All Episodes
Previous Next
June 15, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
34:25
This Week in Stupid (14⧸06⧸2015)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 14th of June 2015.
This week, let's start with something bizarre.
The two words CNN anchor used to describe shooting on Dallas Police HQ is dropping jaws.
Well, that's some nice clickbait there, Davobansky.
For some reason, this CNN anchor described the shooting as very courageous and brave.
I guess one man's terrorist is CNN's freedom fighter.
But she did recover it, saying it was not only very courageous and brave, if not crazy as well, to open fire on the police headquarters, and now you have this scene, this standoff.
So you believe these are the hallmarks of more than one person's involvement.
Well, maybe.
I don't know.
What I do know, though, is that it didn't really impress many police officers, some of whom don't consider themselves to be an oppressive, tyrannical force and actually think that they're operating in the public interest.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing the case either way here, but describing an attack on a police station like this on TV is pretty fucking stupid.
Do you know what else is pretty fucking stupid?
The presumption of guilt.
It's so retarded that over 3,500 years ago when Hammurabi was writing his code of laws, he decided that his first three laws would deal with presumption of innocence and false accusations.
With the third law saying that if anyone brings a crime before the elders and cannot prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offence charged, be put to death himself.
With good reason.
It stops people from abusing the law.
It stops people from abusing the system with frivolous or simply false accusations against people that cannot be disproven.
Which is why when a man receives a sex act while blacked out and is the one then accused of sexual assault instead of the one who was sexually assaulted, you've got to wonder what kind of fucking legal system would believe the accuser.
You know, the accuser who has no proof that they were the one assaulted by the person who claims to have been unconscious.
So in 2012, this student accompanied a fellow student back to her dorm after drinking and he blacked out and she performed oral sex on him.
Two years later, she decides to accuse him of sexual assault.
And Amherst has a guilty until proven innocent hearing standard and therefore the student, two years later unable to prove his innocence because how the fuck would you?
He was expelled.
Personally, I'm rather curious as to what the college would think he could provide in this situation.
But as luck would have it, for a student who was placed under accusation, his lawyer discovered text messages that proved that he did not initiate the encounter and in no way sexually assaulted the accuser.
But despite this evidence, the college refused to reopen his case.
Unfucking believable.
I mean what possible right have they got to not reopen the case?
This is a man's fucking life we're talking about.
He has been convicted by you of sexually assaulting someone when he clearly has not done such a thing.
The record deserves to be amended, you fucks.
The problem is that Amherst's sexual assault rules have the stated goal to empower victims during hearings rather than examine the truth, which is ironic given that what they've done here is condemn the victim.
In fact, this is so asked backwards.
It becomes self-evident that to Amherst, the term victim is interchangeable with the word women.
So it's been noted that the school has adopted the yes means yes definition of consent, meaning someone has to ask before performing any sexual act on another person and receive an affirmative response, which of course the real victim in this case couldn't give because he was unconscious.
The school also requires drunk students engaging in sexual activity to be aware of the other person's level of intoxication and warns students that an individual may experience a blackout state in which he, she, they may appear to be giving consent but do not have the conscious awareness to actually do such a thing.
Well, that didn't matter to our little sexual predator, did it?
This is where it gets quite interesting.
The entire adjudication process at Amherst, revised after another student claimed the school mistreated her sexual assault accusation, was designed to find guilt.
An accused student may hire an attorney, but that attorney cannot say anything during the hearing.
So what's the fucking point?
An accused student may receive a campus advisor who is not an advocate for the student, meanwhile the accuser's advisor absolutely is their advocate.
Why is this making me think of to kill a mockingbird?
Seriously though, talk about a fucking kangaroo court.
But it gets better.
For the actual victim, his advisor was an administrator who lacked tenure and was trained in social justice education, which is a term that would just fill me with confidence.
This guy wasn't allowed to directly cross-examine his accuser, the woman who sexually assaulted him, and could only write down questions for the panel to ask her, leaving no room for follow-ups.
The hearing panel, meanwhile, was made up of student life officials and other administrators trained in social justice education, none of whom had tenure.
This is really looking like a fair trial.
I mean, it's not like this isn't obviously going to lead to the most brazen miscarriages of justice, dependent on who accused who first and who happened to have the right set of genitals.
And on top of that, the investigator of the sexual assault claim lacked the subpoena power to actually investigate.
Had the investigators been able to properly investigate, they would have uncovered the text messages that proved that there was no assault, at least that the man didn't assault the woman.
If they had had the text messages, they would know that the accuser said that during her hearing, she'd only texted one friend to help her handle the assault and she felt very alone and confused.
But her text with her female friend gave no indication of assault.
Rather, the accuser texted her friend, oh my god, I just did something so fucking stupid, then proceeded to fret that she had done something wrong and her roommate would never talk to her again, because it's pretty obvious I wasn't an innocent bystander.
She had also invited another man over after the alleged assault and complained that it had taken until 5 in the morning for him to finally have sex with her.
And finally, the accuser found herself friendless after the encounter when her roommate discovered what she had done.
She sounds like a lady of Sterling character.
So naturally, upon discovering the evidence that can actually prove that this man is the victim in this case, he presents his findings to the college.
And the school refuses to reopen his case, which means that anyone who in the future decides to contact the college and find out why exactly he was kicked out, you know, prospective employers perhaps, they'll get a complete load of bullshit on how he sexually assaulted some young girl.
When in fact he is the victim here.
This is a textbook case of a miscarriage of justice.
And he is having to sue the college to get them to at least reopen his case.
This is fucking ridiculous.
This is why presumption of guilt laws are so fucking retarded.
In fact, is it any coincidence that our accuser has, since losing her friends after assaulting her friend's boyfriend, has developed new friends.
And as it happens, these new friends are all, quote, victims' advocates.
It's almost like there's power in being a victim.
Since we're on the subject, it turns out that more social justice advocates are being caught out in the mainstream media for being complete and utter fucking liars.
Remember the Muslim Coke woman who claimed that she was being discriminated against on an airline for not being given an unopened can of Coke just in case she quote used it as a weapon.
And, you know, other passengers reportedly took the opportunity to hurl anti-Muslim abuse at her.
Well, it turns out that's complete bollocks too.
At least that's according to a witness to the entire episode who says that Teher Ahmad's story wasn't accurate.
So our witness says, I was actually on this flight on Friday evening from ORD to DCA.
I've been a reader of this forum for a long time, but seeing this all over the news made me sign up so I could tell you what really happened here and hopefully stop this liar in her track.
I was sitting close enough to hear everything that was said.
The flight attendant came up to the lady, I believe she even took her order first in the entire cabin as she was seated in the bulkhead 7D and took her order.
She ordered a Coke Zero and hot green tea with splendor.
The flight attendant handed her a full Diet Coke with a cup on top and then told her that the green tea would take a few minutes as she would get it to her ASAP.
The lady said very rudely and condescendingly to the flight attendant that she ordered a Coke Zero and basically pushed the soda back to the flight attendant.
The flight attendant said she was sorry and attempted to find a Coke Zero for her, which she said she did not have many of, and told her that she could only give her a portion of the can and not the full can.
This is when the lady in question started to freak out and told the flight attendant, What, do you think I'll use this as a weapon?
Why can't I have a whole can?
I think you are discriminating against me.
I need your name.
The lady just kept yelling, I need your name, I'm being discriminated against.
This is when a few passengers told her to calm down and one guy told her to shut her mouth as she is being ridiculous over a can of Coke.
Well, he clearly doesn't know anything about social justice warriors, does he?
No one ever said anything anti-Muslim to her at all.
She was the one who started screaming discrimination when she did not get what she wanted.
Yes, that's generally how they work.
The flight attendant asked her numerous times if she would like anything else when the lady just basically pushed her away with a hand in the face.
The lady then got onto her phone with her credit card and paid for the internet so she could start spinning this story on social media.
She was never in tears.
This person is a liar, plain and simple, and is just pulling the discrimination card.
And unsurprisingly, Ahmad apparently has a long history of social justice activism and knows how to push all the credit guilt buttons to get her way.
I am just shocked.
Just shocked.
I can't believe that anyone involved with social justice would tell a massive, bold-faced, brazen lie to the entire world and expect to simply be believed.
So if you were paying attention to the news at all this week, you probably heard of a scientist called Tim Hunt.
Well, Tim Hunt committed a cardinal sin this week.
He said, female scientists cause trouble for men in labs.
Now regular viewers of my channel are probably already slapping their foreheads in frustration.
I'm probably saying something like, for fuck's sake, Hunt, didn't you know what was going to happen if you said that?
So Hunt had said to the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, South Korea, let me tell you about my trouble with girls.
Three things happen when they're in the lab.
You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry.
He also said that he is in favour of single-sex labs, adding that he didn't want to stand in the way of women.
You know what, right?
I actually think that you're being really maligned here, Mr. Hunt.
I think that if a woman had suggested single-sex labs and gender segregation, they would probably by now already have single-sex labs, in the same way that they do gyms and various other safe spaces for women in the modern world.
In much the same way as Tahira Ahmad and her can of Coke, Connie Lewis couldn't get on social media quick enough, where she tweeted out his comments saying, Really, does this Nobel laureate still think we're in the Victorian times?
Basically, she's going on Twitter deliberately to incite outrage with the feminist hate mob.
Clearly aware of the power of the feminist hate mob, the Royal Society felt the need to distance itself from the remarks, saying, Tim Hunt's comments don't reflect our views.
Well, fucking duh.
They obviously are his views.
It was a quip.
They then went on to sound like an organisation being held at fucking gunpoint by saying in an official statement that it was committed to getting more women in science.
He never said anything about women being in science.
He never said anything about trying to get women out of science.
He wasn't even casting aspersions on their intellectual ability.
For fuck's sake, Royal Society, you fucking...
This is how we know feminism is a fucking hate mob.
People panic.
As soon as someone says something that people can tell are going to offend feminists, as soon as they see it, they feel the need to issue retarded and redundant statements like that.
They also say that too many talented individuals do not fulfill their scientific potential because of issues such as gender.
And the society is committed to helping put that right.
Hang on, Royal Society.
Don't give us platitudes.
Just come right out and say it.
His comments are sexist and ostracizing.
They go on to point out that despite numerous education initiatives, the number of women in STEM remains stubbornly low, with only 13% of people working in STEM occupations being women.
Despite all of these initiatives and despite handling women apparently with kid gloves, you just uh you just can't seem to get women into STEM, can you?
It's like you're gonna have to start fucking forcing them.
David Colkuhon, Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology at University College London, said Hunt's comments were a disaster for the advancement of women.
Fucking why?
Is the advancement of women, whatever that fucking means, so fragile that Hunt merely making an offhanded quip constitutes a disaster.
Hunt's words have also been roundly criticized by female scientists on Twitter.
Hang on man.
I think you mean feminist scientists, don't you?
One woman, a post-doctoral researcher, tweeted, for every Tim Hunt remark, there's an extra woman in science that takes an interest in feminism.
Ever wonder why there's so many of us?
Well, I think it's because you're a cult.
But okay, let's interrogate this with some feminist argumentation.
So, how many laboratories have been gender segregated because of Tim Hunt's comments?
If the answer is zero, what are you getting your panties in a bunch about?
We all know what happens when the feminist hate mob descends on an institution.
That's right.
The person who made the offhand comment gets fired.
So Tim Hunt reveals he was forced to resign from University College London without being given a chance to explain himself.
My god, you can just hear the retraction of bollocks up into the bodies of those fucking brave scientists who were looking at Twitter going, oh my god, there are loads of angry feminists.
It's really rather terrifying, the grip that feminism has on the scientific community at this point.
Tim Hunt was forced to resign from his post without being given a chance to explain his remarks.
He says, I've been hung out to dry.
I have been stripped of all the things I was doing in science.
I have no further influence.
At no point did they ask me for an explanation of what I said or to put it into context.
They just said I had to go.
There has been an enormous rush to judgment and dealing with me.
But the thing is, it doesn't fucking stop there.
Hunt was then sacked from his post on the European Research Council Science Committee and has resigned from other posts, including a membership of the Royal Science Committee, saying, I have become toxic, I am finished.
All of this because Sir Hunt is guilty of wrongthink.
And this is despite several senior female scientists coming forward to defend Hunt, and many will testify to Tim's great support and encouragement for younger scientists, both male and female.
Indeed, he has trained and mentored some outstanding female scientists.
He wasn't criticising women's ability to do science.
Feminists, you fucking hate mob.
Fucking hell, this is ridiculous.
But the worst part about this is, according to Hunt, this was a joke.
This was just him observing Riley something that he has clearly seen occur.
Not demanding fucking social change, but making a joke about it like George Carlin may have done.
So after Tim Hunt was crucified in the court of public opinion, it's not surprising that some fucking dipshits took to The Guardian to post some really progressive thoughts.
Tim Hunt shows why white men should be banned from science, echoing very much the independence hate speech against white professors.
Now Dean Hunt, the author of this article, does claim that this article is meant to be a joke.
He really does claim that.
I mean, this is in no way him testing the waters.
But the thing is, it really makes you wonder why he went to the effort of categorising his complaints with old men in science, along with all the citations to go with them.
I mean, it really seems that you're putting a lot more effort than necessary into this joke article, Dean Burnett.
And oh, what a surprise.
Dean just happens to be a receding head, glasses wearing, goony bearded, self-flagellating manlert, who has been given a platform at The Guardian to push an extreme progressive agenda, but this time he's put a little hat on it.
No, no, no, this is just a joke.
This is just a joke.
Well, guess what, Dean?
Tim Hunt's comments were just a fucking joke.
But you wrote and sourced a whole article taking exception to them.
Right.
Since we're talking about jokes, we should really talk about Jerry Seinfeld and his encounter with the extreme progressive left as well.
So Seinfeld said that being a stand-up on college campuses is increasingly difficult because of the level of political correctness.
And Seinfeld, who has never been a particularly controversial comedian, said that he doesn't play colleges.
He says he hears that college students and the entire younger generation are too politically correct.
Fucking hell, man.
You do not know the half of it.
He says, let me give you an example.
My wife says to my 14-year-old daughter, well, you know, in the next couple of years, I think we're going to want to be hanging around in the city more on the weekends so you can see boys.
And you know what my daughter says?
That's sexist.
Yes, your daughter is undoubtedly on Tumblr.
They just want to use these words, he says.
That's racist, that's sexist, that's prejudice.
They don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
No, they don't.
They don't.
In fact, well, actually, I have to correct you, Mr. Seinfeld.
You actually don't know what they're talking about.
The problem is that they have, quote, sociological definitions to these words, which are not standard English definitions to these words.
It's weird that you think the sociological people would create new words to describe things that aren't the things that they are, in fact, using these words for.
But they don't.
I think it's really an attempt to corporate language to corporate, quote, the narrative, so that they can kind of gain control and influence over society.
And so when your daughter says that her mum expecting her to want to hang out with boys is sexist, that is this co-option in action.
Seinfeld added that the current PC climate does hurt comedy, although he said that people like Louis C.K. have managed to avoid blowback because his great gift is that he doesn't care about political correctness, while Seinfeld himself says that he basically stays in his lane.
Everyone has their hot zone, their heat map.
Those are the jokes you do.
For me, I talk about subjects that I talk about for some reason.
I can make them funny.
And Seinfeld's heat map typically does not involve identity politics.
So unsurprisingly, identity politics and political correctness are killing comedy in colleges.
You know, where our best and brightest are learning how to be completely brainwashed drones.
And one of them has proven this by writing an open letter to Mr. Seinfeld from a politically correct college student.
And oh my fucking god, is it long?
So it begins, Dear Jerry Seinfeld.
Hey, on stop you there kid.
It's Mr. Seinfeld to you.
You are a punk kid at a fucking college who's about to argue the case for identity politics.
It's definitely Mr. to you.
Recently I've heard about your reluctance to perform on college campuses because of how politically correct college students are.
You also made further remarks that college students are too quick to use the words racist, sexist and prejudice with little reverence for what those words really mean, which you felt was proven by a remark made by your 14 year old daughter.
As a college student that loves and appreciates offensive provocative comedy, I'm disheartened by these comments.
Well then you are not a politically correct college student, are you?
While I do agree with you that college students today are more sensitive to issues of race and gender politics, it's simply because that's our job as learners, no?
How the fuck could that possibly make sense?
As college students who are engaged in a myriad of social, economic and political issues, it's our duty to be actively engaged and educated about issues of sexism, racism and prejudice.
Yeah, that is the sort of thing that I would expect a cultist to say.
There's a problem with what you're doing.
Yeah, but it's our duty to do what we're doing.
Yes, we know that you think that.
It is your weird cult-like zeal and fervor for issues that, and frankly, you're prepared to lie about these issues repeatedly, constantly, and then if you want to talk about prejudice, you are prepared to make up new, quote, sociological definitions so you can enjoy your prejudices without being racist or sexist to the right kind of people.
Do you see what the problem is yet?
While respectively your daughter might not know what's considered sexist yet, I can say with confidence that most college students can distinguish the boundaries of what's considered appropriately sexist or not.
Well, I can say with confidence they fucking can't.
And if they can, they should start speaking up.
Because if it is a very vocal minority, they have completely hijacked the narrative and you need to fucking do something about it.
And before you open your fucking mouth, no!
Writing a letter to Jerry Seinfeld after his observation that universities have become far too politically correct is not the right thing to do.
You need to go to the politically correct students and tell them to knock it the fuck off.
You need to go to the feminist hate mob on Twitter and tell them to knock it the fuck off.
I particularly like this as well.
But I'd like to refocus the conversation to the state of comedy that you feel we would call racist or sexist.
We need to talk about the role that provocative comedy holds today in a progressive world.
Um okay, but I really don't think that you're going to quite understand what the issue with your quote-unquote progressive world is.
It isn't so much that college students are too politically correct, whatever your definition of that concept is.
Well hang on, if you don't know how he's defining it, how do you know they're not it?
It's that comedy in our progressive society today can no longer afford to be cross or provocative for the sake of being offensive.
Well then it is that they're too politically correct, isn't it, you fucking idiot?
This is the level of people that we have in universities now.
They can't seem to remember what the beginning of their fucking sentence was before they go and contradict it.
Sexist humour and racist humour can no longer exist in comedy because these concepts are based on archaic ideals that have perpetrated injustice against minorities in the past.
Are you fucking shitting me?
You are terrifying.
You don't even know how scary you are.
You are actively arguing for censorship.
Provocative humour, such as ones dealing with topics of race and gender politics, can be cross and vulgar.
But underlying it must be a context that spurs social dialogue about these respective issues.
Why can't a joke just be a joke?
There needs to be a message, a central truth behind comedy, for it to work assume.
Listen, kid, right?
I don't think you understand comedy.
So don't sit there and propose to lecture Jerry Seinfeld, who I'm not even a fucking fan of, but I take his knowledge of comedy way above yours.
Alright?
You are a fucking kid who doesn't know what he's talking about.
And what's worse, you appear to be part of a fucking cult.
But he says, take Amy Schumer, for example.
Men are so gross.
We don't even know how gross they are.
Think about the grossest dude you would bang.
Okay, you have him in your mind.
It's pretty bad, right?
It probably happened recently after a blackout.
If you saw the grossest girl that a guy was willing to have sex with, it would blow your fucking mind.
Because you probably stepped over her to get in this place tonight.
But we take care of ourselves.
Like, look at all the gorgeous girls here.
Look at you guys, right?
We do so much.
Do you guys remember?
Like, do you remember bread?
Do you know?
Remember, bread was mostly made of bread, and you would eat it and feel good.
You wouldn't, like, cut yourself and cry.
How can I do this to America?
Let's just eat bread again.
Can we just stop with all the showering and the whatnot?
I still think I'm in my 20s.
Like, at a bar, I'll still show my license.
They're just like, we can see your face.
Just go in the bar.
Did you want us to know that you're not an organ donor?
God, I haven't done anything I'm supposed to do in my 30s.
Like, I'm always the last one to know things aren't cool.
Like, I was the last one of my friends to know it wasn't cool to drink, like, a homeless person anymore.
That's how you drink when you're younger.
Like, a homeless person.
You drink, like, 40s in paper bags at bus stops.
Right?
Some people still do it.
Shout out to Leigh Alexander in the audience there.
Yeah, Amy Schumer isn't exactly what I would describe as funny.
But Gohan, what do you have to say about Amy Schumer now that we know about her comedy and a little bit about her activism there as well?
A rising comic in her own right, Schumer has become a muse in being able to tackle difficult social commentaries of sexism and racism through her comedy.
Really?
During the premiere of the newest season of Schumer's comedy sketch show, Inside Amy Schumer, Schumer and her writers managed to make her topic that most could never conceive of even making humorous, rape.
I always love a good opportunity to bust out my favourite rape jokes.
The only rape joke I know, actually.
But in a survey, when polled, nine out of ten people enjoy gang rape.
Ha!
You're welcome.
The sketch Football Town Lights, a parody of the football series, Friday Night Lights, told the story of a football coach who boldly decides to reform the local town's losing football team by instilling a strict anti-rape rule for his football players.
Throughout the sketch, players and the townfolk are simply flabbergasted at the concept of not being able to rape.
One of the players asked the coach, but what she thinks is rape, but I don't.
Another player asks, what if my mum is the district attorney and won't prosecute me?
Can I rape?
That's so fucking funny.
And you know, I watched the clip in question, and it's not funny.
I mean, I don't care about football teams and whether they are accused of being rapists.
I don't give a fuck.
Anyway, the underlying joke of it all, of course, is the horrifying truth of rape culture.
Existent in high school football, an even more horrifying reality of the parents attempting to justify it.
You know what?
I'm just going to assume that that's the case.
You know, I'm going to assume that high school football, they're all it's very, very similar to what the uh what the sketch was saying, that they're all just absolute rapists and they all think it's great to rape, and it's weird that they're told not to rape.
I'm sure this is the case.
Earlier this year, we heard the horrifying case of a gang rape committed by five Florida high school football players and realized the underlying culture of violence and male domination that inhabits high school football.
Let's just take a look.
I mean, you've got a link there, we can just click it and find out where it goes.
And just have a quick, quick once-over just to make sure that you're not, I don't know, lying or in some other way misrepresenting the truth in order to push your agenda.
So, five Florida high school football players charged in gang rape.
Five Florida high school players have been charged in an alleged gang rape that occurred last November.
The students pleaded not guilty.
Well, why would they need to do that if they didn't rape someone?
Exactly.
There's an allegation against some men by a woman.
Case closed, they're guilty.
More concrete evidence of rape culture.
Now, I don't know whether these boys did this, I have no idea, but that's the point.
We don't know.
There hasn't been a trial, the evidence hasn't been analyzed, there's been no verdict given.
We don't know that this is actually rape culture.
But I mean, it's not like a woman would ever lie about anything like, oh.
Anyway, getting back to our resident genius, he says, While it's not the sole role of comics to be social commentators on every issue through their comedy, I believe there is a responsibility, especially when a well-known comic is talking about sensitive topics like race and gender politics, to have an underlying message being said.
Well, then, it is the sole role of comics to be social commentators.
Isn't it genius?
That is at the bare minimum what you are proposing.
This doesn't mean that the funny aspect of the bit has to be compromised for the sake of social commentary.
You know, I think it probably does.
As countless comedians have proven before, it's very possible to have a message and be hilarious at the same time.
This translates well to stand-up comedy as well.
Take it from your fellow male comics.
Oh, that's a good idea.
Quoting Louis C.K. as the example that Seinfeld already gave as a man who gets loads of fucking backlash but simply doesn't care.
You fucking idiot.
Stand-up comedian Louis C.K.'s bit about how much he loves being white can be at first glance construed as being racist in a traditional sense.
Actually, it can't, but he says in his sense, I'm not saying that white people are better, I'm saying that being white is clearly better.
Who can argue?
I'm sure that in a society that is predominantly one way, being that way is an advantage, like being physically able.
Like if you go to China, being Chinese would be better than being Indian.
Doesn't that sound a little racist to you?
No, it doesn't.
But view it within the context of what he says, Louis C.K. constructs another valuable dialogue about white male privilege and the historic injustices that this system is created.
Listen, right?
There is no privilege by being the norm.
That's not a privilege.
We can tell that it's not a privilege because it wasn't given and it can't be taken away.
George Carlin, who's revered by many as being one of the comedy greats, frequently used crass, vulgar, and potentially offensive humour in his acts.
While by today's standard, some of his material can be considered sexist and offensive.
That just confirms what Seinfeld's saying.
It is excessively PC now.
It's not that there wasn't political correctness when Carlin was operating.
It's just now it's gone too far, you fucking idiot.
You are confirming what everyone is saying.
But he says many of his bits are still appreciated today because of his strong opinions and the underlying context of what he said.
I don't think you should tell anyone why George Carlin is still appreciated.
Sure, he was offensive when he tried to justify using racial slurs, but as he said in a bit, it's the context that counts, it's the user, it's the intention behind the words that makes them good or bad.
Yes, exactly.
Which is why we're all wondering why you're getting your panties in a fucking bunch talking about historic injustices that have got nothing to do with the jokes being told.
So our college student then goes on to quote a comedian called Todd Glass.
You can be cross, you can be vulgar.
It's not about worrying about offending people.
Fuck offending people.
Offend the right fucking people.
Don't let this fake argument that makes you not want to grow as a comedian and say, oh, you're always going to offend somebody.
No one said you shouldn't.
It's your fake argument.
Offend the living fuck out of people.
But make sure you're doing it to the right group.
Because I'm sure George Carling most of the time was offending the right people.
Well, when he was criticising feminists, he was offending feminists.
And when he was criticising Christians, he was offending Christians.
He never said anything that offended me, but that's because I'm not the kind that gets offended.
But, Mr. Student, you are the type that gets offended.
So this quote is actually against you and not for you when you make this argument.
Of course, you're a fucking idiot, so I don't expect you to understand that.
So finally, this epic of idiocy comes to an end.
Yes, Mr. Seinfeld, we college students are politically correct.
We will call out sexism and racism if we hear it.
Yes.
But if you're going to come to my college and perform in front of me, be prepared to write up a set that doesn't just offend me, but has something to say.
No.
No, because you will, without a doubt, even if it has something to say, it won't just be you, it will be all of the other idiots who will take to Twitter and form their hate mob and tell them how much they hate this person for offending their delicate fee fees.
There's no reason you can't do what other comics are doing.
You have an amazing legacy in both stand-up and on television because you do your job well.
Oh yeah, he needs validation from you.
Right.
But there's a generation in college right now that hasn't seen your comedy.
And there's a demographic that yearns for laughter.
It's not your demographic, dipshit.
College students today are looking to be provoked and offended by comedy.
And to think about these issues in the context of comedy, well they are looking to be offended and provoked.
They are.
They can't wait to take to Twitter to tell everyone how outraged and offended they are.
I'm not sure anyone would want to do this deliberately because, you know, it will get the hate mob to descend on them.
And in the case of Tim Hunt, it gets you fired.
But no, I mean, you know, what you're saying is completely legitimate and is not bullshit in any way, shape, or form.
So please, take the first step and come to a college campus with a set that will make us laugh.
Well, good fucking luck.
Offend the fuck out of college students.
Provoke the fuck out of me.
We'll thank you for it later.
Sincerely, a fucking Muppet.
This has been written by someone who sounds like they have multiple personality disorder or something.
They don't seem to realise that they're asking for two mutually exclusive things.
You will never make these people laugh and offend the fuck out of them at the same time.
You will never make them laugh, frankly.
You'll go there, you'll offend them.
They'll take to Twitter.
They'll form a hate mob.
They'll probably get you fired if comedy isn't your primary job.
Or they'll probably make sure that you don't really get hired for any further gigs in the future.
▲
Export Selection