Monday, December 18, 2017

This Week in Social Justice Warrior-Dom (Dec. 18, 2017 Edition)

Trigger warning activated! Our biweekly recap of everything that irked, irritated and aggravated SJWs is back with a vengeance!

By: Jimbo X

The mainstream media has to eat its own shit for promoting a deluge of 'fake newz' about Donald Trump

Even though there are at least 100 valid reasons as to why Hillary Clinton didn't win last year's election, the media has convinced itself that the REAL reason Donald Trump is president is because those goddamned Russians ran a couple of fake newz stories on Facebook and since Middle America is so fucking stupid, they really did believe allegations that Clinton has sex with potato-headed space aliens and is therefore unfit for duty as leader of the free world. Of course, these same people are a little apprehensive about actually pinpointing specific examples of "fake newz" swaying people away from Hillary Clinton (seems to me most of the people who voted for Trump never would've voted for Clinton, no matter the circumstances), nor can the MSM name ONE undecided voter who was cajoled into voting for The Donald after reading some clickbait article on Twitter. And of course, the liberal barons of American mass media would never fess up that their own preferred brand of "fake newz" has had massive import on forming the political consciousness of Millennials - as evident by this NPR article from 2010 and this Pew study from 2014. Alas, the heaviest of heavy hitters in the U.S. mass media/entertainment complex recently had to hone up to not just one but FOUR recent "fake newz" items they themselves tried to pass off to the American public as legit.

First up, ABC announced they were suspending Brian Ross - the company's chief investigative reporter - without pay for four weeks after he "revealed" that Michael Flynn would testify against Donald Trump and tell God and everybody that the sitting POTUS commanded him to chat it up with the Ruskies before he won last year's election. Indeed, the clucking hens on The View even interrupted their regularly scheduled conversations on periods and how they're being oppressed day-in, day-out despite having million dollar TV contracts to lead the studio audience in a minute long celebratory cheer once the "news" broke. Alas, Ross kinda' made a boo boo in his report - you see, Flynn did indeed say that Trump asked him to talk with some Russian officials, but it occurred after Trump was elected, not before. Well, at least watching those same annoying, irritating, wrinkled up vaginas back track on the next episode made for some great television - and we have to give those broads nothing short of perfect tens in mental gymnastics, as they desperately, direly tried to convince the masses that their brand of inaccurate reporting was a mistake, for real, ya'll, and not meant to be misleading or manipulative or anything like that. Shit, if you can't trust the same network that broke into a grocery store, fucked up the produce themselves then blamed it on the managers and got sued for a bajillion dollars, just who can you trust in these most turbulent and troubling of times?

But before that you had the barons of the New York Times try to run wild with a story that Donald Trump was about to fire Rex Tillerson. You see, they got a hold of some kind of report that suggested the White House Chief of Staff wanted to dump him in favor of CIA Director Mike Pompeo. Alas, both Tillerson and Trump rebuked and rebuffed the "intel" as bullshit, which forced the New York Times to run a lengthy correction firmly explaining what went wrong in their reporting and the specific safeguards in place that will prevent its employees from ever publishing such mendacious nonsense ever again. Nah, I'm just kidding - they didn't do anything, and even in their follow-up article with Tillerson and Trump's "nope, that's bullshit" comments included they still tried to pass off their handiwork as "in the right" because their initial report still noted that he and his top diplomat weren't seeing eye to eye, and by golly, that's the important thing people shoulda' took away from the article

And then there's the odd case of the Reuters news story that suggested Deutsche Bank received subpoenas for Donald Trump's account details as part of some kind of Russian probe. At 4:30 in the morning on Dec. 5, Reuters reporters Arno Schuetze and Karen Freifeld released a story stating matter of factly that some kind of federal investigator looking into supposed Russian meddling had asked the bank to hand over accounts data on the Trump family. Alas, that report - which, as always, cited an unnamed "person close to the matter" as its only source - was quickly dispelled by both Trump and the bank as utter hooey. While Reuters has kept its correction-but-not-really-a-correction online (which never dispels their own reporting as erroneous but continues to imply that Trump's lawyers and the bank are both lying) for some enigmatic reason the original report has all but vanished from the Web, with only fragments saved to the Internet Archive around to prove the article existed in the first place. Interestingly, a cursory glance at Schuetze's and Freifeld's oeuvre for Reuters seems to suggest they've been chasing some sort of unproven Deutsche Bank/Russian collusion angle all year long - my, such could never be an instance of people wanting something to be true so badly that they just imagine it into reality, no?

And then there's CNN, who had to swallow its own turds when they PURPOSEFULLY tried to "inform" its readers and viewers that WikiLeaks gave Donald Trump, Jr. advanced knowledge of 2016's DNC info-dump ... this, despite the fact that WikiLeaks didn't even speak with Donald Trump, Jr. until several days AFTER said info-dump occurred. Of course, rather than capitalize on the fact that one of their chief competitors actively tried to mislead and fool its audiences into believing a bunch of bullshit, the New York Times instead rushed to the aid of CNN, lamenting the incident as little more than "another prominent reporting error at a time when news organizations are confronting a skeptical public and a president who delights in attacking the media as 'fake news."

Naturally, the blase attitude of organizations like The Washington Post - who continue to exaggerate unfounded accusations about Donald Trump while continuing to write off their own politically driven blunders as no biggies - is not only one of the major reasons why journalism as an industry continues to march ever closer to the sepulcher, but in many ways the crux of Middle America's resentment of liberal politics in general

Rather than accept or acknowledge your own economic wants and desires for governmental autonomy as valid, these multi-billion dollar mass media conglomerates are hell bent on mocking, criticizing and condemning everyone whose politics don't vibe with those who report on the news, going as far as to fucking make up stories to "prove" their sociopolitical points. Which, naturally, is a disastrous - if not downright suicidal - business strategy. 

I mean, the media has been chiding and insulting conservatives for decades - to the point it can rightly be said that most mainstream media outfits in the U.S. have long since given up on reporting on factual matters in favor of recreating reality in its own graven image - and now these fuckers are wondering why Middle America doesn't trust them, buy their publications or watch their TV programs?

Lying to the public is one thing, but lying to yourself is delusion on an entirely different level. And with the general public no longer invested in the MSM's brazen political idealism, just who the fuck is the media left to lie to but their own?

U.S. judge says it's OK to deny students' rights to public education for liking 'racist' memes on Instagram

Everybody in the U.S. has probably heard the story of the Little Rock Nine - the African-American students who wanted to attend a formerly all-white school and had to have the U.S. military called in as back-up just so they could attend classes back in the late 1950s. The way it was taught to me in school was that these kids thought public education was so vital, so important and so essential to living a fulfilled life that they were willing to get beat up and shot at and called every mean name in the book because taxpayer-subsidized, government-operated knowledge was WORTH the threat (and often times, promise) of bodily harm. Well, apparently, the judges in San Fran don't exactly value public education as a vital, government-protected right for the young folks no more - you know, just as long as they port about racist sentiments, which we can all agree are so vile and reprehensible that government agencies should have the right to refuse public services to anybody they suspect of harboring intolerant thoughts. On Nov. 29, U.S. District Judge John Donata ruled in favor of Albany High School, a Bay Area school that suspended five predominantly Asian students attending classes there after they liked images on Instagram of black people being lynched and compared to monkeys. Now, even though nothing happened on school grounds or physically involved other students at the school, Donata nonetheless reasoned that the school was not besmirching the students' free expression rights - even if the actions occurred off campus and in private. Indeed, per Donata, the feelings and emotional well-being of the students that have to attend classes alongside the students who "liked" the offending content are far, FAR more important than citizens having the basic, Constitutionally guaranteed right of both free expression and free association"These cases establish that students have the right to be free of online posts that denigrate their race, ethnicity or physical appearance or threaten violence," Donata "explained" his ruling. "They have an equivalent right to enjoy an education in a civil, secure and safe school environment."

You know, those "civil, secure and safe school environments" where students get gang raped by 20 boys at a time and get murdered execution-style next to the jungle gyms and monkey bars - which, I believe we are all in agreement, are nowhere near as horrific as Asian kids making fun of black people for having dispositions superficially resembling those of the lower primates on Facebook.

 Babe writer tells white people not being racist is actually racist

Now, the name "Katie Way" might ring hauntingly familiar to you. And it should, because that's the name of that shitty clickbait writer who fruitlessly tried to cajole me into being a primary source for an op-ed insinuating white supremacists were closeted Taylor Swift fans. Well, apparently stuck in the throes of depression because none of her shitty articles was getting her enough attention on Twitter, Katie decided to go level 9000 retard with her reverse magnum opus "Sorry White People, But Trying Too Hard Not To Be Racist is Low-Key Kind of Racist," which includes such delightful nuggets of wisdom as ...
"Adopting black slang when trying to appeal to a black audience is, unfortunately, kinda racist and definitely appropriative, even if you're doing it because you think it's cool or even (yikes) trying to make someone else feel more comfortable."  
"Then there are white women who appreciate yoga a little bit too much, the kind who devote entire Instagram feeds to their 'practice' and flood the #chakra hashtag. Or white students who take a spring break trip to Thailand and come back to school two weeks later rocking elephant pants and a big ol' Buddha tattoo, because Eastern religion is so much more chill."   
"But we kind of know that stuff is bad now, right? Because white people are into busting racism now, and they're ready to point it out anywhere they see it, especially online, even when the people of color who they're supposedly defending don't really see… anything."
You ever wonder why you never see articles about all the things black people have appropriated from white people, like basketball and rap, or all the things women have appropriated from men (like, I don't know, the roads they drive on or the gasoline in their cars or even the coffee beans in their $7.98 soy frappe?) I guess that's because such would unfortunately highlight the vast discrepancies in the contributions to modern society that men have made compared to the women, or that Europeans have made compared to the Africans. If a white person uses the term "woke" or some other stupid bullshit phrase, it's cultural intolerance - meanwhile, if a black person uses an iPhone (created by an armada of white men), Twitter (created by white men), the Internet (created by a white man) or credit card (invented by a white man), it's NEVER cited as an example of Caucasoid cultural theft. But as much as I may hate it, this Katie broad made have a point with her concluding statements about white people constantly white knighting for the people of color.

After all, a reader survey conducted by the ethno-tastic website The Root earlier this year all but made their hatred of anti-racist whites known when its readers voted "white allies" as a the worst white people in the world, ahead of The Daily Stormer publisher Andrew Anglin. So, uh, Katie - mind telling us why white people ought to break their necks for people who hate their guts again?

Gay men are officially more privileged than heterosexual males

Despite the term being used approximately 958,000 times by aggrieved leftist identitarians, very few people can objectively, quantitatively define what being "privileged" entails. Alas, one would assume that at least one fringe benefit of being "privileged" would be having a higher standard of living than the aggregate American, and what do you know, a new report from Vanderbilt University lets us know something plumb shocking: despite being constantly posited as victims of a remorselessly homophobic culture, gay men in these United States are actually outearning their non fudge-packing and ding dong-sucking male colleagues. And it's a substantial lead at, that - per the researchers, gay men are now making ten percent more per year than straight dudes (which, rather curiously, the authors describe as a "10 percent premium" - although I reckon there's at least one other word that starts with the letter "p" that would also suffice as a desciptor for the findings.) "Our results challenge scholars to understand differential workplace experiences of sexual minority men versus sexual minority women and highlight the strong interconnections between the spheres of work and family for LGBTQ Americans," states researcher Kitt Carpenter. Boy, here's to hoping the first thing researchers challenge is all that income disparity between vadge-lovers and sperm-slurpers - although in this scenario, it's hard to imagine the scholarly elites giving much of a fuck about economic inequality, considering the hegemony is positioned in a way they prefer.

The Atlantic fat shames Donald Trump (while not so subtly hoping he has a heart attack and dies)

Of all things, the one aspect of Donald Trump's cult of personality that's most bedeviling for liberal clickbait shitrags and shitsites is his weight. While it's oh so obvious that the stewards of contemporary secular progressivism would LOVE to mock the Commander in Chief for tipping the scales at nearly 300 pounds, their own political dogma prevents them from mocking anyone for being a lard-ass, which they decided many moons ago was an unpreventable disability and NOT the consequences of eating a surfeit of calories and an amazingly sedentary lifestyle. Alas, The Atlantic tried to tread the dangerous waters betwixt public fat shaming (not acceptable with the liberal hivemind) and generally mocking the President (not just acceptable with said liberal hivemind, but essentially mandated at every conceivable opportunity) with an article entitled "Trump's Food Choices Grow More Concerning," which chronicles the dietary observations of our proud POTUS made by Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski in a new memoir. What makes the article really a sight to behold, however, is the editorializing inserted by author James Hamblin, who makes the following statement at the end of the story:
"For a person whose primary concern is food being isolated from the world, hyper-processed sugar cookies are less of a threat to the self than would be a salad or an apple. Oreos are a paradigm of diabetes- and obesity-inducing foods, and these conditions drive the country’s leading cause of death.
There is no question that this diet is dangerous and is very likely to shorten a person’s life. His dietary pattern adds to the picture of a 70-year-old man who has long been living against all health advice—who does not exercise, who barely sleeps, who has tumultuous relationships, who is frequently enraged. His lifestyle seems pulled from a question on a medical-school exam where the answer is 'prepare the cath lab.' 
Decisions to live this way would seem to offer insight into Trump’s ability to assess risk. In light of a nuclear standoff with North Korea, rapidly warming oceans, and a looming tax bill that would leave millions more Americans without health insurance, his approach to self-maintenance is not reassuring."

So not only does the author try to make the most awkward attempt in human history to simply say "that man is FAT" in the least offensive manner possible to The Atlantic's no doubt morbidly obese bread and butter, he then takes it a step further and says that Trump's Oreos (boy, I bet Nabisco LOVES their product being called a "paradigm of obesity") eating habit COULD in some way impact his approach to thermonuclear diplomacy. With that in mind, Heaven only knows what outlandish shit The Huffington Post would've said about William H. Taft had the Internet been around back in the early 20th century.

Believe it or not, however, that isn't the ONLY recent example of the MSM using precious, precious airtime to chide the President's eating habits. Indeed, CNN spent an entire segment criticizing Trump's purported 12 Diet Coke a day habit - which they elected to cover in lieu of an active terror attack happening LIVE in New York at the very same time.

Hopefully not as long as it takes to steal U.S. Treasury funds from black credit unions to give to you husband's bank, I'd imagine.

Statistics emerge revealing Muslim migrants are responsible for more than 80 percent of Sweden's gang rapes

I don't know if you are aware of it, but for some mysterious reason, Sweden has had a perplexingly pronounced problem involving its womenfolks getting sexually maltreated over the last five or six years. And Swedish government - the progressive, socialist utopian dream-makers they are - have been surprisingly and suspiciously mum on the official mass sexual attack demographical data. Well, that all recently changed when somebody hacked into Sweden's national Criminal Data System and culled data on sexual offenses from May 2004 to January 2015 ... which was then leaked to far right Swedish political group Nordfront, who had no qualms about posting large chunks of ill-gotten data all over its totally objective website, Gangrape Sweden. The statistical highlights, you might be wondering?

Of course, the Swedish media is downright shocked and disgusted by the new numbers. Only they completely gloss over the fact predominantly Muslim immigrants are committing the bulk of the country's most severe sexual assaults and instead are directing their ire towards the leakers of the statistics, whom one publication explicitly references as "Nazis" in the headline of their story on the data breach.

That's Sweden, for you folks - where people are more outraged about white people telling facts about Muslims committing horrific sexual crimes against women than they are Muslims ACTUALLY committing horrific sexual crimes against women. Remember - without eternal vigilance, it can happen here, too.

Cracked, already with one foot in the grave, takes another step towards its virtual demise

Few websites demonstrate the disastrous consequences of SJW creep than Cracked. Ten years ago the jock humor website - itself, a spinoff of the great Mad Magazine ripoff from the 1990s - was at the vanguard of pre-identitarian Internet comedy. Alas, with the editors and financiers of the website getting progressively more - well, progressive - the website's content started eschewing comedy for brass-balled, leftist politics agitprop that didn't even attempt to cloak itself under the guise of "humor." Well, apparently all of that investment in anti-conservative rhetoric didn't bode well for the site's bottom line, as evident by the Dec. 5 announcement that a huge swath of Cracked's editorial board - including long-time writers such as John Cheese and Josh Sargent - were getting shit-canned as costs-saving measures. Alas, that still leaves head honcho David Wong - who is actually a white man named Jason Pargin - around to churn out such fantastic content as "Five Ways Society Trains Men To Expect Sex From Women" and "Five Horrifying Ways America's Hunting Undocumented Immigrants" - that is, when he isn't retweeting the desperate, pathetic pleas for employment from the people he himself just fired. Needless to say, it's definitely time to put this website on deathwatch - if it makes it to 2019, I'd consider it miraculous.

Google to hire 10,000 people to scrub YouTube of 'offensive content'

Despite already having a dubious community content monitoring program in place, the suits at Google just aren't satisfied by the algorithmic filtration of "offensive content" on YouTube, which - in their eyes - is still letting far too much "hate speech" sneak its way in there. Thus, the catalyst for Google's recent announcement that, beginning next year, they will hire ten thousand employees to do nothing but monitor YouTube for hateful, hurtful and harmful videos and comments - although the company remains (and really, always has been) mum on what it is they mean, precisely, when they say something is "hateful," "hurtful" or "harmful." In a Dec. 4 blog post, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki praised the company's use of "machine learning" to detect and shut down 150,000 videos containing what Google deems to be "violent extremism." Alas, if Google's proprietary thoughtcrime-seeking bots are doing such a bang-up job purging YouTube of rancorous, hate-fueled (digital) crimes against humanity, it's only reasonable to question why the company feels the need to add 10,000 full-time human video checkers to their payroll. Well, let's let Susan herself give us el rationale. "Some bad actors are exploiting our openness to mislead, manipulate, harass or even harm," she stated. "We are also taking aggressive action on comments, launching new comment moderation tools and in some cases shutting down comments altogether." So apparently, the bots might be pretty good at picking up ISIS and child porn videos, but those darn robots still don't know how to detect microaggressions and implied hate speech - hence, the need for well-trained virtual SJWs to ensure YouTube remains devoid of anything that can be construed as anti-multiculturalism, anti-P.C. and ultimately, anti-globalization. Interestingly enough, just a few days later some internal documents mysteriously showed up outlining the protocols for YouTube's demonetization processes - which, naturally, included some suspiciously vague non-definitions for content the YouTube powers-that-are deem "antagonistic," "politically extreme" and "controversial." Seems to me YouTube simply wants to shake as many accounts producing content antithetical to their own political dogma off the site as possible; and in that, not only is Wojcicki doing a damn dandy tribute to one Joe McCarthy, she's also making Mao Zedong himself plumb proud

CNN tries to downplay national surge in premature white deaths by drawing false equivalency to black cocaine overdoses

In 2015, Nobel Prize-winning economist Angus Deaton released an in-depth report on U.S. mortality trends that publicized an astonishing discovery - that middle-aged, non-college-educated white men were dying off at a rate higher than that of gay men during the height of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. Ultimately, Deaton attributed the "white death" to a confluence of three major factors: alcoholism, drug use and - most notably - suicide, which Deaton theorized stemmed from their despair of being factored out of the U.S. economy. Of course, the report has been widely criticized by people who don't like how arithmetic works, especially the part where it posits white people as victims instead of victimizers and therefore throws a big old monkey wrench in that old chestnut about Caucasians being inherently privileged in these United States. Well, the fine folks at CNN are on the defensive with a new study from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which declares "golly gee, the rate of black people and Hispanics of all ages dying from overdoses has also gone up since 1999, and the media don't say nothing about that because racism." Of course, CNN never tells its readers that the researchers compared the overdose rates of all white people of all ages with the overdose rates of all black and Hispanic people of all ages, therefore artificially increasing the range of deaths for blacks and Hispanics while artificially minimializing the average death rate for white people. Indeed, in CNN's own write-up they pull up a secondary source (Brandon Marshall of Brown University) who outright calls the NIDA report bullshit, going as far as to declare overdose rates for whites significantly higher than those of blacks and Hispanics no matter how you goddamn crunch the numbers. And if that wasn't enough, the CNN "reporters" go as far as to insinuate that the uptick in black cocaine deaths obviously has something to do with nefarious drug dealers spiking the blow with opioids, probably because they, too, are ray, ray racists - this, despite the fact NIDA themselves had no idea whether the increased cocaine deaths even involved opioid laced drugs. Naturally, neither the CNN article nor NIDA report acknowledged the fact that the mortality rates for non-white middle-aged Americans has steadily decreased over the last 20 years while the death rate for white middle-aged Americans has skyrocketed, with VERY obvious socioeconomic factors (among them, a lack of government aid in rural, predominantly white communities) serving as very obvious catalysts for the uptick. Funny how the MSM all of a sudden embraces the "all lives matter" mentality whenever the locus comes off "people of color" as the primary victims - especially when heaps of empirical evidence demonstrating whites are getting the worst end of a bad deal is apparent to anyone with a set of functioning peepers and two brain cells to rub together, no?

U.K. woman announces plans to marry a piece of furniture, reminds Americans why we kicked their ass in the first place

So all the way back in 1776, the Founding Fathers of America finally got sick and tired of England's bullshit and declared independence. Historians say this is for a number of reasons - taxes that were too damn high, the Boston Massacre, attempts to curtail the nation's fledgling liquor industries, etc. That said, I just so happen to subscribe to an alternate hypothesis - that being, that George Washington and Tommy Jefferson and the rest of 'em all had clairvoyant abilities and knew EXACTLY what England would turn into 250 years down the road. And with that little tidbit in mind, enter one Amanda Liberty, a 33-year-old Brit who legitimately looks about 20 years older than that, who recently announced her engagement ... to a chandelier she bought off eBay. In an interview with The Sun, she also discusses having a sexual attraction to several different lighting fixtures (whom she arbitrarily designates as male and female) and a make-believe love affair with the Statue of Liberty. Referring to herself as "an objectum sexual," she recounts having sexual fantasies about a drum kit when she was just 14. "People often can't understand that this is just a natural orientation for me, that I can find the beauty in objects and can sense their energy," she defended her bizarre lifestyle. "I'm not hurting anyone by entering in to a relationship with them, I am simply just following my heart." Of course, the U.K. currently bars humans from marrying inanimate objects, but let's face it - the way things are going in jolly old England nowadays, this psycho broad will probably be able to have a polygamous wedding with a toaster and several underage refrigerator magnets in ten years' time. Huh - I wonder what the shariah law courts would have to say about women having sex with IKEA products? Surely, the Moslems would openly embrace Liberty's lifestyle as healthy and legitimate, and never bury her up to her neck in sand and bash her skull open with rocks, wouldn't they?

...and a few headlines that speak for themselves...

1 comment:

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.