Saturday, June 15, 2013

Wow, Taylor Chapman! Over a Receipt? Really?

I don't know really know what to say here. I'm not one whose quick to cry racism or even call someone a racist without all the facts, but I do know, that Taylor Chapman doesn't like people of Arab decent, nor Indians who look like they may be of Arab decent. (Nithi is more likely an Indian name).  Obviously she likes black guys... if they're rappers, considering her sad attempt to flirt with Ludacris.

Now I do tend to have some fun at the expense of how some young women with advanced degrees act toward others with less education, but how pathetic do have to be to get to the point where you're using your BA in business as an excuse to berate an $8 and hour worker at a Dunkin Doughnuts? At least have the decency to have a masters like the other women who try to use their advance education as a way of proving they are better than you. (Or know more than you even when they have no real experience in said field outside of what they learned in class).

What I'm more concerned about is Chapman having access to space ships and weapons of mass destruction. Obviously she's fully prepared to colonize Mars and on top of that apparently can command nukes at her leisure. Also she seems to be prepared to go on her Mars trip alone as surely her boyfriend/fiance will second guess her when she says she's going to give him food that been tainted with urine or whatever and has no problem putting this up online for all to see.

Seriously though, was Chapman drunk, high, just a dumb racist or all of the above? Or was this a desperate plea for attention, to have us do what we're doing? Talk about her. She is an actress, but the Happywok commercials she's starred in have been pulled from Youtube. Right now no one will probably hire her in the business world, but entertainment is a different animal. In fact if one can't be loved, they can be hated and create fame from that hate. Isn't that what's she's really done? I mean you don't have to do much to be celebrity now days. Kim Kardashian is mainly famous for being a hot chick who has sex with famous black guys and look how far she's gotten. But if nothing else, Kim K. is indeed hot, which is a commodity in Hollywood. Is there a market for a crazy, average looking, not so great actress whose only claim to fame is she's an asshole who throws around random racial slurs and awkwardly flirts with rappers? Like a low budget racist Kim Kardashian. I'm sure their is. And if push comes to shove she can always run for something as a Republican candidate in Florida.

Friday, May 31, 2013

Is The Anita Sarkeesian Type of Feminism Destructive to Subcultures?

Edit: I feel I need to say this: I definitely disagree with what was done to Anita Sarkeesian (any actual threats, the game and messing up her site). Insults and such I don't mind as anyone with an opinion goes through that but, anything going beyond that is bullshit! People need to have some boundaries. 

I'd say the answer is a resounding YES! If Sarkeesian is the gamer she says she is she knew the community in which she was going against and knew the venom she would receive. While some things were vicious, cruel and unwarranted at the same time they played into her hands. But the gaming community knew what was going to happen and that's why they reacted the way they did.

See, if things go her way, it won't be an end to male privilege, but an end to fun. Men will be shamed and villainized for liking certain games and women in the culture will be hit with a join or die mentality only seen during the time of The Crusades, where women active in the culture are dismissed if they show no interest in the religion of female self worship known as feminism while trying to beat Halo.

Here's the 8 step process of how to destroy a subculture via feminism:

1. An activity is created, usually one based around some form of entertainment. The entertainment is action packed and attracts boys and men. Women aren't locked out or told not to do it, but it's something women themselves seem to simply not be interested in save for maybe a small few. 

2. As boys and men gravitate to it women tell the boys and men they're not interested in said thing and even goes to point of ridiculing the thing and men who're into it. So a subculture is formed to get away from ridicule and shaming (usually by women ironically). 

3. As time goes on women get involved in this activity and then as more time goes on more girls and women get involved. The men are shocked, and indeed suspicious as women are not common in the activity. Eventually women are welcomed with open arms as men see the women mean them no harm and are only there to enjoy the activity as they are.

4. Eventually people get together and have some form of convention or gathering. Promoters find out it's male dominated event and hire female models. Other women find out it's a male dominated  event, buy space and bring items to sale. To get attention they dress in genre related costumes that appeal to the male audience, the audience most likely to buy.

5. Later other women come in and get involved in the activity as well as men bringing their wives girlfriends, sisters etc as the activity is becoming cool and mainstream. 

6. Finally an agressive radical feminist enters the building. She has no real interest in the activity and if she does she can not move past her feminist ideologies to enjoy it as the others are, no she must condemn the men and free the women. She writes an article, creates a series or piece that "exposes" the activity. 

7. First she must make a claim of sexism and oppression and tells the women they don't have the privilege men have at said event, while not be able to showcase said privilege. The women who dare rebel against them will be cast off as blind and not having an opinion that matters in their crusade. 

8. This woman/group will attempt to cause confusion and animosity between the sexes. They won't create anything for the community, but will only criticize it, as they were never really into it to be begin with and with that will try to reshape the whole community to be a safe space for a the people who are least likely to be involved. They won't rest until they restructure the community so a very few can be happy, while villainizing the core group who created the community and the culture itself.  

This describes Anita Sarkeesian. A woman who, in my opinion is a scammer, but was paid over $100,000 for a series of videos researching sexism in gaming. Sarkeesian made the video series Tropes versus Women examining various "tropes" in video games and pop culture. Most time Sarkeesian is greated by love and affection by those who buy into her threat narrave of men oppressing women and locking them. She disables comments so no one is able to argue against what she has to know is often misleading and inaccurate information. Sarkeesian constantly misrepresents or straight out lies to make her points. (Please see her content for yourself).

She is only one person in a new wave of feminist for pay who seek out problems and try to change sub-cultures to suit their desires (and line their pockets) based on the idea men are hiding some kind of privilege, even while it's clear women have same privileges (and these privileges are mainly based on the time you put in and the money you have to spend). 

In 2011 feminist Natalie Wilson went to Comicon (admittedly her first). Was she interested in it? Of course not. She simply wanted to see what us MEN were up to and how we were abusing the poor women there and of course she claimed sexism. While she starts off pretending she was somewhat understanding of the culture, the same claim is made, women are harassed and leered at when dressed in skimp clothes that no one forced them to dress in. But she ends with:

"Yet, despite the general male domination of Comic-Con, despite the woman-as-object meme apparent in the exhibit hall, and despite the off-putting commentary of some panelists with obviously unexamined white/male/heterosexual privilege, I nevertheless left Comic-Con with the feeling that fandoms are indeed becoming more diverse (though I was unhappy to see “No Women Allowed” T-shirts at several of the large clothing booths). 

While her only good point was about Adult Anime be open for all to see (although she gives no example so I don't know what she saw or if it was even pornographic), in the article she implies that the diversity of fandom is somehow based on what men are doing and fail to breakdown that it has more to do with women simply not caring as much. She also still works under the threat narrative women will be mistreated at comic conventions and that male unexamined unchecked white/male/heterosexual privilege run rampant. Also she pushes the same form of thought policing feminist seem to be keen on, the idea that you must be politically correct to go out amongst others.

Realistically, isn't this just a bunch of people buying comics and cartoon crap, taking pictures and talking about it? That's mostly what I see when I go to Comic Cons. And then she acts shocked no one takes her seriously when talking about sexism at a Comic Convention. No one is interested. They came to the con to get away from reality for awhile, then here you come. 

And finally Rebecca Watson, who is another one known for doing this, but instead of trolling geeks she did it to the Atheist community. She wondered why women weren't coming to atheist and skeptic conventions. She worked to alert other women about them and spoke on women's issues. But what Watson became known for was a man saying to her, “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?” 

She went on Youtube and said And explained she felt sexualized and hit them with, "Guys don't do that." Watson's not unattractive, but she's no BeyoncĂ© either. But according to her men are slinging it to her 24/7 and she's swatting it away all day everyday. The idea that a man my be interested in a woman who has the same interest even just to speak with her or even be in a relationship is mind boggling to her. The atheist community lashed out at her just like gamers did Sarkeesian. And of course she cried victim. 

What was the problem with all three of these scenarios? People (men and women both) were enjoying something and a random feminist came in and felt gaming shouldn't about games, comics shouldn't be about comics and Atheist conventions should be about Atheism, but should be about women's issues or have a place for it even when the event has nothing to do with women as a group. But through the eyes of feminism everything has to be about women and more often than not, about the women who're forcing themselves on everyone involved including other women in the culture who're just there enjoying themselves. 

I'll leave you with the immortal words of Rebecca Watson, ladies, "Don't do that."

Friday, February 22, 2013

CNN Thinks It's Okay to Manufacture News?"

Say what you will about Alex Jones, but he's on point here. In this video he shows CNN anchors manufacturing news. Some people won't even take time to view it because it goes against their belief that the new media tells the truth. CNN, particularly Anderson Cooper was all over the Sandy Hook story when it first broke, but now there may be proof that CNN is still manufacturing news. 

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Law Enforcement Prepared to Shoot Pregnant Moms and the Elderly

Law Enforcement Targets INC
According to, Law Enforcement Training Inc, a company out of Minnesota that makes and markets training equipment for law enforcement, has started marketing "No Hesitation" paper targets that are made to train officers not to hesitate when accosted by pregnant women, children and elderly people.  

Retired officer T.F. Stern states, “Why are top training target suppliers for the government supplying the likes of the DHS with “non-traditional threat” targets of children, pregnant women, mothers in playgrounds, and elderly American gun owners unless there is a demand for such items?” and  "There’s something wrong, seriously wrong here. If we start to desensitize law enforcement officers, have them disregard humanity, to feel nothing’s wrong in shooting a pregnant lady or an old man with a shotgun inside his own home…then what kind of society have we become? How will police officers react after they no longer believe they are part of the society which they have been charged with policing, when they have become used to shooting pregnant ladies and old men?

Stern also states, "At the risk of being politically incorrect, America isn’t a third world hell hole, at least not yet, like the Middle East where female suicide bombers hide explosives under a burqa, walk into a crowded shopping area and detonate themselves in the name of Alla.  Heaven forbid anyone point this out for fear CAIR might lodge a complaint for having been singled out; never mind that it’s true."

But the fact is I truly believe the government are indeed trying to turn us into a third world hellhole. They want cops to be on edge. Did you see what went down with the Dorner incident? Cops shooting at random people who didn't even match the description? The cops are becoming as much of a threat as the criminals. Why is this okay?