Political Correctness

Yo, everything’s racist

ArgusEyes — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:38:30 GMT

Via arch-fool P.Z. Myers:

I’m a fan of Yo, Is This Racist? even if the answer is almost always “YES”. This particular Q&A seemed particularly appropriate.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/31/word/

That’s a quote for the ages right there. Who’d have thunk it eh?

Anonymous asked: Is it racist that my science teacher sucks balls?

Yo, science education in the US is a fucking political mess of a tragedy, but it’s worth sticking around and at least trying to learn how to apply evidence and logic, because bastardizations of science are basically the favorite tool of the modern racist.

http://yoisthisracist.com/post/16590542766/is-it-racist-that-my-science-teacher-sucks-balls

I must complain. The stereotypical aggressive attitude and phrases such as “yo” here are so racist! This makes blacks look bad.. Racist!

Also.. my back hurts this morning, I think I slept on it wrong. Racist!

Also.. my boss sucks at his job too. RACIST!

The word “racism” doesn’t mean anything anymore. If you call me racist, then you might as well call me a cloud. I’ve got no idea what you mean when you say it. Good job leftists!

On being offended

ArgusEyes — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:22:09 GMT

Nature vs. Nurture and Un-skeptical Skeptics

ArgusEyes — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:07:25 GMT

Ever wanted to hear a so called “skeptic” turn into a yammering true believer, completely abandoning their rationality to defend some dogmatic belief that they may happen to hold to a faith based degree?

Enter Rebecca Watson again.

In the latest episode of the “Skeptics Guide to the Universe”, at the 39 minute mark, Rebecca runs readily into prosthelytization. She lays down an outright bold-faced assertion that we assert boys to be aggressive and that we “socialise boys to play” don’t you know.

Then, all the other guys on the show jump on her for these remarks. Lacking a victimist belief system, they are more prone to see reality as it is. She, however, cannot see how she holds to a dogmatic belief and probably thought she was on safe ground. She was wrong. She also has no children and the other guys on the show do (so I believe).

They took her to task and she gets more histrionic and foolish as the argument goes on. Faced with the evidence, she retreats to try and say that she was simply saying that not “all” men or women are like this. This is a classic sign. When someone takes an extreme position, which is exactly what she did at the beginning when she said that boys are socialised to aggressiveness, then when pounded on this position by sound arguments, they retreat to simply state that they weren’t talking about all men, ever. Well duh, most of the time we don’t mean “all”. Generalisations are one of the most important tools in having a wise view of the world, a generalisation such as “men are more aggressive than women” is true and fair, if you’re sabotaging yourself (using PC and cognitive dissonance) against holding such a view, indeed, being aggressively reactant to it, then you’re not going to understand the realities of the world; such as war, gangs, the workplace, etc.

Boys are socialised to aggressiveness? Hasn’t she ever heard of testosterone.

Later in the discussion Steve Novella makes a joke on how we can test of boys are the same as girls. He says:

“so we should be able to take male babies and cut off their penises and then see how they turn out when they get older”

Enter David Reimer. David was a boy whose penis was badly damaged in a botched circumcision. His parents were convinced by Dr. John Money to cut off the penis, construct a vagina, and raise David as a girl. The experiment failed, horribly.

Scientifically, I think the extreme nurturist position is dead. Watson brazenly waltzes into situations like this because she thinks that she has a tool (skepticism) that enables her to find truth. One of the most arrogant people I know is also one of the rare ones who calls himself a “skeptic”. When you think you’re unimpeachable, then you’re not likely to find your own flaws. Skepticism allows one to grope in the dark to the truth more successfully than you’ll be able to do alone, but it doesn’t produce truth.

Now, the standard assumption on behalf of people who hate me is that I must, in arguing about this, support an extremist nature view. No. In fact, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve moved more and more to believing in the importance of nurture. When you look at how societies can differ, how attitudes like Bushido and Kamikaze can exist in Japanese culture but not in others, it is clear to see that culture is huge in like. However, nature sets up behaviours that we can see in all cultures. Behaviours such as aggressiveness, the maternal spirit, bell shaped curves of intelligence and achievement.

If they’re anything like Rebecca Watson, then do we actually want more women in the atheist/skeptic movement?

ArgusEyes — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:19:30 GMT

Since I last commented, I’ve heard many podcasts and read many articles on the wretched Rebecca Watson affair. Not because I sought them, but because they are brought up at the places I regularly visit. I have commented before, but I feel a sort of last word is required since I’ve not heard many people go over what really pisses me off about this whole thing.

It’s about this whole idea of privilege. The idea being peddled is that we men have such a sense of privilege and chutzpah that we brazenly go where we please propositioning women left and right?

Guys. Do you feel ‘privileged’ to be the pursuers, do you feel ‘empowered’ when approaching a woman at a club or bar? Are these women weak and diminutive? Or are they fully aware of the power behind their own positions? In my experience, it’s normally the latter.

In fact, being able to sit on your arse and be propositioned by guys and be offered drinks. That sounds like a privileged position to me! If I’d exchange my ‘privilege’ for their ‘oppression’ on any day of the week then guess what? It isn’t privilege!

Men and women are different. We ask the women out, because we want to get laid. Sorry. Is this debatable? (And no, I’m not saying that women never ask men out for fucks sake). If the world changed tomorrow, and guys stopped asking women out, then women would probably be the first ones to complain.

Take the ardent atheist podcast episode that dealt with this. The gay host has a female co-host and he fills the panel with three women! So one gay guy and four women discuss this issue. Are you serious! I’ll give you one chance to try and guess which perspective is missing here. This brings a side issue to the fore, the intrusion of politically correct victim groups into a movement which is ostensibly about facts and science. Take this comment:

(2) There are also women out there who do not believe this is an issue because they haven’t personally experienced it, or have experienced things they feel are far worse. Please do not diminish the experiences and emotions of your sisters in skepticism. Remain open to the possibility that you, too, might be unconsciously influenced by cultural baggage.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2011/07/20/is-it-cold-in-here/

Feelings and emotions have no place in scepticism. Skepticism is about facts, not your petty personality problems. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Feminism makes women weak and pathetic. Look at how the goalposts have moved. From sensible arguments about legitimate differences to these Orwellian phrases about “cultural baggage”. It’s all an excuse to continue feeling aggrieved and a victim in societies which, generally speaking, excellent in their treatment of females.

Feminism & PC is not going away, it's getting shriller and it’s growing like mould in a movement that is not ostensibly about it. A lot of people didn’t come here for this.

JREF president DJ Grothe did just that when, a few days before TAM9, he openly addressed the rift caused by “Elevatorgate” and made it clear that unwanted sexual advances or other harassing behavior were unacceptable, and grounds for being ejected from the conference. Grothe also deserves credit for making diversity a priority in his selection of speakers and topic. That’s the mark of a true leader, and the JREF is lucky to have him. Kudos, also, to Big Name skeptics like Phil Plait, PZ Myers, Josh Rosenau, Greg Laden and others who spoke up eloquently in support of Watson.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2011/07/20/is-it-cold-in-here/

How do you know it’s unwanted until you try? Then you’re already fucked (as we know from elevator dude). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. You are a Neanderthal for being a normal, healthy male. Submit to the thought collective and let them mould you like putty.

A lot of people don’t particularly like the victim mongers and their cringing, hand-wringing supporters (most of the leaders in the movement support the Watson view by the way, the kerfuffle comes from those who are in the movement but are not in positions of power – the rot will continue). A lot of people think that Watson’s comments were going too far in criticizing someone coming on to her, they don’t live in bubbles of PC, they’re out there in real life where they have to ask chicks out.

My recommendation. Become a monk. Live on a mountaintop, and laugh at the ridiculous monkeys scurrying around below you with their stupid, petty little gripes and lives.

The modern atheist movement is a boiling sea of oppression and bigotry

ArgusEyes — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:42:09 GMT

..by which I mean people may innocently call female atheists pretty.

Oh noes!

[Me, trying to make a purchase]: Do you have any of these in a box that doesn't say "from someone in New Orleans who loves you"? I was going to get them for my lab and that might be kind of creepy.

[Retail salesguy]: Your lab? I'm not sure those are good for dogs.

[Me]: No, not the dog lab. A science lab. My laboratory. The people who work for me.

[RSG]: Oh, you're here for the science conference?

[Me]: Yes, microbiology. I study germs.

[RSG]: But you can't be a scientist!

[Me]: I can't?

[RSG]: No, you don't look like a microbiologist.

[Me]: Um, what exactly does a microbiologist look like, then?

[RSG]: Uh...

[Me]: Because I'm pretty sure that I am one. (Rummaging through bag, digging out ASM nametag). Yep, that's my name, and that's the microbiology conference logo right there.

[RSG]: But you're too pretty! You should be in Hollywood.

[Me]: (picking up bag, leaving unpurchased boxes on counter) I bet you've had dozens of scientists just like me through your store today, and never even realized it because of the stereotypes you hold. Conference runs through tomorrow, so I hope you'll say hello to a few of them.

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2011/05/youre_too_prettyyoungfemale_ta.php

Let’s make a parallel. I’m a computer nerd; computer nerds have a reputation of being either thin & sickly, with glasses or a fat tub or lard. Say, if I were an attractive guy (let’s make this a though experiment shall we? Since I am firmly in that aforementioned fat tub of lard demographic so solidly that you’d think I’d have pioneered the stereotype), and I was talking to a bird, and she said something like “oh, you’re far too normal/handsome to be a programmer!”.

Now, if I started stomping my foot and making a big stink about the “bad image of programmers” then you could legitimately call me a sad berk. Many women do it. Fine.. After all, they have a berk-enabling ideology called feminism behind them, driving their actions.

Check out one comment at the thread at the above post:

This summer a fellow med student told me I got called nurse a lot bc I'm young and pretty...?? Um bc OBVIOUSLY there are no young or pretty med students or doctors and all nurses are young, beautiful females. So frustrating!

God dammit! The thought of living in a world where you get called beautiful all the time, it makes me want to fucking puke! That level of oppression.

Here's a hint guys. No compliments. Don't compliment women, don't even bother.
And when they complain that we don't, cite shit like this..

If you’re wearing a whore’s uniform…

ArgusEyes — Mon, 30 May 2011 18:18:06 GMT

So these ridiculous slut walks are heading in my general geographic direction.

A "Slut Walk" protest is planned in Wellington next month as protests grow following a police officer's remarks about how woman should dress to avoid sexual assaults.

In Boston approximately 2000 protesters marched yesterday some holding signs saying We love sluts! and Jesus loves sluts, Associated Press reported.

The protest movement, sparked by a Toronto police officer's remark that women could avoid being raped by not dressing like "sluts," came to Boston after advocates saw similar events - largely organised through Facebook and Twitter - pop up in Canada, England and other parts of the US.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4976243/Slut-Walk-protest-planned-for-Wellington

I don’t have much to say on this topic. So I’ll let Mr. Chappelle say it best.

Also, whilst Googling for images to use in this post, I came upon a piece called “These 'slut walk' women are simply fighting for their right to be dirty” by Germaine Greer (the subtitle is “True liberation is women wearing what they like and abandoning the Hoover.” – what fucking decade is this stupid woman living in?). I love how ridiculous feminism has become. Look at the words used here, “fight”, “right”. Question; what right are these women being deprived of? Is there some sharia-style law being proposed against slutty clothes. No. A police officer made a comment. Oh noes! Better take to the streets then! You gotta know how to pick your fights in life I guess…

Oh BTW, if you’re a man, and you’re at one of these slut walks in the march, you’re a pussy.

Larry Summers Version 2.0

ArgusEyes — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:02:03 GMT

Alright. This is a story which has really gotten my goat, for reasons that a so numerous; the least of which are the single-minded subservience by the politically correct faithful, the sheer lack of actual sexism and the fascism and thought policing of the PC thugs who have taken over many aspects of academia and western culture.

So like Larry Summers, Dr. Lazar Greenfield is an experienced and skilled professional who is being drummed out of a position due to some comments which have offended the PC knee-jerk brigade of feminist fanciers. (Sorry, have I used enough pejoratives? It’s probably over the top but this disgusts me and I really, really hate these people.). From respectful insolence (abbreviate for the point, go to the main article and read the whole thing).

I actually don't think so. Basically, it's a story of a surgeon making a fool of himself

…

An utterly brilliant man, Dr. Greenfield has authored nearly 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, 55 book chapters, and 8 books.

…

This year, he reached one of the ultimate professional pinnacles in surgery, being elected to be the incoming president of the American College of Surgeons, the largest and most influential surgical organization. Given that Dr. Greenfield is 78, it appeared that he was finishing his career on a high note.

…

Then, as editor, he decided to write a truly bizarre Valentine's Day-themed editorial for Surgery News. So offensive was the editorial considered among women that the entire issue of GSN was pulled from the web and Dr. Greenfield was forced to resign as editor. What caused such a ruckus? Dr. Greenfield apparently thinks that semen is a mood-enhancing antidepressant.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/cluelessness_and_sexism_in_the_american.php#more

Now, I remember this study as I saw it on PhysOrg.com when it came up, I can’t find that link despite my data-archiving tendencies (typical!) so here’s the study from the source. I so want to get this in case it “disappears” from the internet. The premise is that semen, when absorbed through the walls of the vagina, can have anti-depressant and mood-uplifting effects due the hormones contained in that semen. I’ve seen other similar proposed biological effects of semen in the literature, though I do not have the expertise to judge such claims. I rely on people who know more than I to do that.

Now, what I stated above is perfectly reasonable scientific hypothesis. It’s either true or not (or proven and unproven if you want to methodologically pedantic), either way, this is a question for science. Orac has some thoughts.

In other words, in order to make a joke (apparently), Dr. Greenfield picked what is at best a dubious study upon which to base it. Worse, he didn't simply say that sex makes women happier (which probably wouldn't have caused much of a stir; after all there's little doubt it makes men happier, too) or taken a Barry White-like position that it's time to get it on. Rather, he said that it is the semen makes women happy, that getting it on isn't enough by itself. In other words, the implication of Dr. Greenfield's wildly inappropriate little joke, published in the official news magazine of the ACS, is that a woman needs a man to inject his seed into her in order to be truly happy. Therein, I suspect, lies the subtext that elevated the outrage over Dr. Greenfield's remarks to the level they've reached. If he had simply tried to argue, even based on biology, that a little nookie on Valentine's Day can make a man and woman grow closer based on biology, no one would have complained--or likely even argued. Of course, he would have had to leave out out that final study as his justification and in particular left out the bit of its having nothing to do with "promiscuity"--what is this, the 1950s?--but if he had done those things he might have crafted a mildly amusing paean to physical love on Valentine's Day. I'm sure that was probably his intent, but instead he ended up implying that unmarried college age women should have unprotected sex on Valentine's Day because it would make them happier.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/cluelessness_and_sexism_in_the_american.php#more

Here’s that “wildly inappropriate little joke”:

“So there’s a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates.”

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/sexism-charges-divide-surgeons-group/

Shock and horror!

I think you can see now, where the outrage is coming from. This has ticked a list of leftist political pressure points.

It can be perceived as being anti-condom use. This could be used by groups like conservatives or religious fundamentalists to argue against condom use.
It deals with promiscuity as indicated by Orac’s “what is this, the 1950s” outburst. The question of whether promiscuity is better for women doesn’t matter. It’s politically incorrect to say it. Political correctness is an insipid thought-controlling fascistic ideology.
I expect the reasoning behind this is that anything that can be viewed as placing standards on the behavior of women is some kind of plot to keep the “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen” or some such rubbish like that. The feminists and feminist sympathizers hate this. Remember a while ago, I made a video about Dennis Prager’s column on women who’s constant refusal to have sex for not “being in the mood” garnered hysteria from many on the web. To suggest that women’s mood in refusing sex may have negative effects on their relationship and thus be something they don’t want to do that often is certainly true, may be good advice, and it is an accusation that women can’t do whatever they want and suffer no repercussions from it. Such a thing is the true effect of liberty. Feminists want tyranny.
It’s catnip to confirm what they already believe. Never underestimate this temptation in the human animal. We walk around in a cloud of delusions and we seek confirmatory evidence to sustain that cloud of delusions. The waffling hairpieces are moaning about the “state of women” in surgery over this. What this has to do with his comments is beyond me, probably something about a “hostile” workplace or some such thing. I don’t deny that hostile workplaces can exist, in part. I do, however, expect women/whoever to rise above it. That previous statement has set the leftists who read it into a tizzy because it suggests that women become stronger individually rather than moan and be victims.

This isn’t a debate over truth. It’s hysteria.

PC-fuelled too. I keep asking this, but where’s the sexism.

“I was aghast,” said Dr. Colleen Brophy, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, and a member of the organization for over 20 years. Dr. Brophy, who served as chairwoman of its surgical research committee, publicly resigned from the College on Thursday. “I’ve gone back and reviewed the science, and it’s erroneous,” she said. “But I’m resigning from the college not so much because of the editorial but because of the leadership’s response to it.”

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/sexism-charges-divide-surgeons-group/

Sounds a bit like Nancy Hopkins from the Larry Summers affair doesn’t it?

Nancy Hopkins, a biology student at the school, stumbled outside claiming, if she stayed, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.”

http://takimag.com/article/ann_coulter_and_ottawa_u_goodbye_college_hello_madrasah

I recommend you all read this piece from the nytimes blog entitled “Sexism Charges Divide Surgeons’ Group”. Again, what sexism?! It waffles on about the numbers of female surgeons etc, the “old guard” versus the new surgeons coming up through the ranks who embrace “transparency” (through thought policing – please). It’s quite a piece of avoidance and confuscation.

“I’ve gone back and reviewed the science, and it’s erroneous,” she said. “But I’m resigning from the college not so much because of the editorial but because of the leadership’s response to it.”

What response? Where?

“I’m not sure some of the old guard see this as the watershed moment it is,” she continued. Referring to the college’s role as a standard bearer for surgeons and an advocacy organization for patient care and patient safety, she added: “It’s not so much about Dr. Greenfield anymore. It’s about the spine of our organization and the principles by which the organization governs itself.”

What does that mean? Explain!

“There are all these men and women out there who are afraid to say something,” said Dr. Barbara Lee Bass, chairwoman of surgery at the Methodist Hospital in Houston, who recently served on the college’s governing board. “It reveals that there is still this intimidation and fearfulness, and that’s what troubles me most.”

What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Talking. About?

These people don’t think, they feel. The world is on its head.

The veil in France & the BBC is biased (shock)

ArgusEyes — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:04:16 GMT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397

At least two women have been briefly detained in France while wearing Islamic veils, after a law banning the garment in public came into force.

Police said they were held not because of their veils but for joining an unauthorised protest, and they were later released.

France is the first country in Europe to publicly ban a form of dress some Muslims regard as a religious duty.

Offenders face a fine of 150 euros (£133; $217) and a citizenship course.

People forcing women to wear the veil face a much larger fine and a prison sentence of up to two years.

I was all set to rant about this but then I read the news article for the second time and noticed the bias in it. Notice that the title is “Women in face veils detained as France enforces ban”, the article states that the police say they were charged on other things, not for wearing the veil. Yet the language of the piece subtly associates the fact that they were detained whilst wearing the veils. Most people will walk away with a distorted opinion of what the truth actually is. Let me be clear. I don’t know what the reason was, there is the police BS and then there is the real truth and the two are not necessarily one and the same.

That aside. Here’s my opinion on the veil ban in France. If you were to ask me for a list of countries that didn’t know the difference between personal freedom and their own arsehole, I would probably put France near the top of the list. It’s interesting to see their spasmodic attempts to fight back against the extremes of Islam resulting in draconian impositions on what perfectly fine pieces of clothing the citizenry can wear. Yes I look down on the veil, but I also look down on governments who intrude into the lives of the people and thing that the short-sighted “pass a law” approach is an appropriate reaction to a larger problem.

I take part in an unscrupulous line-up

ArgusEyes — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:45:35 GMT

What blog? Yes, sorry. However, I have a number of posts to make today so let’s get started.

A woman on YouTube contacted me asking to use a portion of my “Look not to feminism but to science” video. It is for a documentary promo that she is trying to make:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lydiamariehicksfilms/rediscovering-the-scientist-documentary

Now, I seem to be put in a bad light here. I don't mind and I still consent to be used but the video is interesting in the mentality it puts forward. If you click on the link and go the website for the video, you'll see this oft-repeated Charles Darwin quote at the beginning of the text.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world.” –Charles Darwin from, “The Descent of Man” 1871

Not good. I did make a reply back to her and we'll see where this goes.

I hope you don't mind if I make a few comments? The lady about four minutes in, the one who got sick and changed her major; she seems to have a pretty strong entitlement and victim complex. She made numerous statements about how other people should have motivated her and how the course didn't cater to her as a black and a woman. Is this a healthy mentality? The world is never going to be handed to us on a platter and people who expect this, will fail at life and constantly blame others. Will your documentary be a perpetuitous line of people with this mentality? Are you going to critique this mentality and inspect academically achieved black people like John McWorter and Neil deGrasse Tyson to see if they subscribed to this mentality? I suspect that they probably don’t.

Also, the quote from Darwin at the beginning seems to be one in a line-up of white males (of which I appear to be one) who are to be detested. In this instance your agenda aligns with that of creationists and evolution deniers to paint Darwin in a bad light. However, that quote was not the full story. Darwin was racist by our modern standards. However, in the light of the time in which he lived, he was quite progressive on the issue of race. This quote was not support by Darwin for the extermination of races but it is instead a justification for his theory as to why large gaps may appear in the fossil record. It is a fact that some of the earlier hominid species were probably eliminated by the more advanced hominids. May I ask what your purpose is in posting this quote right at the beginning?

More on ada lovelace

ArgusEyes — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 13:11:25 GMT

So I get mail.

My friend,

You have done some research choosing to use this particular book for reference. My question is what other research have you done into this subject to further back your arguement. You appear to pride yourself on having studied computing, yet those of us who have made it thus far have done so through critical thinking which involves a complete study into the matter using scholarly documents. Here is one for you to review: http://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/contents.html By the way you could use some additional courses in html. Your pull-down for comments is less than satisfactory!

My reply:

Greetings Miscellaneous.

I have not done extensive research in this subject, I’ve done some sizeable research though. I am not writing academic papers or a book and if there is some evidence out there that proves me wrong, then I hope I am not close-minded enough to deny it and that I should modify my views accordingly. However, I feel I have done enough to make a judgement on this topic, Doron Swade is not a mere pleb, he is an expert on this topic.

Doron Swade MBE is a museum curator and author, specialising in the history of computing. He is especially known for his work on the computer pioneer Charles Babbage and his Difference Engine.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doron_Swade

From reading his book, I find this to be an accurate description. I don’t know if you’ve seen this, but he gave an excellent talk at google talks:

Fast-foward to 36 minutes and 30 second in to hear a brief word on Ada Lovelace, I adopt Dr. Swade’s position on these matters. The facts are not behind Ada Lovelace being either a mathematical genius or the first programmer.

Also, please observe my series of blog posts on this matter:

[1] http://www.true-equality.net/archive/2010/07/08/ada-lovelace-was-not-the-first-computer-programmer.aspx

[2] http://www.true-equality.net/archive/2010/07/17/does-truth-matter.aspx

Where in [1], I state the sources for Babbage being the original author of the program in the Menebrea paper. This seems to destroy the link you send me although you didn’t specify which part you wanted me to read.

I don’t know what you’re talking about with html. Strangely enough, I don’t program the YouTube website. Ending on such a petty point lessens your argument and makes you look like you are acting out of emotion rather than reason. Address the issues.

Sincerely, Mark

Feedback from a rational feminist: Radical, moderates and the depravity of the feminist movement

ArgusEyes — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:00:48 GMT

I have received some feedback via my YouTube channel and I have written a response that many here may want to read. I have included the salient parts of her email to me in my reply so I shall not reproduce her email first, but I shall put it below my reply.

(pleasantries omitted)

well, the first point is difficult to prove with figures etc, but a conversation with a cross-section of people who identify as feminist would reveal that very few are radical, and most of the non-radicals think radicals are insane too.

At first, I started to disagree with you on this. However, after considering the point in more detail, I actually agree. I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding on how each of us defines the word “radical” I think you use the term mainly in conjunction with actions, such as the shrieking harpy like feminists ala Harriett Harman and Andrea Dworkin. However, I use the term for radical ideas. Such as ideas which take a radical departure from the tradition of western societies (in concordance with the #1 definition of radical in the dictionary; ‘of or going to the root or origin’).

Now, I do think that most people who self-identify as feminists are not the harpy kind. However, they do hold the belief system of the radicals, albeit, it a more toned down for, and this leads them to not oust the more radical feminists from the leadership. After all, what kind of movement would have an intellectual leadership that doesn’t represent it? I think that it is human nature to protect the movement you have associated yourself with against attacks, as you are doing, but I think that moderates like you create a smokescreen for the radicals.

since many people who are feminist do not identify as such (hell, you probably qualify as a feminist yourself, because from what i gathered, you do support equal legal rights for men and women, despite your criticisms of the movement as a whole. im betting you dont call yourself a feminist, though),

For this argument to work, feminism as a definition needs to be clear-cut and simple as you make out. Someone is or isn’t an atheist. Someone either does or doesn’t have blond hair. However, if you consult the dictionary definition of feminism:

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

3. feminine character.

I think #3 is bullshit by the way, and by no means does the dictionary enshackle our thinking in a rigid way. But I agree with the first two definitions. Feminism is a political advocacy position and is not a simple Boolean representation of being. Imagine a similar thing being done on behalf of another advocacy group..

Alice meets Sue. Sue says to Alice "Hey, are you a member of PETA?" (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).
Alice replies "No".
Sue says "So, you hate animals then?".
Alice says "I love animals, I contribute to the RSPCA. I am simply unwilling to join an organisation with a such shady image".
Sue says "oh, that's just the leaders of PETA, the real PETA members don't support the terrorist"
Alice says "I don't understand how people who are not supported can become the leaders"
Sue says "Of course they can, they are a vocal minority".

From this, we can understand how silly it is to force people to be in a movement they don’t want to be in, or to assume de-facto that to not be in that movement is to be against the simplistic mission statement attributed to it. I know you didn’t make this claim, but I have people quite literally say to me that because I label myself as an ‘anti-feminist’ that that means I hate or am against women. It is a game played mainly with leftist victim “advocacy” movements.

but ill tell you how i, personally, think it happened: simply because the radical feminists are the only ones who think that there's work to be done in the field of women's rights that can be solved the way they're trying to solve it, so they're the ones doing the campaigning etc. basically speaking, the feminists who are part of the feminist movement are almost all radicals, simply because most of the sane feminists stopped actively campaingning when we achieved our aims in the law.

I entirely agree. Or, as I have been known to term it, a movement goes from legitimacy to depravity. When feminism was formed, there were legitimate battles to be waged, but at that point there were layers of persons in the movement. From those who reasonably saw injustices to women in society all the way to those who where perennially irresponsible and saw to blame society for their personal problems (a psychological artefact I see as being the cause of much of leftist advocacy). All types saw meaning in joining the movement, but as the causes were won, the more sensible element left to manage their own lives or didn’t join in the first place, stripping out the outer layer to leave the fetted, rotting core.

When a movement moves to depravity, it essentially becomes a grievance mining industry. Constantly looking under rocks to find the next ‘battle’, however pathetic it may be. Witness the black victimists in the US who spoke out against a ‘racist’ card (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/11/naacp-urges-hallmark-pull-racist-card-shelves/). Witness the sheer ridiculousness of the claim, these people will never leave the movement because they are too emotionally indebted to it, like the person who gains weight in perpetuity, yet stuffs another pie into their face, they eschew proper and healthy action for the easy carrot of blaming others for their problems. These people will never ever leave the movement and I would like to know how you think you can remove these radicals? Since the movement is their life but the reasonable moderates like you have lives of your own. How exactly are you going to mobilise to get rid of them? What’s your plan?

(pleasantries omitted)

Her original YouTube email to me:

well, the first point is difficult to prove with figures etc, but a conversation with a cross-section of people who identify as feminist would reveal that very few are radical, and most of the non-radicals think radicals are insane too. that wouldn't really be scientific, since many people who are feminist do not identify as such (hell, you probably qualify as a feminist yourself, because from what i gathered, you do support equal legal rights for men and women, despite your criticisms of the movement as a whole. im betting you dont call yourself a feminist, though), but it is a good start.

but ill tell you how i, personally, think it happened: simply because the radical feminists are the only ones who think that there's work to be done in the field of women's rights that can be solved the way they're trying to solve it, so they're the ones doing the campaigning etc. basically speaking, the feminists who are part of the feminist movement are almost all radicals, simply because most of the sane feminists stopped actively campaingning when we achieved our aims in the law.

the second point: i believe that there is still a fair amount of discrimination against women, but this is all sociological, not legal, and i feel that a large part of this is actually due to the radical feminists. because men and women aren't quite as equal as sane feminists would like, but it's not a legal problem, and its almost never because of men being sexist. no, its because, to get our comparative freedom truly accepted would require all men to respect us, not necessarily all of us as equals, but that we CAN be equal to them. this might be difficult for me to explain, but ill still try: sociological equality, to me, is not "no-one is better at anything than anyone else", as the more collectivist radicals seem to believe, (or "all woman are better at everything than all men: they're all useless sexist chauvanist pigs who need to be wiped off the face of the earth!!!!!", as the REALLY misandrist radicals would have it), but "some women are equal to or better than some men at things considered un-feminine, and vice-versa: men can beat some girls at girl stuff, without it being either a big deal or a requirement." this hasn't happened yet: it's sometimes a big deal, but it's usually a requirement, with compaines being required to hire a certain amount of women to prove that they're not being sexist, regardless of whether or not they're the most qualified (and if they ARE the most qualified, no-one will believe it: after all, the company in question HAS to hire (x) number of women, so who's to say the very qualified female employee who loves her job and works very dilligently want hired to meet the company woman quota? she'll lose a lot of respect for that, and it isnt in any way her fault.)

and about the big deal? when someone becomes the first woman to do something, everyone makes a huge fuss about it, but to me this comes across as patronising, people essentially going "awwww, clever girl! you got to be president of [insert country/company/organisation name here] all by yourself!!! that's so sweet! coochie coo!!". and lastly, a crucial component of making sociological equality work is respect. women have to respect men, men have to respect women. and what radical feminists are doing is a barrier to all three: they lead the patronising when a woman achieves anything, pressure from them is part of what makes the woman quotas mandatory, and they very rarely show respect for men (yes, when a man holds the door open for you, scream at him and tell him he's a sexist pig. that will REALLY improve his opinion of women. *rolls eyes, sighs dejectedly*). and the lack of respect for men can generate misaimed anger towards all feminists at best (*cough* you *cough*) and outright misogyny at worst.
so what do i feel needs to be done in terms of women's rights? get rid of the radicals! theyre doing more harm to women's rights by accident than someone could ever do on purpose! >_<

and once that's done, and the sane feminists are assembled, i feel our efforts could be better focused elsewhere: there are still parts of the world where women have basically no rights, after all, and that would be a much better campaign to fight than the one the radicals seem to be fighting aginst anyone with a penis right now –_-.

Why I left Britain

ArgusEyes — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:26:06 GMT

Girl arrested for allegedly burning Qur'an

A 15-year-old girl has been arrested in the West Midlands on suspicion of inciting religious hatred after allegedly burning an English-language version of the Qur'an – and then posting video footage of the act on Facebook.

The teenager, from Sandwell, in the Birmingham area, was filmed on her school premises burning the book. Police have confirmed the incident was reported to the school and the video has since been removed from the social networking site.

A 14-year-old boy was arrested on Tuesday on suspicion of making threats on Facebook. Both teenagers have been released on police bail.

The incident comes just two and a half months after six people were arrested after filming themselves dousing a Qur'an with fuel and setting it ablaze behind a pub in Tyneside.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/25/girl-arrested-allegedly-burning-quran

First off. They all sound like thoroughly nasty people. Such displays are obvious provocations and emotional outbursts. Can’t think or speak you ideas? Burn a book, burn those rock CDs, gather in groups and scream. Humans love the ritualistic nature of such things. However, the ever quickening decline of Britain is quite a spectacle. Such brazen disrespect for free thought! Such foolishness!

Think about what a term “incitement of religious hated” actually means. Think about the spine-tingling totalitarianism of the statement.

First off, you don't need to actually "incite" anything, as the article made no mention of any riots or violence that resulted from the actions of the individuals mentioned in the piece.

Secondly, think about the meaning of the term. I, as an individual am culpable for actions that incite others?! What a terrible depart from the spirit of western law where individuals are largely responsible for their own actions. Also, given my previous point, there is not incitement needed, all that is needed is offensive statements.

They're actually a Politically Correct blasphemy laws.

Are we to think that a person who insults Christianity (aka the classical religion of the culture) would face the same fate? Maybe you can find me some token cases where this has happened but I cannot believe that this is for any other purpose than for protecting the correct groups.

Take this:

Plans to make inciting hatred against gay people a crime have received a mixed response from church groups.

The plans were announced this week by Justice Secretary Jack Straw. The law would cover gay, lesbian and bisexual people and may be extended to cover disabled and transgender people.

Mr Straw said it was time for the law to recognise society was "appalled by hatred and invective" directed at people because of their sexuality.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5888

Gays, lesbians, bi's, Muslims. A veritable PC grab bag.

We are ruled over by evil despots and cowards, slaves to their despicable dogmas, born of foolishness and ideology. I hope to never go back.

Dan Abrams to write a bigoted supremacist book

ArgusEyes — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:39:14 GMT

Msnbc legal eagle Dan Abrams is making the case for women, literally. He’s inked a six-figure deal with Abrams Books (no relation) to chronicle ways women are superior to men. In “Man Down,” he’ll present studies, polls and other “evidence” to prove that women actually best the boys in typically male areas like gambling and enduring pain, and even make better hedge-fund managers and cops. Abrams isn’t basing this on his own studies of gorgeous actresses: “If I had any unique insight into women, I would be married. I don’t. This is a fun book written from the perspective of a lawyer making a case. A lot of people will be surprised by what we found.” It’s due around Mother’s Day next year.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/dan-abrams-to-write-book-proving-that-women-are-better-than-men-yes-really/

Mother’s day eh? Isn’t that nice. Maybe I can pick up a copy for my mum to help illustrate to her how her son is a worthless piece of shit. Here’s my view on supremacy.

Whilst it is an unavoidable fact that men are better than women at some tasks and women are better than men at some tasks, it seems like a silly endeavour to state that “X is superior, in a general and absolute way, to Y”. Even if you could do it, why do it? Why upset people and sow the seeds of hatred and angst. If women make superior nurses, why jump about shouting “aha – in your face!” It’s obnoxious and counterproductive. Here’s my view on supremacists

Supremacists are not secure, decent people. A person to whom it is important to argue for the supremacy of whites, blacks, men, women, gays, straights, Muslims or whatever, is not arguing for that groups as much as they are arguing for themselves. Feminists or blacklists or many other types of activists are of the same template but with the target stripped out and replaced by something else. The target of the supremacist is not an earned skill such as chess playing proficiency, or interest in Chaucer. Rather, it is a chance physical attribute that took no effort to assume. A black is a black and a female is a female, they do not earn these identities but the identity is the only thing they have to cling to. Let’s refer to this as the identity complex. After many years of talking to feminists, I can safely generalise that the more dedicated a woman is to feminism (let’s put the issue of male feminists aside for now) the less impressive she was as person to me. The nice kinds of feminists who email to take me to task have a passing interest in the subject. They are not on the forefront of the activist wing of the feminist movement and I normally ask them where they fit into things.

The identity complex I described the last paragraph is inevitably going to be tied to the victim complex. Someone send me a great quote about victims:

"The victim stance is a powerful one: The victim is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy. "

http://www.zurinstitute.com/victim_psychology.html

Whilst it may not make sense to think that a person is happy to be unhappy (as in, someone seeks to be a victim which makes them unhappy), but humans are not rational beings and there is power in victimhood. In Theodore Dalrymple’s book “Life at the bottom”. Dalrymple recounts many tales of how criminals in the prison where he had worked would constantly blame others for their actions (IE “it wasn’t my fault I stole the VCR, they should have locked their window”). To not be a victim is to stand face-to-face with one’s own flaws. It requires a savage degree of self honesty to say “I was wrong”. Humans generally do not do this because of cognitive dissonance, any ideas that challenge the things we hold to be emotionally important (I am worthwhile / I am honest / I am good) get filtered by the brain and rationalised before they even get to our conscious mind.

In short, identity complex and victim complex go hand in hand because of the worthlessness of the people who assume them. It takes guts to say “I am unintelligent” and “I have no skill”. It is human nature to blame our flaws on others. The identity victim (that’s it – I am coining that phrase from now on) reaches to what they can, the problem is because I am a woman and women are oppressed, or that I am black. Winners do not whine, they achieve.

That covers supremacists, but what about Mr. Abrams? He obviously isn’t acting on behalf of his own sex here, he’s acting against it. I think he is motivated by other things. Number one is political correctness. PC thought is the “appropriate” way to think in our modern western societies. Because it has successfully garnered the image of being “compassion” to oppressed groups. These oppressed groups are, of course, fronted by people with the identity victim complex. Dan is being very correct in the spirit of the times to be writing a book like this. As can be seen from the questions in the article like “Where are you in terms of writing the book? Is it done?”. This might be the kind of question you ask a policy wonk but it is not what you ask a bigot writing a work of supremacy. PC tells all of us that this how you treat people acting in favour of a victim group but not one in favour of an oppressor group.

It is also possible that Abrams may be seeking affirmation from women. This is an affliction of males to a greater degree than for women because men do more work to earn women approval and attention. To be honest, I have psycho-analysed enough for one day. I’ll end with this. We live in a society of many different types of people. And we do this by getting along. People like Mr. Abrams make the world worse by picking at scabs and setting man against woman. There are better endeavours in life to which one can dedicate oneself, greatening anger is not one of them.

What? “Mosque at ground zero”.. Never heard

ArgusEyes — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:53:16 GMT

Ho hum. I’ve been hearing about this so goddamn long that maybe some here may be wondering what my opinion is on this..

*Drumroll please*

I don’t know.

That’s it. I don’t know. On an issue like this I can see both sides clearly and I also sympathise with both sides. On one side (generally leftward) they make an argument of freedom of religion, the rule of law and equality. On the other side (generally rightward) they make an argument of sensitivity in light of a very special case as well as the motivations of unity under such an act as the proposed mosque/Islamic centre.

Here’s the thing. I can see the good points in each so I don’t know. If a gun were to be held to my head at this very moment, I would probably go with the left position.

What interests me about this foofaraw is not the issue itself so much as it’s the reaction of the political left to those they disagree with. In essence, it is the same old story. It’s bigotry, pure and simple. The resounding chorus from the left is that xenophobia and bigotry is the only possible reasons for this. It’s hard to retell the multiple accounts I have heard but it reminds me of the tea party reactions, all the sources I read or listened to said the same thing. Racism.

Krauthammer on this:

Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."

That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.

What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html

Ada Lovelace was not the first computer programmer

ArgusEyes — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:57:18 GMT

I have received a response to my argument about Ada Lovelace being the “The most overrated figure in the history of computing” (first video result for Google searches of “ada lovelace” – booh yeah!"). This blog post is a counter-response.

---

A lot of your argument seems to revolve around making the case that Ada Lovelace (also known as Augusta Ada King) was a talented and intelligent woman. I agree on this, especially when you consider the limitations of her time.

However, none of this matters. All that matters is whether the massive accreditation that is given to her as the “first programmer” is true, and I contend that it is not. Your argument was essentially one of admiration, an admiration that a woman in a society that did not offer women the opportunities that ours does. I understand the sentiment but such emotion can also cloud one’s own judgement. When people become emotionally invested in an idea then they lose objectivity on it. Ada has been described as a “prophet” [1]. You can buy T-shirts entitled “Heroine: Ada Lovelace” [2]. One does not have to search very far to find articles describing with glee that the first programmer was a woman [3][4][5]. Frankly, I feel that the promotion of Ada Lovelace has more to do with political correctness that objective fact.

Some of the descriptions of Ada pass from “creative” to “egregious” take for example the following paragraph:

Computers have had a massive influence our lives over the last 60 years, but they were actually first invented nearly 200 years ago. And one of the pioneers was a female mathematician called Ada Lovelace, who created one of the first computer programs and understood something of the enormous potential of computers.

[6] http://plus.maths.org/issue34/features/ada/index.html

Ada Lovelace was in no way a pioneer. She made no great contributions to mathematics that I know of, her noteworthy accomplishment was a translation of a paper by Menabrea which included a program that she did not wrote, she did not participate in any way to the design of Charles Babbage’s computational machines and I would be sceptical as to whether Charles Babbage himself could be described as a pioneer. Charles Darwin was ahead of his time and his story is a heartbreaking tale of ambition against the mechanical limitations of the time. Babbage didn’t complete either of his machines (prototypes of the analytical engine exist), and it wasn’t until the twentieth century until the techniques of the time could create computers as we know them. We can admire Babbage’s achievements but he didn’t kick-start a revolution.

The main piece of evidence behind the “prophet” claim is her writings that computers may be used for things such as composing music and graphics in the future. This is indeed prescient and impressive when compared to Babbage’s own small minded vision of his machines being used for mathematics only. Ada Lovelace provided encouragement to Babbage and realised the potential of his machines right away, but what of the main claim?

Lord Byron's daughter, Augusta Ada Byron, (Countess of Lovelace) was Charles Babbage's collaborator on the 'difference engine'. She wrote the first computer program to calculate Bernoulli numbers. The programming language ADA is named for her. She was a longtime collaborator after 1833.

[7] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_collaborated_with_Ch...

Charles Babbage wrote the program for her.

In a series of letters between 1842 and 1843, the pair collaborated on seven notes, the combined length of which was three times longer than the actual paper. In one note Ada prepared a table of execution for a program that Babbage wrote to calculate the Bernoulli numbers. In another, she wrote about a generalized algebra engine that could perform operations on symbols as well as numbers. Lovelace was perhaps the first to grasp the more general goals of Babbage’s machine, and some consider her the world's first computer programmer.

[8] http://www.charlesbabbage.net/

Also.

I then suggested that she add some notes to Menabrea's memoir, an idea which was immediately adopted. We discussed together the various illustrations that might be introduced: I suggested several but the selection was entirely her own. So also was the algebraic working out of the different problems, except, indeed, that relating to the numbers of Bernoulli, which I had offered to do to save Lady Lovelace the trouble. This she sent back to me for an amendment, having detected a grave mistake which I had made in the process.

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace

Let’s all grow up for one minute. Are we to believe that Babbage, who had conceived of the difference engine years before Ada got involved, had not written programs for it? That doesn’t pass the smell test.

In researching this piece, I found a brilliant video of Doron Swade. For those not turned on by the subject matter, fast-forward to 36:25 to see a brilliant summary of Ada Lovelace that I agree with completely.

The Ada Lovelace affair is a case of facts not mattering in the face of an agenda. If you care about the truth, then you should correct those who misrepresent history for their personal emotional gains.

Sources

[1] http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Ada_and_the_First_Computer.pdf. pp81

[2] http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/itdepartment/e390/

[3] http://inventors.suite101.com/article.cfm/who_invented_the_worlds_first_computer_program

[4] http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/03/ada-lovelace-day/

[5] http://hubpages.com/hub/Historiography-of-Ada-Augusta-Lovelace

[6] http://plus.maths.org/issue34/features/ada/index.html

[7] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_collaborated_with_Charles_Babbage_and_wrote_the_first_computer_program

[8] http://www.charlesbabbage.net/

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace

The Princess and the Frog. Racist too, apparently

ArgusEyes — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:24:30 GMT

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

“THE Princess and the Frog” does not open nationwide until December, but the buzz is already breathless: For the first time in Walt Disney animation history, the fairest of them all is black.

Who cares. Judge me not by the colour of my skin yada yada yada.. I only say that, because I’m a racist though. The modern disease is to judge everything through the lens of race. yeah baby! That’s not racist thought. Paying constant attention to, and deference to race isn't in any way race-ism, do you disagree? Racist. Moving on.

After viewing some photographs of merchandise tied to the movie, which is still unfinished, Black Voices, a Web site on AOL dedicated to African-American culture, faulted the prince’s relatively light skin colour. Prince Naveen hails from the fictional land of Maldonia and is voiced by a Brazilian actor; Disney says that he is not white.

“Disney obviously doesn’t think a black man is worthy of the title of prince,” Angela Bronner Helm wrote March 19 on the site. “His hair and features are decidedly non-black. This has left many in the community shaking their head in befuddlement and even rage.”

Sweet Jebus. This world is filled with insufferable jackasses and busybodies with nothing better to waste their time on (ahem). I swear. The issue is not this victim movement or that victim movement. It’s the mentality of the human victim complex and groupthink. These people are invested in a victim worldview. They are happy in being unhappy.

Of course, armchair critics have also been complaining about the princess. Disney originally called her Maddy (short for Madeleine). Too much like Mammy and thus racist. A rumour surfaced on the Internet that an early script called for her to be a chambermaid to a white woman, a historically correct profession. Too much like slavery.

And wait: We finally get a black princess and she spends the majority of her time on screen as a frog?

Everyone is racist, my chair is racist (actually it’s black so no way), her name is racist, the theme is racist, this is racist, that is racist, her skin isn’t “black” enough, his skin isn’t “black” enough, his hair isn’t “black” enough.

“Because of Disney’s history of stereotyping,” said Michael D. Baran, a cognitive psychologist and anthropologist who teaches at Harvard and specializes in how children learn about race, “people are really excited to see how Disney will handle her language, her culture, her physical attributes.”

Hmmm, let me peer into my crystal ball. Yep! It’ll be deemed to be racist, by a lot of really creative twists of logic that defy the imagination. And I confidently expect Disney to cringe and apologise like a puppy that has just wet the rug. Just like Hallmark did with their “racist” card. Maybe Disney they will pull a Capcom and alter the film somewhat.

Either way, I’ll be sitting back to watch the spiralling of society into a black hole (not black whore) of stupidity. Anyway, I’m off to brush my racist teeth and lie down in my racist bed to ponder, in amazement, the bone-crushing foolishness of the human race.