Morons of the Internet: Medusa Magazine

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 scarcely believable article where it's argued that women are more suited to combat roles than men. As you can imagine an article of this magnitude and academic sophistication was written by General Patton himself. Oh no sorry not General Patton, a clinical moron that can't make a basic argument. You actually have to wonder whether the following is satire as it's that badly written.
__________________________________________________________________________
https://medusamagazine.com/are-military-combat-roles-really-best-suited-to-men
__________________________________________________________________________
It's just the introduction and already I can't take his article seriously. Firstly because of how poor the standard of literacy is, but also as they seriously just equated fictional superheroes and the armed forces on the front line. Funnily enough there's quite a big difference between punching a stunt actor in the face in a controlled environment and defending the country by putting your own body on the line in an environment where both sides are trying to kill the opposition. I seem to recall Simba becoming 'The Lion King' in a fictional film, so does that mean he deserves a coronation in real life? Somehow I don't think you quite understand the magnitude of this issue. This isn't just a matter you can impose your narrative upon, it's a matter of national security, so this better be a fucking clear argument with insightful points backed up by a mountain of evidence. There's a saying in science that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and I would say that claiming the whole military system throughout history is inherently wrong is a pretty big claim. Somehow I doubt someone who clearly struggles with basic English is capable of producing extraordinary evidence, but let's give her a chance.

The argument doesn't start off well. For starters it can't even get the simple facts of life straight. You claim that women can do anything men can. Well how about donating sperm? How about running the 100m in under 9.6 seconds? You have the audacity to claim I'm narrow minded for not being indoctrinated by this rubbish, yet you simply can't fathom the existence of sexual dimorphism. Manipulating factual information is not being open minded.

I would just to love to be in your fantasy realm. How you can simply brush aside this 'strength argument' as if that's not of importance in labour intensive and physically draining combat is astonishing. You know why the military do all those drills aimed at strength and conditioning? No it's not sexism, it's because strength and conditioning are fucking vital in a combat role. And remember that thing called sexual dimorphism that you refuted? Well it turns out that's the reason why there are strength differences between sexes. I shouldn't even need to source this common knowledge. How dare you just try and brush over an argument that doesn't agree with your narrative. I thought this was a serious opinion piece meant to solicit debate, not a piece of one sided propaganda.

Not surprisingly the actual core argument this point hinges on is complete bollocks. I'm incredibly curious as to how this 'fog of war' is just a male disadvantage. Do you by any chance have a single fucking source you could provide? Amazing how you can make this huge sweeping claim as conventional studies claim evidence for this condition is anecdotal at best. You however back this claim up with the seemingly random and unqualified point about the female brain being different. It's funny as this highly debated hypothesis surrounding the idea of a female brain is commonly criticised by feminists. Sexual dimorphism means there are going to be differences in hormonal activity between male and female brains, but where's the evidence that females can process more audio and visual information? More importantly how does processing more audio and visual information lead to a clearer mind? Funnily enough you don't need a degree in psychology to be able to source a single study, or for that matter make up complete bullshit. The only evidence produced in this paragraph is a common stereotype, which is a fucking insult to this allegedly scientific argument. Somehow I imagine there's a stark difference between finding your keys down the back of the sofa and putting your life on the line for your country. Maybe, and this really is a longshot, recruiters in the army might look at quantifiable traits such as physical performance when recruiting soldiers for the front lines. But no, I'm sure it's this hidden system of sexism holding women back from roles in the armed forces and not just pragmatism.

Again, I'm not quite sure how you're making the mental leap between controlling a family household and being on the front lines of a war. My money is on the fact you know fuck all about military operations. Just what the fuck has the recent US general election got to do with women fighting on the front lines? There's a few issues I have with this point being raised. Firstly, and most obviously, is just how fucking ignorant this point is, but mainly my issue is this assumption that sexism just has to be the issue. Maybe if you actually look at how the electorate voted you would discover that the real surprise was how many women voted for Trump, so why would they be concerned with their male privilege being removed? None of this has any relevance to the actual point being raised, but it is another example of how this writer just smears their personal narrative over an issue, ignoring the facts, and just yelling 'sexism' whenever the facts don't align with her feelings.

Where's the evidence that women are natural leaders? There certainly isn't any scientific evidence that women are more analytically minded, as the inverse is actually true. Conversely I couldn't even find your alleged study, which is actually a survey, and being as you decided not to source anything I did some quick research and found you're a fucking liar. This CNN report states that in actual fact it's just 19% of intelligence officers that are women. That's a bit of a gap between the 72% you just pulled out your ass. How fucking dare you blatantly lie to try and manipulate me into blindly following your agenda. You can't argue you your point so you just make up statistics. Fucking pathetic. And anyway, you still haven't explained how this is even relevant to why women are better in front line roles. STOP SPEWING OUT UNRELATED RHETORIC AND PULLING STATISTICS OUT YOUR ASS.

You can't just keep making the argument 'we all know'. It's great if you know all this crap, but how about providing some explanation for the slower ones like myself. This is an opinion piece, so you should be trying to persuade me, not flatter your own ego. There's just no excuse for this pitiful rally cry. I repeat, this is supposed to be an opinion piece, and not a piece of propaganda. In any case Joseph Goebbels would be turning in his grave is he read this, and only an article as dreadful as this could make me have sympathy for the head of the Nazi propaganda machine.

You say that we must hold people that see a gender distinction in combat roles accountable as perpetrators of sexism. Surely by your logic we should also be taking a hard look at women as well, most notably the 'Order of the White Feather' during World War One, where many women shamed men that didn't enlist by publicly humiliating them. Funnily enough this sensible suggestion is not referenced in this baffling conclusion, where it's simply stated that women are just better than men. Remember guys, feminism is about equality. I'm not quite sure how you can conclude this when you've explored two basic points in pathetic detail. Surely you don't need me to tell you that this is an unbelievable generalisation. It is certainly in no way factual, and not the first time in this article that the conclusions made are complete horseshit. Anyway, IT STILL DOESN'T EVEN ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

What fantastic discourse we have here. It's a case of highlighting how males may not be all that great in combat roles but completely ignoring the strengths that have served humanity pretty fucking well for millennia. At the end of the day this is just some nonsense on the internet, but are we really likely to see a radical shift that will eventually lead to a female dominance in combat roles? I highly doubt that, and this writer should be asking why that is instead of simply spewing unrelated rhetoric. The real crime in this argument is how this social justice and equality bullshit is shoehorned into matters of national security, with piss poor arguments being backed up with nothing but lies and anecdotes. This article is so badly researched that there isn't even any misleading sources for me to cross examine. The argument here is so weak that they've had to make up statistics to back up points. Maybe this wouldn't be so infuriating if it wasn't for how irresponsible this whole post is. You are literally putting people's lives, and potentially the fate of whole nations at stake by spurting your unqualified idiocy. Sometimes it's okay to stop and think before you post shit like this on the internet, as if you don't the result is possibly the most academically devoid pile of shit I've ever seen.

On the plus side this website is a goldmine for shit, and I'm pretty sure you can expect another of their articles to be featured in this segment relatively soon.

Buzzfeed Bonus: Buzzfeed Try British Snacks

Not that I'm out of article ideas or anything, but here's a little added bonus to showcase the very worst of Buzzfeed playing to stereotypes. Actually it's really not that bad unless you're a snobby Brit like me, but it is still lazy content, so I've decided it certainly requires an angry response. So then, let's begin by watching some Americans eating British chocolate bars.

If there's one thing that Europeans shit all over the Americans at it's making chocolate. Unfortunately that hasn't become apparent to these naive little bellends over in the colonies, who for some reason still prefer that chemically infused plasterboard that dares to be called 'chocolate' in The States. The problems start with Dairy Milk, which for the record is infinitely better than any American chocolate bar because it actually tastes pretty good. However it's not the taste that's the primary issue here. For some reason the idea of calling a chocolate bar 'Dairy Milk' is confusing to these adolescents. I can understand where they're coming from, as the words 'milk' and 'dairy' have absolutely nothing to do with the process of making chocolate. I can't blame them for not knowing that those so called 'pockets' do sometimes have filling, but in absolutely no conceivable way is Dairy Milk worse than  Hershey's. And remember my opinion is infinitely more valid than theirs.

Another infuriating reviews was of the Flake, as they didn't get the full experience of having to clear up endless melted chocolate crumbs after the bar inevitably explodes in your mouth. They could have even gone one step further and had theirs stolen by seagulls, leaving them with the melted remains of a tragic 99. Again, the presence of a new chocolate bar was still too confusing for some. Really if you're getting confused by trying new chocolate bars you should probably seek some help.

For some reason every foreigner loves a Toffee Crisp, which is weird as it's more of a cult classic over here, although for the record Toffee definitely isn't the crunchy bit. An argument in this review was that despite being made for the British market the packaging should be changed for the small quantity imported over to America. Yeah, that line of reasoning is definitely not helping the stereotype that all Americans are self centered. Still, nobody slagged off a Twirl or a Wispa, which is probably because these youths don't know they exist, so that's fine by me. However this wasn't enough for Buzzfeed who then felt the need to make a video insulting an absolutely sacred tradition. Of course I'm referring to the full English breakfast.

I can instantly tell this video is set in a traditional British pub as of course on the wall it has trivial tales of Henry I pushing people off of Rouen Castle, which as everyone knows is commonplace across the pond. What absolutely isn't commonplace is having a fizzy drink with a full English breakfast. It has to be breakfast tea, and maybe fruit juice at a push if you have no self respect. I would also like to add that this is absolutely not the staple for British people most mornings, unless you happen to be a lorry driver.

The actual review brought up very little points for debate, but there were a few, such as when some person who looked about 12 wanted just the sauce of the baked beans. That's called ketchup, which despite being noticeably worse than the vastly superior HP sauce, is still a potentially important component of the fry up. The blonde haired lady must be pissed out of her tiny mind as well. She criticised baked beans for not being a breakfast food, but then praised the American way because you can have whatever the hell you want for breakfast. Well then go eat a bag of dicks for breakfast you fucking bitch.

But the biggest insult is the lack of hash browns on that so called 'full English breakfast'. How as a British pub you could forget the most critical ingredient and yet still include optional extras like black pudding and fried mushrooms is beyond me. Disgusting behaviour. That pub owner should be taken to the tower. Speaking of this pub owner, let's see what she and other equally worthless Americans make of traditional British food.

Woah, what the fuck is that scotch egg? Why the fuck is there tomatoes and gravy with it? And again, why the fuck is a Cornish pasty being served with peas, potatoes, and gravy? I know the owner is from the West Midlands and loves a bit of gravy with everything, but don't ruin the iconic Cornish pasty, which the whole point of is that everything is contained in the pastry, so you don't need bits on the side. Fucking heathens. Also that steak and ale pie was made with mushrooms, which I suppose I will let slide, but that still doesn't excuse the fact there wasn't a drop of ale in it. It was a steak and stout pie. Guinness is not an ale.

I just love that this is supposed to be an accurate representation of British cuisine. Where's the drizzle soaked fish fingers? And more importantly where were the hash browns? The shit sampled in these videos was just poncy rubbish that pays into a generic stereotype. I'm sure Buzzfeed is loving that, and is claiming this all has artistic merit. Still, aside from the terrible restaurant these videos have only been mildly irritating. Actually that's a lie, they're an insult to a whole nation for some easy views. Fuck you Buzzfeed.

24 Questions Black People Have For White People

When Buzzfeed post some low quality bait you can be damn sure I'm going to take it upon myself to make fun of them. There have been many videos made by Buzzfeed aimed at educating the white menace, so here's some more of their shit content analysed through the eyes of someone with at least a little bit of rationality.

1) You should probably be asking the people who write the scripts why white characters generally make bad decisions in horror films. I'm a student, not a fictional horror movie character. Splitting up is also the greatest plot point in cinema history because Scooby Doo and his posse of white supremacists do it on a regular basis. How dare you try and slander the innovative tactics made famous by Scooby Doo. Maybe instead of pitifully whinging about this trivial issue you could maybe analyse the artistic merit of this trope. I suppose I don't expect Buzzfeed to know what artistic merit is, so I'll let this one slide.

2) Yeah I'll happily get annoyed over poor casting choices. For example if Superman was portrayed by an actor from China for no apparent reason then yeah I would feel that decision to be completely nonsensical and hurt the artistic integrity of the film. The example you gave of Idris Elba, who I fucking love for the record, would be not in keeping with the themes of Ian Felming's novels. Fleming reveals that Bond is half Scottish, and half Swiss, and although James Bond's race is never explicitly stated, he represents the British optimism and hedonistic ideals during the troublesome 1950's. In short he's a window into the ideals of native British citizens of the time. Elba still could work as Bond, but I would label that casting as questionable, even though I would still respect the director's artistic choice. In any case, this is not an issue raised exclusively by white people. I see plenty of people kicking off about casts that aren't diverse enough for them in all corners of the internet. Does whitewashing in Hollywood ring any bells in Buzzfeed's narrative? It should do as it was heavily mentioned in their 'Questions White People Have For White People' video. I guess they've selectively chosen to ignore that in this video. How convenient.

3) Are a big butt and big lips seen as unattractive on black women? I think you're confusing curvy individuals with flat out obese women. In any case people are more likely to find their own race more attractive. And no, that doesn't make the science of attraction racist. Science doesn't care about your feelings.

4) You can fucking claim twerking all you want. That's a bit like claiming credit for swine flu.

5) Quite like an example of white people claiming ownership over a discovery of trends. And anyway, what's the issue? It is just a trend after all. Claiming false ownership of a trend has to be the most petty form of plagiarism possible. Maybe their might be an issue if we were talking about something important like the discovery of electricity, but discovering a new way to wear trousers really shouldn't be something that needs confrontational debate.

6) Again, where's the evidence that natural black hair is frowned upon? This is just a monstrous generalisation. I would also like to add a friendly reminder that just because something is natural doesn't make it instantly a good thing. Rape and incest are all natural; so to just claim ownership of something based purely on it being natural is not a good argument. Neither is claiming that nobody else can copy your natural features. I see plenty of black women with short blonde hair, so by this logic I have every right to feel offended too. And what's up with telling white people not to judge your hairstyle by then judging their hairstyle? It's a fucking hairstyle, have a sense of perspective.

7) Tell me about student loans mate. Wait, I'm not black. Holy fuck it's almost as if this issue has nothing to do with ethnicity. There's actually more white students in America, so why the fuck is this question directed at white people?

8) White crime is often treated as an individual act because in America crimes committed by black people are disproportionate to those committed by white people, and so this assumption is based on the truth. The media loves to weave a narrative over linked events such as gang violence, and the statistics show that black men are the most likely group to exhibit this behaviour. I'm sorry if this trend is considered racist, but it's the unfortunate truth. And don't you fucking dare take the high ground on generalisations when you're part of this list.

9) Isn't race a taboo subject? I feel uncomfortable talking about politics with people I don't know, so you can imagine how I feel about bringing race into general conversation.

10) No I don't think racism is over because the US elected a black president in the same way that I don't believe sexism is over in the UK despite us once electing a female prime minister. Next question.

11) I can imagine it would be noticeable if there were a lack of individuals from the native population in their native country. I imagine this is exactly the same in Ethiopia when there is a notable absence of black people in an area.

12) How dare white people aspire to end racism. I know it's an unobtainable goal, but Jesus Christ you don't have to demonise people for aspiring to not be racist. I know you guys at Buzzfeed love to put white people in a catch-22 where anything they do is considered racist, but I'm just a soul whose intentions are good. Myself and the majority of white people really don't enjoy being racists.

13) Repeating racial slurs isn't my thing love. But how dare I even think I can use these slurs if this random woman thinks I shouldn't. Fuck off in trying to dictate what language I use.

14) I don't want to touch your hair, it looks really, really average.

15) Wait, by asking to touch someone's hair you're asking permission. What more do you fucking want from me? Trust me I have glasses. People asking to wear them or snatching them off of you really isn't a big issue.

16) Why does being in a Buzzfeed video make you feel you're a cultural expert? Of all the people to question my false sense of superiority, you are not the one.

17) I actually have more than one black friend. Just because you keep rephrasing the question doesn't mean you can keep trying to slanderously assume I'm a racist. Am I going to be accused of attempted murder next?

18) I don't swear at my parents. Stop accusing me of things I have never done.

19) I don't have a dog. STOP ACCUSING ME OF THINGS I HAVE NEVER DONE.

20) The reason I can pronounce 'Schwarzenegger' is because it's the name of a fucking cultural icon, whereas whatever fucking name you said at the beginning sure as hell isn't. To highlight your hypocrisy why don't you try saying this famous Hungarian footballers name: 'Balazs Dzsudzsak'. Oh you can't. Well you must be a fucking racist then.

21) I care about the welfare of individual lions over individual people because lions are a threatened species. Forgive me, I am a zoologist so I do give more of a shit if a lion is poached than when some random thug is shot by police. In any case poaching and policy brutality are entirely different issues that funnily enough elicit different reactions from different people.

22) Hey, don't you fucking dare bring Simba in to all this shit. The Black Lives Matter movement just pisses me off, but The Lion King was fucking epic. The poor comparison however doesn't excuse this warped logic that just because I don't buy into a particular political movement that you align with I therefore must be a racist. Fuck you. Again Lions are threatened with extinction, or at the very least severe population decline. Black people are not. Malcolm X by the way was really a very shit, overly meandering, tedious melodrama.

23) I'll acknowledge a privilege when I have it. You do have to provide some evidence of this privilege first. I doubt you and your privilege feel indebted to the starving millions in the third world, so why should I be expected to grovel at your feet? Is it because of my skin colour? In fact I bet all the money in the world that I, a student, have far less privilege than your entitled asses that make a living by churning out shit content to the tune of dollar bills. You're living the American Dream, making obscene amounts of money by being a really pointless waste of life, so quit yapping about trivial privilege issues and stop blowing smoke up your ass.

24) I don't know generic black guy, I can't imagine what it's like to be the spokesperson of an entire race. I'm just a generic privileged white guy who all these questions directly apply to, so what would I know?

Maybe I shouldn't be too angry at this list. Yes it manages the heinous job of calling me a racist every two seconds without any evidence, but it is a fantastic source material for making people look like idiots. I also counted more than 24 questions in this video, so I guess maths isn't a strong point for Buzzfeed either. I'm not surprised that simple error wasn't corrected, as nothing in this video has had any insightful thoughts put into it, rather just lazy content that acts on stereotypes that by and large aren't true. To Buzzfeed though this is their idea of quality content, and if they want to make any more of this shit then I would be more than willing to cringe at it again. But as for this double standard of attitudes to racism at Buzzfeed, that can fuck off. I'm still waiting for the day they make a video that's questions white people have for black people.

Morons of the Internet: The Guardian and MMA

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 once again find out what meaningless thing The Guardian is selectively hating and then shoehorning into their narrow minded worldview. Mixed martial arts is all the rage at the moment, so let's see how The Guardian can compare this to people with viewpoints that oppose theirs.
________________________________________________________________________________
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/26/ultimate-fighting-championship-fight-of-our-lives-mma-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-conor-mcregor
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/28/its-easy-to-be-seduced-by-ufc-but-violence-will-grow-from-legitimising-the-cage
________________________________________________________________________________

The entertainment people choose to watch certainly does tell us about the world we live in, but then so do the appearances of shit articles in allegedly sophisticated news publications. Turns out that even if you know fuck all about the subject matter you can still write an article about it for The Guardian. I'm not going to bother analysing this observers poor description of goings on, as he even admits he has no fucking clue what's going on, but still decides to write a piece on it anyway which I will happily tear to shreds. This ignorance shown towards mixed martial arts translates into his shoddy analysis, but even that is nothing compared to the fundamentally stupid argument underpinning this whole piece. These two paragraphs perfectly sum up this mess of an article. Never have I ever read so much waffle that means absolutely nothing to anyone. 'An emphasis on binary, zero sum worlds'. Just what the fuck are you talking about? How is that different from any other sporting event? It's called sporting competition you fucking idiot. How from this evidence a cultural shift can be observed is equally bemusing. Surely this man must be aware that the UFC is merely one of many combat franchises that has existed for millennia, ranging from the bare knuckle pits of Victorian Britain to the gladiatorial arenas of Ancient Rome. How then has combat sports only now become a cultural revolution? It's not Donald Trump's fault that the Romans loved a good lion decapitation. Neither is it bullish for the president of the UFC to defend his company. Meryl Streep essentially just insulted his child so of course he's going to fight back. But more importantly, what the fuck has any of this got to do with mixed martial arts?

Ugh, I can just imagine your predicament watching these low life scum enjoy themselves. That alone should indicate that nothing is right about this sport. Of course being The Guardian the points raised here are then somehow linked to some random buzzword; in this case it's a crisis of masculinity. Where the fuck did that come from? Even more bizarre is how the UFC can be a spectacle of traditional gender roles, when the writer himself declared that female fighters have a main event role in this supposedly masculine organisation. And why would this apparently masculine sport be gaining so much traction if masculinity is in crisis? Was masculinity also in crisis during the 1970's when boxing was going through a boom period? Amusingly this big claim is backed up by famous academic Grayson Perry. Oh no wait sorry, he's not an academic, or even a mixed martial arts fan, rather an artist famous for designing a house and some vases. Please tell me I don't need to debunk this point for you. I just wish this writer would stop trying to force his gender issues into everything he dislikes in order to devalue it, because he just ends up looking like a condescending ass.

Just a friendly reminder that the idea of male on male competition is sexual selection rather than a Darwinian mechanism that you're referring to here. Natural selection and sexual selection are actually in conflict with each other, and minismising the carnage is one frequency dependent strategy that very poorly describes the various mating strategies in humans. Anyhow once you're past this meaningless point about evolution you get to another meaningless point about the novel 'Fight Club'. I certainly can't complain about this writer not sticking to the point. Then politics is brought up out of nowhere despite the fact this writer has no evidence that the so called 'alt-right' are the primary target of the UFC. Donald Trump then makes an appearance thanks to allegations of sexual assault and beauty pageants. That's sexual assault and beauty pageants, not mixed martial arts. It's a well known fact that Donald Trump has promoted multiple MMA events, but why does that make it an inherently evil or masculine thing? And more importantly, why does this writer think he can link every horror in the world to mixed martial arts? See I can also bring in my own literary references, except mine might actually be somewhat relevant. I personally feel this article should be aligned to the 1946 essay 'Politics and the English Language' by George Orwell. In this essay Orwell describes how political language is often purposely unclear to hide the truth, rather than express it. In short all the pointless ramblings in this article are really just a poor excuse to display a personal narrative that exemplifies its points with sources shoehorned into the argument.

Surprisingly this is not the only time The Guardian has thrown a hissy fit over MMA. Hell they've even published articles calling for the sport to be banned:

Well at least this article actually has a reason for shitting on the sport rather than just personal hatred. The central argument here is that studies show mixed martial arts has the same risks of brain damage as boxing. I don't know why that constitutes a ban of MMA and not boxing, or the majority of combat sports that cause serious injuries for that matter, but once again this article looks to be turning into a crusade against a disliked topic. How disappointing. I just love how despite never stepping into a cage before, or even providing supposedly overwhelming evidence, this writer thinks he has the intellectual superiority to start dictating whether fighters should be allowed to follow their passion. Get down from your high horse and maybe only start commenting on subjects when you actually have coherent points to make, otherwise you just look like an idiot.

Oh my mistake it turns out that instead of a serious argument we have a noble hero in our midst, battling against the horrors that mixed martial arts is inflicting upon the children. If this is propaganda then I highly suggest hiring more persuasive writing staff next time. I also don't understand the free speech comparison. Free speech isn't a consumer product, it's a universal right, and not something you can choose to partake in. There are plenty of limits to ensure people's safety in the sport; they're called rules. This comparison gets worse when you consider that MMA is a rapidly growing sport in Australia, which wouldn't make sense if people were unable to tolerate it. Of course the poor metaphors and ludicrous points are just an excuse to go on a witch hunt. I don't know why I'm supposed to take this article seriously when it states mixed martial arts causes violence by citing a brawl between fans at a single event, who may I add have absolutely no bearing on the safety of the fighters. In my funny little world I've always noticed that football also causes brawls, in fact here in Britain this idea of crowd violence has a whole culture built around it. So tell me, why aren't we trying to ban football as well? None of the points this writer has made so far are exclusive to mixed martial arts, and are actually incredibly common in the majority of sporting disciplines, so where's the issue? At some point this guy is going to have to admit that this is about him trying to dictate his selfish personal preferences on society rather than a supposedly noble crusade to reduce sporting injuries.

What I fucking cannot stand about both these article is the snobbish sense of superiority. I'm sorry I'm one of these people that like watching grown men beating the shit out of each other. I don't like cricket or ballet, where I would like to add injuries occur too, but I don't go around writing condescending articles that seriously go about insulting a whole group of fans, even going to the extent of calling for the sport to be banned. I reckon I could write an article in no time at all calling for a sport to be banned in the moronic style of these Guardian writers. In fact here we go:

'Cricket is a sport largely engrained in British culture, and despite knowing absolutely nothing about it I've decided I feel entitled to generalise a whole sport based around my personal demons. The real problem with cricket can be exemplified by it's influence throughout the world that was once colonised by the British Empire. There's a clear colonialist narrative surrounding the whole sport, that reminds me of similar themes presented in Joseph Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'. In this masterful work an ivory camp is subjected to a cruel imperialistic regime that one would also find engrained in the cricket playing masses of the 19th century. It's therefore obvious that cricket has been dictated to the oppressed masses by the patriarchal British regime, and should therefore be banned today because even if you're not convinced by my pathetic argument that it's clearly racist, some people might have the chance of getting hurt. The horror, the horror.' Shit, I might have just got a job with The Guardian.
 
To conclude it's absolutely fine to dislike the culture surrounding a certain sport, in fact I don't particularly like the mixed martial arts culture to be honest, but that doesn't excuse these pathetic pleas to a ban a source of excitement for a great many people. Maybe instead of smearing your shit filled morals across the internet you could instead try and understand why people such as myself enjoy this sport, but no, because myself and this group of primitive pondlife can't hold a candle to your objectively better taste in sport. It's then another thing to start using this respectable sport as a symbol for everything wrong in the world. If you don't like it then fine. I don't like journalism in The Guardian, but I would never do something as idiotic as attempting to ban things I hate. Grow up and stop using your platform to whinge about trivial issues that you know fuck all about.

What It Means to Be Trans Species

Just when you thought the idea of fifteen million genders was stupid enough there are now those that have started to identify themselves in the animal kingdom as well. Vice interviewed these mentally ill people, and now I'm going to analyse their arguments.

Just to clarify you absolutely cannot be another species of animal born into a human body. Whilst it's true that many important genes are conserved throughout the animal kingdom the chances of another animal's genome mutating or replacing the section of DNA that codes for an individual's behaviour is just an impossibility. And bear in mind that behaviour is determined by far more than just raw genetic information, so the chances of these otherkin experiencing a medical condition are next to nothing. It's also very suspicious considering individuals who experience this still retain fundamental human behaviour and surprisingly don't carry across the very natural and common behaviours of murdering other individuals.

This story however gets even more ridiculous. I just assumed that these individuals would see themselves as primates, or at the very extreme wolves, not a fucking dragon. A dragon is a fictional creature that has never existed, and so it's absolutely impossible to become a mythical creature. Just because you had a dream where you felt like a dragon doesn't mean you are one. I had a dream where I was a slice of toast. Does that mean I should act on that dream and literally stick myself in the toaster? I stopped pretending I was a dinosaur when I was about seven. Maybe it's time for these morons to just grow up.

Why are these people trying to convince me this is a genuine condition by conveying nothing more than their feelings? Remember guys, if something any of these idiots believes is true then it must be universally accepted. I just love how this biological phenomenon found nowhere else in the natural world can be explained using just philosophy. My perception of reality may be flawed, but I know phony bullshit like you're pulling off is not genuine because it's not physically possible. And even if your perception of reality is flawed, how does that excuse your retarded behaviour?

But good old Eric knows what's up. Yeah, if you don't conform to his view of being mentally disabled then you can't be part of the group, although who would want to be part of this prestigious group is a bigger question. He believes that biological processes can be determined by his definitions, which is almost as dumb as pretending your a completely different species. Then he reaches peak levels of retardation. Yes, Eric has decided that it's determined by spirituality and neurological reasons. We'll ignore the spirituality bollocks and focus on the neurological reasoning, which may I add is not backed up with any evidence like say an actual medical condition would be. I have the feeling that Eric will be waiting a long time until scientists find this gene that codes for the neurological behaviour of a completely different species. Finding this gene is improbable enough, but now multiply that by the wealth of personalities that otherkin transform into with vastly different physiology and you stumble into the most fucked up corner of pseudoscience it's possible to venture into. Just the mere fact that this behaviour can be explained by spirituality and pseudoscience is enough to make me lose the will to live.

To top it all off they don't even get to have sex with their own kind, which I would have assumed would be a natural impulse and not something you can simply choose to ignore. I would say banning sexual reproduction is a crime against humanity, but if these mongs want to be treated like animals then fuck it, I don't give a shit. Maybe they should be having sex with their chosen species, as only then will they discover that actually reproduction doesn't happen because you're mating with an entirely different species. Hopefully at that point the penny would drop. Honestly this is a good plan, it's not as if they're going to lose any credibility by having sex with a sheep.

It's quite amusing that these idiots only follow certain elements of their chosen animal's behaviour, and even more interesting is that these chosen behaviors align perfectly with human behaviour. It's almost like they are still humans. Needless to say I'm not surprised in the slightest that mental health is an issue in the otherkin community. I just assumed these guys were all fucking normal. I'm sure all this goes straight over their heads when they discuss it online in their little echo chambers, but really the only advice they should be giving each other is to urgently see a medically trained psychiatrist, assuming these psychiatrists won't tell them to fuck off for making a mockery of their discipline.

I can't imagine why this community experiences bullying and harassment. I don't condone the harassment of any group, despite having a good go at it here, but can these deluded idiots honestly be surprised? Maybe I would have more sympathy if he actually had a diagnosed mental disorder that he was receiving treatment for, and not just some self diagnosed bullshit. This lot can claim it's not a choice all they want, but the overwhelming evidence suggests it is. Behaving liked an idiot is not an innate behaviour, and just because you feel it is doesn't change the truth. Rebranding what people used to call lycanthropy doesn't make this supposed struggle any more valid. It's a mental disorder full stop, and the less I hear about this shit the better.