Top 10 Worst Songs of 2016

2016 has been just an awful year in general, and that includes the happenings in the music scene too. For some reason every song released this year seemed to be designed just to annoy me, which made this list really hard to make. There is a lot of shit that didn't make the cut that would have been a dead cert in previous years, and just by looking at these dishonourable mentions it seems scarcely believable that there can be ten songs even worse. Use these dishonourable mentions as a trigger warning if you will; a trigger warning for shit music.

Selena Gomez - Hands to Myself: Fuck me is this dull. I honestly struggled to get through a single listen without planting my head firmly onto the keyboard.
Sia - Sweet Design: Thank fuck Sia didn't release whatever the hell this is as a single. This ugly concoction is fucking unbearable.
Zara Larson - Aint My Fault: I don't actually mind Zara Larson as an artist, but this song made me seriously reconsider my positives opinions of her.
Zayn - Pillowtalk: Sorry, I didn't like it one bit, but even I'll admit this is nowhere near deserving a spot on this list.
Florida Georgia Line - HOLY: Fuck off 'Florida Georgia Line'. Fuck off with your dumb acronyms, and fuck off with your faux country music. Johnny Cash is rolling in his grave.
Beyonce - Formation: A forced and unnecessary political message crammed into a song that has zero technical qualities funnily enough spells disaster.
Gnash - I Hate U I Love U: Terrible piano playing topped off with vocals that are somehow even worse. Nothing short of a miracle that this didn't make the list.

#10 Zay Hilifigerrr & Zayion McCall - Juju On That Beat

See what I mean about 2016 being the worst year for music I can ever recall. THIS is only number ten. Even though I honestly tried really hard to ignore shitty dance based music this year, I still had to include a track so awful that it makes the attempted viral dance craze 'Watch Me' look relatively sophisticated. Everything about this monstrosity is absolutely fucking terrible. Firstly the lyrics are absolutely pointless, but then I suppose that should be expected if all they do is try and force upon humanity one of the most uninventive dances ever imagined. Arguably even worse is the accompanying vocals, that are both irritating and sound like the 'artists' were out of breath and couldn't give a shit.

It's hard to actually pinpoint what these knobheads actually did to call themselves artists. The beat comes from a 'Crime Mob' hit of yesteryear, that wasn't even any good back in 2004, and not surprisingly sounds really outdated here. The lyrics just reference other dance moves that surprise, surprise, these idiots didn't even invent, and as a result are so simplistic when mixed together. I personally despise artists that lack any imagination, but these twats take it to the next level by not even displaying a shred of coherent thought. As far as I can work out the only thing they did invent is the word 'Juju', which is just a fucking stupid word that I'm already sick of hearing. Why should these bellends even have their name anywhere near this shit? However the person I blame most for the failures of this song is you. Well maybe not you personally, but all the people that decided to make this go viral by doing a stupid dance to boost their own egos. Those sorts of scum are the primary reason I'm having to talk about this shit and repeatedly listen to it, so thanks a fucking bunch. If 2016 did do one good thing it was deciding to cease operations for the video sharing site 'Vine', which is how this song spread like herpes. Hopefully that amazing decision will ensure that future generations won't have to suffer at the hands of cancerous songs like this, but I'd just like move on and forget this ever happened. Somehow.


#9 Fergie - M.I.L.F. $

If I seriously have to explain why this is a shit song then I've lost all faith in humanity. The only emotions you should be having when listening to this song are shock and horror, followed by a long spell of crushing despair at realising this sort of thing actually passes as music nowadays. Apparently this is more than just pure shit according to Fergie, whose decided this is actually a song about empowering female mums. How the fuck does it do that? Hey Fergie, you can't just shoehorn buzzwords into songs and expect people to buy into that message. This is low rent provocative trash at its absolute worst, and you're a despicable person for even trying to lie about the allegedly serious themes that underlay the whole song.

Fergie is 41. She's clearly having a mid life crisis, but instead of people condemning her now wayward actions like everyone does to middle aged Porsche drivers, people are actually buying this shit. THIS SONG CHARTED. Did nobody involved ever pluck up the courage to tell Fergie to just fuck off and stop trying to be the next controversial ageing star, like say Madonna, who thankfully finally looks to have packed up for good. I can only imagine the production crew were bound and gagged when Fergie listed her ridiculous demands to overproduce this shit to hell and not in any way ruin her career for good. You get the sense that any fucking noise ever recorded has somehow managed to find a way into this song, which I can only assume is a tactic from the production team to distract us all from the horror that is the actual song itself. In the end the overproduction just wasn't enough to drown out this shit, with both the lyrics and beat appearing like genital warts on display to everyone. This song has however produced some fantastic memes, which is another good feature of 2016, so I guess every cloud has a silver lining.


#8 Iggy Azalea - Team

Ugh, Iggy Azalea just won't fade into obscurity peacefully. Instead her inevitable demise is fronted by the sounds of a horrendous beat and Iggy's equally horrendous voice that's become all too familiar in her music. This time however she's managed to outdo her own shitness by creating the worst combination of noises in recorded history. I don't mind the synth that much, and I actually want to praise the production team for trying to cover up Azalea's voice, because as you can see when left to its own devices it sends this song into a head on car crash. Let's just say I would love to have seen some bass or technical prowess dominating this song, rather than Iggy making this a painful listen. All this ego building crap builds up to one hell of a generic chorus, and in a song that's trying to instigate a comeback that's not a good thing. It almost sounds like Iggy has had to resort to imitating the rap scene every step of the way just to appear relevant, only succeeding in making a cheap knock off version.

I'm sorry I just can't put up with that artificial and ghastly voice that sticks out like a sore thumb. It's just intolerable. As a musician Iggy's gimmick, apart from being a massive slut, is that she can't rap without putting on a faux accent, and in this song these common themes are more prevalent than ever. She even goes for the Jamaican accent in this one, which is possibly the worst impression of all time, still managing to sound worse than her already superimposed accent. I get it Iggy, this song is you telling everyone you can do things all by yourself, apart from this song however, which took another FIVE people to write; definitely proving your point here. Let's see how well your team did here:

(Hell nah) Keep on pushing like a dealer (say what?)
(Hell nah) Keep on shooting, Reggie Miller (say what?)
(Hell nah) Go and give 'em all the finger
You gotta set the score right, call it Hans Zimmer

Five extra people to help you write a song and they can't even comprehend that 'dealer' doesn't rhyme with 'Miller', and 'finger' isn't anywhere close to rhyming with 'Zimmer'. Maybe try working better with your team instead of being a narcissistic asshat and producing shit like this. The thing is that critics fell for this song. This song got positive reviews. How? I know pop critics are paid to praise music instead of actually reviewing it, but come on. If there was ever a time to make a fucking exception this is it.

#7 Shawn Mendes - Treat You Better

I've never actually got the chance yet to say that Shawn Mendes is just shit. I hate his attitude, I hate his whiny voice, and I definitely fucking hate the music he decides to release. Mendes takes the cliched 'teen white pop singer' gimmick to the next level by falsely coming across like he's more sophisticated than his competition by bringing in such profound elements as the occasional acoustic guitar riff. The acoustic guitar in this song however soon gets drowned out by a flat out terrible beat. Shawn Mendes also sounds annoying as ever. I don't know who thought that chorus sounded good, but they clearly don't have the ability of hearing. The rest of the song isn't any better, essentially just generic crap that houses as much passion as The Pope's bedroom. That's the same with all Shawn Mendes songs really, but this one took that whole 'plain' feeling to the next level.

I wouldn't usually give a shit about the work of someone as meaningless as Shawn Mendes, but the thing that really pisses me off with this one is that Mendes thought that a domestic violence theme would partner this song perfectly. I'm not sure any cheesy, generic pop deserves a domestic violence theme, especially a Shawn Mendes number. But it wasn't enough for Mendes to force a serious theme into this song to sell a few more copies, because Mendes likes to make songs that revolve around him. Let's see how carefully and respectfully Mendes treats this very serious topic:

Tell me why are we wasting time

On all your wasted crying

When you should be with me instead

You fucking asshole. This is a domestic violence victim, but instead of caring about her welfare you start criticising her because she doesn't want to fuck you. You know what Mendes, maybe this girl doesn't want to go from an abusive relationship to being sexually harassed by you. Ever thought about that you selfish prick? What a top gentleman you are Mendes, pouring out your selfless emotions because you've decided you deserve a girl who's being domestically abused. How fucking self centred is this cunt? I don't know if this shock factor did get the guy more record sales, but you're an asshole for even trying this dirty tactic. 'Oh it's all about me, me, me'. Fuck off Mendes.


#6 Fall Out Boy - Ghostbusters

I know there's a lot of stupid people on this planet, but who in their right would think Fall Out Boy attempting to cover 'The Ghostbusters Theme' would work in any way. I hope with every fibre of my being that the person responsible for this shambles was instantly fired. Ray Parker Jr's original was smooth and cool, and a perfect accompaniment to a now iconic film. Let's just say the original has become an absolute classic for a good reason. Since when have the words 'smooth' and 'cool' ever been used in the same paragraph as 'Fall Out Boy'? Never is the answer, so it makes zero fucking sense to have them anywhere near this soundtrack, which may I add is also complete crap. Much like the poorly done rip off of a film this song features in, this theme tune is devoid of any artistic flair, or even a shred of any integrity. It's a shameless ripoff that also has the defining feature of sounding fucking awful.

Missy Elliot also tags along for whatever reason. Again, why they thought she needed a verse in a rock song is beyond me, but I have a feeling that decision may have been given to the same guy who decided to include the line in this song that 'Ghostbusters kill ghosts'. Not quite sure how you can kill something that's already dead, but I guess that's what was attempted with this song. There's not really much else to say other than to reiterate what a complete mess this whole production is, treating the source material with about as much respect as a turd, and settling for possibly the worst rock song I've heard in recent years. I'm a big fan of rock music, so when one manages to make this list you know it's got to be apocalyptically bad. But to be honest that's not my biggest disappointment, rather the fact that this song is just a money grabbing bodge job that devalues the original classic to make a quick buck. Fuck you Fall Out Boy.


#5 Lukas Graham - 7 Years

Lukas Graham are a Danish group with what might just be the worst band name of all time. Yeah that's right 'Lukas Graham' is the name of the band, and there isn't anybody in this group called Lukas Graham, which makes the name all the more worse. Lukas Graham could have at least picked an exciting name based group name like 'Lynyrd Skynyrd', but no, it's instead named after someone who sounds like a mediocre salesman. Maybe I wouldn't give a shit about their name if their music was any better, but it certainly fucking isn't. Their big hit 'Seven Years' takes on an autobiographical form, blatantly lying about the lead singer's life, but still managing to tell a excruciatingly dull story that wouldn't even pass as a Jane Austin novel. I wouldn't mind hearing the stories of people I find interesting, but this is just boring twaddle shoved down my throat. It's not deep in any way, just a cliche ridden mess created to boost egos.

I find it amazing that an allegedly serious life story can turn out so cheesy, and not in a good way either, this is plain cringey. On one hand we're being sold this metaphysical story about life in general, but then that's contrasted with the most formulaic structure it's possible to imagine. Lukas Graham, or whatever the fuck his name is, passes as a condescending knob, telling a story that isn't relatable or inspiring unless you're an arrogant fucknugget. It's quite clear he doesn't have the required talent to become an actual respected musician, and unfortunately for him this song only emphasises his pathetic vocal range and shitty personality. Somehow this crap managed to be nominated for the song of the year at the Grammys. Just take a minute to let that one sink in. I know 2016 was a shit year for music, but even if we were in an apocalyptic scenario were for some reason only Denmark could release music then this shit still shouldn't be anywhere near a nomination. Maybe Denmark should just stick to exporting butter and bacon instead of ruining the music scene with tedious bollocks like this. It says a lot about Danish music tastes when the song this overtook to become the record time spent at number one in the Danish charts was 'Doctor Jones' by Aqua. I think Donald Trump might be building his wall in the wrong place.


#4 Rihanna - Work

For some reason hit songs this year loved repeating the word 'work' an insufferable amount of times. Rihanna's song however gets the nod over Fifth Harmony's 'Work From Home', as in my opinion it's far more annoying. At least 'Work From Home' has a coherent chorus, whereas 'Work' is just some noises thrown together. I don't care what West Indian dialect it's meant to resemble, it just sounds like unintelligible shit from a stroke patient. It's not artistic, just bone idolism that attempts to substitute for any worthwhile lyrics. The rest of the song equally feels like a placeholder every step of the way, and there's a clear lack of any artistic merit or effort. Rihanna herself has never worked at trying to pull off being a credible rapper, and here that fact is brought right to the front of some very weak lyrics. Of course that's assuming you actually try and analyse this song, because your initial impression should be to instantly pinpoint how damn repetitive 'Work' is. I don't mind the odd bit of repetition in a song but this just takes the piss. The word 'work' is used 79 times throughout the whole 3 and a half minute song. 'Work' certainly isn't a song that gets stuck in your head; it's a song that just infuriates you with every listen, giving you a gradual disdain for the perfectly reasonable word 'work'.

The real kick in the balls with this one is finding out it took seven people to write this crap. SEVEN. I can only assume the dollar signs lit up in all their eyes and they forgot what they were supposed to be doing in about the three and a half minutes it must have taken to write down this bollocks. That's a pretty ironic attitude to have in a song about working your ass off for your paychecks. Speaking of not working your ass off Drake also has a verse, and as you can probably tell from my enthusiasm adds absolutely fuck all. This song is just used as a poor excuse to hit on Rihanna whilst massaging his own ego, although to be fair to Drake at least his contribution doesn't sound like a work in progress. As for the rest, well the whole product doesn't actually feel like anyone could be bothered to make a pleasant song in the slightest. The bass is clunky and sticks out like a sore thumb, and the beat equally feels all over the place. Everything is just so half assed, and funnily enough half assed elements forcibly stuck together don't work in making credible music. Rihanna doesn't need to put up with this shit. She's a credible artist at her usual standard, so why all of a sudden has she been focusing on sub-standard messes like this?


#3 Young M.A. - OOOUUU

It's that time in the list when we uncover the worst rap track of the year. Every damn list there is always that one dumb rap track that displays all the negative qualities of an overall abysmal genre. This year that honour goes to the despicable human being that goes by the name of 'Young M.A.'; a man who looks like the subject of a transgender suicide awareness advert. If you couldn't tell by this song alone he also has the persona of a grade-A cunt, failing to convince me he's a credible gangster, or even a decent human being for that matter. I don't claim to know much about the ins and outs of being a successful rap artist, but I do know that 'M.A.' has absolutely no flow and sounds fucking terrible with every line he arrogantly mumbles. He doesn't help himself by rhyming the same words over and over again throughout the whole fucking song, but then I was already convinced this thing in general is just an all round terrible human being with no reason to be anywhere near the music industry.

I'll be honest and say the production team haven't exactly helped the guy. I just don't understand why anyone would think of adding those horrible sound effects mixed in the background. They add absolutely nothing to the song and sound fucking awful. The mixing however pales in comparison to the unbearable repetition at the end of every line. Why the hell would anyone want to inflict a sound as distasteful as that on humanity? Not only does it sound shit, but it's just so fucking unnecessary. I unfortunately had the displeasure of hearing this young chap the first time, so please stop trying to inflict untold misery on millions by making the twat repeat himself. Then there's my issue with the title, which makes no fucking sense. I might expect that level of creativity from a children's TV episode that was put together in two seconds, but this is meant to be a serious record to highlight the artistic credentials of an individual. In fact aside from the explicit lyrics I think this is like something you would find being written by incompetent children. The most enjoyable part of the song for me is the lengthy silence at the beginning, as it all goes downhill rapidly after that. I take it the 'M.A.' in this man's name does not stand for 'Master of Arts', because there's no artistic integrity on display here. Shameful.


#2 Rae Sremmurd - Over Here

Now wait just a minute. You were thinking rap music couldn't get any worse than the previous entry, but somehow there was something even worse released this year. Scary, I know. You must have forgot that perennial shitlords Rae Sremmurd were still around, still releasing music so bad that even their mothers must have disowned them. Rae Sremmurd are making improvements however. For starters they're only one place down from their triumph of winning my 'worst song on 2014', and even managed to equal their prestigious second place on last year's list. This year it was the crack cocaine that once again showcased just have appalling this duo are, at least I assume a lot of crack must have been taken before this song was shat onto a drawing board. Crack apparently makes any artist lose talent, and when it's Rae Sremmurd in question there isn't much to take away in the first place, so I think you can already imagine how bad this is. You're still wrong by the way; this is more hideous than you could ever possibly envision.

Rae Sremmurd's voices are torturous to listen too. I would rather be waterboarded than be read a bed time story by these imbeciles. The woeful beat doesn't help, but fuck me this is the worst vocal performance of the century. There's no flow, they're not even in tune. I mean come on, this is just the fucking basics guys. This song is worse than horrific, this is enough to scar people for life. I can only assume Rae Sremmurd's record label don't have any quality control, because this release barely passes as music. I guess I also have to talk about the lyrics, so here's a quick sample for you:

I fucked your girl last night

And my niggas fucked her this mornin'

Charlie Sheen is my clone, can they fuck with us? No

Red carpet my home, VIP is my throne

Take me out of my zone I'ma take your ho

Fucking disgusting. I'm not sure what the rhyming scheme is supposed to be, because nothing fucking rhymes, but this random bollocks is the style repeated throughout the whole song. It doesn't even make any sense. What the fuck has Charlie Sheen being your clone got to do with fucking your mates girl? I wouldn't expect this kind of immaturity from teenage boys, yet here are Rae Sremmurd being allowed to release this shit to the mass market. That's all I have to say about this one. I'm done trying to analyse the pathetic quality of Rae Sremmurd because they just infuriate me now. Just die already.


#1 Meghan Trainor - Me Too

Meghan Trainor has undoubtedly been the worst artist of 2016 by a million country miles. She is the perfect representation of the monster that has haunted this year, refusing to die and instead unleashing upon the world her mix of abysmal music. I thought she was bad in previous years, but fuck me this is on a whole new level. I'm trying to think of the last atrocity this big that was ever forced onto humanity, but I'm really struggling. In a year that contained such appalling music, this was the pile of steaming shit that stood head and shoulders above the rest. Her earlier song 'No' served as a warm-up in displaying just how bad the art form of music could ever get. 'No' is less of a song and more a patronising speech that only serves to highlight how much of a fucking bitch Trainor is, which is the same vile attitude we ended up seeing cranked up to the next level in 'Me Too'. At least 'No' had some vague structure, whilst 'Me Too' has so much pointless stuff going on that's it impossible to listen too without feeling a growing sense of rage with every line. None of this random background noise actually accompanies the fucking song either, so the results are fucking shit. The chorus, or lack of one, is the worst though. Who's the penis that decided Trainor's pig ugly personality and voice should stand out over a fucking atrocious bass line and a beat that decides to show up whenever the hell it feels like it? A fucking moron that's who.

But worst of all is Meghan Trainor herself. What a scummy human being she proves herself to be here. This is not a song about self empowerment at any stage, rather a song were Trainor actually berates the audience because they're not her in one of the most condescending and infuriating lines of all time. Fuck off you obnoxious cow. How can you honestly sit there and lecture me on how great you are when you produce this worthless bollocks? Surely you realise how fucking arrogant and patronising this song is for listeners, but you're so far up your own ass you couldn't even give a fuck. Why people brought a song that verbally attacks them is beyond me, but then you would have to be a braindead retard to like Meghan Trainor as an artist. You just can't defend a song that's artificial crap every step of the way. Not a shred of integrity or merit, but charisma desperately forced into a song with the care of a man trying to smear a pile of shit onto his own gaping wound. The funny thing is that the original video was removed from YouTube due to excessive manipulation of Trainor's body. I would have personally removed it from YouTube as it's cancerous to your ears, but I'm sure the real reason is that content guidelines object to shit spewing out of someone's mouth. I don't know if anyone still remembers her 'unattractive bodies are beautiful' message a few years back, but it turns out that was a phase to sell records from this hypocritical bitch. Funnily enough Trainor is as bad, if not worse, than the majority of 'sexed up' artists. At least the majority of 'sexed up' artists would stick clear of abysmal records like this one. Get in the fucking bin.

Movie Rant: Blackfish

When the film 'Blackfish' was released back in 2013 it instantly became something of a gateway drug into the camp of stereotypical animal welfare campaigners. It's easy to see why so many people were sucked into a downright disturbing documentary that does well to highlight the singular issue of killer whales in captivity, using methods that appealed to a broad audience; and to that extent we have to applaud the achievements and widespread appeal of this film. However that love of being shocking and widely accessible for effect is ultimately this film's downfall in terms of credibility. This, like many animal rights documentaries I've come across, is a plague on the often sophisticated and well informed serious documentary genre. The sole composition of 'Blackfish' is a one sided narrative that exploits the emotions of viewers to buy into a singular cause that is in no way presented accurately by this film. As a student in this field I would like to say that I'm not in direct conflict with the primary issue that 'Blackfish' aims to highlight, rather the narrative based brainwashing that clouds over a very controversial issue. Both myself and this film share a dislike of seeing animals used solely for entertainment purposes, which is why I find it all the more inexcusable that the approach a documentary takes on this subject revolves around feelings rather than facts.

The portrayal of killer whales in this film is odd, and more resembles the dramatisation of a fictional character. One minute these marine mammals are portrayed as beautiful creatures that have zero killer instincts towards humans in a natural environment despite being apex predators, but suddenly when they're confined they become these cold-hearted ruthless killers hellbent on maiming those in contact with them. The film tried its best to portray certain trainer deaths as senseless aggression from the orcas, but unfortunately never got round to making an informed judgement. The only explanation the viewer ever came across of this unbelievable change in behaviour can essentially be paraphrased by the expression 'muh captivity'. There wasn't any evidence to back this wild claim up, but then it's not like evidence is important in making a formal argument is it?

Irritatingly 'Blackfish' never actually pegs onto the idea that orcas might only be killing a few people in public aquaria because that's the only time orcas are in close proximity with humans, and so the only time there's ever going to be any conflicts between the two species. Even though there is evidence that in the wild orcas have displayed aggressive behaviour towards humans, the film still thinks it's necessary to constantly shoved down our throats the misleading statistic that orcas have never killed anyone in the wild. Let's not forget that killer whales are an apex predator that can happily tackle sharks and larger whales, so just because they haven't killed anyone in the wild doesn't mean they don't have the potential to. A correlation is not automatically a causation; a phrase that unfortunately wasn't repeated enough to those involved in making 'Blackfish'. Maybe captivity does change the behaviour of orcas and makes them more aggressive, however I'm not aware of anyone on the planet who has solid evidence that this is the case. To simply generalise the behaviour of a whole species, irrespective of their background, from the case study of a single whale is highly unreliable evidence. When you consider how this film goes about presenting evidence it becomes instantly clear that this is not an objective documentary by any stretch of the imagination.

Aside from the appalling lack of evidence there is a noticeable absence of explanations in any form throughout the film. The core argument this film is based around relies on the huge assumption that captive killer whales would benefit from freedom, a human based emotion. Applying this logic to a vastly different species with millions upon millions of years since their last common ancestor is anthropomorphising to say the least. The film knows this as well, and so instead of insightful comments from seasoned experts there is a focus on opinions from former employees of 'SeaWorld' and animal rights activists, who rely on subjective comparative techniques to convey scientific messages, simply conforming to the film's narrative rather than analytically addressing the issue. In fact 'SeaWorld' themselves have actually highlighted the lack of expertise and experience of the 'Blackfish' cast; that's a fair criticism, and a factor that often goes amiss in discussions surrounding this issue. The facts are that there is still no clear evidence that captivity has a profoundly negative effect on the mental wellbeing of orcas, which may be because there is a lack of research on the area, but that doesn't stop this film from parading that notion around like it's an obvious fact. This is a serious issue and so uninformed hypothesises should have no place in a factual documentary posing as a scientific debate.

The thing that really grinds my gears with 'Blackfish' however is the attitude this film has towards the consumers that pay money in order to see killer whales. I'm sorry these normal people who perhaps don't realise there is a serious debate surrounding the issue are desperate to see an animal as amazing as a killer whale in person. I have absolutely nothing against trying to persuade these people against funding killer whales in captivity, but to then demonise enthusiastic tourists trying to see these animals from their own perspective simply because they haven't watched some one sided slander is absolutely disgusting behaviour. How fucking dare you judge people who would rather see a killer whale in captivity rather than shell out thousands of pounds with the vague hope of seeing one in the wild. Since when has it been acceptable for a misleading documentary to take the moral high ground?

This love of taking the moral high ground is apparent with every thinly veiled accusation this film can muster. 'Blackfish' has the audacity to expose 'SeaWorld' for lying to consumers by lying to consumers. I'll admit that 'SeaWorld' are hardly my favourite organisation, but this is the very definition of hypocrisy. Just one questionable behaviour from an organisation is enough to shun a varied animal care programme in the eyes of this film. Of course it doesn't matter that boycotting 'SeaWorld' would eradicate rehabilitation programmes, and presumably leave the other animals in their care without a home, because the real evil in this system is the captivity of a few individuals. 'Blackfish' however doesn't actually bother discussing solutions, because its narrative would rather ignore the fact that you absolutely cannot just release long term captive animals back into their natural environment due to the dire and unpredictable effect that would have on the gene pool. Funnily enough 'Blackfish' never even mentions previous reintroductions of captive killer whales into the wild, which may have something to do with the fact that previous schemes to free these animals have been anything but successful. In my funny little world I would have thought that would be a very fucking important point to mention.

Emotion unfortunately is more powerful in a documentary than factual and balanced arguments. There is however a fine line between a biased documentary and pure propaganda that intentionally misleads the viewer at every available opportunity despite appearing to be purely factual. As a documentary maker you have a moral responsibility to portray a compelling argument that doesn't mislead or flat out lie to the audience when pushing an agenda. Obviously there is always going to be a bias in any documentary, but documentaries are an art form just like any other film, and so this sort of underhanded tactic devalues the whole genre and reduces the integrity of truly factual films as a source of information. 'Blackfish' contains zero elements of a great documentary. Any film can invoke an emotional response from the audience, but in a documentary there should be a debate, there should be insightful points backed up by solid evidence, and there certainly shouldn't be a narrative formed around lies and misleading the viewer. Why the hell 'Blackfish' feels the need to take the moral high ground in all its arguments is another question, because in reality it follows the reprehensible system of lying to people who were previously unaware of this issue. 'Blackfish' is purely a propaganda piece that fuels an anti-captivity movement despite providing a lack of any concrete evidence as to why captivity is inherently bad, only succeeding in exploiting rare deaths for purely emotional purposes, manipulating people's existence to misrepresent a very complex issue. In a film that preaches moral duty there is an alarming absence of integrity in this irresponsible and slanderous ploy; and yet it's a ploy that activists will blindly follow thanks to the immoral attitude of this so called 'documentary'.

A Hugh Mungus Response

Because this blog has yet to jump on the 'Hugh Mungus' bandwagon I thought I'd give a retrospective overview on this whole debacle. If you're not aware of what the 'Hugh Mungus' incident is then a quick internet search will quickly find you a woman screaming at various men because of a completely harmless joke. Of course being a radical feminist this woman decided that even though she was clearly the aggressor in this situation she would still play the victim with a series of videos. I think you can see where this is headed.

Fuck me is this a depressing video. The music is like something out of a morbid charity appeal, the half assed acting makes low rent pornos look like Academy Award candidates, and the editing in this is shocking. For some reason this woman thought that weird close-ups of people allergic to shaving passed as a good quality video, when in reality this shoddy production makes my presentation skills seem almost meritable. Is this type of video really what the world of activism has become? I've seen many shit YouTube videos over the years, so I honestly wouldn't have given a shit about this disaster if it hadn't of been for the ridiculous content. In what must be shock of the century a viral video from a feminist contains misleading and rarely sourced evidence, mostly based around unreliable internet sites that are then applied to the real life personalities of any man. It's amazing how often this one sided debate switches from anecdotal evidence and personal feelings to a general argument, which apparently is impossible to invalidate because I'm part of a mystical power structure that for some reason cannot be objectively correct. Say for example I actually bothered to look up some statistics, which this woman strategically forgot to source, and found that they're not consistent. Well unfortunately that wouldn't be a valid line of reasoning because of the skin colour I was mistakenly born with. It's a shame that this woman cannot understand logical reasoning, because then she wouldn't make the mistake of glossing over such critical information as the fact that her sources vary from widely different areas. Cherry-picking information if it conforms to your narrative is certainly not the way to prove that there is a universal patriarchy oppressing you.

Aside from the pathetic argument presented in this video there is also the complete denial of this moron. There's a fucking good reason why people have been calling you an angry woman. No, it has nothing to do with sexism, rather the matter that you're a grade-A cunt who verbally harassed a harmless man. You're mistaking sexism for people not liking you. But no, according to this woman's fucked up brain I'm still the antagonist in this scenario for simply existing. Everyone from Abraham Lincoln, who helped end slavery in the US, to the white homeless man in the street is still a vile racist with more privilege over this woman, not because of their actions, but because of how they were born. Nothing unreasonable there. Also the evidence for racial inequality comes from prison populations. Since when have criminals, who you have absolutely no evidence have been falsely imprisoned, been a general trend in a population. And for that matter, how the fuck can you sit there and dictate that men are privileged when more men go to prison? The worst part is that all these bullshit accusations arise from a singular incident in which funnily enough the authorities didn't side with the person screaming false accusations. I can assure you a female officer would also understand that as they also have to follow the letter of the law, and not the bat shit code you live by. Essentially the whole argument comes down to this circular logic where a woman is having a go at the patriarchy for attacking people, when that's exactly her method of argument. Well, attacking people and making stupid videos with disabled comment sections to prevent any form of discussion. But to be fair to Zarna this video does have some damn hilarious lines. My personal favourite was discovering that it's not okay to make dick jokes because men historically stoned and executed women. Ha, that's like comparing apples to fucking planets. I for one can take a dick joke despite my ancestors being raped and pillaged by Vikings. Funny how that works.

I don't know why I was expecting this warped logic to improve in the second video, but it certainly fucking hasn't. Apparently denying that this lady was sexually assaulted, which she clearly fucking wasn't, means that I would have to admit that I've been sexually harassing women by merely existing. I don't quite know how denying a self depreciating joke about someone else's weight being sexual harassment leads to me, a virgin, sexually assaulting all women, but for some reason that makes sense in this woman's mind. This video refers back to the original situation, which once again is pinned on 'Hugh Mungus', who was apparently hostile in this situation, and not the woman shouting abuse. I'm not sure how this woman can them claim to be fighting safety, because she needs to take a hard look at herself if she thinks her actions are creating a safe environment.

In this video it becomes abundantly clear that this women cannot comprehend that there might be an alternative opinion. Anyone who does have an alternative argument is either branded a sexist, or accused of being indoctrinated by the patriarchy, presuming of course they have the right skin colour to blame. And if you disagree with Zarna, well that doesn't matter because sure enough this bitch will find a way to make you more privileged than herself, and so whatever you say cannot possibly be correct. Even as a loony conspiracy theory this is just so absurdly weak. Only absolute morons could ignore the catastrophic number of logical fallacies in this argument. The award for warped logic in this video could have gone to almost any point made, but my favourite is that apparently because most cops are ex-military, and rape is a big issue in the military, that means all cops must be rapists. I wonder if Zarna has intelligently noticed that bananas can sometimes appear to be green, which indicates they are unripened. Therefore Zarna would conclude that all bananas are unripened; even the yellow ones that clearly aren't unripened, because she's that fucking stupid. Zarna of course doesn't need logic for her argument though; all the evidence she needs is just an appeal to emotion.

You can probably predict what my criticisms are going to be for this one. Although there was another indication of retardation I spotted: In the intro there's an idiotic trigger warning to warn people that there will be mentions of various serious themes. What Zarna has done here is warned people that some things will be mentioned by mentioning them. It's this sort of shit that makes me hate this video for how condescending it is towards me. Thank you for speaking to me like a child lady who can't construct a formal argument.

As for the third video's content, well that's just a fucking joke. The 'that's sexual harassment' line I can only assume is in this video for comic effect, because it is absolutely brilliantly used as a comedic device, turning any fucking comment ever into sexual harassment based laughter. You name it, everything according to Zarna is sexual harassment. Jokes that aren't even sexual in nature, acting out of common courtesy; they're all sexual harassment. Even commenting on a random woman is sexual harassment, as well as making comments you wouldn't make to your parents. This makes perfect sense as I would absolutely never tell my parents how much I drink, so naturally I would never tell any woman how much I drink because obviously she's going to perceive that as sexual harassment. Maybe that's why these rapes never get reported because Zarna here is so hellbent on telling everyone that taboo topics spoken to random strangers is sexual harassment. Even simply believing the man in any scenario is apparently behaviour to be scorned at, as is expecting women to be nice to me, which isn't common courtesy as I assumed and actually a privilege I obtained from being born white. I don't know how any relationships form in Zarna's dystopian world, because even if I accidentally look at or breathe near a woman without consent I'm fucking harassing her. All the evidence we need as to why this clearly isn't the definition of sexual harassment is by the fact that Zarna has disabled the 'like/dislike bar'. And yes I can say that's the wrong definition of 'sexual harassment' as a white man because unfortunately definitions are a consensus of etymology that aren't determined by individuals. You can see the results of when an individual decides to devalue the English language by creating their own definitions in this fascicle video. And just to conclude this nonsense I'd just like to say that I have infected diarrhoea. And saying that is sexual harassment.

Oh good, we've moved onto more uplifting, but still very much out of place, ethnic pan pipe music. Smashing. The positive change in music for this video means my opinions of these videos have actually surpassed my opinions of Zarna herself, but then they both have the same likeability as ovarian cancer so that's hardly an achievement. I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck about critically analysing this video because I'm starting to sound like a broken record. The only difference in this final instalment is that it's like watching propaganda from an occultist. And fuck me this is dull. This video is just a cocktail of shit from the last three blended together. The points raised around really serious issues are so fucking trivial, and it's 19 fucking minutes of jack shit that doesn't contain a single piece of valuable information. If there was ever an advert on why Zarna needs to fuck off then this is the one. The final straw is when you discover that this woman set up a charity page for HER OWN WELLBEING. What a selfish cow. I wouldn't expect that sort of behaviour from a spoilt child, yet this entitled bitch thinks she deserves money for shouting at people. Just fuck off. How can any human being be this fucking deluded? This imbecile is on another fucking planet. She needs to be sectioned, not given money for no reason. I honestly give up; there's no use trying to reason with ignorant people like this.

Top 10 Worst Movie Sequels

Let's be honest, the majority of sequels are never as good as the originals. They all like to make as much money as possible by relying on previous installments to carry them, never finding the defining features that made the original work. Here are those infamous attempts where the subsequent film never even got close to the quality of the original.

Honorable Mentions:
The Godfather Part III - Don't get me wrong, this was a good film for the most part. However when compared with the other two films in the franchise this was a major disappointment.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park - One of the greatest fantasy adventure films of all time was reduced to generic action nonsense with this thoughtless sequel.
Grease 2 - To be honest I hated the original as well. I just couldn't miss the opportunity to call this a shit sequel.


#10 Home Alone 4 (2002) (2/10)

The fourth installment in the 'Home Alone' franchise promised to be bigger and badder than the originals. What a huge fucking lie that was. There was good news however, as the central character of Kevin McCallister returns. Well, not really; the role is actually played by a new actor that looks completely different to the lovable pest in the original. I'm not going to spoil things for you, but let's just say that this new actor was so successful in this role that he doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. I just can't imagine what the casting crew were thinking when they thought that hiring a kid who's nothing like the original character was a good idea. Actually they probably didn't care. They had dollar signs in their eyes and were too lazy to do anything about it. Their laziness results in the new kid being about as bland as a character can get, becoming an irritating little pissweasel that deserves to be beaten into a bloody pulp by two of the worst villains in film history.

The plot doesn't make any sense either, and like the characters is also incredibly bland. Clearly this is a younger Kevin McCallister from his heydays, yet the film's villains actually remember him from the events of previous films. Of course nobody really cares about these major flaws when you have the cringey level of awfulness in the comedy this film reluctantly provides, which let's be honest should be what a 'Home Alone' film is all about. Unfortunately the purposely shitty nostalgic slapstick in this new film was just dreadful, which is all this film managed to provide as well.


#9 Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) (5/10)

No I'm not going to be one of those stereotypical keyboard warriors that feels the need to slag this film off because everyone else does. This is a film that's actually not that awful, and there's some decent little sequences and lines from Harrison Ford, who as I always like to mention is a living legend, and his mere presence in any film is always a boost. This is however a dreadful sequel considering how good the first three films in the franchise were. If you thought the casting of 'Home Alone 4' was bad then you need to meet the people that cast Shia LaBeouf in the supporting role for Indiana Jones himself. I mean Harrison Ford does his best to carry the guy along, which he always does because he's a living legend in case I hadn't mentioned it, but are we seriously meant to believe that Shia is the next Indiana Jones? If that's the case then this film can fuck right off.

The rest of the cast aren't that interesting either, aside of course from the living legend Harrison Ford. It really is true that Harrison Ford carries this whole fucking film, and even he's bogged down by this emotional nonsense that has absolutely no place in a fantasy adventure of this caliber. That's not the worst thing though. The real sin of this film is taking the 'Indiana Jones' franchise away from everything that made it great. There's no sense of grand adventure here, and the climax ends up resorting in serious big budget effects rather than giving the audience a sense of genuine wonder. Yes, 'Indian Jones' has always been incredibly silly, but here they overstepped the mark. Aliens and computer generated images have no place in a franchise like this, especially when the rest of the film is so ordinary and plain. The originals were a series that were a product of their time, and this sequel was proof that some series should just be left in the generation in which they were created.

#8 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) (2/10)

In all honesty I've never been a fan of 'Star Trek', and this film sums up why I hate the franchise in a nutshell. Even the usually stellar aspects about 'Star Trek' films are missing here. It looks shit, the action sequences are even shitter, the characters aren't very interesting, and the plot is god awful and focuses on religion more than anything else. You can tell the script for this film was continuously rewritten because it's absolutely diabolical. The directing however is even worse, which doesn't say much about William Shatner's skills as a director, and also highlights the terrible quality of the material on display. There weren't enough rewrites in my opinion, because the final product is still absolute shit.

Some of the sequences in this film are so stupid you wonder how this pile of shit ever got released. Why the hell they made Uhura dance erotically for aliens is anyone's guess. I mean what the actual fuck is that all about? Was William Shatner aware that just his mere presence was enough for nerds everywhere to ejaculate profusely? You just don't need that needlessly smutty scene that perfectly sums up the thoughtless direction behind this film. This whole film reeks of the egomaniacal ignorance of William Shatner. He still hasn't properly apologised for this mess, rather blaming others for a film that he himself directed. Unfortunately for Shatner I'm a disinterested blogger, so he can go fuck himself for releasing this pile of steaming crap.


#7 Spiderman 3 (2007) (3/10)

You may be aware that I'm not a fan of comic book films, and if not well now you know. I did however enjoy 'Spiderman 2', and so naturally I was looking forward to a sequel that would surely be as exhilarating as the second. Unfortunately this sequel ended up being one of the worst superhero film I've ever had the displeasure of watching. Peter Parker, whose never been the best comic book character, is the absolute worst here. He's the least charismatic hero ever, and is just irritatingly bland in every scene. How is he the one that has to take down fifteen million villains? The villains incidentally are all identical in the respect that they all follow the same trait of having absolutely no depth and are just used as a shock factor rather than any actual merit. Maybe they should of stuck with the single well written villain like a good film would.

Yeah okay, this film still looks as good as the originals, but there's no substance. It's actually quite repetitive and boring, which for a superhero film is quite an impressive non-achievement. And I still don't understand how you can have three villains and still expect a decent story to present itself to the audience. Not surprisingly too many villains makes the plot become a convoluted mess, which isn't helped by this film never deciding whether it wants to be a superhero flick or a romantic comedy. The finished product shows us that this version of 'Spiderman' doesn't do either of those things at all well, which isn't surprising from a film that has all the hallmarks of a small kid in a sweet shop. At one time 'Spiderman' was becoming the next cool superhero. Not after this film was released.


#6 The Hangover Part 3 (2013) (2/10)

I never enjoyed the second Hangover film, but the third was worse on a whole new level. 'Annoying' would be the perfect word to describe this film. It certainly isn't funny, just disturbing how any of the scenes can pass as comedy. People often criticise comedy sequels, and here we have the perfect example of a franchise that's more than overstayed its welcome and completely run out of ideas. The jokes in this one were replaced by basic shock factor, albeit shocking scenes that weren't very exciting.

The plot is equally stupid. For starters there isn't even a hangover. The plot just tries to use former glories to promote a sub-standard film that desperately tries to be bigger and better than the previous two, but forgets that comedy should be the crucial element in a comedy film. Pulling off a comedy sequel is no easy task, but I have no time for lazy sequels that just want to act as a cash cow instead of becoming inspiring and professional standalone pictures. I do respect the people involved for trying to veer away from the previous 'hangover' premise of the first two films, even though that was the most interesting part and a big talking point for the audience, but you just can't replace that empty void with just a plain plot with little laughs along the way. Surprisingly despite this film's success there hasn't been a fourth in the franchise.


#5 Blues Brothers 2000 (1998) (3/10)

'Blues Brothers 2000'. A film that doesn't contain the original Blues Brothers, and was released in 1998. That doesn't sound like a recipe for disaster does it? To be fair to the film the music isn't all that bad, it's just that the comedy and action parts ruin this one; which is really everything else this film offers. This sequel is so totally different from the original that I'm not even sure we can count this as a sequel. The cast is so different from the original it blows my mind they thought of rehashing the whole idea of the first film. Dan Aykroyd returns; that's it. The rest is a cast of wannabes trying to fill the shoes of roles they never had a hope of emulating. Especially that fucking kid, who should never be anywhere near a mature comedy film like the 'Blues Brothers'. I don't know who he is or how they fucking found him, but in all honesty I don't give a shit. Why the fuck would anyone try and shove a child into a mature comedy?

Once you've stopped getting angry at the hopeless cast you have a plot that doesn't even try to uncover new ground to enjoy. It's same old, same old, and that's just laziness that shouldn't be allowed in a film that attempts to revitalise a cult classic. There's no passion, no energy in this one. You get the sense the actors here want to line their pockets because they've got nothing better to do. That attitude certainly isn't funny to me, but then neither is the film. Hell, it's not even amusing. This is a limp wristed imitation of a classic that should never have been released. John Beluschi, who was one of the stars of the original, must be turning in his grave.


#4 Jaws: The Revenge (1987) (2/10)

The final straw in a franchise so legendary it's shameful to watch it stoop to such lows. If you're wondering why this guaranteed moneymaker of a series hasn't been rebooted since then I suggest you give this a watch. You can actually physically see the series go down the drain when we discover that sharks somehow have a psychic connection to relatives of their food, and can therefore trace members of their victim's family to further terrorise. No really, that is the plot. What makes it even more stupid is that it's sometimes told in flashbacks where the character in question wasn't even present. How they ever convinced seasoned veterans like Michael Caine to climb aboard this disaster is a mystery to me. Surely Caine must have realised sometime through production that he had been given an uninteresting script, with shit costars, and a development that went through absolute hell.

Even the shark is terribly made. This once terrifying villain has been reduced to an ugly prop that roars. As a zoology student not only am I offended by this depiction of a supposedly realistic shark, but I'm also qualified to tell you that roaring sharks are just ridiculous. The original shark actually put fear into the hearts of moviegoers everywhere and made them stay out of the water for an eternity, but this shark, the subject of the film, looks worse than the original and feels about as living as a zombie. This once iconic character is now kept as the least mysterious monster in cinema history, essentially becoming an aggressive tumor that can't help but repetitively ruin scenes, always appearing with the same opened mouthed expression that I suppose is fitting for a shark realising he's appearing in crap like this. This shark is not scary in any way, it's just sometimes there in the film for absolutely no reason. It must be a miracle for this shark when it's finally put out of its misery, being stabbed in a scene that resembles a cocktail stick attacking a sausage more than an epic death. A fitting end to an equally terrible film that was so shit that it's managed to get a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.


#3 Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (1987) (2/10)

Remember when cheesy campness was good in a superhero film? Well this film decides there wasn't enough cheesy campness in the original 'Superman' films and takes it upon itself to ruin the legacy of possibly the most iconic superhero of all time. I'm not sure if there was a plot lying around somewhere in this film, but I sure as hell couldn't find one. The resulting mess is just a generic snoozefest, which isn't very impressive in a superhero film with quite possibly the ultimate superhero for an action packed laugh. The only laughs in this film are overshadowed by horror or sheer disbelief as superman saves the Statue of Liberty in possibly the worst looking scene of all time, and then saves and rebuilds The Great Wall of China from the horrors of a villain named 'Nuclear Man'.

'Nuclear Man' is actually so pathetic it's hilarious. Firstly he's called 'Nuclear Man', which already sounds like the shittest supervillain of all time, and that's even before you find out he's solar powered. He doesn't look any better than he sounds either, rather resembling something you would find in a back alley San Francisco club. And to top it all off he doesn't even talk. He's the most pathetic character of all time that we as the audience have to try and believe is the biggest threat to mankind. 'Nuclear Man' is if you haven't realised the worst social commentary for nuclear warfare ever created, and this film manages to butcher such a serious theme at such an unstable time. Turns out 1987 was just a terrible year for movie sequels. Saying this is worse than 'Jaws: The Revenge' is all you need to know.


#2 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) (5/10)

I'm one of those people that tries to defend this film from the barrage of hate it so frequently gets, but there's no denying that this was a dreadful sequel in one of the most beloved franchises in cinema history. The only thing 'The Phantom Menace' does better than the originals is look really nice, which is a shame considering this is a beautiful film that actually has some great action sequences and a fucking cool villain, but unfortunately no soul or depth that are crucial for a great space opera. But creator George Lucas knew this. He redefined the rules of sci-fi with the original trilogy, so there's no excuse for this film going so horribly wrong.

Everything fans loved about the original 'Star Wars' films was ripped to shreds by multiple dreary sequences, uninteresting characters and settings, and a less than spectacular plot. How can you possibly justify having such hateful characters as Jar Jar Binks and a young Darth Vader in such a prestigious series? And yes there was a spoiler there, but do you honestly still need one for the Darth Vader plot point? A crucial plot point may I add that was almost completely ruined by this film alone. It's an insult that when you have a universe as rich as the 'Star Wars galaxy' you make a film as mundane as this. The original trilogies had 'The Death Star' blowing up twice, but all we got with this revamped version was some trade disputes between parties that weren't at all interesting. And that's the problem with this film. There's no ambition, so sense of grand adventure, no sense that we're witnessing galaxy changing events unfold. To surmise this was a sequel that forgot what made the originals great.


#1 Batman & Robin (1997) (0/10)

Has anything positive ever been said about this pile of shit? In all honesty if I have to go through everything wrong with this film you'll be reading this article for years. I guess I have to start with the huge issue of characters. It's almost a competition which is the worst character in this film, because all of them are so fucking awful it's not even funny. My choices are the two pictured above. That's Poison Ivy and Bane, who have no chemistry, walk about the set like two planks of wood, and have zero character development. In truth there's not a single thing noteworthy about any characters in this horror show. It doesn't help that the two central villains working together want to freeze the planet so Poison Ivy can grow flowers on it. How does that make any sense?

Even Batman himself suffers from the same flaws. George Clooney is a dreadful lead here, and even the hilariously bad puns of Arnold Schwarzenegger can't save this stinker of a performance. The fact that these performances almost killed such a beloved character speaks volume about how bad this film really is. And it doesn't stop there. The shitty awfulness just keeps going and going, torturing your insides. Shit scene after shit scene just keeps on appearing. I was so tortured by this abomination that I'm now experiencing PTSD just writing about it. Director Joel Schumacher did eventually apologise for this film, but that's not good enough. Simply apologising for an easily preventable atrocity that almost ruined a historic franchise just rubs salt in the wound in my eyes.

The Christoforge Column (13/11/16)

My Thoughts on the US Election

I've seen a number of articles since Trump shockingly won the US election whinging about how this outcome has to be the result of institutionalised sexism and bigotry. All these articles essentially fall into the same trap of not actually providing any evidence that sexism had the definitive role in this issue, and that's simply because sexism has no place in this debate. The real reason why people are blaming Trump's victory on sexism is that the people whinging about Trump's ascent into power just can't accept that their opinion might not be emulated by the American people. They're also in denial, believing in tinpot conspiracy theories because the truth in this issue is so much more shocking. The truth is that Trump is the deserved victor of this election, and actually spoke to the American people. I can't say I'm surprised by the outrage surrounding Trump's election win. After all these are the same radical fucktards that tried to protest democracy after the 'Brexit' vote here in the UK, but as American's are great at taking things to the next level, this protest is on a different scale. Maybe instead of blaming the system these people should be looking at themselves, as the constant bemoaning that sexism is inherently rooted in any opponent of Hillary Clinton is just another reason why the opposition got the victory.

This segment is not a rally cry for Trump supporters; I'm not actually a fan of the man, but despite recognising his many flaws, I also have to admit that Trump was a better candidate for the presidency than Hillary Clinton. I still wouldn't vote for the man, but given a choice at gunpoint between Trump and Clinton and the former would get my support hands down. The reasons are simple: Trump is not some two dimensional symbol of the establishment who simply repeats what the electorate want to hear. The average American citizen is fed up of hearing about this promised land of prosperity that keeps being alluded to every single presidential cycle. What Trump has shown is they would prefer a straight talking figure they believe can enact radical changes to give themselves a better vision of the future. Clinton played the election by the book. She spent a ridiculous amount more than Trump on her campaign, so I think it's refreshing to see a change in the atmosphere of politics. I'm still not convinced if Trump is the right man for this change, as he seems more of an evil billionaire putting on a facade than a beneficial President for the American people. Maybe Trump is the radical change that America needs. All we can say is that in this election the underdog won, and I think this is a huge chance for Trump to prove everyone wrong, because boy has he got a divided country on his hands at the moment.


Political Symbols in Sport

You may have recently seen that the English FA have decided to allow their players to wear poppy armbands during their Remembrance Day game with Scotland, going against FIFA laws that have banned any political messages from being worn at sporting events. Firstly I'd like to say I agree with the rule that political symbols should never be anywhere near a sporting event. Sport should always be free from political influences and commercialism, instead just showcasing sporting prowess. That's not always going to be a realistic view of the sporting world, but in this particular scenario the English FA have absolutely no business trying to force poppies on the armbands of football players.

This isn't a case where players that refuse to wear a poppy are disrespectful of fighting soldiers, nor are FIFA themselves. FIFA are absolutely correct in their ruling that the poppy represents a national and political symbol for warfare, and even in the British Isles it can be conversely seen as a symbol for Irish nationalism. This debate is a political issue that has no place at any sporting game, and the FA should be ashamed that this fiasco is being promoted ahead of the actual game. I have to ask the FA what the the fucking point of incurring a pointless fine for such a minor action is. Let's be honest this is nowhere near the same scale as the 1968 Olympics black power salute, rather just forcing poppies onto football players in the name of common decency. It's a shame that events like these have made the poppy into a trivial symbol that's become mandatory for anyone in the public eye to wear in recent times. But most of all it's a damn shame that the meaning of such a powerful symbol has become overshadowed by the actions of twenty two men on a football field. If I was the FA I would be embarrassed by this pitiful decision.


How Talent Shows Are Ruining Art

I fucking hate the current format of talent shows. How have we humans got to a stage where we can make and break the dreams of aspiring performers with the push of a button. Not only does this bring up a generation who think they can control famine in Africa with the single click of a TV remote, because as I'm now starting to realise viewers now need to be empowered for stupid formats like this to work. The format becomes even more hellish when you discover that on top of being ridiculed by half the national population the contestants also get judged by four so called experts, who in reality have about as much chance of spotting actual talent as Stevie Wonder has of wining a game of 'I Spy'. All these overpaid twats do is suck up to artificial charm that then forces the most divisive of entrants into the limelight, all to get views on their specific talent show. I'm sorry but cream should rise to the top, not cunts.

It's no wonder why the products of talent shows are almost always annoying cretins, because they're the ones who were instantly judged to be 'unique' in a split second, and not some actually decent people who worked their fucking ass off because they care about their creations. That's the genuine charm that these so called experts always miss. You don't find that unique charm or charisma from people being shoehorned into the public eye without merit.  The phony contestants that do find success not surprisingly don't find it for very long, but apparently we as the audience should believe that this moment of brief notoriety is what that person is living for. Sure it will change that person's life, but how many more examples of this rinse and repeat formula do we need before this cliched nonsense gets tiring. Talent shows are a fucked up formula that sees decent human beings exploited on television like some sort of circus act that the audience can't help but poke with sticks through the bars of the cage. What a surprise this horrific format rarely finds any genuine talent. Any of those judges will never find the next influential artist because because they're far too busy producing the same lame old thrown together shit, that although sells and is favored by the voting audience, but will be forgotten in time quicker than the time it took this undeserving asshole to appear on our screens.

Morons of the Internet: Wessex Scene (11/11/2016)

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 I'm continuing my war against shitty journalism, and what better way to find shitty journalism than looking in student publications. Here we have an opinionated, but unfortunately ill informed piece on this year's US presidential election. And if you're wondering, yes I did delay this article until after the election because I'm that petty.
______________________________________________________________________________
https://www.wessexscene.co.uk/politics/2016/09/28/if-clinton-was-male-she-would-win-in-a-landslide/
______________________________________________________________________________

Wow, you certainly can't complain this student publication doesn't address the big issues, or at least tries to. To make such a huge overriding statement like that you're going to have to provide a lot of evidence and insight, because this is a huge accusation that a lot of sophisticated and detailed commentary can be centered on. However to say there's going to be any journalistic talent in this piece would be wishful thinking. Remember the initial assertion in this piece is that Clinton isn't dominating the election because she's a woman; let's keep that statement in mind for future reference.

The article doesn't start well. The first paragraph is full of hypothetical points that mean fuck all. Just stating that Hillary Clinton is not a man doesn't answer the fucking question, it's just conjecture. Yes, you've put forward the suggestion that she's a respectable candidate in your mind, but what's that got to do with sexism? Amazingly the generalisations get even worse in the second paragraph, and unsurprisingly there's no fucking evidence to back any of it up. The author here couldn't even find anything anecdotal to pointlessly include, instead spewing random sociological nonsense that in no way proves her point. Pathetic really. I also have to take issue with the many ridiculous assumptions. You claim that Clinton is the most qualified presidential candidate ever, but is that strictly true? Sure she was the Secretary of State, but Richard Nixon was Vice President before he went into office. How did his presidency turn out? George Bush was the son of a former president. How did his presidency turn out? Just because someone is qualified to do something doesn't mean they'll be successful in that role, and unless you prove otherwise that has nothing to do with sexism. Also I'm of the belief that Trump's win actually came as a huge surprise, with Clinton miles ahead in the poles throughout nearly the whole bloody campaign, so actually when this piece was written it was thought Hillary would win by a landslide. Maybe you should have considered that before resorting to such horrific generalisations and nonsensical arguments in the first few paragraphs that are all factually incoherent.

So just because you don't like Donald Trump the only feasible reason why Hillary can't win is because of sexism. That's the quality of argument this article resorts too. Sure there's evidence that Trump is a sexist asshole, but how does that relate to your point? It's a shame as for the first time there's actually evidence provided for these points; but none of it's fucking relevant to the original accusation. Normal service soon resumes with valuable insight soon being replaced with more irrelevant waffle and heinous generalisations. Seriously, how the fuck do the above paragraphs even contribute to the idea that Clinton would win if she was a man? You keep saying Trump is a vastly different human to Clinton, so why the fuck would their sex be the definitive difference? Maybe Trump is the inferior candidate in your mind, but that doesn't mean you should simply dismiss the man's widespread popularity because of your own clear biases. Instead of just judging men by their sex instead of their policies, which interestingly you don't do with Clinton, maybe you should actually bother considering the counterargument. I think you'll be surprised to learn that the vast majority of the anti-Hillary argument has nothing to do with sexism. That's still not the worst thing about this article. That's this incredibly warped logic that repetitively cries sexism despite providing zero evidence or even any relevant information.

Lovely anecdote, BUT IT'S NOT FUCKING RELEVANT. Definitely Trump the one that brushes over big issues.

This article just reeks of ignorance. You simply cannot just sweep aside monumental flaws in the Clinton campaign and blame her defeat on institutionalised sexism. Apparently sexism is the deciding factor in this argument, and not Hillary being in the pockets of the establishment, how she's funded, her controversial actions as Secretary of State, her constant health issues, allegations of corruption, and last but not least acting like a federal criminal. If for some reason you decide to moronically ignore all those issues then yes maybe this article has a point somewhere. You would struggle to find that point in this pile of shit however as it NEVER ADDRESSES THE ORIGINAL POINT. This is just pointless rambling, absolutely worthless uninformed shit that makes a mockery of serious journalism. You ignorant wanker.

Shitty Journalism and Evolution

I've decided that war needs to be declared on shit journalism. I'm sick and tired of reading stupid fucking articles that are as pointless to read as they are in content. They're written by fucking idiots to appeal to fucking idiots, which is a trend that has to stop. To start with I'll focus on how evolutionary science is being ruined in the media by these clickbait based shitty news sources, written by morons just to try and cram their own stupid and worthless opinions into unrelated scenarios. Whilst I'm critically analysing this horseshit, please keep in mind that this is intended to be a factual piece of journalism that should inform the reader.
______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.upworthy.com/something-fascinating-happened-after-these-male-baboons-died-men-should-keep-this-in-mind
______________________________________________________________________________

- Aside from being just an excuse to post vaguely related pictures instead of writing anything of note, this article just loves to make huge sweeping statements without ever explaining them. I suppose that's not surprising when for some fucking reason the article is in bullet point form. Has this really become the standard of journalism when the actual journalists don't have any care for the quality of written communication? There isn't any quality in the argument either, it's on par with something you would hear at a nursery school. I get the point of aiming this argument at men, as they're more naturally aggressive than females, which is more common knowledge than informative. However to then make the stupid point that men cause all wars, which isn't true, is just an insult to anyone's intelligence. How am I supposed to take an article about evolution seriously that claims poison gas is the fault of human males?  How in any way can you justify that meaningless shit in an article centered on animal behaviour?

- Natural human behaviour does not go all the way back to when we were monkeys because humans have never been monkeys, only primates. At one time humans and monkeys would have shared a common ancestor, but your lack of knowledge on the subject is instantly apparent. Having said that your description of mating behaviour is actually largely correct, albeit worded incredibly poorly, with no notion of any principles that lead to the increase in a certain behaviour. You prove my doubts in the next sentence by claiming that natural selection and evolution are the same thing. They are not. Natural selection is a singular component in the process of evolution. Survival of the fittest, another concept you clearly don't understand, is a Darwinian term that aids the explanation of how natural selection favors certain adaptations within a population. Nice to see we have an informed scientist writing this article.

- I'm getting the gist of this piece being set on the moronic assumption that instinctive human behaviour can be rewired by learning about a single group of baboons. Baboons really aren't that closely related to humans, and are separated by tens of millions of years of evolution, so it's a very questionable process to start drawing unqualified parallels between the two species. Even if we do give the author the benefit of the doubt in suggesting humans and baboons are related enough to draw comparisons on, we still have to address the fact that baboons live totally different lifestyles to humans, so we absolutely cannot suggest that this particular behaviour in baboons would benefit humans. For that matter we don't even know if this behaviour benefited the baboons, only that it happened in a single group.

- The baboons didn't invent a culture on the scale of what the author here is implying. Biologically they have adapted their behaviour in a way that doesn't appear to have been impacted by genetics or the environment, but that's simply not comparable with the human concept of culture. They changed their behaviour, that's it. Under the principles of natural selection you can bet your fucking life that this peaceful and idyllic behaviour would change if we introduced some unfavorable selection pressures, and only then can we really start to draw any form of conclusion. The author here hasn't grasped how scientific reasoning works, just comparing apples to oranges and inventing some skewed sociological point that stupidly assumes two drastically different behaviors are even vaguely related.

- The whole piece has an unbelievable confirmation bias, and one that arises from the echo chambers of websites like Tumblr, that enjoy cherry picking information and mangling it into a misrepresented point that resembles some form of pseudoscience. For reference here is the Tumblr response to this scientific work. Watch how these morons use this case study as a feeble excuse to start demonising male behaviour because a SINGLE SOURCE agreed with them. Neither Tumblr or this shit article decide to actually look at the wider picture and set up any form of scientific debate; they simply misrepresent any form of serious science with their own stupid opinions. This is the result of this toxic echo chamber of lies I was talking about, and I'm fucking sick of it degrading a proper science by lowering it to the standard of feelings and opinions. They have no place in evolutionary biology; rather more worthless subjects such as gender studies.

- The conclusion however culminates in a show of stupidity that trumps the rest by a mile. Despite naming only a single example of animal behaviour out of a whole kingdom this moron has decided that a single case study obviously suggests that culture is more important than biology in terms of behaviour for humans. You see I was under the strange impression we were talking about the behaviour of baboons, not the vastly different tendencies of humans. And even then, when the fuck does the study cited claim that culture is more important than biology in human behaviour? It doesn't. Still, even that's not the most stupid thing this guy says. He also say that unlike biology, culture can change. WELL THEN HOW THE FUCK DOES EVOLUTION WORK YOU BELLEND?

The actual study behind this pointless article is actually quite interesting and informative, and also something this author could learn a thing or two from. This article however is neither interesting or informative, drawing moronic conclusions that are weakly supported by the primary evidence. I'm mot sure what the actual message is supposed to be, but this article appears to be suggesting that it might be beneficial for more human alpha males to get tuberculosis. The thing is there's no proven benefit to this change in behaviour from the group of baboons in question, but apparently that's enough justification for this imbecilic author. All the study proved was that more aggressive males in a social group leads to higher stress levels in baboons; that's it. The continuation of this behaviour was largely debated, but that fact is completely ignored by these stupid journalistic sources that jump to conclusions and misrepresent a study just to push their very unscientific agendas. The mere fact that male dominance is prevalent in various primate genomes is enough counter evidence to prove that aggressive and dominant behaviour from males has an inclusive fitness benefit over a given population. That's the overriding science here, not some sociology based moral story that takes any science away from this article. How about journalists start sticking to stuff they actually know something about and stop broadcasting myths on the internet that idiots will suck up and believe?