Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - This Week in Stupid (18⧸12⧸2016)

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 18, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

27:13

This Week in Stupid (18⧸12⧸2016)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone, welcome to This Week in Stupid for the 18th of December 2016.
	This is the last This Week in Stupid for this year before I do this year in Stupid, which I will try to get out before the end of the year.
	Anyway, let's begin this week's hilarity with Oxford University Union going full SJW.
	It's not he and she, it's Z. Oxford University Union tells students to use gender-neutral pronouns so as not to offend transgender undergraduates.
	The Students' Union wrote in a leaflet that the move was intended to reduce the risk of transgender students being offended.
	I just don't care whether they're offended.
	I know that sounds horrible, but this is really fucking low on my list of priorities as to whether anyone is offended, really.
	I'm just not bothered by this.
	I just, it doesn't add anything to any conversation about any subject, whether something's got merit or not, saying I am offended.
	So I just don't care.
	Students hope that the use of Z will continue into university lectures and seminars, because why wouldn't they push for this?
	Why wouldn't they make unreasonable demands of the majority to change entirely as well?
	It's not even, can you do this for this one person?
	No, you all have to change a word that you're using.
	That's the problem.
	It's a totally unreasonable demand.
	And I don't, I'm, I'm totally with Jordan Peterson here.
	Why the hell should we have to change because you're offended?
	No, that's not good enough.
	According to Oxford University's behaviour code, using the wrong pronoun to define a transgender person is an offence.
	That's a very specific rule, isn't it?
	I mean, why doesn't that apply to like male and female then?
	What's the rationale for that not to apply to just everyone?
	Why would we even police this?
	Did you use the wrong pronoun when talking to that person?
	Yeah, that's a real arsehole thing to do, isn't it?
	Yeah, well, we've got that written down as an offence.
	Well, being an arsehole is an offence.
	Well, this one is, in this case.
	Why the fuck are you even taking it upon yourselves to police people's interactions like this?
	This is not your fucking business.
	Peter Tatchell, an LGBT rights campaigner, told Mail Online, it is a positive thing not to always emphasise gender divisions and barriers.
	It's good to have gender-neutral pronouns for those who want them, but it shouldn't be compulsory.
	Well, okay, yeah, I agree.
	I agree.
	These things shouldn't be compulsory, and there should be no penalty whatsoever.
	It shouldn't, be example, for a violation of the code of conduct, as we've seen it already is.
	So, it is compulsory, isn't it, Peter?
	But you know, even if it wasn't, you say, giving people the Z option is a thoughtful, considerate move.
	That's great, because I'm not thoughtful and considerate.
	I don't give a shit.
	You don't care about my feelings, so let's not fucking pretend that I should care about your feelings.
	Let's treat each other like independent adults who don't need to have strangers curate their fucking feelings.
	I don't care whether they're offended or not.
	They shouldn't be making rules about offence.
	I mean, how the fuck are you ever going to find a way of refuting an accusation of offending people if ever called upon to do so?
	How are you going to prove that person is not offended?
	And the thing is, right, this is why everyone hates social justice.
	And I don't think most people really realize just why they actually hate social justice.
	They'll find, like, a facet of it that really upsets them personally.
	But underlying it all is the same base reason.
	And it's because these people are trying to gain undue authority over others.
	These people have done nothing to earn a higher moral standing, a greater respect, a greater amount of influence over others.
	Amounting to some kind of just a kind of soft control.
	And I think people can see that that's what's happening.
	These people don't get to determine how the majority act just because they're offended.
	That gives them undue power over others.
	And I think that if there's one thing that everyone can feel naturally in their day-to-day lives and how they conduct themselves, it's the influence of unwarranted authority.
	That is what oppression is.
	And so these people are in, I mean, I don't want to say these, you know, SJWs are oppressing us because that's a stupid reductive thing that I know people are going to say.
	But they want to do that.
	They want ultimately to be the ones oppressing others.
	And they're doing it, in my opinion, little by little.
	in a way of guilt-tripping you by saying, look, well, it would just be for the greater good, wouldn't it?
	It'd just keep some people happy.
	It'd stop those hurt feelings.
	So, well, no, I don't care.
	You're not having any kind of influence over me on the justification of hurt feelings.
	That is, to me, an unjustified power.
	So no.
	Cambridge University made the indication that they also wanted to move in a similar direction.
	Sophie Buck, welfare officer of the Students' Union, said, events start with a speaker introducing themselves using a gender-neutral pronoun.
	It's part of a drive to make the union intersectional.
	Frankly Soissons or Sissons, a transgender student at King's College, Cambridge, said, gender-neutral pronouns are good and it should happen in lectures too.
	I mean, how is this not them obviously trying to social justiceize these institutions?
	I mean, that is exactly what they're saying they want to do.
	They want to make everything a social justice controlled space.
	And, I mean, they're identifying things that are not controlled by social justice in this kind of manner.
	And they want to make it controlled by it.
	So how is this not an active attempt to take over these institutions for an ideology?
	And specifically for ideological reasons.
	I mean, I know that there are going to be people like, oh my god, you're saying there's some conspiracy.
	No, I think you all just have the same interests in perpetuating the same environment.
	I don't think it needs a conspiracy.
	I think it's just people acting in their own self-interest, pushing in a direction that is going to be bad for the majority.
	So I think you need to be resisted.
	I think this is literally the culture war in action.
	And I know there are going to be people who are like, oh my god, that's ridiculous.
	And I'm specifically talking to those people across the aisle who think this is ridiculous.
	Look, if you think all of this is ridiculous, then this is what I'm seeing to make me think this, because these are the indications I would look for in such an event.
	Just before you like jump on me about this, I just want you to understand that's why.
	And if you don't understand why, maybe the failure is with you.
	And I say social justice is going to be bad for the majority because it is.
	It only focuses on the minority by default to give them power over the majority.
	And it's just crazy.
	Everything about it is just stupid and self-contradictory.
	For example, this week, Wonder Woman is no longer UN Honorary Ambassador for Gender Equality.
	The scantily clad superhero was a controversial choice to say the least.
	Fucking what?
	Would you think it was Islamists?
	Did Sadiq Khan ban it?
	No, of course not.
	Wonder Woman has been demoted from her role as honorary ambassador for the empowerment of women and girls.
	On Monday, it was announced that Wonder Woman's campaign will come to an end on Friday, just two months after it began.
	The appointment of DC Comics Heron was controversial to say the least, prompting protests and an online petition for UN staff.
	Holy fuck.
	The MRAs were in the streets, I guess.
	What's going on?
	Critics believe the character who was created 75 years ago is overtly sexualized.
	So feminists are Islamists.
	This is more than surprising at the time when one of the principal concerns for women and girls is objectification, right?
	It was the fucking feminists.
	The petition had been signed by more than 44,000 people.
	It read, although the original creators may have intended Wonder Woman to represent a strong and independent warrior woman with a feminist message, the reality is that the character's current iteration is that of a large-breasted white woman of impossible proportions.
	Scantily clad in a shimmery, thigh-bearing bodysuit with an American flag motif and knee-high boots.
	The epitome of a pin-up girl.
	It really sounds to me, like you're saying, you don't want Wonder Woman to be the UN ambassador for women on whatever, because you feel fat.
	I don't care that she looks incredible.
	There are women who do actually look like that.
	They just have to spend a lot of time and effort looking like that.
	And I guess this criticism was probably written by Lena Dunham because you certainly fucking don't.
	And that's your problem.
	Why does all this SJW feminist nonsense just literally appear to be people projecting their emotional issues onto others and demanding an authority figure take care of it for them?
	There is nothing wrong with Wonder Woman representing the idealized version of a woman.
	That's what she is.
	It's not offensive.
	Most people are not the ideal, and you have to deal with that.
	It's just life.
	If you have a problem with them being more physically attractive than your personal preferences, your issue is jealousy.
	I don't care that you're bothered by that.
	I'm not bothered by that.
	And that is actually a refutation of your argument because your argument was based entirely on I am bothered by that.
	Honestly, all of this social justice culture that these people indulge in, it's always a certain kind of personality.
	And I really think that they're actually trying to cover up for their own personal failings, their own character flaws, and the problems that they're having in their lives.
	As I think is evidenced by this week, this Muslim girl who claimed that three Trump supporters grabbed her pussy on a fucking subway or something.
	I don't want to go hard on her anything because she was only 18 and everyone makes mistakes when they're young and stupid.
	But I'm just trying to point out this is how this sort of stuff can be abused.
	When she said it, the media didn't critically analyze this.
	They didn't look into it or anything like that.
	They didn't do any kind of investigation.
	They just listened and believed.
	And then this all became a big deal and is now being reported in multiple places because it's, I mean, it shouldn't be a big deal.
	But this is the point.
	She just decided to demonize Trump supporters by saying, oh, they did this.
	Why?
	Because I needed to get out of a curfew.
	And the media decided to pick this up.
	Why?
	Because it was exactly what they wanted to hear.
	This is what they wanted to go.
	Look, how evil Trump supporters are.
	You should vote for our person because those people are terrible over there.
	Instead of just promoting a platform of what they wanted to build.
	This is exactly why they remain vote loss.
	I don't think that they realise that they don't really have a very good platform.
	So they can't really put a very good case across.
	I mean, like, what does the future of the EU look like?
	Fucking terrible.
	If the South of Europe is anything to go by.
	If the current German migrant crisis is anything to go by.
	If what's going on with the right-wing parties rising to the very top of the polls is anything to go by.
	No, it doesn't look like there's a very good future in Europe at all.
	And the people in Brexit are saying, look, it could be good.
	It just could be good.
	And this is the same sort of thing.
	You're not making the case for what a good Hillary presidency would have looked like.
	Because there wasn't one.
	It was going to be more of the same shit that everyone's sick of.
	The problems have been mounting up all through the Obama presidency.
	We're just going to carry on under Hillary.
	So no one's going to vote for that.
	Even if the alternative might be worse, it also might be better.
	There is a positive narrative that can be spun.
	Instead of Hillary's desperate, I'm going to try and keep it together.
	America is already great.
	Well, I tell you what, that really sounds like a class issue, if ever I've heard one.
	I mean, there are people saying America sucks, Hillary.
	Why don't you try listening to them?
	I mean, this is my whole problem with the left.
	You just don't fucking listen.
	Look at this.
	Jeremy Corbyn walks out of the Labour Christmas Party after MPs sing Tony Blair anthem.
	Labour MPs have denied a report that Jeremy Corbyn walked out of a Christmas party after rebel politicians sang the new Labour anthem, Things Can Only Get Better, chanted, We Want Tony.
	Who, coincidentally, has announced that he is returning to politics because he thinks Jeremy Corbyn is a nutter and Theresa May is a lightweight.
	This is just the most unbelievable thing I have ever heard, given how Labour have slid to fourth place in two by-elections now.
	This is the November YouGov favourability ratings from the British public.
	This is the latest data we have on what they think of politicians.
	And as you can tell, they do not think highly of politicians at all across the spectrum.
	And as you can see from the prominent politicians listed, Theresa May is the only one with a positive favourability rating.
	Jeremy Corbyn is on minus 35, meaning that two-thirds of the country don't like him.
	And Tony Blair is the only politician on there in Britain that is worse at minus 60.
	He's about as unpopular as Trump and Putin.
	So Labour are now going to be wrestling over the two least popular politicians in the country to lead their fucking party.
	This is so unbelievably stupid, I just can't believe it.
	It would be better for Labour to choose someone who literally nobody knows, so they just start at zero.
	What really annoys me about this the most though is the insult to everyone's intelligence that goes along with it.
	Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, Jess Phillips has denied the claims.
	Can I say that as someone who was there, this did not happen?
	Oh, that's very interesting, Jess.
	The report of the party in the Daily Mail included a video purportedly showing the Labour MP singing the D-Ream song, which is strongly associated with Tony Blair's 1997 election victory.
	One person shouted, We want Tony, the newspaper reported, and soon after, Mr. Corbyn and his allies, whoever, and left amid jeers.
	Well, I'm sorry, Jazz, I don't think I believe you.
	There's a video of you doing it.
	A spokesman for Corbyn said, Jeremy enjoyed the PLP Christmas party on Tuesday, which was one of several engagements that evening.
	Yes, it sounds like a bullshit response as well.
	It sounds like something did happen.
	The reports and video are accurate.
	And the Labour Party is going to choose the stupidest candidates possible.
	And I make an example out of the Labour Party because they were a major institution in Britain.
	All through the 70s and 80s.
	And in the 90s, they are the ones who really brought in like multiculture and they had a huge effect on the country.
	And this is how they wither and die.
	And I think this is going to be a precedent.
	This is going to be an example that can be used for others.
	When they descend into this kind of fucking backbiting and ideological circle jerking, this is the result.
	It tears things apart.
	And the thing is, them saying that nothing happened when there is a video of it happening is really the it's it's a it's just what the political class do now and I think it's why they're so unpopular and I don't think they understand that's why it would have been better for them to just sit and go Yeah, okay, we had arguments.
	We're still figuring out these problems.
	We're sorry, we're getting on it, blah, blah, blah.
	You know, they should have at least acknowledged that it happened, rather than insulting the people they're talking to.
	And now we're going to come to Russia and the just tremendous bullshit we are being span about Russia and what they are capable of and what's happened as a giant fucking excuse for the failures of left-wing parties.
	This is just the stupidest thing I have ever heard, and I'm honestly in awe that this has occurred so openly and obviously.
	So, Putin turned Russia election hacks in Trump's favour, say US officials.
	Russian President Vladimir Putin supervised his intelligence agency's hacking of the US presidential election and turned it from a general attempt to discredit American democracy to an effort to elect help Donald Trump.
	Three unnamed US officials said on Tuesday, US intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia tried to influence the election by hacking people and institutions, including Democratic Party bodies, has angered President-elect Trump, who says he won the November 8th vote fairly.
	Russian officials have denied accusations of interference in the US election.
	There is no reason that we need to make up a conspiracy theory to explain why Trump won the US election.
	We don't need to make up conspiracy theories for anything like that, because it's obvious.
	A, you've not denied that the information that was hacked is correct, and that is the point of contention.
	People know how corrupt you are.
	They can see your emails.
	They saw Debbie Wassum and Schultz fixing the DNC against Bernie.
	They saw them giving Hillary the questions in advance for a debate.
	We saw the Project Veritas videos of the DNC insider saying that they rig elections.
	That's why almost all of these people who have been caught like this were fired.
	Alright?
	We know.
	It's not something you need to try and excuse.
	And people know Hillary's corrupt.
	These US officials would only talk on condition of anonymity.
	So this accusation couldn't be traced to any one person, just some US official, which is, in my opinion, not a trustworthy source.
	I personally would not simply just believe some unnamed US official who claims to have unsubstantiated knowledge of intelligence from information, but that's only because I remember how we got into Iraq.
	It's only because I remember why Tony Blair is so unpopular.
	And I just want to point out that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama think that this is a cause for war.
	Hillary herself saying, As president, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack.
	We will be ready with serious political, economic, and military responses.
	And since that's her opinion, I'm going to infer that this is the reflection of the establishment.
	This will be the general zeitgeist within the American government, under democratic control.
	Because this very same sentiment is being echoed eerily by Obama.
	He said, I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, we need to take action.
	And we will, at the time and place of our choosing.
	Some of it may be explicit and publicized, some of it may not be.
	That's not quite.
	That's a bit ominous, isn't it?
	Fucking okay.
	What are you suggesting, Mr. President?
	Obviously, they went to Donald Trump's Twitter account to get his response.
	The same cyber attack was where it was revealed that the head of the DNC legally gave Hillary the questions to the debate.
	That's a good question.
	Is that something you're going to answer?
	No, of course you're fucking not.
	You're going to blame it on Russia, even though it doesn't appear to be from Russia.
	Then they obviously substantiate Donald Trump's claim because it's fucking true.
	Obama said he would reserve judgment on Moscow's intentions pending a final report, but said the impact of the intervention was clear.
	The debate over motivation, he says, does not in any way, I think, detract from the basic point that everyone during the election perceived accurately.
	That in fact the Russian hack had done more to create problems for the Clinton campaign than it had for the Trump campaign.
	Right, so we're just going to assume it's a Russian hack.
	Right, so you're going to have to forgive me for not taking unnamed government sources or the CIA at their word.
	So I'm going to need to see some evidence.
	Because so far what you appear to be presenting is a conspiracy theory.
	Things that can be adequately explained by real-life phenomena should have Occam's razor applied to them and probably assumed that these were the reasons for it.
	Rather than inventing some conspiracy theory in which Vladimir Putin is puppeteering and hacking everything in the world.
	Especially when the CIA refused to give any evidence at all.
	Do you think we're fucking gullible?
	Members of the House Intelligence Committee are fuming that the CIA is refusing to provide an immediate briefing on Russian interference in the US elections after media reports that the intent of hacking was to boost President-elect Donald Trump's chances.
	The panel had hoped to hold a briefing with the CIA Tuesday, although the agency is declining to participate, prompting panel member Peter King of Long Island to suggest that US intelligence could be perpetuating a disinformation campaign designed to undermine Trump as he prepares to take office.
	And yeah, that's exactly what this fucking looks like.
	This violates all protocols and it's almost as if the people in the intelligence community are carrying out a disinformation campaign against President-elect of the United States, fumed King in appearance on the Kelly file on Fox News Wednesday nights.
	Yeah, I'm not surprised it fucking does.
	It literally does look like that is what's going on.
	If the CIA has evidence that Russia has hacked their elections, where is the harm in releasing that evidence?
	Redact anything that is actually necessary to redact, but show us what they actually did.
	The only thing I've seen is a phishing email on a video by CNN that I'll put a link in the description to my other channel where I went through it.
	A phishing scam where John Podest was stupid enough to give his fucking email address away and password away and the fact that he've lost his phone on public transport.
	If you've got evidence the Russians are connected to that, why don't you show us?
	Why don't you show us how the Russians hacked Hillary's private server that she shouldn't have had?
	Why don't you show us these things?
	Why do you have to keep this secret?
	Because I tell you what this really fucking reminds me of.
	This really reminds me of the CIA creating an intelligence assessment of WNDs in Iraq in 2002 leading to the 2003 invasion before this document was actually released in 2004 in a heavily redacted form that wasn't actually fully released until 2015, which found this.
	The document determines that Saddam Hussein had an active chemical weapons program, although crucially, the CIA couldn't prove that his regime had actually resumed producing chemical and biological agents and cast doubt on the actual extent of Saddam's program.
	The intelligence estimate also heavily qualified its evidence of any link between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda, noting the sources were not entirely reliable.
	This looks like another CIA lie.
	And I'm not even going to go through the list of lies the CIA have told.
	They are just so long, I'm just not going to waste my time.
	Just Google CIA lies and just find the things you come up with.
	This is the most egregious one and it looks like an attempt to try and demonize a foreign power as a justification for war and this is how the politicians are reacting to this hypothetical.
	I can't believe how much like Bush Obama sounds when talking about this.
	Fucking another foreign war built on lies fabricated by the CIA.
	Do you really want to do that, America?
	Come on, you can't possibly think this is something to sign up to.
	It's just like with Petergate.
	It's all circumstantial.
	It's all conjectural.
	There is no proof.
	There is no proof of this.
	There's no proof of that.
	Until I see some proof, I'm not treating the establishment media and politicians as if they have credibility on the subject.
	And I'll tell you what, thank fuck Trump has won because he doesn't appear to believe in any of this anyway.
	He's the one who says, I won fair and square.
	And honestly, I think he probably did.
	I think there is enough explanation as to why Donald Trump won without needing conspiracy theories.
	But the thing is, all of this, like, blame Russia, it's all a way of deflecting the blame from themselves.
	Because they are the people who lost.
	They made the mistakes.
	Podesta clicked the phishing scam himself.
	He's the one who did that.
	Hillary put her server at risk by having a separate server she shouldn't have had.
	She made that decision.
	Blaming Russia is a distraction, so they don't have to think about how they went wrong.
	It's a way of trying to avoid blame.
	This is ridiculous.
	It doesn't even matter if Russia did it.
	It doesn't matter because what Russia revealed was true.
	So this is a conspiracy theory that Russia hacked the US elections with the intent of performing investigative journalism.
	And this is where it gets really funny.
	And I'm really going to try and contain myself while I'm reading this out.
	But I'm sorry.
	This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
	And this is why you know it's a wacko conspiracy theory because it can be expanded to include anything.
	There is just nothing outside of it.
	Russian hackers probably swayed Brexit vote, says Ben Bradshaw MP.
	Fucking yes.
	Yes.
	Come on, let's do this, Ben.
	Russian hackers probably swayed the EU referendum vote in favor of a Brexit.
	A former Labour minister has claimed the Commons, you fucking winner.
	Yes, it's someone else's fault.
	Leading remain campaigner Ben Bradshaw questioned the validity of the result in June, claiming that people were underestimating the extent of cyber warfare by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
	Yes, that's right.
	You know what?
	He probably did do that.
	He probably did, but is that the most ridiculous thing we could say about Russian hacking?
	His allegation was given short shrift by Prime Minister Theresa May's spokesman who responded, I have not come across any evidence that Russian cyber warfare was used to influence the referendum.
	You know, I think it might have been quite difficult given that the referendum was done by paper ballot in Britain.
	I mean, I'm just saying the Russians might have some incredible hackers, but like I said, is this the most ridiculous thing?
	The answer is, of course, no.
	You can always get something more ridiculous from the EU.
	Brace yourself for this.
	This is the final headline I will be reading out of 2016.
	And I think it's just the most 2016 thing I've ever read.
	Pro-EU think tank says Russia and Syria might be orchestrating migrant sex attacks to swing the upcoming German elections.
	They're making the migrants rapey.
	That's some hardcore Alex Jones shit right there.
	I don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin' frogs gay.
	So let's see what chemicals the Russian hackers have been putting in the migrants' water to turn them rapey.
	Russian and Syrian secret services may be encouraging refugees in Germany to carry out orchestrated sex attacks.
	In a bid to oust Angela Merkel from office, it is claimed.
	I don't think we need to resort to Russians to explain this.
	The extraordinary assertion was made by an expert from the European Council on Foreign Relations who said the foreign powers could collude to destabilize Germany ahead of next year's election.
	You know, I think Germany might have done this to itself.
	I think Merkel might be responsible for this.
	I don't think you can blame Russian hackers for what has happened here, you fucking lunatics.
	But Gustav Gressel, a Russian expert at the think tank, said a small number of refugees with links to the Kremlin and security services could be mobilized to sway public opinion against the Chancellor by ordering them to rape and then get arrested and thrown in jail, presumably.
	Although maybe the German state doesn't do that.
	But seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people?
	Right?

▲