All Episodes
Previous Next
May 28, 2017 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
22:23
This Week in Stupid (28⧸05⧸2017)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 28th of May 2017.
This week, the SJWs are going to take everything you have, put it on the altar of social justice, and fucking burn it.
White women's burrito shop is forced to close after being hounded with accusations it was culturally appropriating Mexican food and jobs.
Two white women have been forced to close their pop-up burrito shop after they were accused of cultural appropriation.
Callie Wilgus and Liz Connolly opened Cook's Burrito in Portland, Oregon.
I can see your problem already.
After taking a trip to Puerto Nevo.
I can't pronounce that, shut up.
Nuovo, Nevo, Nuvo?
Get fucked, Mexico.
Last December.
For the first few months, the weekend pop-up shop housed in a taco truck was a smash hit.
It gained so much popularity, a local weekly newspaper decided to profile the entrepreneurial duo.
But that's when the trouble started for Wilgus and Connolly, after quotes they gave to the Williamette Week led them to being accused of stealing their success.
Explaining their trip, Connolly told the newspaper, I picked the brains of every Tortilla lady there, in the worst broken Spanish ever, and they showed me a little of what they did.
They wouldn't tell us too much about the technique, but we were peeking into the windows of every kitchen, totally fascinated by how easy they made it look.
We learned quickly that it isn't quite that easy.
These comments were latched onto by a food blog in the Portland Mercury, which accused Wilgus and Connolly of preying on the women they met in Mexico.
This weekend, White Nonsense, two white women decided it would be cute to open a food truck after a fateful excursion to Mexico.
The owners of Cook's burritos all but admitted in an interview that they colonized this style of food.
So let's recap the story thus far.
Two white women went to Mexico, ate tacos, and then decided that they would just take what the locals clearly didn't want to give them.
And if that wasn't bad enough, they decided to pack up all of their stolen intellectual property and repackage it.
Now before we go on, I don't know whether you can patent a recipe in the United States, so I checked with the people who do know.
Specifically, an article from the US Patent and Trademark Office that deals with this issue directly.
Patents in the US can be granted for any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.
And to be patentable, the invention must also be novel and non-obvious.
Unfortunately, food products are typically nothing more than the expected sum total of individual components.
There are exceptions in which the combination of agreements is used, or the way they are processed, results in a food product that is totally unexpected, and that is something that may be patentable.
Unfortunately, burritos don't fall into this category.
As they say, it is possible to patent a recipe, but the recipes that are patentable are more likely to have been created in a laboratory than on a kitchen counter.
To summarise, you can't really patent a burrito recipe, and therefore, you can't steal anyone's intellectual property when you make a burrito like someone else.
So returning to the perpetual outrage mongers in Portland.
The piece went on to claim that getting the weekend taco truck closed was a victory in Portland, a city accused of having underlying racism.
These appropriating businesses are erasing and exploiting their already marginalised identities for the purpose of profit and praise.
Stealing is in their nature, so I'm not surprised.
They're not creative, so they had to get the idea from someone.
Cooks Burritos is now closed.
Good riddance.
So just to summarise what's happened here, an entrepreneurial pair of women went on holiday, discovered a burrito recipe they liked, figured out how to make the burritos themselves, and then returned to the United States, a different country, where they opened up their own burrito stand, they made the burritos, they sold the burritos, and now they have been shut down by outraged social justice warriors on the grounds that they are A.
Stealing something that they didn't steal, and B stealing jobs from Mexicans, despite the fact that these women had opened the stall themselves.
Well done, social justice.
Using your ideology to shut down small businesses, to hamper and oppress entrepreneurs.
That's really progressive.
But getting a burrito stall shut down is pretty small fry.
We're going to have to think bigger if we really want to be the most annoying people on earth.
I know, we're going to get rid of the Confederate flags from a Civil War museum.
That's thinking intersectionally.
A Henry County commissioner requested a few months ago that a local Civil War museum remove its Confederate flags.
I'm not going to get into the debate of whether the Confederate flag is a racist symbol or anything like that.
I really don't care and I'm not interested in discussing it.
What I'm concerned about is it's a historical symbol.
And in the historical context that is presented in, say, oh I don't know, a museum, it's totally appropriate to have these flags.
In fact, it's inappropriate to not have these flags.
Especially as without the symbol, the Nash Farm Battlefield and Museum announced that it can't conduct its mission properly and will close on June the 1st.
In a Facebook post, the museum's directors cited the request by District 2 Commissioner D. Clemens that all Confederate flags will be removed from the museum, in addition to the gift shop, in an effort not to offend anyone.
Which in my opinion is the worst reason to do any of this.
If you're offended, that's your problem.
Take yourself away from the source of the offence.
You don't have to be involved.
You don't have to go to a museum that has Confederate flags if you can't accept that history was triggering.
It's interesting to note that a spokeswoman has directly contradicted this account, saying that Henry County in no way asked them to remove their things.
We did not request that, it was a voluntary move to leave the museum.
I honestly don't know whether that's correct or the cited request by the commissioner is correct.
But either way, the very fact that this has to be discussed is ridiculous.
This is a museum.
Museums hold historical artifacts.
The Confederate flag is a historical artefact and should be present in these museums.
You know, I think I've worked out what the problem is.
It's essentially just that everything is racist, and the worst part of everything being racist is you don't have to be racist to be racist.
Surprise!
Racism does not always come from the minds of racists.
I guess we've got you covered.
Whether you experience it or not, the issue of racism is still very prevalent in a diversified country like America.
America has been diversified now.
And whether you believe it or not, there are many actions that are considered to be racist, even though being racist was not the intent.
It is called colourblind racism, a type of racial discrimination where people of colour are unintentionally disregarded when someone is selecting individuals to participate in an activity or service.
Not only is this very prevalent in our current society, but it's very harmful, as colourblind racism often stems from cultural racism and predisposed stereotypes.
So remember, you are either an intentional racist or an unintentional racist.
And really, it doesn't matter because at the end of the day, you are a racist.
American sociologist and professor of sociology at Duke University Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has discussed his views on systemic racism in America, despite the lack of people doing or saying things that are overtly racist.
Bonela Silva has discussed the four different central frames of racial colourblindness in his book Racism Without Racist, which was published in 2013, stating that abstract liberalism, naturalism, cultural racism and minimization of racism are at the core of colourblind racism.
I love that they can actually say not discriminating on the basis of race is a form of racism.
If I were a non-white person, I would be really angry that they are busy trying to undo people not being racist just because the numbers at the end of the process of society don't come out to be exactly 50-50.
This is the core of a worldview that is determined to get equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.
You can say that liberalism, naturalism, whatever cultural racism is supposed to be, and minimization of racism are in fact forms of racism.
Of course, racial discrimination is not as severe as it had been during the era of Martin Luther King, but there are still many changes that need to be made in order to diminish racial discrimination and the notion that some races are superior to others solely based on one's racial and ethnic background.
Well, whose fucking opinion is that?
Whose opinion is that?
Is that the opinion of the public at large, or is that the opinion of social justice warriors and the academics that are programming them?
Most people think that the best way to diminish racism is to not personally be racist.
And you are writing an article to say that no, that won't diminish racism, because not being racist is not not being racist enough.
And in fact, doing as we say and not as we do is the way to diminish racism.
If that's the case, I'm fine with the level of racism that exists.
I don't think you can wipe it out.
I think we have a handle on it.
I think we should worry about other problems.
I certainly don't want to hand more societal control to people like this, because that's really fucking scary as they don't ever seem to have an end goal in mind.
They want to keep going and going and going until the point where you don't have to be a racist to be a racist.
With the growing exposure of discrimination to adolescents through online and real-life interactions comes the ideology, just the idea, but that people of colour are somehow lesser than those of Caucasian and or European descent.
That is the opinion of the alt-right and the regressive left, and believe it or not, most of the public do not belong to either of these groups.
This ideology is spreading and being implanted into the minds of adolescents is dangerous because it causes a sense of depleted self-worth in the youth that identifies as a person of colour.
Well, let's not tell them that they're worth less.
The first thing we can do is not tell them that they live in a white supremacist society, because I really think that puts in mind a total paranoia about white people and the system in which they live, which, as has been shown in the last eight years, can quite happily see a black person become the president.
People of colour that experience colourblind racism every day can either fall victim or use this newly found ignorance to their advantage.
When people begin to familiarise themselves with racial discrimination towards people of colour, even if it doesn't apply to them personally, they are able to gain newly found sympathy for the individual.
Look, colourblind racism is not a thing.
If you are not discriminating on the basis of race, you are not being a racist.
This is what they mean when they say colourblind.
I don't see colour.
I'm not taking that into account when I form a judgment about the individual I am dealing with.
Once a social bias is destroyed, not sure that ever really happens, but carry on, society gets one step closer to eliminating racial discrimination.
Stop.
You're never going to do it.
You're never going to eliminate racial discrimination.
The best you're ever going to do is minimize it, which is what we do.
I mean, we have laws against it.
It's socially unacceptable.
What more can we do?
How much more thought policing should take place is the question.
But anyway, we're getting one step close to eliminating it due to less people spreading the negative ideals.
Yeah, that's what colorblindness is.
The less people are judging people based on their race, the less racism happens.
And you can't just sit there and say, you know what, I've decided that actually not being racist is also racist.
The only way to not be racist is to literally be colorblind in the way you've defined it.
There is no other way.
You can't sit there discriminating on the basis of race, either for or against and think in any fucking sense of the word, you are going to end up ending racism.
And since we're on the subject of racism, let's talk about the latest instance of students in the United States terrorizing their professors by calling them racist.
Difference between debate and dialectic.
Debate.
Wait a second.
No, it is.
Debate means you are trying to win.
Dialectic means you are using disagreement to discover what is true.
I am not interested in debate.
I am interested only in dialectic, which does mean I listen to you and you listen to me.
You know, how about the email?
We don't care.
This is not about you.
I'm talking about all about them.
On terms of white privilege.
This is not a discussion.
You have lost that one.
I am talking about terms that serve the truth.
Those are the terms.
How's the dialectic?
You said some racist shit.
You did not.
I did not.
I don't know who I think that black students in sciences are targeted here?
Do I think they're targeted anywhere?
Speak to what you know and speak to the students.
Okay.
I do not believe that students of color are targeted in the sciences here.
Why?
But maybe I misunderstand what you mean by targeted.
Targeted by racist.
Oh my god.
What the fuck is that?
You sore!
So wait a second.
What do I hear?
To me, targeted means something different than what I just heard you define it as.
I do not believe that anybody on our faculty with intent, especially targets.
Exactly.
Oh my god, that's not what I'm saying.
Fuck what you gotta say!
Public protest was not about targeting people of colour.
I'm sure I didn't hear you at the beginning.
Your protest of Day of Absence, your privilege will be aware of.
But you have a target for black students to be able to do that.
May I answer that question?
Wait a second.
First of all, Day of Absence has been here longer than I have.
I have never protested it until the idea of the idea.
Until every one of you, why not get up?
Wait a minute, students.
Oh, hey, I gotta protest.
Keep your fucking ass here.
No.
First of all, I don't know.
Would you like to hear the answer or not?
No!
Are you gonna keep me?
I didn't care anymore!
It would be me!
You're not going to be killed.
Listen.
You're useless!
Get the fuck out of here!
Fuck you!
Listen!
Do you understand?
History could pivot this hallway right now if we're starting to get it!
Oh my god!
Listen to me!
Yes, you're a vote!
History could pivot in the direction of the values that you are standing here for.
Yeah, resign!
What?
Resign!
Resign!
That was Professor Brett Weinstein being accosted by a mob of around 50 students who were demanding his resignation because of his opposition to segregation.
Students at Evergreen State College are calling for the resignation of an allegedly anti-black professor after he objected to a school-sanctioned event calling for whites to leave campus for the day.
According to Evergreen State College's description of the Day of Absence and Presence, a multi-day event is dedicated to address the current issues surrounding race at Evergreen and beyond.
The details of the Day of Absence instruct students to choose between attending events on campus reserved for people of colour or to go off campus if they identify as being from a majority culture or white perspective.
Does anyone have a problem with this?
Does anyone have a problem with university-sanctioned segregation?
And when a professor actually does have a problem with this and is actually prepared to stand his ground and say, look, I'm not going to allow you to separate us up by skin colour, what do they do?
They say that he is anti-black.
If being against segregation is anti-black, you are talking to a black supremacist.
This is not the first day of absence at this university, but it is the first year in which white students were told to leave the campus because of their race.
This is continuing, not receding.
Brett Weinstein is obviously not a social scientist.
He is a biology professor, and he vocalized his opposition to the Day of Absence plan in an email to the First People's Multicultural Advising Services Director, Rashida Love.
Weinstein said in his email that it was a formal protest of this year's structure, and that he would engage others to put phenotype aside and reject this new formulation, as one's right to speak or to be must never be based on skin colour.
Well, he'd be one of those colorblind racists that we've heard so much about.
Professor Weinstein did an interview with Tucker Carlson, in which he explains in his own words what happened and why.
Well, what happened is that 50 or so students decided to disrupt the class that I was holding that morning and demand my resignation.
Because you wouldn't leave campus because you're white?
Well, they imagine that I am a racist and that I am teaching racism in the classroom, and that has caused them to imagine that I have no right to speak, that I am harming students by the very act of teaching them.
What happened after the video cut out?
Well, that's an interesting story.
The campus police apparently showed up outside of the classroom.
The protesters then blocked their entrance.
I did not call the police.
Someone else called the police, and they were concerned for my safety.
But when they tried to come into the building to make sure that I was okay, the protesters blocked them.
And because the issue of policing is so sensitive at the moment, the police had to run around and find another entrance to the building to get inside and check with me.
At the point they did that, the protesters moved on and corralled the president of the college at his office.
They extracted some demands from him.
Among the demands was that there would be a meeting.
Well, actually, demands is perhaps the wrong word.
A concession, that there would be a meeting at 4 o'clock in a large room on top of our library building.
So that meeting took place at the end of the day, and believe it or not, it was far crazier than the video that you just showed.
This whole story is so over the top that even though we do a lot of these, it's hard for me to believe it's real.
So the core demand is that all people of your skin color leave the campus.
Your president is a guy called George Bridges.
Where was he?
Why isn't there?
He is right there.
What?
George Bridges is supposed to be running this school.
Why is he allowing a mob to threaten one of his professors?
Well, I must say, I have some concern that the story is so strange that it's not even going to make sense to an audience that isn't local to the campus.
Dr. Bridges is allowing this mob to effectively control the campus, and they have been in control since 9.30 on Tuesday morning.
At this moment, I believe Dr. Bridges is answering a set of demands put forward by the protesters, and they have said that if he does not accept their demands, that there will be violence.
I do not know what his response to those demands is going to be, but I know that that's taking place at this hour.
He has also told the police to stand down.
So although the campus police have a sense of what it is that needs to happen in a circumstance like this, they have been hobbled by the fact that they answer to the college administration and, in fact, for several days have been barricaded in the campus police station.
Oh my gosh, this is like something out of another country.
It's just hard to believe any of this is real.
And just our viewers should look this up online because there are a lot of pieces of this story.
It's hard to convey on television.
But you had this, I thought, powerful line in your letter.
And I assume you're no kind of right-winger.
If you teach at Evergreen, I'm sure you're a Hillary voter, but you had this.
No, no, not a Hillary voter.
I'm a deeply progressive person.
And I must say, I'm troubled by what this implies about the current state of the left.
I think that pretty much sums up and vindicates everything that we have been saying for the past two years, doesn't it?
If these students are actually going to essentially take over this university, barricade themselves in, and the president of the university is going to accede to their demands,
▲
Export Selection