This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet
and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs
told in the words of my favourite human beings.
In this edition we have what may well just be the most idiotic piece of writing ever found. The stupidity on display here is just mindblowing, a symbol of everything wrong with the radical feminist approach. If you have even half a brain cell you'll likely end up with PTSD after reading what is the biggest collection of bollocks ever assembled in one article.
__________________________________________________________________
http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/08/olympics-intersex-athletes/
__________________________________________________________________
A hot topic at the Rio Olympics was the inclusion of Caster Semenya, who if you read 'The Guardian' has become some sort of 'Harambe type' figure in recent weeks, symbolising everything wrong with the Western establishment and the human race. Essentially the issue is that it's questionable whether this woman should be allowed to compete considering she has the physiology of a man, and as such gets an incredibly unfair advantage over her fellow competitors. I am personally of the opinion that Semenya should be allowed to race considering she's a clean athlete who has a legal and natural physiology, simply using her freakish body to outcompete her pissed off competitors. I have to say however that I also find myself agreeing with this US athlete who is frequently mentioned in this article, who quite reasonably pointed out that there is a limit where if a certain individual becomes dominant in an event thanks to genetic defects then there's a serious problem with the sporting integrity of the division. If Semenya is allowed to compete unregulated then we arrive at a stage where there doesn't need to be any gender separated sports in the Olympic games, and that's not fair on athletes that don't have abnormal bodies. This is just my personal viewpoint, and is mainly a sideshow for the main event, which is this fucking article itself. I'm sure you can tell already, but this is an article coming from the perspective that the outrage over Semenya's performances is unfounded, which is fine until you discover this intolerable ignorant attitude that this whole argument revolves around. It's instantly clear that objectivity and factual information are going to be hard to find here.
The article begins by essentially outlining just how far detached these writers are from reality. Instead of presenting a balanced argument the writers here decide to begin by lecturing their audience with these stupid exercises, that for some reason are an imperative action for all decent people. Apparently now we have to demonise those individuals who just want to watch the best that sport has to offer, becoming a society that ignores achievements and instead gets bogged down by all this politically correct bullshit. As an audience member you now have to not only become acquainted to new sports, but also familiarise yourself with gender and racial issues surrounding these sports. I'll admit that even to the most casual of viewers the concept of fairness in sports might crop up, but can you honestly say this approach is both realistic and beneficial? The average viewer doesn't even give a shit about the sports they're watching, so why the hell should they be forced to blindly believe this one sided horseshit you're spurting?
Sorry, did I read that opening line correctly? "There is no single biological sex marker found exclusively in male or female bodies." We'll just ignore the presence of chromosomes in the human body, that not only act as a marker but determine your sex. I shouldn't even have to source this well known fact as it's common knowledge to anyone with even a basic understanding of biology. Even if you do ignore the universal cause of sexual dimorphism in humans then you still have the presence of genitals, which as I'm sure your eager to point out aren't always defining sexual characteristics, but individuals like Caster Semenya are the exception to the vastly overwhelming trend. That's how doctors identify the sex of a baby, and let's be honest they might fucking know something about sex differentiation with their medical degrees. You use the same fallacious argument to argue that chromosomes are an invalid form of sex determination as well. The operative word in AIS is 'symptom'. It's a symptom because it's a departure from normal human physiology, and one that only describes an exemption rather than a trend. When confronted with this logical conclusion you suddenly drop the scientific approach and finish with an irrelevant social point. Fertility rates having absolutely nothing to do with sex determination. The only fallacy here is your whole fucking argument.
The only thing worse than the actual science is the sources used. Your sole source of evidence is from 1934. Just to put that into perspective that study is now more outdated in the current scientific period than the work of Charles Darwin was when that 1934 paper was originally published. The basis behind that source is still correct, and now we realise that men do have oestrogen, but we also know the levels of oestrogen in men is a hell of a lot less that women, which is why men don't grow breasts and other physiological features associated with women. Even if what you're saying was true then how is this a gender issue related to Caster Semenya? Athletes are being excluded because of their chemical composition, not gender. In fact the ruling you're explicitly referring to takes gender completely out the picture, so please explain how the current system can possibly be biased for transgender athletes. In all honesty this is the most stupid paragraph ever written in human history. Sex organs are not just imperative for sexual reproduction, which is imperative to our survival as a species, but also a defining feature of sexual dimorphism. You can source isolated cases to try and disprove the tried and tested science of sex biology, but if we take what you're saying here to be true then humans wouldn't be on the planet, as sexual reproduction would be a nightmare with this conflated gene pool. Scientifically this is as inept as an argument is ever going to get, and a complete misrepresentation of a whole field. And this is just the basics of this fundamentally flawed argument.
Oh wow, we've really started abandoning the scientific approach now. How about leaving gender completely out of this argument considering that pseudoscientific bollocks like this have absolutely no place in the Olympic games? I get that gender has a different definition to biological sex in phony sciences, but guess what? The Olympics doesn't operate on feelings. The system you're proposing is similar to the Paralympic games where people with mental disabilities, such as identifying their genders as a frog or water, are put into the same class as they perform similarly in the majority of sports. Except you have no evidence to suggest that different genders perform to different athletic standards, so I'm still bemused as why these points about gender need to be made. The boundaries are quite clearly defined as male and female competition for reasons of exclusivity, and so I find your lax attitude towards a controversial athlete a significant threat on the apparent fairness of the games. The only solution you provide in this article is essentially to remove any restrictions based on gender in order to champion equality, which as athletes like Semenya proves would be the downfall of competitive female sports. The Olympics has a reputation to maintain of a fair playing field in any sport irrespective of the social context, which is why you see drug cheats not being able to compete. That reputation is made redundant when you have a genetic freak tearing the field away with mutations that make her behave like one of those drugged up athletes that aren't allowed to compete in the interests of fair competition. On the contrary Everyday Feminism can't even provide any reasoning as to why Caster Semenya and societal gender roles are even linked, and just randomly spurt any irrelevant social issue they can think of whether it's implicitly linked to Olympic competition or not. Let's be serious, what has male athletes regularly insulting female athletes got to do with this issue of hyperandrogenic athletes being able to compete? Absolutely nothing. How about preaching points in a condescending tone if it's actually relevant to the argument?
Remember morons of the internet, when making a point that's irrelevant and tenuous bullshit, make sure you shift the goalposts like Everyday Feminism is doing here on an astronomical scale. Honestly, this now accepted method of arguing serious issues won't repetitively undermine your whole argument at all. Take this random use of the race card for example. There's no actual evidence of racism being at play in this scenario, and the sources you use are your own fucking page, but of course the logic of Everyday Feminism is that when there's an inequality between two different races there has to be an inequity. Any inequality that follows their narrative means there has to be causative evidence of victimisation. And what a surprise, it's the evil white man that subjected Semenya to this ban. How could it not be? White people subjected minorities to slavery and global oppression for centuries so they have to be at fault for other unrelated incidents too. We'll suddenly ignore that scientific objectivity we were alluding to earlier, because blindly pointing a finger at a general source is how we should go about this isolated case study. When you look at this complex issue like Everyday Feminism does Imperialism just has to be the reason why the IAAF changed the rules regarding the levels of testosterone in women, and is also the reason behind the controversy surrounding Semenya. I suppose it was only a matter of time before the victim card was finally played, and what a beauty this use of the card is. Have you ever seen whinging quite like this before on an issue so totally unrelated to the actual point? They couldn't even find a source from their own website regarding this retarded slander. How fucking tragic.
'Faulty assumptions?' How fucking dare you have the audacity to criticise others for their 'faulty assumptions' when you make moronic articles riddled with the fucking things on a daily basis. There's even a faulty assumption in the very same sentence that you accuse others of using faulty assumptions. You claim that science is largely against the idea that testosterone has no effect on athletic performance, yet your source concludes no such thing. What the study did conclude was the following: "Interestingly, our data demonstrate that exercise-induced increases in
MPS are dissociated from post-exercise testosteronemia and that
stimulation of MPS occurs effectively with low systemic testosterone
concentrations in women." Not only does this conclusion not even make a comparison between testosterone levels in different sexes, but it doesn't even relate to general athletic performance, rather Myofibrial protein synthesis, which is just a single component of many. The actual science is very simple. Testosterone builds up muscle mass, and muscle mass allows an increased athletic performance, which is critical in an 800m race. Not only is your use of scientific reasoning so poor here but the very person you're referring to in this argument is actually perfect evidence to show how much shit you're talking. Caster Semenya's 800m times funnily enough share an alarming correlation with the IAAC's attitudes towards testosterone levels. I'm certainly not stating that testosterone levels were the sole cause of Semenya's increased performance, and a correlation is certainly not a causation, but it doesn't change the facts that testosterone is medically proven to aid athletic performance and give a significant and possibly unfair advantage to certain athletes. If this is a case of discrimination, then how is this a bad thing? This article later goes on to say that the solution to this apparent discrimination is to criticise invasive journalists and governing bodies that scrutinise the physiology of athletes, especially in the manner of women of colour. What a great idea that would be, there would never be any serious repercussions of that attitude.
Quite simply the biggest and most blatant straw man argument I've ever seen in my life. What the fuck does any of this have to do with women's testosterone levels in sport? Again, this irrelevant point is weakly tied into the argument a bit later with the suggestion that tall people should be restricted from playing basketball. However basketball is a sport where height is not deemed to be an unfair advantage. That's one sport, and one sport that's very different from athletics. We could compare apples to oranges in a similar way by stating that boxing is another example of a sport that does deem excess weight an unfair advantage, just like the testosterone levels in long distance runners, and so therefore there is a justification for curbing variables in sport for an even playing field. If you do want to talk about a level playing field then how about actually addressing the issue on hand, and not surprisingly you once again fail to make a coherent argument and bring in more irrelevant social bollocks into the mix. You have no evidence to suggest these measures to restrict certain athletes are based on race or ethnicity, and you completely ignore the key issue that testosterone suppression does create an even playing field for female athletes. But no, this scientifically proven mechanic cannot possibly be true because it's oppressive, and twisting the narrative to conform to your views are more important than any serious discussion. Everyday Feminism is a pile of shit that genuinely believes that testosterone limits are oppressive, yet apparently punishing athletes in richer countries literally for just training in richer countries isn't. Can't say I'm with you on that one. Neither am I with you on the actual point of this paragraph in relation to the overall argument, which has once again just vanished. Seriously, how fucking far do you want to take this argument away from anything actually relevant? How many fucking times do you want to shift the goalposts to suit your needs?
This last pointless paragraph epitomises this whole pile of manure that dares to identify as an article. How can some random points as moronic as this identify as a credible source on the internet. The authors of this horseshit should not only be ashamed of themselves but also be put into round the clock care. These people need help, not a website for them to showcase the extent of their idiocy. No wonder that Everyday Feminism is now seen as a satirical website by rational people when this is the extent of their serious arguments that contain absolutely zero facts, a complete disregard for scientific methods, no sophisticated reasoning, and an absence of rational and critical thought. It's less a formal argument, more a collection of incredibly loosely related words shoehorned into a complex issue that they clearly have no place in. Once again this website has complained about bias in society, whilst not only approaching the topic from the most blatantly biased and narrow minded method possible, but finding new ways to whinge about being the victim at every possible opportunity. I don't give a fuck about your feelings, so stop using them as a scapegoat. Even when a progressive action is taken in response to one of their pathetic criticisms they then find some other tenuous and moronic shit to whinge about, only so once again they can play the poor and helpless victims in issues they clearly have no comprehension on. What regressive assholes, and what a totally shit article.
This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet
and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs
told in the words of my favourite human beings.
In this edition we have a white knight aiming to appease the homosexual community by proclaiming that heterosexuals can't be proud of their sexuality, all of course in the name of equality and social justice.
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/29/heterosexual-pride-day-is-a-thing-and-heres-why-we-should-be-utterly-ashamed-5973753/?ito=twitter
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Holocaust, slavery, and now worst of all Heterosexual Pride Day. What has gone wrong with our species? How in this day and age is it acceptable for heterosexual individuals to be proud of their sexuality. How dare these privileged assholes create a seemingly innocent hashtag that dared to show solidarity with people who follow norms. At no point in its inception is there any disrespect shown to any other sexualities, but just the barefaced cheek of straight people to be proud is apparently something the media feels it has to scorn over. I'm not sure why the author in this case decided to compare this trivial trend to completely unrelated criminal activities, but then as we're finding out this man has no concept of what the word 'context' means. The assumption that this hashtag is passive aggressive is never explained. With such a large and general point you would have thought this author would have bothered to provide some evidence, but instead he decides to just assume the motive based on nothing but his feelings. Of course there is going to be the odd bigot who takes this trend as an excuse to amplify their own viewpoints, because at the end of the day people on the internet are assholes, but that doesn't instantly mean the motive is a terrible thing in practice. The trend certainly isn't a shameful thing for the human species, that's an unbelievable over-exaggeration, and you still haven't backed up your claim that this will stump LGBT progression. The heterosexual pride movements you refer to in the 90's didn't stump the progression of gay rights, so why would this single trend?
This section is such a generalisation. The author here just assumes everyone taking part in the trend must be homophobic for simply raising awareness for straight people. I know you don't like heterosexual rights hogging the spotlight, but that doesn't give you the right to label any supporters as homophobic. You can label people who support this movement as 'bad', but that's not an argument, and backing up these tenuous statements with a tweet from some random girl on the internet is hardly great source work. That tweet in particular is from a girl in Plymouth. In the UK homosexuals can get married by law. They can also donate blood so long as they haven't had sex within a certain time period, which is a very reasonable precaution considering the blood may be contaminated with HIV. Gays also aren't mass murdered in this country, so where's this straight privilege you preach? And anyway, why does the struggles of one demographic mean another can't celebrate?
Oh here we go. I'm sorry in all my unequivocal privilege I forgot that everyday is obviously Heterosexual Pride Day, because as you all know it's absolutely impossible for a heterosexual to be oppressed. The victimhood complex here is so pathetic it's infuriating to read. It's a bit like saying we shouldn't have a harvest festival considering starvation isn't an issue in this country, and the fact that starvation is in other countries means we're actively oppressing them. Apparently all you need to prove this oppression exists is by citing vague and hypothetical scenarios that aren't really relevant to the issue at all. This whole piece is just such a strawman argument. Where is the evidence that this trend wasn't designed to degrade gay pride day?
Oh you poor special flower. You couldn't let heterosexuals have one single ironic trend, because everything has to be centred around struggles that personally affect you. You can try and hide this self centred attitude behind a weak justification that this trend allegedly creates homophobes, but once again you've shown me absolutely no evidence that homophobia was the result of this trend. It's then an even bigger leap to state that attitudes from the internet will integrate into real life, but for some reason this lack of reasoning is all the excuse you need to bark your agenda and have a little crusade in purging a trend that in no way undermines the gay rights movement. As shocking as this sounds it's perfectly fine to be a heterosexual. If you feel the need to broadcast that to the internet then good for you; that's what social media sites like Twitter are for. What isn't acceptable is to then be demonised for your harmless actions by self righteous assholes like this author because your not part of a certain demographic that should be given special privileges in starting pointless trends on the web. I hate this fucking selfish attitude. It's just another case of this victimhood complex, where just because a group of people is apparently less oppressed than you they therefore must be shut down by claims of undefined 'privilege'. This article is just further evidence that contrary to popular belief there is significant bigotry in the gay community whether this author wants to admit that or not. I'm not suggesting that this bullying is anywhere near the level of bigotry that homosexuals face, but that's irrelevant to this article, which is just a pathetic attack on a harmless hashtag.
It's often telling which societal attitudes are rampant within mainstream culture when you analyse a source of journalism that's comprised of contributions by anyone who decides to write an article. The Tab is an example of these semi-journalistic publications where students write articles that they think would appeal to the student demographic. It's therefore incredibly problematic when you discover their common attitudes towards such serious issues as sexism. Time and time again I'm witnessing a normally left wing biased student media revolving around the radical feminist rhetoric that everything must be sexist if it conforms to a weakly defined narrative. To prove my point let's have a look at The Tab's coverage for the first week of the Olympics. This ladies and gentleman is the state of student journalism:
______________________________________________________________________________
http://thetab.com/uk/2016/08/12/literally-just-list-sexist-things-happened-olympics-14251?utm_source=studentxpost&utm_medium=babe&utm_campaign=xpost
http://thetab.com/uk/2016/08/10/congrats-girl-fiance-former-miss-california-scoops-25th-gold-medal-13873?utm_source=professionalxpost&utm_medium=babe&utm_campaign=xpost
______________________________________________________________________________
We begin with some factual and sophisticated insights into the inner workings of the Olympic Games. Of course everyone knows the Olympic Games are a method by the patriarchy to prove why women are inferior, and not at all to showcase the greatest athletes in the world. I always assumed women competed in the same sports as the men in the name of equality, but now The Tab has thankfully enlightened me that this is actually a system of oppression to show how superior men are. Not only do I disagree with the statement that female athletes are patronised, I'm fairly confident in saying that this scenario couldn't be further from the truth. Not only have I not heard a single patronising comment towards any female athlete at the games, but the Olympics have been a chance to showcase women's sports that are often overlooked by the much more marketable male dominated sports. I'm sure you're now going to prove my point wrong by showcasing some tenuous pieces of evidence that only buck the trend, but then again that's how left wing publications often go about their business these days.
Not surprisingly the alleged sexism starts with such a benign point. When describing the opening ceremony of course the term 'sexiest' was only used for the female participants in the opening ceremony and not the equal number of male performers, because as I'm sure feminists will happily tell you men can never be called sexy because they don't get objectified. Right? Also that quote about the opening ceremony comes from an unnamed source in The Daily Mail, a publication you're going to be criticising later. So yeah, great source work. If there was ever a way to prove how inherently sexist a global organisation is it's obviously going to be from an unnamed source. And anyway I didn't realise that celebrating athletes and having scantily clad women dancing the samba are mutually exclusive. The samba I would like to add is a cultural staple in Brazil, so just labelling that sexist without considering the context shows how narrow minded you are. The opening ceremony is allowed to highlight athletes and the local culture. I don't recall the industrial revolution having anything to do with celebrating athletes either, but the obviously sexist opening ceremony in London did just that, clearly ignoring the female athletes that according to you need special attention.
Look at all this blatant sexism. Apparently now saying that female athletes looking so incredibly comfortable they could be doing something leisurely during a competition is also sexist. You just can't make this stuff up. We'll forget that you need evidence that this comment was a direct attack on the female athlete's gender for it to actually be sexist, but then of course the more valid option would be to just ignorantly follow this author's interpretation of the remark irrespective of context. To be safe the commentators should have said they look like they're the CEO of a successful business rather than Olympic athletes. Fucking patriarchy.
Then we get into the business of the 'derogatory' attitude of comparing female athletes to their male counterparts. I didn't realise this was a derogatory comparison considering the level of male competition is higher at the Olympic Games. Even so if someone said I was almost as acrobatic as Simone Biles or as good in the water as Katie Ledecky I would be over the moon, but flip that round and suddenly it's outrageous to even suggest that female competition might be inferior to the corresponding male discipline. Let's be realistic here, Michael Phelps is an American legend. Katie Ledecky is not. Just because the author might know how much of a legend Ledecky is doesn't mean the average viewer does. That doesn't make the commentators instantly sexist. And anyway, comparisons are made in any sport. I've heard Michael Phelps being compared to a fish. Is treating men as inhuman organisms sexist as well? Say Michael Phelps was compared to swimming like a woman. Surely that would also be sexist against women despite its complementary nature because Phelps himself is not 'fully credited'. Are you starting to see how stupid this logic is now? Maybe we shouldn't be segregating sports into gender based competition so we can finally credit these athletes without resorting to comparisons. Amazingly that's not even the most bizarre point in this paragraph. Apparently male coaches can no longer be held responsible for the success of female athletes under their tutelage. Of course Shane Tusup is responsible for Hosszu's record breaking performance, because HE'S HER COACH. When a football team wins a tournament or the league it's the manager that's seen to have masterminded their success. How is this any different? Again, just feelings over facts.
Admittedly the Chicago Tribune headline is pretty disrespectful towards an Olympic medalist, although with the amount of medals America win it must be a slow news day to include that accomplishment. However this still isn't proof of sexism, as this is a trend that happens to the majority of obscure athletes with more famous connections irrespective of gender. We've seen the more marketable athletes dominate the headlines here in Britain, like Bradley Wiggins, Laura Trott, and Tom Daley being given preferential treatment over their sporting partners. Nobody cares how many Olympics their compatriots have been at or how good they are, only how they can get people to view their paper, even if that does mean shitting all over another athlete in favour of their partners. So really it's of no surprise that a CHICAGO BASED NEWSPAPER is advocating a CHICAGO BASED SPORTS STAR over another athlete from Alaska, which is famously not anywhere near Chicago. That's not sexism, it's appealing to a demographic. That's how the media works, but it certainly doesn't instantly make this practice sexist because it happened once to a woman.
Ah The Sun, only marginally more credible than The Tab. I don't know what coverage the author of this post was expecting from a tabloid, but as always with sexism issues it's one that only female athletes face. Anyway, is this article necessarily a bad thing? It's all very well presenting this piece of evidence and blindly screaming 'sexist' without any justification, but there's obviously a demand for these exploitative articles, just like there's a demand for shit articles on your website. The article in question here is so harmful to women that it's actually written by one. How oppressive. Then we start with the tenuous bullshit again. The fact that giving birth, which I'm repeatedly told is one of the most toiling experiences possible, might have an effect on an athletic performance is inconceivable to feminists, which is just laughable. How about actually commenting on sexism in sporting events when you've actually looked into the context of the situation, and not just crying foul play in the direction of anything vaguely controversial that fits into your narrow minded narrative?
Oh no a 'catfight', 'dancing on the beach', not addressing the athletes correctly. And they say modern feminism isn't tackling real women's issues. These instances are just plain horrific and not trivial in any way. Even more shocking is the revelation that athletes are judged on their image. Of course The Tab is quite happy to conclude that this body shaming only happens to female athletes, and of course like usual despite no evidence we should all conclude that this is despicable behaviour based on nothing but their gender.
If there was any evidence needed that modern feminist bullshit is smearing its way into popular culture then it's exemplified by this shitstain of an article. All we have here is a list of trivial issues that are then weakly linked to this idea of inherent oppression of a single gender, relying on narrative over factual evidence, blindly screaming 'sexism' whenever women are treated even slightly differently. This article is happy to forget about factual evidence and context, because the narrative is more important, and the idea that if something can possibly be conceived as sexist it therefore is. It's this stupid attitude that if there is an inequality there has to be inequity, and whinging about that inequity without any logical reasoning is the only solution. My question is who is this attitude helping? If the views of this article ever become widely accepted then journalists and broadcasters will be finding their language and subject matter being policed, male athletes will be treated as sexists simply for performing better than their female colleagues, and female athletes are treated like special snowflakes that can't be criticised by anyone for the fear of this 'sexism'. This article could have shone a light on real women's issues that still occur in sports today, such as many female athletes not even being allowed to compete by their own government. Those are the sorts of gender issues that do deserve attention, yet they're being eclipsed by this utter self centred bullshit. How about just watching the fucking Olympics and stop looking to be oppressed for the sake of this narrow minded and moronic article?
The commuter. A species so elusive until a time known as 'rush hour', when they all emerge from their burrows and board the trains they're dependant on. The problem is that British commuters are getting pissed off with the transport they rely on, and that might have something to do with season tickets increasing in price yet again with no visible improvements in the often crappy service they receive. Souther Rail is by far the worse culprit of this negligence towards customers, which unfortunately for me happens to be the network operator responsible for my new house's nearby station. In recent weeks this rail network has not only reduced its timetable by around a third, but also has threatened industrial action, and has the worst train in the country, that was late every day for a whole fucking year. That's every day for a full year at peak times. How the fuck can you justify raising fares whilst this bullshit is still happening?
The main problem arises from the fact that the British railway network just isn't competitive enough. I'm one of the biggest capitalists you'll find, and so I find it bemusing that the British railway system has got to such a flawed stage that a monopoly always arises in any one location. If I want to travel from Brighton to Chelmsford, which I regularly do, then I have no say in who I choose to travel with. This means Southern Trains can still make a profit out of me despite their god awful service because there's no alternative. I've seen very rational cries for renationalisation on the railway network in recent weeks, and you have to say that's a fair assessment considering how network operators only care about their profits. Operators like Southern Railways just won't repair or upgrade the network unless it favours their business. This is a huge problem as the British rail network is still clinging on to the golden age steam, with many areas heavily underfunded on an already outdated network. This is a suicidal approach on a national network with an ever increasing passenger demand. There is some positive news to come out of this debacle, with Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, launching a bid to buy the network for TFL, who have always been decent in my experience, despite being expensive to travel with. It's a shame we still have to force competition when operators go tits up, but this is a step in the right direction, and may just be the competition we need to be seeing from railway operator. Maybe this will be the move that will hopefully lead to my trains running on time. Wishful thinking I suppose.
A Shit Olympics?
I love the Olympic Games, I really do. I find myself often being gripped by sports I've never even watched before during this two week sporting extravaganza, and the 2016 edition is no exception. There is one big 'but' in all this sporting excellence though. You see for me the Rio Olympics are the first time political incidents and a negative backdrop have got in the way of the sporting spectacle. No matter how good the athletes are performing there's always that thought in the back of your mind that Brazil is a cash strapped country; a fact that the Brazilians haven't done a great job at covering up if I'm honest. Wherever you look there's green pools, an underwhelming opening ceremony, and venues that feel outdated. It's also a poorly managed event with constant doping scares, athletes dropping out over health scares, most notably in golf where there is nowhere near the world's best competing for what should be the ultimate achievement in sports. Even today American swimmer Ryan Lochte was held at gunpoint by citizens. I'm not suggesting that this is a new issue facing the Olympic Games by any means, but you can sense that negative public reaction with the poor attendances and constant controversies that seem to be creeping into every event. You have to feel sorry for Brazilians, who have the spotlight on their country coming off of London 2012, which in my absolutely non biased opinion was one of the best executed Olympic Games of all time. The worst part about this predicament is how every major broadcaster and governing body is pretending all is well. By all means let the sport and the quality of competition and gamesmanship do the talking, but the IOC has dropped the ball here big time. This global organisation has chosen a country clearly not suitable for hosting a world spectacle just two years after hosting a football World Cup. We're now seeing the consequences of this ineptitude, with a whole host of problems still persisting throughout the games, and many more will surely arise in the final week. The 2020 Olympics will be held in the much more suitable city of Tokyo, but after the Rio failures who knows where the 2024 Olympics will be held. Zimbabwe would be my vote.
Black Lives Matter Infects Britain
You know that game 'Pandemic' where you create a virus to infect the world? There's always people playing that game that come up with satirical and entertaining names to call their created virus. Well the Black Lives Matter movement is one of the those satirical pandemics infected various areas of the real world. How the fuck this movement became such a big thing in Britain is just beyond me. There's no denying that America has big issues with police brutality, and so naturally there are going to be groups opposing that very matter, but here in Britain police brutality is a rarity. Surely these British protestors understand this, and in fact they are trying to shoehorn various other weakly linked issues to satisfy their narrative of oppression. The protestors are also complaining about how refugees are being treated in foreign countries, which is apparently a relevant issue on British shores. However as with the American organisation these protests are built on lies, substituting fact for a biased narrative. If we look at the statistics we find that roughly 10% of police brutality deaths are ethnic minorities. Would you like to have a guess at the number of ethnic minorities in the UK? Well it's 13%; so if anyone is being discriminated here it's white people. Statistically and factually this is the most stupid protest in the history of the human race. I mean why the fuck are you shouting 'hands up don't shoot' in a country famed for having police officers that don't carry guns? That's like protesting against the legalisation of alcohol in Saudi Arabia.
But the worst thing as always with Black Lives Matter protests is the notion that this apparent inequality is an excuse for such moronic and thuggish behaviour. What's even more bizarre is that these protest are not in response to recent events. They're protesting the five year anniversary of the London riots, which is certainly not a fucking good thing to commemorate, especially glorify. And why the fuck are we protesting on something that happened five years ago that hasn't been repeated? Because 'muh oppression' that's why. What I hate the most, apart from how idiotic this facade is, is that these imbeciles haven't grasped that protesting and being whiny little bitches isn't a human right? When I watch these deluded morons being twats I almost wish there was a real issue with police brutality, because there is absolutely no excuse for this level of childish and selfish behaviour. Until police brutality does become a thing here in Britain, which I'm hoping it doesn't, then I'm sure the good people of the UK will treat these terrorists with rightful suspicion, and won't be taken up by a narrative that has turned present day America into the latest race war.
This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet
and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs
told in the words of my favourite human beings.
In this edition we have a teacher who's decided that blatant discrimination is the way forward when hammering home the message of equality, which she has absolutely no issue with. This isn't exactly breaking news, as the article was released last year, but the subject here is moronic enough to easily warrant a place in my hall of shame.
_______________________________________________________
http://www.bainbridgereview.com/news/343127562.html
_______________________________________________________
'Gender equality' is going to be a term used a lot in this article, as apparently restricting one gender from playing with a certain toy conforms to that idea. Obviously there must be a silent 'equality' in this version of gender equality, because the mere fact that one gender is being restricted in their use of toys based on nothing but gender clearly isn't any kind of equality. Even the term 'free choice' is redundant here considering half the class evidently don't have any form of free choice when it comes to the toys they play with. Obviously this is the classic feminist gender equality, that only serves to benefit girls because apparently this counters oppression. Not content with being a massive hypocrite this teacher then proves she's also a lying asshole to her own KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS. Why the fuck are you blatantly lying to them? I know they're not going to understand what gender equality is all about, but then again neither do you by the sounds of it, but that doesn't excuse being an absolute bitch when in a position of trust. You can claim you don't want them to feel bad, but then I have a tip for that. Let them play with the Lego. The boys obviously want to play with the Lego, so preventing them is just going to cause friction in their attitudes towards teachers. You don't have to be Mary Poppins to work that one out. These kids look up to you as an example, don't let them become asshats in order for you to impose your narrative on young children.
To be fair to this woman there is truth behind her claims that Lego has been shown to aid development skills in children, and she's also correct in saying that women only comprise of 24% in American STEM subjects, however that doesn't excuse this mental leap that assumes girls entering into careers other than STEM fields haven't been playing with Lego is just moronic, which is clear from her lack of evidence. It's even more stupid to then complain about gender stereotypes and then enforce your own in the very non-scientific discipline of being a nursery school teacher. Surely the message here should not be forcing children into playing with their associated toys, so why the fuck this teacher is restricting boys from playing with Lego is beyond me considering she wants classroom equality, but then I'm sure this lady comes from the 'men can't experience sexism' school of feminism. No wonder we're still 'so far behind in promoting gender equality'. Surely it couldn't possibly be because of moronic teachers like this one. No, let's all blame the toymakers. How dare those evil toymakers have a target market. Almost like they want to make a profit isn't it? Face it, boys like playing with Lego, some girls do too. The number of girls playing with Lego is lower than the number of boys, and that's why the product is primarily aimed at boys. There's no patriarchal conspiracy here, just supply and demand economics. Stop using your flawed logic to try and justify being a sexist bitch.
How dare these kids try and decide what they want to play with. In my funny little world I thought that gender equality was all about empowerment and liberation. But not here, no here in this KINDERGARTEN children are being forced to play with their associated toys. And yet the teacher still feels there is absolutely nothing hypocritical about that scenario. Then this woman gets even worse, as not only does this bitch lie to the children, she also lies to the school board. What a nasty piece of work. By all means encourage the girls to play with the Lego you selfishly acquired for them, hell even bribe them if it comes to that, but why should the male kids suffer from this blatant sexism? I know according to your narrow minded narrative they're the devil in disguise for simply playing with toys they want to, but how about letting kids be kids. The world isn't a nice place to live in, so let's not bring that attitude into a nursery school.
Fair. Fair. Never has that word looked more out of place. They do say the worst kinds of people are those who've convinced themselves their evil actions are a positive thing. My biggest worry is where this attitude will stop. Will this teacher start criticising students who do better in test scores, and purposefully restrict them from learning more until others have caught up? You get the impression that this woman thinks she's some sort of visionary who will save these children from the oppressive world, yet in reality she's just a carer of the lowest form. You shouldn't be allowed to control the personal lives of these kids. You're a pathetic teacher whose finding every possible way to promote girls in the name of gender equality, when in reality the equality part of that statement never even crosses your mind. This bitch is one of the reasons why there is so much gender disparity being flung around popular culture, but that won't stop her from being a power hungry asshole of the highest level.
It's no surprise why action films dominate Hollywood. The often exhilarating genre is so damn great to watch for anyone that feels just a teeny bit masculine every now and then. Each film is made up by round after round of jaw-dropping scenes that are often so diverse in their composition. Here is a list of the ten best, including some that didn't quite make the cut.
Bourne Supremacy - Moscow Car Chase: Exhilarating, over the top, and all round entertaining. A perfect scene that sums up what makes this action orientated series so great. Ben Hur - Chariot Race: Who knew horse racing could be so entertaining to watch? Apocalypse Now - Helicopter Attack Scene: Such a simple scene that perfectly portrays the horrors and duality of war. Subtle one minute, shocking the next, but always absolutely brilliant. Mad Max: Fury Road - The Whole Film: Seriously, this film was just one cool action sequence after another. Really well directed as well. A Scene From Troll 2: Okay maybe not, but the action in this scene is forever stuck in my mind.
#10 Bullitt - Car Chase (1968)
'Bullitt' was a film released during the time when car chases were all about that raw adrenaline rather than just an action fest that relies on big explosions and unbelievable coincidences to succeed. The car chase in this film looks real at every second, even if the cars had been extensively modified beforehand. That is genuinely lead man Steve McQueen driving the car himself in the pursuit, even cocking up every now and again, but still always looking awesome, because at the end of the day it's Steve McQueen in a classic Mustang. The streets of San Francisco are a perfect backdrop for this energetic car chase. Every ounce of that change in street elevation is used in this scene, and the camera often focused inside the actual cars gives you that sense of motion. It makes you quite travel sick at times, and that's because you're right in the action as a viewer. It's no surprise this sequence was voted the best car chase in history, because it just is. It's amazing to think that a film from 1968 has that distinction, but that's just how great and revolutionary this chase was.
#9 Fist of Fury - Bruce Lee Fight Sequence (1972)
Just look at that man go. Bruce Lee is always an icon in any action scene, but this one was his most masterful. Like usual it's simply Lee fighting against the odds versus a whole army, kicking their asses and looking like a total boss in the process. Just watching this makes me feel like the manliest person alive. Some of the shots visibly miss my a million miles, but at the end of the day it's Bruce Lee beating a lot of people up, so what's not to love? #8 Aliens - Powerloader vs Queen (1986)
I love the various brilliant action sequences that litter 'Aliens', especially the ones centred in the alien's nest. However in terms of how iconic the final scene is in the world of pop culture the powerloader sequence has to get the nod. This iconic scene originated with a plot twist that came out of absolutely nowhere. As a viewer we've just recovered from one hour of pure unadulterated action, and just when you think the film has just had its epic climax the Alien Queen, which looks fucking terrifying, returns to fight Sigourney Weaver in an epic showdown. Hell-fucking-yes. How fun must this fight have been to film? It's so fucking awesome in every aspect, with every moment being such a great show to watch. One of the best movie villains in sci-fi and action film history versus Sigourney Weaver being a total badass is exactly how every action director wishes they could end a film. To top it all off there isn't even any special effects involved, it's just good old fashioned clever cinematography to create one of the ultimate movie battles.
#7 Scarface - Tony's Last Stand (1983)
It's quite hard to breakdown what makes this action scene so great as in reality this is just a few minutes of constant gunfire. It's full bloodied action at its best. There are many of these scenes in Scarface, but the final scene was the one that brought the idea of a criminal lifestyle home in poignant fashion. Is there any line any more quotable in any action scene than "say hello to my little friend"? I'm not sure there is. Al Pacino is his usual brilliant self as a drug kingpin, dominating the scene from start to finish like any good lead actor should, but his charismatic performance as Tony Montana just makes both the film and this scene. Pacino loves to play characters who are larger than life, and so when playing a drug lord larger than life the film to centres on him very quickly in almost every scene. That pays off in this epic climax where the man looks totally at home in a huge gunfight, never relying on the usual action flick cliches, minus a few questionable features. In all honesty I don't care though, as how is it humanly possible to dislike Al Pacino's performance here?
#6 The Matrix - Lobby Fight (1999)
I often criticise action films for being too brash and over the top. 'The Matrix' did contain a lot of elements that were brash and over the top, but also has scenes like this one that I'll forgive considering that the whole point is to show off the brash and over the top cinematography. The gun fighting would be nowhere near as iconic if it wasn't for that over the top style that's just unbelievable to watch. Everything from the wall running, to the flips, to the slow motion bullets is just so fucking awesome, and only made possible by the landmark special effects in this film, that for the first time showed the action genre just what was possible when you inject some heroine into the traditional film shootout.
Both the gunplay and martial arts shown in this scene are absolutely mental. A joy to watch, and far more intricate than any generic action shootout. Is it cliche at times? You bet your ass it is, and actually the scene tends to play out like an overdone superhero movie. We'll forgive those elements though as this scene was different, revolutionary, and actually had some deep meaning behind it. Well there's a deep meaning behind everything in 'The Matrix'; it just so happened to get lost in all the bullets here. The real plus point here though is just how well edited and directed this scene is. It's so vibrant and dynamic throughout that at no point does it become anything other than edge of your seat viewing, which is what every action film should be all about. It's no surprise that over the years this has become one of the most iconic action scenes of all time, and a landmark for what's possible in a simple shootout.
#5 Heat - Shootout Scene (1995)
Oh Michael Mann you are a genius of a director. This is like an action film orgasm. A breathtaking few minutes of action that's just so incredible to watch over and over again. I'm not really sure what makes this scene so memorable. There's so many different elements of quality cinematography on display here, but my money is on how the sound is used to paint the scene. To begin with the music builds the scene up so brilliantly, but then just stops through the middle portion to make way for the raw, monumental sound of an epic gunfight. You almost don't need moving images with this level of craftsmanship. This is a scene that loves to strip away various elements until the viewer is left with a bare bones gunfight on such an epic scale.
The whole atmosphere in this scene is so immersive. You can actually feel the terror and destruction of this scenario. It's just such an action packed spectacle that encapsulates what edge of your seat viewing should be all about. However the main event here is Al Pacino vs Robert DeNiro. We already know what Pacino can do when an action sequence revolves around his acting, and we already know DeNiro can also do a fine job leading an action flick, but when they're together with a strong supporting cast the results are like clockwork. Technically this is as good as any movie scene ever.
#4 Die Hard - Roof Jump (1988)
Now this scene is how you put an exclamation mark on a film that has already redefined how to blow everything up. What a testosterone filled explosion-fest this is this, and one that perfectly encapsulates why everyone loves 'Die Hard' as a film and the action genre in general. In reality the whole film is just one big explosion, but this was the best of the bunch, opening doors for other action flicks to go above and beyond in terms of drama. I don't think any scenes since have ever really beaten this classic in terms of 'holy shit', even when there's been plenty of films since where everything blows up.
Bruce Willis was an absolute boss in this film, that much we can all agree, but it was this moment that cemented his legacy as an action hero legend. Who gives a shit if this stunt probably isn't possible in the real world? I'm not sure reality has that much impact in the over the top 'Die Hard' universe, and this scene showed us all that reality isn't necessarily the best thing in the world. In all honesty I don't care much for realism when there's both a huge explosion and an epic slow motion stunt in the same frame, both shot to perfection. This stunt must have taken some seriously good directing to get right, but the results are nailed for maximum impact, and in a film as maximum impact as 'Die Hard' it's saying a lot when this is the most memorable scene.
#3 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace - Lightsaber Battle (1999)
There have been many great lightsaber duels in 'Star Wars' history, but the greatest in terms of action has to be this one. Of course it just has to be found at the end of the worst film in the franchise by a mile, but that still shouldn't let us hate on a brilliant action sequence. Face it, this scene is just so fucking cool. It has Darth Maul and his double red lightsaber versus a young Obi Wan AND Liam Neeson. These are the three most interesting characters in the film putting everything on the line in a thrilling climax. It looks absolutely stunning, the choreography cleverly lets the characters use as much of this alien landscape to fight as possible, and it has some fucking cool guys fighting with some fucking cool lightsabers. The ending is a bit questionable if I'm honest, and the film had wasted Darth Maul as a character until this scene, but for me this is still a high point in the franchise even if the overall film wasn't. In fact this scene alone almost makes the first film acceptable in my eyes.
If I was around in 1999, which I was but not very old, I would have creamed my pants at this intense and action filled that even today is still mesmerising to watch. Maybe that's due to the music known as 'Duel of the Fates', which is without question one of the most epic pieces of music to ever grace any film ever. John Williams is an amazing composer, and once again he uses his music to amplify the power of a scene by a country mile. Even when all these plus points are taken into account there's still morons on the internet brutally criticising the choreography in this fight, which in all honesty is one of the most anal and petty things I've ever come across. Has the penny not dropped yet that this is an entirely fictional scene? 'Star Wars' has always been about vibrant and fun scenes that discount realism for a sense of epic adventure, and that's exactly what this scene did perfectly. This scene may just be eye candy, as many others are on this list, but that doesn't really matter too much when it's so bloody fantastic to watch.
#2 Saving Private Ryan - Normandy Landing Sequence (1998)
I must be honest and say I'm not a huge fan of 'Saving Private Ryan'. The middle and final sections of the film just feel artificial and lack any character, which is a shame as the opening couldn't be more different. This is simply the greatest opening segment of any film ever. It's a scene that mixes together excessive action with an excess of brutality perfectly. It's not so much adrenaline packed, more appalling to witness in every aspect, genuinely shocking you with some horrific shots that drive home the message of war in a way that very few other films can. Everything is so brutally realistic. Every sound, every bullet, every cry for help resonates with the viewer. Here, in what can only be described as chaos that the viewer is just suddenly dumped in, you actually find yourself caring about each soldier's life on both sides of the conflict, and that is incredibly rare in the world of action films.
This sequence is so shocking because of how realistic it is. There were reports that World War Two veterans were walking out of cinemas because of how accurate this portrayal of death and destruction is. Even to those who have never experienced the fear of war on this scale we get a newfound appreciation for the sacrifice of the average man, which is a message driven home through ambitious and bloodthirsty scenes like this one. This is not an epic scene by any means. It's not glorious, it's not satisfying, and in no context is it enjoyable to watch. This is a pure depiction of barbarism. One of the most powerful scenes ever to make it onto the silver screen. Just a shame the rest of the film ran out of steam after this chaotic opening half hour.
#1 Ran - Castle Attack (1985)
Unfortunately there's not much footage on the internet of undoubtedly the greatest action sequence ever put on film, and maybe the greatest scene in cinema history full stop. Never have I ever witnessed so much gore and violence effortlessly combining on such a large scale. Akira Kurosawa is one masterful director on his day, and here he produces one of the most sophisticated pieces of art ever. Just about every single emotion in the human subconscious is found somewhere in this scene, but the emotion isn't just artificially crammed in, instead relying on a wealth of characterisation in individual characters to create such an epic narrative within a single scene. It's such a symbolic piece as well. The film tells the story of a warlord who tries to manufacture peace at the end of his life, only for the biggest battle of his life to ultimately ruin him and his own family. That's what this scene is a culmination of, and the viewer is guided through this symbolic landscape like they were the readers of a great novel.
Even despite showing the true brutality of war there is still something so transcendently beautiful about this scene. It's like watching one of those classic ballads written about heroic warriors, although in this ballad the viewer gets a balanced account of how war in general affects all parties in the play. This huge sequence showcases some of the finest shots ever put together in one film. The highlight has to be the stone cold feudal King's face as he contemplates suicide, totally in denial at the chaos inside the very room he's lodged in. What a compelling shot that is. Truly one of the all time greats.
But even ignoring that shot there is still so much more going on at about every different angle. It's almost overwhelming on a first time view with the sheer amount of artistry to take onboard. Each camera movement, each choreographed movement, each individual death comes with a fuckload of symbolism, but never allows the true scale of the battle to be forgotten or subsided behind the level of artistry shown here. Honestly if you manage to get your hands on this modern classic then you'll be blown away by this epic conclusion.
Another victim in the world of false rape accusations. This time it's both and a boyand his mother, who both committed suicide just months apart after a rape case on the innocent young boy was dropped. How many more lives need to be prematurely taken away before we finally learn that bullshitting about a serious incident can have huge repercussions. It's not okay in any respect to treat an innocent person like a criminal based on nothing but a hunch, because these are huge accusations being thrown around that have been proven to destroy the lives of families, yet still never get any attention from a modern culture so obsessed with justice in the face of sexual assault. In what fucking world is it okay to start naming and shaming innocent people whilst simultaneously protecting those that have purposely lied to a court in an attempt to ruin an innocent life? Even if the innocent party doesn't face the publish backlash of a false rape trial they must still be forced to pay huge legal bills, all because of some stupid allegations that people blindly believed without evidence. What I'm certainly not suggesting is that we should instantly dismiss alleged rape victims until there is a verdict, and I'm certainly not suggesting that we should start a crusade against those individuals who acted in a situation of danger irrespective of the verdict, but what we should be doing is condemning those who blatantly lie for their own benefit. You may think this is a rarity, but from 2009 to 2014 there were 109 people prosecuted for falsely accusing another of rape. Even when presented with this statistic pressure groups didn't show any sympathy for the alleged attacker who was found innocent, instead claiming that these criminals were treated unfairly. Turns out when the shoe is on the other foot everyone goes ape shit. But hey, so much for this idea of gender equality.
As a young man I'm repetitively told that not believing the victim full stop is the actions of a rape apologist, therefore contributing to a rape culture. All I say is look at the consequences of not being a 'rape apologist'. Maybe there would be far less of a so called 'rape culture' in this country if people stopped supporting lying parasites that still gain sympathy despite behaving like absolute scum, only encouraging more heartless individuals to lie in the face of justice. There is progress in Britain, with jail sentences being handed out to the worst of the bunch, but this isn't a big enough trend in my mind, with many countries still cocking around over a very serious matter. Even in the UK alleged rapists are still outed before a conviction like a witch hunt, so it's no surprise why many men feel the need to take their own lives. In my mind there should be a serious punishment for ruining another person's life, and until lying scum find out what life is like with the shitty end of the stick pointing in their direction then this is a trend that's only going to grow.
Fucking Cyclists
On a recent holiday to Holland I finally found the evidence I needed to condemn the common menace that are cyclists. The Dutch traffic system is proof that when cyclists gain power they ruin places for everyone. If you so happen to be a pedestrian in Holland, which many people are, then you're a second class citizen. There are more bikes than people in Holland, and at every available opportunity the Dutch are always on hand to remind the foreigners of this statistic. The Dutch are incredibly friendly to hopeless tourists like me, but they will all happily unite in anger when you stray into the path of a bicycle. When you actually try and do the menial task of crossing a road in Holland you come across the mammoth task of looking fifteen different directions at hoping that the sheer mass of bicycles, who don't follow any form of traffic signals because they're entitled cunts, don't plough into you. The signal of a green man for pedestrians means 'maybe you could try crossing now', instead of 'it's safe to cross'. Then once that enormity is finished you have to watch out for trams and cars who do like using roads, but will happily frequent the pavement if it suits their needs. The pavement in Holland is like a free area, and nobody gives a second thought about using it. To even function in a city like Amsterdam you need 360 degree vision, and if you don't, well cyclists will use their most lethal deterrent; their pathetic bells. Although to be fair bike bells in Amsterdam are a mark of death, as once you piss one cyclist off everyone in the city seems to hate you.
So why you ask is this an issue? Well aside from being bloody annoying it proves the chaos that occurs when you give cyclists a free key to the city. I would of loved Amsterdam had it not been for the constant fear of death or trampling every two seconds even when you're on the pavement. Yes I'm sure most Dutch people love cycling. I didn't ask any because they were all trying to kill me, but I will admit that this behaviour did improve in other Dutch cities, although there was still a sense that cyclists could do whatever they wanted without any consequences. Talk on your phone whilst riding? Fine. Take a fucking motorbike or even anything that faintly resembles a bike down a busy street? Fine. Let a pedestrian use the pavement? What the fuck are you doing. It's an amazing double standard that cyclists expect fast moving traffic to watch out for them, but then have the same attitude about slower moving pedestrians. Because it's clear all cyclists are morons, cyclists should never have the right of way. How have we as humans allowed this to happen to places around the globe we should treasure and enjoy? And more importantly why have we allowed it to happen to such a great country like Holland? Give cyclists Syria to muck around in, and don't let them ruin my trips to the various bars in the Netherlands. In Britain we have the perfect mentality of trying to scare the living hell out of cyclists, and it works; mostly. We don't get this insufferable plague of bikes adorning the pavements of Britain because we have a suitable deterrent for the pretentious bug that all cyclist have, the intolerant Great British motorist, who without a second thought will knock down any two wheeled vehicle that pisses him off. Cyclist being cyclists are always trying to be cunts, but that's the menace we as a society face, and us Brits realise this. Holland I implore you to stop letting cyclists have the power to ruin your beautiful country, because it's clear to me that your generosity has been taken advantage of. Yours sincerely, an ignorant tourist.
