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.