sure that is objectively true.
Just like it's true when he says racism towards white people does not exist.
Sexism towards men does not exist.
Heterophobia and cisphobia do not exist.
None of these exists.
Which is incredibly convenient for you, Virendir Jabal.
Because if they did exist, it would make you a horrible human being.
Just, it would make you the absolute fucking scum of the earth.
But luckily, those things don't exist.
After learning about morality from social justice warriors, Rifkin explains that he is stuck because he is teaching at a private school where his students weren't learning about their own privilege, academic and in many cases, economic and racial.
And naturally, it's up to a physics teacher to teach them how, as he's found a way to introduce his students to the ideas of racial and gender privilege, to the idea that our society is far from a meritocracy, and to broaden their conception of who, racially, gender-wise, does science to include a much broader slice of society.
Well, I'm convinced, it can't possibly be a meritocracy if this cretin is allowed to teach children.
This curriculum obviously focuses on the central question of why there are so few black physicists.
My guess is going to be white men's oppressive racism.
It's interesting, but like, physics was kind of discovered by white men, mostly white German men.
What is it about Germans that makes them so racially adept at physics?
Must be all that Aryan blood.
See how these extreme progressives are just the other side of the racist coin to the neo-Nazis.
And we'll get to this later, but seriously, they absolutely are.
Rivkin explains that once his physics students discuss their findings, his goal is to help them see that the myth of meritocracy leads us to attribute characteristics to groups, maybe black students are less motivated to do well.
We end up ascribing qualities to groups for reasons that are beyond their control.
The unbelievable irony is that you're already doing that anyway.
You're saying that they're economically disadvantaged, which is of course a reason beyond their control, or that they are fucking institutionally discriminated against, which is again a reason beyond their control.
So anything that you suggest for this kind of quote-unquote oppression is going to be beyond their fucking control.
It's got less to do with meritocracy as it does explaining the circumstances around us.
Further reading Riff Kinner Science's Physics class is Peggy McIntosh's White Privilege, Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.
He also recommends that students listen to the song White Privilege by McElmore for further scientific study.
I will get to Peggy Macintosh at some point.
Her white privilege unpacking the invisible knapsack is basically what Jonathan McIntosh ripped off for his 25 invisible benefits of gaming while male.
And they're all weasel words.
They all fall apart under any kind of scrutiny.
So after teaching your kids to be racist, now they're going to teach them to be sexist.
Discrimination against women is a real problem in college admissions.
How could they be discriminating against women in college admissions?
Just for fun, why don't you pause it here and see if you can just think about the logic involved to make it so that now women are being discriminated against by universities.
What if I told you that women make up 59% of all college students?
In 2011 they earned 62% of all associate degrees, 57% of all bachelor's degrees, and 60% of all master's degrees.
They now even earn the majority of doctorates.
Time's up.
Women are so dominant that colleges, particularly private colleges, overtly or covertly give men a boost in the admissions process.
That's right.
Affirmative action has come around to bite women in the ass because, or feminists, should I say, most women didn't ask for this.
It's come around to bite feminists in the ass because now women are being discriminated against because they've been too damn successful.
And if you want equality, 50-50 equality, now you actually do have to discriminate against women.
And this is what the feminists asked for.
Well fucking done, you idiots.
It's rare, but some admissions directors or college presidents publicly admit that they're harder on women applicants because they want a gender balance.
It's hilarious because I remember when I first went to university and people were complaining, and I was probably one of them, that quotas for women were discriminatory and they literally left men out of certain subjects and fields because of their gender, not based on their merits or anything like that, even though they may have been better qualified.
Is that fair?
And they literally write here, the elephant that looms large in the middle of the room is the importance of gender balance.
Should it trump the qualifications of talented young female applicants?
I have your answer, Brits.
Fucking yes, and shut your fucking mouth.
This is what you fucking asked for.
This is what you have.
Be careful what you wish for, you dipshit.
I'm sorry, but this really pisses me off.
Because this is what everyone was complaining about to start with.
It was obviously the wrong thing to do.
But oh, when it's in women's favour, it's alright.
It's just fine to do it.
Now it's hurting them.
Oh, this needs to be stopped.
No, fuck you.
Gender preferences in college admissions are frequently described as affirmative action for men.
But that's not really accurate.
At least not the way affirmative action works for systems for other groups.
What colleges really have are quota systems for women.
Hey, they do.
They absolutely did have quota systems for women.
And now there are too many women.
So what you get is affirmative action for men.
Tough fucking shit.
I don't want to sound like an MRA, but they're not even doing this for the benefit of the men.
The rationale isn't that male applicants need a leg up because they're at some kind of disadvantage, even though they might be.
It's much simpler.
Colleges don't want too many women on campus because they're afraid that a college that's too female will struggle to attract both men and women.
Once you become decidedly female in enrolment, fewer males and, as it turns out, fewer females find your campus attractive.
So now that universities have taught students to be racist and sexist, why not just teach them not to worry about free speech as well?
Universities are right and within their rights to crack down on speech and behaviour, students today are more like children than adults and need protection.
By Eric Posner.
We'll get back to who he is.
So universities have strengthened rules prohibiting offensive speech typically targeted at racial, ethnic and sexual minorities, taking it upon themselves to issue trigger warnings to students when courses offer content that might accept them and ban sexual acts that fall short of rape.
Hmm.
I wonder what that might be.
How drunk is too drunk to have sex?
Well, apparently any amount of drunkenness is too drunk these days.
Conservatives and libertarians are up in arms.
They see these rules as an assault on free speech and individual liberty.
They think universities are treating students like children.
And they are right.
But they have also not considered the justification for these policies may lie hidden in plain sight.
That students are children.
No, they are fucking not.
Whether they are mature or not, they are not fucking children.
And if they are children at 19, 20, 21 years old, then we really need to address the parents that raised them.
Even in college, they must be protected like children while being prepared to be adults.
How is that going to work?
How is that going to raise thinking, intelligent human beings?
How is that going to prepare them for the real world in any way?
There is a popular romantic notion that students receive their university education through free and open debate about the issues of the day.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Don't I know it.
Students who enter college know hardly anything at all.
That's why they need an education.
You've kind of missed the spirit of the popular romantic notion there.
The point is to be able to have a free and lively discourse approaching issues from multiple directions to make sure that they are solid, to make sure they don't have any cracks in them, weaknesses that can be exploited to break them down, to make sure that they are in fact correct.
But instead, teachers are dictators who carefully control what students say to one another.
That's not just sincere expressions of opinion about same-sex marriage or campaign finance reform that are out of place in chemistry and math class.
They're out of place even in philosophy and politics classes where the goal is to educate students, not to listen to them spout off.
Brilliant.
That is just brilliant.
That is exactly the kind of attitude I think universities should have.
And while professors sometimes believe there's pedagogical value in allowing students to express their political opinions in the context of some text, professors, or at least good professors, carefully manipulate their students so that the discussion serves pedagogical ends.
Really, good professors carefully manipulate their students, do they?
Is that really how it's supposed to work, is it?
And here we come to the crux of the issue.
Many critics discern this transformation but misinterpret it.
They complain that universities are treating adults like children.
The problem is that universities have been treating children like adults.
Yeah, yeah, that is the problem.
Treating children like adults is exactly what universities have been doing.
As if 19, 20, 21 year old people aren't adults.
College students have not always enjoyed so much autonomy.
Modern freedoms of college students date back to the 1960s, when a wave of anti-authoritarianism inspired by the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement swept away campus codes in an era of single-sex dorms.
Brilliant.
I mean that is definitely something that the author doesn't approve of.
We need that authoritarianism back.
The modern speech and sex codes have resurfaced as those waters recede back into the sea.
What's most interesting is that this reaction comes not from parents and administrators, but from students themselves, who, apparently recognizing that their parents and schools have not fully prepared them for independence, want universities to resume their traditional role and loco parentis.
Really?
Fucking really.
I wonder where they're getting these ideas from.
Maybe these students are just coming up with it for themselves.
Except, hang on, you did say that universities weren't the place for students to just exchange ideas and think for themselves.
They were to be dictated to by the tyrants of the fucking classroom.
Apparently, libertarians should take heart that the market in education offers students a diverse assortment of ideological cultures in which they can be indoctrinated.
Fucking.
Are you serious?
Conservatives should rejoice that moral instruction and social control have been reintroduced to universities after a 40-year drought.
Unfucking believable.
Unbelievable.
This is a fucking apology for the authoritarian left and their dictatorial control of higher education and the brainwashing they admit they have done to students which has caused the students to demand by their own volition apparently this authoritarian culture.
And who wrote this?
Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law.
Oh, someone who is a primary beneficiary of this culture.
One of the dictatorial fucking professors who is interested in social control and indoctrinating your children into ideologies.
Do you know how this shit manifests itself?
Here we go.
Student banned from areas of campus for resembling classmates rapist.
It's a collection of words I never thought I would ever see written down.
This is going to be a long episode of This Week in Stupid because last week was really fucking stupid.
Professor Janet Halley wrote a piece for Harvard Law Review that she had recently assisted a student who had been ordered to stay away from a fellow student, cutting him off from his housing, campus and educational opportunity, all because he reminded her of a man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away.
Well fuck me, it's a good thing we've got these authoritarian tinpo dictator professors telling students how to act because otherwise this injustice might not have happened and that poor girl might have had to have dealt with her problems like a fucking adult.
The accused, he hasn't been accused of anything, he just looks like this guy, had to endure a month-long investigation into all his campus relationships seeking information about his possible sexual misconduct in them, which she called an immense invasion of his and his friends' privacy, because it was.
Even after this invasive and completely unwarranted investigation completely cleared him of any wrongdoing, he still wasn't allowed to go anywhere near the student he was being accused by without risking punishment from the school.
Unfucking believable.
Or at least it would be in any other society.
It's devastating to think of a student being unable to walk around campus without having to risk being traumatized by reminders of her rape.
But restricting a totally innocent student from walking around campus because he looks like the person who raped her is obviously unacceptable.
I think you actually mean fucking evil.
I mean this is the sort of thing that Khmer Rouge would have done.
Oh look there's a guy with glasses.
He looks like he might learn something.
Fucking ridiculous.
It's time to start treating students like fucking adults.
And if they don't like it, well that's too damn bad.
And we finally come to my criticism of the right wing.
And I tell you what, I'm finding the right wing a lot more palatable these days because they're not really causing any significant damage.
They're not really in control of anything.
The extremists on the right wing look like a bunch of fucking loons because what they do has been proven to be fucking crazy.
The extremists on the left are the ones doing all the damage to society at the moment.
But some idiot vandals target Hindu temple by spray-painting a swastika on the side.
Those fucking idiots.
Jesus fucking this is moronic.
The appropriate response from the Hindus was probably, thank you.
The swastika was found spray-painted across the Bothel Hindu Temple Cultural Centre on Sunday morning along with the words get out, which actually kind of makes a coherent message.
Given that the swastika is an ancient Hindu symbol, then yeah, I guess it could mean, you know, that could be a shorthand for Hindu, I suppose.
Not that these Cretans would have meant that.
And nearby Skyview Junior High School is the target of a second attack, believed to be carried out by the same person, because they're stupid as well, with a swastika and Muslims get out, scroll across the outside of one of its buildings.
This is also an actual coherent sentence.
If the swastika is meant to represent Hindus, Hindus have got no love for Muslims, so yeah, that kind of makes sense.
I imagine that the idiots mistook the Hindus for Muslims, because the Bothel Hindu Temple has been there for more than 20 years and we've never had any issues, so I have no idea I was surprised, said one of the members of the temple.
And I'm surprised too, to be honest.
Hindus like Sikhs, they're very polite and nice people.
We have a lot of Hindus in Britain and you wouldn't know it judging by the news reports.
I give this a 2 out of 10 for ideological message.
If you'd written Muslims get out of a Hindu temple, it would have made sense.
And 1 out of 10 for artistic flair.
Fucking abysmal.
And finally this week, you may be familiar with a video I did previously in regards to Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer, where he asked me to address my support for Pakistani child rape.
And I think ultimately they kind of wanted me to join them.
Well, I didn't and I told them that I spend enough time addressing racists anyway, I'm hardly going to then become one.
Also, how the fuck dare you suggest I support Pakistani child rape and morons?
So Andrew Anglin's response was to write an article called, Sargon of Akkad is just a social justice warrior who hates women.
I don't think that's a thing, Andrew, you half-wit.
Social justice warriors are all feminists.
I rather get the feeling you don't know what a social justice warrior is.
He says, so Sargon of Akkad responded to my essay, criticising his video wherein he laid exclusive blame for the Rotherham Pakistani child rape scandal on British political correctness.
And we have immediately scuffed over a bunch of details.
No, Andrew, I'm not saying that the reason these men raped these children was due to political correctness.
That would be a moronic thing to say, which is presumably why you've said it, you dullard.
I imagine that these men did what they did to get their fucking legs over, because they wanted a shag.
The reason that 1,400 children were molested by these men is because of political correctness.
This is categorical.
There is no doubting this from the findings of the investigation, from the interviews with the people who were tasked with making sure this sort of thing didn't go under the radar.
They said their reasons were due to political correctness.
And my response was much more hostile than he had expected.
Given that Andrew didn't really understand, I was as much of a liberal as I am.
Well, I would say I probably am fairly liberal.
And I spend a lot of time criticising the extreme progressive left, which is probably why Andrew thought I wasn't a liberal.
Again, that whole nuance thing is a bit of an issue for him.
But apparently I'm not a reactionary.
I'm simply a social justice warrior, an SJW, not an A-SJW.
I don't know if you know how English works, Andrew, but you only use an when it's a vowel or a silent letter.
But anyway, carry on.
A social justice warrior who hates women.
As if there is such a fucking thing.
And this is Andrew's gotcha argument.
He says, if there aren't any Packies in Britain, there would not have been a single little girl raped by Packies, period.
There is no point at which that statement stops being true.
That's right, Andrew.
That's absolutely right.
There is no point at which that statement stops being true.
There is also no point at which that statement starts being moral.
You fucking psycho.
Andrew, you are tarring an entire ethnic group by the actions of a minority, a tiny minority within that group, a minority of criminals, Andrew.
For example, a minority of white people are sociopathic fascists like you.
I wouldn't want everyone going, well, all white people are sociopathic fascists just because Andrew Anglin is.
Do you understand me, you goddamn gibbering halfway?
This is going to be long because I have been portrayed as some sort of know-nothing fool.
I don't know how that's happened, Andrew.
One thing I will not be doing is accusing Sargon of logical fallacies and then linking to Wikipedia articles explaining them.
Holy shit, Andrew, I wonder what it says about me, that my opponents are of your caliber, Because I'm kind of disappointed in myself.
I assume that the calibre of a man's opponents really tells you a lot about the man.
And my opponents are fucking idiots.
If you are committing logical fallacies, Andrew, that means your argument is self-defeating.
It means I do not need to actually deconstruct your argument because your argument is illogical.
And showing you how your argument is illogical is my attempt to educate ostensibly you, but realistically the people watching the video, as to what fallacies you're committing and provide the information so they can look it up for themselves and double check my reasoning.
This is what we call intellectual honesty.
This is why I did it so late into the video addressing you.
I didn't do it right at the start, which would have meant it was the gotcha technique amongst pseudo-intellectuals, Andrew.
I did it towards the middle to end of the video after I'd already addressed your points, just to show you, look, your argument is not logically consistent.
So Andrew begins by saying, early on in the video, he declares that not all Muslims, I actually said Muslims, but are child rapists.
This is, of course, an obvious and obviously irrelevant fact.
No, Andrew, because like you have already stated, if there were no Pakistanis in Britain, then no child would have been raped by a Pakistani.
It's not irrelevant.
Do you see the point?
This is why your argument is immoral.
If all, when you say Muslims, what you actually mean is Pakistanis.
You were talking as a racial group, not the religion.
But my point is that if this is true, then why are you treating them all as if they are?
This is why racism is a bad thing, you idiot.
But I said that I didn't really care why they did it.
And Andrew goes on to say, it seems to me the reason they did it is something we should all be concerned about, assuming we wish to prevent it from continuing.
Unless, of course, your position is that the failure of Muslims to behave as civilized human beings while living as guests in civilized societies is entirely the responsibility of the authorities in the nation in which they reside, which bizarrely appears to be Sargon's position.
No, it doesn't, you fuck nut.
A, I think it actually is the mandate of the authorities to make sure that people live within the laws in a civilized society, which is entirely the point and why they have any kind of moral authority at all.
We as the people divest them with it.
But B, do you think that the Rotherham rape gangs were raping children for Islam?
Or is it more likely that these rape gangs were raping young girls because they were horny men without scruples who could get away with it?
You don't actually have to answer that, Andrew.
I already know that you think they were doing it for Islam.
Andrew then goes on to say he then uses articles about sex trafficking as proof that white people also do this.
And now I just want to stress that this was in direct response to Andrew's categoric statement that white people do not do this.
He then says, firstly, I find googling up a single situation where whites allegedly engage in systematic sexual abuse to be highly intellectually dishonest.
Really, finding an example of it is intellectually dishonest, is it?
And probably a violation of one of your Wikipedia links about logical fallacies.
Well, since you didn't fucking read them, how would you know?
He then spends a lot of time waffling about how Muslims hundreds of years ago spent hundreds of years raiding Europe for white sex slaves.
Well, so what?
It's not like Europeans never took any slaves.
What's your fucking point?
But I tell you what, Andrew, if you find one example highly intellectually dishonest and possibly a fallacy, what about two examples?
How about the big political cover-up of a 1980s paedophile ring in the UK Parliament?
I mean, does that count, Andrew?
What about a paedophile ring at the BBC, Andrew?
What about Jimmy Saville?
Is he white enough for you?
Or does he not count as white either?
So I mean, just a quick recap, there was an explosive dossier prepared that would blow the lid off a paedophile ring and perhaps take down some powerful, famous sex abusers who had infiltrated to the highest reaches of British life in the fucking parliament.
Or how about a paedophile ring at the BBC with Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris?
Stop me when I get to one that's white enough, Andrew.
Alright, it's not because they were Muslims that this was happening.
They weren't raping these girls for Islam, and they weren't doing it because they were fucking Pakistanis.
The problem is that when you get a situation where a certain kind of person has immunity from prosecution, in the case of the Rotherham rape gangs, it was because they were not white.
In the case of the BBC and parliamentary paedophile rings, it was because they were powerful.
They don't get prosecuted and this allows people who are unscrupulous and paedophilic to operate without being hindered.
That is the problem, you fucking idiot.
But Andrew goes, so yeah, this one time in Serbia is just a completely ridiculous response, man.
Well, that's fine, Andrew.
How about you take this one as my response?
He then goes on to say, seriously though, comparing wartime rape by any group to Rotherham is ridiculous.
Well, two things here, Andrew.
A, I didn't compare wartime rape.
I was just using the fact that white people had ordered other white people to rape Muslims, even during a war or not, is irrelevant.
I was just comparing it to being a very bad thing that white people had done.
And you just spent ages comparing what happened in Rotherham to ancient Muslim atrocities and sex slave trading.
So why don't you try thinking before you put finger to keyboard and podge out some racist bullshit?
And then he says, obviously there's no example of British people running grooming gangs, because there are no British people in parliament, Andrew.
He then says, Sargon then goes to spew the same Marxist gibberish we have heard from all the SJWs and their Frankfurt school predecessors for our entire lives.
Race and culture are two different things.
Race is something you were born with, while culture is something that just appears randomly through a process of dot dot dot whatever.
No, it's not a process of dot dot dot whatever Andrew.
It is a process of cause and effect usually over the course of hundreds if not thousands of years.
You being a man completely incapable of nuance or even a short-term memory obviously would be unable to grasp this.
My question, Andrew, is how would the Greeks have been able to adopt so many aspects of Egyptian cultural life, particularly religious cultural ceremonies, if race and culture were the same thing, you fucking tool.
Seriously, just two seconds of thought completely eradicates this idea.
Just, I mean, there are just so many fucking examples, Andrew.
Culture is something people do.
So whenever people do something different to what their ancestors did, the culture has changed.
Therefore, it can't be fucking racial, because if you check, like, genetic ancestries, most people in Britain have got the same genetic lineage as people from literally about 6,000 years ago.
The ruling elites of the country change, but the peasant stock doesn't.
And yet people in Britain don't operate in the same way as they did thousands of years ago.
There is, I just cannot understand how anyone can really hold this position.
I mean, you have to be such a died-in-the-wall racist to want to believe that.
Then Andrew says something that really perplexes me.
If race cannot be identified by a series of behaviour patterns, which produces a cultural identity, then race itself does not actually exist beyond some rather striking physical differences.
And so what we refer to as race is in fact a product of culture.
Andrew, what are you talking about?
By this definite, what you are describing is culture and not race.
Do you know this?
What you are saying here is that a black person, a black-skinned person, could be of the, say, white race.
If he acts in a white way.
If he ascribes to a cultural identity which is white.
That's how you could get, by your logic, a black-skinned white person.
You are literally just a right-wing social justice.
You are the opposite side of the coin.
And as always, you have projected this onto me.
You are, without a doubt, a social justice warrior, you fucking idiot.
In fact, let me make this crystal clear.
Culture, anthropology, the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.
That is what culture is.
And that is what you literally have just described.
And race.
Anthropology.
We're going to choose the one that most fits what I think most people are using when they refer to race.
No longer in technical use.
Any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negro.
or an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes especially formally based on any or combination of various physical characteristics such as skin colour, facial form, eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood type.
You'll note Andrew that I, like most other people when discussing this, are using the scientific terminology and classifications.
You are using the archaic, inaccurate, and maybe best described as poetic.
Any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.
Example, the Dutch race.
I say it best poetic because it's not particularly accurate.
It's not correct is what I'm saying.
Everyone else is talking anthropologically.
So yes, Andrew, I want you to understand, everyone thinks that race and culture is different.
Everyone thinks this.
Apart from the racists.
But then Andrew really, really just puts the icing on the cake.
This race is a social construct business is a rejection of the existence of genetic science and evolutionary biology in favour of a theory of magical happenings.
Andrew, you are the one saying that race is a social construct.
I am saying that race is nothing to do with society or culture.
Race is something that you are born with and it is out of your power to change.
You know, I've got no doubt that at this point everything Andrew has said in his argument I have actually debunked and refuted.
But I'm going to continue anyway because it's an interesting look into the mind of a crazy person.
Andrew says he finds it very bizarre for him to see someone who is against feminism and claims to oppose political correctness as a whole is so emotionally attached to modern liberal concepts of racial equality.
I think it's because I'm a humanist, Andrew.
In an educated man, this disconnect would have to be the result of some form of schizophrenia.
But in your case, ah, I see I'm not an educated man.
I believe it relates to a lack of information.
Andrew, you are the person lacking information.
I have demonstrated this.
You are conflating two definitions of race.
One is a scientific definition, one is a lay definition that is archaic and not used anymore.
You are using the archaic definition that is not used anymore.
I can't make it any more clear.
Andrew says that my own view as a fascist and quote horrible person as you called me, if the shoe fits, Andrew, draws from the pre-war, that is, pre-Jewish domination of Western society.
Views of sociology based in Darwinian theory, which looked at race as a biological construct and culture as an expression of biology.
Oh my god, this is like dealing with a child.
Yes, everything is an expression of biology.
Of course it is.
We are biological beings using biological brains to process information about the world, usually from other biological organisms.
Yes, this is obviously an expression of biology.
But like all things, it's not fucking fixed, Andrew.
If it was, you wouldn't have different cultures.
You would literally have no difference in culture anywhere in the world because there are such small biological differences in human ethnicities.
Just so fucking small.
And in fact, I can't think off the top of my head of any ethnic differences such as skin colour or eye shape or anything like this that would account for radically different cultural practices.
What possible reason?
What possible biological reason must say, I don't know, Muslims having to commit female genital mutilation to us not doing that.
I mean what tiny difference?
The amount of melanin in our skin, is that it?
Is it the type of hair we have?
What is accounting for this, Andrew?
I love this next paragraph.
The correlation between IQ and economic material development is so obvious one would literally have to be brainwashed to deny that in this situation correlation implies causation.
Of course, SJWs are indeed brainwashed enough to claim that this is just some astronomical coincidence, which has no real explanation but is somehow white people's fault, with the less educated ones claiming IQ isn't biologically determined.
Emotionally mature adults, however, can generally accept that Africa is poor because black people are just incredibly stupid.
Yeah, yeah.
Emotionally mature adults definitely end sentences with black people are just incredibly stupid, Andrew.
Yes, it is true that the countries with the highest IQ are also those that have the most wealth, but has it occurred to you, Andrew, that they are also the countries that can afford the best education?
You are putting the cart before the horse, Andrew.
This is your map of intelligence by country, Andrew, that I'm going to colourize to make sure that you can see clearly the distinction.
And fading in and out over it is a map of the Human Development Index of each country.
Yes, they're fucking shockingly similar, aren't they?
This seems like a reasonable enough method to conclude that the people in Africa are not stupid because they are black.
They are stupid because they are poor.
And this happens to white people as well, Andrew.
We have studies that show that being poor can affect your IQ.
On average, it can cause low-income people to have up to 13 IQ points in one study and 6 points less in another study.
This is the difference in average IQ between Westerners and Chinese people, just so you know.
So the wonderful, magnificent white master race might not be as inherently superior as you think.
It might be there but for the grace of God.
Not that I expect you, a died-in-the-wall fascist, to change their opinions on race.
I of course do not expect you to look at facts and evidence and be reasonable and change your mind.
I expect you to deny reality and carry on on your little ideological journey into idiocy.
This was obviously for the benefit of other people, just so they know, in case they come across any idiots like you using the same retarded arguments, and they can say, well, hang on, that's obviously demonstrably bollocks.
But Andrew does have something interesting to say.
If I am really as stupid and hateful as you claim, and you are, why are my ideas such a threat that it is in many countries now illegal for me even to voice them publicly?
Well, I was going to go for authoritarianism, but it could be that they're protecting you from your own stupidity.
Alternatively, it might be that claims of racial superiority often end in genocides, as history has proven time and time again, but who knows?
You are trying to start a race war, aren't you?
I won't bother telling you which fallacy this is, but he says, and just think for a second here, what if you're wrong?
Well, I'm not wrong, Andrew.
I've shown you how this is probably most likely to be right.
If you're wrong, we'll be out a few kebab shops and lose the opportunity to see some colourful men in towels wrapped around their heads, colourful women in ghost costumes walking down our streets.
We will also have acted as a society of racists and been deeply, deeply immoral, and perpetuated injustices on people who did not deserve them.
But if I'm wrong, then I will have been responsible for the destruction of Western civilization.
Andrew, it is far beyond my power to destroy Western civilization.
Just so you know.
I like this a lot.
By far the saddest part of the video is when Sargon played a clip of working class British man at a rally against Muslim rape gangs for the purpose of mocking him and mocking the working class in general.
I am not mocking the working class in general, Andrew.
My family on both sides is working class.
You dipshit.
And they are not racist.
In fact, most of them hate the English Defence League.
That's the point of mocking that idiot.
A man so uneducated, he can't even fucking... Muslimic...
Whatever, rape gangs he was trying to say, I think.
But this is the point, Andrew.
It's...
He is not representative of the working class.
People in the working class, the overwhelming majority, do not think it's right to judge people by their race, because they think race is something you're inherently born with.
I was specifically mocking that man, and the organization of which he is a part, because, generally, it's full of idiots.
Like you.
Oh no, you're not part of the EDL, are you?
This is racists arguing with racists about who is selling out to the Jews.
Andrew concludes his article by saying he doesn't expect a second response.
The only way I could respond at this point would be to go much, much deeper into Marxist concepts, at which point my entire operation, and possibly his own psyche, would collapse.
Believe it or not, Andrew, my own psyche is just fine, and you really don't know what you're talking about.
He believed he could occupy some mythical middle ground, and what I have just done is demonstrated that no such middle ground exists.
Though he definitely had this coming, I don't take joy in destroying people in the way I just destroyed him.
Andrew, you didn't destroy anything.
You didn't even destroy the straw man you set up.
But thankfully, Andrew goes on to really hammer home the point that he is just the opposite side of the social justice warrior coin.
I have demonstrated that Sargon of Akkad is not a reactionary intellectual, he's just a liberal who hates women.
then why do so many women watch my channel, just out of interest?
I've agreed with all of his anti-feminist videos that I've seen, but the fact that he opposes feminism while towing the mainstream line on much more important issues...
I really don't think I'm towing any mainstream line, actually, Andrew.
Um, mainstream...
the mainstream line is pretty fucking radically left-wing these days.
And I spend a lot of time criticising the radical left-wing.
But apparently this demonstrates that I have some personal issue with women, which is not directly tied to a larger political agenda in the way anti-feminism is for myself and others on the reactionary right.
See what I mean?
See what I mean?
He can't differentiate feminism as an ideology from feminism's claim to represent women.
I mean, these guys are literally like right-wing social justice warriors.
Funnily enough, when the Muslims whom Sargon defends do eventually take over Europe, they will indeed get rid of the feminism he so opposes.
I don't defend Muslims, actually, Andrew.
I am not a fan of ideological Islam.
Like any religion, I think there should be a separation between state and church.
I don't want people's religious ideologies being infused into their political life.
At all.
And as an ideology, Islam has some major flaws, but as a faith, it's no different to any other faith.
Unprovable.
And then, finally, he says, Sargon, even though you said some very nasty things about me, which as a gentleman I believe were completely uncalled for, there are no hard feelings on my end.
And you know what, I don't actually have any hard feelings against Andrew.
I actually don't.
I don't hate anyone at all.
I just can't believe anyone would choose to hold the views that he does.
I can only imagine it is through a massive amount of misinformation that he holds these views.
But what really pisses me off is the clickbait bullshit.
Sargon needs to address his implicit support for Pakistani child rape.
How did you fucking think I was going to react to that?
That is just, I mean, how do you think I should have reacted to that?
Do you think that a gentleman would write a headline like that?
Do you honestly think that's the case?
▲
Export Selection