Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - This Week in Stupid (18⧸02⧸2018)

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 18, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

23:42

This Week in Stupid (18⧸02⧸2018)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 18th of February 2018.
	Before I start, I'll just let you know that I'm doing a live show in Scarborough at Scarborough Spa Grand Hall.
	It's in June, so it's a few months away yet, but it'll be the biggest venue I'm doing in the UK, and I have something special lined up for it.
	I will actually be announcing a few other live shows as and when I have the venues booked, and just to let you know, all of the live shows will be different.
	I won't be just reusing the same material or anything like that.
	So if you're interested, a link will be in the description.
	So I'm sure a lot of you noticed a backlash to the new Star Wars film, and JJ Abrams has finally addressed it.
	Star Wars fans who didn't like The Last Jedi are threatened by women characters.
	Yes, that's exactly it, JJ.
	That's exactly what it was.
	It wasn't that the film was rubbish.
	It wasn't that it was infused with identity politics and SJW nonsense.
	It's actually that everyone hates women.
	As he prepares to re-enter the Star Wars universe with his upcoming and still untitled Episode 9 Force Awakens Filmmaker, JJ Abrams is unbothered by the recent backlash to the diversity of Star Wars The Last Jedi.
	That's a hell of a disingenuous statement in and of itself before we even get to what he says about it.
	No one's complaining about the diversity of Star Wars.
	What they're complaining about are the far-left politics that are dominating a once-beloved franchise.
	Asked by IndyWire about pushback from Star Wars fans who decried Rhian Johnson's film for its focus on more female-centric stories, and this is exactly my point.
	I mean, at no point did anyone watching Aliens go, well, this is a bit female-centric, isn't it?
	No one is complaining about women being in films.
	They're complaining that you guys say things like, female-centric.
	And so Abrams just replies with, their problem isn't Star Wars, their problem is being threatened.
	Well, I mean, you could kind of say that, that's kind of true, but they're not being threatened by women.
	They're being threatened by gender ideologues.
	In December, an alt-right group claimed responsibility for lowering the film's Rotten Tomato scores, which Rotten Tomatoes rebuked at the time.
	It's weird that they didn't include that in this article though.
	Claiming that its issues with the film partially stem from introducing more female characters into the franchise's universe, which is a hilarious objection, to be honest.
	Why would you object to that?
	Do you think there aren't women in the Star Wars universe or something?
	As the Telegraph noted at the time, the reviews included comments like, politically correct to the point of boredom, SJW propaganda, and I'm frustrated that feminism and diversity have made their way into this film.
	This has ruined Star Wars for me as well as my kids.
	Keep quote-unquote liberalism out of it and stop ruining once good things.
	These are not alt-right objections.
	But Abrams was unfazed.
	Star Wars is a big galaxy, and you can find almost anything you want to in Star Wars.
	Really, are you saying that there's a planet of white nationalists somewhere that eventually Star Wars is going to end up making a film about?
	If you are someone who feels threatened by women and needs to lash out against them, you can probably find an enemy in Star Wars.
	JJ, can we use this same line of logic against the feminists who were lashing out at Star Wars, the original ones, because there weren't enough women and black people in?
	Can we say that they feel threatened by white men?
	Because I think that might actually be the most accurate way of describing it.
	It's not that other people are threatened by women and non-white characters, it's that you guys actually are threatened by white men.
	You can probably look at the first movie that George Lucas did and say that Leia was too outspoken or that she was too tough.
	Well who says that?
	Who do you think that statement represents?
	Nobody says that.
	Princess Leia is a beloved character because of the way she was, not in spite of it, you moron.
	When asked if a fan outcry would impact his vision for the upcoming film, Abrams was clear.
	Not in the least, he said, adding, there's a lot I would like to say about it, but I fear it feels a little too early to be having the episode 9 conversation.
	I will say that the story of Ray and Pohn Finn and Kylo Wren, and if you look, there are three men and one woman, no one cares, JJ.
	No one cares.
	It's not about their actual genders, it's not about their actual races, it's about the thought process that led up to making this film.
	Do you think that people watching the movie Predator going, well, what is all this representation?
	There are two black men, a Native American, and probably others, I just can't even remember, because at the time, I wasn't thinking about categorising people based on their race?
	No one cares, JJ.
	It's about you pushing an ideology.
	We know you're doing it.
	You can pretend that you're not, but everyone can see it.
	I mean, it seems to be willful blindness when you say, you can point that there are three men and one woman to those that complain there are too many women in Star Wars.
	No one is complaining that there are too many women in Star Wars.
	They're complaining there are too many fucking SJWs.
	I mean, they literally quoted someone using that term.
	And after being dishonest just a moment ago, he then says, I wish it weren't something that there was a need to do.
	Okay, well, I'm glad you can admit you are needing to do this.
	You are doing this for a reason.
	It's a bit like Black History Month.
	Why should it be just a month?
	Why can't it just be a part of history?
	Well, I completely agree with you, JJ.
	I agree, I don't think there should be a Black History Month.
	I'm completely with you and Morgan Freeman on this.
	This is not something that should be delineated about, nor should it be celebrated, nor should it be condemned, and I feel that way about literally every race and gender.
	Why does there have to be a special award for someone who is working to be as collaborative with as many women as possible?
	That's simply good business.
	We will keep making mistakes and trying to do better, but the end game is equality.
	And that's your problem.
	The end game is equality is a highly ideological goal.
	No one thinks that there should be quote-unquote equality in any of this.
	Normal people are looking for a good movie, but you're sacrificing the end game being a good movie for the end game being equality.
	And if eventually presented with the choice of a good movie or equality, you will choose equality over it being a good movie.
	Abrams and his wife Katie McGrath are the CEOs of production company Bad Robot.
	Abrams emphasized that equality in the industry and continuing to advocate for women inside of it is enormously important to them and it impacts on many of his production's decisions.
	Okay, that's great, JJ.
	That's great, but women are not a disability.
	Women are not somehow innately disadvantaged because they were born without a penis.
	You do think that they are, which is why you feel like you need to advocate for them.
	The filmmaker shared that in recent meetings targeted around employing crews and filmmakers for projects, he and McGrath have asked their agency CAA for lists of potential collaborators that represent the makeup of the country, and that immediately changed the conversation.
	When you would look through lists or the optics of the lens of equality, they were shocking.
	Yeah, I bet.
	Do you know what I find weird is the lack of people of colour as directors of movies?
	It's amazing how many white people are directing movies in Hollywood.
	I film there's no representation there.
	I actually feel that the next Star Wars movie should be directed by a person of colour.
	What do you think, JJ?
	What's your opinion on that?
	Do you think that maybe a brown person should be directing the next Star Wars movie?
	And if you don't, what's your argument?
	Is it just because that means that you're going to have to actually end up living by your principles, JJ?
	If you're so concerned about equality and representation, what's the reason that a brown woman isn't directing the next Star Wars movie?
	If anything, it seems like a patriarchal attempt to use the language of equality to keep brown women out of directing the most prestigious films.
	I think we need a hashtag campaign.
	Hashtag brownwomen directors.
	That's what we should do.
	We should push this and make it trend on Twitter.
	Tweet JJ Abrams.
	JJ, you're going to have to step down because you are standing in the way of representation by virtue of you being a white man.
	You need to get out of the way and let a brown woman direct the next Star Wars movie.
	It's the only logical thing to do from your own worldview.
	He says, a lot of the issue, I think, stems not from people who are capable or people who are worthy of being given a shot, but rather people who don't just even get to be in the room.
	They don't get to be considered.
	They don't look the way the usual suspects look.
	You can't possibly have change if the options are being considered are just of one pool.
	My goodness, I couldn't agree with you more, JJ.
	I completely agree.
	And while white men are directing the new Star Wars films, I really have to say, I think that you've got a point.
	Citing blacklist founder Franklin Leonard, who tweeted in October 2015, when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
	Wow, I am so on board with that all of a sudden, JJ.
	I mean, you've got the privilege of being the director of the Star Wars movies.
	You might think that you're being oppressed when you're removed from directing the new Star Wars movies because you're a white man in favour of a brown woman.
	But I'll tell you what, JJ, that's just equality.
	And it's exactly as you say.
	We're not asking to take away the male point of view or male artistry or male contribution.
	We're simply saying, what is fair?
	I can see why people might get freaked out by it.
	But the people who are getting freaked out are the ones who are accustomed to that privilege and this is not oppression.
	This is about fairness.
	Oh, I totally agree.
	I am so in agreement with this, JJ, that I literally can't think of a reason that another white man should be directing a Star Wars film.
	I mean, haven't enough Star Wars films been directed by white men yet, JJ.
	When are you going to step down so a brown woman can step up?
	It's not oppression, it's fairness.
	It's just like the UK Labour Party, who decided that they would ban white men at their conference.
	It's not oppression, it's fairness.
	What are you all complaining about?
	Labour is facing an inquiry from a watchdog after barring straight white men from an equalities conference.
	Those attending the Young Labour Conference in March must self-define as one or more of black, Asian and ethnic minority, a woman, disabled and a lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans.
	You know what, I'm actually down for doing this too.
	I'm happy to self-define as any one of these things as long as I get to go into a labour conference.
	And the thing is, they don't even require any proof of how you self-define.
	You can just tell them.
	I tell you what, straight white men, we should go down there and unironically look them in the eye and tell them that we identify as black.
	And then when they refuse to let us in, we can call them racist transphobes.
	Obviously, an evil straight white man has referred the event to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
	Labour said that there was no point in straight white men attending because the conference's aim was to elect equality's representatives.
	The issue comes weeks after the Commission said that Labour was guilty of unlawful discrimination for offering non-white members discounted tickets to its East Midlands Regional Conference.
	Now, is there a better way of demonstrating that the Labour Party feel that there is less value in being a non-white person?
	Charging you less for tickets because you're not white isn't a demonstration that they think non-white people are worth less?
	I don't know what is.
	And I suppose I will take this moment to rag on the Conservative Party yet again.
	James Cleverly, the Conservative Party's new deputy chairman, accused Labour of yet another example of discrimination, which is true.
	He said, Their lazy assumption that straight white men can't fight for equality is shocking.
	Idiot.
	You fucking idiot.
	What you are doing there is admitting that they are right.
	And what you're saying is they're not being right in the correct way.
	You are now saying that you want to pursue their goal of equality, quote unquote.
	You should be deconstructing their concept of equality.
	You should be pointing out that equality of outcome is going to necessarily involve racial discrimination, whereas equality of opportunity will not.
	That's how you demonstrate that labour is fucking shit.
	You are idiots.
	You don't understand your own ideology and you certainly don't understand theirs.
	And the fact that you give any credence to their goals is baffling.
	And of course, members of the Labour Party took to The Guardian to explain why it was okay for them to discriminate on the basis of race and gender.
	Politics is not just anyone's game.
	Typically, if you want to play, you have to be a certain type of person.
	And that's correct.
	Now, that type of person isn't the straight, white, able-bodied men that she refers to in the next sentence.
	That person is politically minded.
	And that person can come from any background.
	That's why, as the leader of the Labour Party's youth movement, which honestly I find that just to have terrifying connotations, running our annual Equalities Academy has been one of our proudest achievements.
	The Academy, which we've been running for the past three years, isn't essential in allowing liberation groups, which again, you're living in one of the freest countries in the entire world.
	The idea that you might need a liberation group is hilarious to me, especially given Jeremy Corbyn's support for dictators, tyrants and terrorists.
	What you would consider liberation, I would consider to be the worst form of oppression.
	But anyway, liberation groups, minority groups, and crucially those oppressed and underrepresented in politics to self-organized.
	Okay, here's the ultimate red pill for the Labour Party.
	Just because you are not in the majority does not mean you are being oppressed.
	I know that sounds like absolute heresy to your average neo-Marxist, but it's true.
	Minorities have the same rights as straight white men.
	They have less rights than straight white women, but that's only because straight white women are the most privileged people in this entire country.
	Which is why they're given a platform in a tabloid newspaper to project their anti-white, anti-male agenda.
	Our Equalities Conference is open to those who self-define in any of the following categories.
	Women disabled, BAME, and LGBT plus.
	You could define yourself as one or all.
	Oh, okay, well, I think I will then.
	I'll define myself as all of these.
	I will check all of these boxes.
	And the second one of you bigots looks at me, I'm going to call the police because this is a hate crime.
	In theory, the only people excluded are the most overrepresented in politics.
	Anyone who's straight, white, male, and able-bodied.
	How is that overrepresented?
	Straight, white, able-bodied people are the vast majority of this country.
	And for some reason, despite all of this push to get women into politics, you can't seem to make the parliament make up more than about 30% of them.
	And I just want to point out, the current prime minister is a woman.
	So why you would think that anyone is being underrepresented in politics is baffling.
	It's actually pretty damn good, and it's been pretty damn good.
	And I just want to point out that even if you didn't vote for your MP, that MP still represents you.
	For the confused, let us explain.
	At our conference, we elect four young labour liberation officers.
	Through these liberation officers, those who are underrepresented in politics can have their voices amplified.
	I tell you what, using the term liberation is terrifying to me because these people are not being oppressed.
	So if you need liberation from a state of freedom, the only solution I can think that you're asking for is oppression.
	But I really don't want you to think that this is a problem that's only happening in the UK.
	Of course you don't, but Dalhousie University is only seeking racially visible Indigenous candidates for a senior job.
	The university restricts the search for vice provost student affairs job in an effort to be more diverse.
	We have arrived at the point where promoting diversity is synonymous with restricting people based on their race.
	So in an email to the university community, the vice president wrote that community consultation is essential in the success of the search.
	In keeping with the principles of our employment equity policy, and with an aim to increase the representation of underrepresented groups at Dalhousie, this search for new vice-provost student affairs will be restricted to racially visible persons and Aboriginal peoples at this time.
	There's just no other way of describing this than anti-white.
	If you can think of a better term, I would love to use it, but it just seems to be an animus against white people.
	How else could this be defined?
	Dalhousie strives to be an inclusive space for all our members of the community, and we acknowledge that this requires us to be in a constant state of learning and working within our communities to make sure that we're living up to the commitment that we make.
	I can't believe how often the word inclusive is used to exclude people.
	I'm genuinely amazed.
	And apparently, this approach is still about hiring the most qualified people, even if you are literally ignoring the qualifications of some people because they were born in the wrong skin.
	From my perspective, there isn't a merit argument that runs counter to this.
	In fact, this is actually a way for us to develop the most meritorious faculty and staff population.
	In what way?
	How do you justify that?
	I mean, you can just sit there and say, well, no, it's actually more meritorious if we have people who otherwise wouldn't have been selected because they're not the best person for the job.
	It's nonsense.
	It's deliberate doublethink.
	And they're getting away with it.
	That's the worst part about all of this.
	There will be no ramifications for racist discrimination in this way.
	They will just sit there and say, well, this is the most meritorious way of doing it.
	And if you ask why, they'll just tell you to shut the fuck up and check your fucking privilege.
	Amina Abuadje, president of Dalhousie Student Union, oh fucking of course, works closely with Vice Provost Student Affairs and she applauds the university for designating this position.
	When issues of especially equity, diversity and inclusion come up, it's really great to not have to explain where I'm coming from, where students are coming from, to really know that this person has an understanding of intersectional oppression and forms of oppression and how they manifest on campus.
	She said, who also sits on the hiring committee.
	You know, if you're sick of white people, you're just absolutely done with them.
	You're done with the terrible oppression of them not being brown, you might want to consider moving out of that country.
	But before you do, you could just go on a holiday where white people are simply not welcome.
	You could go to a Costa Rican healing retreat, which offers women of colour a break from Caucasians.
	I really do hate to do the imagine what this would look like reversed, but just imagine the fucking outrage if a resort offered white men a break from women of colour.
	A female-only retreat in Costa Rica is offering women of colour the chance to break from white people.
	Andrea X, who created the Women of Colour Healing Retreat in Puerto Vejo, said that she has completely cut out white people from her life, saying they have caused enough damage.
	So what we're looking at here is black ethno-nationalists and how they set up a little black ethnic retreat because they hate white people.
	Guests enjoy yoga, meditation, and vegan food, in an environment free from what the founder calls microaggressions and passive aggressiveness that exists in the US.
	Well, why don't you move to a country where it's all brown people?
	Africa is fucking full of them.
	That is an option that you have that you could take.
	Why not do it?
	Andrea X said that she decided one day to completely, quote, eliminate white people from her personal life.
	She said her life became much more breezy and even said white people shouldn't be given passports due to how destructive they are.
	Holy shit.
	This is just rampant hatred for white people.
	It's hard to view this as anything else.
	They are here, she said.
	They're everywhere.
	I feel white people shouldn't even have passports.
	I have no tips for white people.
	Let us have our space.
	And yet, if a white person were to say that about a brown person, this is genuinely amazing.
	The idea in Costa Rica is to effectively create a black nation, according to Andrea X, that would cater exclusively to people of colour.
	It will just be a community of black people living here.
	Okay.
	There are loads of them.
	Africa is full of them.
	Why don't you just go there?
	The hard work has already been done.
	Now, you might think that I'm being hyperbolic or sarcastic when I say that we should all simply identify as non-white people just to take advantage of diversity initiatives.
	But you're wrong.
	Because the University of Delaware is allowing students to choose their own race.
	Sorry, did I say University of Delaware?
	I meant the state of Delaware.
	My mistake, I thought that this kind of crazy nonsense would only be adopted by a university in the United States.
	But apparently an entire fucking state is going to be doing this.
	They're poised to adopt what is known as Regulation 225.
	Approved by both Delaware State Education Association and Governor John Carney, it would safeguard children's protected characteristics such as gender, age, race, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
	It would allow all students enrolled in a Delaware public school to self-identify gender or race, which is maintained in the school.
	Well, what's the fucking point?
	Honestly, what difference would it make if you just took those two categories off of your documents?
	What difference would it make if you didn't even register the race or gender of the person?
	It wouldn't affect anything, would it?
	On the face of it, that's perfectly logical.
	If gender isn't biologically linked, and it's all about how you feel, then why not race?
	The trouble is, of course, gender is linked to biology.
	But the notion that gender is fluid, widespread, and harmless is a theory promulgated by trans activists posing as scholars.
	I like whoever wrote this, she is woke.
	And the theory has been bought as settled science by progressive pedagogues.
	Also bought by Dolezall, a woman sadly affected with an idiopathic dysphoria.
	And the thing is, this has actually been causing a real stir in academic feminist circles.
	This is why Lacey Green actually found herself pulling away from mainstream feminism.
	This is the reason.
	Because the same logic that allows anyone to identify as any gender they like, regardless of their biological sex, is exactly the same argument that would allow anyone to identify as any race they want, regardless of their biological race.
	And as soon as you permit this, that means that there is no more white privilege.
	It also means there will be no more special status granted by saying, hey, I'm not white, give me stuff.
	All of this will be washed away overnight as white people decide that they can actually be treated like regular people and not be openly discriminated against by the state and its institutions by simply telling people that they are not white.
	And it'll also put an end to this kind of absolute nonsense.
	Hamilton college students protest too many white upper class able-bodied males at a campus pub.
	I'm sorry, what's that?
	Is that the call of bigotry?
	Did you even ask how these people identify?
	What if they self-identify as black, working class, and disabled?

▲