Feminist tries to get Veterans Fired over TWITTER! 

July 12, 2014

(MANY thanks to Linda for creating the transcript)

[0:00] Thunderf00t: So turning up at the funerals of dead soldiers with signs like this is just one of the most disgusting things you can actually do. Callously taking the grief of the relatives of dead soldiers and using that as a springboard to talk about your crazy religion—that’s just messed up. But surely modern feminists of the professional-victim sort would NEVER stoop that low. Right?

 

[0:26] Well, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is frequently found in soldiers who have experienced combat. War is ugly, and it leaves its scars on everyone it touches.

 

[0:38] clip from [?]: “-called in with some artillery and some napalm and things like that. Some innocent women and children got hit. We met them on the road and they had little girls with noses blown off, and uh, and like, husbands carrying their dead wives and things like that. That was extremely difficult to deal with ‘cause you’re like, you know, shoot. What the hell do we do now?”

 

[0:59] Well, Melody Hensley, that’s the DC Executive Director for the Center for Inquiry AND a staunch feminist, claims that SHE has got Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder . . . from Twitter. Now many would just regard that as incredibly stupid. I mean it’s like saying I’ve got Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder because my cookie won’t dunk into my milk; or that I’ve got PTSD because the shampoo and the conditioner never run out at the same time; or that I’ve got PTSD from playing Call of Duty. It simply trivializes and undermines the serious nature of the condition.

 

[1:34] She even goes on to say how just asking her questions like: ‘how does your Twitter PTSD compare to the PTSD someone would get from being raped?’, is actually the very harassment that gave her PTSD in the first place.

 

[1:49] But this is where it goes into full “God-hates-fags” mode:

 

“If you’re in the military and you are harassing me about my PTSD” (that’s her Twitter PTSD) “expect that I will be speaking to your commanding officer.”

 

[2:04] Even for a feminist, that is REALLY, really messed up. You tell her, that the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder that people get from watching people they know, love, and care about being blown up in front of their eyes is REALLY, really not the same thing as someone calling you “Smellody” on Twitter—YOU TELL HER THAT and she’ll try and mess up your career. And she just goes on and on about it:

 

[2:30] “Military/ex-military combat folks: there are groups that have higher statistics of PTSD than you. You need to educate yourself.”

 

[2:38] Oh, that’s wonderfully compassionate and sympathetic to combat veterans with PTSD. And:

“This week has been tough. There’s been a campaign against me. I’m blocking dozens of accounts of people telling me I don’t have PTSD and threats.”

 

[2:56] Oh, well aren’t you a bloody hero Melody. And then she replies to:

 

“You wouldn’t talk about it if you had PTSD” by saying “According to my psychologist, anything that makes ME feel in control is good for my health.”

 

[3:12] -even if it involves trying to mess up the careers of combat veterans with PTSD, simply so you can “feel in control”. And this is NO hypothetical about she will try and mess up your career. This is what she says:

 

“I get it every day. I’ve decided I’m contacting commanding officers, as I just did.”

“They have their info on Twitter. I just contacted someone’s commanding officer.”

 

[3:39] Really, Melody. You tried to mess up someone’s MILITARY CAREER because they didn’t think that you had Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from Twitter? And personally, I think it’s optimistic BEYOND HOPE that after you contacted their employer, simply because it was on Twitter, that you’re not going to get an awful lot of VERY angry Veterans contacting the Center for Inquiry; which you have chosen to so very prominently display on YOUR Twitter account. You are SELF-CENTERED and DESPICABLE beyond words.

 

[4:13] Dear feminists: I wanna make this LOUD and CLEAR. You DO NOT get criticism because you are outspoken women, as people like Anita Sarkeesian, Rebecca Watson, and Melody Hensley would claim. No, no more than Westboro Baptist Church gets criticized for being vocally religious. You get the criticism you do because of the STUPID—or, actually more accurately in this case—the UTTERLY CONTEMPTIBLE things that you SAY.

 

[4:44] Pissing all over the self-same people who have put their lives on the line, in an effort to maintain the very blanket of freedom that you sleep under. You poison EVERYTHING.

Advertisements

IF men acted like Feminists (Part 2): Transcript

July 12, 2014

[0:00] Thunderf00t: Now, many would think that Anita Sarkeesian has said some pretty dumb stuff over the years, and that therefore no one would take her seriously. Well actually, this year, 2014 she got an Annual Game Developers Choice Award. Specifically,

“The Ambassador Award, honoring someone who is helping video games “advance to a better place” through advocacy or action, is going to media critic Anita Sarkeesian, creator of Feminist Frequency, a video series that deconstructs representations of women in game and pop culture narratives”.

[0:38] Woow, that’s impressive! I mean there really aren’t many towering intellectuals who could lay claim to the title of a “media critic”.

[0:47] But what would it look like if men acted like feminists in “deconstructing the representations of men in pop culture narratives? Well I think it would look a little something like this:

[0:59] “So I got a lot of feedback from privileged women on my last video about why men shouldn’t be used as sword practice by females. This was mostly from women in denial about the serious, social-ableist-oriented, neo-gendered boundary-integrity issues that this problem causes.”

[1:20] “Firstly, they need to educate themselves on that it’s possible to both enjoy a media while simultaneously being critical of its more pernicious aspects. That’s why I always ensure that ratings and comments are disabled—for your comfort and convenience. After all, I AM telling you the truth. And only man-haters would want to allow those telling man-hating lies to confuse the clarity of what I am telling you.”

[1:48] “This is why we need BrotherlyBroadcast videos to be taught without opposition in schools, classrooms, and even universities. It’s only fair.”

[1:59] “In this sense, it’s good for us to remember that we are ALL influenced by the media we watch in a way that closely resembles homeopathy.”

[2:08] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games” : “While it may be comforting to think that we all have a personal force-field protecting us from outside influences, this is simply not the case. Scholars sometimes refer to this type of denial as a “third-person effect”, which is the tendency for people to believe that they are personally immune to media’s effects, even if others may be influenced or manipulated.”
“Paradoxically, and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment, are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages.”
“In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected.”

[2:44] Thunderf00t: “That is, the less you think you are affected, the more likely you are TO be affected. I mean, check out the extensive citations below, and you’ll see that I’m telling you the complete, academic, honest truth. But maybe that’s not enough for some people. Maybe there are some out there who say, ‘I’ve watched Star Wars a hundred times. I’ve never even once thought about turning into a Dark Lord of the Sith’; or, ‘I’ve watched The Matrix a thousand times. And no matter how much I think that it’s a fantasy, I still can’t dodge the bullets!’”

[3:20] “Well, facts really aren’t relevant here, because I’m citing feminist research. Specifically, over $30,000 of feminist research.”

[3:30] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected.”

[3:36] Thunderf00t: “The first thing that you have to realize, is just how much these games OBJECTIFY men. Again and again, the men in these games are just portrayed as objects to be acted on.”

[3:50] clip from TEDxYouth, “The Sexy Lie: Caroline Heldman . . .”: “We’re thinking about the object-subject dichotomy. Subjects act. Objects are acted upon.”

[3:57] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “is via what’s called the subject-object dichotomy. In the simplest terms, subjects act, and objects are acted upon.”

[4:03] clip from lacigreen, “SEX OBJECT BS”: “-the subject. Subjects act, while objects are acted upon. Now I know you’re thinking, ‘crazy Laci, what’s this got to do with sexuality?’ And the answer is: everything.”

[4:15] Thunderf00t: “Because, once something has been turned into an object, violence against that object becomes intrinsically permissible. Now I know there will be many out there who will say, ‘that’s absurd. I mean everyone knows that the streets are full of cars, which are objects. But if you try to smash those objects up, you’ll get arrested for vandalism; because, just because something is an object, that doesn’t mean that violence against it is acceptable’.”

[4:42] “Well, once again—facts are really not relevant here; because I’m citing feminist research. Specifically, over $30,000 of feminist research.”

[4:54] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “Once a person is reduced to the status of objecthood, violence against that object becomes intrinsically permitted.”

[5:01] Thunderf00t: “The pattern of having men turned into objects by women such that they can be dehumanized and objectified such that the protagonist women in question can shoot them, hack them, or simply throw them to their deaths, is widespread in popular culture. It even encourages females to throw both old men and young male children off towers.”

[5:27] “Now, the more observant among you might say, ‘but the video you just showed, showed a man throwing a young boy off a tower’. Yes, that’s right—a man being puppeteered by feminist theory. Indeed it’s SO widespread now that almost ALL games are [oriented] to fulfill this deeply seated female need. Women are meant to derive this perverse sense of pleasure from having males desecrate the bodies of unsuspecting male victims. It’s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to having the subservient gender trait of males controlling and punishing representations of other males.”

[6:11] “In my previous analysis, I came to the CLEAR, academic conclusion that MEN killed by women is actually due to the influences of feminist theory in the mainstream media such as movies and interactive media such as games. And now we find that feminist theory is actually ALSO responsible for all men being killed by MEN.”

[6:34] “That is, feminist theory is DIRECTLY responsible for ALL the violent killings of men in the world. This is clearly a very serious issue, and requires IMMEDIATE action—not just sitting around and talking about it, but to take action. I mean, we could all sit around here whining all day and it won’t achieve anything.”

[6:57] “This requires something serious, not just talk—something radical, something totally different from complaining; something dramatic. I don’t know, maybe as severe as a hashtag. Or better still, we can get this subject unpacked and deconstructed by a pop culture critic such as myself; because we all know that pop culture critics are the intellectual gods of our time. And we all know that if you want something done properly THAT’S where you should go.”

[7:28] “I just want men to be whole, complete, non-disposable characters in movies and not to be shot, stabbed, or disposed of by women; or by men who have been subverted by the detrimental normalizations of feminist theory. Is that really such a big thing to ask from the movie and gaming industry?”

[7:52] “I mean, I don’t care that people say this would make a really dull game, and that no one would want to play it. And I don’t care that people say that it would be an economical failure; because we all know that “economic viability” is just another one of those buzz-words that is used by feminists so that they can continue making these computer games with their erotic fantasies about getting men to kill other men. You just don’t know what it’s like to be a MAN, knowing that any woman out there might use you for sword practice. And yet women still pretend this is not a big social problem.”

[8:29] “Well, I think we should end this. Don’t tell ME not to dress like an interchangeable target. Teach women not to kill. Or better still, don’t tell me to sleep with one eye open. Teach women not to stab people to death in their sleep; like in the film, Basic Instinct.”

[8:47] “Now, I know there will be many women out there who will try and distance themselves from this saying, ‘that’s absurd. I would never stab you to death in your sleep because I saw it in a film’. Well that’s exactly the sort of denial you would expect BECAUSE”:

[9:00] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “Paradoxically, and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment, are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages.”
“In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected.”

[9:18] Thunderf00t: “That’s right. The ones who say that they are least affected are the ones who are most likely to stab you to death in your sleep. Remember, this is what $30,000 of feminist research looks like. So it must be true.”

[9:32] “Women simply can’t understand what it’s like to be used for sword practice because of their privilege. Women have the privilege of being able to express their sexuality while feminist theory has prevented men from expressing theirs; sometimes, physically.”

[9:49] “Now many women who have been brainwashed by this feminist theory will say that women don’t have privilege. Well yes, of course you can’t see your privilege. That’s like being raised your whole life in a red room, and then being taken out of that red room and being asked to describe what the color red looks like.”

[10:08] “But just because you can’t SEE your privilege, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, and you doubling down and denying your privilege—or even worse, asking me for evidence for it—is simply making the issue worse.”

[10:23] “And this is the reason why I make these videos on manlyism. And BrotherlyBroadcast Videos have been used in classrooms, high schools, universities, and even presidential speeches. Many a times, I received thank-you notes from parents who’ve used this material to educate their daughters, how stabbing a vulnerable man to death in his sleep with an ice pick, is BAAD. Remember, don’t teach ME to take precautions with MY safety. Teach YOUR daughter not to stab people.”

[10:56] “And with all this female privilege, is it any wonder that they’re incapable of understanding how hard it is, to be a man? In short, if you’re a woman, you are unqualified to tell a man what his oppression feels like. And no matter how much you feel the need to ‘femisplain’ why using men as target practice is just ‘harmless fun’, you just need to shut up and listen. You need to educate yourself on what it’s like to be a man. I mean, this is manlyism 101 here. We need for you to become manlyists, the radical belief that men shouldn’t be used for female sword practice; because if you’re not a manlyist, then you’re a bigot. A sexist bigot. I mean, there is nothing in between.”

[11:43] Clip from “Gloria Allred: If You’re Not a Feminist, Then You’re a Bigot”: “I often say that if you’re not a feminist then you’re a bigot. I mean there is nothing in between.”

Many thanks to Linda for providing the transcript!

Things you C*N’T say! (transcript)

July 3, 2014

[0:00] Thunderf00t: Today’s message is brought to you by Jessica Valenti, feminist author who, under the banner of “MORE FEMINISM, LESS BULLSHIT”, Tweets: “I truly believe that American culture prefers girls chaste and dead over slutty and alive.”

[0:17]: Well, thanks for letting us know what MORE feminism will look like, Jessica.

[0:22]: So, there’s ALWAYS someone out there telling you what you CAN’T say. I mean, let’s start from the very top. Some people think that the word ‘nigger’ is so offensive that they ALWAYS, and in many ways, childishly substitute it by calling it “the N-word”.

[0:39] clip from YouTube, “Charles Barkley discusses the N-word on TNT”: “I’m a black man. I use the n-word. I’m going to continue to use the N-word with my black friends, with my white friends.”

[0:52] Thunderf00t: Even Seth McFarlane backs away from using the word.

[0:55] clip from Family Guy: “WHAT did you just call me?”
“I thought that was your name!”
“THAT IS OUR WORD! YOU’VE GOT NO RIGHT USIN’ IT!”
“Hey—hey—hey—I’m cool, I’m cool. No problem . . . Could—could you pass me the oar, N-word Jim?”
“THANK YOU”

[0:10] Thunderf00t: I mean, don’t these people realize that language is context-specific? The word ‘nigger’ is neither universally offensive-

[1:18] clip from Pulp Fiction (YouTube, “SHEEIT NEGRO!!”)

[1:30] clip from YouTube, “Chris Rock – Black People VS. Niggaz (Bring the Pain 1996)”
“Every time black people wanna have a good time, ign’nt ass niggas fuck it up . . . CAN’T DO SHIT . . . CAN’T DO SHIT! without some ign’nt ass niggas fuckin’ it up.”

[1:45] Thunderf00t: Nor does it make a lot of sense to always allude to it as the “N-word”.

[1:50—3:20] clips from YouTube, “Top Gear Presenter Jeremy Clarkson Apologises over N Word . . .” and from Life of Brian

[3:20] Thunderf00t: I mean seriously, what would be the point of having words that you CAN’T use?

[3:26]: And some people think that the word ‘cunt’ is so offensive that they always, and in many ways, childishly substitute it by calling it “the c-word”.

[3:36] clip from YouTube, “Paloma Faith On Meeting Diane Warren & The C Word”: “Her favorite word was the C-word.”
“OH NO, it’s not like that.”

[3:40] Thunderf00t: Well this video is about words like these, and the people who think that you shouldn’t be able to use them.

[3:48] clip from YouTube, “Ban Bossy—I’m not Bossy. I’m the Boss”: “Words matter.”
“Let’s just ban the word ‘bossy’.”

[3:51] Thunderf00t: Well, in the atheist community, it’s people like PZ Myers. Apparently, he thinks that every time someone uses the word ‘cunt’, every single woman on the planet is insulted, devalued, and demeaned.

[4:05] clip from YouTube, “Rebecca Watson – European Atheist Convention 2012”: “And when I point out that ‘bitch’ is a gendered insult that demeans all women—again—most people, get it.”

[4:13] Thunderf00t: In a recent article titled, “How to drive a Brit crazy” he states “It turns out to be really easy. All it takes is five little words. “’Cunt’ is a sexist slur”.

[4:24] Thunderf00t: So PZ tweeted this image here: which is meant to be a social-justice-warrior joke about what happens when the outraged-about-everything brigade want to point out that “‘cunt’ is a misogynistic slur”.

[4:38] clip from YouTube, Feminist Frequency, “Kanye West’s Monster Misogyny”: “’Misogyny, as defined by The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology, is a cultural attitude of hatred for females simply because they are female.”

[4:45] clip from Skepchick Video [?]: “-um, more that I think that there are a lot of things that are, uh, part of a misogynist culture or milieu that would go by unnoticed by most women. They went unnoticed by me for most of my twenties.”

[4:58] Thunderf00t: That is that it conveys HATRED for ALL women.

[5:05]: So PZ goes on: “I retweeted it, and then the replies came flooding in. The defenses are hilarious, irrational, and indignant. It’s incredibly common to see people protest that it’s a perfectly acceptable word; everyone says it in England; it doesn’t have any sexual connotations at all, because apparently, people in the UK are so stupid that they don’t remember that it’s a word that refers to the female genitalia.”

[5:34] Thunderf00t: Well actually, let me tackle that one. Not just as a Brit, you understand, but as someone who has travelled extensively in the wide world. Firstly, colorful language is rarely literal.

[5:47] clip from YouTube, “Trekkie Lingo! ;-)”: “Your use of language has altered since our arrival. It’s currently laced with—shall I say, more colorful metaphors.”

[5:54] Thunderf00t: When people are saying words like ‘dick’ or ‘cunt’, they are not literally referring to the genitalia of all men or women on the planet.

[6:03]: Secondly, no it doesn’t drive Brits crazy. Indeed, quite the contrary, it just shows that you are perfectly fitting into the stereotype of the archetypal American, as the culturally narrow-brained moron.

[6:16] clip from The Simpsons, (YouTube “It’s Chowder!”)

[6:24] Thunderf00t: -arrogantly thinking that your use of the language in YOUR culture is how ALL other cultures around the world must use their language. Sorry, but language just isn’t like that. It’s very plastic in its meaning.

[6:40]: So, for instance, in America, ‘fanny’ means ‘bottom’. It’s a nice way of saying ‘ass’, and it’s a term that you can quite happily use in polite conversation. Not quite so much in England. No, in England, ‘fanny’ means what ‘cunt’ means in America.

[6:58]: Indeed, when I was a kid in England, the terms were perfectly interchangeable. Yeah, there’s one hell of a learning curve on that one. So yeah, news flash social-justice-warriors, the whole planet does not revolve around YOUR use of language. Just because YOU swoon at the mere mention of the word ‘cunt’ does NOT mean that the rest of the world does too. Yes, words have very different associations in different places.

[7:29]: So for instance, in England what you call ‘pants’ in America, are called ‘trousers’. And what they call ‘pants’ in England, are called ‘underpants’ in America. Indeed in England, the term ‘pants’ can even be used as sort of polite and comical swear word in that if something is ‘rubbish’—ah—sorry, something is ‘garbage’, then you would say that it’s ‘pants’.

[7:52]: Well, when I was a kid in England, the word ‘nigger’ was nowhere near as offensive as it is deemed in America. And this is because we didn’t have the Deep South in England; which is where the name acquired most of its social connotations.

[8:08] clip from YouTube, “Where did the N-word come from?”

[8:19] Thunderf00t: There really weren’t that many African sorts in England. But if there were, the offensive term used in England dated back to the colonial days, which was to refer to black folks as ‘Wogs’.

[8:30] clip from YouTube, “Niggers & Wogs”

[8:41] Thunderf00t: But like I say, the term wasn’t that widely used, because there weren’t that many African folks in England. However, after WWII there was a fierce labor shortage in England. And lots of people came over from both India and Pakistan. And so it was that the name ‘Paki’, short for ‘Pakistani’ became a very offensive way of referring to people with brown skin.

[9:05]: Now for people who didn’t live in that culture, it’s probably difficult to see why it should. I mean, surely ‘Paki’ is just a contraction of ‘Pakistani’, right? Why should that be offensive?

[9:17]: But like I was saying, language is rarely that logical. And it carries a lot of the social baggage of its civilization. I mean you could claim that ‘nigger’ is just a phonetically contracted way of referring to someone from Nigeria.

[9:32]: Or maybe another more pertinent example, would be ‘Jap’, which could simply be viewed as a contraction of ‘Japanese’. But it picked up most of its negative connotations during WWII where it was widely used, especially in America, as a pejorative. And yeah, the term has much more offensive connotations in America, than elsewhere in the world. I mean, this is just the plasticity of language.

[9:58]: And, likewise, other contractions of nationalities or nicknames for cultures are not seen as offensive. So for instance, referring to people from Britain as ‘Brits’, or referring to Australians as ‘Aussies’, or Americans as ‘Yanks’, just isn’t offensive. Language can just be infuriatingly illogical like that.

[10:17]: However, yeah, in England, the term ‘Paki’ is seen as a very strong term. It’s almost like ‘nigger’ in America and is a derogatory way to refer to dark skinned people, along with other terms, like ‘coon’ or ‘the brown people’.

[10:32]: However, if you’re over to Germany, the ‘brown people’ refers to something entirely different. It refers to the modern incarnation of the nationalists—you know, after Hitler’s “brown shirts”. They are “the brown people”. And while we’re talking about things that can be UNfortunately offensive in German, ‘schwarze’ means ‘black’ in German. Whiiich, phonetically speaking, makes this one the most unfortunate names EVER.

[10:59]: And in parts of Germany, cats have seven lives, not nine. And you go a little east to the Slovak ones, and you find that dogs don’t go ‘woof’, but ‘haf’. And cows don’t go ‘moo’, but ‘boo’. And in Easter, they chase girls, and whip them, to make them strong and beautiful for the next year. And the girls have to give them candy in return. EEh, it’s kind of like trick-or-treating; which in itself is a pretty weird thing to do if you think about it.

[11:26]: And in places in Spain they throw tomatoes at each other. And one day a year in Germany, women are allowed to go and cut the ties off men.

[11:35] clip about weiberfastnacht

[11:45]: Or in England, once a year, we celebrate a guy failing to blow up the government, by making an effigy of that man and burning it on a fire. Seriously, that’s “family fun” in England—is burning an effigy of a man who’s been dead for a couple hundred years—on a fire!

[12:03]: Oh, and don’t get me started on all the different ways that cultures celebrate Christmas. It’s like they say: travel broadens the mind—it really does. And you know you’ve travelled enough, when you come back to your native country, and it feels like just another foreign land, with its own set of peculiar customs. And you just come to the conclusion that when in Rome, do like the Romans.

[12:28]: And it takes a special level of arrogance to expect every culture on earth to conform in every detail to what YOU find offensive in Minnesota.

[12:40]: As for the word ‘cunt’ demeaning all women, well like I was saying: language is rarely that literal. When people refer to someone as a ‘cunt’, they’re no more making a reference to the genitalia of women, than calling someone a ‘dick’ is a reference to male genitalia.

[12:56] clip from YouTube, “Trekkie Lingo!”: “Are you sure it isn’t time for a colorful metaphor?”

[12:58] Thunderf00t: Or that calling someone an ‘unclefucker’ is referencing someone who actually fucks their uncle.

[13:03] clip from South Park

[13:06] Thunderf00t: These are just colorful metaphors of our time. So no, around the world the word ‘cunt’ or ‘fanny’ means different things in different cultures, like in Australia, where the word ‘cunt’ can almost be used as a term of endearment.

[13:24] clip from The Sound of Music “what is it you can’t face”

[13:34] clip from YouTube, “Australia, Yeah, C**t – Australia’s new National Anthem”

[13:46] Thunderf00t: So what’s the point of all this, I hear you ask. It’s to let people like PZ Myers and the “I-find-that-offensive!” brigade, claiming that because the word ‘cunt’ is really offensive in America, that everyone in the entire world should find it as offensive as they do.

[14:05]: And the strange thing is these folks think that this is showing how wonderfully thoughtful, egalitarian and progressive they are. When actually, it shows the exact opposite—of just how arrogant, narrow-minded, and ethnocentric they are, to expect the entire English-speaking world to fall in line with their use of language in, say, Cowpoke [?], Minnesota.

Many thanks to Linda for supplying the transcript 🙂

Epic Feminist Fails of our time: ‘Ban Bossy

July 3, 2014

[0:00] Thunderf00t: The reason that the “Ban Bossy” Campaign was one of the most EPIC face plants of our time, is that it was so incredibly poorly thought out on the most simplistic and rudimentary levels.

[0:17] There’s an irony in telling people to, ‘ban the word bossy!’ It is, well, kind of BOSSY.

[0:22] clip from YouTube, “Ban Bossy—I’m Not Bossy. I’m the Boss.”

[0:25] Thunderf00t: I mean, seriously, did no one in this campaign think of the internal inconsistencies here? It portrays women as less suitable for leadership, in that if your dreams of leadership can be undermined simply by being called ‘bossy’, it’s highly questionable if you were ever suitable for making those tough decisions of leadership in the first place.

[0:44]: Then there’s the 1984 police-state solution of BANNING WORDS.

[0:49] clip from YouTube, “Ban Bossy—I’m Not Bossy. I’m the Boss.”

[0:53] Thunderf00t: It makes the incredible leap that girls lose interest in leadership when they become teenagers, and then attribute this to the word ‘bossy’.

[1:01] clip from YouTube, “Ban Bossy—I’m Not Bossy. I’m the Boss.”

[1:14] Thunderf00t: Even if it WASN’T a pure distortion of the actual original study, it would be one HELL of a leap of faith to NOT attribute the change in boys and girls with adolescence, and instead say, naah, it has nothing to do with adolescence. It’s all down to a SINGLE WORD.

[1:33]: Put simply the, uuh, factual basis of this ENTIRE campaign was BULLSHIT. They claim that being called ‘bossy’ keeps women from leadership. Yet EVERY single example they give of women in leadership says they were called ‘BOSSY’!

[1:52] clip from YouTube, “Ban Bossy—I’m Not Bossy. I’m the Boss.”

[1:56] Thunderf00t: And they STILL ended up in leadership of one sort or another. I don’t think you really thought that one through, did you?

[2:03]: And finally, even if EEVERY single thing they said was true, they’ve just advertised the way to destroy EVERY woman in a leadership role in America.

[2:14] clip from YouTube, “The Doctor Vs The Prime Minister – Doctor Who . . .” and clip from “Ban Bossy”

[2:43] Thunderf00t: I mean you can see ‘em now, all sat around, pumped up and brainstorming in their Donald Trump’s Tower boardroom:

‘We need something short, punchy, catchy—something people will remember. Oh! Alliteration’s good. I know—how about banning a word? But we need a word that starts with ‘b’. Not bitch. That’s a naughty word; we don’t want to ban naughty words, just ones that hurt women’s feelings. Ones we can portray as sexist. Okay—look, sure, I know that ‘bitch’ hurts women’s feelings too. And it can be portrayed as sexist. But look, we just don’t want a feminist campaign with the word ‘bitch’ in the title. Okaay? We need something short, something punchy. Wow! BAN BOSSY! Yeah, ban bossy! Now all we need is a load of women in leadership to say that they got called ‘bossy’ and how it destroyed their chances of leadership. Don’t worry about the inconsistencieees. No one’s that observant. And then we’ll just use their billionaire’s brown-nosed network to get the U.S. Secretary of Education involved with BANNING WORDS. And then all we need is a pretty object to put on the front of it. Yeah, a woman of some sort. Don’t worry, this is a feminist campaign. We only call it sexism and objectification when OTHER people use beautiful women to sell things. Ah! Perfection. What could possibly go wrong?’

[4:04]: This was all actually backed by an impressive array of successful women, most notably was Sheryl Sandberg’s baby. Sandberg is listed as being worth about a billion dollars. A billion dollars is actually quite a lot of money. Just to put that into perspective, let say this video gets 25,000 views. From her wealth, she could pay each one of those 25,000 people an average U.S. salary of about $40,000. So, she can’t be a complete idiot. Right? Eeeh, that’s until you realize that Donald Trump is worth three to four Sandbergs. Crazy thing is, if you watch Sandberg’s TED Talk, you’ll realize that she already understands why there aren’t so many women in leadership. She describes it EXACTLY: ‘women typically want to have children’:

[4:54] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “And from the moment she starts thinking about having a child, she starts thinking about making room for that child: how am I going to fit this into everything else I’m doing? And literally from that moment, she doesn’t raise her hand anymore. She doesn’t look for a promotion, she doesn’t take on the new projects, she doesn’t say ‘me, I wanna do that’. She starts leaning back.”

[5:14] Thunderf00t: And childbearing age comes right bang in the middle of career development. And then, a sophisticated and dynamic job [?] is typical of leadership, of those privileged enough to have those jobs.

[5:27] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “In the high income part of our workforce in the people who end up at the top Fortune 500 CEO jobs or the equivalent in other industries, the problem that I am convinced is that women are dropping out.”

[5:40] Thunderf00t: Being out of the loop for six months or a year-

[5:42] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “Nine months of pregnancy, three months of maternity leave, six months to catch your breath-”

[5:47] Thunderf00t: -makes it much harder to come back and compete at the top of the pile. So she basically describes how they play it safe—they lean back in more supporting roles rather than leadership ones. They lose interest in being at the top of the greasy pole.

[6:03]: After all, is it really worth pissing your life away, fighting to be at the top of the greasy pole, simply so you can say you have three billion dollars rather than one? Really, when you’re on your death bed, do you really believe that you will look back and think, ‘yeah, I’m really glad that I decided to spend so much of my life dedicated to staying at the top of the greasy pole, simply so I can die with a four and a lot of zeroes after my name, rather than a one and a lot of zeroes’?

[6:32]: In fact, to be honest, in your boardroom, Sandberg, if you were privileged with that choice-

[6:37] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “Everyone who’s been through this, and I’m here to tell you, once you have a child at home, your job better be really good to go back, because it’s hard to leave that kid at home.”

[6:46] Thunderf00t: I would say, that leaning back and living life is by far the best choice. Exchanging life for money that you could never possibly spend, is just a fool’s errand.

[6:58] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “When I was in college, my senior year, I took a course called “European Intellectual History”. Don’t you love that kind of thing from college? Wish I could do that now.”

[7:06] Thunderf00t: Seriously, she’s, say, 44 now. Let’s say she lives another 50 years. If she doesn’t earn a single penny for the rest of her life, she would have to spend TWENTY MILLION dollars a year. That’s five hundred times the average salary of an American, just to consume her wealth.

[7:25] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “Don’t you love that kind of thing from college? Wish I could do that now.”
“The numbers tell the story quite clearly. 190 Heads of State; 9 are women . . . And out of 193 world leaders, just 17 are women . . . 80% of political offices being occupied by men . . . less than ¼ MP’s is a woman . . . of all the people in parliament in the world, 13% are women . . . Men occupying the highest ranks in virtually EVERY industry in the world . . . in the corporate sector, women at the top, C level jobs, board seats, tops out at 15-16%. The numbers have not moved since 2002, and are going in the wrong direction.”

[8:08] Thunderf00t: Sandberg describes this women-losing-interest-in-leadership, in detail in her TED Talk. She UNDERSTANDS the reasons. But what I’m missing out on here, is where is the sexism in this picture? WHO is discriminating against the women here? The different representations of men and women she basically describes as being down to lifestyle choices.

[8:33] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “-and I’m here to tell you, once you have a child at home, your job better be really good to go back, because it’s hard to leave that kid at home.”

[8:41] Thunderf00t: WHERE is the sexism in that? Where is the sexism in not finding women at the top of the greasy pole?

[8:50] clip from DNews?: “-men occupying the highest ranks in virtually EVERY industry in the world.”

Many thanks to Linda for supplying the transcript!

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1) – Transcript

July 3, 2014

[0:05] clip from VenomFangX: “When I claim that there was a worldwide flood, I get laughed at³.”
“But, this planet is covered ¾ in water. If the planet flooded like the Bible says, the Grand Canyon could have been formed in about five minutes.”

[0:22] Thunderf00t: This is a geographical map of the United States. This is the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is about 300 miles long. In order to travel from one end of the canyon to the other in five minutes, it is required that you would be travelling at about five to six times the speed of sound.”

[0:41] clip from VenomfangX: “the Grand Canyon could have been formed in about five minutes.”
“I get laughed at”
“in about five minutes”
“I get laughed at”
“Scientists have been desperately trying to find water on other planets. However, the search is futile.”

[0:59] Thunderf00t: Weeell, not really. There was the Mars Global Surveyor probe which had found evidence that water has been flowing on Mars within the last five years. Then of course, there’s the Mars Express probe which has taken pictures of water ice on Mars, and revealed massive deposits of water ice under the Martian poles. Then there’s the Cassini-Huygens probe that has taken pictures of water ice on Titan.

[1:22]: Three of the four large Jovian moons are composed mostly of water. It’s as likely that Europa has oceans under the frozen surface created by tidal heating from Jupiter. Similarly with Ganymede and Callisto, almost all the moons of Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are ice balls too, as are most of the comets.

[1:43]: It’s difficult to contrive that anyone could make a more uneducated statement on the status of water in the solar system, than:

[1:51] clip from VenomFangX: “Scientists have been desperately trying to find water on other planets. However, the search is futile.”
“Yet, this planet—this, amazing planet—just so happens to have, you know, a hundred percent of the water in the whole solar system.”

[2:12]Thunderf00t: Well, let’s ignore for the moment the water on Mars, the gas giants. Let’s ignore the water on the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Let’s ignore all Kuiper belt objects such as Pluto, Sedna, of course all comets.

[2:26] clip from VenomFangX: “Here’s an interesting thing about water—uuh, where did it all come from? We can’t find like a speck of H₂O in outer space.”

[2:33] Thunderf00t: Is there still no water in the universe? BOLLOCKS. Water is the second most common molecule in the universe. The reason for this is simple. The elemental composition of the universe by atom percent is about 92% hydrogen, 8% helium, the third most common element in the universe is oxygen, and there’s less than 1 atom percent of it.

[2:56]: Helium of course doesn’t form any compounds, so the most common molecule in the universe is hydrogen, H₂. The second most common molecule in the universe is H₂O, water.

[3:11] clip from VenomFangX: “I get laughed at”
“There is a small zone around every star called the “habitable zone”, where liquid water is possible. Our Earth happens to be in a perfectly spherical orbit around our star.”
“perfectly spherical orbit around our star.”

[3:27] Thunderf00t: The Earth’s orbit is not a perfect sphere. It’s not a sphere, it’s not even a circle. The earth’s orbit around the sun, like all planetary orbits, is elliptical. And this has been known for about 400 years.

[3:44] clip from VenomFangX: “I get laughed at.”
“However, if Earth was a mere 5% closer to our sun, we would COOK, like Venus. Now, if our earth was a few percent away from our sun-“

[3:55] Thunderf00t: By a few percent, you fail to mention that this is 37%. This is about 50 BILLION meters, almost out as far as Mars.

[4:06] clip from VenomFangX: “I get laughed at.”

[4:11] clip from VenomFangX: “The Grand Canyon could’ve been formed in about five minutes.”

[4:14] clip from VenomFangX: “Yet, this planet—this, amazing planet—just so happens to have, you know, a hundred percent of the water in the whole solar system. We can’t find like a speck of H₂O in outer space.”

[4:24] clip from VenomFangX: “Our Earth happens to be in a perfectly spherical orbit around our star.”

Many thanks to Linda for supplying the transcript.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 2) -Transcript

July 3, 2014

 

[0:04] VenomFangX: “Let’s talk about chemical evolution. In laboratory science, it is proven that hydrogen cannot turn into another element. So, we already know that chemical evolution is impossible.”

[0:14] Thunderf00t: Actually, the sun is powered by hydrogen being converted into higher elements by a process called fusion. So the energy released from this fusion that heats and lights the earth. However, the creationist may well argue that no one has actually ever been to the sun.

[0:29] clip from Futurama

[0:37] Thunderf00t: So let’s discount the sun for the moment. Here on earth, there are numerous groups working on laser fusion where hydrogen is converted into higher elements. Then of course, there’s the international thermonuclear experimental reactor currently being built in France, which is designed to harness the energy released from the fusion of hydrogen into helium.

[0:59]: However, even if a creationist were to ignore all of these examples, by which hydrogen is converted into higher elements, there are more graphic examples of fusion:

[1:15] VenomFangX: “It is proven that hydrogen cannot turn into another element . . . hydrogen cannot turn into another element . . . which we’ve proven to be impossible . . . [1:33] Here’s a fun fact: because the moon can eclipse the sun so perfectly, we can measure the constituency of the sun, the materials and elements on its surface, by observing the pinkish arc of the chromosphere at the moment of totality.”

[1:47] Thunderf00t: Here’s a fun fact: the only reason we cannot observe the elements on the surface of the sun all the time, is because we live under an atmosphere. Without this you could make exactly the same observations you can during an eclipse simply by putting your finger over the body of the sun.

[2:03]: Here’s a fun fact: we can actually see in the H-alpha wavelength, we would be able to directly observe the dynamic behavior of the surface of the sun.

[2:12]: Here’s a fun fact: have you ever wondered why there isn’t an eclipse every time the moon orbits the earth? Well it’s simple. The angle between the plane in which the moon orbits the earth, to the plane in which the earth orbits the sun is about five degrees. Practically, this means that a total solar eclipse can only happen two times of the year.

[2:33]: In a different geometrical arrangement such as, say for instance the moons of Jupiter, an eclipse is observed every time the moon goes around the planet.

[2:42] VenomFangX: “The moon fits over the sun so perfectly that it makes it possible to observe the surface of the sun. Otherwise this would be impossible. If the moon was too big or too small, it would be impossible. Because of our vantage point from the earth, the moon fits perfectly over the sun, the chances in which are one in a trillion.”

[2:59] Thunderf00t: What a crock of shit. The distance between the earth and the moon varies by about ten percent, between about 360 and 410 million meters. This practically means that the angular size of the moon can vary by about ten percent. As a direct result of this, about sixty percent of non-partial eclipses, the moon is too small to completely cover the sun and an annular eclipse is observed. In the remaining forty percent, the moon is too large, and a total solar eclipse is observed. All that is required to observe the outer layers of the sun is for the moon to be angularly bigger than the sun. Further, it’s completely bogus to call this ‘perfect’ for the simple reason the moon does not have a smooth surface. This causes an effect known as Baily’s beads where the sun shines through the valleys of the surface of the moon.

[3:55] VenomFangX: “Well, I’m not gonna sit here and tell you that I know how the planet was formed—‘cause I don’t. The Bible says God made the heavens and the earth in six days.”

[4:03] Thunderf00t: Is that the same Bible that allows you to make the statement that:

[4:07] VenomFangX: “The moon fits perfectly over the sun, the chances in which are one in a trillion.”

[4:11] Thunderf00t: You see this is the thing I’m always curious about when creationists assess probabilities. In order to make a statement on the probability of the moon perfectly covering the sun—ignoring for the moment the fact that it doesn’t—you would need to have a solid understanding of the mechanisms of the dynamics of the formation of the solar system and the planets. And yet:

[4:32] VenomFangX: “I’m not gonna sit here and tell you that I know how the stars or the planet was formed, because I have no idea . . . Clearly, this is pure imagination, yet it’s in a science textbook. Ridiculous, right? So if there’s pure imagination sneaking into the textbook, how can you trust what it says? . . . Let’s keep going. The conservation of angular momentum—we’re gonna talk about it—shows that if some-“

[5:03] Thunderf00t: What, you mean the conservation of angular momentum that’s in all the textbooks which only moments ago you described as containing ‘complete imagination’, and as ‘ridiculous’?

[5:20] VenomFangX: “The moon fits over the sun so perfectly that it makes it possible to observe the surface of the sun . . . In laboratory science, it has proven that hydrogen cannot turn into another element. So, we already know that chemical evolution is impossible . . . and the chances of which are one in a trillion.”

Many thanks to Linda for supplying the transcript.

IF Men acted like FEMINISTS! (transcript)

June 29, 2014

 

[0:00] Thunderf00t: You ever sat down and wondered, what it would look like if men saw the world like pop-culture-feminists like Anita Sarkeesian? Well if you sit down and think about something, and DON’T conclude that you’re the victim, then you’ve just not thought about it long enough.

 

[0:16]: Well I think it might look a little something like this:

 

[0:19]: “In this video, we’re going to examine the trope of men as female target-practice. Now it’s no secret that throughout pop culture—in movies, videos, and computer games—that men are universally portrayed as little more than background objects that can be: shot, stabbed, or disposed of, without real world consequences, while simultaneously, feminist theory prevents this from being done to the women.”

 

[0:47]: “Now, remember, it’s possible to enjoy a media while simultaneously being critical of its more pernicious aspects and the socially harmful myths that it propagates.”

 

[0:57]: “In this series, we will critically examine, from a “pop culture perspective, the trope of expendable men as female target-practice, and how this trope perpetuates and normalizes the acceptability of violence against men.”

 

[1:14]: “Now it’s well-known that Hollywood glorifies and encourages female violence against men. Indeed, it’s steeped in it. Like in this film, Misery, named after the man’s suffering in this film, where Ms. Chastain breaks the ankles of honest writer, Paul. It extends pervasively through modern media, where it’s seen that holding an un-consensual man captive against his will just because you like him, is fine.”

 

[1:45]: “Like in this Pink video, where we are encouraged to vicariously enjoy a man being held captive against his will, for no other reason than erotic entertainment of a female.”

 

[1:57]: “And notice, how fem-o-centrically sexist these videos are, in that the woman is fully allowed to express her sexuality while the man is simultaneously and physically precluded from expressing his.”

 

[2:12]: “Or in this Lady Gaga video, which takes it one step further, where she’s actually seen to set fire to the man and taking his property, sexualizing the aspects of a man that don’t even require him to be alive.”

 

[2:27] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Kanye West’s Monster Misogyny”: “I think that bears repeating. This video fetishizes the aspects of women that don’t even require us to be physically alive.”

 

[2:34] Thunderf00t: “You know, I’ve often heard it said, that in the game of feminism, men are not the opposing team. They are the sword practice.”

 

[2:41]: “In the film Kill Bill, a film whose very title glamorizes and normalizes the idea that fatal acts of violence against men are acceptable, and indeed should even be actively sought out.”

 

[2:55]: “Here, the interchangeability and disposable nature of these men is formally conveyed to the audience by virtue of the fact that they all wear masks. We are left with no other option, but to conclude that these men are genericdehumanized objects with no distinguishing features.

 

[3:13]: “This is emphasized by the fact that we have no connection to these men. We know nothing about them. What are their names? What do they do at weekends? What sort of things do they seek out in a life partner, and so on? No, the only thing that we know about these people is they are utterly disposable. And the only thing left for the protagonist to decide is in which order to kill them.”

 

[3:36]: “We are simply left with the understanding that men are strictly indistinguishable, violable objects. And once they have been reduced to the level of objects, it’s okay for the protagonist to kill them with no more emotional investment than throwing away a fast-food container.”

 

[3:54] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “The dehumanization caused by objectification inevitably leaves us to the concept of disposability.”

 

[4:00] Thunderf00t: “Again and again, we see the perpetuation of the widespread and regressive belief that the male’s primary role is that of mobile target-practice. And that’s a pity, because this medium presents such a great opportunity to explore why males shouldn’t be used for sword practice.”

 

[4:19]: “But that’s not what’s happening here. Here, it is clear that these men have been reduced to the level of objects. And once they’ve been reduced to the level of objects, you should feel no more pity about cutting them up with a sword, than a pizza.”

 

[4:33] clip from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles  

 

[4:45] Thunderf00t: “Remember, subjects act. Objects are acted upon. That’s what feminism taught me.”

 

[4:51] clip from TEDxYouth, “The Sexy Lie: Caroline Heldman at TEDxYouth@SanDiego: “We’re thinking about the object-subject dichotomy. Subjects actObjects are acted upon.

 

[4:58Clip from Feminist Frequency, “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “-is via what’s called the subject-object dichotomy. In the simplest terms, subjects act, and objects are acted upon.”

 

[5:04] Thunderf00t: “And these days, the indoctrination of impressionable children, starts younger and younger.”

 

[5:10]: “Like in the movie Kick Ass, where a young woman is shown just how exciting it is to go on a killing spree of men. After all, they’re only objects, right? It’s not like killing them should have any real world consequences. Like explaining to the children of this poor, defenseless man”:

 

[5:29] clip from Kick Ass

 

[5:30] Thunderf00t: “-killed in cold blood, as to why daddy won’t be coming home tonight.”

 

[5:35]: “Even law enforcement officers in the line of duty, are not spared from this trope of men as target-practice. It should be noted, that in all of these media, the portrayal of men is universally sexist. The women are allowed to project their sexuality in many aspects, while simultaneously this female privilege is strictly denied to the men, who must remain as generic objects.”

 

[6:05]: “Seriously, could this sexism be any more explicit than in this scene, where the only two clearly distinguishable people in the room, and the ones with speaking roles, are women, where the rest of the room is full of identical men, whose only purpose in the film is to gurgle blood, as they like dying slowly, on the floor.”

 

[6:26] clip from Kill Bill: Vol. 1

 

[6:31] Thunderf00t: “Universally, feminist theory dictates that men are robbed of their sexuality during these scenes where women are simultaneously privileged to be able to appear as thoughtful, independent, sexually appealing, protagonists.”

 

[6:50]: “Sometimes this is graphically true, as seen in the film, Serenity, where the men are literally portrayed as savages, who the female is valiantly fighting to defeat.”

 

[7:02]: “Or in Shawn of the Dead, where there is little distinction made between the men, and the zombies.”

 

[7:08]: “Even in children’s programs, it’s portrayed that because men are not really human, it’s okay to kill them with fire.”

 

[7:16] clip from Sailor Moon [?]

 

[7:25] Thunderf00t: “This is now being taken into a new realm with interactive media, such as videogames, where female protagonists are given a subliminal manual on how to destroy cars with a few swipes of a bat, and killing unsuspecting males by jumping on them from behind and launching into savage, and unprovoked fatal attacks, is seen as a good thing—something for fun.”

 

[7:49]: “The game mechanics encourage this. The men are seen as nothing more than something to be shot, beaten, or blown up for fun. Men, as target practice. Again, once the male has been reduced to the level of object, it’s okay to kill them. Because that’s what feminism taught me about the subject-object dichotomy, is once people have been reduced to the level of object, it’s okay to kill them.”

 

[8:15] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “The dehumanization caused by objectification inevitably leads us to the concept of disposability.”

 

[8:21] Thunderf00t: “It even glamorizes the female execution of law enforcement officers in the line of duty, by striking a happy and indifferent pose next to the body of the police officer she’s just brutally murdered. Let’s just say that again: these games glamorize women killing exclusively male officers in the line of duty.”

 

[8:45]: “So these interactive algorithms transmit near constant cultural affirmation that female violence against men is acceptable—and, even virtuous. It’s simply the only message being transmitted on this Feminist Frequency.”

 

[9:02]: “So why does any of this matter? Why should it matter if young women are being sent messages about killing men in uniform? Well the obvious—and negative—impacts have been studied extensively over the years. And it’s been found to have a widespread, negative effect on the behavior of women. And the effects on all people are quite clear and very serious. Research has constantly shown that games like this negatively impact female perceptions about real-world men, and reinforces socially harmful myths about the acceptability of using men, as sword practice.”

 

[9:43]: “And that’s all without taking into account how videogames allow a more interactive role for the impressionable women, and encourages a more participatory form of this sadistic enjoyment of violence against men. In these ways, the systems work to facilitate female violence against men, into turning it to a form of play; something to be amusing and entertaining.”

 

[10:09]: “This forces female consumers of this media to become complicit with the game developers in making fatal violence against men a participatory activity. Scholars have again and again found that this has a profound impact on women’s behavior.”

 

[10:27]: “Now, inevitably, whenever these game mechanics, or the clear academic findings are questioned, many female consumers of this media try to dismiss themselves or distance themselves from the issue by insisting that they don’t personally partake in the options to kill men.”

 

[10:45]: “But if they do, or if they don’t, does not change the fact that the object was designed and placed in that environment for that explicit function. A game designed to normalize that it’s okay for women to kill men, is still a game designed to normalize the disposable concepts about men, whether you choose to use it, or not.”

 

[11:06]: “And this we’ve recently been taught. While many might think they have a personal force field that shields them from the effects of these games, this is simply is not true”:

 

[11:15] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games” “In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected.”

 

[11:20] clips from The Matrix, Iron Man 2, Kick Ass, Kill Bill: Vol. 1

 

[11:39] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games” : “While it may be comforting to think that we all have a personal force field protecting us from outside influences, this is simply not the case. Scholars sometimes refer to this type of denial as a “third-person effect”, which is the tendency for people to believe that they are personally immune to media’s effects, even if others may be influenced or manipulated.”

“Paradoxically, and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment, are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages.”

“In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected.”

 

[12:16] Thunderf00tI CANNOT BELIEVE that she comes out with this BULLSHIT!

 

Many thanks to Linda for supplying the transcript! 🙂

Video Transcript “Why ‘feminism’ poisons EVERYTHING”

June 27, 2014

Thunderf00t, “Why ‘feminism’ poisons EVERYTHING” 

[0:00] Thunderf00t: So why does feminism poison everything? And I really mean EVERYTHING. I mean, let’s just take one of the most absolutely, uncontentious and difficult things to poison that you could get. Say for instance, ‘raising money to help blood cancer research’. And now let’s see how many seconds it takes for feminism to poison it: 

 

[0:21] From Rebecca Watson clip, “Help Blood Cancer Research with Light the Night”: “Hello, YouTube. It’s been awhile. I’ve missed you. And, I’m guessing that you’ve missed me too. Because I’ve heard that if a male atheist on YouTube goes too long without calling a woman a cunt, his balls will actually shrivel up, and then tuck up inside of him, forming what some call a ‘mangina’.” 

 

[0: 37] Thunderf00t: And that was it. That’s how the face of feminism—in atheism—thinks it’s the best way to start a charity fund-raiser—using this passive-aggressive victim routine to spit poison at the entire male atheist audience. 

 

[0:52] Rebecca Watson clip: “Because I’ve heard that if a male atheist on YouTube goes too long without calling a woman a cunt, his balls will actually shrivel up, and then . . .” 

 

[1:00] Thunderf00t: Huh. And they wonder why they get called ‘toxic’. And of course it goes without saying that if you call her—specifically her [out] on being a toxic parasite, she will say, ‘Aaaah! Look at all this hatred women get! It just shows how endemic misogyny is in the atheist community.’ 

 

Now where have I seen that victimhood routine before? 

 

[1:20] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Anita Sarkeesian at TEDxWomen 2012”: “Now, I’m a pop culture critic. I am a feminist and I’m a woman . . . Turns out, that there are a bunch of male gamers out there who were, shall we say, not too excited about this project . . . I found myself the target of a massive online hate-campaign.” 

 

[1:34] Thunderf00t: -because remember, calling Feminist Frequency a liar just shows how much you hate women! Right? It can’t possibly be because she actually lied to everyone’s face for her Kickstarter.  

 

[1:48] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “This is a photo of me, at age ten playing Super Mario World on the Super Nintendo. So I’ve been playing games for quite a while.” 

 

[1:56] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Anita And The White Knights” (her lecture at Santa Monica College, CA 2010): “-one song, except I’m doing videogames. So, it’s not exactly a fandom. I’m not a fan of videogames. I actually have to learn a lot about videogames in the process of making this. And also videogames—like, I would love to play videogames. But, I don’t want to go around shooting people, and ripping off their heads. And it’s just, gross. So-” 

 

[2:12] Thunderf00t: There you have it. Anita Sarkeesian in one sentence:  “I’m not a gamer, because shooting people and ripping off their heads is gross”. But the fact this princess needed to be rescued is an outrage—because rescuing a princess will make society more sexist. 

 

[2:31] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Support My Kickstarter Project – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “And as with all pop culture media, the gaming industry is playing a role in helping to shape our society. Either by challenging, or more often, reinforcing existing values, beliefs, and behaviors.” 

 

[2:42] Thunderf00t: Yes, that’s right. Games clearly have an influence on society. I mean, it’s obvious, isn’t it, that rescuing girls will make society more sexist. While games where you <Anita Sarkeesian> “go around shooting people and ripping off their heads” will clearly make it more likely that you will uh, kill people and rip off their heads. Huh. Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the very core of Anita’s proposition here is bullshit:  

 

[3:10] “And as with all pop culture media, the gaming industry is playing a role in helping to shape our society. Either by challenging, or more often, reinforcing existing values, beliefs, and behaviors.” 

 

[3:20] “to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads”  

 

[3:23] Thunderf00t: -that the whole crusade that she’s got here against games she doesn’t even play is built on one, single, fundamentally wrong premise?  

 

But let’s be generous and say that even though she’s provided no evidence whatsoever that these games do make people more sexist. Aaand let’s just ignore the rather important point that everything else is built on this single, completely unsubstantiated point—now, let’s just ignore that for a moment and assume that she’s right. Doesn’t that means that she’s just got really, really messed up priorities?  

 

You know, ‘look at this princess who needed to be rescued. Because that’s gonna make society more misogynistic. And that’s a very serious problem’. Whereas her expert pop culture critic skills seem to have completely missed the fact that there are thousands of games out there that are gonna make society more likely to kill people and to rip off their heads.  

 

Now I think given that there are billions of people killed annually in these video games, and that that has no significant effect whatsoever on the murder statistics, suggest that playing video games really isn’t’ a significant factor. So that really does put the owners on Feminist Frequency to demonstrate why killing people in computer games doesn’t have any significant effect on society, while for some completely unexplained reason, ‘rescuing this princess is gonna make you more sexist’.   

 

[4:47] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “The trope quickly became the go-to motivational hook for developers, as it provided an easy way to tap into adolescent male-power fantasies.”     

 

[4:57] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “I would love to play videogames. But, I don’t want to go around shooting people, and ripping off their heads. It’s just, gross. So-” 

 

[5:04] Thunderf00t: Yeah, I can see how that really would be a problem for pre-Kickstarter. Anita, thinking that ‘it’s gonna be difficult for me to play the victim, if all I have to work with is, I don’t like these first-person shooter type games’.  

 

[5:18] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “I don’t want to go around shooting people, and ripping off their heads. It’s just, gross. So-” 

 

[5:23] Thunderf00t: ‘Oh, I know what I need to say. I need to say that the gaming industry that supplies people who want first-person shooter type games with first-person shooter type games, which I’ve got no interest in playing, of course, is actually a patriarchal, misogynistic, man-o-centric, man-ocracy trying to oppress meeeeee.’ 

 

[5:39] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “16×9 – Dangerous Game: Tropes vs Women bullying”: “It’s very male-dominated. And I think with that male-domination comes, a sense of entitlement; that these games are for men, and by men. And that women, if they’re going to participate, they need to shut up.” 

 

[5:49] Thunderf00t: Hey, Anita, I can play that game too. I’ve got almost no interest in puzzle games. Really don’t. But I can tell you with absolute certainty, that the fact that there isn’t more first-person shooter type action randomly in the middle of puzzle games, just shows how this gaming section is very woman dominated. And this female domination comes through in the sense of entitlement; that these games were made by women, for women. And that if men want to participate, they just have to shut up.  

 

I suppose I should congratulate her, ‘cause she’s managed to sell this bullshit all over the place. And managed to get people to give her a hundred and sixty thousand dollars for something that can be debunked in under a minute.  

 

[6:33] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “I’m not a fan of videogames.” 

 

[6:35] Clip from “16×9 – Dangerous Game: Tropes vs Women bullying”: “By the pop culture critic and life-long gamer-“ 

 

[6:37] Thunderf00t: No, no, no, no, no. You gotta use feminist reasoning here. Calling her a liar because she lied to everyone’s face about being a gamer, just proooves how much misogyny there is in the gaming community.  

 

This is why people like Madonna dissociate themselves from feminism. Instead preferring to call themselves ‘humanists’. For the simple reason that those who vocally associate themselves with being feminists, tend to be so toxic, that they poison absolutely everything they come in contact with. Including, the very term ‘feminism. 

  

[7:12] Clip from “Gloria Allred: If You’re Not a Feminist, Then You’re a Bigot”: “I often say that if you’re not a feminist then you’re a bigot. I mean there is nothing in between.” 

 

[7:16] Clip from “mras and feminists arguing at u of t mra event”: “-the assumption—I’m reading fuckface! I’m trying to fuckin’—I’m letting everybody else hear it, okay!? It’s not just for you Mr. entitled. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of the patriarchy. . .  

Can you, shut the fuck up for a second too” 

 

[7:37] Clip from?: “In particular, artists such as Miriam Shapiro and Judy Chicago championed what is today known as ‘vulvic’ or ‘cunt art’ to art historians. Which can be defined as a type of essentialist aesthetic that focuses on the universal, physical characteristics that all women share—their sexual organs or genitalia.” 

 

[7:56] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “#6 The Straw Feminist (Tropes vs. Women): “Women are being institutionally oppressed all the time in nearly every facet of our lives.” 

 

[8:02] Rebecca Watson clip from “Rebecca Watson – European Atheist Convention 2012”: “And when I point out that ‘bitch’ is a gendered insult that demeans all women—again, most people get it.”  

 

[8:09] Clip from Aliens“Get away from her, you bitch!” 

 

[8:11] Anita Sarkeesian clip from ?: “because it’s basically a choose-your-own-patriarchal-adventure porno fantasy.” 

 

[8:15] Thunderf00t: But recently, feminists have decided that Wikipedia is biased against them. Why? What’s the evidence for this? Because they say so, of course. The accusation IS the evidence. And now, because of their asserted bias, they want to inject feminism into Wikipedia in an exercise they call ‘Wikistorming’. Yeah. Feminists are looking to poison Wikipedia as well.  

 

The irony is though, on articles I’ve come across on Wiki, like, ‘Sexual dimorphism’, it’s already got the grubby fingerprints of feminist ideology-based edits all over it. But this is the thing. I don’t have to claim bias. Because claims are cheap, unsubstantiated. No, unlike feminists, I don’t claim bias. I demonstrate it.  

 

[9:06] Thunderf00t clip from “Feminism vs Facts (part 1)”: “You see, we are part of a sexually dimorphic species, that is, males and females tend to have different physical characteristics. Look, the reason that we divide the Olympics up by sex, is not because we are inherently sexist. It’s because men and women tend to have different traits. On average, in the upper body strength, it’s almost fifty-percent difference.  Ugh, come on. Tell me again how this is really a myth.  

 

[9:32] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender, is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth. Which of course is completely false.” 

 

[9:41] Thunderf00t clip from “Feminism vs Facts (part 1)”:  I’ve not seen this study yet. But I’m gonna go out there on a limb and predict that there will be no correlation whatsoever between the number of damsel-in-distress video games and the ensemble differences in the upper body strength between men and women.  

 

However, many who take a few seconds to read the Wiki page on ‘sexual dimorphism’ in humans might come across this, where someone seems to be suggesting exactly that: “The smaller differences in the lower body strength may be due to the fact that during childhood, both males and females frequently exercise their leg muscles during activities like running, walking, and playing. Males, however, are socially pressured to enhance their upper body muscles, leading to a wider difference in upper body strength” (Wikipedia, “Sexual Dimorphism) 

 

But this is the cute thing—when you actually take a closer look at those references, and you find this: “The Gender and Science Reader brings together the key writings by leading scholars to provide a comprehensive feminist analysis of the nature and practice of science.” 

 

And just, take that to heart for a second. A ‘feminist analysis’. Not an objective analysis. Not a scientific analysis. A feminist analysis.  

 

Now let’s compare that to some of the other studies like: “One study of muscle strength at the elbows and knees—in 45 and older males and females—found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength. Another study found men to have significantly higher hand-grip strength than women, even when comparing untrained men with female athletes” (Wikipedia, “Sexual Dimorphism”) 

 

Hm. And both of those from peer-reviewed scientific journals. I think I’m almost to the point where I can track down the difference between objective scientific research, and feminist research.  

 

[11:32] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Support My Kickstarter Project – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”“As you might imagine, this project requires an enormous amount of research.” 

 

[11:35] Thunderf00t: That is, if anything, Wikipedia already has a feminist bias to it. But come now, feminists. It’s time for you to shine. Show me the examples of where Wikipedia is biased against women to the point where you need feminists to storm Wikipedia and inject feminist thinking into its heart.  

 

 Many thanks to Linda for creating this transcript

 

Why are there so few high quality science communicators?

May 22, 2014

 

If civilization was a person, the scientific method, and the knowledge gained from it would not only constitute the brain and heart, but also all the major organs necessary to support life.  Or to put it another way, without the scientific method and the knowledge gained by it, civilization as we know it would cease to be, and we would be back to living in a very VERY bleak world.

Sadly societies in general seem to be happily, maybe even wilfully ignorant of just how much our civilization and quality of life depends on this method, and the knowledge gain by it. So why is this? Who, if anyone is to blame?

Well scientists have to take their share of the blame for this, in that if anyone can promote science, it’s them.  However speaking as a research scientist I KNOW why communicating science/ debunking pseudoscience (in science circles) is generally seen as a gamma rate objective, typically only pursued by betas.

The metrics by which scientists typically measure their success is by how much research money they bring in, and how much stuff they publish.  Nowhere in this equation is communicating science valued or rewarded.

-Communicating science takes time, which practically means the more time you spend communicating science, the less time there is to ‘succeed’ in the metrics used to determine success.

 

In many ways science has been corrupted by the access to data.  20 years ago, there were no easily accessible ‘metrics of success’ like the h-index and citations.  People didn’t/ couldn’t waste as much time worrying about it.  Now things like the h-index can be easily obtained with a few mouse clicks and are widely accepted and used for determining the success of an academic.  The game has slowly changed from ‘who can do the best research’ to ‘who can get the better h-factor’.  Now this is not to say the h-index has no value, in that it is correlated to the achievements of an academic but the correlations is not great and more importantly the index is relatively easy to game for personal advantage.

 

That’s really it in a nutshell.  Once you have defined a metric for success, it is expected that people will try to optimize how they score on that metric….. they will start to game the system.  This is the research equivalent of that often heard student question ‘will this be on the test’.  That’s the tipping point between where the student has gone from being there to actually learn, to being there to simply get the highest mark they can on the test.

 

Simply put, if ‘success as defined by h-index’ is what you are after, gaming the system is now the name of the game. Or put another way, if you are honestly doing the best science you can, you will not be able to compete in ‘success metrics’ with an equally talented scientist who’s playing the game of ‘winning in success metrics’.

 

If the system is set up such that scientists have no incentives for communicating science, then it is small wonder that there are so few high quality science communicators out there?

So many videos to makes, so little time!

May 21, 2014

So the other day I started making a list of videos I have planned (which are at various degrees of development).

too-much-to-do1

—————————————————————
Interview with Lawrence Krauss (postponed)
How to spend a billion dollars.. What can you really buy with a billion dollars. Hubble cost average American 3 bux

Climate change videos
1) how much bioenergy to run man kinds biology compared to civilization compared to global warming flux
2) heat flow on planet earth
3) changing the volume of the oceans

Debunk Laci green feminist bullshit on feminism

Why do people laugh at creationists
1) giants – nephilimfree
2) Atmosphere -ian juby
3) What is science -ken ham
Noah’s arc theme park

Debunk radioactive bullshit
1) Depleted uranium
2) is it safe off Fukushima

How does a drinking bird work

sodium potassium alloy stuff
1) potassium exploding on ice
2) ultra high speed footage of explosion
3) large scale potassium, sodium and cesium explosions
4) ACTUAL mechanism of nak/water explosion
5) is it possible to get lithium to Explode

Make cesium thermometer- need to sort out high vacuum kit
Scientific research on Noah’s Flood- what happens to a plant under water for a year
Watching the go around the Sun (year in time lapse)
Time lapse of tracking telescope over several days (+ with without moon)

Debunk homeopathy (pico second qm simulation of water)
Who is thunder foot – scientific research
Getting drunk science – monitor blood alcohol level in resting and physically hard working thunderf00t
Comparison of sleep pattern while drunk and sober

Remaster why do people laugh at creationists videos

Anita sarkeesian master’s thesis and why having a ponytail is sexist
-Full reason why having gender bias in top field is probably nothing to do with sexism
Solar system in perspective. What if the solar system was all water
Death by meteorite impact…. Will you live long enough for your ears to go pop?

1) energetic of car crashes and statistics
2) comparison of car crash stats and rules and regulations with guns

call rationalwiki out on its comical degree of social justice warrior BS.

—————————————————————

 

So just curious, what you would like to see!