Morons of the Internet: Medusa Magazine (Part 7)

Although this Medusa Magazine I've been dissecting recently is most probably satirical, I thought I'd milk it's stupidity some more by having another rant just in case there are any idiots that think these articles constitute a good argument. This time we have every morons favorite punching bag; video games. What horrors are video games doing now you ask? Well apparently they're now appropriating black culture. Jesus-fucking-Christ.
______________________________________________________________
https://medusamagazine.com/grand-theft-auto-appropriates-black-culture
______________________________________________________________

To me the most shocking thing about this paragraph is that this woman has a boyfriend. Is he a blowup doll? I can only imagine how thrilled he must be to be with some overbearing harridan that bans perfectly normal behaviour because of a false pretense that video games cause misogynistic behaviour. They don't, and you have no evidence to prove otherwise. I'm also astonished that despite you keeping your lover on a leash you never once caught him playing a game he's clocked hundreds of hours on. That sounds a little suspicious to me, and probably indicates this tale is fabricated evidence to support your claim.

Apparently the Grand Theft Auto series is now a rape simulator, which is odd, considering rape isn't a theme in any of the games I can recall. But I suppose with this level of intersectionality every single fucking action committed by men is rape whether virtual or not. GTA's diverse open world does indeed allow players to assault women and minorities, but you can just as easily assault white men as well. Surely you would love to assault virtual men, or do virtual video game NPC black lives matter as well? The bottom line is that Grand Theft Auto never forces the player to kill endless minorities, like say the racially charged classic 'Ethnic Cleansing'. If the player wants to act like a racist cunt in a virtual environment then that's their fault and not the developers, who certainly don't reward this kind of behaviour in game.

In any case Grand Theft Auto is a work of fiction, and should never be mistaken for reality. One of my favourite activities in GTA is running people over in the most entertaining way possible, but this does not mean I would ever dream of doing that in real life. Do I therefore criticise the game in the way this writer does? No of course not, because I have a sense of perspective. You may well think you have taught your captive boyfriend about the virtues of equality and tolerance, but I find that hard to believe considering he's not allowed the basic human right to play whatever fucking video game he wants. If he dares to try and enjoy his life he's instantly slapped down with some good old fashioned intolerance. What a fucking role model you truly are.

Fucking hell, this is like the opening chapter of 'How To Be An Oppressive Asshole'. This poor fucking guy. In the slim chance he does read this, I implore him that unless he really fucking loves that woman he should just leave her for someone who doesn't treat him like a dog. This isn't a normal fucking relationship. Most partners don't keep Big Brother style tabs like the ones this psychotic bitch keeps on you.

As for the actual argument, well there really hasn't been one so far. For the record Anita Sarkeesian is not a game developer. She's never developed a game in her life, but instead made her name as a piss poor critic who likes to misrepresent the video game industry in order to shoehorn her narrative into her moronic videos funded by narrow minded followers such as yourself. In the past she's even admitted that she knows fuck all about 'masculine' games such as Grand Theft Auto, so she's hardly an appropriate source in this argument. I really would like an explanation of everything bad Grand Theft Auto does, as just saying you don't like something isn't a very compelling argument. Still, let's analyse this apparent cultural appropriation:

The picture you supplied with this article is of the character Trevor from Grand Theft Auto V, so I can only assume that's the game in the series you're referring to here. If that's the case then what your saying is complete fucking bollocks. Trevor is just one of the three protagonists in the game, another being Franklin who certainly isn't a white male, but actually an African American. This isn't the only time in this paragraph that you try and claim the game contains elements that simply don't exist. The only place you find strippers is in the strip club, and if you even touch them, yet alone rape them, you get thrown out by bouncers. Secondly, it would be impossible for the player to gun down children when aside from major characters there aren't any included in the fucking game. Thirdly, there's no ultimate goal apart from following a storyline. None of the missions have anything to do with gentrifying black neighborhoods or outcompeting black competitors. I literally have no idea where you got all this shit from, but I can't even remember any black antagonists, yet alone fucking competitors. It's becoming evident that you haven't played a fucking second of this game.

Then there's my other major issue with this paragraph: All this cultural stuff you're referencing is entirely optional. The game doesn't force you to play hip hop music, which is a relief for me, and it certainly doesn't force you to murder or even coalesce with prostitutes. Neither does the game force you to act like a common thug, or even play as a white male for that matter. Turns out the only racist idiot here is YOU. And in any case I wasn't aware that being a petty criminal was part of traditional African American culture. If I was part of the African American culture I'm not sure I'd be too worried that these negative traits were being appropriated in a fictional video game, but rather that it actually occurs in reality. I do love how this argument suggests that the primary sin this game makes is appropriating black culture, and not the brutal and trivial approach to mass murdering and criminal behaviour that has been referenced throughout this article. Good old feminists getting their priorities straight once more.

Not surprisingly the article ends with a final dose of complete bullshit. How the fuck you can conclude a video game contributes to white supremacy by using this shitty article to back that up is beyond me. Take your fucking tin foil hat off and stop saying big long buzzwords that you think constitute an actual argument. Also, careful recommending Germaine Greer to your captive boyfriend. She's been disowned by your tolerant intersectional feminist community for claiming that trans women aren't actually biological women. Turns out you've been out virtue signaled by your own kind dear. Still, none of this changes the truly pathetic argument on display here that shows a complete narrow mindedness to ignore a diverse multicultural game in the name of tolerance.

The Pretextual Paradigm of Reality and Realism

Truth is intrinsically dead, however, according to de Selby's postdialetic theories, it is not so much truth that is intrinsically dead, but rather the collapse, and therefore the absurdity, of truth. It could
be said that any number of deappropriations concerning not narrative, but prenarrative may be found. The subject of truth is contextualised into a neodialectic sublimation that includes language as a paradox. However, several discourses concerning textual narrative exist.

Debord suggests in his 'Dialectic neostructuralist theory' that the use of the pretextual paradigm of reality is manipulated to read and modify sexual identity. It could be said that any number of dematerialisms concerning a mythopoetical whole may be revealed. The subject is interpolated into a cultural nationalism that includes truth as a paradox. However it's often true that we have to choose
between textual narrative and presemiotic capitalist theory.

If one examines posttextual narrative, one is faced with a choice: either accept the pretextual paradigm of reality or conclude that the establishment is part of the genre of sexuality, given that truth is distinct from art. The characteristic theme of many works of is not, in fact, sublimation, but presublimation. Thus, the example of textual narrative intrinsic to novels such as Mallrats emerges again in Chasing Amy, although in a more self-fulfilling sense.

Karl Marx famously opined “Society is responsible for hierarchy,” however, many have argued it is not so much society that is responsible for hierarchy, but rather the meaninglessness of society. The premise of subcapitalist cultural theory states that narrativity is capable of deconstruction. It could be said that critics of Marx promote the use of textual narrative to challenge the status quo. One such predominant concept is the concept of neodialectic reality. This trope is a primary theme for works that describe a precultural narrative for both the role of the writer and the observer. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a realism that includes language as a totality. Several appropriations concerning the pretextual paradigm of reality also exist. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a textual narrative that includes truth as a reality. If the pretextual paradigm of reality holds, we have to choose between patriarchialist narrative and neosemiotic constructivist theory. But the subject is interpolated into a realism that includes language as a whole.

If one examines textual narrative, one is faced with a choice: either reject subcultural discourse or conclude that truth may be used to oppress the underprivileged, but only if textual narrative is valid; otherwise the model of structuralist rationalism is one of 'neoconstructive situationism', and thus part of the failure of consciousness. Any number of narratives concerning the bridge between sexual identity and class may be found. Thus, some scholars have used the term ‘the pretextual paradigm of reality’ to denote a mythopoetical totality.

Marx on the other hand suggests the use of the dialectic paradigm of expression to analyse truth. Other models of realism holds this very purpose to emphasise social commentary. The premise of the pretextual paradigm of reality implies that class, perhaps ironically, has intrinsic meaning, given that consciousness is interchangeable with art. It could be said that if realism holds, we have to choose between subtextual conceptualism and constructive theory.

Realism states that consensus is a product of communication. Some have suggested the use of the pretextual paradigm of reality to read and modify narrativity. The main theme of the works of Madonna is the absurdity, and eventually the meaninglessness, of neodeconstructivist sexual identity. It could be said that several dematerialisms concerning realism exist. The major method is contextualised into a pretextual paradigm of reality that includes reality as a reality. However, the main theme of the works of Madonna is not theory, as textual narrative suggests, but pretheory. If textual rationalism holds, we have to choose between textual narrativ and neocapitalist materialism.

It could be said that several discourses concerning realism exist. One of which is the use of the pretextual paradigm of reality to read sexual identity. In a sense textual narrative is used to denote the role of the reader as writer. The whole premise of the pretextual paradigm of reality suggests that society has objective value, and that consciousness is used to reinforce the status quo. However, the subject is interpolated into a pretextual paradigm of reality that includes sexuality as a whole.


*****
In case you were wondering, yes THIS IS A PARODY. If you hadn't noticed then I hope you've learned the lesson that anyone can easily believe any old rubbish written on the internet. This is just meaningless drivel that some pseudo-intellects would happily regurgitate in their respective echo chambers. This randomly generated nonsense has even made it into the academic sphere on a worrying number of occasions. Spewing bullshit is actually great fun, and you can even create your own bullshit sociological study with the following link:

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

Charles Darwin: Victorian Mythmaker - A Literary Review

I'm sure a literary review is something I bet you never would have expected from this blog, but I've decided to inject a bit of culture for once. Before you wet yourself with excitement I would like to add that I'm not explicitly reviewing the book, but actually an article that promotes the book. If this is a standard promotional piece then it should cover the basic points in the book, so without further ado let's take a look at what great arguments are made in the supposed framing of a 'Victorian mythmaker'.
_____________________________________________________________________________
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/it-s-time-charles-darwin-was-exposed-for-the-fraud-he-was-a3604166.html
_____________________________________________________________________________

The article begins with a strange comparison. Comparing scientists with politicians of bygone ages doesn't seem like a particularly good line of argument when your explicitly calling Darwin a fraud from a scientific perspective. Lenin and Darwin are two completely different characters from history, so I'm really not too sure why you find this false equivalence an acceptable argument. Presumably it's this notion that, like Communism, Darwinism will eventually fall and become an obsolete way of thinking. However, here we are two centuries later and Darwin's pioneering work is still perfectly applicable to evolutionary theory, and Lenin as you quite rightly identify is an extremely controversial figure. Darwin is still seen as a revolutionary scientist, whereas Lenin is just seen as a revolutionary. I don't recall Darwinists ever rounding up dissidents and royal family members so they can have them all butchered. This comparison between the two men is completely unwarranted, and to say it's clutching at straws would be a huge understatement. Darwin didn't erect his own statue, so it seems a bit unfair to call someone a fraud by judging him for events that happened long after the person's own death.

I'm also intrigued as to why you have a gushing opinion of Richard Owen and not Charles Darwin. It's interesting to note that all the arguments you make criticising Darwin can also be applied to the 'great scientist' Richard Owen. Apparently it's absolutely not fraudulent to provide inaccurate reconstructions of dinosaurs and plagiarising the work of others. Turns out it's only fraudulent when an idolised Charles Darwin allegedly does it. I absolutely hate this straw man argument that runs through the whole piece implying that Darwin is revered because he and his followers purposely hid his own flaws. This is simply not true, and I know of not one scientist today that doesn't understand Darwinian limitations, because unlike you Mr. Wilson they understand the importance of a reasoned debate.

Darwinism and Mendelian genetics are not similar theories in the slightest. One may have used finches and the other used pea plants as evidence for a biological theory, but they are both revolutionary scientific theories in differing areas of the subject. Darwin's theory, like Mendelian genetics, has been proven a countless number of times, and just because some don't believe in it doesn't instantly make it incorrect. Opinions are irrelevant in determining scientific facts, which is a point I wish you would understand.

This whole paragraph may have been an acceptable line of argument at the turn of the 20th century, but the once conflicting Mendelian and Darwinian ways of thinking have been amalgamated for years thanks to the pioneering work of scientists such as Haldane and Dobzhansky to name but a few. This argument is deliberately not showing the whole picture of evolutionary theory, either purposely for the sake of the argument or due to a fatal lack of understanding. You can't just vilify Darwin and simultaneously idolise Mendel when they both suffer from the same faults you cite. You can just as easily make the argument that looking to Mendel as an icon would be stupid when his laws of inheritance have been disproved, most notably his law on independent assortment, and his method of sampling was debatably biased and suspicious to say the least. Funnily enough you'll find every scientists make mistakes, even the ones that Mr Wilson idolises. It's hardly fair to criticise Darwin for making mistakes in sciences that were decades away from being refined. It's a testament to the man that such a primitive scientific field at the time still today contains the foundations of such an archaic piece of literature. Variation and inheritance were way off from being refined, so describing the critical process of natural selection, which is still a cornerstone of evolutionary theory, is pretty damn admirable by my understanding.

Then we return to the flat out bizarre argument that Darwinism is some form of religious cult. I honestly have no idea how you can even jump to that conclusion with the measly evidence that's been produced in support for that idea. The fact that Darwinism can be seen as a religion is certainly not the primary reason towards Darwin's popularity. Maybe, and here's a silly suggestion, he may have become the figurehead for evolutionary theory because he fucking pioneered it. It's arguments like this that make me seriously doubt whether Wilson has actually read a single word of Darwin. It's all very well making the pathetic remark that a unified explanation of a complex natural process is childish, but where's your evidence for this unqualified insult. The beauty of science in that you can provide evidence instead of just trying in vain to attack an individual with petty insults.

It's certainly true that the theory of evolution was widely accepted before Darwin's 1859 work, but the great revelation of Darwin's work was that this newly discovered process of evolution occurred by natural selection. This is such a critical point that wasn't picked up on by contemporaries such as Lamarck, which is why their predictions of evolutionary biology are widely rejected today, and that's the same scenario with each of the figures mentioned in this paragraph. Georges Cuvier for reference was one of the leading opponents to the theory of evolution and believed life was created and destroyed in determined cycles, and Von Goethe was primarily a writer and not a published scientist. Similarly Erasmus Darwin published his ideas of evolution in a fucking poem, so funnily enough had fuck all to do with the origins of evolutionary theory. None of these people even remotely touched on the idea of natural selection, so it would simply be idiotic to claim they were just airbrushed out of history without any evidence supporting this statement.

I'm astonished that Wilson still insists of repetitively spewing this simply untrue narrative that Darwin stole his fame. From his autobiography we learn that Darwin was reluctant to publish his groundbreaking work for fear of retribution. To quote the final line of page 83 from his autobiography: 'Here then I had at last got a theory by which to work; but I was so anxious to avoid prejudice, that I determined not for some time to write even the briefest sketch of it.' It was only the correspondence from a malaria ridden Alfred Wallace that the book was even jointly published by both men. These activities from a man who allegedly 'airbrushed all predecessors'.

There seems to be a complete misunderstanding of Darwinian theory here. I'm currently not aware of any leading evolutionary biologists who dispute that evolution happens little by little. When these scientists are referring to leaps in the fossil record they're still referring to events that occur millions of years apart from each other, which is just like what Darwin theorised. I've read a fair bit of Gould, and believe your misinterpreting his ideas that closely related populations often experience periods of rapid evolution after periods of stability. This is known as punctuated equilibrium and does not describe the general trend of transitional forms that Darwin had predicted. Again, when trying to make scientific arguments it helps if you don't rely on blind ignorance to suffice as evidence.

The point that paleontology has come up with virtually no missing links is just absolute bollocks. It's instantly clear you don't have an insightful view into the world of evolutionary biology if you start referring to the redundant term 'missing link', but instead there are tonnes of examples of transitional specimens to fit your criteria. The reason why the frequency of these findings is lower than you might expect is because of the sheer complexity in the process of speciation, and where there are gaps that's because finding a theoretical fossil aint easy. At a time when the fossil record was piss poor I don't think it's at all warranted to be bitching about Darwin's slightly inaccurate predictions when you have the benefit of hindsight and yet still get the basic theory completely muddled.

Certainly it's true that Darwin shared the now immoral views on race that were common with the majority of imperialists at the time, however this does not discredit his objective scientific theories. This whole reductionist argument of why Darwin thought nature was so brutal is so painfully idiotic that it pulls into question just what fucking research Mr Wilson has done. The answer to why Charles Darwin had this brutal depiction of life does not simply boil down to 'he was a racist'. That's the level of argument I would expect from a handicapped child, and completely fails to mention such critical events as the premature death of his beloved daughter and his inspiration from other pessimistic theorists such as Thomas Malthus.

Apparently it's common knowledge where Darwin's theories all led. That knowledge being common to the idiots who claim Charles Darwin had a role in the Holocaust. To claim this is a huge fucking lie, and in complete denial of the truth. I'm not sure how Darwin can be blamed for a Nazi operation when they burned his fucking book. This whole point is just vile slander. Eugenics, if not in an ideological sense, has been around since the dawn of humanity, and we've seen countless race based purges before Darwin was even conceived. This would be like making the argument that the inventor of the wheel is responsible for the Holocaust because it was their invention that ferried the Jews to death camps.

I honestly dread to think what this whole text would read like. I can only imagine that it's hundreds of pages of slanderous bullshit. It's not even the first time Wilson's work has come under criticism for being complete bollocks. His biography of Hitler for example was panned by historians, and his biography on John Betjeman used a rather humorous hoax as evidence. The bottom line is that to claim that Darwin stole his ideas, and that these stolen ideas are not truthful is plain bullshit. It's all very well being able to articulate a simple argument, but here we have an example of scientific illiteracy clearly rearing its ugly head and diluting any form of rationality. I've not had the displeasure to read the finished copy, but if the promotional material is anything to go by then it's likely to be flat out moronic. How dare this columnist express a sense of intellectual superiority when their abysmal scientific scrutiny is just pompous drivel at its very worst. Maybe it's Wilson, and not Charles Darwin, that should be publicly shamed for being an arrogant and lying fraud.