Morons of the Internet: Zoe Williams (18/03/15)

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

In this edition we have quite possibly the stupidest proposal of all time from a writer who ends up sounding like an uninformed power hungry dictator. I know it's a bit late in the 'Top Gear' fiasco, but you just have to see the stupidity on display here.
_________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2015/mar/11/jeremy-clarkson-suspended-eco-feminist-top-gear?CMP=share_btn_tw
_________________________________________________________________________________

Oh wow, just wow. What the fuck has eco-feminism got to do with the recent demise of 'Top Gear'? Already I can tell that you're views on the show are going to be both stupid and irrelevant. You don't help yourself by introducing the subject with a load of made up bollocks. Seriously what evidence do you have to suggest that Jeremy Clarkson denies the existence of futuristic cars? I wasn't aware you could see into the future, and so how you can lecture the man on being in the wrong side of history is incredibly ignorant, especially considering that a significant part of 'Top Gear' is centered on upcoming cars and technology. I get the sense that you're not an avid viewer of 'Top Gear', and I'm not an avid reader of your column, so we're both at a disadvantage here. The difference is I look at statistics, where as you choose to chat complete shit instead. You say there's no future for a show like this, yet it's the most watched factual television show throughout the world, repeatedly churning out high ratings. Of course there's a future for things that simply aren't eco-friendly, in fact if anything it's almost the reverse. Formula One for example is having somewhat of a boom period, and even Red Bull are sponsoring the very act of  'people doing stupid stunts in cars'. So am I supposed to believe the transnational corporation that's invested millions of pounds in it, or your uninformed opinion?

But the worst thing about your vision is your flat out ignorant personality. How dare you try and demonise a whole section of our society by just redefining it as you wish. I would like to think that I'm a petrolhead, despite my terrible car at the moment, but I also believe in climate change. Oh, but in your definition that means I can't possibly be a petrolhead, unless of course you haven't got a fucking clue what you're going on about. Liking cars and objecting a fundamental and proven part of science are not synonymous, and you almost make being a car lover sound like a cult. Let's have a quick look in the dictionary shall we, seeing as they might actually know how to define words. The Oxford Dictionary simply states that a 'petrolhead' is a "car lover". That's it, nowhere in that definition does it say a denier of climate change. Does suddenly having a passion for eco-friendly cars mean you loose the status of 'petrolhead'? No of course it doesn't. A false statement to kick off the argument that's based on assumptions. What a great start.

Wait hang on. 'Top Gear' agrees with you. Jeremy Clarkson himself said he loved the 'i8', despite some noticeable drawbacks, which predictably you haven't picked up on. In fact 'Top Gear' regularly include cars like this in their content, so what eco-feminism has to do with changing the programme is a mystery. What makes environmentally friendly cars so much more special? It's a consumer programme at heart, and so you have to approach things from an unbiased perspective, and yes that does mean reviewing more than one type of car. I'm pretty sure the population would differ on their opinion of the world's coolest car seeing as Aston Martin is named as Britain's second coolest brand. That's a use of statistics there, which is something that seems to allude you. I just get the sense that you have no idea what you're going on about.

This lack of knowledge again becomes apparent with yet another false statement to base an argument on. In no way has the car superseded the world's environmental concerns, as then surely you would commonly see the use of electric cars on the streets. Maybe you don't because the cars are not sustainably produced and impracticable compare to their petrol rivals, which is again a point you've completely missed out despite it being a massive factor. We're still working on electric and hydrogen powered cells, and unlike you 'Top Gear' realise that this is the case, diminishing any possibility of this eco-friendly dreamland that you live in. You just completely miss the purpose of 'Top Gear', and if you could relate to it then you might realise that eco-feminism has nothing to do with this issue. 'Top Gear' gets those huge ratings because of its entertainment value, with only a small part of it down to the actual cars they feature. The producers of the show did try a more factual approach a long time ago, and the ratings were inevitably poor, and so it subsequently got axed. Your 'solution' would just alienate that target audience that has been the success of the show, all because of your bias towards cars that are too good to be true. This is just commercial suicide. 

'Behind the curve'. What curve? It's already the most watched factual television show worldwide. How can it possibly do any better? Maybe you're the one who needs to catch up with this curve that hasn't been distinguished. After all, there are no shows that promote eco-feminism anywhere the near the level of viewers that 'Top Gear' pulls. Maybe people don't care if it's eco-friendly or not, and actually just want to watch things because they like the look of it. From my past experiences with eco-feminism I can tell this writer that spirituality and mystical connections have nothing to do with the 'Top Gear' format, and adding it in would be cataclysmal. Face it, ploughing into a ditch and laughing produce serious viewing figures whether you like it or not. It doesn't need your autocratic wisdom, especially when you completely miss the point of the whole show. It gets views from being an entertainment show, not shitting out your ecological propaganda. 

Oh boy, we really reach the peak of shit here. A 'macho culture' allowed it. Just fuck off. How many other shows are there like 'Top Gear'? Was 'Downton Abbey' a product of the macho culture as well? Just an unbelievable statement. How you can make a generalisation as bad as that is beyond belief. And for what? Because this motor show happens to be scientifically illiterate, something that I would actually praise the show for. Clarkson himself has a degree in engineering, so unlike you he knows what he's talking about. How about leaving the experts to talk about what they know, and you keep your eco-feminist bullshit locked in your head where it should be. Stop demonising the things that have shaped society. Can't you comprehend that fossil fuels are just brilliant? They run society, and so why shouldn't there be a programme that glorifies them? That would be like me moaning about 'Grand Designs' because it didn't contain designs with human teleportation devices, all because that's how I thought history would pan out.

You then decide to make the most stupid point in existence. You have the audacity to call 'Top Gear' scientifically illiterate, yet it seems you have no knowledge of the subject yourself. Apparently being territorial is not what being a human is about. Excuse me, would you care to open any history book ever written. Humanity, and also nature, has been founded on the very idea of territory. The only reason you're sitting in a nice office at the center of a global city is because of mankind's self centered push for territory. Whether you like it or not feminism is still dependent on that because that's a part of not just nature, but human characteristics as well. If you disagree then I suggest you take it up with Mr. Darwin or the countless scientists that have approved of his work. Even if you become more ecological you can't get rid of this desire. I'd like to think stone age homo-sapiens were pretty ecological, and yet they wiped out the neanderthals in a huge territory dispute. You've certainly just written the most stupid sentence I've ever seen, proving that you know nothing about this subject, and that you're argument is completely pointless.

You basically want to make a slanted and biased documentary because you think that's the only way forward. By doing that you would completely alienate the target market of 'Top Gear', who see cars as not simply a mechanism of travel, but a passion. You would be willing to sacrifice the entertainment of millions for your own personal satisfaction, with a goal that has a completely irrelevant focus on feminism. You have the ignorance to moan about Jeremy Clarkson for not knowing what he's talking about, when you yourself haven't got a fucking clue. You're essentially a virus for television. If you don't like 'Top Gear' then simply don't fucking watch it. Nobody's forcing you to, and I'm sure there's a documentary on BBC 4 about how the patriarchy is destroying society with GM crops that is much more suited to your tastes. Remember, controversy equals cash.