All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 15, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
25:07
This Week in Stupid (16⧸10⧸2016)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 15th of October 2016.
This week is probably going to give many people a severe case of Schaudenfreud, so I will try and keep that to a minimum myself.
Because I won't lie, I've seen some satisfaction from this week's news events, and I will honestly be trying not to enjoy it too much.
So on the subject of biases and what we're checking at the door, I couldn't even stop myself using Jess Phillips as the lead story this week.
Labour should ban all men from standing in by-elections. MP Jess Phillips says.
You're such a bigot, Jess.
You're such a fucking bigot.
That is just an awful thing to say.
And you are so unaware.
I just can't get over it.
I mean, literally, Labour should ban men from standing in all future by-elections until half the party's MPs are female.
Women's champion, Jess Phillips MP has said.
Well, I suppose she is.
I mean, you might call that a supremacist.
But listen to the victim narrative.
This is amazing.
With female politicians, the likely casualty of the upcoming boundary review, according to Mrs. Phillips, she will demand Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn commits to their party becoming first in the parliament to achieve gender equality.
So as I understand it, the Conservatives are looking to reduce the number of MPs to around 600 or something like that.
And so there are going to be MPs who lose their seats because those seats will no longer exist.
Now, I'm not suggesting the Tories won't be doing this in ways that hurt the Labour Party or anything, because I'm sure they will because that's fucking politics.
But I'm sure they weren't targeting female MPs specifically.
So to make this a gendered issue is to make this into a red herring.
Going down this path won't actually solve the problem.
And then you get to Miss Phillips' proposed solutions, which is victimise someone else who wasn't responsible for this.
The men in her party are not responsible for these boundary changes.
They should not be the victims of Phillips' proposed fucking solutions.
Which is why I think that she can openly be declared a supremacist.
She doesn't care about them because they're male, not because they didn't do anything wrong.
She's fucking awful.
And look at this.
Her comments came as Corbyn, blah, blah, blah, were quizzed by the Cross-Party Women Equalities Committee in the Commons as part of their inquiry into how constituency changes will impact on women.
They even have their own fucking Inquisition here.
Where they can go, no, no, no, look, we've determined, and trust us, we're the ones who are going to know.
We've determined that this is an issue, even though it does also affect male MPs as well.
But we've determined it's an issue, and now we need special treatment and special dealings, and we need special powers to victimise the people around us.
That's a supremacy movement.
That's what it does.
It's setting them up as a special class that can victimise the other and presumably greater class.
Just, no.
It shouldn't be one rule for one and another rule for another.
I don't know why I have to say that.
I don't know why anyone's just entertaining any of this nonsense.
Unless, of course, all comes from her greater good.
Miss Phillips, the new chair of Women's Parliamentary Labour Party, said, and committee member said, I think the Labour Party has to make every seat an all-women shortlist until we get equality.
Because that's the holy grail, the equality.
Currently, 44% of Labour seats are held by women.
We want 50% equality in this party.
And for Jeremy to commit to this on the public record.
Because that's their greater good.
Don't care whose careers they inhibit and who they actually take action against on the way to doing this.
It doesn't matter.
The ends completely justify the means.
I just kind of default to mocking feminism these days because it just seems to be so thoroughly debunked at this point.
I mean, they would have to come out with something truly, truly spectacular from their ideology for me to feel the need to debunk it in itself.
So I just kind of mock it these days.
And it's really easy to forget that this does still have real-world damaging effects on people.
This week we go to Australia where they've decided to teach the feminist privilege theory to male students to make sure that they understand how shame-filled they should be about being male and how they're oppressing other people.
Victoria State in Australia has launched an education program designed to smash gender stereotypes and tackle the root causes of domestic violence.
In the respectful relationship curriculum that will be mandatory in all schools in Victoria for next year, students will explore issues from social inequality, gender-based violence and male privilege.
And this will be taught completely unopposed, of course.
This will be taught as if it's a fucking gospel.
And this has been done after a report on the pilot trial for this programme last year accused it of presenting all men as bad and all women as victims.
What a fucking surprise.
It's exactly just Philips modus operandi.
Women are the victims here, so men have to suffer.
This is literally what feminism is about.
If there are any Irishmen listening, if you could do me a favour and leave a comment to explain just how bad it is to do nothing but instill shame into a child from its earliest days, I would really appreciate that, because I'm sure you've probably got a better idea than I do.
And if you live in Australia, there is something you can do as well.
If you go into the description of this video, I'll leave a link to the Parliament of Australia, and you can see there's a section called Members by Electorate.
You can click on that, find the place you live, click on that, and you will be presented by the MP that represents your constituency.
Click on their name and you'll be given the contact details and I recommend you contact them.
By post, by email, by phone, whatever, however you do it, I recommend you contact them and let them know that you know about this programme, you're not happy about this programme because of whatever your various objections are, and that you know that there was a study done on the trial that declared it not fit for purpose because it was openly bigoted against men and misrepresented the truth of what's happening, and you can give the domestic violence statistics to prove that.
This is all true, and you are perfectly within your rights to do this.
So if you feel the need, the link is in the description.
And just in case you're not persuaded, let's have a look at the consequences of teaching privileged theory to children.
Let's see, the parents are outraged because they made a ridiculous claim like white babies are capable of racism.
The school has dedicated itself to fighting discrimination.
Nice higher purpose you've got there chaps.
And apparently, the school is full of anti-white propaganda as part of the curriculum.
Hmm.
That seems like a good thing to teach kids.
And bingo, we have a victim narrative.
100% of the curriculum is what whites have done to other races.
Parents also said it deliberately instills in white children a strong sense of guilt, with some children reportedly coming home in tears saying they feel like a bad person.
Teaching privilege theory to children and inculcating them into the idea that they need to be ashamed because of their race is a form of emotional abuse.
If you live in Australia, please take the time to email your MP.
They'll never know that you care about this unless you tell them.
So, you know the phrase, it's only a conspiracy theory until it's proven right.
Well, it kind of has been happening a lot, hasn't it?
I mean, like, literally, a lot of conspiracy theories have been coming true.
You know, when they say, like, you have no proof that ISIS is using the migrant crisis to get jihadis into Europe, well, now we do.
So, seven of the nine Islamic extremists who attacked Paris last November came through via Hungary posing as refugees, and they slipped through the country's borders by using fake Syrian passports and posing as migrants.
Couldn't be more cut and dried.
And why wouldn't they do this?
And interestingly, many of the suspects were born in Europe before travelling to Syria, where they became radicalized and joined ISIS, and then came back via the migrant crisis.
Just interesting, isn't it, how this works?
So, when I see a mainstream media article that says Donald Trump's conspiracy theories are making his supporters paranoid and dangerous, well, let's not just call them theories, because we actually have the evidence these things are happening.
For example, they will talk about the Democratic Party.
Let's talk about the DNC.
You have the emails from Wikileaks.
We know there was a conspiracy.
We know the game was rigged.
Do we think these people aren't going to rig other things?
For fuck's sake, it's not just conspiracy theories.
There is a problem.
This article is one of the prime examples of lying by omission.
At an October 11th rally in Newton, Iowa, Mike Pence was confronted by a call for revolution.
I'm on social media all day, every day, non-stop since last June, pushing Trump, and one of the biggest things I can tell you is that a lot of us are scared of this as voter fraud.
A Trump fan named Rhonda told him, I'll tell you just for me, and I don't want this to happen, but for me personally, if Hillary Clinton gets in, I'm ready for a revolution because we can't have her in.
Don't say that, Pence said quickly, his hand wavering, his eyes on the floor.
But I'm saying it.
I'm like Trump.
These people are expecting Hillary to rig the election.
And to be honest, I am as well.
I can't believe anyone would give Hillary the benefit of the doubt at this point.
I will do a stream or a video on the pedestrian emails, it's just she doesn't care about you.
She is like the Alcibiades of this election, of the American political system.
She doesn't care who's in power.
She is going to do the popular thing, or what she perceives to be the popular thing.
When the Republicans were in power, she was anti-abortions, anti-video games, anti-gay rights.
Now the Democrats are in power, she's a full-on intersectional feminist.
Because she doesn't care.
Seriously, ask yourself what does she stand for?
What consistent points has she had for her entire career?
That's what they stand for.
If you look back at old videos of Trump, he was still saying make America great again.
He was still saying we're getting killed on trade, I want to see our country do well.
It's all the same thing.
He's just become more blustery and, well, old as the years have gone by, and I guess he's been attacked more heavily for patriotic views.
The article goes on to say that this is not the first time Trump fans have threatened to take action if their candidate loses in November.
Such threats date back to the primaries, when some Trump supporters began telling reporters, supporters began telling reporters, that they would take up arms and form militias should their racist-sexist hero face defeat.
You can't help but slur them at the end, can you?
You're suggesting that their hero is a racist-sexist, and therefore that is a reflection on them.
Let's talk about how the media simply talks to their own audiences, as if their own audiences are just unthinking in every way.
This is an example from this week, but it's not unique and I see this sort of thing all the time.
In fact, it's so ubiquitous, I've never thought to point it out until now, because this one really just rubbed me up the wrong way.
So this was on Raw Story, fact-checking Trump and Clinton on the billionaire's tax break.
So they're going through things that were said at the presidential debate, at least a couple of things, and they say this.
Trump's found to close the loophole is largely cancelled out by other provisions in his tax plan, which could reduce the income tax rate for partners at many investment firms to as low as 15%.
That is what Clinton is correctly referring to, when she says his plan will give the wealthy and the corporations the biggest tax cuts they've ever had.
They have presented the argument against Clinton as if it's in favour of Clinton.
You know, justifying, well, this is what she meant when she said they'll get the biggest tax cuts.
She means that that will happen and something else will happen.
So this might be a net gain in tax from these corporations and wealthy who are currently, who knows how much they are getting out of these tax loopholes.
Who fucking knows?
But if you close them, you'll find out.
And it might turn out to be quite a lot.
But it's okay to leave this out and say Clinton is correctly referring to the fact that there will be a tax cut, even though we know that by closing these loopholes, these corporations will be paying more money in tax.
They'll have to declare more.
That's the point of doing that.
But leaving that out is just acceptable.
They say that Trump is closer to the truth when he suggests that Clinton did not push as hard as she could have to close the loophole when representing New York and the Senate.
For one thing, she did not sign a co-sponsor for the first proposal to close the loophole in 2007, unlike then Senator Obama.
So Trump isn't just closer to the truth, he's spot on when he says that.
But the media, of course, have to act like Clinton's personal propaganda arm for some reason.
But this is my favourite part of this whole thing, and it really exemplifies exactly the problem with the media.
Trump is also right that many of the people on Wall Street who would be hurt by closing the loophole are supporting Clinton and giving money to her.
In fact, not a single employee at any of the top four private equity firms has given money to Trump's campaign.
Holy shit, that's a ringing endorsement.
So what's the spin?
Well, they say that this is not driven by a calculation that Trump would be worse for their taxes than Clinton, because that is simply not the case.
So Trump would be better for their taxes.
You would think it would be more in favour of the people on Wall Street to back Trump to get these loopholes closed and the taxes lowered if it was going to give them more money at the end of the year.
But it's obviously not, which is why they're backing Clinton, because they want these loopholes still open.
It's evident from their actions.
And they say, literally, it is one of the great ironies of this very unusual campaign that the candidate who is far more likely to raise taxes on top Wall Street money managers, Hillary Clinton, is receiving virtually the entirety of their political largesse.
Yes, you're an idiot, and you must think we're idiots.
The loopholes are going to cost them more money than raising the taxes.
That is the reason.
Maybe we're giving them too much credit.
Maybe it's the fact that these are like 23-year-old fucking university graduates that makes them just completely stupid and totally malleable to the powers that be.
Because it's just like, I feel like I'm dealing with retards, who think we are retards.
And I have to read this constant drivel of, I think you're a retard, so here's my opinion, and I'll treat you like you're a retard that's going to just ingest it.
And I guess that's the reason why, in America, only 6% of people have any kind of faith in the mainstream media.
From the Associated Press.
Trust in the news media is being eroded by perceptions of inaccuracy and bias.
Oh, if you can fucking believe it.
Fueled in part by American skepticism about what they read on social media.
You know, the on-the-ground journalism that's done on Twitter and Facebook by people in the vicinity with their fucking smartphones.
You know, that actual evidence that comes out immediately from the situation.
Unbelievably, when it contradicts the narrative that people are being spun by what appears to be inaccurate and biased media, they become skeptical.
Just 6% of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public's view of other institutions.
In this presidential campaign year, Democrats were more likely to trust the news media than Republicans or Independents.
Well, I guess that's kind of because it's got a Democrats bias, hasn't it?
I love the reasons they give for this.
News media has been hit by a series of blunders on high-profile stories, ranging from the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling on President Barack Obama's healthcare law to the Boston marathon bombing and blah blah blah.
Look, it's really not the big ones that are the problem, because the big ones you can say, well, that was a mistake.
It's the constant stream of little lies that we are fed in every fucking article.
But every now and then, a voice of reason manages to get through.
This is from The Guardian, and I know that everyone thinks that everything that comes from The Guardian is terrible, but occasionally they will have something worthwhile on there.
This is a really long article, so I won't go through it entirely, but the main thrust of it is that Gallup did a poll of 87,000 interviews and found that the pro-Trump people were basically just regular American middle-class people, and that there was an even split of poor and young on either side.
Most of these people were not under economic distress or immigration-related anxiety any more than those who opposed him.
So the media narrative that these are all working-class white men who are just giant racists isn't really accurate.
Most of it's, well, middle-class normal people.
That's not to say, of course, that young, dispossessed, working-class white men aren't overwhelmingly voting Trump.
I'm sure they are, and I'm sure that that's what the alt-right really is.
And I say that without judgment.
So, but I think that it's important to remember that the vast majority of Trump's supporters, it's like Gamergate.
It's just regular people without any particular political agenda, but who see, I think in the case of Trump, a greater problem within the system.
And that problem is represented by Hillary.
Because she is the focal point of all of this support and all of this corruption.
Surprisingly, a Gallup researcher wrote, There appears to be no link whatsoever to exposure to trade competition and support for nationalist policies in America, as embodied by the Trump campaign.
And earlier this year, primary exit polls revealed Trump voters were, in fact, more affluent than most Americans, with a median household income of 72,000.
And the author says to this, these facts haven't stopped pundits and journalists from pushing story after story about the white working class's giddy embrace of a bloviating demagogue.
In seeking to explain Trump's appeal, proportionate media coverage would require more stories about racism and misogyny among white Trump supporters in Tony suburbs, or if we're examining economically driven bitterness among the working classes, stories about the Democratic lawmakers who in recent decades ended well for As We Knew It hopped in the sack with Wall Street and forgot American labor in their global trade agreements.
But for national media outlets comprised of largely middle and upper class liberals, that would mean looking their own class in the face.
And that's exactly it.
They're not going to check their own privilege.
Instead, they're just going to continue their war on the working classes.
And unsurprisingly, after making careers out of being partisan liars, which, let's be honest, most of the media does, people are starting to turn on them.
And this crooked media, you talk about crooked- they're worse than she is.
Now, look, I get why people criticize the media.
Often it is with good reason.
I grew up most of my life not liking the media, but I think this is very high on the list of irresponsible things the guy has done.
Just look at those smug faces and those smug laughs.
And do you really want to get onto the subject of irresponsible things people have done?
Because I think lying to millions of people under the guise that you're telling them the truth.
If you support Trump now, if you support Trump today, you are 100% deplorable.
100% of Trump supporters right now at this very moment are deplorable.
Because, look, in the beginning, maybe your argument makes sense, right?
Half of them are just racist people that love what he has to say about Mexicans and Muslims and black people, but the other half just want an anti-establishment candidate, and that's who they get, right?
But at this point, it goes far beyond whether you're establishment or anti-establishment.
If you're supporting a candidate who openly speaks the way Donald Trump does about women, you're deplorable.
You are a piece of shit in my eyes, right?
So, no, not half of them, 100% of them.
I used Danna Kasparian because she is just the least aware person ever.
But this is the perspective of the media.
If you support Trump, you are a bad person.
Well, I'm afraid I don't concede the moral high ground to a bunch of professional liars who are doing it for profit.
And presumably worse motives as well.
But luckily for you, I can't read your fucking minds.
I will just have to assume you're doing this out of a greed.
That's the reason I assume you're doing this.
Not because you're actually malevolent and you actively want to oppress people, that you actively want to say these things about people with no recourse to yourselves.
I don't think that you are bad people.
I just think you're fucking selfish.
What's that, Huffington Post?
Frenzied Donald Trump supporters are turning on the media and it's getting scary.
Do you need a victim narrative?
Are you the victim of the people you've been lying about all this time?
My god, I can't believe this came back to bite you on the ass.
I mean, what if I just have a quick search for Gamergate?
What do I turn up?
I set out to expose a hate movement in gaming, so they set out to destroy my life from Sarah Nyberg.
Unbelievable.
You are just the fucking worst.
And I don't blame Donald Trump supporters for treating you like that.
Because you saying things about them encourages the general public to see them in that light.
And because the general public is willfully uninformed almost, you giving them half the story, which you do every time, causes trouble.
So if you want to change the subject to things that are terrible and shouldn't be done, I'm more than willing to have that conversation.
But we start at the beginning, which is with you.
I mean, literally, there are tens of thousands of people yelling at you to simply tell the truth.
That's their concern about you.
And like I have said from the beginning, this is not going to go away.
It's only going to get worse.
For example, this week, right-wing Crusaders militia group plotted terror attack on Muslim immigrants.
Thankfully, they were intercepted.
You don't want random gangs of right-wing militia maniacs launching attacks on mosques and whatnot in your country.
Okay, this is just...
This is getting out of control, and it begins with the media lying for political gain.
I mean, you understand that when a Trump supporter wanders around a university or around a certain area of their city or whatever, they'll get people come up and try and take their hat off them or take a sign off them, a political sign off them, if they're a Democrat and they're a Hillary supporter.
But you don't get it the other way around.
Because for some reason, it's okay to do this to Trump supporters at the moment.
You're legitimizing this kind of societal prejudice against them.
You're going to make whatever narrative they're creating justified.
They're going to think, well, I'm just constantly being oppressed.
These people are highly corrupt, and you are highly corrupt.
You're not allowing these people's legitimate grievances to be heard.
And you're suppressing them every time.
You leave them out of every time you report on the issue, you leave them out.
Even when you're reporting on them, you will literally just state outright that, but in fact, it's our side that's going to do this better, regardless of what the facts are going to show.
And the facts you've already presented show.
You are just abominable.
If anyone is to be called deplorable here, it's the media.
You're making everything worse for everyone, including yourselves.
So please stop it.
Because at this point, you have to understand you do not have the moral high ground.
You are not the ones who are in a position to judge.
You have spread prejudice and fear and hatred of the other.
And the other for you has been white men.
And that's the acceptable other to spread your prejudice.
And now this is what's happening.
This is coming full circle.
This is the result of making them an oppressed underclass who no one wants to listen to.
Poor white men?
▲
Export Selection