All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 18, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
25:57
This Week in Stupid (18⧸10⧸2015)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to This Week in Stupid for the 18th of October 2015.
If you find anything you'd like to see in This Week in Stupid, please tweet using the hashtag TWIS or go to Reddit slash r slash Sargon of ACAD and post it there.
So to begin this week, there was the Democratic debate, in which Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton stood out as the two main candidates that people paid attention to.
And the main question being which one of them won the debate.
Well, according to the corporate media, the corporate candidate won the debate.
Hillary Rodham Clinton was the clear victor, according to the opinion shapers in the political world, even conservative commentators.
And it's true, virtually everyone in the mainstream media from the right and the left all proclaimed that Hillary Clinton had won this debate.
Unanimously.
There were no dissenting voices that I could find anyway.
But the thing is, public opinion really isn't lining up with what the corporate media is telling you about everyone's favourite corporate candidate.
Fuming Bernie supporters, why is CNN deleting our comments?
Hundreds on Facebook complain about network's pro-Hillary coverage.
Facebook users leaving reactions on CNN's page are now continually reposting them, knowing that they will be quickly removed.
There are hundreds in a seeming battle with the network, with no explanation as to why.
Some users and messages appear to be specifically targeted, especially those accusing CNN of having conflicts of interest that make it naturally inclined to back Hillary.
Jacques!
Well, for those who don't know what they're talking about, I'll show you.
Here's a list of Hillary Clinton's top campaign financers.
You've got people like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the usual suspects you would expect to see on the resume of the corporate candidates.
But you also have 21st Century Fox and Time Warner.
So it's no great surprise that Fox is quite happy to declare Clinton the victor of this debate over Sanders.
But Time Warner is the donor of particular interest here.
Why was CNN deleting and censoring pro-Sanders anti-Clinton comments?
Well, take a guess.
That's right, Time Warner owns CNN.
Hillary Clinton is their candidate.
Time Warner have been backing her.
Of course they're going to claim she was the winner of this debate.
They want her to win.
And they are so invested in this, they have given her half a million dollars.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is financed almost exclusively by unions or direct donations from people who support him, the public.
And thank God for the internet, giving regular people a goddamn voice to actually be able to air their displeasure with how the mainstream media is handling this.
I have yet to find a metric that doesn't put Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly in the lead, ahead of Hillary Clinton or just anyone else on this debate.
Whether it's on Facebook, it's on Twitter, any form of social media, Sanders is killing it.
Poll after poll online showed that Sanders was the man getting the backing of the public, as if there was any doubt.
Even CNN's own polls show that.
Which is why they simply went ahead and deleted it, after Sanders got 86% of the public votes on their side.
What a fucking joke the American mainstream media is.
Since we're on the subject, Donald Trump is still leading the opinion polls according to the Huffington Post, but he has lost quite a lot of ground to Ben Carson.
But do you really think it's going to stump the Trump?
Because Donald Trump is winning the internet.
I swear to God, Donald Trump actually tweeted out this Pepe the Frog meme of himself along with a can't stump the Trump video.
What the fuck is going on?
This means your political landscape is probably going to look like this in 2016, America.
I can barely contain my laughter.
This is amazing.
This is just the funniest motherfucking thing in the world.
you'll have two anti-establishment characters running for president.
And thank God, it means that Bernie Sanders is going to fucking win.
Since we're talking common sense, want a gun?
Take a bullet.
Take this.
Gutless NRA cowards.
You can have a gun once you understand the pain of being shot.
Well, that's completely sensible, and is exactly how these things should work.
If you want to own a knife, first you have to be stabbed.
If you want to own a car, first you have to be run down.
So our author describes Chris Rock's stand-up skit where he says that we need bullet control.
If bullets were $5,000, people would think before they shot one.
Our author says, Rock was definitely on point.
$5,000 bullets would be great.
Would they?
But I'd take it a step further.
I believe that being shot should be a requirement for gun ownership in America.
It's very simple.
You need to have a gun, like taking selfies with pistols, can't live without it.
Then take a bullet, you'll be granted the rights to purchase the firearm of your choice.
Now, call me a cynic, but doesn't that mean that the only people with guns are going to be the sort of psychopaths who do not mind taking a bullet in order to own a gun?
If we could successfully implement this rule, I guarantee the mass shootings will stop.
How the fuck do you know that?
Oh hang on, he actually explains here.
Week in and week out, we are forced to learn about another coward who can't stand to deal with the same rejection that most of us face, so they strap themselves with guns and then cock and spray at innocent people.
Well, I mean, do you know they're cowards?
Because honestly, I think loading yourself up with guns and then going on a shooting rampage is the opposite of what a coward would do.
Now before anyone misconstrues me, I'm not saying that spree killers are brave people or anything like that.
I really don't think that this kind of dichotomy could be applied.
But I think that if you are a complete fucking coward, the last thing you're going to do is go on a spree shooting.
You're probably going to be too afraid to do anything of the sort.
It strikes me that the sort of people who write manifestos and then go on spree killings, which most of them seem to do these days, are so batshit crazy, they might well be the kind of people who would willingly take a bullet in order to access guns.
The article ends by saying gun praises are just like the people who were in favour of slavery back in the day.
The elite, lazy, and ignorant, who weren't being beaten, raped, or in the field doing the work, so they were perfectly okay with involuntary servitude.
Which is a problem and why I think gun owners need to feel more.
They need a taste of the other side.
So if you love guns, if they make you feel safe, if you hold and cuddle them at night, then you need to be shot.
I mean, just, I'm impressed that you managed to equate being pro-gun with pro-slavery.
That's a hell of an accomplishment.
I guess the author of that article is probably one of the students demanding that Thomas Jefferson's statue be removed from university after calling him a racist rapist.
According to a change.org petition, Thomas Jefferson's statue sends a clear non-verbal message that his values and beliefs are supported by the University of Missouri.
Jefferson's statue perpetuates a sexist, racist atmosphere that continues to reside on campus.
The statue does it!
Fucking hell.
The petition was started by student Maxwell Little, who was inspired in part by the success of the removal of a Jefferson Davis statue from the University of Texas.
To drum up support for the effort, students last week held a protest of sorts under the hashtag post your state of mind that targeted the statue, and throughout the day, students covered the Jefferson statue with sticky notes displaying messages such as racist, rapist, slave owner, and misogynist.
This is really reminding me of the early Christians, who when they found they had a majority, went around defacing pre-Christian pagan statues and statues of people who were pagan.
Basically, it really looks like these progressives are doing the same thing.
It's fucking creepy.
But okay, we all knew that history was racist and transphobic and sexist and whatever other buzzword you want to put onto it.
But what about things in the modern world?
What about, say, hospitals?
Are hospitals sexist?
The answer is, of course, yes.
Everything is sexist.
In this case, particularly emergency rooms.
So a 2001 study shows that women report more severe and frequent incidences of pain than men, but are nonetheless treated less aggressively.
More recent studies have also shown that women report feeling pain more intensely than men, as a Stanford University School of Medicine study showed in 2012.
Which is weird because that goes against everything that women have always said to me throughout my entire life.
Women can endure pain way better than men.
Just look at childbirth.
The study's author says, It's not clear if women actually feel more pain than men do, but they're certainly reporting more pain than men do.
We don't know why.
But it's not just a few diseases here and there, it's a bunch of them.
In fact, it may well turn out to be all of them.
No matter what the disease, women appear to report more intense levels of pain than men do.
I'm not even going to suggest why that might be, I'm just going to drink my tea.
So is this sexism, or is it just that women are more likely to complain than men are?
Well, a study last year published in the European Heart Journal showed that women are comparatively undertreated compared to their male counterparts due to the fact that higher proportions of women with IHD present without certain indicators.
The study stated, these consistent findings argue against cultural gender-based factors, including misogyny and sexism, as a driving force for drug underutilization in women, and suggest alternatively that biological, sex-based differences are key contributors.
So basically they're saying that the problem is that men and women are different, which is why you're seeing these differences.
But that is the sort of thing the patriarchy would say.
Which is basically what happened at Warwick University when student George Lawler divided opinion after opposing the union's sex consent lessons.
So sociology student George Lawler described how he was excited to receive an invite to what he thought was a social event, but says his crushing disappointment quickly melted away to be overcome by anger when he realised what he was being invited to.
The communications secretary for Warwick's Conservative Association continued how he felt he was taking the wrong side by speaking out, and continued, but someone has to say it.
I don't have to be taught not to be a rapist.
That much comes naturally to me as I'm sure it does to the overwhelming majority of people you and I know.
Brand me a bigot, a misogynist, a rape apologist.
I don't care.
I stand by that.
The shock horror.
Man claims he's not a rapist.
How did this go down?
Well fucking badly if social media is anything to judge by.
One male user writing, George Lawler, you're a fucking idiot, and your article is offensive to women and an embarrassment to men.
Sorry, how would this man know what was offensive to women?
I mean, shouldn't we leave it to women to decide what's offensive to them?
Shortly after Lawler's article serviced, Warwick Women's Officer and one of the organizers of the iHeart Consent workshops, Josie Throop, took to the tab to write how she was angry at reading Lawler's piece, adding how she was not sorry her workshop made him feel uncomfortable.
Well look at that fucking face.
It's the creepy face of the controlling busybody.
Of course she doesn't feel fucking sorry.
Why would she?
She thinks she is morally justified.
I mean hang on no shh.
Can you hear it?
Can you hear it?
The greater good.
The greater good.
How fucking creepy are you?
I mean look at these two pictures right.
This is just some guy who's like this is not what a rapist looks like because he is not a rapist.
She is just this is what a consent educator looks like with a determined look on her face.
Creepy as hell because effectively she doesn't care about getting his consent to whether he needs to be educated on this topic or not.
She literally says he took a picture with a sign proclaiming this is not what a rapist looks like when the truth is it is.
Are you fucking serious?
I'm not saying the writer himself has sexually assaulted someone.
Yeah because that'd just be a step too fucking far wouldn't it?
But he seems to believe there is a particular profile of a person that would who's too busy lurking in the shadows somewhere to attend a consent workshop.
No, you think there is a particular profile of a person that would rape someone.
He is saying he already knows what consent is, just like almost everyone on earth.
I don't think anyone accidentally fucking rapes anyone.
Even rapists know that rape is wrong, you psychotic control freak.
And honestly, I am glad that he is not the only one standing up about this, because this sort of thing really pisses me off.
How dare they just assume that because someone is male, they are likely to rape someone.
Especially given how Oxford University's gay rights activist steps down from political roles after admitting drunken sex without consent at student conference.
Hang on, hang on.
Why the fuck are they softballing this?
Is it drunken sex without consent, or is it rape?
A leading feminist and gay rights activist at Oxford University has resigned from the students' union after she admitted having sex with someone without their consent.
I think you mean raping them.
Annie Tariba, 20, a third year history and politics student at Wadham College, has been involved in a series of left-wing campaigns and previously accused other students of promoting rape culture.
Wow, it's always fucking projection with you guys, isn't it?
She has quit a number of political and campaigning positions after admitting, I become sexually entitled when I am drunk.
In a self-flagellating open letter, which she posted online with a trigger warning, oh, you don't want to leave out the trigger warning, there's going to be rape involved.
Ms. Tariba said that she had had non-consensual sex and that she had raped at a National Union of Students conference for ethnic minority students where she was the elected lesbian rights representative.
Well don't worry Annie, we actually have someone who can help you understand what consent is because you clearly don't.
Ms. Tariba also revealed that on another occasion she had touched somebody in a sexual manner without their consent when she was drunk in a nightclub.
She added, it is clear that I lack self-awareness and become sexually entitled when I am drunk.
Yes you do.
You need a consent education course.
I think we can all just take a few minutes to enjoy this particular piece of irony.
Last year, she wrote an article blasting the Oxford Union over its handling of an alleged rape scandal, calling for compulsory consent committees to educate students about sexual etiquette.
She said there was an endemic problem of rape culture.
Understanding consent will shatter the illusion that rapists are strangers and creeps when around 90% of survivors know their attackers.
They do, Tariba.
You are one of those attackers.
You are one of those people who is part of rape culture.
There is a beautiful irony of progressive activists being hoisted by their own petards when it turns out that they were in fact projecting.
Just like this article from the Chronicle of Higher Education.
The end of male supremacy.
Who really thought that it was some sort of male supremacy?
The answer is of course, female supremacists, of which feminism harbours a great number.
But don't take my word for it, let's just start with the beginning of the article.
Women are not equal to men.
They are superior in many ways, and in most ways that will count in the future.
I mean, could you be any more blunt than that, just out of interest?
It's not a matter of culture or upbringing, it is a matter of chromosomes, genes, hormones, and nerve circuits.
It is not mainly because of how experience shapes women, but because of intrinsic differences in body and brain.
Okay, well, I'm glad we can agree that men and women are physically different.
But doesn't this just strike you as some sort of 19th century proto-fascist treatise?
I'm expecting to break out the calipers and start measuring the shape of my skull.
There's a lot of fanciful waffle that I'll try and cut out.
Above all, I mean that women can carry on the business of a complex world in ways that are more focused, efficient, deliberate and constructive than men's because women are not frequently distracted by impulses and moods that, sometimes indirectly, lead to sex and violence.
Are they not?
Women are more reluctant participants in both, you know, except when they're the perpetrators.
And if they are drawn into wars, these will be wars of necessity, not choice, founded on rational considerations, not on a clash of egos escalating out of control.
Because the author of this article is so fucking stupid that that is what they think wars are based on.
A clash of egos.
If ever someone was going to make a statement to demonstrate that they do not understand power politics, that would be it.
In addition to women's superiority and judgment, their trustworthiness, reliability, fairness, working and playing well with others, relative freedom from distracting sexual impulses, and lower levels of prejudice, bigotry and violence, they live longer, they have lower mortality at all ages, are more resistant to those categories of disease, and are much less likely to suffer brain disorders that lead to disruptive and even destructive behaviour.
All hail the ubermensch!
Jesus Christ is Nietzsche writing this article!
And of course they can produce new life from their own bodies, to which men add only the tiniest biological contribution, and one that could soon be done without.
I fucking doubt it, mate.
No matter how tiny that contribution, it is essential.
Contrary to all received wisdom, women are more logical and less emotional than men.
Women do cry more easily, and that too is partly biological.
But life on this planet isn't threatened by women's tears.
Are you fucking serious?
I mean, by what rationale are you claiming this?
So the author has been told that they're too hard on men, that I should recognise that most men are not guilty of violence, rape, promiscuity, or warmongering.
Of course they're not.
But the minority that is guilty of those things is dangerously large, and therefore, we should blame the men that aren't committing these acts.
Many times larger than it is in women, and that minority has put a strong stamp on human history.
In fact, you might say it's largely responsible for history.
But somehow this is going to be used as collectivist justification to do God only knows what to what you have admitted are innocent men.
But the real author now stands revealed.
It's not Frederick Nietzsche, it's Joseph Mengele.
There is a birth defect that is surprisingly common affecting a key pair of chromosomes.
In normal condition the two look the same, but in this disorder one is shrunken beyond recognition.
The result is shortened lifespan, higher mortality at all ages, an inability to reproduce, premature hair loss, and brain defects variously resulting in attention deficit, hyperactivity, conduct disorder, hypersexuality, and an enormous excess of both outward and self-directed aggression.
The main mechanism is androgen poisoning.
I call it the X chromosome deficiency syndrome, and a stunning 49% of the human species is affected.
It is also called maleness.
I think it's clear by now that we have completely opened Pandora's box, and the crazy is flooding out.
So let's see where this is going.
Once all of our ancestors could reproduce from their own bodies.
We were all basically female.
No, we were all basically asexual amoebas.
Females can't reproduce from their own bodies.
They need a male to impregnate them.
When biologists ask why sex evolved, they are not asking rhetorically.
The fact that sex feels good was a nice addition.
What they are asking is, why did those self-sufficient females invent males?
Amoebas are not self-sufficient females.
It's just nonsense.
It had to be a very big reason, since they were bringing in a whole new cast of characters who took up space and ate their fill, but could not themselves realize the goal of evolution, creating new life.
Yeah, because it doesn't require a man to impregnate a woman in this maniac's mind.
The best answer seems to be to escape being wiped out by germs.
Well, genetic variation is quite important.
So after a great deal more of self-flagellation that I'm not even going to bother going through, our author gets to this.
But millennial male dominance is about to end.
Glass ceilings are splintering into countless shards of light, and women are climbing male power pyramids in every domain of life.
This isn't, you know, in spite of men.
This is with the help of men, with the help of quotas, with the full backing of the patriarchy.
Even in the most sexless societies, women and girls form a fundamentally subversive group that will undermine the age-old male conceit.
Even in the poorest lands, the increasing availability of women's suffrage health services, micro loans, and savings programs is giving them control over their destinies.
That's wonderful.
The best way to spend an A dollar is to educate women and girls.
This article was written by a man called Melvin Connor, a professor of anthropology and behavioural biology at Emory University.
This guy gets to teach young people his nonsense.
His weird, collectivist, self-hating bullshit.
Can you even imagine having this guy as your professor?
Reading anything by these spineless, self-flagellating halfwits is like watching the Western world collapse one mind at a time.
But you know, what are women doing with this newfound power?
Well, if you're a writer for the Huffington Post, you're breaking down in tears after realising you are less oppressed than other people.
Writing in the Huntington Post, Jasmine Burton says that she broke down in tears after realising that she is not as oppressed as other people in the United States.
One of Miss Burton's seminal moments in social justice came during her first privilege walk.
She writes that the instructor lined everyone up at the end of a hallway and told us to stand side by side.
She said, it's easy, just follow the instructions.
The instructor then told members of the privilege walk to take a step back if they had books in the house and had parents who tell you they love you every day among other things.
According to Miss Burton, she was far out ahead of the majority of the group, almost in complete isolation, meaning that she was drastically more privileged than her compatriots.
That was the moment I physically realised that because of my background and because of my incredible communities of support, I was well positioned in life.
And it wasn't fair.
I completely broke.
After the activity, she called her mum weeping.
On the phone with my mum crying, I tried to put into words how unfair it was.
I felt like a sham, trying to engage in the fight for social justice and health equality, despite not experiencing nearly as much struggle or pain as my peers.
She's being victimized by her own fucking privilege.
She is the victim of having a good upbringing now.
What the fuck?
As a biracial African American and Native American female who grew up in a predominantly white and largely affluent suburban community in the American South, I felt the discriminations and injustices that I grew up combating would never compare to that of my peers.
Because this is what social justice warriors have done.
They have made being oppressed a desirable state.
They have made being a victim a privileged position.
And she's never going to get that because, ironically, she grew up with privilege.
I swear to God, social justice has created Orwell's nightmare.
Freedom is slavery.
Privilege is oppression.
Victimhood is privilege.
▲
Export Selection