All Episodes
Previous Next
March 19, 2017 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
29:31
This Week in Stupid (19⧸03⧸2017)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Super for the 19th of March 2017.
This week we're back to the old style and I bring you a beast.
Amy Schumer says alt-right trolls sabotaged her reviews of Netflix special.
Their obsession keeps me going.
Amy Schumer is feeling powerful, dangerous and brave, and it's all thanks to her haters.
In a lengthy Instagram post on Wednesday, the 35 year old comedian opened up about the alt-right organized trolls, whom she claims have been coordinating online attacks against her over the years.
Her words came in response to a split-sider article that reported how alt-right Redditors had flooded the member reviews of the comics new hour-long stand-up show on Netflix, The Leather Special, with hundreds of negative reviews and low-star ratings, mostly laced with misogyny.
the alt-right is defined as an offshoot of conservatism mixed with racism white nationalism and populism and misogyny you mean you you left that out for some reason and the thing is that is actually a fairly accurate description of the alt-rights It's actually one of the reasons I'm very tired of being associated with the alt-right.
But I'll tell you what, by the end of this video, unfortunately, we're going to have to talk about a lot of those things.
And just as a quick spoiler, alt-right, I'm not interested in your opinion on it.
I know it and I think it's wrong.
The alt-right organized trolls to attack everything I do, she wrote.
They organized to get my ratings down.
Meeting in subreddit rooms, they tried on my book and movies and TV show.
I think you may be conflating popular dislike of your work to a conspiracy against you.
There is no need to invent a conspiracy, and even if there is one, I don't think the alt-right is large enough and powerful enough to really make an impact on a celebrity who has millions of Twitter followers.
But I think that if the public thinks that what you do is shit, they will let you know.
I want to thank them.
It makes me feel so powerful and dangerous and brave.
It reminds me that what I'm saying is effective and brings more interest to my work and their obsession with me keeps me going.
That's interesting because you seem to be whining about it like a little bitch, frankly.
You seem to be just really bothered by the fact that your comedy special got one star.
Anyone who reported that viewers aren't happy with my special, it would have been cool if you did a moment of research before posting.
Well, I mean, you say that, but you've provided no evidence at all.
So there is literally nothing here to suggest that you're correct and they aren't.
But folks, this is where I prove to you that I earn my Patreon dollars, because I sat through the entire thing and now I need them to pay for my medical expenses.
Seriously though, this was not funny in any way, shape or form.
In fact, it was highly embarrassing watching Amy Schumer flounder around on stage desperately looking for the old laugh from the audience while comparing the smell of her vagina to a barnyard animal.
But I did that cursory bit of research that Amy suggested we do, and this is the result.
Here are some of the reviews from the evil alt-writers.
Let's see if we can find any white supremacy here.
Just utter rubbish.
Nothing original.
Too many, I'm a woman so I'm a hilarious style jokes.
Just utter rubbish.
I'm going to wait till Xmas.
Funnier jokes come out of crackers that time of year.
Hilariously unfunny.
Don't blame anyone else but yourself for the low ratings.
You're just not that funny in the slightest petal.
I couldn't make it past the 15 minute mark.
How is this hack still relevant?
Being gross and saying you like sex doesn't make you funny.
I'll skip over the good ones.
Just saw an article where she's blaming the alt-right for bad reviews on Netflix.
This embarrassing woman just can't understand that she is not funny in any way, shape or form.
I am a woman and I'm definitely not part of the alt-right, but this is still a vulgar joke of a performance.
She has no charm, talent, or intelligence.
Speaking about sex and genitalia for an hour is not funny.
Nor is shouting in silly voices and doing manly impressions of humping.
I'm shocked that this sad excuse for a comedian has been given this amount of attention and fame.
She's so painfully unaware of herself that it hurts.
Bottom line, this is a joke.
It's a waste of time.
I wouldn't even subject a hardened criminal to watching this mess.
I've never seen a comedian as unfunny as this Amy Schumer.
Netflix, stop supporting such a shame of a person.
And 12 out of 17 people found this review helpful.
And so did I. Amy, you're not funny.
You are not a comedian.
You are a clown that the SJWs and the feminists use to parade around and say, look, this is our girl.
Isn't she so great?
And the public is looking at you aghast.
Because your comedy routine is not funny, you are pretty disgusting, and nobody, nobody, wants to know how your vagina smells.
So, thankfully, moving on to a more serious and less disgusting topic than Amy Schumer, Punchbowl public teacher blows the whistle on Islamic extremism at school.
Students in an Australian school are showing signs of extreme radicalization as early as year five, including threatening to behead teachers, bullying peers into reading the Quran, and even demanding the Syrian flag be put up in the classroom.
Nothing to see here, folks.
This is all totally normal.
Stop being a bunch of Islamophobes.
Documents obtained by the Daily Telegraph reveal how frightened teachers at Punch Bowl Public School have resorted to making formal complaints over fears of religious violence inside the classroom.
It's also understood that at least three teachers have taken stress leave, received counselling or been paid compensation because of bullying from Islamic students.
Anyone want to say anything at this point?
Anyone want to jump in?
Someone from the left?
Because if you don't jump in and denounce this, then I tell you what, someone from the right is definitely going to.
And the people who are concerned about this, guess who they're going to start listening to?
They're not just going to be like, oh, you know what?
I shouldn't be such an Islamophobe just because all of these things are happening when they clearly shouldn't be.
Anyone from the left?
Is it just going to be me, is it?
Am I going to be the only one?
Am I going to be the man who gets turned into a pariah for addressing these things that are really happening and are not simply based out of hatred?
Is okay, I'll do it.
Fine.
I'll be the only one.
The primary school is a feeder facility to Punch Bowl Boys High, which has been at the center of a political storm after former principal and Islam convert Chris Griffiths was sacked when he refused to implement the state government's de-radicalization program.
Hmm.
In an August 2014 incident, an official complaint from a teacher obtained by the Daily Telegraph says two students were kicked out of class for being repeatedly uncooperative and disruptive.
They were placed in timeouts where they began audibly chanting the Quran in Arabic.
The concerned teacher says they could give no explanation of their behaviour.
Well, I mean, I can give an explanation.
They've been utterly indoctrinated to think that the West and everything about it is inferior to the Quran and any teachings from it.
Is there anyone on the left who thinks that they're wrong?
Just out of interest!
Anyone at all?
In an October 2014 incident, the teacher describes how a student was being bullied when his peers told him he was betraying his religion by not going to Muslim scripture.
An earlier incident that year says that a group of boys stood around a girl and called her horrible names like a dog.
Any feminists who want to speak up at this point?
Any at all?
Just one would be enough.
Revelations of the disturbing reports comes a former teacher at the school at the time who has asked to be known only as Mrs. A. Why would she need to keep her identity a secret?
Is there anyone from the left who would like to speak in Mrs. A's defense?
Oh, I'll guess I'll do it.
Revealed her nightmare experiences, including death threats from Islamic students.
I think that's unacceptable.
Is there anyone else on the left who feels that this is unacceptable?
I think you need to re-evaluate your ideology if for some reason you cannot bring yourself to condemn students threatening teachers.
If you can't do that, you are the fucking problem.
Mrs. A says she was forced to leave the public education system after students in the year 5 threatened to kill her family.
She claims multiple complaints to the Department of Education were simply dismissed.
This is why I am not a multiculturalist.
Because some cultures are fucking cancer.
Do you understand?
This is nothing to do with race.
Absolutely nothing.
There are millions of Muslim apostates who are unable to speak out because Islam is a violent, dogmatic, totalitarian ideology wrapped in the guise of being a religion.
And this is it in practice.
This is how you know.
All races are fine with me, but not all cultures.
Some cultures are shit.
And I tell you what, this is how we'll categorize as well.
Does your culture lead to students threatening death on their teachers?
If the answer is yes, your culture is shit.
Ding, ding, ding, you're a winner.
After only two years of teaching year five and year six students at Punchbowl Public, the mother of two handed in her resignation.
Some students would act out beheadings with their fingers across their necks.
I had incidents where kids wanted to fly the Syrian flag in classroom or they would wear headbands.
But when you say no, they start getting abusive.
A lot of kids talk about their uncles and cousins who are fighting the war in Syria.
They're allowed to get up and walk out of class at prayer time and we can't stop them.
By the time they get to high school, their learning has been impaired because they've been preoccupied with social issues regarding Islam.
In one instance, Mrs. A said two Year 5 students pushed her into a corner during a creative arts lesson and chanted the Quran in Arabic around her.
Sit with me folks.
Multiculturalism is cancer and the West is the best.
We are way better than these pieces of shit and the piece of shit families they come from and the piece of shit countries they come from and I know.
You're gonna be like, race isn't no.
No.
This is nothing to do with the race.
Bad, SJW.
Bad.
Nothing to do with race.
It's everything to do with the fucking thoughts in their head.
And that's nothing to do with their fucking race.
It's about the bullshit their parents, their fucking ideology and their stupid backwards ass religion inculcate into them as their children.
She was also left threatening notes saying students would kill her family.
And red writings saying fuck your family were left on the computer room log for her to find.
Oh that's lovely.
An incident report was filed, but the only punishment was to take the children off playground during lunchtime.
Mrs. A was told to go to the police if it was such a big deal.
Maybe she fucking should have done.
Mrs. A said this lack of discipline at the school encouraged extremist behaviour.
She said it only got worsened when the child gets to high school.
Oh, I wonder if discipline is racist.
It probably is, because there's going to be people who have got brown skin who are acting up because they believe something fundamentally incompatible to the things we believe.
Look at this Nambi Pambi response though.
A spokesman for the Education Minister Rob Stokes said an incident occurred matching that description in relation to the Quran chanting.
The spokesman said the students were counseled and put on detention.
Oh, that's probably fixed it.
Oh, that'll never happen again then.
It's only that these students were bullying their teacher and sending her death threats.
It's not like you'd expel a white student for that, is it?
No, they would just be saying, look, just little Jimmy, sit down and stop threatening to murder your teacher.
Stop acting out beheadings.
Would you please just sit down or you'll be sent to detention?
It's this kind of limp-wristed namby response that means that nothing's going to change.
They will just be emboldened by the fact that they are being so brazen and you are being so weak.
Since we're talking about Islamic immigration to the West, let's talk about the Netherlands and the recent, quote-unquote, catastrophic defeat for Geert Wilderss in the elections.
And I just want to point out, you are living in a land of delusion if you think Wilders lost this election.
Wilders party obviously did not sweep the Dutch elections, like I said he would not.
But he did gain five extra seats to make his party the second largest party in the Netherlands.
This should tell the left what is happening.
And he won the most in places like Rotterdam, places that are having problems with mass Islamic immigration.
This is a wake-up call.
Pay attention.
You have to address this problem, because if you don't, people like Wilders will.
I saw the innumerable articles saying things like, oh, the tide has been rolled back.
The right-wing populism is done.
No.
He was never going to win this election.
Don't get your hopes up.
You have to deal with the fact that the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy lost eight seats and Wilders gained five.
This is a huge problem.
And in places like Rotterdam, he now holds the majority.
The places where this is the problem.
And we can turn to the Guardian for exactly how not to handle this.
Wilders was beaten, but at the cost of fueling racism in the Netherlands.
Fucking idiots.
These people are fucking idiots.
In the Netherlands, the defeat of Gerd Wilders' anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-Islam Freedom Party is a pyrrhic victory.
The cost of this victory is that the country's centre-right party appropriated the rhetoric of Wilders to beat him.
Mark Rut, who leads the VVD party, won the largest number of seats in the election, talked of something wrong with our country, and claimed the silent majority would no longer tolerate immigrants who come and abuse our freedom.
That's right.
In fact, he is actually doing the right thing by addressing the issues that people care about.
But the Guardian wouldn't fucking know that.
This is racism!
Rather than challenge racists, Rut has boosted their confidence, pouring arsenic into the water supply of Dutch politics.
It's already there.
You have in fact done this.
You have set the stage by being so pro-mass immigration, especially immigration from Islamic countries.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Guardian, but this is not a tenable position.
You cannot continue on like this indefinitely.
He's been happy to play the tough guy.
As Prime Minister in the last week of the election campaign, Rut burnished his populist credentials for a fractious dispute with Turkey.
Yes, and that's probably what saved him from actually losing.
He calculated it was in the interest of the Dutch Prime Minister to be tough on Turkey, and in the interest of the Turkish President to be tough on the Netherlands.
He happily sparked a mini-international crisis for the sake of votes.
No!
You have to understand, you can't just allow Erdogan to run roughshod over your country.
At all, and all he had to do is speak back and tell him to fuck off, which he did.
Rut said stopping Wilders was about stopping the wrong sort of populism, and on that I actually agree with him.
The Dutch Prime Minister will learn that he can't run from the rhetoric of reaction.
it will end up running him.
No, he actually did the right thing.
I'm actually more and more impressed with Rut as time goes by, but he needs to really get a handle on this.
If recent history is any guide, trying to ignore right-wing populists and the issues they raise does not work.
No, it doesn't.
Honestly, it's great that the far left can finally acknowledge that reality exists outside of their ideology.
The policy flip-flops over immigration while Ed Miliband was leading Labour revealed to voters a vacillating streak over an issue that was raised to the top of their concerns.
The party lost ground and will continue to lose ground until you find yourselves promoting Western values and an anti-immigration policy.
The change in politics is happening as poorer workers see their governments not bothering to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported.
Well, that can certainly be helped by ending mass immigration.
Ahead of them are white-collar workers who are frightened about being downsized themselves and are wary of paying taxes to provide benefits for anyone else.
Totally reasonable concerns.
I mean, I notice you don't want to talk about the social issues that Islam in a country that is not Islamic brings.
I mean, you don't want to talk about the gangs and the no-go zones that journalist Tim Poole is uncovering in Sweden that nobody wants to talk about.
Because that's really uncomfortable.
Because you are unable to talk in terms of culture and can only talk in terms of race.
And on that note, if babies were randomly allocated to families, would racism end?
The answer is no, and also, get in the fucking helicopter.
Imagine a world in which all babies born each day were randomly redistributed among the biological parents.
I think it would look something like Orwell's version of 1984, but with social justice rather than the party being the dominant ideology.
Basically, I think it would be a dystopian hell, and I would probably be in active revolt against it.
The infant assigned to any set of given parents could be black, white, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American, or any combination thereof, the baby would be perfectly healthy or grossly deformed.
The parents would know only that their child was not their biological child.
Let us call this social mixing.
Actually, I'm going to call this postmodernist bullshit.
The plan is, of course, politically impossible, perhaps even repellent, only to normal, healthy thinking people.
Our goal, however, is to engage the reader in a thought experiment, to examine why it stirs up such uncomfortable feelings.
Well, I'm not so bothered about the biological nature of it.
I'm more concerned about the state of the society that would have to permit that.
And the sort of people that might think this a good idea.
Is the idea so frightening?
Yes, it is.
But not because of the children, really.
My concern is actually just the authoritarian nature of the government intervention in people's lives.
That you cannot even have possession of your own children now.
This is now the government's property.
That's a horrific idea.
It is a frightening thought that your own biological child, one sitting there now doing her homework, might have gone to an impoverished mother or a drug addict, perhaps even been beaten, perhaps starved.
Well, there is always that.
I mean, I am personally glad that my children are mine, because I know that I will raise them well.
And I can't guarantee that if someone else raises them.
But I'm honestly more worried about the state of the civilization you are considering here.
But why, save for genetic chauvinism, do we view with comparative equanimity the everyday reality of other people's children subject to the same treatment by their own biological mothers?
Because we are not in control of those people.
We have laws that they have to follow, and if they don't follow them, then they are punished.
But we are not the authorities over other people.
Jesus Christ, and I love the save for genetic chauvinism.
Yeah, I mean, why wouldn't one be a genetic chauvinist?
Why wouldn't one want to have control and possession of their own children so they can love and care and look after them as they think best?
I mean, they are your children, after all.
You may argue that genetic bias is indelible in human nature.
No, I wouldn't argue that.
I mean, it is, undoubtedly, and this is a fact that you're never going to overcome.
But for this thought experiment, I'm going to argue that I know that you have lifted this directly from Plato's Republic, and as someone who has read Plato's Republic, I know that Plato's Republic would be the most totalitarian, controlling state possible to imagine.
I mean, if you read it, you will see that the idea of living in such a state would be hell on earth for anyone who is in any way free-thinking, free-acting, and wanted to live the life they wanted to live, instead of a totally predetermined life, which is what you are proposing here.
Social mixing would not only disturb the comfort of this fatalistic attitude.
Stop you there, I don't agree that this is a fatalistic attitude.
I think this is just an acceptance of the evolutionary reality of human beings, that they have a preference for their own children, and I think that's fine.
But also the use of genetic chauvinism for ends beyond mere economic equality, providing grounds for a compassion that goes beyond the well-being of our immediate families.
Since any man might be your biological brother, any woman your biological sister, concern for them would have to be expressed by concern for a common good.
This argument was refuted in book two of Aristotle's Politics, where he says, Each citizen will have a thousand sons, who will not be his sons individually, but anyone will be equally the son of anybody, and will therefore be neglected by all alike.
Simply put, because there will be no bonds of kinship between them, the only bonds between them will be extremely weak.
And if my experience with human beings is anything to go by, I suspect not be worth very much.
A second effect of social mixing would be to generate a strong interest in the health and well-being of expectant mothers.
Why?
Not bearing my child, why would I care about the well-being of expectant mothers?
As far as anyone is concerned, they're not bearing anyone's child.
So who cares?
But they say it would ultimately translate into an interest in the social and biological welfare of everyone.
No, it will translate into an interest in the social and biological welfare of nobody.
Since any child might end up our own, we would provide the social and educational environments that would best enhance their development.
No, because you are not actually saying that the children must be held in common.
You are saying that a random child will be allocated to you.
So I still won't care about children who aren't actually allocated to me.
And there would be no reason for me to do so.
Ghettos and slums would be an eyesore for us all.
They are an eyesore for us all.
Poverty, drug, and alcohol addiction are already everyone's problem.
Actually, they're not.
They're still only some people's problems.
But this fact would be more meaningful than it is now.
The child of an addict might be our biological child.
Yes, but you're establishing a paradigm in which the concept of the biological child is irrelevant.
So whether or not that person's child is actually my biological child is A, something I'll never know, and B, something I don't give a shit about.
I have the child that I am to raise, so within your frame, it doesn't matter.
Every victim of a drive-by shooting might be a member of our genetic family.
Yes, but that's not a priority.
Nobody cares if it's a member of our genetic family because we are not focused around a genetic family in your world.
Each of us would see the link between our fate and the fate of others.
How is that different from us simply being human?
How is that different to us simply being the same species?
Third, the superficial connection between colour and culture would be severed.
Well, I don't think colour and culture are connected, and I didn't go through your process.
I went through an entirely different process, which I call growing up in the 90s, where a person's race wasn't really very relevant to their accomplishments.
And so when I'm sat there watching The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, I'm not thinking about the word black.
I mean, there's not a single white person on the television, and it just didn't occur to me.
At no point did I take any of the individuals on screen as a commentary on black people, because they were all different, just like every other person on Earth.
They are just different.
Because if you judge people as individuals, instead of collectivising them via their race, you get a much more accurate picture of what kind of person that individual is.
That's how you get racism to end.
By stop focusing on the person's race and start focusing on the person.
Or, you know, we could just upend society and start doling out children to different parents randomly by the government and really enter into a totalitarian nightmare.
Because otherwise, how can we get rid of racism?
Imagine if social mixing had been in fact 100 years ago in Germany, Bosnia, Palestine, or the Congo.
Racial, religious, and social genocide would not have happened.
Well, social and religious still would.
Because these people would still be in their own religious categories, and they would still be in their own social categories.
And therefore, they would still come up against different groups, even though it would just like look like a fucking United Colours of Bennett and A.
It just wouldn't be any different.
It just race wouldn't be the issue.
And that's great.
I mean, I don't like race being an issue.
But hell, we can't stop talking about it, apparently.
It may be objected that under social mixing, cultural diversity would disappear.
Nonsense.
Unless you are one of those race realists I've read so much about and think that culture is directly tied to race.
And I don't think it is.
But this would only be true for diversity that depends on the shape of your features and the colour of your skin.
This is the kind of diversity that racists wish to maintain.
Okay.
You know, I guess.
The cultural diversity we care about of language, food, dress, religion, music, and speech, would be preserved no less than it is now.
Yeah, so what's the problem?
What's the, I mean, it would still create different groups that would fight over something else.
It may be objected that people would not want to bear children only to have them raised by strangers.
Duh.
But genetic narcissism, genetic narcissism, may only be, may not be the optimal motive for having children.
Jesus Christ.
It doesn't matter.
If people want to be genetic narcissists and have children to carry on their lineage, that's their choice.
There may be no correlation between the biological capacity to have children and the ability to cultivate the optimal development of the child.
Duh. It may be a fucking duh.
Jesus, you didn't even think about that line, did you?
Jesus Christ, go to any poor white community and you will find tons of children.
And you will find very little optimal development.
It may be a good thing if only people who passionately wish to be an integral part of the life trajectory of another human being raise children.
And for the other people, are we going to have them sterilized by the state?
Mandatory sterilization?
I mean, what are we going to do?
What are we going to do?
The things you're saying, you don't seem to understand how monstrous they are.
All for your greater good.
Genetic chauvinism lives on very strongly in our culture, and every culture.
Modern fiction and cinema often present adoptee searches for biological parents and siblings in a highly positive light.
Because that's important to those people and the people watching.
The law in child custody cases is biased towards biological parents over real parents.
I imagine there's a good reason for this, but to be honest with you, I don't care.
This is a silly thought experiment.
You might claim that this bias itself is natural, which it obviously is.
It is so common to seem part of our biological makeup, which is why we think it's natural.
But subjugation of women was also common in primitive human cultures.
Bullshit.
In primitive human cultures, there was very little difference between male and female in terms of, say, wealth disparity or life expectancy or something like that.
I don't agree that these women were subjugated just because they had different gender roles than men.
In primitive cultures, the objective was to survive, not liberation.
Unnatural as it sounds, social mixing promises many advantages.
Not really.
If we are not willing to adopt it, we should carefully consider why, because it's fucking awful.
You're not even considering the state of the country we'd have to live in to have this as a reality.
And if naturalness is the key, we should ask ourselves why on this matter, ungoverned nature should trump social cohesion.
Because we are individualists and not collectivists.
But more importantly, this is a system that has worked for thousands and thousands of years and presented us with the wonderful societies that we have now.
There is no reason why this should be overturned for your thought experiment.
▲
Export Selection