First up is an old story, but it's one I wanted to look into when I heard about it, so here we go, a quick google search brought me to a DailyDot article by one Gavia Baker-Whitelaw regarding the terrible sexism of the vile, sinister, work of the Patriarchy that is the trailer for Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2. The author's problem with the trailer is the fact that Gamora doesn't have any dialogue in the trailer; the author is at least correct in a literal sense, no, she doesn't have any dialogue in this trailer, but whereas I see that as nothing to get worked up about, they see it as some kind of representation of the sexist treatment of Gamora in the film, which isn't out yet. The article states that Gamora's "most significant role is to be the long-suffering object of Star-Lord's affections." Let the rant begin, I am impressed that the author uses the word affections, rather than saying what they really mean, which is sexual desire. When she uses the word object, you know exactly what she means, this is coming from the angle that Gamora is just a sex object, in the same way Lara Croft is a sex object, but like Lara, she's not. Bear in mind that Gamora is one of the main characters of the first film, and will obviously be a main in the second film, this concern is, Id argue, completely pointless from the get go, but it gets worse. I get the distinct impression that this author doesn't have a particular liking of the first Guardians, on that I may be wrong, but I get that from the fact that they seem to ignore the way Gamora was portrayed in Guardians. Gamora didn't do much talking in that film, but that was part of her character, and part of her ark in that film was learning to see the word a bit more like Star Lord sees it, as evidenced in the legend of Kevin Bacon, but while she did do not a lot of talking, she did do a lot of arse kicking, and without her and the rest of the crew, the infinity stone would have destroyed Star Lord, I think that's pretty significant. This trailer seems to show the same, not very hot talker, but she does jump up in the air and stab the giant tentacle thing in the neck, firmly suggesting a more action heavy role, like the first film. And Star Lord's affections for her were already expressed in the first film, this is something that isn't new, and her reaction to Mantis calling him out is entirely suggestive of how she knows that Star Lord wants to bang her, or if not, thinks it's funny, like Drax does, and cute that he likes her. This is boy likes girl, it's as old as time, and it's relatable to the vast majority of the audience, since the vast majority of them have either been in Star Lord's position of liking a girl, or Gamora's position of having a friend that's interested, be it romantically or sexually or both. But clearly that's gone over the author's head, clearly they see this as a man wanting to bang a woman, and a woman just being there for him to want to bang, nothing more than an object of his affections/ desires. This is where I went with my piece about the sexism of Ghostbusters in Social Justice Jackasses, and I'll go there again; the person reducing Gamora to an object isn't Star Lord or James Gunn, it's our author, and it really annoys me, it's so frustratingly hypocritical to talk about a woman being an object, and then accuse others of seeing that character as an object, even when there's reasons and subtleties that the hypocrite has blatantly ignored, which is the case here. Again, I may be wrong, but I don't see a love of the franchise at all in this article, I just see dogma, this author should wait and see how the film turns out, because they at least admit that trailers aren't accurate, but when they end on the line "and a forgettable woman who doesn't speak" I start getting curious as to just how highly they think of women in movies.
And now for the most fabulous man in existence, a man whose fabulous faggotry brings even the most beautiful crumbling to their knees. Simon and Schuster made the ballsy move to give Milo Yiannopoulos a book deal, a very shiny book deal, with Milo yiannopoloubos getting $250'000 in advanced payment. The book's title is Dangerous, and it's attracted a lot of attention, and you'll never guess where that attention is coming from. Let's start with Leslie Jones, of Ghostbusters and being a hypocritical moron on Twitter fame, who, according to a Guardian article by Sian Cain, accused Simon and Schuster of helping to spread Milo's and people like him's hate, a bunch of authors are apparently writing letters to the publisher, and some are boycotting the publisher outright, with authors pulling out of Simon and Schuster, and people refusing to buy or review their books. I'm at least impressed this article doesn't call Milo a bigot, unlike Osita Nwanevu's article for Slate, which is interesting since they then bring up a very good point, that the Neo-Nazi den that is the Daily Stormer hates Milo for being gay and part Jewish. Sarah Silverman apparently tweeted that Milo has freedom of speech, but that the book deal says a lot about Simon and Schuster, I personally think it says a lot about Sarah, since she's tweeting that on a platform Milo was banned from. I'd also be interested in seeing what these critics would have to say if they signed a book deal with someone like Julie Bindel; Milo says transgender people have a mental illness, so intolerant and bigoted, Julie Bindel once said in an interview that men should be put in camps, totally not a disgustingly bigoted and insane thing to say, right. What about revolutionaries like Assata Shakur, some would call her an activist, others would call her a murderer and a terrorist, I don't think they'd be all that upset actually, because while Bindel and Shakur are both far worse human beings than Milo, their political opinion is more in line with these critics than Milo's so therefore Milo is the Bigot who should be silenced. I say the opposite, I say that if he's a bigot and a hate monger, just let him talk, follow his advice, "sunlight is the best disinfectant," ideas will be separated into good and bad by free and open conversation, it's why I sometimes bring up the KKK when discussing things like this, because for all intents and purposes, the KKK is dead, it's power is so minimal as to be negligible, and it's presence is miniscule, as its' ideas have been ridiculed and mocked and shunned from the public discourse, as they rightfully should be. Meanwhile movements like BLM get endless defence and apologia from the media, despite in a lot of ways just being the other side of the same coin, like the KKK they are a hate movement, a movement that champions racial supremacy, yet like Bindel and Shakur, they get special treatment, because they fit the current narrative of racism and sexism and transphobia, while people like Milo are silenced and smeared for having not necessarily a wrong opinion, but simply a different one. Bad ideas don't get around very well on their own, which is why people with bad ideas do everything they can to shut down ideas that are different, and may therefore be better. Milo said that you have nothing to fear if you have the courage and the confidence in your own ideas, and he was correct, if Milo really is an evil bigoted hate monger, let the world see it, and let the people make up their own minds, but people like Osita Nwanevu and Sian Cain don't have confidence in their ideas, which is why they call Milo Alt right, bigot, hate monger, abusive, anything to discredit and smear him, so people don't listen to him, because if they did, they might learn something new.
And speaking of BLM, recently there was an incident in Chicago, where four people kidnapped a mentally disabled person, held him for several hours, forced him to drink from a toilet, crawl on his hands and knees, threaten him with a knife, cut him with a knife, kick him, and verbally abuse and degrade him, all while one of them live streamed the event to Facebook. That should tell you what you need to know, four sick fucks tortured a guy and streamed it to the internet, but that isn't the whole story, because I just left out an important detail; the victim was white, and the four torturers were black. This little point shouldn't be a big deal, but because of the racial climate the west, and particularly America is living in, this is important, as many people jumped on this, labelling it the #blmkidnapping on twitter, and the mainstream media leaped into action with their classic dindu nufin narrative, and it all mixing together to make some nightmare concoction of finger pointing and dishonesty. And in all honesty, I think the answer is in the middle, no, these four individuals had no direct ties to BLM, but that ultimately changes nothing when you watch the video, assuming you have the stomach, and you hear them yelling "Fuck Donald Trump, Nigga, Fuck white people" at the guy. This is unquestionably where the idea of this being BLM related came from, so when Nico Lang of Salon says 'Don't let racists fool you,' they're lying, this wasn't labelled blmkidnapping because it was four black people, it was labelled blmkidnapping because they're clearly parroting BLM rhetoric. BLM has inspired psychos before, like the Dallas shooter, and was itself inspired by a psycho, the very same Assata Shakur from earlier. When they yell "fuck white people," that isn't an attack on this individual, it's an attack on his race, because this is ultimately what BLM has done, white people and cops are no longer people, now they're just 'white people' and 'cops', people who's individuality is irrelevant because they share a badge or a physical characteristic with people who have done bad things in the past. All white people are evil because some white people owned black slaves 150 years ago, before both world wars, the invention of the TV, and Thomas Edison's invention of the light bulb, and all cops are evil because some of them shoot and kill people who dindu nufin, people like Michael Brown, who the mainstream media lied about to spin a narrative, a narrative that has repeatedly led to riots and violence perpetrated my BLM. Now we have four people yelling BLM war cries at a captive white person, and, going back to Salon, Lang states that the only people saying this attack was racially motivated are racists and white nationalists, and I will now respond with a fuck you Lang, because if you think this attack wasn't at least partially racially motivated, you're ignoring reality, you're ignoring the part of the video where they yell "Fuck white people," a quote that I think sums up what one of the motivations was quite nicely. A little Youtuber called The Britisher did an interesting video on hate crimes, and why they're a dumb idea, he pointed out that when a white person commits any slight against someone, the person's race is instantly a point of interest if that person happens to not be white themselves, and this can lead to an inaccurate number of crimes being chalked up to racism. And ask yourself, Lang, if this were four white people torturing a black person, and yelling fuck niggas at him, would you jump on it right away as an evil racist attack, because it clearly is one, yet when the roles are reversed, this isn't a racist attack, apart from the fact that race obviously and undeniably had something to do with it, this is an attack on the disabled; and now, as a person of disability myself, I will say fuck you, again, and using one of the far left SJW arguments, I find that deeply offensive. In all reality, as vile as it sounds, the reason this guy was kidnapped is probably because he's disabled, since that would make him an easier target, but stop lying to yourself that that is the reason, because they didn't yell fuck retards did they? No. Lang then goes on about something completely unimportant to the topic at hand, blabbing about women with disabilities being sexually assaulted, which only continues to really, really piss me off, because this is not about women being raped, this is about a mentally disabled white person being tortured by four racist black people, going off topic like this is them trying to talk around the real problem, which is that this attack is not being addressed honestly, and that people are almost trying to absolve BLM of blame, rather than facing the reality that BLM and the lying cunts in the media are crafting. This crime was appalling, and these four individuals deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law, but the reasons this happened need to be addressed, the lies and half truths of rampant ideologues is creating an environment that is creating real racists, people who don't believe that people with different skin colours deserve dignity, but while being a blatant racist white person will get you socially shunned and hated, being a blatant racist black person will either mean the media will ignore you, or, when they can't, they'll still try to talk around you and change the topic to Donald Trump or the rape of disabled women, and try to absolve BLM of blame, while BLM march the streets calling for dead cops and people go on live TV saying white lives don't matter and black power.
I've never really gone in depth on my thoughts of BLM, but I think a lot of them are scum, saying that doesn't make me a racist, because I'm not one, people should be judged on their actions and their ideas, and BLM's actions and ideas are shit. When they say black lives matter, it's a phrase that no one will disagree with, but there's a difference between the phrase black lives matter and BLM, because BLM is a hate group, one that harbours ideas that would be considered horrific if it wasn't politically incorrect or racist to say it, ideas that lead to nutters shooting cops and sick fucks torturing people on Facebook. I still believe that Milo is right when he talks about the open exchange of ideas, because only then can good ideas prevail over bad ones, and when that exchange is controlled or stopped, it results in thought criminals and fanaticism, and we all lose.
No comments:
Post a Comment