Whacky-stans

Ok. Let’s start with the fact that the title is a play on words and has nothing to do with a particular nationality or ethnic group.  I have just branded on puns, it seems, and I can’t stop.

No, what I’m talking about is Stans.  a portmanteau that means “stalker fan” but more colloquially, is used to identify someone who is such a big fan of a celebrity personality that the person can do no wrong in their eyes.

A very recent example (but who is one who has had Stans for a long time) is Kanye West.

Kanye West interrupts the acceptance speech from best female video winner Taylor Swift at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards in New York

It’s wonderful that the person with Stans is interrupting the person with Stans.

The photo is of particular satisfaction to me because both individuals have a Stan-base.  “Swifties” who would swarm message boards and twitter feeds with outrage at the mere suggestion that someone may dislike her music, and Kanye Stans think he is Jesus, Krishna and any other number of gods rolled in to a hip-hop deity.  I’m not here to talk about their music, I really couldn’t care less what people listen to and enjoy.  Ok.  I might judge you a little if you listen to Whitesnake.

whitesnakeband2015new_638.jpg

Not cool, man. Not cool.

No, what I’m talking about is people with platforms that speak ridiculous things, forward unbelievably bad ideas, and are not affected in any way.  Not that long ago, Kanye talked about slavery as a choice because it lasted 400 years.  I don’t think I have to say much about why this is a problematic statement at the very best.  But let me give you a little picture of how much it affected him. A brief look at his twitter stats:

Kanye pre-slavery comment: 28.3 Million followers.

Kanye post-slavery comment: 28.3 Million followers.

of course some people would have been disgusted and unfollowed, yet others followed.  My guess is white supremacists looking for a famous black friend.  But all in all, it had little to no impact.  I’m not suggesting he be banned from twitter and his career destroyed or abandoned by everyone. But that was a pretty tone-deaf and frankly way the fuck out there statement. Yet it cost him nothing.  Why? because he can.  Stans will follow people regardless of their actions and praise them up and down.  All you have to do is search the women defending Chris Brown after his domestic abuses as another example.

One that has been very recent is Jordan Peterson. A hyper-intellectualizer of frankly disgusting ideas.  No, not everything he has said has been bad, but he has made some clearly misogynistic and outrageous statements.  Most recently talking about socially “enforced” monogamy being the best way to keep women safe AND solve the problem of angry sexless men. This isn’t his first venture in to saying ridiculously sexist things.  And no, I’m not going to list them.  I have neither the inclination to wade through his bullshit again, nor the desire to engage people who are defending him.  But defending him they are.

Jordan-Peterson

You’d like to believe that look on his face is self-reflection. It’s not.

 

Make a single statement about his blatant sexism and appeal to the MRA crowd and you get “challenged” by one of his acolytes to “prove it.” They are, of course, bad faith requests (frequently called sealioning) where they have absolutely no intention of dialogue, but just a need to nay-say anyone who would dare question their entitlement Jesus.

Last night I tweeted a response to someone who compared the “misrepresentation” of Peterson as being second only to Obama.  I merely pointed out the ridiculousness of mentioning the two men in the same sentence and was treated with a litany of ridiculous bullshit.  When They told me to “cite all the proof” that Peterson is a misogynist, I declined to do their homework for them and was summarily considered a troll and white knight and all the little things that insecure little men need to say when people don’t indulge them.

engle-kissing-catholic-leaders-shoe

Next he’ll polish the underside with his tongue.

There is no point in engaging with Stans.  They don’t operate on anything other than slavish, boot licking obsession for their heroes.  In a sane world, there would be a near universal rejection of horrid ideas, even if you liked the person who espoused them.  But when someone shows you who they really are, you should believe them.  Stans don’t.  Or just as likely, do, but are unwilling to let go of their golden calf.

Stan is an idiot.

Stan doesn’t think clearly.

don’t be like Stan.

 

Smartassicus out.

(I wouldn’t mind some semi-Stans though, myself.  People who like me not because of anything I say, just because I want obsessed followers.) Laters.

A terrible incelt

Ok. If you managed to make it past that incredibly horrible pun of a title, congratulations. I almost didn’t while WRITING this. Onwards, reader! (singular because I think I have like one regular reader.)

I am going to jump right in to the topic, and talk about the incel thing. Now the first thing that’s annoying about incel is that it’s leaving a lot of red squiggly lines on my piece and it’s kind of setting me off. But jokes aside, the whole “incel rebellion” thing is a sick, twisted and “how can this possibly be real” thing that has entered the spotlight since the Van attack in Toronto. After the bigots had their hategasms claiming it was Islamic terrorism, because, you know, not a white person, it turns out that the likely motive was killing women because they won’t have sex with any man who demands it.

Here’s the thing. The incel shit isn’t new. It’s been around for some time. It spiked in behavior at the same time as #metoo became a sweeping phenomenon, because how else do whining man babies react other than to double down on their bullshit? But it has been a “subculture” for years. And women have told us. They pointed it out. And per usual, society made a collective shrug motion.

An-annoyed-and-frustrated-woman-via-Shutterstock-800x430

You know. Kinda like every time we tell you something.

But now that it’s a known entity, it should be universally condemned, right? I mean, nobody… would…

Yeah, you know that there will be people who take the “intellectual” side of these poor downtrodden men that haven’t been able to get much luck in the lovin’ department. Robin Hanson, an economist, made an argument that if we are worried about fairness of wages and opportunities, we should be concerned about sex distribution as well. I’m not going to post a picture to the guy here. (He looks exactly like you’d assume. Aging, white, and entitled.) But that doesn’t mean anyone else would…

Sorry gotta disappoint you again. Ross Douthhat, opinion columnist for the New York Times (the same New York Times that brought us “let’s humanize nazis” and “no really, we should care about the feelings of white supremacists”) Wrote a frankly rambling, disgusting piece called “The Redistribution of Sex.” Go and read it if you’re inclined. It actually takes incel morons seriously, and bemoans the “negatives” of sexual liberation of women. Really though, the end of it is all you need to know. Direct quote:

“Whether sex workers and sex robots can actually deliver real fulfillment is another matter. But that they will eventually be asked to do it, in service to a redistributive goal that FOR NOW seems creepy or misogynist or radical, feels pretty much inevitable.”

First off, Ross, FUCKING GROSS. Second, there will never be a time that a redistribution of sex demand isn’t creepy and misogynist. It’s enough to make you vomit that people are actually writing think pieces on making sure men get to have sex.

It is literally insanity that anyone is doing anything but recoiling from these disgusting men in horror. And it’s not because of their looks.

damn.jpg

Although, the neck beard isn’t helping, Steve.

It’s because they are without a doubt some of the most repugnant shit smeared cockroaches to ever draw breath. I learned about the incel thing a little further back, and ventured in to the Reddit and Chan sites to have a look. Men, complaining about how they are nice guys yet women don’t have sex with them, so rape should be legal and sex slaves should be a thing and women should be in cages and JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST. Isn’t that enough?

Sure, some of them may not be the picture of classic good looks. But a LOT of people who got hit with the ugly stick have plenty of sex. The issue is they are so ugly on the inside, that it just oozes out of them like the rot-juice of spoiled meat in an Arizonan summer. They are so vile their blow up doll says no.

doll.jpg

No Steve. I’m not interested.

The Article that Ross Douche-hat wrote points out sex workers or sex robots as a potential for “helping” these poor souls who feel that the universe is withholding them from the 15 seconds of glory they can provide a woman. But how does THAT solve the problem? first, the only people who should ever get to see a sex worker is someone who has a respect for sex workers, and it sure as hell isn’t going to come from these disgusting motherfuckers. I mean, they could repel a fleshlight.

fleshlight

It’s a no from me as well, Steve.

This society owes nobody sex. No people are owed sex. Sex is talked about as a need, and I agree that it’s a “need” in the sense that it’s a biological imperative but guess what happens to you if you NEVER have sex? Absolutely nothing. You don’t die, you don’t get sick, you just have to invest in more Jergens. That’s it. It is inescapable that if you commodify sex as a “right that it speaks to the commodification of women. We did that for most of human history, and the battle is STILL going on to end it. It’s absolutely insane to give these bastards anything but complete derision. People who believe women should be property for their own desires deserve exactly zero sympathy, and frankly, their posts and tweets and articles should be treated as threats.

This isn’t something that needs discussion. It needs stomping in to the ground. It should be condemned in the same manner that we condemn unarmed black men being shot, Racists from marching with tiki torches, and confederate flags flying on public grounds. (Yes. I KNOW.)

If you see anyone espousing these views, swat it like a mosquito. Mercilessly. And for Fuck sakes, maybe everyone should ignore the New York Times.

and to end I just want to post the one picture of sex robots that I saved for this article and didn’t get a chance to use so you can get a small picture of what my google ads are going to look like for the next while.

sex-robot

1027:No, Steve. 1028:No, Steve. 1029 No, Steve.

With my humblest apologies to most Steves out there.

Smartassicus out.

VENI! VIDI! Defuit…

Everyone loves a winner!

Winning isn’t the most important thing, it’s the only thing!

Keep trying, keep fighting, and you will win.

Barf. Sorry. If you’ve ever won something significant, congratulations. Hell, if you take pride in winning connect 4 with your toddler, go for it. But we are so damned obsessed with victory. It doesn’t really matter what we are hoping to win, but most of us want to win at SOMETHING. So much so that we’ll even claim the victory of other people as our own. Read any Twitter thread after a sports ball match and the insufferable prattle of fans will make you want to gouge your eyes out. Particularly if you’re one of the fans of the winning team, in which case fuck you, I don’t care. Julius Caesar once said Vidi, Vini, Vici. I came, I saw I conquored. Well yeah. If you count sitting back and letting men who had no choice in the matter stab each other in the faces until there was enough dead people. I’m certain his correspondence with Ptolemy fans was annoying as fuck.

Julius

Egypt sucks, Rome number one! Smashed you XXII to IV!

But it’s not really about sports or BCE wars, what I’m really referring to is treating everything we do like a victory, or a failure. No, this isn’t some motivational speech about learning from failures.

knight

Thank you Sir Ian. I learned a valuable lesson, but I feel the teabagging was unneccessary.

Nor is it some sad sack woe is me I never win lament. I win, sometimes. Almost everyone “wins” at something eventually. But is it really winning? (Ok, yes. Playing XI on a triple word score two directions in scrabble is winning, and totally pisses off your opponent.) Why aren’t we talking about earning as much?

Because meritocracy barely exists. So we seek to win, instead of not lose. Yeah, you have some control over some of it. But most shit is just out of your hands. Think about the best player on the losing team, the best solider in the losing army, they did their best and one ended up going home without a trophy, and the other without his head.

That’s the world we live in. We created a society that doesn’t reward effort so much as it does circumstance. For every story of a plucky young thing who grew his small patch of pumpkins in to a New England area monopoly on the gourd market, there are a million crashes and burns. A woman marries a man, he abuses her, then leaves her, she has kids, a deadbeat ex, and can’t make ends meet. What about the student who doesn’t have a rich mommy and daddy to pay their way through Ivy league? They lose by comparison to the brain dead dumbfucks who have no brains but plenty of money. Not to name any names.

bushgeorgew_120714getty

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on toast. Yeah. That’s it.

I don’t want this piece to be long. The point is, you aren’t going to win much. When you do, a lot of it won’t have to do with you. If it does, it will likely be a small victory. If it’s not, It will probably be the only thing of real significant triumph. And if it’s not, well fuck you, you overachiever. Congratulations. For most of us it’s I came, I saw, I failed.

We go through life mostly making ends meet, and trying to extract some happiness from existence, and we succeed or fail at varying levels. It’s mind-boggling that people still think that working hard and effort are the key to success. It’s like they’ve never met a CEO.

We can take one small Schadenfreude for the jerks who win though. Those assholes who prance and strut about their victories, or make declarations of their own awesomeness. Victory is fleeting. Winners typically turn in to losers. They get defeated down the line. Fall on their face, or simply slip away in to obscurity. I’m not saying we should be jerks ourselves. But don’t feel to jealous, or worry about it too much. It won’t last. Just like that smug bastard Caesar, who really had a sharp end to his win streak. (Yes. you are allowed to unfollow me or send me a message cursing me out for that joke.)

maxresdefault.jpg

I came, I saw, I shit myself as I bled out.

Smartassicus out.

Demockracy

 

 

No, I didn’t spell it wrong.  I wanted to write a little piece of the mockery of Democracy.  Or to Mock democracy.  Or to deMock demoracy.  I’m getting confused so I’ll just get to it. Before I begin, I want to make note that I’m not specifically speaking of any one nation.  I will point out a few issues in a few nations, but the purpose is the entire concept of democracy.

 

On face value, democracy seems awesome.  everyone gets their say!  All voices are heard!  everyone is equal and…  that’s entirely bullshit.

 

header

Don’t worry. most people don’t count.  It’s not just you.

The reality is, in most democratic electoral systems, it isn’t one vote one person equality.  In the US, you have the electoral college.  (yes I know how it works, yes, I know that America is a Republic and Yes, I know despite getting 3 million fewer votes, Trump won.  I just think it’s really fucking lame.)  The leadership of the nation is decided by STATES, not people.  If Florida went red by ONE vote, the whole state goes to the Republican nominee.  This is predictably stupid.  Likewise, the Senate is decided by state representatives, and it will always lean Republican, because red states stay red.  You have a population that is majority center or left of center, and a system that aids the minority.  It is a recipe for gridlock and obstructionism and polarized slap fights.  it’s dysfunctional as fuck.

 

People voting in booths

You can tell who they are voting for based on their shoes. from left to right, R,D,BERNIE,R, D.

But they aren’t the only nation with problems.  the UK and Canada and Australia use various iterations of the parliamentary system.  Typically in this system you don’t even vote for your leader as a nation, it is chosen within the party.  You are voting party instead of representative.  (although you are voting for a representative at the ballot box.)  The reality is it doesn’t matter if the person of your party choice is a lazy ass and the candidate of an opposing party is a diligent hardworking individual.  People tend to make their choices based on the party they want to win the election.  So it’s a sham having people’s names on the ballot.  We ordinarily don’t give a fuck who it is.

Add to that,  Many in America complain that a two-party system sucks and there should be other options (there are, you can piss your vote away on anyone you want, who won’t get elected) but they don’t understand the multi-party problems.  For a long time, a Conservative government was in power.  With 40 odd percent of the support of the nation.  Because there are so many parties the vote gets split.  There are 5 major parties in Canada alone (although only 3 that anyone takes completely seriously right now) and Canada, a fundamentally left leaning country, was governed by the right for a dozen years because of vote splitting.

Go back even a little further, and because of the way seats are divided among provinces, we had a period of time where Quebec separatists were the official opposition party.  That’s beyond insane, but that’s how the system works.

So then you think “well, let’s have DIRECT democracy.  Every issue voted on by the population directly!  That sounds so…  ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE?

Referendums are an example of direct democracy.  Australia had one on the legalization of Same-sex marriage.  Let’s forget for a second that the mere thought of basic human rights being voted on is an abomination, and congratulate Australia for at least having enough yes votes to stop the bigots.  (It’s ok to vote no… to being a decent human being.)

Brexit is another example.  People voting in the UK as to whether or not to separate from the European union.  An example of xenophobic white people and a collection of people who really don’t know what they’re talking about voting against the best interests of their nation because something something immigration.

Willie

(It’s also the continuation of the tradition of the Scots being fucked over by the English)

 

And in Ireland there is a battle over the 8th Amendment.  Where the reproductive rights of women will be voted on by the entire populace.  Which makes total sense, right?  An issue that affects only women of childbearing age, being decided by a group of people that includes roughly half men, and a portion of women who are beyond pregnancy years.  It’s a matter where the minority who it affects are outnumbered greatly by those who it doesn’t.  I can’t fathom why women’s reproductive rights should be voted on by this guy.

 

old man

Been awhile since my genitals worked but I want to stop women from deciding on theirs.

So direct democracy is kind of fucked up too.

Now let’s go in to magic land and pretend they found a way to make it completely fair with no gaps in the system and no shift one way or the other:

you still have completely uninformed people voting.  Reality has absolutely nothing to do with the process.  Single issue voters account for a large portion of populations.  There are red states that vote based on Jesus and ‘bortion. It’s the reason the tangerine shitgibbon is president.  People would rather vote for insanity than give up on their one or two main ideological points.  Everyone gets to vote (except children, felons, and those that have been systematically and deliberately disenfranchised, of course.)  You have a vapid, ill-informed populace making decisions that they know nothing about.

flat.jpg

Try not to be too depressed that your vote counts the same as his.

 

Any system that would weed out the completely uninformed from voting would be undemocratic.  Say, a civics test.  Or even the dementia test that The Donald took.  It would disenfranchise people.  But systems that allow empty heads on meat sacks to vote, you have blithering morons casting votes. Is there a solution? No, not really.  Well, the extinction of mankind.  But we’d have to have a referendum on that.

This is Smartassicus, endorsing GIANT METEOR 2020.

Now set aside the absolute nihilism my writing has caused, and for fuck sake, get out there and vote.