God Does NOT Show That Murder is Wrong (A response to Dennis Prager)

I haven’t talked about religion in ages.  The arguments against religion have been ripped apart to the point that it isn’t even fun now.  It’s just mediocre and played-out.  However, recently the founder of the Prager University (which, neat fact, has no school attached to it) decided to make a video that has made a bunch of waves in the online community for how stupid it is.  In hit, he argues that the reason that we know that murder is wrong is because of God.  A statement so asinine and easy to destroy, let’s show you his video, and then respond to it.

His first question – do you believe that good and evil exist?  As a concept, sure.  But as a true thing that is harder.  See, it’s totally open to interpretation.  Is the person who stole bread to feed themselves evil?  They did commit a crime – theft.  But does that make them evil?  There are behaviors that I believe are more right and more wrong, but my line is in one place and other people’s lines are in another.  There is no concrete standard to what is good and evil.  At least not in secular society.  But Prager has a different perspective.  He believes that the answer to that question divides America up into sides based on how you answer.  See, in his mind, there an answer to that question, and he is about explain what it is.

His second question – is murder wrong?  Well, that depends.  Am I killing someone to save the life of someone I love?  I would argue that that is permissible.  Am I killing someone for sport?  I believe that is wrong.  Context matters.  That’s why people who have a black and white view of morality are always amusing.  Nothing in life is that simple.

Third question – how do I know?  As I said, since the answer the right and wrong nature of murder varies from person to person (I bet the BTK Killer has some thoughts about the nature of murder), what informs my worldview is how I have been raised and the perspectives I have come to after looking at all the evidence.  For example – I look at different scenarios and I make judgements on whether or not an action is justified in that situation.  I think the person who punched a guy because he is a “Nazi” (A term so flagrantly used that it has lost all meaning) is in the wrong because he was doing nothing violent or threatening toward that person.  He was no threat to them, yet he was attacked.  That is wrong.  What informed my opinion of that are my values and my respect for freedom of speech.

Prager postulates that, without God, there are no “moral facts.”  This statement is laughable in every way.  For starters, to what standard are you holding that to?  The Ten Commandments?  Sure, they say that murder is wrong, but you also bring up rape.  NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that rape is wrong.  In fact, the worst that happens is that the man has to marry his victim and pay the father 15 silver shekels.  That’s the value that not only does God’s voices on Earth put the crime of rape, but also the opinion of the woman who was the victim of rape.  Makes God look like a real piece of work, doesn’t it?

God has, on numerous occasions long after the Ten Commandments are written, broken his own rules.  He destroyed the cities of Soddom and Gamorrah, killing all men, women, children, toddlers, and babies.  What did those last three groups do wrong, exactly?  He commanded his armies to kill all the men of a village, tear open the bellies of pregnant women, dash the skulls of babies against rocks, and take the virgin daughters as sex slaves for themselves.  God even sent a bear to kill a bunch of children.  What was their crime?  They made fun of the baldness of the man.  For that paltry reason, the divine being who is supposed to be a moral authority condones murder?  That seems like a really bad standard that all of society is supposed to be beholden to?

But I can already hear the apologists – “God is a higher being, so we can’t judge him based on the standards he’s given us!”  So, do as he says and not as he does?  That seems like a really shitty standard for the supreme being of the universe.  What kind of leader asks that the people under his dominion live up to a standard that he himself does not?  It’s basically like a murderer who kills people out of spite (and if you look at the bear story that is EXACTLY what it was) telling you that killing is wrong.  Why is God exempt from society’s criticism?  The apologist argument basically tries to make God immune from the cruel reality – that his holy book are full of rape and murder, often which God commanded, and he is for some nebulous reason innocent in that.  Prager makes the argument that it is through God that we know that murder is wrong.  I disrespectfully disagree, because if that’s the case then I should be able to go out and rape a girl and pay the father 15 shekels and be okay.

Not to mention, Prager says that all we have are opinions about morality without God.  Well, since the last time God did anything where he was seen in a way of clear documentation, it was before the days of video cameras, who do we have to give the statements about his morality now?  We have people.  People like the Pope.  People like Ray Cumfart.  People like, of all people, Brett Keane.  Hell, people like Gail Chord Schuler, who says that she and God are fighting back against Jesuits who rape Brent Spiner.  These are the people who are telling the world exactly how God feels.  Can hear the apologists – but we have the Bible!  Yeah, but the Bible is full of contradictory verses.  In fact, it’s so easy to find verses that forbid or condone everything that pretty much everything is wrong somewhere in the Bible.

Liberal Christians try to pass it off as Jesus and the New Testament make it all better.  I have my issues with that way of thinking.  After all, it’s bullshit.  Jesus outright said he did not come to abolish the Old Testament law, but came to fulfill it.  Apologists try and argue that it is still written, but here’s the other thing – there are translation errors.  Since the original language that wrote most of the Bible is dead languages (and that’s not even accounting for the parts that were straight up plagiarized, like the Jesus story).  The versions we have now have been proven to be full of translation issues.  So we have to rely on people and their OPINIONS to tell us what God wants now!  Prager’s entire point is fucking stupid!

He then says that all us atheists will admit that without God, there is no objective morality, and no “atheist philosopher” has said otherwise.  Sam Harris actually has, but I guess Prager has a limited atheist perspective that he gets.  No surprise, he’s a far-right conservative.  I’m surprised he’s talked to ANY atheists.  For my part, I don’t believe there is truly objective morality.  Since morals are behaviors that a society or doctrine deems are right or wrong, they are just a system of control from the top down.  Here’s a video by my favorite YouTuber where he lays out the closest that we’ll ever come to objective morality – empathy.  When we can empathize with other people, we are able to make behavioral decisions as close as it can get to right and wrong.

I think that pretty much sums up all of his arguments.  I’ve destroyed him without even getting one and a half minutes in.  Not too shabby.

Until next time, a quote,

“Marge, everything is a sin.  I mean, have you ever sat down and read this thing?  Technically, we’re not allowed to go to the bathroom.” – Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons

Peace out,

Maverick

Bad PR 110: Yooka-Laylee, JonTron, and Repeated History

The phrase history always repeats itself is nowhere more true than on the Internet.  Only difference is that the person who wrote that originally believed it repeats itself after 10’s of years, if not hundreds.  They don’t realize that on the Internet, it can repeat itself in just a few.  Sometimes one.  Sometimes not even.  It’s amazing.  Well, as always, this comes in the world of video games, where we get another wonderful instance of politics and video games colliding into a massive garbage fire.  One that looks to do irreparable harm to this video game’s reputation at exactly the worst time.  I am, of course, talking about the spiritual successor to Banjo Kazooie, entitled Yooka-Laylee and the company behind it.

For those who don’t know, the YouTuber JonTron just did a stream with someone where he talked about political views on immigration and other issues.  After an off-color comment by JonTron, the Internet lost its fucking mind.  As always, the utterly-broken sites like Kotaku and Polygon were quick to point out how JonTron has been utterly destroyed.  Except, you know, for his still rising sub count on YouTube.  There’s that.  And since the cowards at NeoGaf can’t help but want to fuck with people’s livelihoods and passion projects, they decided to hit up the company behind the Kickstarter success story who had just featured JonTron as a voice actor.  This was something that was a huge collaboration and got a lot of good press all around.  The company was told, and then released a statement that they were cutting JonTron from the game in a patch.  JonTron, while disappointed, released a statement saying that he understood and still wished them the best.  Stupid, doesn’t look great for the company, but that’s it, right?

Wrong!  A lot of backers of the game decided to take to Steam and the game’s main page forums and demand they get their money back.  Okay.  Maybe just sit tight and let this blow over?  Be quiet and wait it out?  Not a bad strategy.  Except, that’s not the strategy that the team behind the publishing of Yooka-Laylee (Team 17) did.  Instead, they decided to shit-talk the people who were mad at the company.  They decided to lock down forums and then get people banned.  They went on a huge tirade attacking the same people who backed the game and were unhappy.  What a brilliant move.  A brilliant, horribly stupid move.

A YouTuber who I very much happen to like made a very level-headed video about this, but it seems he was either unaware or just didn’t want to get into the ugly side of the politics of this whole affair.  He argued that the backlash from the SJW-controlled game’s media is worse than the backlash from those who may be disappointed in this whole event.  Part of his argument is that this is a game that mostly appeals to children, and when you have a corrupt gaming press spinning this game company as supporters of an “alt-right neo Nazi” (No joke, it’s everywhere online), they will run from it.  I would argue that while he makes a point worth considering, there is some history that he doesn’t seem to take into account.  See, we’ve seen this story before, haven’t we?

Let’s talk about Dina from Mighty No. 9.  Yeah, the Way Back Machine of the Internet.  Here is a video that goes into more detail about the whole affair, but I’ll give the Cliff Note’s version.  During the development of Mighty No. 9, the company behind promoting the game hired a woman named Dina, who decided that when people were going to complain about the political input that she was having and wanted their money back, she would shit-talk them and block them.  It began a tragic tale of the downfall of Dina and how ugly things got for the company Deep Silver.  Granted, the game itself fucked with the rest of it, but still.  Dina decided that instead of doing her job and just promoting the game, she was going to get political.  She had to make sure that everyone knew that if you don’t support the political stuff in the game, you are a terrible person.  It left a terrible legacy on the game that still is the first thing that comes up when you look for it on Google.

If the company behind Yooka-Laylee doesn’t clamp down on Team 17, who is promoting this game, the same thing will happen here too.  Only difference is that it is happening at the worst possible moment – right as the game is about to launch.  If the biggest news coming out about this game is the garbage fire that this shitty PR company is doing, then this is the wrong foot forward.  Dragnix argued that parents were going to be the ones who mainly look into this game, and that may be true.  But here’s the other thing – when you are a new company that is just starting out, having your brand loyalty fucked up by politicization gone wrong is not what you need.  Playtonic needs to kick Team 17 to the curb, along with their blue-hair advocates who have this weird idea that hair dyed a color not found in nature is diversity.

The PR lesson is this – if you are a company that is looking to outsource the promotion of your product to another company, then you REALLY need to watch your ass in what that company is saying about your product and the people that you want to buy your product.  After all, it isn’t Team 17 that people are mad at, it’s Playtonic.  None of the news is talking about this shit PR company who promotes this game.  And if there is a run on brand loyalty before their first product is even out, what is going to draw people back?  Dragnix argues that if a game is good enough, people will come.  I respectfully disagree.  That only matters if you are a company with brand recognition for great success.  I can find out that Naughty Dog takes what Anita Sarkeesian says seriously and still buy their games because I know that they have a brand that demands quality.  Playtonic doesn’t have that loyalty.  And now that their first major project is coming out, this couldn’t have happened at a worst time.  But hey, they are “inclusive.”  Let’s hope that works out for them.

Until next time, a quote,

“Your brand is what other people say about you when you’re not in the room.” – Jeff Bezos

Peace out,

Maverick

The Cringe-Worthy ‘Ghost in the Shell’ PSA

What do you get when you combine an unfunny Asian lesbian and a “PSA” about Ghost in the Shell?  You get a video where I felt the cringe bars going up.  I’ve heard before about how casting Scarlet Johansson as the main character in the Ghost in the Shell live-action film is “white-washing.”  I don’t see it that way.  I see the film as yet-another lackluster live-action adaptation of an anime that will join the pantheon of lack-luster adaptations.  But that’s neither here nor there.  An unfunny Asian lesbian decided to try her hand at a public service announcement about it.  Let’s take a look at this.

We start off the video having some little Asian girl looking into a comic book shop.  She goes inside and we see a ton of other little girls in there.  Yeah, this is about as realistic as the “acting” in Cool Cat Saves the Kids.  We have a term for some of the caseworkers at my job – unicorns.  Magical creatures that you hear about but never see.  That’s what the sight of a bunch of little girls at a comic book shop is.  It’s a magical creature that you hear about but never see.  Not to mention the fact that they clearly aren’t actually looking at the comic books.  They are just jiggling them around.

Then we get to see how all these characters in these comics are…WHITE PEOPLE!  Oh!  The horror!  White people in comics!  How awful!  Our little Asian girl desperately looks around for the comic book that has an Asian person in it.  Because, you know, kids only like characters who they can racially identify with.  That isn’t at all a stereotype that has been invented by idiots who don’t know the first thing about real children.  After all, this PSA has an ax to grind.  Never mind the idea that an Asian girl could relate to a white character.  Nope, if it’s someone of a different skin color, then that little girl can’t possibly relate to them.  Man, this video is racist.

It just keeps going.  This endless montage of this little Asian girl who has no interest in any of these comics purely by virtue of the characters not having the same skin color as them.  This character and this video by extension are so fucking racist.  I mean, are we really supposed to just ignore the message of this video – Asian children can’t relate to white people.  That’s what that entire montage was about.  Finally, we see her reach the Ghost in the Shell manga.  The kid opens it up to some random page and is so completely happy by seeing someone who shares the same skin color as her.  Racism.  Apparently it’s in right now.  The kid buys the manga and all is right with the little girl’s world.

Fast-forward to years later and we see some hipster Asian girl wandering the streets looking at random shit.  She comes to a poster for the new movie, and we see it cut back to the little girl we saw that beginning.  I guess the hipster is the older version of that girl.  It cuts between her and the little girl version, and she looks totally heart-broken.  Again, the implication being that because the character is now white, she is instantly bad.

This video’s idea of equality is that only people who share the same skin color can understand each other.  Our shared humanity?  Nope.  Our ability to empathize and understand one-another by shared life experience?  Fuck that!  In this woman’s eyes, the only thing that matters is the color of your skin.  Racism.  It’s the in thing to be.  Because after all, if it’s white people, it’s evil.  And, of course, if it was the reverse of this people would be throwing a shit-fit.  Casual racism is fine, so long as it isn’t white people.  I fucking hate this shit.  This PSA’s ham-fisted message doesn’t land.  Nothing about this works.  And the video ends with an actual statement that movies aren’t real, but have some kind of nebulous effect on real people.  Give me a fucking break.  Where is the evidence for that?  Please, show me some fucking evidence.  Until then, shut the fuck up.

Until next time, a quote,

“Why argue things you can’t prove?” – William Ruckelshaus

Peace out,

Maverick

PewDiePie and the Death of Old Media

Before you go off and say that I am doing what everyone else has been doing and mining what has happened for clicks, hear me out.  I got me degree in Journalism and Public Communication.  I have an understanding of this medium better than most.  And it is because of that that I feel a great sense of shame and pity for what has happened here.  Everything about what has happened was a sign of how the medium that I grew up loving, who was supposed to be the vanguards of democracy, is failing.  And there is no coming back from it.  But here’s the thing – we all should have seen this coming.  From a long ways off, this was apparent to me.  It’s happened before, and it now it is beginning to happen again.

Where did it start?  You could make the argument that it most recently started with the Wall Street Journal putting out a video which was an unfounded hit-piece on the YouTube personality PewDiePie.  There was no defending that video.  None.  It was such blatant bullshit that you felt ashamed of yourself watching it.  To think that a news outlet that was once believed to be a very respectable source could make an attack video against a YouTuber for a video where he was blatantly satirizing the people calling him racist and making a joke about finally giving in and becoming a Nazi.  It was all so obvious, and the Internet tore the Journal to pieces over it.  But that isn’t where it started.

Maybe it started back in 2014, with a little uprising known as GamerGate.  Indeed, the parallels between what happened to Felix and that instance are rather shocking.  We have a corrupt press colluding together to take on an Internet culture that is clearly a threat to their industry, and now we see the beginnings of a new culture war.  And just like with the “Gamers are Dead” articles, now we have every major media outlet releasing a barrage of articles lambasting Felix and his politics.  Also just like GamerGate, this is blowing up in the media’s face so badly that not one person involved is walking away clean.  I don’t think this is where it started either.

The first time I truly got a taste of the downfall was looking at a video on NPR.  I didn’t believe what I was seeing.  There was a link to a video that was, quite literally, an unboxing video.  That’s right, NPR, one of the most respected journalism outlets who does some truly biting work from time to time examining critical issues. was doing an unboxing video.  It was of a PS4.  A lot of people tried to make the argument that they were trying to talk about unboxing videos.  That’s wrong.  It wasn’t a video about unboxing.  It was a fucking unboxing video.  I was so embarrassed for them at that point.  However, that most certainly wasn’t where it started.

So where was it?  Where was the great downfall of the media’s beginning?  The beginning of the Internet?  Getting closer, but still no bueno.  It was actually around the time when Princess Di was killed.  The news at the time wasn’t talking about the facts of her death.  Instead, they were creating narratives.  It couldn’t be enough that a great woman died.  No, the narrative had to be that a wonderful, fantastic woman died.  And her passing needed a good catch phrase and sad music to be played over it.  It was when cable news decided to come into the picture and turn the news from a discussion about the events of the day that transpired, to a narrative telling their audiences how to think about the news.

Here’s the thing – this idea of unbiased reporting is bullshit.  There is no such thing.  You can strive to be as unbiased as possible, have a rigorous vetting process to remove the scruples of bias to whatever extent you can.  But the cold hard truth is that you still have to deal with the fact that bias exists, and it will always be there.  Edward R Murrow admitted his bias, but his way of counter-manning it was to let the other side have its day.  He let Joseph McCarthy come on his show and give a very passionate defense of his position, where he called Murrow and his ilk all sorts of unprofessional names.  In giving his stage to his opposition, Murrow did more to cement how right he is in the eyes of the public.  Still, Murrow was biased.  The best minds are.  Walter Cronkite told some harrowing stories about the war in Vietnam, but he did so with an agenda to get the troops out of there.  He had a bias, but he had enough dedication to his craft to make sure to get people to the truth as close as he could.  It wasn’t hard to sell people on the war in Vietnam being a bad idea.

PewDiePie is the victim of a medium that is lost.  Print media is dying.  I feel it all the time.  I am just one of a thousand blogs that are ignored by the masses.  My audience is still pretty awesome, but I realize that I am part of a bygone era.  I don’t have video-making chops.  This is the best I can do.  Like all animals that feel their end coming, the media is lashing out.  PewDiePie makes for an easy target.  His popularity cannot be overstated.  Traditional media has to work very hard for all of their stories.  Felix basically just gets in front of a camera and plays video games, then he makes millions.  He makes astronomical amounts of money just by exaggerating his expressions while playing video games, and now making more original content.  Of course the media who has to work hard to make any content would despise such a person.

And for those who will say “it’s not anything to do with that!  It was the fact that he used Nazi imagery in his videos!”  First, the video they went after was so cherry-picked and avoided context where Felix showed that he has no love for Nazis, but decided to give the media who attacked him to no end what they wanted.  They do everything they can to take his videos out of context.  And when the Internet took them to task for it, the media overall decided to try and make it in to a big deal about how context doesn’t matter.  Actually, dumb fucks, it does.  It really does.

Old media is dying, and its final death throes will not be pretty.  But I don’t miss them.  Sure, the person who spent $40,000 on a degree like me would be pissed that some guy on YouTube can make boatloads of money.  But I don’t see any of them trying to make a niche for themselves.  I mean, when a high school dropout can become the biggest atheist channel on YouTube and last for longer than anyone else on the site, that means that if you can keep a fresh idea and change up for your audience enough, then you can make a new brand for yourself.  Media has to change with the times.  Its refusal to do so leads to some unbelievably sad things.

Until next time, a quote,

“The trouble is, you think you have time.” – Buddha

Peace out,

Maverick

UC Berkeley, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Insanity

When I think of liberals, I think of the fight against the Red Scare.  I think of how people on the left came together to fight against a government who was all about fear, deception, and manipulating to convince the public that if you weren’t with them, you were against them.  I think of thousands of people who came together to champion the rights of free speech and for unpopular opinions to be said.  That’s the left that I think of.  However, that is not the left that I see now.

For those who didn’t know, Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak at UC Berkeley.  He didn’t ask to go there, but rather was invited.  A person there to speak his mind.  Now, because Milo is very openly conservative, and has a lot of far-right positions, it’s natural that there would be people who would disagree with him.  Indeed, many of them gathered at this event.  So, what did these people do?  Did they come with well-reasoned arguments and try and have an open discussion with Milo?  Did they allow him to speak and then have their rebuttal?  No.  That isn’t what happened.  What happened?  Well, take a look for yourself.

Listen to all those champions of free speech!  Listen to the chant “Shut it down!” over and over again!  Can’t you just tell how much they value the traits that the left is supposed to stand for?  Because, after all, in today’s society, Milo’s views are unpopular.  The popular consensus is much more left-leaning.  With that in mind, you’d think that, even if they didn’t agree with him, my fellow left-leaning people would at least want to hear the guy out.  That way we could form educated opinions on his views and then disagree with them in the most effective way – with good argumentation.

Fuck that noise!  We gotta riot!  Let’s destroy property! Let’s assault people!  There was footage of some asshole tear-gassing a girl with a MAGA hat who was just minding her own business.  One guy was beaten and stripped.  There was even a story of someone who was shot when someone acted in self-defense after the mob went after him.  Yup.  That’s the progressive-left, everyone.  That’s what it’s come to.  But hey, maybe you think that that is hyperbole.  After all, it’s not like celebrities are in on it or anything.  Oh wait, here’s a link to a Tweet by Sarah Silverman, who lays it out that the military will eventually be coming in to help the left with an armed revolution.  Hey Sarah, they call that treason, you know.  Good thing that the Internet never forgets, because now Sarah is going to have this little nugget following her around forever.

Never in my life have I been more ashamed of the left in this country.  We once made fun of the Tea Party and what a bunch of assholes they were.  But you know what, as bad as their demonstrations were, I gotta say, even I am starting to agree with the conservatives who say that the left is worse.  At least it didn’t come to guns and lighting garbage fires in the street.  I remember saying that I wished America was more like other countries, who indulge in a good riot every now and then.  Well, I got my wish.  And it makes us look so pathetic.

Do the people like Sarah the retard Silverman not understand how absolutely horrific it would be to have armed revolution?  Do they not realize what that would do to this country.  Trump won, people!  Fair and square!  It’s all your fault.  You made this monster.  All the endless yelling about sexism and racism and all this other bullshit.  Organizations who chant for dead cops, and then get their wish.  You bear the blame here.  Trump won on the backs of the people who are sick and tired of all the PC bullshit.  Now we have a protest that had no illusions about being anything other than a riot, all to shut down someone that they don’t like.

The irony is that this will have the exact opposite effect.  See, Milo really wasn’t a name in the mainstream.  He is huge on the Internet, but he isn’t a name that the public at large knows.  Now they do.  Now they know exactly who he is.  This riot has caught national attention.  CNN was being just as hard on these idiots protesting as Fox News.  That’s understandable.  Any media outlet has to see this for the bat-shit crazy mess that it is.  Milo’s name will just get bigger and bigger, while the people screaming in the streets, or taking to Twitter to call for violent uprising will be made to look like raving lunatics.  Congratulations.

We can’t do like this, people.  We just fucking can’t.  Political discourse in this country cannot devolve into crowds screaming and burning shit in the street.  If that’s where we’ve gone, then we might as well just go back to the Coliseum and have people settle their differences with swords.  Then the mob could gamble on it and our descent as a nation into madness will be complete.  Worse still, we have people defending this bullshit!  Are you fucking kidding me?!  This behavior is indefensible.  But hey, it’s easy to defend when it isn’t these PC assholes who will be out in the street fighting the cops.  It won’t be them in this “revolution.”  They’ll be at Starbucks.  Fuck these people.

Until next time, a quote,

“The blood is already on our hands, it’s only a matter of degree.” – George Carlin

Peace out,

Maverick

Brianna Wu is Running for Congress

I’ve said how I was done talking about Crypt Keeper Wu, but when I saw this video on my Twitter, I couldn’t resist.  This is the the funniest thing I have ever seen.  It’s funny for all kinds of reasons.  It seems that Brianna Wu is running for Congress.  That’s right, she’s going to put her hat into the political arena.  The whole reason that I am making this post is so we can watch and enjoy her first congressional ad, and shed some light some of the things that she’s done and see if that makes her congressional material.  First things first, let’s see this wonderful magnum opus that is her video.

First things first, I do love the pic they got for her to use as the one time we see her face.  It is a marvel that they found a pic which doesn’t make her look like the nightmarish ghoul that she is.  I’m honestly not going to pick apart the video.  A million people have done that already.  I’m just going to provide some context for the media who may or may not talk about her congressional run to know what kind of woman she is.

I’m so glad she brought up GamerGate.  Aside from the bulk of the electorate not knowing what the fuck that is, it is a nice segway into one of the first thing to talk about in respect to Brianna.  Like how she lied about being driven out of her home by EVIL GamerGaters.  Here’s a video that broke it down pretty well.  In a series of interviews between the dates of 10/13 to 12/09 of 2014, Brianna was talking about how she was driven out of her home and scared for her life.  The person in the video was able to notice something about the location that she was being interviewed at in all of these new segments.  There’s this skid mark on the wall.  Not so weird, right?  Well, something to know about that skid mark – it’s in her office.  So, Brianna was basically doing all of these interviews from her office.  Guess where her office is – in her home!  So, her whole song and dance about being run out of her home?  A lie.  100% pure bullshit.  But I’m just getting started.

Wu traded in victimhood, just like most SJW women.  However, unlik e her contemporaries, she didn’t have nearly the skill at it.  Zoe Quinn was busted orchestrating a harassment campaign against Candace Owens which torpedoed her Kickstarter campaign.  Anita Sarkeesian is a masterful con artist.  The best in her class.  Only difference is she just wants people to give her piles of money so she can do nothing.  But Wu wasn’t so good at it.  See, she tried to get in on the action without first realizing that trolling for victim points is more art than science.  Her failure was just beautiful.  What she did is try and bait trolls into saying hateful things on her on Steam.  Here’s a link to a screen-cap.  It’s beautiful in its contemplation. Instead of switching to an appropriately-misogynistic sock-puppet account, she decided to do post something that was blatant fishing from her own Steam page.  Brilliant.

Years of Wu lying, manipulating every media outlet she can into sucking her dick (there is no confirmation that her transition was complete), and her cashing on her victim points every time she possibly could is interesting in and of itself.  After all, doesn’t she say in her ad how she beat the “alt-right” of GamerGate?  Gee, it sure would be a shame if most of the people associated with GG were part of the libertarian-left.  But the really grotesque part of this is the kind of woman that will use the dead as a prop to sell her victimhood.  Don’t believe me?  Well, there’s a fun story ahead.

During the heyday of GamerGate, there was a completely and utterly unrelated story of a woman named Amber Lynn Schraw.  She was strangled to death by her ex-boyfriend and left naked for her son to find.  Something which I am sure has scarred the kid for the rest of his life.  The news broken, and guess what our good “strong woman” decided to do – exploit it to show how in danger she is.  In a Tweet heard round the world, she shared a link to the article with the words, “Tell me again how my life isn’t in danger.”  This dead woman, who left four children without a mother and one child scarred forever, was nothing but a prop to this disgusting, putrid pile of shit in human skin.  I was disgusted by it then, and I’m disgusted by it now.

I wonder if, in that video where she talks about how she is going to stand up for women’s rights, she will acknowledge using a dead woman as a prop.  I think her potential constituents might like to know.  Maybe David Pakman might have liked to know, when he did his soft-ball interview with her that she blew up on him about.  Maybe the people at Huffpost would like to know, when they were kissing her ass just as hard.  I don’t know, maybe they would have liked to know.  The limp-dick media is going to cheer her on and talk about what a hero she is, both as a woman and as a trans person fight for “women’s right.”  Never mind that a dead woman was NOTHING to her but a prop to use to sell a narrative.

This woman’s 15 minutes of fame has gone on far too long.  Hell, it’s going on even now.  But hey, let’s not say that Brianna is a cold and heartless bitch.  After all, it’s not like she is going to already start smearing her opponent and doing every disgusting trick that she can to make herself look good.  Right, Brianna?

brianna-wuOh.  Well, shit.

Until next time, a quote,

“Villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot.  But those who cloak themselves in good deeds are well-camouflaged.” – Capt. Jean Luc Picard

Peace out,

Maverick

Let’s Answer 11 Sexist Things a Feminist (of .Mic) Says Men do on Dates

Well, because I am wonderfully original, and I have just now seen this post kicking around my anti-SJW circles, I thought I would respond to an article where a feminist lays out 11 things that she sees as sexist that guys do on dates.  Some of these are fucking hilarious.  I’m just waiting for the feminist to come along and say that dating at all is sexist.  That men choosing to be around women is sexist.  If these people had their way, men would be asexual imps who have no hormones whatsoever until the woman that they deem worth being interested in permits them to.  Although, that sentiment is already out there.  Saw a woman who posted an article that any form of vaginal penetration by a penis is rape.  No joke, doesn’t matter how much the woman wanted it, if a man has sex with you, it’s rape.  Well, I think I’ve done my usual introduction for long enough.  Here’s a link to the article, now let’s respond to this shit.

1. Don’t expect sex in exchange for something. Don’t expect sex, period.

So, it’s only men that want sex?  Really?  Wow.  How demeaning to women.  It’s like – hey ladies, we all know that you have no sexual desires.  And, of course, no woman wants a date to lead to sex.  Nope, that never happens.  See how sexist modern feminism is?  It takes all autonomy away from women, and puts all of it on men.  Unless this person’s argument is that if a woman wants sex, it’s fine.

Next, what guy expects sex in exchange for something?  Douchebags.  That’s who.  The average guy just wants to go out with a girl.  Maybe they are hoping that it leads to sex, but they don’t just automatically think, “she will totally fuck with me if I take her out on a date!”  The kinds of guys who think that way are the Roosh V’s of the world.  And we all know how society views them – as pathetic.  Please don’t foist your stupid beliefs about how men are on me, thank you much.

2. Don’t tell women they’re “better” or “different” than other women to curry favor.

What if a woman wants that?  Man, this fucking article is so sexist.  It continually denies women’s autonomy.  What if she likes the idea of being seen as different or better than other women?  Isn’t the whole idea of a date to show that you find that particular female of a grade that appeals to you above other women?  I’m having a hard time seeing what you’re driving at here.  And how does that curry favor?  Like, will the chick automatically be like, “he said I’m different!  That wins him points in my book!”  Though, then it comes down to the idea that pretty much everything said in a date is to curry favor.  The whole purpose of a date is to have the person you are with see you as viable relationship material.  That doesn’t happen by being a dick to them.  At least not with most women.

3. Don’t assume women are interested in having your babies (or anyone else’s, for that matter).

Oh my Groj.  I’m dying.  Who fucking does this?!  Who just assumes that women are instantly interested in having their babies?!  Yeah, that’s a first date thought that I’ve had.  I can’t even tell you how many times I have been out with a woman and been like, “that chick will totally want to have my children someday.”  Hell, I don’t even want children!  So fuck thinking that some girl I am going out with will want them.  Where is this person getting their ideas on men and how they think on dates from?  I guarantee, every guy knows that if they bring up babies on a first date, the date is dead.  There isn’t a single man who actually believes it is a good idea.  Is this chick talking about Mormons?  Maybe they’re the ones who see a first date as a potential baby-maker.

4. Don’t treat a woman like she exists to service you.

I saw the Groj, it’s like this chick is just taking the very worst stereotypes about men and then applying them as broadly as possible.  Honey, I’m gonna let you in on a little secret, most guys you meet don’t think that women exist to service them.  A guy who is taking a girl out on a date is almost guaranteed to see her a potential partner.  Catch that work – partner.  Meaning that it is something that they are in the journey that we call life together.  They are hoping that the person they are with will see them that way too.  So, since they see them as a potential partner, they will see it as a chance to find out what the relationship dynamic will be.  Some guys are more dominant, some guys are more submissive.  Same with girls.  Some girls want to wear the pants in the relationship, some don’t.  Love to see the autonomy you’re giving to women still.  It’s really equality-minded.

5. Don’t comment on how much she is or isn’t eating or drinking.

This part depends.  I mean, yeah, don’t tell her that she eats like a hog.  But what if she likes food, and likes to eat food?  What if she is getting really wasted and you are commenting that maybe she should stop?  After all, if you drove her to the date, it’s understandable that you don’t want her puking in your car on the drive home.  But if the girl likes to talk about food and really enjoys chowing down, what’s the problem in talking about the food she is eating.  Hell, I’ve gotten into arguments in a Thai restaurant with a girl I was having fun with about who was going to eat the last of the dinner portions.  It was fun.  I’m assuming you’re talking about guys who make snide remarks about women eating like pigs, and sure, that is rude.  I guarantee, that date isn’t going to end well for them.

Also, what if a girl isn’t eating and the guy feels bad?  Like, maybe he thinks she doesn’t like the food.  Then he feels bad about taking her someone that the food wasn’t what she wanted.  That’s a totally rational thing to wonder about.

6. Don’t say dumb things about women’s faces or bodies.

Like what?  Citation, please.  You mention some chick was cut off by a guy about how he couldn’t stop looking at her legs.  What if a girl wants to be complimented about something?  Are you EVER going to take women into account when making bullshit statements like this?  What if a woman wants to be complimented on certain attributes?  If a girl went out of her way to dress up or accentuate a part of her body, doesn’t that mean that she wants that part to be noticed.  I see a girl in a dress that practically has the tits falling out, I’m going to assume that she wants her boobs to be noticed.  I am so blown away by how little you regard the opinions of other women in this article.  Your examples are so few, because I guess it’s hard to get opinions from women on the subject when most women who dress up want to be noticed.

I mean, if we’re going to talk about some dude being like, “nice tittes!” then yeah, that is a little lacking in social graces.  But if some guy is like, “I love your hands” or something, then where’s the problem?  I get the feeling that the only things in relation to women’s faces or bodies that they are talking about are involved with sex.  After all, sex is the thing feminists are scared of the most.

7. Don’t impose chivalry

Oh, fuck off.  There is no imposition by a guy holding the door for you or pulling out your chair.  That is so stupid.  If you are out on a date with a guy, do you want him to just shut the door in your face?  Maybe he can pretend like you’re not even there.  If a guy puts his jacket over a girl when it’s raining to keep her dry, even if you aren’t interested in him, at least be fucking grateful that he cares enough to be nice.  That doesn’t mean you owe him sex, but at the very least it means that some courtesy would go a long way.

8. Don’t assume that, because a woman looks like your ex or another woman you’re attracted to, they’re interchangeable.

What?  What man, anywhere, thinks this?  Your example is that some guy apparently got disappointed when some girl didn’t look like the pic he had of her.  He’s into redheads, it seems.  What’s the problem?  If she advertised herself as a redhead, and she comes in bleach-blonde, doesn’t he at least have a decent reason to be a little disappointed?  The guy in this narrative (since there are no citations anywhere, I’m going to assume that most of these stories are bullshit or exaggeration) gets really vocal about it, which is a little rude, but there’s nothing wrong with a guy having preferences.  You put this on him seeing her as interchangeable with his ex.  Maybe he just likes redheads?  Men are allowed to have preferences.  So are women.

Which makes me ask – if a woman reacted this way about a guy, is it also wrong?  I keep seeing behaviors that you prescribe to men that I could just as easily make the case are applicable to women.

9. Don’t insult a woman just because she’s not that into you.

Wow.  An actual piece of decent advice – don’t be a dick.  Good thing that most guys aren’t.  They can be awkward, forward, shy, weird, nice, whatever, but most guys aren’t dicks.  Typically, if it’s a bad date, the guy will just go home and maybe feel a little bad.  Or maybe jerk off.  Whatever.  But again, aren’t women just as capable of this as men?  Is it as bad when it’s a woman?

10. Don’t have double standards

Man, if it wasn’t for double-standards, you feminists would have no standards at all!  “Hey guys, here’s a list of 11 things that you shouldn’t do!  Even though it is perfectly reasonable that we could do them!”  There’s an old phrase that rumbles around the anti-SJW circles – it’s only sexist when men do it.  And given the things that feminists like Anita Sarkeesian bitch about, that’s pretty true.  This entire list is a double-standard.  It ignores women’s autonomy and pretends like all the sexist behaviors that go on are the result of men.  Fuck this noise!

11. Don’t assume a woman is doing something just because she wants to service your boner.

This took me a few seconds, but I think I got it.  So, don’t assume that a chick is doing something just to get in your pants.  What if she says that she wants to fuck.  Isn’t that doing something to get into your pants?  What if she’s rubbing your dick over your pants.  Doesn’t that mean that she wants to get in there?  Sure, a guy shouldn’t just automatically assume that anything a girl does is sexual innuendo.

But hey, remember that thing we were just talking about, with double-standards?  I bring this up because nowhere is more applicable than in this statement.  Hey ladies, don’t just assume that everything a guy is doing is to get into your pants.  If there is ANY group who needs to be told this, it’s feminists.  The woman who wrote this article is assuming that all of us men are sexist, chauvinistic pigs who see dating as just a prelude to sex.  This entire fucking post has been about that.  So don’t stand there and tell me that it’s men who need to ditch the double-standards, when you fuckers are saying this bullshit.

Well, that was plenty stupid.  Let me know what you all think down on the comments.

Until next time, a quote,

“There’s only two people in your life you should lie to – the police and your girlfriend.” – Jack Nicholson

Peace out,

Maverick