Morons of the Internet: Prahlad Friedman

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

In this edition we have one big wanker from the world of poker; a game I hold very close to my heart. As you can imagine there are many assholes attracted to a game that promotes cheating and behaving like a greedy asshole, and many of these mouthy idiots love to spout their rubbish over social media. Here we have a fine example of how not to claim the sport of poker suffers from systemic racism, straight from the mouth of one hateful young man.

The particular poker player in question is Prahlad Friedman, who has had his fair share of success in the past, although he's mostly known in the poker world for behaving like a dickhead to other players. That's not enough for Prahlad who also thinks himself a rapper named 'Pragress', although when we look at his freestyling and latest release we can safely conclude that only Pragress thinks himself a rapper, and anyone with a pair of ears can tell a stroke victim has stronger bars than this wanker. I suppose you don't expect much artistic flair from a man who called himself 'Pragress', but I certainly didn't expect the absence of talent on the level of this douchebag. Can it get any worse? Well yes, he's also a graduate in ethnic studies, and everyone who happily displays that hugely prestigious diploma alongside their name surely has a hilariously warped view of the world. This is about to be demonstrated by the following argument:

Oh wow, just look at that comment to like ratio. It's almost like people hate being demonised by virtue signalling idiots. We'll get to how dumb this argument is in a second, but what I hate the most is just how arrogant and condescending this tweet is. OBVIOUSLY it HAS to be systemic racism causing this complicated issue. It's so blatantly obvious for high-level academics like this guy that Prahlad won't even provide any form of a source to back up this big claim. His only reasoning is that everyone likes poker, so everyone should be playing the game an equal amount, which is possibly the most stupid reasoning it's possible to give. It's like the evidence a four year old child would give it's that plain stupid. I guess those people that turn down offers to play a game of poker with me don't physically exist in Prahlad's messed up world, nor do the countries where gambling is banned. You can easily debunk this moronic point by analysing how race affects almost any sport on the planet. Different cultures have different preferences over sports, and so we see a disproportionate number of Asian players in table tennis, a high number of Cuban boxers, and an abundance of South American footballers. Tell me Prahlad, is racism prevalent in these sports where whites constitute a minority? I've never seen you call for affirmative action in these scenarios.

The issue of racism in poker is a very complicated and divisive topic, and all Prahlad's argument achieves is completely blowing trivial issues out of proportion. There have been numerous people from a multitude of races and backgrounds to appear at the WSOP final tables despite the majority of the field being players predominantly white and Asian. The simple truth is that the cards you're dealt have fuck all to do with what race you are. Instead of promoting diversity in the sport Prahlad decides the best strategy is to penalise other players and criticise the majority who have just as much right to be at these final tables as minorities. The WSOP does not treat players based on race, so you probably do need sources if you're going to make the huge accusation that poker is an inherently racist sport. The good news is that Pragress is on hand to clarify and queries in the most patronising way possible.

With this ridiculous reasoning the NBA would be filled with white players, as would the sports which I've previously mentioned. Interestingly Pragress has never criticised the NBA for a monopoly of black players despite there being OBVIOUS racism involved. That's all the evidence I need to blindly call racism right? Why poker is magically different from other sports is another question I'd like to direct towards Pragress. Reductionist doesn't even begin to cover how simplified this idiocy is. You can simply look at the most successful poker players in the world and then look at the richest countries in the world and instantly see how there is no correlation between these two factors. It's almost as if Prahlad's argument isn't rooted in the truth in any way. To be fair Prahlad has seen non-diverse poker rooms, so his anecdotal evidence must surely trump the actual statistics.

Let's be honest, Prahlad's argument has fuck all to do with race. You could argue that on average black people are in a poorer financial situation than white or Asian Americans, but that's a general statistic, and this man is planning on helping individuals. I have no idea how Prahlad jumped to the conclusion that free time and race are intertwined, but my money would be on the fact he's an idiot. I still don't understand the race boundary. This is an argument solely based on wealth, and not at all dependant on race. It would make a million times more sense to aid individuals struggling financially, yet for some reason it's OBVIOUS, despite still no sufficient evidence being provided, that the sole reason for this issue is race. This is not a logical argument, just pure arrogance.

Oh, that's a simple solution, thanks for your words of wisdom. Once again backed up with some phenomenal reasoning. I guess in Prahlad's world, which is very different from that of a sane person's, repeatedly jumping to conclusions doesn't diminish the validity of an argument. I'd love to think governments across the planet will give equal pay for everything in order for poker to become more inclusive, even in the Islamic countries where gambling is banned, but then I suppose in Prahlad's fantasy world everyone loves poker. How arrogant do you have to be to start dictating that your understanding of the world is superior to others, and that we should take affirmative action towards what you deem as progressive?

If this argument on free time were to be correct then we would expect final tables in poker to be populated by retired white men, who don't have a job, and have a ton of money saved up over their lifetime. The strange, and not at all surprising thing, is that this scenario isn't remotely true. Just by looking at the previous final tables you can see a growing trend of young men dominating the standings. Again Pragress, it's almost as if this issue is too complex to be described by your woeful reasoning. At this stage Mr Friedman could have looked at empirical data across poker tournaments in different countries, and analysed the relationship he's banging on about here. However as we've discovered Pragress doesn't use evidence, as his worldview is obviously superior to factual information. Eventually Pragress does treat us to some evidence, and my what a beauty it is:

Oh what a shame, the one fucking statistic is a completely meaningless generalisation. I do fucking hate any point made with 'yall' in it, as it indicates the language of a simpleton. It's of no surprise then that this point is just as idiotic as the others, and can easily be torn apart with a simple example. White people outnumber Asian people in the UK by a big margin, yet a disproportionate number of Asian people are playing in the England cricket team when compared with population statistics. Therefore by Prahlad's logic we can OBVIOUSLY see that there is systemic racism towards white people in England, as if not the ethnicities of national teams would be roughly proportionate to the population. You could just as easily make the same argument for the NBA in America. This is the sort of moronic logic we're dealing with here. What Prahlad has done here is found a statistic and implied misleading conclusions from it, nothing more. This does not constitute evidence, and it sure as hell doesn't constitute an argument.

The quality of this argument can easily display the low intelligence of Prahlad, but for good measure he's added another 'yall', so any reasonable human can join me in not taking him seriously for one moment. Here we have yet another meaningless comment questioning why people avoid taboo subjects. I always thought that was just called civility, and whilst I agree taboo subjects should be discussed, you can't start whining at people when they refrain from openly expressing opinions on these difficult subjects. Also when we're referring to black people we're not all as narrow-minded as Prahlad is to assume that this solely means African Americans. Funnily enough there are loads of black people in Africa, and I bet you tribes in the heart of the Congo aren't talking about racism every single day. It's quite hard to have a broad opinion on something when all you can see is the contents of your own ass. Congratulations Mr Friedmann that is a 100% retention rate of awful generalisations. Truly your idiocy is astounding, and I would have thought that you as a white person would have realised this when you talk about racism non-stop. You deluded idiot.

Prahlad then decided to just go crazy, spurting even more random nonsense with no real relevance to anything.

I just can't imagine why the people you're attacking are the ones getting worked up. It's almost like people don't enjoy being verbally abused. You're the sort of simpleton who kicks a hornet's nest and then blames the hornets for attacking you. But Prahlad is a generous soul, and for being born a certain way you can get coaching from this poker legend. I'll sure fear minorities at the poker table now Prahlad is involved. I suppose I'll also have to fear those Congolese tribespeople as well, because of course everyone likes poker, so I'm sure each one of the clan will have Prahlad in their corners, and with Prahlad in your corner everything is possible. I just worry he's going to have to clone himself when every minority in poker gets to the final table at the World Series and Prahlad has to be in each of their corners. That's the legendary coaching Prahlad thinks he will give, but in reality fuck all difference will be made.

The final hot take I just had to include. I'm not sure that's a sentence, but my God is there some fantastic bullshit in that one. It's the classic 'I can't be racist towards these groups of people because I have friends there' line. I also doubt Pragress is a multilinguist considering he can barely speak English, his mother tongue. It's also interesting how the argument has now shifted into Conservatives versus Democrats, rather than race, but I guess we couldn't have an ethnic studies argument without shifting the goalposts.

I'm not sure what I was expecting by analysing a twitter hot take from some random idiot, but surely any human with half a brain cell can construct a better argument than this nonsense. I'm not angry that Prahlad believes helping minorities is the way forward, and I would happily welcome more diverse tables in poker, as I believe diverse tables generate the best poker games. However what I do have an issue with is the reasoning behind Prahlad's actions, and refuse to accept that the way to reduce inequality at poker tables is by getting suffering black people to gamble more. That's a really slippery slope with the potential to ruin lives, and I hardly see Prahlad's unproven training changing this reality. Basically Prahlad is wanting to take minorities out of a rigged system and straight into another one.

But the most disgusting part of this tirade is not his pathetic argument, it's his arrogant attitude that this viewpoint makes him somehow morally superior. I wouldn't act like the greatest human being alive if I spouted out this sort of shit. Stick to rapping over politics mate, even though you've shown that's beyond your severely limited capabilities as well. Maybe you could find a rapper with the same mentality as you to coach you past the majority of black rappers. Either way, just shut the fuck up.

Christoforge Column: Trump, Brexit, and World Cups

Trump Visits The UK

Prime Minister Theresa May may not be the most popular politician in the country, but one man in America makes her look like a hero of the people. That particular man recently decided to visit the UK, and not surprisingly pissed off a few people in the process. I would love to know how many of those protesting a single man entering the country also advocate for open borders, but that's beside the point. Donald Trump is such a villain to the UK populace that hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets in cities all over the country any time he even dares take a step near our borders. The most recent protests in London had an amusing centerpiece depicting an infant Trump stuck onto a balloon flying above Parliament Square. That's classic British humour, although in truth the final piece was a bit pathetic. Sure, I enjoy berating every foreign visitor to the country as much as anyone, especially when they're a bit of a prick, but is this really the best protestors could come up with? I saw more effort put into individual signs than this balloon costing five grand. I don't know what fucking moron decided to phone up the cowboy builders, but for over five grand I was expecting a whole fucking airship. You might hire that balloon for a fancy dress party as decoration, not put it on display at a national protest. The worst part is the Mayor of London signed for this shit. Come on Sadiq Khan, you're the mayor, put some fucking effort into making your city look great. At the moment you've got surging knife crime rates over the whole city, so if there was ever a time to impress people it would be now.

I understand Donald Trump is not exactly a popular man in Britain for reasons that are mostly justified, but I don't follow the view that we should ban him from visiting this country. At this critical moment in our political history, where we're severing ties with key allies, is it really wise to be effectively flipping the bird to the most powerful man on the planet? If there's one quality that Trump has it's that he's not going to fluster over half-assed decisions, so pissing him off is hardly going to end in a similar awkward relationship that Theresa May has with the European Union. It pains me that Great Britain now has to side with a man who claimed we could, and should, sue the EU, but this is the political climate we live in today, and Britain is as vulnerable today as it ever has been. Let's stop burning bridges quicker than we can build them.


A Quick Word on Brexit

Whilst we're dabbling in the subject of Brexit I thought I'd give a quick update for you all. It's totally fucked. It's always been a complete farce, and now the main proponents are dropping like flies. Maybe it was a good thing these individuals resigned from these top positions, but it hardly makes this farcical political position look any better.


The French Winning at Something

It may have come to your attention that there was a minor football tournament held in Russia over the last month. The most important part of that tournament was, of course, the English football team not embarrassing themselves in their usual pathetic way, but there were also a lot of other stories that nobody could have ever predicted. We were treated to stories like the unfancied Russian side getting past the Spanish side to reach the quarter-finals, or the German side crashing out to South Korea in the group stages. In the end the French football team finally fulfilled their massive potential and won a major tournament. Comisserations to runners-up Croatia, who gave spirited and well-organised performances in almost every single one of their games. France were consistently the best team in the tournament, so Croatia can have little regrets with their losing efforts against such a prolific footballing powerhouse. As a Brit I hate having to congratulate France, but whilst many have joined in my show of support there are other hopping on the bandwagon and using this triumph to support their political views.

A notable example of this behaviour came from South African comedian Trevor Noah, who in a celebratory fashion claimed that Africa, and not France, had won The World Cup. I'm aware this is a joke, but that doesn't excuse the idiocy on display. In case you weren't aware 21 of the 23 players in that French squad were born in France, and not a single African side made it out the group stages, so I don't quite understand how you could possibly claim this whole continent won this international tournament. Certainly many French players are from African heritage, but these players are representing France, and not the countries of their ancestors. This joke also completely ignores the idea that football is a team sport. If this French squad were an African team then they would be missing players such as Antoine Griezmann and Hugo Lloris, and so you seriously have to wonder whether they would have triumped without these critical figures.

The idea that the French team are predominantly African is such a strange line of argument as well. It's almost as if these idiots are trying to delegitimise these black players from being French citizens, which if I'm not mistaken is a line I would expect from a far-right neo-nazi group. In fact it's very similar reasoning to the British extremist idiots over at the BNP, who like to think that being black excludes you from being British. That attitude would rightly get 'woke comedians' like Trevor Noah jumping all over it, yet here's Noah condescendingly parading his race-based politics to suck all the celebrations out of the French victory. Is the message behind this joke that immigrants can't be considered true citizens of a new country even after multiple generations? That's what it sounds like to me. Maybe it's time for people like Trevor Noah to stop shoehorning political issues in America into every single event on the planet, and have some fucking respect for the achievements of those French players.

Morons of the Internet: Natalie Portman

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

In this edition we return to our old friends at PETA, who as per usual are recruiting celebrities to try and indoctrinate people into their cult. I wonder what wonderful message PETA have got for us this time. What's that, we're directly comparing the slaughtering of animals to The Holocaust? Oh right, that's the sort of noble things I expect a charity should be doing.
_______________________________________________________________________
https://www.peta.org/features/video-natalie-portman-ode-to-isaac-bashevis-singer/
_______________________________________________________________________

In case I haven't made it clear yet, PETA isn't exactly my favourite organisation in the world, but I do like Natalie Portman. Not only would I like to sleep with her, which is a privilege any woman on Earth can relate to, but I've also enjoyed her performances over the years in films such as Leon and Black Swan. She's also something of an animal rights activist, and although I'm sure her heart is in the right place, she unfortunately sides with disgusting organisations like PETA. I've written at length about the scummy practices of PETA on this very blog, so I won't bore you with the details and instead focus on what idiotic actions they've settled on this time.

The video presented in this article shares opinions from a literary writer named Isaac Bashevis Singer, who in traditional PETA fashion is about as knowledgeable on animal rights as a cow heading to the slaughterhouse. He's presented as this hero of the masses, who challenged everything from women's rights to animal rights. A quick research returned nothing significant on whether this liberal campaigning is actually a reflection of the man, and there is a noticeable absence of anything relating to his campaigning over women's issues. If we're to believe PETA and Natalie Portman that these issues were a huge part of his life, surely these activities would be repeatedly mentioned across the web. However, I'm sure we can trust PETA as literary connoisseurs to know what they're talking about, and certainly not manipulating the works of Singer to blow smoke up their own assess. PETA continues to show why humility isn't a term they understand by claiming Singer was a predecessor to them pushing animal rights issues into the mainstream. I honestly can't imagine having my head so far up my own ass and claiming that my own charity revolutionised this whole animal rights debate when it's been raging for fucking centuries before PETA even existed, and is even persistent in religious practices thousands of years old. I'm struggling to think what PETA has actually done apart from repeatedly behaving like absolute cretins. Once again we have PETA simply massaging their own ego instead of actually acting in a beneficial way towards animals.

 Just because you've promoted farcical events like this into the mainstream doesn't give you an excuse to pat yourself on the back in the most arrogant way possible.

PETA behaving like idiots is nothing new, but here they've decided to attack meat eaters by comparing slaughterhouses to Nazi death camps. Merely comparing meat producing animals to the millions of Jews slaughtered by the Nazis is astonishingly ignorant. I'm amazed that as a woman from Jewish heritage Portman is able to throw this huge generalisation into such a serious argument without any care in the world. This is the story of your relatives being persecuted, yet here you are using it without a care to massage the ego of a bigoted charity. Not only does this argument create a reductionist view of animal welfare, but it also succeeds in trivialising the horrors that Jewish people have witnessed in the last century. Clearly anyone with a brain can see these are two completely separate issues that shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as each other. If you wish to make a point about the treatment that slaughtered animals go through then that's fine, but don't you fucking dare start comparing this system to the attempted extermination of a whole population for mere shock value. Unfortunately this isn't the first time PETA has pulled a senseless act like this one, and in fact they've quite rightly been banned from showing pictures of The Holocaust in Germany. Why the fuck you would ever consider shoving national tragedies into the faces of citizens in order to promote your cause is beyond me. It's just further evidence that PETA is an organisation run by scumbags.

What is abundantly clear is that neither Singer nor Portman are biologists, or have any background knowledge of global agricultural systems. To compare the suffering of animals to humans just simply isn't possible, so making rash generalisations only fuel shock value to a manipulative argument. What's even crazier is the idea that eating meat makes you a Nazi by proxy. It's all very well Portman and Singer proclaiming that slaughtering is at odds with human society, but for a significant number of people worldwide who live in abject poverty, this isn't a choice they can make. Does that make these people less human merely because they aren't able to make the dietary choices that these privileged individuals do? I find his reasoning contradicts PETA as well. Singer claims that if slaughtering persists there can be no liberty or harmony, yet PETA are more than happy to euthanise their own animals in large numbers, so why not compare them to Nazis? This idea also contradicts the words of Natalie Portman, who in a video linked by this very article claimed that all humans are free irrespective of their diet. It's almost as if she has no fucking clue what she's going on about.

Portman makes such shit arguments. The idea that we should all radically change our lifestyle because some writer who knows fuck all about animals has compared the suffering of Jews to the suffering of animals is ludicrous. You can't just worship the ground someone walks upon and encourage others to emulate their thoughts because you agree with them. In truth you could just as easily encourage people to follow animal rights campaigner Adolf Hitler. He wrote at length about the similarities between Jews and animals, so I look forward to Natalie Portman making a propaganda piece on him. It gets even more confusing when the PETA article starts instructing people to take inspiration from Natalie Portman, who as far as I'm concerned has merely talked about some writer in front of a camera. Does that now count as inspirational? I could just as easily film a piece where I praise Rudyard Kipling's imperialistic interpretation of the natural world, and then claim people should be inspired by me to start burning vast swathes of rainforest for human settlement. It's all very well presenting an idea, but where PETA always seem to struggle is in actually making a formal argument without just becoming provocateurs.

Really this whole charade is just a cheap advertisement rather than a serious topic of discussion, so maybe you could argue that my reaction is somewhat over the top. However, I'm pissed off, and sick of hearing this outrageous comparison that succeeds in nothing other than trivialising atrocities. It's clear in this piece that PETA have no compassion for victims of The Holocaust, they merely want to use victims as a bargaining chip for there provocative propaganda schemes. Just because they can use the untold suffering of millions as a comparison doesn't mean they should, and once again we're left with a shocking reminder of what these moronic campaigners will do for a bit of publicity.