Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - This Week in Stupid (01⧸11⧸2015)

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 1, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

23:16

This Week in Stupid (01⧸11⧸2015)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 4th of November 2015.
	If you have anything you'd like to see on This Week in Stupid, please tweet it using the hashtag TWIS or post on subreddit our Sargon of ACAD using the same tag.
	So to start with this week, California signs a law allowing illegal immigrants to vote.
	I don't even know how this is possible.
	The New Motor Voter Act that is now law in California automatically registers residents of California to vote at the DMV.
	According to the law in a report by the Washington Times, the New Motor Voter Act automatically registers all vote eligible voters when they obtain or renew their driving licenses at the Department of Motor Vehicles instead of requiring them to fill out a form.
	The goal is to ease barriers to voting, but the election integrity advocates warned that the measure could inadvertently add millions of illegal voters to the roles, given that California allows undocumented aliens to obtain driver's licenses.
	However, California's Secretary of State says that citizens should not be required to opt in to their fundamental rights to vote.
	We do not have to opt into other rights such as free speech or due process.
	Jeez, well, those are being eroded anyway, so I wouldn't worry about them.
	But, I mean, it requires you to drive.
	What if someone doesn't drive?
	What if someone doesn't go and pass their driver's test?
	Then they haven't opted in, have they?
	But not only that, are you seriously happy with millions of illegal voters being able to vote in your country's elections?
	I mean, that is...
	Why would you do this?
	What would- what is the fucking point?
	Are you really that bothered about the bureaucracy of people registering to vote?
	Is it really that much of a big deal?
	Either way, someone get me Donald Trump.
	Except, wait just a minute.
	The Trump has been stumped.
	Ben Carson knocks Donald Trump from top spot nationally in a poll.
	So, you know.
	For the first time in months, a national poll shows Donald Trump is not leading the Republican 2016 primary race, and instead has Ben Carson in first place.
	Carson won the support of 26 of Republican primary voters, compared with 22% who are backing Trump, according to CBS News and the New York Times.
	Though within the poll's margin of error, it marks the first time since the billionaire businessman's dominant rise over the summer where he has bumped from the top spot nationally.
	That's a horrible, horrible way of constructing a sentence.
	Trump told MSNBC, I don't get it.
	Which exactly sounds like something Donald Trump would say, so I completely believe them.
	This is the most interesting bit though.
	The poll does carry an important caveat.
	70% of responders said they had not settled on a choice yet.
	Trump's supporters, however, are more locked in with their support.
	You know what you have to do, Donald.
	You just have to change the question.
	Try something like, which candidate is the strongest leader?
	Hashtag, make America great again.
	Boom!
	Ben Carson, you are not the strongest leader.
	Hell, you're below Jeb fucking Bush.
	Good God, Donald Trump at 47%.
	Donald Trump is the man.
	Looking forward to this being referenced on Rational Wiki under my support for Donald Trump.
	So despite Ben Carson being the dullest man on earth with some really fruity views and a penchant for saying things that are completely nonsensical, it seems that he does actually have some things to say that people are interested in hearing.
	Last week he said that he would police liberal colleges for political bias and defund them, presumably if found with political bias.
	So he told Glenn Beck when asked if he would shut down the Department of Education that he would repurpose it to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists.
	Frankly, this makes me slightly uneasy.
	Now you might be thinking, Sargon, you are constantly going on about political bias on university campuses.
	Should you not be all for this?
	And I suppose in a way that's probably true, I probably should be.
	But I can't help but find myself wondering, well, who's going to judge what is extreme?
	And then we start going down the rabbit hole of, well, what is going to constitute a thought crime in the new Carsonian regime?
	Because, I mean, one of the problems that I have with universities is that being right-wing is a thought crime on many university campuses.
	It's actively petitioned and rallied against by students.
	I'm really not convinced that an anti-liberal partisan government should be taking steps to determine what is too far on university campuses, what is extreme when it comes to their political opponents.
	This is being associated to the Fairness Doctrine, an FCC bylaw that required radio stations to present civic topics in such a way that were deemed honest, equitable, and balanced by FCC regulators.
	This requirement was eliminated in 1987 as unconstitutional and subsequently led to the rise of conservative talk radio.
	It's also pointed out that Carson's proposal is also unconstitutional, and revoking university funding for political bias sounds like it would involve federal officials punishing speech based on its viewpoints.
	In addition to being an issue of government overreach and political bias, it may well also be an issue for free speech.
	And the thing is, I really think this is one of those issues with no easy answer.
	Because I do agree with Ben Carson, taxpayer funding should not be used for propaganda.
	But how is this not a violation of their rights to express the political viewpoints that they want to express?
	But this is the problem with Ben Carson.
	He is just your typical right-wing, misogynist, bigoted white male.
	Or at least, you know, he's some kind of Uncle Tom.
	He just doesn't want there to be a problem with whiteness course taught in universities.
	He thinks that's wrong, because he's such a racist.
	So Arizona State University English professor Lee Bebut told the Arizona Republic Monday that he plans to offer the controversial US race theory and the problem of whiteness course again in the spring semester through the revised title of Whiteness and Critical Race Theory.
	I can't see why anyone would have a problem with that.
	Why was there national uproar with this?
	What's the issue with the problem of whiteness?
	Why would anyone be angry?
	I can't even imagine.
	The original story led to an outpouring of rage from students and conservative commentators, many whom argued that the course unfairly singled out an entire race, while others pointed out on the course that the problem of blackness would certainly never be tolerated.
	You might think that that was a good point, but Bebu, for his part, said the reaction was actually a part of the reason he decided to offer the class again so soon after the last one.
	Loads of people calling him out on his racial hatred and clear attempt to incite prejudice and indoctrinate his students into the problem of an entire race is the reason he's going to do it again.
	Apart from the headache outside of the classroom, inside the classroom it was one of the best classes I've ever taught.
	Oh yeah, I'm sure that inside the Church of Scientology, there are no real problems.
	I'm sure everyone's having a wonderful time, you know, learning about how to be Scientologists.
	But outside, everyone's like, this is a fucking cult.
	What a headache.
	Obviously, this is a class that's needed.
	Let's offer it every year.
	Maybe Carson's got a real point.
	Maybe we're worrying too much about personal freedoms.
	Maybe we're worrying too much about individual liberty.
	And maybe we are worrying too much about restricting those rights.
	Because if there are going to be individuals who teach this kind of thing, maybe something should be done about it.
	Initially, he had intended to call the course Disrupting Whiteness, but ultimately settle on the more innocuous sounding whiteness and critical race theory.
	Perhaps reflecting a desire to avoid a repeat of the reaction to the previous course.
	Or maybe it's just that disrupting whiteness sounds remarkably like a racial attack.
	If you had disrupting blackness, you know that is exactly how they would frame it.
	Because frankly, that's exactly what it fucking is.
	And of course, this week was Halloween, so you can imagine what was going on on university campuses.
	That's right.
	It wasn't people having fun.
	It was people policing other people to prevent them from having fun.
	with colleges designating official Halloween costume sensitivity consultants.
	It is someone's job to look at your Halloween costume and go, colleges are hanging flies around campus with phone numbers of officials that students can call to consult about whether or not their Halloween costume is perfectly politically correct.
	Unsure if your costume might be offensive, ask the poster that's been hung around campus at the State University of New York at Genesio.
	Don't be afraid to ask questions.
	Alright, well let's have a look at this poster.
	How bad can it be?
	Holy shit.
	This Halloween, show your true face.
	Being a member of Genesio comes with responsibilities, so think about your actions and costume for Halloween.
	It's a poster encouraging people not to wear a fucking Halloween costume at Halloween.
	This was where it was going, I suppose.
	I mean, this was going to happen.
	This was eventually going to be like, you know what?
	Everything's problematic.
	So why not save yourselves the trouble and don't do anything?
	I mean, it's like there is no need to bother asking oneself, is your Halloween costume racist?
	Halloween is a holiday about glorifying all things spooky and scary.
	A day to dress up in a costume for the sake of having fun.
	Unfortunately, sometimes the fun comes at the expense of others.
	And the scariest thing is how rampant racism is on Halloween.
	So I'm afraid we've joined the camp of conservative Christians who think that Halloween is now something that's problematic and needs to be banned.
	Even if you belong to the culture that you are dressing up as for Halloween.
	According to this Ontario high school at least, your Halloween costume can't appropriate your own culture.
	A high school student in Brampton, Ontario was told he could not wear his Halloween costume to school, because it allegedly culturally appropriates his own culture.
	Joshua Suerninek, a ninth grade student at St. Thomas Aquinas Secondary School, planned to dress up as part of a mariachi band with his friends.
	The school however stated the Colombian student's costume is very offensive and would not be allowed because culture is not a costume.
	Therefore the Latino student can't dress up as part of his own culture.
	I just can't even.
	To SDA Brampton.
	Hey, will I be allowed to wear this?
	I have a whole group of friends with me too.
	To be a whole mariachi.
	Yep, what a terribly oppressive shitlord this kid is.
	Sorry, that costume will not be approved as it is very offensive.
	Please let your friends know.
	I think what I enjoy most about that response is the idea that there is some objective standard for offence.
	As if, nope, nope, sorry, that is going to offend every Latino person who sees it, and we simply can't allow that.
	I'm so sorry.
	Would you mind explaining why?
	I'm Colombian and everything but the guitar is from my country.
	You're probably thinking, well, they've got them on grounds of cultural appropriation because of the guitar.
	But no.
	Sure, the fact of the matter is, a culture is not a costume.
	Duh.
	While you might not find it offensive, others may.
	We have to keep that in mind while approving costumes.
	Thank you for your cooperation.
	Listen, despite the fact that no one is offended, and someone from this culture is saying, I want to wear some of my cultural heritage for Halloween because I think it'll be fun, you saying a culture is not a costume undermines everything about cultural appropriation.
	That is actually a rebuttal to the idea of cultural appropriation.
	You saying, you can't wear that because that belongs to another culture.
	I can say, a culture is not a costume, to which the only logical response is, that's a good point.
	The kid then tweeted a picture of a mariachi band at them, just to really offend them.
	To which they replied, again, while it may not offend others, it is still our school's job to limit this kind of behaviour.
	Can we please start calling them the conservative left?
	However, the best solution proposed was go as a Spanish conquistador instead.
	Since we've now covered that everything about Halloween is racist and problematic, let's talk about how everything is sexist.
	How about Australian schools?
	They're sexist.
	Fighting school sexism.
	Feminist theory hits classrooms.
	Is that a fucking good idea, is it?
	Is that a good idea to start teaching feminist theory to children?
	I only ask because so few feminists seem to understand it themselves.
	16-year-old feminist Stella Bridie is sick of being called bossy and bitchy at school.
	Well, she's never going to become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, is she?
	Cheryl Sandberg.
	She sees herself as ambitious and assertive.
	She's unafraid of asking teachers tough questions and taking up leadership roles, but these efforts landed her a reputation of being too forthright, a description more commonly attributed to female rather than male students.
	Yes, because there are no female students who are bossy and bitchy.
	They are all simply being maligned by the patriarchy.
	Schools will soon have access to a new feminist curriculum called Fight Back, created by Fitzroy High School's Feminist Collective, a group started by teacher Bryony O'Keefe and some of her students in 2013.
	This sounds like a cult.
	It just sounds like a fucking cult.
	And what is the first method of action for a cult?
	Well, we're going to try and indoctrinate children.
	Students taking the course are asked to reflect on their experience of objectification, compare images of famous men and women in the media, deconstruct sexist cartoons, and debunk hairy armpit myths about feminists.
	You know, really important stuff.
	They explore the term patriarchy and examine statistics on the gender wage gap, violence against women, and female representation in sports.
	All stuff that has been debunked or is easily explainable without resorting to a fucking cult.
	Seriously, just listen to this.
	The feminist collective started as lunchtime sessions on feminism and turned into an elective offered twice a week.
	The classes became a safe space for young feminists to vent.
	Of course they did.
	The students were angry that good friends were falling victim to eating disorders.
	Is that a feminist issue?
	Is it?
	The white middle class men dominated their reading lists.
	Oh, that matters.
	The idea is irrelevant.
	That objectifying images of girls they knew were circulating on Facebook and that they were being branded feminazis on social media.
	Well, maybe there's something you're doing that's causing this.
	Maybe this is a reasonable reaction to the way you are acting.
	The collective also faced opposition in the playground Stella, says.
	Male students argued that they should form a men's rights collective to protect themselves against the feminists.
	It got increasingly aggressive, says Stellar.
	And these are lovely people.
	I tried to stay calm, but when I left I just burst into tears, because there are a couple of my really good friends who had just yelled at me simply for saying that I want rights.
	You're not fucking talking about rights.
	You're talking about the most first of first world problems, the very apex of which can be seen in this article, the three letter word that cuts women down every day, and that word is two.
	In my experience, I rarely hear two thrown around about men.
	Well okay, but do you think that's some sort of objective measure?
	You hear someone saying he's short, but you seldom hear he's too short.
	Um, what depends who you're talking about?
	I imagine there are plenty of short guys who hear you're too short.
	To date, quite often I have determined that two means you're calling a woman too far away from your idyllic vision of what a woman should be.
	Well yes, but these are all subjective judgments based on their own personal fucking taste.
	You're too fat, you're too thin, you are too, whatever.
	My epiphany about this word surprised me and everyone else.
	I view myself as a well-versed feminist.
	I'm so sorry, but I never realized how deeply a three-letter adverb could cut.
	You are not being oppressed by the word two, so don't even try it.
	Last on our list of things that were declared sexist this week is Bernie Sanders.
	You know the one, the progressive feminist political activist.
	So this has its roots in the first Democratic debate earlier this month, where the Vermont senator said that all the shouting in the world won't fix the country's systemic problem with gun violence.
	This has been interpreted as Sanders being sexist, but he says obviously that that wasn't his intention, and the Clinton camp is obviously happy to play this up as a strong woman under attack by a male opponent, until you then realize it's Bernie Sanders and Hillary Fucking Clinton.
	The men speaking on behalf of Bernie Sanders should do better.
	Tweeted Jess Mcintosh, communications director for Emily's LIST, an organization that works to get women elected into office, and is, of course, supporting Clinton's bid, because it's not like Clinton's being paid off by the banks and the corporations.
	It's not like she's not one of the people who is frankly the problem with the political system.
	It's not like she's got anything to answer for with Benghazi.
	It's not like there's anything wrong wrong with her using her personal emails, which she then purges just to make sure that no one can read anything that's gone on there.
	It's not like Clinton's done anything wrong.
	She's a woman.
	Therefore, you have to support her.
	This is the insanity of identity politics.
	It leads men to write things like, it's time to do away with the concept of manhood altogether.
	But are you suggesting that men should just remain in a perpetual state of adolescence?
	Overgrown boys.
	Because, you know, I actually think that might be happening whether or not you want that to happen, but not for the reasons that you think it should be happening.
	Have you ever been such a collectivist piece of shit that your first line in your attack article against an entire gender has been, men are pretty terrible people?
	Imagine, imagine what you must be thinking to fucking write that.
	You must be thinking stuff like, they commit significantly more violent crimes, robberies and assaults each year than women do, according to the Department of Justice.
	They are more likely to show anger in the workplace and be rewarded for it, while women are affected negatively for the same behaviors.
	They even take up too much space on public transportation when manspreading.
	I could keep going, but there's no point.
	I've already slandered all men.
	It doesn't matter that what's happening is the fact that it's a result of individual actions, and that there are many individuals who are doing none of these things, and so should not in any way be lumped into this category that you're using.
	But fuck it, it doesn't matter.
	What difference it makes?
	I mean, they share genitalia.
	They share junk.
	They've got penises.
	They don't have vaginas.
	That is an immoral act.
	I mean, I'm not even going to go through this article.
	This article is just possibly the worst thing that a human being has committed to text since Mein Kampf.
	Just replace men with Jews and women with Aryans, and you have something that would have been very popular in Nazi Germany.
	This is an atrocious, shameful article.
	The Guardian has another, yet another reason to hang its head in shame.
	Because now they are victimizing the least privileged people in society.
	Poor white boys get a worse start in life, says Equality Report.
	I wonder if it's anything to do with the mainstream media writing articles that start with, men are the worst.
	Men are terrible.
	Men are just fucking awful.
	Imagine if we were saying that to women.
	Imagine if we were saying that to girls.
	You would fucking throw a fit.
	If you're white, male, and poor enough to qualify for a free meal at school, then you face the toughest challenge when starting out in life.
	That's...
	I want the feminists to remember this.
	This isn't if you're a middle-class woman who's heard the word too once too many times and is very upset about it.
	If you've been called bossy, you don't have the worst if you are white, male, and poor.
	That's what the Equality and Human Rights Commission has said in the most comprehensive review ever carried out on progress towards greater equality in Britain.
	How many poor students in England got a C grade or higher at GCSE or equivalent?
	White boys are the lowest on this chart.
	White pupils overall did generally worse than the other race groups.
	They're just the indigenous population of Britain.
	Why would that matter?
	How many students not receiving free school meals in England got a C grade or higher at GCSE?
	So those people who aren't considered to be poor.
	Well, the white boys are at the fucking bottom of that too.
	I wonder why.
	Our review shows how young people out of all age groups experienced the steepest fall in incomes and employment, worse access to decent housing and best paid jobs, and deepening poverty.
	She says, poor white boys in particular are falling behind.
	They are most likely to end up in a succession of lower paid, insecure jobs at best.

▲