All Episodes
Aug. 23, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
14:37
This Week in Stupid (23⧸08⧸2015)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 23rd of August 2015.
This week we begin with Muslims out.
Pub Sorry after man finds poster telling Muslims to get the fuck out of our countries.
This is stupid for a number of reasons, the first being that Muslims don't spend a whole lot of time in pubs.
So the sign reads as follows.
Muslims, are you unhappy with our countries?
Are you offended by our culture?
Would you prefer to live under Sharia law?
Then we have a simple solution for you.
Get the fuck out of our countries and go back to the monstrous shitholes you came from.
You can live under Muslim rule there and enjoy it as much as you like.
This is written directly beneath a picture of Lord Kitchener, a man who, after being made Governor General of Sudan, decided to try and prevent Christian missionaries from converting the local Muslim population because he thought they should be left alone.
But alright, fine.
I mean I think that's a reasonable point actually.
If you don't particularly like living in liberal Western democracies, why did you move to a liberal Western democracy?
But according to this news piece, I'm now a racist.
It's disgraceful that JD Wetherspoon pubs are allowing this anti-Muslim propaganda to be displayed.
I'd hate for any Muslim to think all British people are racists because of this.
What an irrational statement.
Why the hell would a Muslim go, well, yeah, I mean...
And honestly, why would I care about this hypothetical Muslim's opinion, given that he appears to be as bad as the people that you are criticizing?
One British pub has a sign saying why don't Muslims move to Muslim countries if they want to live by Muslim rules, and you think that it would be reasonable for a Muslim to think that all British people are racist because of that.
But that's not enough for our unnamed, unknown customer, who added, I'll never go back to one of their pubs again.
They should have employees making sure racist propaganda like this will not be tolerated in this country.
Yeah, because the only kind of propaganda that can be tolerated is this kind of propaganda.
Speaking of propaganda, conservative ex-MP, author and columnist Louise Mensch tweeted this two days ago.
Twitter's autocomplete on Liz Kendall MP.
This is the sewer that is Jeremy Corbyn's support.
The search items include Liz for Leeda Zionist, Liz for Leader Nazi, Liz for Leader Jewish and Liz for Leader Jews.
Then with Liz Kendall's actual Twitter profile.
Of course, anyone with a passing knowledge of Twitter will notice little X's next to each entry and realize that what we're looking at here are Louise Mensch's search history.
So yes, we can all have a good laugh at Louise Mensch on social media, the place most appropriate to mock Louise for this faux pas.
What the world doesn't need are article after article after article from mainstream media outlets laughing at Louise Mensch.
Don't get me wrong, it's funny.
But is this really something you need to write articles about?
I mean, what's next?
Boris Johnson confuses salt with sugar at a cafe.
But the thing is, ultimately, you have to understand it's not really Louise's fault that she's not very good with technology.
Because computers can be prejudiced too.
Software may accidentally sort job applications based on race or gender.
You might think that computer software operates without bias because it uses code to reach conclusions.
But scientists have found that programs used to sort job applications and loans could be just as prejudiced as humans.
Wow, I'm sure glad that funding's being allocated to this and not, you know, curing cancer or something.
Machine learning algorithms used in some CV scanning software may make generalizations based on data in application that accidentally mimic human discrimination based on race or gender.
So it's not the computer being prejudiced, and I'm guessing that if a computer is accidentally mimicking human discrimination, then there might actually be a reason for this discrimination, other than just prejudice.
So a team of computer scientists at the University of Utah have devised a test which reveals whether an algorithm could be biased like a human being.
Well, how does it do this?
could a computer possibly have biases?
Well, if the test can predict a person's race or gender based on the data being analyzed, even though the race or gender is hidden from the data, then there is a potential problem for bias based on the definition of disparate impact.
Ironically, this actually means that this is categorically not bias.
So this is a part of American anti-discrimination law, which holds that practices in employment, housing, or other areas may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate adverse impact on persons in a protected class.
So if say at an IT firm, you had a thousand people applying for jobs over the course of a year, and 50% of those were black, 50% of those were white.
Due to economic circumstances, the black applicants may have less education and less job opportunities and therefore less relevant experience for the jobs they're applying for.
But the computer doesn't know any of this when it's assessing their CVs.
It's just concerned about the quality of the CV.
And on average, the quality of the CVs of the black people, through no fault of their own, are just of a lower standard than the CVs of white people who didn't have the economic disadvantage the black people had.
So now you have a system which is prejudiced against black people, even though a computer can't hold prejudices.
Welcome to the wonderful world of the progressive mindset.
The solution, of course, is to redistribute the data, whatever that means, to prevent the algorithm from seeing any information that can be used to create bias.
The article doesn't further explain, and I'm not sure I want to know.
But the thing is, bias is a really bad problem at universities especially.
Which is why, for example, Rutzgas has a bias prevention and education committee.
And they're so anti-biased that they think that there's no such thing as free speech.
The apparent denial of free speech is part of the public university's efforts to combat student bias on campus.
The university's bias prevention and education committee lists five ways for students to avoid committing bias incidents.
Okay, well let's take a look.
So the section starts with stop hate, report bias, because apparently all bias is hate, even positive bias, but we'll get to that.
So the first thing on this list is think before you speak.
There is no such thing as free speech.
All speech has a cost and consequences.
Jesus Christ, what a terrible sentence.
All speech has a cost and consequences.
Therefore, there is no such thing as free speech.
The purpose of free speech is to prevent the speaker from political consequences.
Which is indeed what's being implied here.
Point one might just as well read, pack up Western civilization, you're fucking done.
So point two is overcome cultural biases.
Encourage peers, friends and family members to do the same.
Because essentially all cultures are equal and it's just personal preference.
Don't be biased against other cultures that may or may not have the death penalty for homosexuality or may or may not stone women to death for adultery.
This is your bias showing and you need to overcome it.
Point three is of course engage.
Join activities, programs, courses and practices that promote diversity and social justice.
And no, this is in no way similar to going to church or mosque or anything like that.
Point four is free yourself.
Lose stereotypes about any group.
There's no such thing as a positive stereotype.
All stereotypes are inherently negative, hurtful and damaging.
Does this sound like a Scientology induction to anyone else?
And point five, be open.
Embrace your fellow students' racial, ethnic, religious, political, sexual orientation, class, age, ability, and gender differences.
Oh, fuck, I don't care about their differences.
And what does that even mean anyway?
Embrace them.
What am I fucking embracing here?
I'm just letting them get on with their lives as they are and they're going to let me get on my life as I am, surely.
Anyway, if you experience or witness an act of bias or hate, report it to someone in authority, okay?
You may file a report online.
Bias acts are verbal, written, physical or psychological acts that threaten or harm a person or group on the basis of race, religion, colour, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, ancestry, disability, marital status, civil union status, domestic partnership status, atypical heredity or cellular blood trait, military service or veteran status.
So presumably if I said I don't want to have children with you because of your atypical hereditary or cellular blood trait, that would be an act of bias and therefore an act of hate.
So what should I do if I see someone committing a bias incident?
Well, the university thinks I should call the police.
Students at Santa Clara University are supposed to call to report any and all bias incidents to 911.
You might be thinking, well, yeah, but that includes like people racially abusing people or assaulting them or raping them and stuff like that.
Yeah, it does.
That is within the scope of things that are in the category of bias incidents.
But also within the scope of bias incidents are micro-aggressive comments and writing on a whiteboard.
But don't worry, after the bias incident report has been filed, the university will conduct an in-depth investigation.
Excuse me, sir, did you write on a whiteboard?
Because that's racist.
Use a blackboard instead.
Sticking with universities, a Yale professor seeks to abolish the word master.
I don't think it's the word master he's trying to abolish.
I think it's master.
But anyway, a professor to Yale University is attempting to stamp out the use of the word master at the school, claiming that it is so offensive to the college's black and female students that some have had to move off campus to avoid it.
The word master.
I have found the title of the office I hold deeply problematic, given the racial and gendered weight it carries.
What are you a fucking slave owner?
Davis wrote in an email to Pearson Students Friday.
I think there should be no context in our society or in our university in which an African-American student, professor or staff member, or any person that matter, should be asked to call anyone master.
The word isn't demonstrating a mastery of people, it's demonstrating a mastery of your craft.
You're a master at whatever bullshit fucking degree you've got.
And hell, there should be no context where male gendered titles should be normalized as markers of authority.
Again, it's just to signify your mastery of something.
I can't think of a good reason that this has to be a gendered title in this context.
Because seriously, today both blacks and women are able to receive it as a title, but Davis insists that it takes a huge toll on some students.
My fucking ass does it.
What are they claiming they're fucking triggered or something?
Oh my god, this is reminding me about being in the cotton fields.
Bullshit!
And it just gets better.
I have heard stories and witnessed situations involving members of our community who have felt, quote, viscerally marginalised by this linguistic practice.
Viscerally marginalised.
They're like, you know what, I just don't feel like I'm part of this mainstream conversation.
And, you know, I mean, nothing really happens when that's the case.
But now I just feel viscerally marginalised and I'm so fucking triggered I have to leave university.
Just such crap.
And at least one black person thinks Davis might be overreacting a little.
Just a little.
Davis's reading of the title is more literal and focused on our national narrative and naming practices than mine.
I see it as nothing more than a legacy of the British Oxbridge system that Yale was blatantly trying to emulate when it created the residential college system in the early 1930s, said Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway.
But the difference of opinion is okay with me.
In fact, I think it will be healthy to have a conversation on the issue.
Yeah, me too.
I think that these lunatics should be exposed for the absolute maniacs that they are.
But I suppose on the plus side, at least this difference of opinion isn't being branded as a hate crime.
Unlike a charity race for a children's hospice where the runners dress in drag.
A charity fun run that invited men to dress up as women is being investigated by the police after a transgender charity claimed the dress code constituted a hate crime.
Officers were asked to look into the dames on the run race, where men run dressed as women in order to raise funds for a children's hospice by a transsexual support group.
Chrysalis transsexual support groups say the run organized by the children's hospice in Chorley is dehumanizing.
They are now attempting to stop the run due to take place in October, which raises money to support the hospice that looks after sick and terminally ill children.
Because the people at Chrysalis think they are more important than dying children.
Steph Holmes of Chrysalis says, we get enough confusion with the word transgender, which mixes us up with transvestites.
Transvestites certainly don't dress for comedic purposes, and I don't get up in the morning and think, what can I put on today to give people a laugh?
Hey, Steph, I hate to interrupt you, but nobody gives a fuck.
You're talking about taking money away from dying children, you selfish bitch.
You're talking about stopping a charity fun run to try and make their last few months of life more comfortable.
It's a small step from ridicule to persecution.
We do not need to give the bigots any more ammunition.
A dipshit.
Export Selection