All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 20, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
29:58
This Week in Stupid (20⧸09⧸2015)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 20th of September 2015.
I think this week's episode's going to be something pretty fucking special, because we begin with Sarah Silverman declaring the end of comedy.
Comedians should change with the times for PC college students.
This is of course Sarah Silverman's response to Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, Jay Leno, Bill Maher, Colin Quinn, all famous well-renowned comedians who are against the idea of politically correct censorship of comedy.
Silverman of course disagrees.
To a degree everyone is going to be offended by something, so you can't just decide on your material based on not offending anyone.
But I do think it's important as a comedian, as a human, to change with the times.
I think it's a sign of being old if you're put off by that.
The thing is, Sarah, that's actually not what we're talking about, is it?
We're not talking about being afraid to change your material with the times, because obviously comedians have to do that.
There's no option to not do that.
The question is whether you are going to self-censor because a group of adults might have their feelings hurt if the wrong sequence of words comes out of your mouth, even if it is only in jest.
But apparently it's not hard to change with the times, and I think that's important, she continued.
And when you have new information and when you become more aware of the world around you, you can change.
Thanks, Sarah Self-Help Guru Silverman.
You have to listen to the colleged aged, because they lead the revolution.
They're pretty much always on the right side of history.
Fucking hell.
I'm always terrified when people start talking about the right side of history, because frankly you never know how it's going to go.
But also because, generally, it's the sort of phrase that precedes, and because we're on the right side of history, we need to do X.
But anyway, what do the pioneers of this brave new world want, since they are the ones who are on the right side of history?
Well, according to the University of California, it seems that they want to have the right not to be offended.
As if any such thing can actually exist.
So the University of California may explicitly recognise a right for students not to be offended if a resolution under consideration is approved by the Board of Regents next week.
Intolerance has no place at the University of California.
We define intolerance as unwelcome conduct motivated by discrimination against or hatred towards other individuals or groups.
It may take the form of acts of violence or intimidation, threats, harassment, hate speech, derogatory language reflecting stereotypes or prejudice, or inflammatory or derogatory use of culturally recognised symbols of hate, prejudice or discrimination.
Everyone in the university community has the right to study, teach, conduct research and work free from acts and expressions of intolerance.
The university will respond promptly and effectively to reports of intolerant behaviour and treat them as opportunities to reinforce the university's principles against intolerance.
Or we could put it more succinctly and just say, intolerance will not be tolerated.
Here are some examples.
Vandalism and graffiti reflecting culturally recognised symbols of hate or prejudice.
These include depictions of swastikas, nooses and other symbols intended to threaten, intimidate, mock and or harass individuals or groups.
You know, fair enough.
No one needs nooses or swastikas, whatever, to try and intimidate people.
Completely agree with that.
Questioning a student's fitness for a leadership role or whether the student should be a member of the campus community on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, citizenship, sex or sexual orientation.
You know, I agree with that as well.
I don't think they should be factors in whether a student should be considered for leadership roles or just a member of the community.
Depicting or articulating a view of ethnic or racial groups as less ambitious, less hardworking or talented, or more threatening than other groups.
Okay, right, I have a real problem with this.
I mean, for example, white people are, in general, less ambitious and hard-working than Asian people.
And that clearly comes across in university attendance per capita and earnings after university.
Despite what I'm saying being backed up by the facts, what I have just said there is apparently now intolerant and shall not be tolerated.
But this is by far the stupidest one.
Depicting or articulating a view of people with disabilities, both visible and invisible, as incapable.
Right.
Because people who are disabled aren't disabled.
I mean, I don't think they should be mocked or derided because of their disabilities, of course.
But to say that you can't say, well, this person in a wheelchair is incapable of walking is fucking ridiculous.
And this is serious.
This isn't taken out of context.
Articulating a view that people with various intellectual disabilities are incapable of various intellectual tasks, or people with various physical disabilities are incapable of various physical tasks, would be condemned by the authority of the university.
That's the most baffling denial of reality I've ever seen.
Saying that illegal aliens or non-citizens who are legally here ought not to be appointed to say the student member of the Board of Regents is likewise condemned.
Well, frankly, I mean, I've got less of a problem with that.
I mean, that is obviously a legal technicality.
It's not some kind of physical barrier that prevents people from doing the job.
Attempts to discuss cultural or biological differences between men and women, between straight and gay people, between different ethnic groups will be condemned totally and without any tolerance for speakers to give an argument, Vollok argues.
So if Volok's correct, then they're essentially going to be denying reason itself by declaring empirical evidence and rationality to be intolerant.
And the level of nonsense surrounding this kind of politically correct censorship of ideas in universities has even come to the attention of President Obama himself.
Obama said to liberal college students who wants to be coddled, that's not the way we learn.
One student asked Obama to respond to Republican presidential contender Ben Carson's proposal to cut off funding to colleges that demonstrate political bias, which presumably would be all of them.
Obama replied, I have no idea what that means, and I suspect he doesn't either.
The idea that you'd have someone in government making a decision about what you should think ahead of time or what you should be taught, and if it's the right thought or idea or perspective or philosophy, that person would be, they wouldn't get funding.
Runs contrary to everything we believe about education.
That might work in the Soviet Union, but it doesn't work here.
That's not who we are.
And congratulations, Obama, that's a brilliant answer.
That's exactly one that should be held as the right answer to this question.
And it puts you directly at odds with the University of California.
He went on to say, it's not just sometimes folks who are mad that colleges are too liberal that have a problem.
Sometimes there are folks on college campuses who are liberal, and may even agree with me on a bunch of issues, who sometimes aren't listening to the other side.
And that's a problem too.
Sometimes.
Liberal.
I've heard some college campuses where they don't want to have a guest speaker who's too conservative, or they don't want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women.
I've got to tell you, I don't agree with that either.
Well, I don't, and I don't agree with your characterisation that these people are liberal.
I don't agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view.
I think you should be able to, anybody who comes to speak their mind to you and you disagree with, you should be able to have an argument with them.
You shouldn't be trying to silence them by saying you can't come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say.
That's not the way we learn either.
Well, I'm glad to hear this come from the mouth of someone who other people will listen to, finally.
Someone who the mainstream can't really ignore.
And I think it goes a long way to showing just how widespread the problem is, and how deeply it's rooted in universities.
Since I've been focusing very much on the progressive, quote, liberal left, let's have a quick look to the right.
And I know this one's going to piss off loads of my Christian viewers.
Atheist mother is ordered to receive Christian counselling or lose her kids.
Holly Salzman has been ordered by a New Mexico judge to partake in 10 church-led religious counselling sessions or lose custody rights to her children.
The judge ruled that in order for Salzman to regain custody of her children, she would have to complete the faith-based counselling despite her vocal objections and without regard for the fact that Salzman is an atheist.
I can't believe the judge didn't also order them to be baptized against their will.
And apparently this court order is a clear violation of the First Amendment and Salzman's rights.
Salzman secretly recorded one of her sessions, and a counsellor can be heard saying to her, The meaning in my life is to know love and serve God.
If you want to explore how God was in your past, how God was in your life and not in your life, I know you don't believe in God, which is fine, but I know at some points he was in your life in some way.
Oh, fucking hell.
And just to preempt anyone who's gonna jump in the comments and say, hey, look, I'm a Christian, but this cringeworthy shit doesn't represent me in any way, shape, or form, do not worry.
I do not think, and I'm sure nobody else thinks, that these people represent Christians at large.
The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling problematic.
Presumably because they've been taken over by SJWs, and said that no one should be put in a position where they are forced to accept training or therapy that violates their own religious beliefs and morals.
Well, I would say that this is slightly more than problematic then, isn't it, ACLU?
Isn't this the sort of thing you should be standing up against?
Making a big deal about?
I guess not.
I'm sure the American Civil Liberties Union has got way more important things to do than stand up for individual citizens' civil liberties.
You know, it's not just America that has the monopoly on stupid.
There is plenty of stupid in the United Kingdom as well.
I mean, we've got lots of racism and white guilt over here.
Which is why Asian child sex victims suffer more than white children, court rules, is a headline that was written this week.
It amuses me that this could be rewritten as Oriental Unta Kinder.
Weaker than proud Aryan Scions.
Inferior Asian victims of child sex crimes suffer more than their proud white brethren, and their attackers should accordingly be punished more severely.
The Court of Appeal has ruled.
Ruling on a convicted paedophile's appeal for a lesser sentence, Mr. Justice Walker said it was right that Jamal Mohammed Rahim Ul-Nasir had been given a longest spell in prison because his victims were Asian.
Ul-Nasir carried out the assaults on two underage girls and was jailed for a total of seven years at Leeds Crown Court in December last year.
He was convicted of two counts of sexual assault on a child under 13 and four counts of sexual activity with a child.
And he only got seven years.
But I mean, I should probably be thankful that the authorities decided to arrest and try him instead of declaring that everyone else around him was just a racist.
Oh wait, the judge who originally jailed him specifically said the fact that the victims were Asian had been factored in as an aggravating feature when passing sentence.
And I presume that that means that he got a longer sentence based on the fact that they were Asian because Asians are such weak untermensch.
And the thing is there's not even that much hyperbole.
She explained at the time that the victims and their families had suffered particular shame in their communities because of what they had endured.
There were also cultural concerns that a girl's future prospects of being regarded as a good candidate for arranged marriages could be damaged.
I guess she's been reduced to voluntary marriages.
But the thing is, I'm not the sort of person who thinks that all cultures are created equal.
I think some cultures are very definitely inferior, and I think a culture that shames young girls who have been the victim of rape is an inferior culture.
And shaming the families of these girls for something that happened to one member of the family is equally stupid and baffling.
They didn't have control over that.
If they did, I'm sure they wouldn't have let it happen.
And arranged marriages.
I mean, whatever this community is, it seems rather backward.
It's interesting that this is a point of discussion because Ul-Nasir's lawyers are arguing for him at the Criminal Appeal Court in London that his sentence had been unfairly inflated.
The argument being that Ul-Nasir was given a longer sentence due to his own ethnic and religious origin was based on a misconception.
I completely believe it.
I mean, if anything, it's in spite of his ethnic and religious origin.
If the British authorities' track record on dealing with Muslims who interfere with children is anything to be judged on.
But this is the point, it's not about the perpetrator, it's about the victim.
Who is the victim in this case?
Well, the victim is part of a particular community, which means they need some kind of special status.
They need to be treated differently to other people, for some reason.
Commenting on the case, an NSPCC spokesman said that any sentence should not depend on cultural background.
British justice should operate on a level playing field, and children need to be protected irrespective of cultural differences.
Regardless of race, religion, or gender, every child deserves the right to be safe and protected from sexual abuse, and the courts must reflect this.
It is vital that those who commit these hideous crimes are punished to the full limit of the law.
Which is exactly what I want to hear coming out of the mouth of a judge, and not just someone commenting on the case.
I actually have a real problem with this part, and it's because of the way it works.
The Court of Appeal decision is in line with new sentencing guidelines for sex offences, which came into effect in April last year.
Previously, when assessing the severity of a crime, judges were advised to consider which body parts were touched in a rather mechanistic cataloguing of the degree of wrongdoing.
Obviously, not a particularly pleasant thing to have to do, but it is going to create an objective standard by which any crimes done to a person can be judged, and judged in a way that's going to result in consistent sentencing.
However, new guidelines are in line with current thinking in the criminal justice system, which is far more focused on the effect of crimes on victims.
This is ridiculous and subjective and is going to create situations where people who do the same crime under the same circumstance will get different sentences because of the apparent effect of these crimes on the victims.
As if that is in any way something that can be accurately measured.
Also this week there has been a war launched.
A war on robots.
A war on sex robots.
In fact, tell you what, pause the video a second, go down to the comments and write down what group of people you think has declared war on sex robots, and we'll see who guessed right.
This is amazing.
They are yet to hit the shelves, but activists are already campaigning against the sale of so-called sex robots, which may be, quote, harmful and contribute to inequalities in society.
May be harmful.
Several companies are developing robots that can be used as sexual substitutes for humans, leading to the launch of the campaign against sex robots on Tuesday to highlight the potential dangers.
This just strikes me as really bizarre as if a man was creating a campaign against women using dildos.
Now you might be thinking, who has so much time on their hands that they are so bored that all they can think of to do is launch a campaign against robotic sexual aids for men?
The answer is Kathleen Richardson, a robot anthropologist, which I'm not sure is even a thing, and an ethicist at De Montfort University in Leicester who decided to Helen Lovejoy this bitch and warned that sex robots might come in the guise of children as well as adult women.
Because won't somebody please think of the robot sex workers?
She says, when I first started looking into this subject, I thought, oh, sex robots, that's harmless.
And perhaps these robots would reduce demand for real women and children.
Which is a fair sentiment, I guess, but the way you've worded it makes it sound like you think men in general have a sexual demand for children.
She carries on to say, but then, as I researched the subject more, I found the opposite was true.
That rather than reduce the objectification of women, children, and also men and transgender people, these robots would contribute and reinforce their position in society as objects.
What an absolute clusterfuck of a sentence.
Most men do not objectify children.
Personally, I don't actually have a problem with what men, women, or transgender people do as consenting adults.
If they consent to be objectified, it's entirely their choice.
And then she just asserts that these robots would contribute and reinforce their position in society as objects.
Calm down, you hysterical fearmonger.
You haven't proven this, you're just saying it.
That doesn't make it true.
We have the real use of women and children in the real world as sex objects, and this kind of paraphernalia reinforces that message, really.
The use of children in the real world as sex objects is obviously illegal and universally despised.
I really cannot envisage a situation where Western governments are going to allow the manufacture and sale of robot sex toys designed to look and act just like children.
And I'm not even saying whether it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's never going to happen.
And it's really weird defending all this, because it kind of grosses me out.
Californian company Real Doll plans to sell an artificially intelligent rubber sex doll able to talk by 2017.
Then there's True Companion that has been designing what it claims is the world's first sex robot called Roxy for years.
Male sex robots are also in development.
Price starts at $7,000 but approaches $75,000 for custom designs.
Roxy knows your likes and dislikes, carries on a discussion and expresses her love to you and can be your loving friend.
She can talk to you, listen to you and feel your touch.
She can even have an orgasm.
I mean don't get me wrong, that is a pretty good sell, but it doesn't sound like this thing can even make sandwiches.
So the inventor of Roxy, Douglas Hines, defended his creation telling CNBC that she has a useful role to play in society.
She.
I mean I'm not above misgendering objects.
It's an it.
He said the sex robot was a useful addition to society and could have therapeutic uses such as sex therapy.
Sold.
He believed that contrary to Dr. Richardson's concerns, robots like Roxy help to reduce sex trafficking, sexual and domestic abuse.
How the fuck do you know that?
As long as we're not hurting anyone, there's no problem with it.
Okay, well I agree with that, but how do you know that it's going to reduce sex trafficking and sexual and domestic abuse?
This is all a lot of unsubstantiated bullshit from either side.
Eric Billing, an associate senior lecturer at the School of Informatics in Sweden, has also joined the campaign against sex robots.
He told CNBC on Tuesday that he was worried about the as yet unknown effect sex robots could have on human relationships.
So we don't know that there is going to be one, but we're worried that there might be one.
So we need to prevent people from having these things, just in case there is one.
Billing actually has a legitimate concern though.
His isn't the, oh, there is a group that maybe somehow indirectly be the victims of something that doesn't involve them.
He says that sex robots were part of a global trend towards greater isolation, with many people shopping from home or living alone, despite studies demonstrating the need for human contact.
So he's actually concerned about the individuals who will section themselves off from the rest of the world, whether intentionally or not.
So you've probably already guessed the ideology that these robot ethicists are using.
But just in case you haven't, this is from their website.
We believe in the benefits of robots and technologies to our own society and human cultures, but want to ensure that robotics develops ethically and that we do not reproduce inequalities with their development that could further reinforce disturbing human-lived experiences.
We are not proposing to extend rights to robots.
We do not see robots as conscious entities.
We propose instead that robots are a product of human consciousness and creativity and human power relationships are reflected in the production, design and proposed uses of these robots.
As a result, we oppose any efforts to develop robots that will contribute to gender inequalities in society.
Amazing.
Modern feminism has actually managed to take a circumstance that involves no women whatsoever and make it somehow oppressive to women.
But what's worse is that they want to control your actions and thoughts.
They're concerned about the production, design and proposed uses of these robots.
You know, if I buy a robot, I will use it for whatever purpose that I desire, and it's not your business.
But okay, feminists, is there a crazy radfem from, ooh, I don't know, The Guardian, who'd like to weigh in on this and make any publications that they write for look even more stupid than they already did.
Julie Bindle, I know it's Saturday morning and you might not want to read this, but if men did not think of women as so human, sex robots would not exist.
Way to make yourself look like a raving lunatic, Julie.
What you're saying there is that men's desire to have sex with women is men thinking of women as subhuman.
Just so you're aware.
And finally, someone sent me this wonderful agony aunt letter.
Help!
The man I love does not take my feminism seriously.
I'm just going to read you the whole thing and try not to laugh.
Dear Sarah, my fiancé keeps brushing off my feminism as if it was some sort of childish hobby.
For instance, when we were watching a show on TV and I commented, that's what the gender wage gap looks like, after witnessing a harsh scene related to that problem, he rolled his eyes with a little smile.
Another time, we were at a Nelly concert, and he had three women come up on stage and ask one of them to walk sexy.
When I later expressed how ridiculous this was, he replied with something like, oh, I know, the whole feminist thing.
I don't know what to do.
How do I tell the man I'm going to marry?
By dismissing me as if my feminist beliefs are unfounded, that he's actually being sexist.
When I've brought up the fact that he doesn't take my concerns seriously, he usually says, no, I support feminists who want equality for everyone.
I just don't like extremists who are against men.
I think it had something to do with him feeling personally attacked as a male.
Like, when I was annoyed that the servers at restaurants and bars nearly always address him exclusively, even when I'm footing the bill, he said, yeah, well, that's what they're taught.
Like, that a guy should pay for everything.
I agreed that, yes, there's plenty of sexism towards men in our society that isn't being addressed.
And I understand that sexism can be a two-way street.
But I feel like I'm in a moral tug of war when I have to argue with my future husband to get any empathy or understanding at all about my point of view.
How can I get him to take me seriously without being confrontational and making him feel attacked?
Frustrated feminist from Pennsylvania.
Okay, well, I've got a couple of questions frustrated feminists.
First one being, are you sure it's feminist to get married?
Because I don't think Julie Bindle thinks it's feminist to get married and she's a much higher ranking feminist than you are.
Secondly, it's probably because you're not being oppressed in any way, shape, or form.
You're just looking for ways to complain about societal conventions.
And thirdly, it sounds like you're writing to a pastor, looking for advice with your Christian faith.
Her pastor says, Dear frustrated, I'm really bewildered about that moment when feminist became such a dirty word that even many women didn't want to attach themselves to it.
I'm glad you used the term and I'm glad other younger women and girls are picking it up again.
Because for years I heard, I'm not a feminist, but I do believe in women's rights.
What?
Why should we have to invent another term because it rubs some generally reactionary and not super pro-women's rights types people up the wrong way?
And then the idea trickled down that feminists hate men.
In my early 20s, one older male relative said to me after I referred to myself as a feminist, just don't become one of those ball-busting types.
Um, hello?
This particular issue isn't about men, it's about women.
Making sure women have equal status in our society, are free from violence and harm, and can follow their dreams, does not encroach on men's rights.
Yes, men also face gender-related challenges, and we can all get on board with fighting those too.
And be feminists at the same time.
It's not an either-or thing.
Okay, we're only halfway through the response, but I want to address a few things since we're here.
Loads of people don't want to be feminists because feminists are awful.
Like, really awful.
If you go on the internet and just type in sort of misandry, you'll understand why the idea trickled down that feminists hate men.
It came directly from feminists, and it came directly from them saying, we hate men.
Women don't want to identify as feminists because they understand that they don't lack any rights.
You're not advocating for women's rights, there's nothing to advocate for.
You have exactly the same, if not more, rights than men in society.
And yes, this particular issue is about women.
Feminists can make any issue about women.
Issues that don't even involve women in any way, like with robots, they can make it about women.
And if men face gender-related challenges as well, why do you hate MRAs so much if you can fight those as well and be feminists at the same time?
So she concludes with, It can feel incredibly aggravating to have to teach someone about injustices that seem self-evident to you.
And it's okay to feel angry and frustrated.
But remember, he grew up as a guy, not facing the same obstacles that you may have as a girl or woman, such as being belittled in a classroom, sexual or other harassment, being passed over for a job, etc.
That raise one's awareness.
You must love him in a million other ways, or you wouldn't be engaged.
So trying to enlighten him is worth it.
First, clearly define what feminism means to you, and share that with him.
Explain to him that it doesn't mean anti-man.
Let him know, perhaps in a moment that's not already tense, that these issues are super important to you, like, are core to your being, and you feel like he's not getting that.
And have your statistics at hand for the times you do want to raise a particular point, research credible info about sexual assault, the wage gap, reproductive freedom, or other aspects of women's rights that are important to you.
The strongest argument is one that is deeply felt with cold hard facts to back it up.
Love Sarah.
Okay, just a couple of things there, Sarah.
I think there's a very good chance that if men and women on the other side of feminism are turning around and saying, look, these aren't actually injustices.
This is you being hypersensitive and frankly a giant baby about it.
Maybe you should consider whether these are actual injustices or not.
Secondly, men face challenges too, just not the same ones as women.
Thirdly, though I do agree with what you're saying about statistics, these things are going to be easily debunked because feminist statistics are almost always fictional.
And lastly, when you say these issues are super important to you, like are core to your being, you make it sound like you're trying to spread a religion.
It's creepy and cult-like.
You are a creepy cult.
▲
Export Selection