All Episodes
Previous Next
May 2, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
28:33
This Week in Stupid (03⧸05⧸2015)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 3rd of May 2015.
I swear that these ridiculous things are true.
Like Hillary Clinton's new campaign logo.
It that's it.
That that is the whole thing.
A rainbow H with an arrow going through it presumably to indicate progressiveness.
I can't believe that people aren't going to think that this is ridiculous pandering.
But I suppose people are idiots and they'll probably fall for it to hook line and sinker.
Like I imagine there probably will be a large amount of the British Muslim community who fall for this bullshit.
Britain's Labour Party vows to ban Islamophobia.
This is like saying that they're going to ban racism or sexism.
But even worse, but let's be honest with ourselves, this is going to be used to ban criticism.
So Ed Miliband has vowed that if he becomes the next prime minister in the general elections on May the 7th, he's going to outlaw Islamophobia because he is such a tough man.
The point is people think you're just not tough enough.
Well let me tell you.
Am I tough enough?
Tough enough?
Hell yes I'm tough enough.
Bollocks.
But anyway, this banning of Islamophobia does indeed appear to be a very transparent attempt by Miliband to pander to Muslim voters in a race that he has described as the tightest general election for a generation.
So in an interview with the Muslim News, Miliband said, we are going to make Islamophobia an aggravated crime.
We are going to make sure that it's marked on people's records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.
Who is defining this?
Miliband.
What is going to fall under the category of quote-unquote Islamophobia?
We're going to change the law so that we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and of Islamophobia.
It'll be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country.
So if anyone does anything to a Muslim, is it going to be classified as Islamophobia?
Miliband, you fucking idiot.
The article goes on to say, Miliband appears to be trying to reopen a long-running debate in Britain over so-called religious hatred.
Those efforts ran into opposition from critics who said the measures were too far-reaching and threatened freedom of speech.
At the time, critics argued that the scope of the Labour government's definition of religious hatred was so draconian that it would have made any criticism of Islam a crime.
Do you see the issue, Miliband?
Islam contains within it not just a religion but also a political ideology.
And when you make a political ideology immune from criticism, you run into problems.
You see, this isn't the first time that Labour have tried to do something like this.
In January 2006, the House of Lords approved the Racial and Religious Hatred Act after amending the text of the law would be limited to banning only threatening words and not those that are merely abusive or insulting.
Lawmakers also said that the offence would require the intention and not just the possibility of stirring up religious hatred.
It's things like this that reinforce my opinion that the House of Lords really isn't such a bad institution.
But this is the point.
Labour are at it again.
Miliband's renewed promise to make Islamophobia, a term he has not defined, an aggravated crime, may signal an attempt to turn the 2006 Act, which already stipulates a maximum penalty of seven years in prison for stirring up religious hatred into a full-blown Muslim blasphemy law.
Miliband, you stuttering cowardly weasel.
Am I tough enough?
Tough enough?
Hell yes, I'm tough enough.
Why are you trying to do this?
I used to go to university in Coventry, and while I was there, I used to hang out with loads of people who are Muslim.
It was just one of those things.
I didn't really think about it.
But the point is, Miliband, they were just normal people.
They're not made of fucking glass.
They can take a bit of honest and accurate criticism when necessary.
Telegraph columnist Liam McKinstry says Miliband's proposal goes against the entire tradition of Western democracy.
And I'm inclined to agree.
Miliband, would you fucking knock it off?
But of course, he can't knock it off because Muslims are emerging as a key voting bloc in British politics and are already poised to determine the outcome of local elections in many parts of the country, according to a report by the Muslim Council of Britain.
Fucking brilliant.
This is exactly what the country needs.
I don't see any problems arising from this in the future.
I mean, it's not like Labour are going to make proposals that run counter to British values and the very notion of Western ideals in order to get people to vote for them.
I think what, in my opinion, is the most infuriating part of this is that none of this is necessary because a study produced by Theos, a London-based religious think tank, found Muslims consistently vote Labour.
Which frankly, and call me a cynic, but that comes as no great surprise.
Political group UElect says with 100,000 new young Muslims eligible to vote this year and 26 parliamentary constituencies with a Muslim population of over 20%, the Muslim community has a very real opportunity to make an impact on British politics.
And my problem with this is not Muslims being able to vote.
I'm more than happy for British citizens to be able to vote in British elections.
My problem is this identity politics bullshit, as if Muslims all share the same fucking interest and should be encouraged to vote as a fucking block.
I am mildly amused though that extremist Muslims like Andy Chowdhury are actively discouraging Muslims from voting.
In a stream of Twitter messages using the stay Muslim don't vote hashtag, Chowdhury has argued that voting is a sin against Islam because Allah is the only legislator.
Way to go Andy.
He did also say that Muslims who run for office or vote are apostates, which means that they have to be killed according to the Quran.
I don't imagine that Andy will be doing a lot of the killing himself, not because the Quran is wrong, but presumably because he left his bag of rocks at home.
Hashtag don't vote for man-made law.
It's a bit of a long hashtag, but they did save two characters by using a number.
Well done Muslim extremists.
Good thinking.
There are apparently no limits to the things that idiots think should be banned.
Chipotle say they can't prevent people from overeating.
But can they?
No they fucking can't.
When asked about how his restaurant chain reconciles its healthful mission with high calorie counts, Chipotle founder Steve Ells told CNN Money, there's really nothing that we can do to prevent people from eating a certain quantity of food.
Chipotle informs their customers about calorie counts on menu items, but they can range from 400 to 1000 calories per item based on the ingredients requested.
To that point Ells likened the chain to a farmer's market.
Well, I don't know if I'd liken it to a farmer's market, but the fact is the best they can do is be open and transparent with how many calories is in each food item.
I love this.
A spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics says it's technically true that Chipotle can't prevent their customers from overeating.
Of course it fucking is you morons.
Why is this conversation being had?
Why is this an article?
Of course they can't prevent it.
Only people, only individuals can prevent themselves from overeating.
They should exercise a bit of self-fucking restraint.
Redundant sentence of the year award goes to Angelon, who points out that people tend to be hungry when they visit fast food chains.
Well fucking done.
And apparently they're more likely to ask for extras like guacamole and cheese that they might not otherwise want.
Well, they're big boys and girls and they will have to make these decisions for themselves.
Honestly, I cannot believe I have to be saying this.
I mean, they say having those extras right in front of them when they order also makes it more tempting.
Yes, of course it fucking does.
But they're not children.
And talk about being busy body mum types.
Listen to this.
She says there are a few things Chipotle could do differently.
They could map out combinations in advance for customers that say exactly how many calories an item would have if you got extras like grilled vegetables, cheese and beans that offer up the most healthy combination per dish.
And she says Chipotle could also tweak their serving bowls to make it look like people are getting more food than they actually are since a lot of hunger is due to visual cues.
F- Why should they have to do any of this?
Don't forget that half portions like half a burrito or taco salad would be another good nutritional option, she says, adding it's a kind of cop-out say they can't do anything about it.
I just can't believe you are willing to treat other human beings, adult human beings, like this.
I would be deeply offended if I thought you were talking about me.
I really fucking would.
Guess what else is triggering though?
That's right.
Attractive women in bikinis.
So we've banned them.
Beach Body Ready ad banned from returning to Tube Watchdog Rules.
Advertising standards authority to investigate weight loss claims amid outrage over poster campaign featuring model in bikini.
What are they going to fucking investigate?
Can these products be used as part of a weight loss diet?
Probably.
Did they use a attractive young woman in a bikini on their advert?
Yes, they did.
Is any of this illegal?
No, it's fucking not.
But it's been banned anyway because of a bunch of whining harpies.
Anyone can see that this is bullshit right off the bat.
The controversial ad campaign featuring a model in a bikini asks, are you beach body ready?
And has been banned by the advertising watchdog because of quote concerns over its weight loss claims.
Where are these concerns?
Oh, well, they don't mention any more, but in the next paragraph, they say, after receiving about 360 complaints about the campaign, mostly that it objectified women, that's not a concern about weight loss claims, is it?
Feminists.
The ASA has also launched an inquiry into whether the ad is offensive.
How the fuck are you going to come to an objective conclusion on that, you fucking idiots?
But you know what?
I know when I'm being bullshitted, ASA.
Because when your spokesman says that it was the health claims that led to the decision not to let the ad return its current form right after you tell us how many people complain that it objectified women, I know you're talking shit.
Because if you weren't, why would you be launching an inquiry into whether the advert was offensive?
But just listen to this bullshit.
The ad campaign, which promotes protein world weight loss products, is due to end after a three-week long run on the London Underground.
The vast majority of complainants argue that the ad is offensive, irresponsible, and harmful because it promotes an unhealthy body image.
Seriously, a vegan woman, toned and trim, is an unhealthy body image.
She wasn't fucking emaciated.
She is just fit and healthy and toned.
And that is considered an unhealthy body shape.
To placate feminists, they are inverting reality.
In any normal context, this woman's body would be a picture of health.
We know this because in other interviews she says that she is a vegan who exercises every day.
Of course she's fucking healthy.
But no, you know what?
No, Britain has turned into fucking bizarro land.
Although the ad won't reappear in the meantime, we've launched an investigation to establish if it breaks harm and offence rules or is socially irresponsible.
To try and get people to be fit and healthy and active.
Socially irresponsible.
Fuck off, honestly.
We will now carefully and objectively explore the complaints that have prompted concerns around body confidence and promptly publish our findings.
Bollocks, will you?
I mean, you're gonna do this, but it's not gonna be objective.
You know what?
Someone needs to start a subreddit.
Feminist or Islamicist.
Because the ASA will investigate the ads to see if they're in breach of the UK code relating to taste, decency, harm and offence.
What possible taste, decency, harm and offence laws could be broken by a picture of an attractive woman posing in a non-sexual way in a bikini, you fucking Puritans.
I suppose while the ASA is doing that, we can talk about the wage gap and how closing that wage gap is not good enough.
Because now one in four women out-earn their partners.
A quarter of females are now the household's main source of income and many feel under pressure as a result.
You've got to be fucking kidding.
You have to be fucking kidding me.
A quarter of young women are earning more than the husband or partner, but feel they are more under pressure as a result.
According to research yesterday, well, fucking well done.
You're the primary breadwinner.
This is what these women clearly wanted.
So yes, you get everything that comes with that.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for these women or something?
Because there is a phrase that I think they're going to have to start hearing.
That phrase is man up.
Oh, I am supposed to feel bad for these women.
The switch to female financial power has come at a price as the burden of being the breadwinner is beginning to weigh heavily on women.
Well, that's not my fucking problem.
Frankly, that's their problem.
That's what they've asked for, that's what they've got.
You made your bed, now you have to lie in it.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
There are numerous aphorisms that I can pull out here that essentially explain the situation.
The report for insurers LV said, increased spending power comes with a feeling of greater responsibility and stress.
You've got to take the rough with the smooth, darling.
Women who earn more than their partners are more likely to say that they feel the pressure to maintain a regular income than their male peers.
Well, do you know what?
Life's not fair.
The higher weight of responsibility felt by women breadwinners compared to men may be connected to the difficulties of having a family when their earnings are needed to pay mortgages and bills.
That's so tragic, but do keep a stiff upper lip.
The survey of more than 2,000 people comes as figures on the gender pay gap show women working full-time earn more than men between the ages of 22 and 40.
So sorry ladies, you're the people who are gonna have to say the buck stops here.
While it is great to see that women who earn more than their partners are proud of their career achievements, the flip side is that they are feeling stressed about their financial responsibilities.
Well, you know what they say.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Just like at McMaster University, who's going to boost all female faculty members salaries.
They're going to add $3,500 to the base salaries of all full-time female faculty members to help correct what it calls a systematic bias in favour of male professors.
That is fucking retarded.
Systemic, maybe, but systematic means the system is designed to favour men, you fucking idiots.
University officials announced Monday it will spend more than a million each year to ensure pay equity amongst its male and female faculty.
Well, this raises a few questions.
Firstly, why were you already discriminating against your female staff based on their gender?
And if you weren't, then have you considered that maybe, just maybe, you don't actually have a pay gap as you are thinking of it.
And if you just want to think about it a little bit harder, actually discriminating deliberately in favour of female faculty members does create a systematic bias.
Now, if you're like me, you're probably thinking, well, three and a half grand, that is a hell of a big difference.
But apparently not.
These people get paid $139,000 or so in 2013.
So what we're actually looking at is that women on average made 2% less than their male colleagues.
Now, there could be numerous factors accounting for this, but they have decided that it simply has to be sexism.
I mean, I'm not the one hiring women there and determining what they're paid, so maybe it is.
Maybe these people are raging sexists.
But the study couldn't determine whether the gap was greater in some faculties than others, or whether there was a systematic difference as a function of rank.
Which I'm assuming means that on average, men held higher ranked jobs in this university than women on average.
And despite this, which is a legitimate reason for men to earn more than women in these jobs.
But despite this, women are going to be paid more because of their vaginas.
Though it's difficult to say exactly why women faculty members are making less than men, there are several potential factors that could affect pay scale.
First, men are more likely to aggressively negotiate higher starting salaries, and men are also more likely to receive more merit pay than women.
These bonuses, which are determined by a panel of adjudicators, are based on the academics' body of research and teaching.
A go-not sexism.
It's not hard to imagine that during child-rearing years, for example, it's hard for women to be as productive, which means they earn less, which is not sexism.
And McMaster is the first Ontario university to proactively address gender-based wage gaps.
Which it's not gender-based.
It's based on the fact that they work less.
In 2013, the University of British Columbia granted a 2% pay rise to any full-time faculty who identified as female.
That's not an incentive, is it?
As well as offering lump-sum retroactive payments for the previous two and a half years.
This is fucking batty.
Absolutely insane.
I mean, is this before or after Canada declares itself to be a communist country?
Seriously, this sort of neo-Marxist shit is really starting to get under my skin.
Sandy Toxvik campaigns for equality with new political party.
For those who don't know, Sandy Toxvick is a very funny comedian who operates in the UK.
She's actually very good and she seemed very, very intelligent and on the ball, but apparently she's not.
So she says that I'm involved in the founding of a new political party.
It's called the Women's Equality Party.
That sounds like it's aiming for equality.
It's a fantastic group of women and men who have decided that enough is enough and we need to make some changes.
I can't imagine what changes you're planning to make.
Women between the ages of 22 and 40 are making more money than men and it's stressing them out.
They don't like it.
In fact, I'd really like to hear more about your plan.
Are you planning to ban attractive young women from appearing in bikinis on adverts?
Because it promotes an unhealthy body image.
She says, why are people not engaging with politics?
Because I don't think the people standing represent the diversity of this country.
It's nothing to do with the fucking diversity.
It's because the people standing represent the corporate interests and everyone knows it.
Only moneyed interests are represented by our major political parties.
That's why people aren't voting for them.
When asked why the party was specifically campaigning for women's equality, she replied, there's a huge issue.
Women are certainly not equal.
Well, not in the Marxist sense.
How is it that we still have a pay gap?
Because women aren't working as much as men.
Unless they are below 40, in which case, they're actually working more than men, or at least they're earning more than men.
You know what?
Fuck it.
Fuck it.
I'm not fucking dealing with the rest of this article.
I'm fucking triggered.
I just want to compare this to something that's actually legitimate, right?
Uni outlets remove tampon tax.
And I know people think, well, that's silly.
But it's not.
It's really not.
The 5% tax on sanitary goods is because they are counted as luxury items.
Menstruation isn't a choice and sanitary products shouldn't be treated as a luxury.
I completely agree.
Completely agree.
That is totally reasonable.
And so they're pleased that the University and Guild have agreed to found a way to stop the sanitary product tax in campus outlets.
And why not petition the government to change the categorisation of these products under law?
I completely agree.
They do not need to be classified as luxury goods.
That is completely, completely reasonable.
Encouraging teenage boys to carry around tampons for you is not completely reasonable.
This is the saddest thing I've ever fucking seen.
What the fuck are you doing?
Why are you doing this?
You don't owe these women anything.
They are strong, independent fish who don't need no bicycles and can carry their own tampons.
Just listen to what he says.
To every boy that follows me and calls himself a man or simply a good human being, petition for all of us to start bringing in a couple of pads or tampons to school to help out our girlfriends.
If you have a girlfriend or have friends with a girl, you should know that they do not always have tampons or pads with them, or that sometimes their period just hits them without notice and they have a bit of a problem finding one.
We should support them with this.
After all, we don't have to go through all they have to do because of menstruation, so it's just logical that we help them.
You should already know to give them your sweater and not to question when they wrap it around their waist, so let's step it up a notch and help them out.
This is the most pathetic thing I've ever heard.
These women are fully capable of dealing with their own tampons.
And kid, you should be dealing with your own life.
Deal, concentrate on yourself.
You don't owe them anything.
This is what women's liberation is all about.
The emancipation of women's dependence on men.
You don't have to make yourself their willing servant.
Just ask yourself, would you be so subservient to men?
And if you wouldn't, then you're not treating women equally, are you?
But naturally, the Huffington Post are going to take full advantage of this 15-year-old boy who lives in Miami.
And they're going to justify this by saying that, oh, some parts around the world, such as Nepal and West Bengal, women aren't treated particularly great.
So therefore, women in Miami need to be treated as if gender equality didn't come to the United States.
You know, this is all retarded.
What's going on in universities?
I'm sure that will completely pull it back.
George Washington University Tramples Free Speech ignores context in suspending students for Indian swastika posting.
I'm sorry, the Nazis culturally appropriated your swastika and now you're not allowed to use it.
Of course, the university suspended a Jewish student for placing a souvenir Hindu swastika obtained on a trip to India on his residence hall's bulletin board.
That's totally, totally reasonable.
Did I say reasonable?
I meant mental.
After a fellow student reported the swastika to the GWU police department, the university quickly suspended the student and evicted him from the university housing pending the outcome of five disciplinary charges.
But even better than that, the District of Columbia Police are going to investigate this as a potential hate crime.
That dang Nazi-loving Jew.
GWU may not ignore the thousands of years of history and effectively forbid all uses of the swastika just because it was tied to Nazi Germany, said fire programme officer and attorney Ari Cohn.
It's ironic that the charges against the student illustrate the very point he was trying to make in the first place, that context is important and that there is much to be learnt about the history of the swastika.
Or we could ban him and slap him with criminal charges for inciting hate crimes.
I know which one's a lot easier and doesn't require us learning about foreign cultures.
But it's alright everyone because the radical feminists are going to fight the fascists for us.
Thank fuck.
Toppless femin activists attack Marine Le Pen at May Day rally.
They interrupted a tribute to Joan of Arc as Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, was approaching the memorial to Joan of Arc to lay flowers on it when two femin activists with top fascist Le Pen painted on their chests and backs interrupted the ceremony.
Joan of Arc is one of France's most revered heroines and was beautified as a Roman Catholic saint after her death at the hands of the English.
And here we have feminine sextremists attacking the fascist Marine Le Pen at the memorial.
Apparently the femin topless activists will be forced to get dressed, which is probably punishment enough.
The thing is that's not entirely unreasonable when you look at the feminine objective to show how Marine Le Pen really is and show her real face.
Well I mean all she did was kind of stand there.
You know while you crazies ran around screeching topless and throwing Nazi salutes from balconies.
I mean who do you think you embarrassed here?
I'm no friend of the National Front but Jesus fucking Christ get a grip.
So finally on May the 1st there was a Gamergate meetup in Washington DC.
Hundreds of people who support Gamergates turned up to the event and honestly I am quite gutted I couldn't go.
It looks like it was an amazing amount of fun and there were many, many familiar faces there.
And judging from the look of things it looks like everyone had a fucking great time.
A bunch of Gamergate supporters getting together and having a good time is obviously going to be the sort of thing that as Jamie Butterworth here points out you would expect anti-Gamegate to call in a bomb threat or something.
Which is actually what someone did.
Not just a bomb threat via Twitter either but actually one in real life.
So who did this?
Well we don't know but the prime suspect appears to be Arthur Chu who had already been getting his panties in such a bunch that he had been sending odd and hysterical messages to the manager of the venue where the meeting was taking place.
To their credit other anti-Gamergate people completely disavowed themselves of this.
Even Gamergazi completely were like no this is fucking wrong.
But it wasn't just that Arthur Chu was sending them hysterical messages, it's that he said whatever.
It's ending tonight with them meeting up there.
Which honestly Arthur kind of makes you sound like a fucking terrorist.
Especially when you go on to delete the tweet afterwards as if you know you said something wrong.
Now, I'm not saying that Arthur Chew did this.
I have absolutely no idea.
What I'm saying is that it sounded to everyone else very much like Arthur Chu did this because the bomb threat came in shortly after Arthur Chu had said it ends tonight, as if he was the fucking protagonist of hatred.
And needless to say, the memes began.
Now, I'm sure that not even Arthur Chu is stupid enough to send in a false bomb threat to the capital of the United States.
I'm sure that not even psycho fucking Chu is dumb enough to do that.
But the point is, Arthur, what the fuck were you getting your panties in a bunch about?
Do you think, as Mark Kern pointed out, you look any less like the actual hate group when you see your political opponents having a party and you feel the need to try and contact the venue to get it shut down?
▲
Export Selection