Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - This Week in Stupid (26⧸11⧸2017)

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 26, 2017 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

24:02

This Week in Stupid (26⧸11⧸2017)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 26th of November 2017.
	To start with this week, I'd just like to announce the fourth installment of the t-shirt competition, which people have been requesting forever and so I thought I'd better actually do something about it.
	So the first one is Thinker of a CAD, which is Sagan of a CAD as the thinker, which I particularly love this image.
	I don't know how well you can see it from what I'm recording here, but this is just a great picture.
	And so I had to use it.
	The next one is My Social Construct, which is honestly one of my favorites because I'm sick of them.
	Absolutely sick of them going, well, that's a social construct.
	Bitch, almost everything humans do is a social construct because humans are social animals and so they need social constructs to engage with one another.
	Sitting there going, oh, but that's a social construct.
	It is not a refutation.
	But this one I think is my absolute favorite.
	Communists are bad people because they fucking are.
	Communism is the desire to genocide the class of people known as the bourgeoisie and take what they own.
	If you are a good person, you do not want to simply murder people in a violent revolution and steal their stuff.
	In fact, for the sole purpose of stealing their stuff.
	If you're into communism, then I'm naturally going to assume you're a bad person.
	And so that's why I chose this one.
	And of these three designs, the one that sells the most will be the winner.
	The designs are actually on sale for 21 days instead of a week this time.
	So you've got plenty of times people complaining that a week wasn't long enough.
	And okay, fair enough.
	I can understand that.
	I also had people requesting some of the old designs be put back on.
	And I noticed that Teespring had extended their store somewhat.
	So now there is actually a meme jihad now flag.
	Also, they do phone cases.
	So I thought I'd do one of these, which honestly, it annoys me.
	It's just iPhones.
	If I had an iPhone, I'd probably get this case.
	The next one was the Toxic Feminism design, which I've made into a poster here.
	And of course, this one's got a phone case design as well.
	And then, for some reason, I don't know why people keep asking me for pillows.
	I just don't know why.
	But here's Spooky Panda Girls Design, which is wildly popular.
	And I just don't understand what's wrong with you people.
	If you want to go to sleep on my face, then here you go.
	this is for you and yeah because I'm you can have a phone cover of it as well because oh my god why do you people do this to me Why do you do this to me?
	One of the reasons I started doing the t-shirt competition is because of the adpocalypse, which has come back around again.
	YouTube adverts fund paedophile habits.
	I love it.
	I fucking love it.
	The way they have actually managed to connect YouTube and paedophilia as if YouTube is somehow endorsing of paedophilia.
	YouTube adverts fund paedophile habits.
	Fucking thanks a lot, Sunday Times.
	That's exactly what I need.
	Adpocalypse 2.0.
	So basically, if you're a content creator, prepare yourself for another assault on your earnings.
	Some of the world's biggest brands are advertising on YouTube videos showing scantily clad children that have attracted comments from hundreds of paedophiles the Times can reveal.
	BT, Adidas, Deutsche Bank, eBay, Amazon, Mars, Daigo, TalkTalk are among the dozens of brands whose adverts appear on the videos which are published on the Google-owned platform.
	Many have gained millions of views by showing young girls filming themselves in their underwear, doing the splits, brushing their teeth, rolling around the bed.
	Okay, one, that is fucking grim.
	And two, YouTube, why the fuck were you not on top of this?
	Honestly, how the fuck can this have just been going on without you having any knowledge of it whatsoever?
	I mean, don't get me wrong, I realize that, you know, billions of minutes worth of video are uploaded to YouTube every day.
	I know it's a massive platform.
	I know that it's an absolute nightmare to police, but come on.
	Come on.
	This is the really important stuff that you can't allow to just carry on.
	I mean, this isn't someone saying they oppose feminism.
	I know it's not as bad as someone having some wrong think and saying, well, you know what, maybe Black Lives Matter isn't actually as innocent as they make out.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, YouTube.
	I realize that this isn't a wrong thinker that needs to be shut down and demonetized.
	I mean, I can't upload a video called Jordan Peterson Was Right without it being demonetized the second it has finished processing and then to have that confirmed by manual review to be not appropriate for advertisers.
	But these videos, oh, they get advertisements, don't they?
	So I mean, don't get me wrong, I realize that this isn't, you know, protecting children from paedophiles isn't exactly your top priority.
	Shutting down the wrong thinkers who might think there might be gender differences definitely is.
	But let's really try and focus here because the public at large, when they see articles like this from a reputable organization like the Sunday Times, it has a much worse effect on them than whether some shitlord is mocking at East Sarkeesian.
	That's all I'm saying.
	I just, you just need to fix your priorities.
	That's it.
	Okay, you've been fucking this up for literally the past year now.
	You really need to start thinking about how to not fuck this up.
	I'm not going to lie, I do find it highly disturbing that these videos have millions of views.
	And it really annoys me that these videos can get monetized and my videos can't.
	And not just mine either, just anyone in the political sphere of YouTube.
	They tend to have a real problem monetizing their fucking videos.
	But the paedophiles are doing just great, aren't they?
	Millions of views as well.
	And the algorithm's promoting these videos.
	That's just great.
	Thanks, YouTube.
	Really appreciate it.
	You really know how to stick by your genuine content creators who spend their entire working lives creating content for people to enjoy.
	And all you do is disincentivize these people.
	But there's definitely the incentive to upload pictures and videos of, oh, I don't know, a pre-pubescent girl in a 90.
	Come on, you f- Obviously, the Times' complaint is that by advertising on a video, the brands may have funded the content's creator who typically receive 55% of all revenue with the rest going to YouTube.
	Naturally, after being told about this, the brands such as Adidas Mars blah blah blah decided to pull their ad campaigns from YouTube on the eve of Black Friday, which I'm sure I don't have to explain why that's significant.
	You are leaving the door open to your competitors in, say, the old media to put pressure on these brands.
	I mean, did you think Mars was going to say anything other than we're not going to advertise on YouTube anymore?
	Diego said they're going to enforce an immediate stop.
	Do you think they've got literally anything else to say other than, holy shit, we had no idea.
	We're so sorry.
	We're never going to advertise there again because we don't want to promote or pay for paedophilia.
	Did you think they were going to say anything else?
	And of course, you open the door for the governments to step in.
	Yet again, it appears that YouTube's rhetoric about taking child safeguarding seriously nowhere matches its actions.
	Says Tim Lawton, a Tory member of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
	Their platforms are in danger of being used as a sweet shop for paedophiles.
	Oh, that's how you want to be known, isn't it, YouTube?
	A sweet shop for paedophiles.
	They are now branding you as a sweet shop for paedophiles.
	You can't monetize criticisms of certain ideological positions, but it's a sweet shop for pedos because there are young kids in their 90s, which is just going monetized, completely unthought of, and it's been promoted by the algorithm.
	Get your shit together!
	I don't want to sound like some arch capitalist, but this is going to cost me money.
	I'm just saying, right?
	This is my livelihood is directly tied to my content on YouTube, and whether that's monetized or not is completely out of my control.
	often it's not, thanks YouTube, but what I'm saying is, this is, but even if a specific video is monetized, I'm still going to see an overall decline of my revenue, because this is exactly what happened the first time.
	And of course, YouTube's algorithms for dealing with this are terrible.
	Parts of YouTube's system for reporting sexualized comments left on children's videos has not been functioning correctly for more than a year, say volunteer moderators.
	They say there could be up to 100,000 predatory accounts leaving indecent comments on videos.
	A BBC trending investigation has discovered a flaw in the tool that enables the public to report abuse.
	But YouTube says it reviews the vast majority of reports within 24 hours.
	It says there are no technical problems in its reporting mechanism and that it takes child abuse extremely seriously.
	And look, I don't want to accuse them as being incompetent because I'm sure their job is very difficult.
	But when you accidentally flag your own adverts as spam, then maybe, just maybe, you need to start reconsidering your approach.
	That's all I'm saying.
	I'm not an expert.
	I can't tell you how this is supposed to be done.
	All I'm saying is, don't flag your own fucking adverts.
	I'm just saying maybe you could start whitelisting certain things.
	You could start creating whitelists of serious content creators who are seriously working on their particular subject that are obviously not predatory.
	That would be a good start.
	An ever-increasing whitelist of trusted content creators.
	But yeah, I don't want to spend too much time on this, but this is something that YouTube should be proactively policing.
	And since we're talking about how the people who run and rule the internet are busy ruining it, yes, let's talk about net neutrality.
	In fact, I don't even know what I have to say about this.
	I'm completely opposed to Trump repealing the net neutrality provisions.
	I do think that all content should be treated equally by ISPs, and I do agree that there should be regulations to put that into place.
	And this is where I divest from the libertarians who say, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	Honestly, you just let this happen and everything will be fine.
	It's like, that's not how control of information works.
	People need to know that there is an alternative before they can agitate and switch to a company that will provide them with an alternative.
	I mean, do you think the normies are going to change their ISPs because of information they don't even know exists?
	Of course they're not.
	it's just far safer for the consumer to have this regulation in place.
	And I mean, I'm really sorry, I don't have more to say about this, but that's just, I'm just fully in support of net neutrality.
	That's it.
	I'm sure that ideologically the libertarians might have some sort of valid argument as well.
	They might say, well, you know, I mean, eventually the free market will fix this.
	It's like, yeah, but this is a problem we don't even need to have.
	We don't need to have the free market fix this if we can just set the rules in advance.
	I'm not against regulation at all.
	I think we should regulate this and we should regulate it so that the ISPs are not allowed to discriminate against content that is not illegal.
	Since the election of Donald Trump, Teen Vogue has been getting remarkably political and the columnists and editors at Teen Vogue have decided that they're gonna branch out with their basic bitch feminism and start blasting it all over the internet.
	Teen Vogue columnist Emily Linden tweets she's not at all concerned about false sexual harassment claims.
	Well, why would she be?
	They're not going to affect her because feminism's about equality.
	So these are the tweets.
	She said, here's an unpopular opinion.
	I'm actually not still concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault and harassment allegations.
	Again, why would you be?
	You're not an innocent man who's going to lose your job over false sexual assault and harassment allegations.
	And the thing is, losing your job is the least bad thing that will happen to you after these allegations.
	Presumably, your social life is over.
	And that's assuming that there is no legal action taken.
	And it's not possible for you to prove your own innocence.
	She follows up with: first, false allegations very rarely happen.
	You actually don't know that.
	So even bringing it up borders on a derailment tactic, get fucked.
	It's a microscopic risk in comparison to the issue at hand.
	Worldwide, systemic oppression of half the population.
	I mean, I love this as well.
	It's like, well, it's a microscopic risk.
	Yeah, okay, Emily, but it's one that you don't have to take.
	So maybe you should stop talking from your position of female privilege, shut the fuck up, and go the fuck away.
	We are not going to start just being okay with false allegations because apparently, according to you, they don't happen that often.
	Well, I'm sorry, but I think that if we have it so that false allegations are just believed as if they are real allegations, because it doesn't matter if innocent men are caught in the crossfire, you're going to see an increase in false allegations, Emily, aren't you?
	But more importantly, the benefit of all of us finally getting to tell the truth and the impact on victims far outweighs the loss of any one man's reputation.
	You're not telling the truth if they're false allegations, Emily.
	Do you understand that this is not congruent with what is actually happening and what you have just said, you don't care about?
	The impact on the victims will be the impact on men who are the victims of false allegations.
	And again, you complain of the loss of any one man's reputation.
	Holy fuck.
	It's so much worse than that.
	This is what female privilege looks like, Emily.
	You think it's just a man's reputation.
	An innocent man who has done nothing wrong, you think it's okay for them to completely have their name in public smeared and slandered as a sexual abuser.
	You don't, you don't think there's a problem with that, because it's not going to happen to you.
	There's absolutely zero chance of this happening to you.
	But again, it's way worse than that.
	I mean, you want to take away their livelihood on the grounds of a false allegation.
	I think this is the second time that Jake Tapper has called out one of these far-left radical ideologues.
	He also called out Linda Sarsour, and I'm genuinely shocked that he's allowed to do this.
	Tapper actually makes a really great point.
	I'm guessing you didn't get a good grade for your seventh grade book report on Kill a Mockingbird.
	Well, I read Kill a Mockingbird when I was a kid as well, and it did teach me the value of the due process of law and the presumption of innocence.
	You know, I imagine that Emily Linden is in fact the victim here, as she closes her Twitter account after her sexist tweets.
	I have to say, I'm rather enjoying watching the feminists taking a dose of their own medicine.
	You wanted a system where public shaming could be turned on anyone who said something vaguely controversial, and now you are being the victims of it.
	Just like feminists wanted social media platforms to deal with, quote, hate speech, and now they are becoming the victims of their own activism.
	In October, Marcia Belsky received a 30-day Facebook ban for three words.
	Men are scum.
	Well, I'm not surprised.
	That's an incredibly bigoted thing to say.
	I mean, you could take any other group of people and say that they are scum, and you would be incensed by it.
	Jews are scum.
	Black people are scum.
	Women are scum.
	Do you see why saying men are scum is also a bigoted thing, the daily dot?
	She had posted the sentence without a second thought, which really tells you everything you need to know about Marcia, doesn't it?
	Really shows you just how anti-male bigotry is so widely accepted by the left that it's just comes naturally to them.
	They don't even think about it.
	It was buried in the comment section of a friend's photo album showing all the messages she received from men in the wake of hashtag MeToo.
	Belsky's friend writing Nicole Silverberg had written a list of things men can do better and unsurprisingly many men did not like that.
	I'm not surprised.
	Why the fuck would you expect men to be grateful when a bunch of privileged entitled women operating under the rubric of feminism decide we can get the men to do as we say while berating them as scum and somehow that's just Belsky was baffled.
	Could language as tame as men are scum really be construed as hate speech when so much of what she saw on Facebook, threats of rape and violence, profanity and harassment seem so much worse?
	Well look, threats of rape and violence.
	I don't I don't know about the profanity and the harassment, but threat of rape and violence, that's pretty clear cut.
	If you're seeing that a lot on Facebook, which honestly I don't believe you are because, let's be fair, feminists are, broadly speaking, a bunch of fucking liars, but language language as tame as men are scum.
	If you think that's tame language, then you are a radical bigot.
	This is the same kind of language that the Neo-Nazis use.
	So if we're trying to measure just how radical and bigoted and extreme an ideological position is, let's.
	Let's be fair, feminism is as bad as any of the Neo-Nazi stuff.
	If you think men are scum is a tame thing, then you may as well go on like the Daily Stormer or something where they have a section called the Jewish Problem.
	It is absolutely no different in sentiment.
	You are just changing the target of your ire.
	But according to Facebook, a well-known MRA social media platform, and their community guidelines yes, the guidelines protect groups based on gender, ethnicity and religion, and those benefits extend to the group men.
	Oh my god, it's almost like.
	It's almost like men are a gender.
	It's almost like that actually means they fall under the protected status of groups on their gender, ethnicity and religion.
	So, as unfair as it may seem, any blanket statement about men could potentially qualify as hate speech, which really should be a wake-up call to feminists.
	This is why people hate you.
	It wasn't Belski's first ban from Facebook either.
	I'm not surprised.
	I'm absolutely not surprised that someone who is banned from Facebook for being a piece of shit has been a consistent piece of shit for many years.
	The New York-based comedian had previously posted what she thought was a humorous photo featuring her younger self smiling innocently with the words kill all men, photoshopped with a cartoon speech bubble beside her cherubic face.
	Just imagine how fucking awful a person you have to be to think that this is just a funny joke.
	I mean, literally you could swap this to kill all Jews and this would appear on the Daily Stormer.
	That's all i'm saying, kill all Jews.
	And suddenly this is Neo-nazi propaganda kill all men.
	And it's feminist propaganda.
	This is a demonstration of exactly how vile and toxic feminism is and unbelievably, these people think they've done nothing wrong.
	Actually, I take that back when the photo is removed.
	She says she took the punishment with begrudging acceptance.
	Belski told the Daily Darts I was like, fine, I get that if they punish the serious kill all Muslims people, then I'm fine with them getting that photo too.
	Only they don't punish the kill all Muslims people.
	Oh really?
	Oh fucking really, where don't they punish them?
	Are you just seeing page upon page upon page of kill all Muslims?
	I mean in Britain and Europe that is something that could get you sent to jail.
	To unironically post kill all Muslims could get you time in jail and you think that they don't punish them.
	I may as well focus this week more on the gender politics angle because this is stuff that I keep seeing.
	The masculine mystique, why men can't ditch the baggage of being a bloke.
	Far from embracing the school run, most men are still trapped by rigid cultural notions of being strong, dominant and successful.
	Is it leading to an epidemic of unhappiness similar to the one felt by Betty Friedman's 50s housewives?
	Well, actually, if you look at like happiness surveys, women were happier back then.
	But never mind, don't worry about that.
	So our soy boy author laments that back in the 90s it was all going to be different.
	And a generation or so later, it's clear this is the revolution that never happened.
	At least not in the UK.
	The home dad pioneers among us who once blazed the trail now look on aghast as successive waves of men stray past and say right back to work.
	What happened?
	Latest statistics from England show that more than 80% of fathers still work full-time, rising to almost 85% for dads of very young children.
	This rate has barely changed for 20 years.
	The ratio of part-timers has flatlined to just above 6% throughout the decade, with just 1.6% of men who have given up work altogether to take care of the family home.
	New rights for fathers to share parental leave with mothers have poor take-up rates.
	Well, I wonder why that is, Mark.
	Put down the soy latte and just think about men and women's interactions.
	Think about, oh, I don't know, maybe how they have evolved to deal with raising children.
	The article is mostly soy boys complaining that most other men are actually men and not women in disguise.
	Then it ends with, both sexes are trying to live up to cultural projections rather than satisfy their own complex human needs.
	Bullshit, and I'll explain why this bullshit in a minute.
	Men today have a greater choice than women did half a century ago, but that doesn't make it easy.
	It's like, yeah, technically, they might have that choice.
	But I'll show you why they don't really have that choice.
	Men with muscles and money are more attractive to straight women and gay men, showing gender roles aren't progressing.
	Please try and contain your surprise to find out that women have evolved to like men with health and status over men who do not have health or status.
	And it is this desire for men with health and status that drives men to become those people with either health or status.
	Gender roles aren't progressing because women want attractive men.
	And the things that they find attractive are muscles and money.
	And while women find these things attractive, this will drive men to either get their bodies in shape or to get their bank accounts full.
	This is the evolutionary reality of the human race and the gender divide between men and women.
	This is the reality of being a human that feminists have been fighting against for the past 30 years.
	So this was due to an analysis of a website called Tube Crush, where women take surreptitious photos of men and upload them to the internet so they can be objectified.
	Because feminism is about equality and certainly not having your cake and eating it too.
	The study at Coventry and Aberystwyth universities in the United Kingdom, see I can actually pronounce that, published in Feminist Media Studies in August, to the unified autistic screeching of feminists, analyzed images over a period of three years since 2014.
	The guy candy posted on the website were mostly white men, indicating that white male privilege is still an attractive quality.
	Do you mean that indicating that women are racist?
	That's what you mean.
	Don't make it so that the men who are having pictures taken of them are the racist ones.
	It's women in this circumstance that are being racist, in your opinion.
	I personally don't think that's racist, but that's what you're saying.
	Don't put this on the guys, it's the women using their agency to take creep shots of men.
	The photos and comments focused on the men's biceps, pecs, and chests, as well as perceived sexual ability.
	Items that indicated wealth, such as smart suits, watches, and phones, were emphasized.
	Pictures showing other representations of masculinity, such as fatherhood, and more emotional, awkward-appearing men were far less frequent.
	This celebration of masculine capital is achieved through humor and the knowing wink, but the outcome is a reaffirmation of men's position in society.
	Well, as the providers for women, who seem remarkably predatory when it comes to looking for attractive men with status.
	The problem, according to the lead author of the study, is that although it appears that we have moved forward, our desires are still mostly about money and strength.
	Well, I'm afraid you can just take that to your women's studies classes and deal with the women in there and tell them that they're gonna have to start finding soy boys attractive, despite the fact that soy boys have none of the qualities that they find attractive.
	It turns out you can't be a social constructivist and also represent the real world accurately.
	It turns out that women have biological desires that are set by the biological reality of the human species.
	So, you can carry on in your eternal fight against evolution and reality.

▲