You bastards!!

I woke up after July 4th to find this fresh pile right before us. During the weekend before hand, Donald Trump posted to his Twitter account a GIF of him brawling with WWE chairman Vince McMahon with the CNN logo superimposed on McMahon’s head. Trump posted it not long after the investigations into his alleged collusion with Russia found no substantial evidence for such collusion, after non-stop accusations by the press that he was the agent of Russia. By this point, it has also been revealed that some on CNN’s own team know that the Russia story is not supported by any solid evidence – in other words, it’s bullshit and they know it. So the GIF can be taken as Donald Trump essentially gloating over the fact that his side of the story is winning over the mainstream media.

And how did the media take it? They thought that Trump was signalling a violent, authoritarian crackdown on his critics. Over a fucking meme!

That’s right, anti-CNN memes are considered to be a form of incitement to violence. Before this, there was a whole other shitshow from the right about how Kathy Griffin and the Trumpesque Caesar of Shakespeare at the Park and how these were supposedly violence against the President, and now I find the media and their liberal supporters proclaiming that their lives are in danger because Trump shared a meme on his Twitter. There are few richer hypocrisies than this!

And CNN were so offended and scared by the meme it was their top story, their reporters and their friends screeching all day about how Trump reemed them in the ass with simply a moving image that mocked them. But, that’s where the fun ends. Since they wouldn’t take being mocked by a meme for all to see, or perhaps because they believe memes are incitement to violence, CNN decided that it would be appropriate to try and track down the person who made the meme to begin with. At first it had emerged that the maker of a meme was a Reddit user named HanAssholeSolo, who may or may not have been either a teenager or a 40-year old man depending on who you ask. They dug up some information about the Reddit user, contacted him and were apparently able to get an apology out of him. He promised not to do another anti-CNN meme again, and CNN said that they would reveal all the information they dug up if that changed. In essence, they cyber-stalked a guy they thought was responsible for nothing more than creating a meme that offended them that was shared by the President, and threatened to dox him if he made more memes. That is fucking reprehensible! You’re putting someone’s privacy on the line because of what is just a meme.

The journalistic class can cower all they like behind the excuse that he made other memes that they reckon think are Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, racist, xenophobic or whatever, but none of it changes the fact that there was no reason for CNN to go after this guy. He committed no crime, he hurt no one, all he apparently did was offend some powerful people. So-called journalists and media pundits actually think they have a right to expose someone and take away their anonymity in order to expose their “hate”. What the fuck kind of thinking is that!? In a different time, these people might have been aristocrats looking for seditious critics of the monarchy, Catholic elites searching for suspected heretics, or imperial Romans going after Christians. “We have the right to expose people for their subversive thoughts and expressions” is their mantra, and to that end they will stop at nothing, even if it means targeting innocent people, to satisfy their lust for control. And they’re proud of what they do.

Oh and they haven’t just been acting unethically either. They are likely criminals as well. According to Julian Assange of Wikileaks, CNN has violated Section 135.60 of New York’s criminal code, which prohibits coercion in the second degree, specifically the part which prohibits exposure of a secret or publicizing an asserted fact which would subject a person to ridicule or contempt. Senator Ted Cruz also thinks that CNN may have violated the criminal code of the state of Georgia, specifically § 16-8-16 which deals with theft by extortion, in which the public dissemination of any information relating to any person in order to ruin his reputation is prohibited. What’s more, section 241 of the United States Code prohibits conspiracy against a person exercising their legal rights as provided by the laws and Constitution of the United States. I think it’s possible that CNN broke the law and that a legal case that could be brought against CNN, and I hope there is a case brought against them because it couldn’t happen to a more deserving organization. They can pretend to be defending their freedom of the press all they like, but what press freedom entitles people to threaten to dox an innocent person exercising freedom of expression online over a meme?

And to add insult onto injury, it’s possible that CNN got the wrong guy. Buzzfeed claims that the meme wasn’t actually created by HanAssholeSolo, or was a version of HanAssholeSolo’s meme that was edited by someone else. I don’t trust Buzzfeed as a source, but if this is true then it’s entirely people that CNN went through all that trouble only to get the wrong guy. I can’t help but wonder who they’ll go after next. CNN now claims that they still don’t know who the memester was, but they also claim that it’s not the most important issue in the world. Really? If that’s true, why the fuck would they go through all the effort of digging up the personal information of someone who committed no crime or wrongdoing if it was all just nothing!? Better yet, why were you so outraged about the meme in the first place!?

And in the wake of this something’s been nagging me. A professor named Josh Chafetz tweeted that, in his view, freedom of speech only protects you from government censorship and not public censure from private entities. Aside from the fact that, as I’ve mentioned, there are probably laws against that, there’s a bitter hypocrisy associated with this because of how I see this argument from some on the left. I always thought the left as a political umbrella was generally opposed to the power of big business, right? They don’t like big corporations having too much power and doing whatever they want, right? So then why do left-liberals now seem to think it’s OK for CNN, a major media corporation run by a multi-millionaire, to threaten a private citizen’s right to freedom of expression? Because the government isn’t doing it? But then they go on about how right-wing billionaires such as Peter Thiel are supposedly silencing the freedom of the press for whatever reason. And I’ll tell you something else: I bet the makers of Nobody Speak, a pile of utter apologia that asserts that Gawker was innocent of wrongdoing despite outing several private individuals without their permission, probably don’t have anything to say about Jeff Zucker’s organization censoring a private law-abiding individual. Of course they don’t, because it’s not Donald Trump or Peter Thiel doing it. You’ve got someone who’s basically being censored over memes by a multi-million dollar corporation, and the left is telling us that’s perfectly fine even though they’re supposed to be against big business! Almost like they don’t actually care about that on principle, after all it’s OK when they’re being fascists isn’t it!? If you think you’re fighting the rich and billionaires because you think they’re coming after the freedom of the press and freedom of speech, but you’re OK with this shit from CNN, your cause is frankly fucking worthless to me!

Finally I would be remiss if I didn’t mention a man at the centre of the HanAssholeSolo debacle: one Andrew Kaczynski. After all, he’s the guy who dug up his information in the first place and he was the author of the article wherein CNN gave their veiled threat to begin with. And for this service, he is congratulated by his media colleagues who, like the fascists they truly are, laud the fact that he gave CNN leverage to dox a man over a meme by proclaiming that those who oppose them will “change their tune once identified”. This is not the first thing Kaczynski has done. He has ruined the life of another private citizen, one Justine Sacco, over what was supposed to be a joke tweet about her being a white person in Africa by publicly outing her for an angry Twitter mob to target, which led to her losing her job. But even worse was when, in 2013, he gave out the identities of two people – Mike Mulugeta and Sunil Tripathi – who he falsely believed were the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombings, and he reported that falsehood as fact. One of them, Sunil Tripathi, committed suicide after the false accusation resulted in him and his family being constantly harassed and threatened. All he’s known for otherwise is digging up dirt about politicians. So CNN basically hired a professional muckraker who is also known for ruining people’s lives for a paycheck. He is a scumbag, and I hope one day he gets what’s coming to him.

CNN is the most immoral company in media, and they’re what’s wrong with journalism today! They spin either lies or half-truths constantly, their journalists have no fucking clue what’s going on and make shit up but they expect you to take them as fact, but they consider themselves an untouchable class of people who cannot be criticized or else you’re against the free press. And for that reason, CNN and others like them think they can just do whatever they want, even if it’s flagrantly unethical. Can’t imagine why so few Americans trust the media. Can’t imagine why Trump is their President to begin with. Anyone who defends them, in my view, is not worthy of my time or trust. I don’t think I’ve been so outraged as I am about this whole thing.

flat1000x1000075f

What’s wrong with Satan being likeable?

Lately I’ve been hearing about an upcoming TV show called Lucifer. Yes, Lucifer. It’s based on Neil Gaiman’s comic book interpretation of Lucifer, who was the ruler of Hell until he became bored and unhappy with this station and decided to retire and live in Los Angeles. This would mean Lucifer being identified with Satan, as is commonly the case, based on both the Christian depiction of Satan and the Satan of John Milton’s Paradise Lost. Anyways, in this show, Lucifer Morningstar (as he is called) now apparently spends his days as a consultant for the Los Angeles Police Department, while simultaneously he runs a nightclub called Lux (which isn’t a very creative name). Ironically enough, the show is being aired by FOX of all channels.

Pictured: Tom Ellis as Lucifer Morningstar

The thought of a TV show centering around Lucifer, Satan, or any similar entities, was bound to scare and/or outrage the ignorant, no matter how that being is interpreted, and in America (as usual) people are proving that they aren’t ready to live in a society where religious prejudice is being shunted to the side in creative media. A group called One Million Moms has been launching a petition against the show in recent days, feeling that the show disrespects Christianity and mocks the Bible by making Satan seem likeable. Here’s where we get to the crux of the matter: what’s wrong with Satan being likeable?

I must wonder how tired some people in the modern age are of explaining to Christians that the world does not revolve around them, or their Bible, or their church, but that’s exactly what’s going on here. Christian parents are complaining about a TV show and want it pulled because it mocks their religion, because they assume the world revolves around them, and it’s sad that this is still the case in America in particular. This is the same mentality that drives opposition to laws concerning freedom of expression and the right of the individual to freely pursue lifestyles other than the conventional Christian lifestyle. Outside the perceptions of Christianity and Islam, there’s nothing wrong with making Satan a likeable character, or seeing him as such. In fact, from objective viewpoint, he does less harm to human life than Jehovah does, if he causes any harm to humans at all. Even if you follow the belief that Satan tempts you to do evil things, that changes nothing, for in that instance it is you commits evil actions actions, not Satan. It is Jehovah who ultimately sends you to hell for going against his will, not Satan. And depending on your view point, Satan is the same serpent who gave mankind knowledge of good and evil and of their own desires, not Jehovah. If anything, people are likely to see Satan as more likeable than Jehovah as soon as they take a closer look at the same Biblical mythology that Christians clearly want to cram down our throats non-stop.

Poor Tyger (BBC Three strikes again!)

You know those child actors who grow up and then no one cares them about them anymore? Well, one of them has decided to join BBC Three in yet another anti-porn TV show. Tyger Drew-Honey, who some people who actually watch British TV may remember from Outnumbered, will be presenting his own TV series entitled “Tyger Takes On Porn, the Perfect Body, and Love” in which he tries to get everybody to notice him again by exploring the world of porn, body image, and love, starting this Thursday.

It’s funny, he actually looks like a gay porn star to me.

If you remember, BBC Three already did another show about pornography with Jameela Jamil about how porn is supposedly bad. Given that, I assume that this new show is going in the same direction of anti-porn propaganda and the lowest common denominator morals that fuel it.

I find it very hard to believe that pornography is among the “challenges of the growing up”, as the ad for the show describes, and the main reason for this is that pornography is not a challenge of growing up. Pornography is merely a pleasure in which most if not all of us indulge in, both men and women of all sexual orientations. If you believe it’s a challenge of growing up, let alone anything other fantasy, then congratulations, you have officially reached a whole new category of ignorance and stupidity.

But let’s be completely honest here, why would want to be lectured about porn supposedly being bad or, excuse me, a “challenge of growing up” by some former child actor looking for attention, anymore than you’d want to be lectured on how porn is evil by a freaking fashion model, who we don’t care much about either?

Why I dislike “Homer’s Night Out”

Every time I see or hear of that particular episode of The Simpsons, I can’t help but groan. My first instinct regarding the episode is that it is one of the preachiest episodes in the whole show, but then I might just be saying that because it’s all family values from here.

All it seems to do nowadays is make Homer seem like an exceptional swinger, despite the fact that all he did was get caught dancing with the lovely Princess Kashmir. The episode’s message doesn’t seem so much “don’t cheat” so much as “don’t get caught with an exotic dancer”, which is kinda strange because Homer didn’t really do anything sexual, and I doubt he had interest in doing anything sexual with her anyway.

What bothers me is that Marge seems to think that he was treating her like an object, that we too are treating women like objects, and he has Homer preach this idea to his son and the rest of us. Of course women are not objects! That was never the problem (in fact, you’d have to be dumb as hell see women as being anything other that humans with thoughts and feelings). The problem seems to be that women can’t go around showing some skin in dance without being “degraded” or “objectified”. Kashmir didn’t seem to think it was so degrading, and Bart didn’t seem all that scarred by the idea of Homer dancing with her. I mean, as I said before, it’s not like he was having sex with her or something. I would think the idea of your dad actually having sex with someone else would be more scarring to a child then mere dancing, wouldn’t you?

Now I’ll admit that the spectrum of reactions besides Marge’s wrath is actually mildly fascinating (from the kids parodying Homer’s dancing, to the frankly flattering identification of Homer as the “world’s greatest swinger”, to Mr. Burns reaction), but none of it makes up for the episode’s preaching of a shallow, worn out, and ultimately false message. Homer and Marge preach that “women are not mere objects” except that’s not what they’re preaching at all. They’re preaching the same old dictate that women can’t show skin if they enjoy doing it. In fact, the only reason Homer’s preaching at all is because Marge is mad at him for dancing with Kashmir and he’s trying to get her to forgive him, so to me he doesn’t really believe in it at all (and I don’t think you see that “belief” come up in his mind during later episodes and seasons). Over the course of the show, Marge would continue to the same old ideas in different ways, but in a progressively dumber way. You could make the case that this was done as a satire of these attitudes being prevalent in American society, but as the show got popular I doubt it had that affect and I bet this attitude was actually taken seriously, even to heart by fans.

BBC Three: What’s the Harm?

Last night, there was a program airing on British channel BBC Three, which incidentally was facing the threat of being axed from TV (good riddance in that case). In the program, some random woman we probably never cared about (a.k.a. Jameela Jamil) tries to convince us of the so-called evils of pornography. She apparently believes that porn causes sexual violence, child abuse, and rabid underage sexual activity, despite that there’s no evidence of this being true.

It seems to me that either the lot in BBC Three has completely no understanding of pornography whatsoever, or is actively attempting to suffocate the sexuality of the British youth, or is merely attempting to shill mindless crap to our youth as usual, probably at the behest of some old men. Either way, seriously, it’s clear that the program and its host are both completely stupid, because anyone who believes that pornography causes any harm (or at least on its own) is completely retarded.

Pictured: a retard

The channel has a few programs titled What’s the Harm, all with the intent of duping the young masses and exploiting ignorance (and don’t forget that toxic dash of Christian values). For instance, the idea that all prostitution is forced and that none of the sex workers do what they do out of any enjoyment, or actually taking cyber sex seriously when we all know it’s little more than masturbation.

To be honest, how do we know BBC Three just wants every teen in the UK to have club parties with endless drinking, and invariably the reckless sex that comes with endless drinking? Maybe they just hate everything that’s not a club music party. The only reason you’d save a channel that does little more than spread ignorance and promote conformist youth culture, is because it has already taken hold of its millions of victims who now support it.

What’s the harm with porn? Nothing. What’s the harm with BBC Three? Everything.

Thoughts on the Bible TV series

For a month, the Bible TV series (which aired on the History Channel in America) had aired in the UK. The first three episodes aired on November 30th, December 7th, and December 14th respectively, and the last two aired just last weekend. While I am aware that this is basically just religious tripe, I watched it anyway for two reasons:

  1. The whole Obama Satan thing.
  2. The promise that the show might be epic

The series is actually pretty epic, despite the fact it’s basically propaganda. But then, the actual Bible can be said to be an epic story even in spite of its nature as a propaganda book. All that shit aside, lets focus on the series.

Immediately the first thing I hate is that, whenever I watch the series, I have to deal with those fucking excruciating Christian sponsor ads (whose who watched the show in the UK will know what I mean). But that’s the least of matters.

The first episode deals with the first part of the Old Testament, from Genesis to the beginning of Exodus. It skips the Adam and Eve story through Noah telling the story to some people in the Ark, and starts with part of the Noah’s Ark story, so it doesn’t really bother with those two stories much, which is kinda stupid to me.

The second episode deals with the Israelite conquest of the Holy Land. Now, believe it or not, this is actually my favorite episode and the most epic of the three. Why? Well Biblical war tends to be pretty epic, and you have that whole game of kings here. But most importantly, this episode has Samson. The way the show’s depicted him, I’d say he’s the best character you will ever see here. Just look at him. He’s strong, and quite the badass, and engages in many mighty feats until he dies.

In the third episode, after we see the Babylonian exile, it’s all about Jesus from here, starting with his birth and his early life.  The entire fourth episode is devoted to the mission of Jesus, as well as his eventual betrayal, and the first half of the last episode is all about Jesus’ death and resurrection. Trust me, it tends to go downhill when we start emphasizing Jesus. To be honest, the “Obama Satan” in the actual show isn’t nearly as hilarious as the Internet had me believe. And if you’ve seen the last episode, then you might as well have seen The Passion of the Christ.

All in all, I find the series is watchable, despite basically being Christian tripe. It can be epic, but kinda gets less so later, but the drama is definitely there.

After this post, I will be taking a break from posting for Christmas time until December 28th. So I wish everyone a merry, festive, and indulgent Yule season, and to all a good night.

Why so much attention over a sitcom character?

Back in July, I posted about how much I hate the sheer waste of flesh that is Alan Harper. Since then, I got a lot of comments about the post, and it seems to be the most seen thing on the blog. Why do I think this is a problem? Because the subject isn’t really that important.

Sure, I hate the character for reasons that are familiar in a meaningful way, but the subject itself is not that important in the grand scheme of things. Do we just focus that much more on shit on TV as opposed to the bigger things going on in the world? If it is, then I am very disappointed, because I feel there’s a lot of attention going to the blog for reasons pertaining to petty TV interest, rather than curiosity towards the bigger issues I try to react to, or intellectual pursuit.

You’re entitled to have your opinions, but I have a certain level of contempt for all the attention paid towards the TV world.