Since writing about the Samantha Allen vs. Giant Bomb a while back I went on a journey in to the world of social justice. If this Encyclopedia Dramatica reference is to be believed, I’m fucked, and there’s no way out. Well, it was nice knowing you dear readers.
But fear not, my time with this wing of The Internets is drawing to a close. I’ve attempted three different times to write an article about social justice: it’s misinformed warriors and it’s well-intentioned but narrow minded knights. All to no avail. I’m struck by the sheer amount of horrible writing, both in terms of content and it’s literal meaning. These Social Justice Warriors (SJW’s) defend topics that need absolutely NO DEFENDING. In the past month, I’ve read a defense of Kim Kardashian’s shitty celebrity game, that claims people hate Kim K because she’s making money? In that same vein another SJW defended PewDiePie from game “journalists” who are also jealous of his millions, and homophobic? What? This is the world of the SJW.
To close this dark chapter in my time as Mayor of Haterville, I’ve decided to take one of these articles to task. Ironically enough, it’s a Samantha Allen article titled 5 Signs You’re Dating a Reddit Troll. Yup, ol’ Ms. Allen is writing another tired “thought piece” on what appears to be one of the few different venues that draw her, and most SJW’s ire, Reddit. The other is 4chan. Because white cisgendered men are the enemy, and they cannot hide any longer!
I chose the article mostly because it’s the most recent, and is vaguely political, but also because it encapsulates my general problem with SJW’s. These broad stroke, lazy, arm chair quarterback articles are just inert pieces of trash clogging up The Internets, and honestly, not doing anyone a bit of good.
SJW’s by their very stated nature aren’t in to educating people, especially men. They are more than happy to shovel their hot opinions in to your face, but if you even blink at a notion they suddenly feel threatened and go on the offensive. Ms. Allen is great at this. She was interviewed at On the Media (around the time of the Giant Bomb debacle) about games that include "LBGT (sic) identities". On the podcast comment page were FIVE comments. One of the comments posted was a link to Ms. Allens’ misandry screed and stated that perhaps this wasn’t the right person to be interviewing about broader representation in games. Ms. Allen then proceeded to inform her twitter feed that she was being trolled yet again by the white man. Which wasn’t even the case. This mountain out of a molehill mentality is kind of the SJW’s one play with The Internets.
The one thing that truly stymies me is the SJW writer actively engaging in the very trolling behavior they admonish. Which, if the research I’ve been doing these past few weeks is any indication, is kind of what they do. I truly want to believe that Ms. Allen’s article is satirical in nature, but sadly it isn’t and it’s truly sad.
The intro to the list is a bit useless as it’s unnecessary to the list. But Ms. Allen has a SJW quota to fill so she indulges in a bit of early man hate from the beginning. You see, a woman’s husband left a browser open on their shared laptop, she shockingly discovered that he was an internet troll that “spends his spare time harassing teenagers on Tumblr”. (Tumblr is basically SJW Valhalla, so this is doubly damning!) Horror of horrors, the wife is also pregnant! (Somehow the teenagers referenced earlier are coyly changed to “women”, and the husband then becomes a “chronic harasser”.)
Now it’s not up to Ms. Allen to provide context, she’s trying to sell her bullshit misandry anyway she can. But context is definitely key. The husband needs to be a woman hating internet harasser for her article about how every single male on the planet is evil to hang together. It’s with the context of actually going and looking up said reddit thread that things become a lot less black and white, but we’re here to make fun of Ms. Allen’s list, not use one couples deeper marital issues to buoy horseshit ideology-as-help articles.
To perhaps save the woman from the same fate as the reddit woman, who was tricked by an evil man in to marrying him and then producing children with him, which he would then harass and slut-shame, Ms. Allen has crafted a list of things a woman needs to ask a potential man (who you are not going to be fooled by then perhaps marry and procreate with him). But you would probably be better off just NOT asking any MAN anything, because as we all know, men are just wanting sex and cannot even begin to suppress their need to subjugate the woman.
Question 1. “What do you think of Seth MacFarlane?” As a white cisgendered man (A.K.A. THE ENEMY) my first answer would be: “What?” But I’m part of the problem. Because Mr. MacFarlane’s Family Guy (and most of his output if we’re being honest) is about being equal opportunity offender to everyone, this greatly bothers SJW’s. The SJW’s see their plight as the most pure and the most right, and equal opportunity thinkers (EOT’s) are the SJW kryptonite in this regard. EOT’s think that SJW’s are just polishing the brass on the Titanic, and are just being overwrought, hyperbolic bullies. MacFarlane being a white male is also the worst thing ever, regardless of his equal opportunity “nonsense”.
Also, according to Ms. Allen he squandered his one-shot at Oscar hosting, which is odd, as he just hosted the Oscars, do you mean perhaps another shot? A second shot if it were? I don’t think Seth MacFarlane is going to lose sleep over not hosting the Oscar’s again. So, if you hate Seth MacFarlane’s “politics” then you’ve passed woman level one! If not, then the woman should be worried, because you may have been mean to a woman on The Internets! Run woman Run!!!! At the very least she didn’t make the question about “the South Park guys” and their equal opportunity shenanigans.
Question 2. “Have you ever heard of Anita Sarkeesian?” You’re answer will probably be “Nope!” As NO ONE outside SJW’s and video game nerds have heard of her. More than likely, you’re answer should still be “Nope!” because she’s a non entity to most society/culture and really should not have any profound impact on a relationship in any capacity.
Ms. Allen still has an axe to grind with the Giant Bomb “community” and this is how she squeezes it in to her article. First off, the term “video gamer” is antiquated and insulting, and so is the idea that if you’re a male and play video games you’re a seemingly undesirable to the female. Calling Anita Sarkeesian a feminist is fine, but calling her a media critic is pretty laughable. She isn’t interested in critiquing media and video games, she’s only interested in propelling herself. Her videos “liberally borrow” content from other internet videos, we used to call this plagiarism, but when you’re the queen of SJW’s you can do no wrong, therefore it’s not stealing. She also “liberally borrowed” other content on The Internets for her video series and failed to give proper credit, causing more problems for herself.
As with most SJW movements, Anita Sarkeesian isn’t interested in addressing problems and fixing them. So, do as Ms. Allen says in the last sentence and pretend to recognize the name and say something that “[…]sounds feminist or, at the least, empathetic […]. Then you’ll be okay to have babies with! Hooray?
Question 3. “Which amendment in the Bill of Rights do you think is the most important?” I could write an entire column just about this ONE question. This is where the article leaves the atmosphere of anything remotely satirical and crashes gloriously in to the SJW quagmire of buffoonishness. It’s clear that Ms. Allen doesn’t know shit politically and this question should’ve been avoided as it also has NOTHING to do with a relationship.
Ms. Allen does a quick sexy run down on the Bill of Rights. In fact, it seems as though she just ran down the Bill of Rights wikipedia page and nothing else. Speaking of sexy this question can be a “ […] fun question that every couple should ask each other just to build intimacy […]” Sure, if you’re a couple of TEA Party Patriots who met on okStupid or Ohatedate.com!
Unsurprisingly, the fourth amendment gets shoved unsexy like with the fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments. It seems as though Ms. Allen started losing the thread in her column as none of the choices seem particularly inspired, funny, or insightful...or remotely satirical. Thinking that one particular amendment is more important than another doesn’t say much about a person. Nor is thinking the 2nd amendment being the most important makes you unlovable and that the woman should “RUN!” from you. Most people will ALWAYS pick the 1st amendment, it’s the fucking 1st amendment for crying out loud! Instead of half-assing a top-ten list of the Bill of Rights, perhaps Ms. Allen should’ve just said “If the man says anything about the 1st and 2nd amendment then he is unworthy of your love, because crazies love the 2nd amendment and internet trolls ALWAYS use the first amendment to harass women!” It’s also humorous that she adds about 1st amendment lovers “[…] If he thinks it means that “it’s a free country” and “people can say whatever they want,” tell him to go back to the playground he learned his politics from […]” Kind of where Ms. Allen learned her critical thought and analysis ability?
Question 4. “Can I borrow your laptop really quick?” The next two questions are quick because Ms. Allen got her misandry out of the way and you can only sub textual write “white cisgendered males are the Satan” so many times. What better way to find out if your loved one is the one by straight up invading his privacy. According to Ms. Allen you have about 30 seconds to hand over your laptop before your doltishness unleashes itself and your rendered wifeless and alone! No one, I mean NO ONE should have their privacy invaded in order to prove worthiness. This nugget pretty much settles everything in this humorous bit:
“Men don’t just cheat on you and watch too much porn anymore. They also obsessively track down and harass people who are different from them in order to feel the fleeting sense of control and superiority that defines their particular version of masculinity.”
Are we still pretending this is satirical?
Question 5. “Do you harass people on the Internet?” This is the only question you ever need to ask. The entire article previous is useless, unless you’re in to misandry and broad stroked idiocy-as-academic-critical-thought. But more importantly, being an asshole on The Internets doesn’t make you an unworthy partner. Should you also think twice when you’re riding in the car with your mate and they yell at bad driving on the road? Unless they have constant anger issues, you have nothing to worry about. There is more concrete evidence and signs for a bad partner than their internet habits.
It recently came to light, from Ms. Allen herself, that the article in question is just a “lighthearted thing”. I sincerely hopes that this is the case, but it still doesn’t excuse the rampant idiocy that rages through this column. Sure, as an academic Ms. Allen isn't shackled to churning out constant “academic thought pieces”, but that would mean that she would have to have written something academic in the same vein as this column. The bulk of her writing online is about video games, and trolling pop culture, so it becomes a bit stymieing that she paints with such a willfully ignorant brush. None of this article reads as satire, unless tongue-in-cheek has become ruthlessly bullying and mean. This article is just straight up trolling.
No comments:
Post a Comment