All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 1, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
01:12:25
This Year in Stupid (2015)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this year in Stupid for 2015.
And what a year it has been.
As with last year's video, I'll break this video down into sections with five separate areas that I'll be covering.
Many of them will probably have some overlap though.
So without further ado, let's start as we mean to go on.
Number one.
The powers that be are retarded.
2015 was the year that the year itself became justification for anything that you wanted.
It's 2015!
It's time!
Because it's 2015.
And that expression says everything.
Why is the current year justification for whatever it is you're proposing?
Because it's 2015.
Why did you feel the need to declare war on China?
Because it's 2015.
Why did you decide that Paul was always right and it was actually the time to finish off the Jews?
Because it's 2015.
Apparently it being 2015 was justification enough for new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to pick his cabinet members by their genitals.
Let's just hope that he decides 2016 is justification for something equally as benign.
Of course, if you wanted other people to know that you're an idiot, you could always get the shirt with this slogan on from the Canadian Liberal Party.
All you have to do is donate $100.
How else are you going to tell people how dumb you are?
I suppose if you're a Tory MP, you could claim that astrology would solve one of the major crises of modern Britain.
That'd do it.
You could always change the way we collect statistics so that women with vagina piercings could be classified as women suffering from female genital mutilation.
In other news, female genital mutilation in Britain has shot up by 6,000%.
No connection, I'm sure.
Don't worry, Australia, you're not missing out.
It turns out your politicians are absolutely degenerate filth.
Don't worry, this is not something unusual for politicians in the West.
It's absolutely completely normal for politicians to be part of child sex rings.
Unfortunately.
But when they weren't fucking kids, they were fucking pigs.
Or at least, that's the allegation from Lord Ashcroft, who decided to publish this in his book after bailing out the Conservative Party and not receiving a scratched back in return.
Of course, David Cameron decided that he would not dignify the piggate allegations until he did by categorically denying them, presumably after learning Lord Ashcroft actually didn't have photos of the act.
Or at least hadn't released them yet.
And for some reason, he was just too busy running the country to sue Lord Ashcroft.
Yes, everyone's laughing at Cameron for fucking a pig's face, but he's not going to sue.
That would be beneath his dignity.
There are, of course, some politicians we simply cannot be rid of.
Tony Blair appeared on the cover of Newsweek, looking like his deal with the devil had expired.
He threatened to travel the globe for the next 30 years by forming some kind of international cabal of ex-prime ministers who would haunt world leaders like the ghosts of war crimes past.
Needless to say, when he described his own ideas of leadership as close to a benevolent dictatorship, he was rather accused of being megalomaniacal.
But Tony Blair wasn't the only person who thought 1984 was an excellent instruction manual.
The chief of Scotland Yard was absolutely in favour of putting CCTV in every home.
Which was condemned as being Orwellian and risked turning members of the public into an extension of the police.
But it'd make their jobs so much easier if you'd just do that.
Go on, why don't you just do that?
It'd just be easier, wouldn't it?
I mean, if you've got nothing to hide?
Why not just follow the example of Swedish companies and put chips under your staff's skin for really menial activities that can be done with the press of a finger?
But who knows, maybe one day you too will be offered the chance to be chipped, so you can use doors and photocopiers without having to do pesky things like operate any muscles in your hands.
Don't forget to get the teachers to spy on students so they can call social services if their kids are showing any signs of having played Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty.
Teachers will be able to identify which students have played Grand Theft Auto V by the misogynistic murder sprees a la Elliot Rogers that they've gone on.
Now of course setting up Orwell's nightmare is just fine, but we don't want our retarded authorities to go too far.
And apparently too far is spying on toddlers under an anti-terror plan because people are afraid that these toddlers are going to be branded as terrorists.
Just so we're clear, that's the line.
But okay, what do our brilliant politicians have to deal with in terms of world crises?
It's nothing too serious, is it?
Well, you may remember that in 2014 Russia annexed Crimea.
Of course, Western politicians were left scratching their asses, not really sure what they could or should do.
And so Vladimir Putin decided to follow up this success by deploying troops to the Middle East to support his ally Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria.
Of course, most of the targets have been Syrian rebels trying to overthrow the Assad regime, but it does appear that the Russians have been striking at ISIS as well.
This appears to have been a lightning campaign that has been remarkably successful, as American strategists have decided that the costs have been rather bearable for Russia, and key goals have been met across the board.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has achieved his central goal of stabilising the Assad government and with costs relatively low, could sustain military operations at this level for years.
US officials and military analysts say.
That assessment comes despite public assertions by Barack Obama and top aides that Putin has embarked on an ill-conceived mission in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that it will struggle to afford and will likely fail.
It's not clear where Obama is getting this information from, since his own analysts are saying actually Russia's doing rather well at this.
Maybe we should take some notes.
But Russian military intervention was just the start of it.
Despite apparently living in denial, the Americans have found themselves on the back foot when it turns out that Vladimir Putin had some information up his sleeve, that members of NATO were funding ISIS.
I guess they must have forgotten that Russia has satellites of their own or something.
Because Putin said, I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different Islamic State units by private individuals.
This money, as we have established, and there are some of the G20 members among them.
Well, it turns out that Turkey was one of those countries, and after downing one of the Russians' planes, Vladimir Putin decided to let them have it.
as Turkey is frequently cited as one of the primary destinations for ISIS oil.
Or at least it was, until the Russians started blowing the shit out of the oil convoys.
Putin declared that the NATO alliance member was an accomplice of terrorists.
Presumably because it had let up to 20,000 foreign fighters into the Middle East to join the Islamic State, as well as arming and training rebel fighters.
while Turkish businessmen struck lucrative deals with ISIS oil smugglers, replacing the Syrian regime as the main client.
And this seems to have been corroborated by a US special forces raid in eastern Syria, which killed the ISIS official responsible for the oil trade, and a troll through his compound uncovered hard drives that detailed connections between senior ISIS figures and some Turkish officials.
The Turkish president decided to respond by pointing the finger and saying, yeah, but Assad's doing it as well.
Apparently forgetting that since Syria is not a part of NATO, pointing the finger doesn't matter.
And hot on the heels of this were more allegations by Lord Ashdown that Tories had links to rich Arabs who fund the jihadists, which is why we're kind of reluctant to get involved.
So, as you can imagine, our politicians are left looking exactly as incompetent as they are, and Vladimir Putin was named by Forbes magazine as the most powerful man in the world.
So how exactly can certain Western politicians save face after being so completely and thoroughly diplomatically owned by Vladimir Putin in 2015?
Well, I mean they could commission a study to suggest he's on the autism spectrum?
I mean I know it's not him fucking a pig, but what else are you gonna do?
Seriously, a Pentagon think tank theorises that Russian President Vladimir Putin has a Spurgess syndrome.
I don't know whether they've even thought this through though, because I mean who wants to be politically demolished by someone with autism?
So honestly, it's kind of lucky that Western politicians got rebuffed by Putin saying that he wasn't autistic, as if this doesn't look like we are being really fucking petty.
And since we're talking about things that are petty...
Number two.
The Feminist Inquisition So 2015 was a year where feminists interrogated celebrities to find out their level of commitment to the cause.
Are you a feminist?
The world must know.
Do you hate men?
Oh no wait, that's just what people think feminists are.
Which is why every time a feminist talks about feminism, they have to point out that feminism isn't actually about man-hating, no matter how much feminism appears to be about man-hating.
And it turns out there are an awful lot of female celebrities out there who don't hate men, and so literally say that they are not feminists on that basis.
For example, Bjork says that it's important to collaborate with both males and females and to be positive.
Taylor Swift says, I don't really think about things as guys versus girls.
I never have.
I was raised by parents who brought me up to think that if you work as hard as guys, you can go far in life.
And Lady Gaga who says, I'm not a feminist.
I hail men.
I love men.
So it actually seems that these ladies do know what feminism is about, which, of course, sent the feminist media into full damage control mode.
How about female celebrities who don't understand feminism?
Lena Dunham has acknowledged it as her greatest pet peeve, don't you know?
And Ellen Page has openly wondered why people are so reluctant to say that they are.
What about those confused female celebrities who say they aren't feminists?
Maybe they should look at the dictionary definition.
A belief in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes.
See?
Nothing about man-hating there.
Maybe the growing number of famous ladies saying that they're not a feminist is because they're just misguided.
Maybe it's because they want to bad-mouth feminism.
Anything's possible.
I mean, let's just take the example of Kaylee Cuoko, who plays Penny on the Big Bang Theory.
She had the temerity to say that, I'm not a feminist and I love feeling like a housewife.
Which is presumably bad-mouthing feminism that she did at the end of 2014.
Needless to say, the pink Twitter mafia sprung into action and bullied the shit out of Kaylee for daring to say that she wasn't a feminist.
Four days later, she was desperately apologising.
I'm so sorry, I said I wasn't a feminist.
She apparently stepped into the wasp's nest when she made a mild comment about whether she considers herself a feminist in an interview with Redbook.
Perhaps someone should point out to the Twitter feminist hate mob that it's okay for her to do this if she so chooses.
And according to some feminists, it's not even against feminism.
Now, I suspect that it's not just that feminism appears to be a movement of man-haters to publicly express their hatred of men.
I suspect that many women are turned off of feminism because feminism seems to attract a disproportionate share of complete fucking lunatics.
This was the Twitter profile picture of notorious British feminist Stavvers, who runs a blog called Another Angry Woman.
As a brief demonstration of how absolutely unhinged she is, when she managed to acquire a thrush infection in her vagina earlier this year, she decided that since thrush was a form of a yeast infection, what she would do is scoop out some of the goo, put it into a mixture, and bake it into a loaf of bread.
She says, waking up on Saturday with a familiar, itchy Bernie fanny, I giggled to myself, maybe I could make bread with that.
And that ticked into, well, I've always wanted to try making my own sourdough anyway, and then a, fuck would that even work?
Then I got curious and the next thing that happened was I was scraping white goop off a dildo into a bowl of flour mixed with water.
But actually it's about equality.
It's not actually about insane women being obsessed with their own vaginas, no matter how disgusting their vaginas are.
Why don't you want to be a feminist?
Come on, be a feminist.
Just join Stavvers, be a feminist.
I swear to God, if I ever hear you bad-mouthing feminism, it should come as no surprise when radical feminist activists become apostates.
They feel the need to apologise.
In the feminist movement, women are not of any importance, but serve as fuel for the fires of hatred.
Which is probably why feminists are constantly saying that feminism honestly is not about hating men.
For the feminist sect, I love that she terms it a sect.
Women are not the inspiration, they are the prime matter in the worst sense of the term.
They are convenient objects useful for the purpose of inflaming hatred against the Christian religion, hatred against men, hatred against the beauty of women, hatred against the equilibrium of families.
That's what feminism is, and I can guarantee it is like that because I was on the inside.
I saw the feminist movement cover up for paedophiles.
I saw the feminist movement persecute women.
I am a witness to the fact that today in the feminist movement, women are not of any importance, but serve as fuel for the fires of hatred that the feminist sect cannot allow to die.
Well, we have certainly seen feminists advocate for paedophilia, including, but certainly not limited to, Salon.com producing not one but two articles, attempting to not only normalise paedophilia, but make the paedophiles themselves victims of the right-wing hate machine.
But while feminism was proving itself to be the real hate machine out in the wider world, the wider world watched in horror as academia came face to face with the monster that it had created.
Number 3.
Social justice conquers academia.
Quite early on in 2015, The Spectator published an article by Brendan Neal called, Free Speech is So Last Century.
Today's students want the right to be comfortable.
In the article, Brendan coined the term the Stepford students, an allusion to the Stepford wives, the remarkably submissive women of the book of the same name, who the protagonist believes may well be robots because of how well they conform.
If you look back now, this article seems rather prescient, because the way that he describes students behaving in it was manifested not just in Britain, but across the United States as well.
I think it's important to note that it's not all of the students that are doing this.
It's a minority of students who are particular devotees of social justice.
And unsurprisingly, those other proponents of social justice have backed them fully in their quest to crack down on free speech and behaviour.
Because apparently, students today are more like children than adults and need protection.
Well, duh.
If you treat them that way, of course they're going to be.
But it's not just about treating them that way.
It's about the way the students are demanding to be treated.
If something offends their sensibilities, they want it banned.
Which means, as you can imagine, comedy is off the table.
And I mean completely off, to the point where someone as uncontroversial as Jerry Seinfeld is slamming politically correct students for hurting comedy.
They just want to use these words.
That's racist, that's sexist, that's prejudice.
And in his opinion, they don't know what they mean.
The worst part is that he's not wrong, but he doesn't know the whole story.
Clearly, because it's not that they don't know what they mean.
It's that these students have new definitions for these words.
Jokes that are branded racist, Anti-semitic and transphobic need to be no platformed.
Now, for anyone not familiar with no platforming is it's something that the student unions in British universities do with alarming regularity.
No platforming was a policy that was originally brought in to prevent people like holocaust deniers from spreading spreading whatever propaganda that they had.
But the problem is, the tools you use to suppress others today will be the tools that are used to suppress you tomorrow.
And we have no better example of this than feminists being no-platformed by other feminists for being the wrong type of feminists.
For example, as you can see on the screen, controversial lesbian radical feminist Julie Bindle, who has been no-platformed by other feminists because of her trans-exclusionary brand of feminism.
The same goes for veteran feminist activist Jermaine Greer.
If you can believe it, she is being considered a misogynist or a trans misogynist.
And of course, a feminist comedian who is guilty of wrongthink will find herself no-platformed before she knows what's going on.
Of course, suppressing people's individual rights to speak is not something that is unique to British universities.
This is something that American students have embraced with gusto.
Yale University students literally signed a petition to repeal the First Amendment, which is the amendment that guarantees their right to free speech.
It's baffling.
It's absolutely baffling that they think it should be okay for them to lose their rights to free speech.
But since Yale was part of the 2015 student protests, maybe we should look at something that occurred there to see if we can gain a glimpse into the mindset of these students.
It is not about creating an intellectual space!
It is not!
Do you understand that?
It's about creating a home here!
Well, that kind of tells us everything we need to know.
It's not about creating an intellectual space at Yale University.
It's about creating a home, because these students are apparently wildly insecure children, who unironically yell, The number of students who are severely mentally handicapped in these universities appears to have reached a critical mass, where they have become aware of the sheer number of them that can all band together and make demands.
And make demands they are.
No less than 76 different universities across North America have mobs of students that have been protesting against their own faculty to enact a list of usually racially charged demands based on what is frankly the most flimsy pretext imaginable.
They seem to be the victims of their own teachers, who have indoctrinated them into believing that every slight is something called a microaggression.
Every time a white person speaks to a black person, that person is being racist because white people are all racists.
Some colleges have even got Black Lives Matter courses in a way to, I guess, further indoctrinate their students into how terribly oppressed they are by the white man.
Don't forget that this is also very intersectional, which means that if you're female or if you're gay, then you are also being oppressed by men and straight people respectively.
So black queer women are at the very, very top of the progressive stack.
They are the people who are the most oppressed.
These protests have largely been inspired and orchestrated by ex-students or non-students and their teachers.
For example, in this picture here, you are looking at a chap called Jonathan Butler, the guy with his hand in the air, who was on a hunger strike at Missouri University, despite not actually going to Missouri University anymore.
He's oppressed.
He's very oppressed.
He's very, very terribly, terribly, terribly oppressed.
His father is worth $20 million, but he is very, very oppressed, because that's how this works.
Now, I did say that teachers have been getting in on the action as well.
And since we're on Missouri, we will look at a teacher called Melissa Click, one who was all in favour of censoring the media from reporting on the student protests.
Hi, Media, can I talk to you?
No, you need to get out!
You need to get out!
No, I don't.
You need to get out!
I actually don't.
Alright!
Hey, you want to help me get this reporter out of here!
I need some bustle over here!
That was one of the teachers orchestrating these protests out of what I can only assume is a misguided sense of social justice.
But the thing is, everyone and their dog by now is well aware that this is doing the students no good.
It's not preparing them for life in the real world.
It is in fact completely warping their perceptions of reality and their expectations from reality.
And nowhere is this better exemplified than the beatnik finger clicking in agreement when a speaker says something that everyone agrees with.
But worst of all, in a policy that the NUS, the National Union of Students, has implemented, where they replace clapping, which can be alarming and scary, With jazz hands at student union events.
That's right, standing there and waving your palms at the person speaking or performing is now the appropriate response instead of clapping because clapping could trigger some kind of terrible memories or something when they got clapped at for...
I don't know.
I just don't know.
But this is something that really happened in 2015, I swear to you.
I'm not making this up.
So while Western universities are building a better class of idiots, let's have a look at the principles they are building upon.
Number four, 2015 was the year of identity politics.
For those not in the know, this is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's definition of identity politics, and in this video I will be talking about left-wing identity politics as opposed to right-wing identity politics, which will probably be featuring heavily in 2016's this year in Stupid.
So, rather than organizing solely around belief systems, programmatic manifestos or party affiliation, identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context.
Members of that constituency assert or reclaim ways of understanding their distinctiveness that challenge dominant oppressive characterizations with the greater goal of self-determination.
Why?
Because it's fucking easy, that's why.
It sounds complicated here, but it's really not.
I mean, it's difficult to understand a programmatic manifesto or understand belief systems or party affiliation, but looking at someone else and saying, oh, we share a characteristic, and that is what we should protest on or advocate for, is so easy, even retarded college students can do it.
It's important to remember that identity politics is generally a first world problem.
Usually because people in the second and third worlds generally have much more to worry about than someone misgendering them.
Which is why refugee shelters for LGBT people, lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans, are going unused in Sweden.
Because it turns out that refugees from Eritrea, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria don't really include many LGBT individuals.
And the thing is, as soon as you decide that, right, what I'm going to do is I'm going to take an identity, and I'm going to apply it to everything, it means you can apply it to anything.
Take, for example, the University of California in Berkeley, their Center for the Study of Sexual Culture, has a queering agriculture course.
Queering agriculture, food safety in the nation's capital, and crises of reproductive American familiarism.
Sounds like total bollocks, and it probably is.
I have no idea what queer agriculture actually is, and you know, I don't care, because whatever they say, I know is going to be total horseshit.
But it doesn't matter, because identities are very malleable.
At least, the statistics using identities are.
Take, for example, last year in gaming when the ESA turned around and said, oh, by the way, half of gamers are women.
And now adult women are the largest demographic in gaming.
You can imagine how surprised everyone was.
Unsurprisingly, most women who play games shun the gamer label.
Now, there are two narratives at play here.
The first one is that gamer is an outdated label that people prefer not to use, because it's associated with bigotry and intolerance and all these other kind of horrible, horrible labels that progressives use in their war of identity politics.
The second narrative is that most women do not adopt the label gamer because they are only playing casual games.
Gaming is not a significant hobby for them, and they are using these games to pass the time.
Of course, this does not matter.
What matters are the identity of the people represented in video games.
And apparently more female heroes are appearing in big budget games due to social justice pressure.
And apparently, the diversity report card is in.
Video games passed in 2015.
Albeit barely.
Personally, I don't really care about identity politics and representation in video games, but a pass is a pass, so fuck you barely.
We can now tell social justice warriors to shut up when it comes to talking about identity in video games.
They started the war, they have now won the war, so now there's nothing left to talk about.
Well, except for when it comes to mocking them.
Because there is a specter haunting video games.
The specter of Gamergate.
Honestly, I don't think there's all that much left to say about Gamergate.
I think that it's kind of come and gone, and by the end of 2015, there's not really much going on with it.
But it is nice to see that the spectre of Gamergate still haunts the SJW imagination, and that is priceless.
It's also difficult to estimate the damage that the identity politicians did to themselves while attempting to fight Gamergate.
For example, Wikipedia voted to ban some editors from editing gender-related articles due to Gamergate.
These activists made such a nuisance of themselves during the Gamergate controversy that they have literally made themselves persona non-grata when it comes to editing Wikipedia.
It probably doesn't sound like much, but if you look at the Gamergate article, it's still a bloody mess.
So it's nice to see that these people have shot themselves in the foot for the next future gender ideologue war that comes along.
Like with all things, it's important to remember that not all people engaging in identity politics and gender and racial activism are bad people with bad intentions, and it's easy to forget that because there are so many bad people with bad intentions taking part in this kind of activism.
Some people are just really out of touch and so start cringeworthy campaigns like Starbucks' Race Together Cup campaign, where they tried to encourage their baristas to engage customers in conversation about racial issues in the United States.
Now, I don't know how they thought this was going to be a good idea, but nobody was on board with this.
I mean, don't get me wrong, the baristas probably, per capita, are the most qualified people, as I imagine a large percentage of them are university graduates who can't find another job with their intersectional identity politics degrees.
But frankly, that just makes them the sort of person you will never want to have a discussion on race with, ever.
Unsurprisingly, after the public backlash, Starbucks decided to end the Race Together campaign and stop harassing their customers on the issue of race.
They claimed it was their idea, but come on Starbucks.
We know that it wasn't.
This was not in accordance with your original plans.
In fact, it's the complete opposite of your original plan.
Your original plan was to talk about race.
Everyone was like, no, that's really weird.
Shut up.
And you're like, yeah, that's what we planned all along.
Not buying it.
Other people who are participating in identity politics, possibly without even realising it, and certainly without attempting any malice by doing so, are authors who are allowing their work to be co-opted and changed by identity politicians.
The two most recent ones have been Stephen King and J.K. Rowling, who have allowed very well-established characters to be co-opted under the guise of them not being racist.
In King's self-proclaimed magnum opus, The Dark Tower, the character of Roland Deshane, a character based on Clint Eastwood's character, The Man with No Name from the Dollars trilogy, has been earmarked to be played by Idris Elba, who I am informed is a fine actor, and I have no doubt about it.
However, he does not have what King would refer to regularly as Bombardier's Eyes.
These are piercing blue eyes with a thousand-yard stare, the sort of thing that Clint Eastwood was famous for.
The character of Roland is white, very clearly, and the fact that he's white does actually play a significant role with other characters within the books.
So large sections of the books are simply going to have to be rewritten into Hollywood scripts, completely warping the main narrative of the story.
A similar thing seems to be happening with Rowling endorsing a black Hermione Granger in Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, which, as I understand it, is a theatre production, with the woman pictured being Hermione Granger.
Now, Rowling has gone on Twitter and claimed that white skin was never specified, except when white skin was specified.
Hermione's white face was sticking out from behind a tree.
Harry, hurry, she mouthed.
Not only that, but Rowling was instrumental in the creation of the Harry Potter movies.
She approved the casting of Emma Watson to play Hermione Granger, Emma Watson being a young white girl.
Now, I hate to have to make such a big deal out of race, I really do.
But these are established characters.
What King and Rowling are doing here is virtue signalling.
They're saying, look, I am not a racist.
I don't hate black people, I swear to God.
Because they are clearly not very experienced with identity politics.
But what they are saying without realising it is that the experiences of black and white people are interchangeable.
Now, I would like it if that were the case, but it is not.
And that is a very, very important point to identity politicians.
In fact, it is central to their entire ideological perspective.
If the lived experiences of black and white people were the same, there would be no grounds to claim oppression.
There would be no reason to prefer a black person over a white person.
There would, in short, be nothing for identity politics to operate on.
Now, I don't blame these authors for simply acquiescing to the demands of social justice warriors, especially given how aggressive they can be.
There's simply no benefit to the authors to fight for the cause.
There's nothing in it for them.
What are they going to gain?
All they're going to get is a lot of hate aimed at them for something they don't even believe strongly in, the idea that black people should be treated differently to white people.
And so why not compromise the characters?
Why not compromise the integrity of the story?
All the incentives are pointed in that direction.
But this is the problem with identity politics, especially ones based on race.
They're deceptive.
Look at where the road you're traveling along leads.
White students barred from meeting at Ryerson University because they were not racialized.
Because they didn't come from a racial minority.
Because they were not diverse.
They were prohibited from attending a meeting.
It was the same when diversity officer at Goldsmith's Bahamustafa asked white men not to attend her diversity meeting.
I'm sorry you're white.
You're not welcome here.
During the student protests that we covered earlier, Missouri protesters literally segregated themselves based on race, asking their white allies simply to leave the area because they were not diverse enough.
Of course this brand of identity politics reaches into literature as well, where you will see articles titled, In Defense of Excluding White Male Authors.
I really have to ask King and Rowling, is this something that you support?
If race was interchangeable, why would this be necessary?
There is no good reason to alter the race of an existing character.
Especially ones as so well-formed as Roland Deshane and Hermione Granger.
It's not creating a diverse cast of characters.
It's pandering to political correctness.
And the thing is, once you start going down this slippery slope, there is no end to it.
Because what you have told everyone is that there is actually no real reason that things are as they are in your world.
You destroy your own internal consistency.
Think about it.
Roland Deshane, the gunslinger, the white man bombardier's eyes, he now has to have had two black parents, which means that the society he came from can't possibly be racist.
And what are the odds of some ancient Wild West fantasy world not being racist?
I mean, he can't go into a town and be unassuming if he is the only black man in town.
Even if they don't hate black men, that's an unusual event.
What percentage of Gilead are black?
I mean, I don't ever recall any of them being black.
So now you have a black population in what was otherwise a non-black civilization.
And again, I'm not, there's nothing wrong with a black civilization, but this is the thing.
You have to now retcon everything.
And like I said, because nothing is sacred in your world anymore, nothing has a firm foundation, anything can be changed.
Santa Claus should not be a white man anymore.
Do you all support this?
You know, maybe Sanskrit should be black.
What difference does it make?
It's just a white guy being changed into a black guy.
There's no harm there.
Why not sign a petition to ban the song White Christmas?
Because it's insulting to people of colour because it includes the word white.
What's wrong with that?
It's just a song.
Just ban it.
Just get rid of it.
We're talking about identity politics.
We're not talking about things that are happening for a good reason.
You know, like the reason that Hermione is a young white girl, because she was born to white parents.
Doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter.
Everything's interchangeable.
So what we're going to do is ban things that include white, because they are microaggressions, according to one student.
And that is just the tip of a very racist iceberg.
Do you really want to know what's under the surface?
White men must be stopped.
The very future of mankind depends on it.
For 500 years, they've exploited their fellow man and plundered the planet.
It's time they rein themselves in.
White men, now born with original sin.
The time for replacing white supremacy with new values is now.
And just as some whites played a part in ending slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow segregation, which is on its way back, and South African apartheid, which again is on its way back, there is surely a role whites can play in restraining other whites in this era.
So the question is, do you want to be restrained in any way because of your race?
Is that a factor that people should be judging you on?
Hateful, regressive professor.
If you are a white male, you don't deserve to live.
Noel Ignatiev, a professor at Massachusetts College of Arts, has for years advocated the total elimination of Caucasians.
During his final lecture before retirement last Monday, he told his white male students, you don't deserve to live, you are a cancer, you are a disease.
White males have never contributed anything positive to the world.
They only murder, exploit, and oppress non-whites.
At least a white woman can have sex with a black man and make a brown baby.
But what can a white male do?
He is good for nothing.
Slavery, genocides against Aboriginal peoples and massive land confiscation, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, white males are all to blame.
Therefore, all white males should be blamed for these things.
You maintain your white male privilege only by oppressing and discriminating against and enslaving others.
Well, call me crazy, but it sounds like the white men are the ones being discriminated against.
I don't know of any legitimate way that anyone can actually discriminate against anyone who is not a white man.
And this is not by any means any kind of rare opinion.
I mean, this was to a standing ovation from his class.
This was, in the Diversity Chronicle, completely agreed with.
This is not a rare opinion.
Look at this from the New York Times.
Dear White America.
I'm not going to read the whole thing now, but what this man is trying to do with this article is ascribe blame for any crime a member of the white race has committed to all members of the white race.
He wants all white people to feel guilty that they are white, because in the past, before you were born, white people did bad things to non-white people.
You might be thinking, well, that's a scary line of logic to travel down, because by that logic, every black man in Africa is responsible for the white women in Sweden who have been gang raped by various immigrants, and that's true.
You might be thinking, well, if that's true, every person in Japan now is guilty for the rape of Nanjing.
And that's precisely why this collectivist line of logic is bullshit.
Nobody is responsible for any of the things that George Yancey here is trying to make them feel responsible for.
Purely based on their fucking race.
If you are white, and you are reading this letter, I ask that you don't run to seek shelter from your own racism.
Don't hide from your responsibility.
Rather, begin right now to practice being vulnerable.
Being neither a good white person nor a liberal white person will get you off the proverbial hook.
I consider myself to be a decent human being, yet I'm sexist.
Take another deep breath.
I ask you to try to be unsutured.
If that term brings to mind a state of pain, open flesh, it is meant to do so.
After all, it is painful to let go of your white innocence, to use this letter as a mirror, one that refuses to show you what you want to see, one that demands that you look at the lies you tell yourself, so that you don't feel the weight of responsibility for those who live under the yoke of whiteness.
Your whiteness.
Identity politics is the cancer of the Western world.
Look at this.
Introducing the most derided ethnic group in Britain, young white men.
These government polls show that the most derided type of person in society is a white man in his 20s.
At least we can deduce from this that we don't live in a white supremacist society.
We are not living in a society that thinks white men are privileged, or privileges them, above other people.
So if identity is something you can just pick and choose as you will, and we live in a society that demonizes white people and males, is it any wonder that people are simply choosing to identify as something else?
Let's start with Rachel Dolozoll, who was the president of the Washington branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People.
She's white.
She's so fucking white, there isn't a picture of her in existence that makes her look black, especially when put next to actual black people.
I really can only imagine what was going through the heads of the black people who had to fucking deal with her.
But the thing is, she's not black.
She's not even slightly black.
In fact, her ancestry is German and Czech and Swiss.
Look how fucking white she is!
She's literally wearing some sort of fucking fake tan, and she has crimped her hair to make it look like black hair.
I mean, honestly, this is...
I mean, it's...
What are we...
Are we honestly just going to go, well, yeah, I mean, she identifies as black, though.
I mean, she says she identifies as black.
So we're just going to be like, okay.
I guess if you want to just tell everyone you're black, then you can be black.
It's just like Black Lives Matter activist Sean King, who goes on bizarre Twitter rants against white men and what they must think holding big black guns, which honestly just sounds like fucking projection.
I mean, look at the guy's face and the attempt he makes at looking black.
The way he styles his hair, the little mustache and goatee, everything he can do.
But what a surprise.
Both of his parents are white.
And just look at the fucking guy.
This guy might pass as Hispanic, but there is no fucking way anyone is ever going to be fooled that this guy is black.
I'm fucking sorry, Sean.
I'm really sorry.
And unsurprisingly, these are not the only cases of people desperately trying to become black from being white.
They are just the most high-profile ones.
Since we're on the topic of transitioning and identity, let's talk about transgender people.
Now, I'm actually a lot more sympathetic to transgenderism than I am to, I don't know, transracialism, whatever they call it.
Because gender actually is a series of social constructs.
Of course, these are deeply informed by biological realities, but there's no getting around the fact that gender actually is a social performance.
Gender roles are things that you do.
Biological sex is what you are.
It's one of the few things that social justice warriors are actually right about, but then they go on to be remarkably wrong when they say it's not connected at all to biology.
But the thing is, like with all things of this nature, and the same reason that Sean King and Rachel Dolezoll went to such lengths to try and make themselves look black, you have to be able to persuade people who don't know who you are.
If you can't, no one is going to believe that you are the thing you are claiming to be.
So if a feminine man decides that he's going to take hormone injections, get breast implants, and undergo surgery to physically transform himself into the closest facsimile of a woman that he can manage, fine.
Why not let him adopt the gender role of being a woman?
Who am I to say no?
You know, and if this person does a reasonable job of looking like a woman, then fine.
I don't see why anyone would really need to complain about that, unless they were about to engage in a romantic relationship with them, and this information wasn't being disclosed.
We know scientifically that male and female brains actually do operate in a different way, and if a man happens to have been born with a brain that operates more like a woman's brain than a man's brain, fine.
Let him do whatever he needs to do to become the person he really wants to be.
I can tolerate that, pronouns and all.
But what I can't tolerate is the example of Zoe Ter and Ben Shapiro.
I'll play the clip so you can see exactly what I mean.
You don't know what you're talking about.
You're not educated on genetics.
Zoe, I'd stay away from the genetics and back to the brain scans.
You cut that out now, or you'll go home in an ambulance.
Yeah, that seems mildly inappropriate for a political discussion.
You know, I actually expected better of Ben Shapiro here.
What you were meant to say, Ben, is that's not very ladylike.
Because it's not.
Look at the dynamic going on here.
Zoe Terr probably outweighs Ben Shapiro by about 50 pounds.
Ben Shapiro is kind of a petite guy.
He's not a big dude.
Zoe Ter has got a jaw like a fucking anvil.
Wearing a blonde wig or growing hair long and putting on a fucking dress is fooling nobody.
It's unfortunate, but some people physically are never actually going to look like the thing they want to look like.
Threatening people who decide that they're not going to play into your identity politics is not the way to get anything done.
It's certainly not the way to get people on your side.
You catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar, and you give your opponents less opportunities to file police reports against you for assault.
And Zoe, ambulances don't take people home.
And of course, we can't talk about transgenderism without Bruce Jenner's transition into Caitlin Jenner and his appearance, sorry, her appearance, on the cover of Vanity Fair.
This was a huge deal, especially for the progressive press who have been pushing this agenda.
Now, as I'm aware, he's pre-operation, so technically he is still a man.
I mean, chromosomally he would be anyway, but physically he is still male.
The excitement around Caitlin Jenner was really weird.
She got loads of awards just for being brave and coming out, even though everyone seems kind of fine with it, and it's the people who are opposed to it that are the ones who are being ostracized these days.
But the crowning moment of this is when Glamour magazine honoured her as Woman of the Year.
Again, I don't care if a guy wants to transform himself into a woman.
I don't care.
I don't care if he wants to do these things.
But come on, there has to be a limit where we say, look, the woman of the year can't have X, Y chromosomes and a penis.
I mean, there's got to be a limit to that.
Isn't there?
I mean, that's ridiculous, isn't it?
it's not just me i mean this is just it's really beyond the pale when i mean are we gonna have like you know man of the air I mean, obviously, no, we're never going to have a man of the year fucking award.
But if we were to have a man of the year award, would we be okay if the man of the year had a vagina and breasts?
And, I don't know, had breastfed a bunch of kids.
Because I'm not joking when I say that there are progressive outlets and progressive activists out there who literally think that there is a troubling erasure of trans parents who breastfeed.
I mean, call me crazy, but if you want to adopt another gender role, fine.
If you want to convert yourself to another gender, fine.
But don't then say, well, what I'm going to do is I'm going to say I'm a man.
I'm going to do a man's role.
Convert myself into a man, and then I'm going to breastfeed.
That's not the man's role.
That's a woman's role, biologically and sociologically, so why would you think that's acceptable?
Anyway, Caitlin Jenner got a lot of support from the progressives, with them declaring that South Park's depiction of Caitlin Jenner was one of the show's most despicable moments.
How could they?
I agree with Munir Elfwick.
It doesn't look anything like the transphobic cartoon of her.
Not a damn thing.
Not a thing.
Elfwig, where have I heard that name before?
But the real fun started when Caitlin Jenner said that she still planned to vote Republican in 2016.
Oh yeah, you can already hear the brakes on the progressive narrative train screeching to a halt.
Wait, wait, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
You're voting Republican.
But you're transgender.
Apparently Caitlin Jenner's one of those rare people who decides to vote for someone based on policies rather than gender.
I'm so sorry, Justin Trudeau.
But you can imagine the progressives' confusion when they're like, yeah, but you're transgender.
And you're voting Republican.
And what's even more crazy is that she wasn't in favour of gay marriage either.
Imagine that, just, what is going on?
A transgender person who doesn't buy into our brand of politics.
But this article really sums it up.
She says, despite my personal beliefs, I will not infringe on someone else's life.
Yet, Ellen DeGeneres wasn't satisfied with that.
She seemed determined to either make Jenna change her mind right there on the show, or else expose her hypocrisy.
She was not just allowed to enjoy a different opinion.
And that's all this is.
You know, I have no problem with people doing or believing as they want, as long as they're leaving other people alone.
I really don't.
And as long as they're taking responsibility for their own actions.
However, I do think the progressive press needs to be slightly more discerning and possibly less into listening and believing the first transgender story that crosses their path that day.
Case in point, the example of a transgender father who left his family to start life as a six-year-old girl after his wife said, stop being trans or leave.
Now, on the surface of it, you might think, well, that's, you know, his choice.
He's not hurting anyone, apart from the seven kids he's abandoning.
Maybe he just really wants to become a transgender girl who regresses back to being a six-year-old.
I mean, okay, it's his mental problem, but what's the big deal?
What's the big deal?
I mean, why don't we just embrace this?
Why don't we just accept this?
It's just something people do, apparently.
Well, call me a transphobe, but I really think that there is something more to this story than meets the eye.
I mean, there's something about the adoptive parents holding Stephanie in a bra and a neck collar on a leash.
I mean, I don't want to be a doubting Thomas, but it really makes me think that the trans identity thing is more of an excuse to be able to, I don't know, abandon your family and children and live like a fucking degenerate.
But not only that, to get the press to cover this in a favourable light, as if you are some poor victimized person.
But at the end of the day, as long as it's consenting adults, I guess I really have no say in it.
You know, it's nothing to do with me.
The problem I have is when we start sort of foisting this kind of identity play on children.
80 primary school pupils a year seeking help to change gender.
Really?
For people outside of the UK, that's from ages 5 to 11.
You know, pre-pubescent children who are apparently like, you know, I'm just not happy with my gender identity.
Up to 20 primary school aged children a year in the UK are now seeking help towards potentially changing their gender amid signs of classmates encouraging each other to do so.
In some cases, children as young as 4 are already in the process of transitioning to another sex.
And some schools are seeing signs of a cluster effect with a number of pupils coming forward to seek support towards a possible change after one takes the first step.
I don't think these ideologues should be allowed to have any kind of interaction with children.
I don't care if these children legitimately are transitioning.
I don't care if all of them are legitimately transitioning.
They are not old enough to understand the full implications of what they're doing.
They are not old enough to understand exactly how this is going to affect the rest of their lives, especially if they end up getting some kind of surgery or hormone therapy to retard or otherwise change their development and growth.
I mean, they may well have this phase that they're going through and then by the time they get to 16 think, well, that was wrong.
I agree that we should be tolerant and not demonize children or anyone, really, for being curious and wanting to experiment with gender identity and all that sort of stuff, but we shouldn't be fucking encouraging it.
And we certainly shouldn't be criminalising people who simply don't want to go along with it.
However, New York City transgender laws define the property owners 250,000 over improper pronouns, which means it's now just fine to criminalise the people who simply don't want to go along with it.
So property owners who identify employees or tenants by the genetic heritage rather than the pronouns they identify with could see fines of up to $250,000.
Examples include intentionally failing to use an individual's preferred name, pronoun or title, refusing to allow individuals to use single-sex facilities like bathrooms or locker rooms and participate in single-sex programs consistent with their gender identity.
So refusing to allow a female transgender man to play rugby with the other men or something.
Enforcing dress codes, uniforms and grooming standards that impose different requirements based on gender or sex.
For example, enforcing a policy that requires men to wear ties or women to wear skirts.
How retrograde.
Failing to provide employee health benefits that cover gender affirming care or failing to provide reasonable accommodations for individuals undergoing gender transition.
So now, their problems are your problems.
You know, I probably don't sound very sympathetic to all of this, and at this point I'm really not.
I'm really rather tired of identity politics and identity play in general.
I mean, I would probably be more sympathetic if there weren't articles like this being written in major newspapers.
I would be more sympathetic if they were not trying to attack my identity.
Geek male identity has been reduced to Kylo Wren thrashing a computer with his sword, and this needs to change.
Okay, stop you there.
What makes you think that Kylo Wren represents geek male identity?
He's the antagonist in a movie.
He's meant to be emotionally damaged.
He's meant to be looking up to a very bad person because he is emotionally damaged.
This is not geek male identity, Damien Walter, you fucking moron.
But either way, I can guarantee that you will not be instrumental in changing geek identity.
It will be the people that you have been attacking, who will probably reaffirm their identity.
They will probably say to each other, look, this is how we want to live, and you can't stop us.
The first few paragraphs of this article really do sum up the problem with identity politics being infused into everything.
Call me a geek.
But the highlight of my Christmas season was seeing Daisy Ridley as Rey in the Force Awakens, grasping Luke's old lightsaber with the John Williams epic score swirling behind her before beating seven shades out of one of cinema's most creepy yet terrifying villains.
What are you talking about?
Kylo Wren is not one of cinema's most creepy yet terrifying villains.
At all.
I mean, he's actually, he seems like kind of a sympathetic character.
And I actually overlooked the sort of nuance that the character had when I did my little cynical review of Star Wars on my other channel.
I freak, you know, I didn't really pay attention to how much that was actually going on with Kylo Wren.
I just thought he was just our overpowered Darth Vader type.
But no, there's actually, there's actually something there, and I'm interested to see where it goes.
But he's not one of cinema's creepy yet terrifying villains.
But most importantly, I wouldn't call you a geek.
I'd call you a feminist, because this has been the feminist party line, as you affirm in the next paragraph.
If Rey and other kick-ass heroines are icons of geek feminism, then Kylo Wren seems like a portrait of geek masculinity at its worst.
Well there we go.
It's not that you're a geek, it's that you're a feminist.
And it's that you hate masculinity, and you feel the need to denigrate it.
Twitter has declared the black-helmed Kylo a Wren's rights activist, which is a nonsensical thing to say anyway, but I don't think that he really would be a men's rights activist in any other context.
He just seems like a confused and lost young man, which is something you have no sympathy for.
And that's not the only way the nerd knight reminds us of the most atrocious geek male behaviour of 2015.
Well, we never talk about the most atrocious female or feminist behaviour of 2015, do we?
But listen to this.
Kylo Wren impotently thrashing a computer with his big red sword is the perfect portrait of Gamergate, the online hate campaign that continued its crusade against feminist video game reviewers in 2015.
You literally can't say that without putting the feminist video game reviewers in the position of power.
They are the establishment.
Kylo Wren is the establishment.
Kylo Ren is you, you fucking idiots.
Gamergate are the rebels that you are maligning in the establishment.
You fucking crazy motherfuckers.
You're not the fucking rebels.
You are the empire.
And if the First Order have a manifesto, it's not going to be actually about ethics and galactic domination.
Actually, it's about equality in galactic domination.
You fucking sheep.
He goes on to say, there's an unfortunate overlap between geek culture and the manosphere.
How could that be possible?
I mean, it's almost like geek culture was something that was really created by men when it was uncool, and now that it's become cool, now that it's been through the fires, everyone else who's not a geek wants to get on it.
You know, feminists who aren't geeks want to get on it, and now have created geek feminism, as you say.
Men who still harbour the low self-esteem often associated with geek culture can be sucked in by menonist rhetoric.
Menonist rhetoric.
Do you know, menonism is a parody of feminism, you idiot.
But it's an enthroned feminism as its enemy.
Now, isn't that just amazing?
You have literally started an article attacking masculinity, attacking young men, and you wonder why feminism is considered to be the enemy.
Profiting from this nonsense are a growing number of men's rights gurus, who exploit male self-esteem issues and inflame festering anger over class and identity as a way to drum up business for their self-help books, seminars, and various other products.
Okay, I'm gonna let you in on a secret.
He's probably talking about me as well, although I don't actually do these things, but these people exist because you make them exist.
If you didn't pathologize masculinity, if you didn't demonize young men and the things they happen to like doing, and if you didn't tell people that, oh, actually, the protagonist is only good when it's a woman, and if you think differently, you're a sexist or racist or whatever, these people wouldn't exist.
We wouldn't be in a culture where men are the most denigrated people in society.
But look at the connection between what he's saying here in the end.
Like many Donald Trumps, these men will spout any outrageous rubbish simply to polish their brand among the half-wits who will listen to them.
Okay, you've just said young men are having identity issues.
You're trying to talk about this, and you are calling the young men who are going to the people, the only people who give a shit about their identity issues, and who are trying to provide them with something, con artists or various shades of, and you are calling the people who are in need of these things half-wits, idiots, defective.
And then you end this screed against young men and masculinity by saying, in 2016, we need a healthy, honest discussion of male identity.
One that is not sidelined and swamped by the fake gurus of meninism.
So we can actually start to make sense of what it means to be male today.
Well, I'll tell you what, friend.
You're not going to be part of that conversation.
No man-hating feminists are going to be part of that conversation.
They will be specifically excluded because what they have done and what you have done here is attack these young men who are looking for something, who are looking for somewhere to go where they are not demonized.
You have excluded yourself.
But really, maybe I should be thanking you, because it's people like you who bring us to point number five.
The new counterculture.
Since this is already over an hour, which I hope you guys are grateful for, I'll try and keep this relatively brief, because also I'm only preaching to the choir with this.
BuzzFeed put out an article saying that in 2015, the dark forces of the internet became a counterculture.
And they're right.
And I love that they're pretending that they aren't the empire still.
Just listen to this paragraph, because what amazes me most is how they can be accurate in some respects, but completely wrong in others.
This racist, reactionary, offense-embracing, meme-savvy internet is not simply a disparate collection of ravings from immature and bitter young men with too much time on their hands.
Rather, it is a flourishing protest culture, indeed a coherent counterculture, created in response to the growing ethnic and gender diversity of contemporary media and pop culture, and to the inclusion of identity groups into previously homogenous digital spaces.
Okay, I'm going to stop there because this is the fundamental premise that social justice operates on, and it's the one way they can never really be honest, and it's why they're never actually going to finally win the argument.
Nobody is really against ethnic and gender diversity of contemporary media and pop culture.
Sure, there are always going to be a small percentage of racist and sexist who are actually genuinely against these things.
But the overwhelming majority of people who are against social justice simply don't care about these issues.
They have already grown up with diverse castes of people in whatever geek culture they've been enjoying.
Hell, most of them have been enjoying geek culture that doesn't even include humans.
So to say, oh, well, they're so bothered by black people and women is ridiculous.
What they're bothered about is the unnecessary focus on identity politics and the fact that their personal fucking identities are under attack by these people.
And he goes on saying that's precisely because the major media platforms of our time, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, Netflix, and YouTube have ushered in this diversity with original programming featuring people of colour and content partnerships with media companies to do the same.
This is not unique to the 21st century, you freak.
Mother of God, there have always been diverse programming featuring people of colour and women and whatever.
This is not new.
The problem is the demonization of people who do not want to focus on identity politics.
That's the issue.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Netflix, whatever.
They've all become subservient to social justice.
To a greater or lesser degree.
And the thing is, they are fully cognizant as to what they're doing.
As mainstream culture has evolved in the way it treats women, people of colour, gay marriage, and the rights of the LGBT community, and as mainstream internet's media has gravitated towards identity content, it is not so completely surprising that a reactionary culture would arise to oppose it.
That's right.
A reactionary culture that doesn't think a person's value comes from their inherent properties.
They think a person's value comes from the character and way they conduct themselves, by the way they judge others and treat them.
It is a culture that is comfortable with racist and sexist jokes because fundamentally the individuals within it know that they are not racists and sexists.
These are the things in fact that they are protesting.
But you guys, in your constant white men are evil, blah blah blah blah blah blah, always judge on race and gender.
You are actually the racists and sexists and you have taken over the media.
This is why there is such a pushback against you.
You would think it would be telling that a flamboyant gay man is effectively king of this nascent movement, but he really doesn't get it.
Listen to the quote he puts from Milo Yiannopoulos.
If you have ever felt bullied or victimized or harassed or marginalized, not by bullshit imaginary concepts like patriarchy, but by people who want to stop you expressing yourself and call you a loser, a man baby, a shitlord, a privileged sishet male, then Milo Yiannopoulos is for you.
What's his response to this?
Think for a moment about the demographic Yiannopoulos is appealing to as victims.
Young English-speaking white men, perhaps the least victimized group of people in the world.
Isn't that amazing?
Isn't that just incredible?
I mean, literally, the media, the mainstream media, almost everywhere, is denigrating and assaulting and abusing young white men for the crime of being young white men.
It's not that they've done anything wrong.
No statistics are being offered about the crimes young white men are doing.
Nothing of the sort.
We know they're dropping out of universities.
We know they're dropping out of education in general.
They're underachieving and they're committing suicide at alarmingly high rates.
And then we poll the public and go, well, who's the worst people in society?
Oh, young white men, obviously.
And this guy's like, well, they're the least victimized group in the world.
So pulse is the strange tension at the heart of Chanta culture.
It represents and is aligned with the interests of a dominant group.
How are white men a dominant group?
How is masculinity part of a dominant group?
You are being given a license to demonize it at every turn.
You are being given a platform at almost every progressive fucking outlet, and that's almost all of them.
And you say that these people are the dominant group.
You're talking about a counterculture, you fucking idiot.
How could they possibly be the dominant group?
Or is it that young white men are actually not a fucking group?
They are a demographic.
You fucking nutsack.
So you end up with a group of people, mostly white male and young, aligned with dominant interests who feel that their perspective has no place in the increasingly dominant new media.
So you recognize you are the guys calling the shots.
Which bills itself as participatory and inclusive.
You are excluding a subsection of people based on their race and gender, and you claim to be participatory and inclusive.
Do you understand any of this?
Do you understand what you're even writing?
The words you are using belie your motives and intentions and the reality that you clearly cannot see.
But you know what?
This is all okay.
Because it's this kind of ideological blindness that will eventually undo social justice.
The mainstream public are not on your side.
Broadly, they are egalitarians.
They want people treated fairly.
And when they see you exercising your power and not treating people fairly, they will respond and it will not be in your favour.
▲
Export Selection