Okay, so there's this thing happening sometime next April called the Kilroy Event. I'll let an Irish ginger named Dave Cullen give you more details about it below:
I'd love to go to that event when it happens.
Around the same time Dave made that announcement, he posted this on his twitter feed:
So I responded to that and it went like this:
The art work immediately below is the fruit of that twitter exchange.
I think the basic idea is conveyed well enough. I'd gladly make any changes Mr. Cullen tells me to make. Of course, any artistic person reading this blog is more than welcome to submit their own works to Mr. Cullen at whatever social media outlet you can reach him.
To pre-register yourself for this event, you can go to the link I've provided here in this emboldened and italicized font. I'm sure this event will b lots of fun and help preserve free speech for centuries to come. See you ninjas there.
Anyone paying any close attention to the news has undoubtedly seen and heard stories surrounding one university professor named Jordan Peterson. He's gained some notoriety in the passed few months for being a very stubborn champion of free speech and vehemently resisting the mandatory use of the pronouns that the trans-gender community have been, shall we say, aggressively promoting. (A handy little chart of some of the pronouns is posted above for convenience). While he does feel that these new pronouns are superfluous and unnecessary, his biggest concern is the push to make them mandatory. No government should be involved in forcing people to say and/or not say certain words whether people want to say them or not.
I you've followed my blog at all, then you know full well why I support someone like this man. I've been on the side of free speech for not as long as Dr. Peterson but for more than two decades for sure. My characters the Censor Monkeys are a testament to that.
Of course, one of the main components of free speech is that while Dr. Peterson has the freedom to say whatever he wants, anyone who disagrees with him also have their freedom to express any thoughts that contradict his. He in turn has a right to counter their arguments which thus becomes a debate. Unfortunately, Dr. Petersons opponents have an alternative approach to confronting his speech as you can see below:
Their strategy seems to be to act like a drunken tail gate party that got lost trying to find the football game and thought that a university lecture was as good a place as any to make jackasses of themselves. Rather than engage with him they want to physically and audibly shut him down. That sort of thing is antithetical to free speech in every way. Why would they do such a thing? Well, this poster put up at McMaster's University can give you some insight into how their head works.
Yep. More than one person wrote that up and thought it was a good solid argument. Any rational thinking person can see that it's not. I'd even go so far as to say it's the exact polar opposite to what a functioning brain would fabricate. Pretty much every sentence has an error of judgement that needs addressing. I feel the need to do exactly that right now. Those of you who can see all of the problems in this text, please show this to someone (either someone who attends McMasters or anyone who would sympathize with this diatribe) and help set them on a better path of wisdom. Here we go:
Did you fall for his drivel?
Did you really get tricked into thinking that Jordan Peterson is a heroic champion of free speech?
Oh you mean by how he says exactly what freedom of speech fully means?
Is this the stuff right here?
You poor sap…. seduced by another youtube demagogue.
Youtube demagogue, eh? Oh you mean like...
...this melanin-infused Stalin-ist who actually rationalizes her brand of tyranny by saying that silencing someone from speaking is still within the guidelines of free speech because it's not a government official doing it?
....or how about this mental-castrato who thinks all masculinity should be drained from the culture because he can't admit that he's too much of a preening poofster to handle any big action (or any action at all for that matter)?
...or possibly this man-lady who thinks that he/she is a lady-man? He/she/it/they/xir/quiditch/helicopter/zim espouses that words are equal to violence, that refusing to date someone is a form of rape, and has admitted to actively trying to ban people from youtube who disagree with him/her/zapped/pat/starfish/extra terrestrial.
Are any of these three people the 'youtube demagogue' this poster's author is talking about? Whatever!
Don’t you see how full of shit he is??? Let’s think about it for a minute:
Yes, let's subject your analysis of Jordan Peterson's philosophy to public scrutiny to see how it measures up.
What if my freedom of speech involved calling him Shitstain Peterson?
By crackie, yes it does. Oh, I guess the person who made this poster does understand freedom of speech after all. Nothing more to...
That’d be funny right? Especially if all of his students started doing it. But what if everyone started doing it?
Ok, the humour of the situation is a matter of individual opinion but it could be viewed as funny to some. Also, yes every single person in the world has the right to freedom of speech no matter how hard certain governments (or citizens) try to suppress it so every single person would have ample opportunity to say that. Alright then, this person seems to fully understand the important components of free speech so I guess I can just...
What if Shitstain Peterson was someone who had experienced unspeakable violence and humiliation since he was a kid because of that name?
Oh ok, that doesn't make sense at all. Any violence or humiliation (hypothetical or otherwise) Peterson would have experienced didn't come about BECAUSE of that name. The torment would have come about because of the prejudicial attitudes held by the surrounding community. Likewise, those prejudices would have been brought about by economic, environmental, and/or historical factors that could fill many volumes upon volumes of books. Simply changing the name from "Shitstain" to "Happiness Rainbow" would be useless and unproductive. Just as "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet", so too "a person you don't like called by any other ad hominem would still be a person you don't like". Words merely help to identify things they don't magically transform things.
What if Shitstain Peterson was only allowed to use bathrooms designated for him and other Shitstains simply because we didn’t want to stop labelling him that?
Ok this is just desperate conflation from an absolute shithead. First of all, every single person on the planet is only allowed to use public bathrooms that are designated for them. All men (of every race, creed & sexual orientation) must use the men's room and all women (of every race, creed & sexual orientation) must use the women's room. That is not a situation unique to transgender people. It would be no problem if we could live like animals and expel our waste into every bush, tree, pile of dirt, or human shoe we can find but we can't because we're (supposedly) civilized. Therefore, we all use whatever public bathrooms we can access.
This brings me to my next point. The issue of transpeople having to pick one bathroom or the other has absolutely nothing to do with any labels that exist. The reason bathrooms were divided up between male and female in the first place was for public safety. We don't want unstable grown men to assault little girls or grown women while they're vulnerable and peeing. So, having people who "sometimes identify as male and the times as female" get granted access to either or bathroom leaves things wide open for that very assault to happen. No, I am not saying that transgenders will commit all of these assaults. A 'cis male' could claim 'identify as a female' then make his way to the ladies room and POW!!!
Everywhere else in the world, people are free to identify as any gender they want. It may irritate some people but as far as maintaining a functional society goes, it's not even an issue. However, for the sake of public safety, when it comes to using a public bathroom pick a gender and stick with it. All this whinging and complaining about "society must change to accommodate us" bullshit makes the crowd supposedly on the side of the LGBTQQ2+...etc community sound like snivelling bratty children.
What if he was part of a population that had been fighting for decades for the right not to be called a Shitstain anymore, only to be attacked by people who think it’s their “free speech” to keep calling marginalized people whatever they want? Not so funny anymore, eh?
Ok, this bit contradicts itself in the worst way. This 'right not to be called something' cannot exist because it infringes on other people's rights, namely the right to free speech. The basics of this can be explained with property disputes. I have every right to grow an apple tree on my property. For the most part, since it's on my property, it's entirely my business. However, if the branches of my tree grow so long that they extend over into my neighbour's property and drops apples all over his lawn, then there's some conflict. My right to have a tree that produces apples is now infringing on his right to not have a tree that produces apples. I can't enforce my right to make him have apples he doesn't want. But, if my tree full of apples remains within my own property, everything is fine. In that case, if my neighbour doesn't like my apple tree, he is free to not look at it.
The words we say are like that apple tree. They are spoken from our mouths and are thus on our own property. When someone or a group of someones makes any kind of demand to change or remove any words we say, that is the same as trespassing onto our property and chopping down our apple tree. No civilized democracy would allow such a violation of civil liberties to happen and any uncorrupt law enforcement personal would be quick to arrest anyone who participates in such an act. So it is indeed everyone's free speech to refer to other people however they want whether it be "dirty tranny" or "shitstain".
I must also reiterate that people are free to find anything funny or not funny based on individual opinion. But of course people finding this situation humorous or not is somewhat irrelevant.
If using people’s preferred gender pronouns is too much of a strain on your linguistic capabilities you probably don’t deserve to speak in public.
There's a term in psychiatric circles for a statement like this: delusion of grandeur. The person who wrote that wishes to have the authority to officiate who can and who cannot be allowed to speak in public. Thankfully, the system we have here in the free western world is set up so that no such person can become such an authority and thus deny anyone's to speak.
Of course there have been such authoritarian types who have infiltrated various journalistic publications and social media sites that are finding ways to either silence or inconvenience those with whom they disagree. They try to invoke the 'apple tree analogy' I used above by stating "My property! My rules!" While they free to run their properties any way they like, they would be more in line better with democratic principles if they gave everyone an equal voice to share ideas.
You deserve to be silenced by people who don’t want ignorant & harmful ideas spread in their communities.
Okay this takes the previous statement one step further towards a dictatorship. While the previous notion put forth was somewhat passive saying"...you probably don't deserve to speak..." this new statement is more demanding and says "...you deserve to be silenced...". The person who wrote this wishes there was a dungeon or a Guantanamo Bay type of place that Jordan Peterson could be sent and thus effectively 'silenced' forever. Well, there was a system of government like that at one time. There was a family of monarchs consisting of a king, a queen, and many other royal subjects who would rule with impunity. They would often time collude with more corrupt popes in charge of the Catholic church and carry out all sorts of punishments for saying things they found unfit to be spoken aloud. Poor Galileo was a tragic victim of this system. Thankfully, a document known as the Magna Carta would be drawn up that would give more power to the people and less to authoritarians. Then sometime later, the Founding Fathers of the United States would set up a system of government that would separate church from state and establish freedom of speech for all of its citizens so as not to go back to such a vulgar and barbaric system ever again.
We often don’t bother to debate these ideas because, like the ideas of all fear mongering & hateful people, they can’t be debated.
Actually, every idea can and should be debated, even if the debate ends quickly because its basis is strong and can't be disputed or its basis is weak and thus falls apart under scrutiny. To simply declare an idea "undebatable" is a very authoritarian stance taken by an extremely closed mind.
(Ever tried to debate a Nazi? I have. It doesn’t work. Their hate and ignorance will always find a way to “trump” your smart ideas.)
Here we go. HEY, MORON!! FUCKING MORON!!! (Aw crap, I used a catchphrase from Undoomed. I guess I owe him something like 7 million dollars or whatever).
I'll ignore the pathetic attempt to shoehorn Donald Trump into this mess of a statement since he has fuck all to do with any of this. I'll also ignore the childish attempt to label all dissenters as "nazis". I will say that if you have to tell people that your ideas are "smart" then you don't have smart ideas. A truly smart idea can stand on its own. You know an idea is smart when you can present it to various groups of people and none of them can find anything to argue against this idea. If this idea is challenged because more than one person found a few flaws, found numerous flaws, or flat out called the idea a big smouldering ole of stupid, snapping back at this opposition by simply saying "SHUT UP! IT'S SMART!" will not persuade anyone to think it's smart. If anything, it would sway people away from your argument. I suspect that's how the previous argument ended with that "nazi".
They either have a platform or they don’t. We prefer if they don’t.
Uh, no. Everyone that has ever existed and ever will exist is born with a platform. It is with time, charisma, displaying skills and meeting other people that one manages to expand that platform of theirs so that bigger and bigger crowds will gather to listen. Truly, the only way to 'take someone's platform away' is through death. When people die, their platform goes with them. However, if they managed to expand their platform to good size while they were living, others will gladly take that platform and make it part of their own. That makes the purpose of deplatforming someone a rather moot exercise in futility.
The best way to combat someone you disagree with and has a platform that you feel is too large is to develop your own platform. Keep expanding your platform in an effort to reach more people until it's big enough to get your opponents' attention. Not only is it the high road, it's completely legal and constitutional.
It’s not about free speech - it’s about self determination and basic human dignity.
Yeah..... attacking reporters and physically trying to shut down speakers through excessive noise and intimidation is the exact opposite of dignified.
It’s not about free speech - it’s about people with different genders fighting for their right to be called by an appropriate & respectful pronoun.
Like I stated above with the apple tree analogy, the 'right to be called by a certain pronoun' cannot exist because it infringes on the right to free speech. Being called a certain title you want to be called is a privilege that is earned not just given. As an example I'll use a joke from the first Austin Powers movie. While Dr. Evil is talking to the world leaders one of them refers to him as "Mr. Evil". He quickly corrects them and says, "Ahem! That's Dr. Evil! I did not spend an extra four years in villain school to be called 'mister' thank you very much." It's a good funny joke and it perfectly illustrates my point. The privilege of being addressed by labels of your choosing must be earned through respect. Completely ignoring democratic principles and trying to force everyone to use these pronouns (even through violence in too many cases) at the expense of civil liberties is not respectful behaviour. If you don't know how to express your desires and have them implemented without using the basic bullying tactics to intimidate others and thus tree upon the freedom and democracy that many people fought and died to protect, then regroup and get back to us when you have learned this.
It’s about you not being a Shitstain.
More like it's about the collective 'you' not being a Shit For Brains!
This is some great artwork from an excellent artist named Jesse Oliver. I just had to use it.
Anyway, that's my opinion about why Dr. Jordan Peterson is great and why too many of his opponents have proven themselves to be useless morons. I wish him the best for all future endeavours and I hope he helps everyone he encounters to see the light.
I have been watching the whole situation with Nicole Arbour unfold for a little over a month now. Anybody who has seen any one of her youtube videos in that time is either cheering her on or plotting her painful death right now. Both reactions are quite understandable. I personally am on the side that's cheering her on for one big reason. Basically, she managed to accomplish what I've been trying to do for a few years now. She addressed the issue of the erosion of free expression through militant political correctness and upset the purveyors of that militance in the process. If you visit any of her social media platforms you will see all sorts of negative comments ranging from "I don't care for you too much" to "OMFG!!! KILL YOURSELF IN A FIRE!!!"
What I loved (and continue to love) about those comments was that much of the political correctness was counteracted by other political correctness. The ones that accused her of body shaming were in turn accused of "attacking her because she's a woman". Then those that accused her of being a bully were in turn accused of bullying as well. I do believe that's the 'snake eating itself' right there. That just shows how much political correctness does not work.
Of course most of them are deeply upset with her Dear Fat People video. However, another video of hers caused just as big a stir and it's the one that got me most interested. Here it is below:
What she said in that video is pretty much exactly what I've been expressing through the Censor Monkeys I created. With this, and her Dear Fat People video, she managed to rub the media's vagina, find its clitoris and have it squirt all over her. Whether it was in the form of praise or backlash, it all counts as squirting. I admire her just for that alone. For me so far, all I've accomplished is a small yawn at best. With the Censor Monkey comic books I've sold, I've managed to get kicked out of a zine fair and I've had a fundamentalist preacher mad at me. But of course that is absolutely nothing compared to the massive shit-storm Nicole went through (and still continues to go through). Many news agencies picked it up and she was even brought on The View for little bit of a Spanish Inquisition of sorts. That's the main reason I'm watching her so closely, so I can get a better idea about how one conducts oneself in the face of so much criticism and attention. So far what I've learned is that one must maintain composure and offer absolutely no apologies for any content you've produced. Basically, if the world around you is on fire, just keep walking. I know there's no guarantee I'll even come close to reaching those heights of fame. But, if I just keep working at it and trying to find opportunities within my surroundings, Nicole's example will keep me better prepared if the fruits of my labour do reap any rewards.
In the video she used the term that's been used for a few years now, SJW or Social Justice Warriors. That term is ridiculous of course. They do as much for "social justice" as a teething baby does for the dental association. It's just a sea of longwinded paragraphs and hastily placed pretentious hashtags full of ire but lacking any real substance. All they manage to say with all their vitriol is "grrrrrrr! I'm mad!" and that's about it. They exert all of this energy online while the real world continues on without them. They're just a useless irritant really. Also in the video, Nicole considers them "the new terrorists" among the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and any other off-branch sub group that's been formed in the passed few minutes. I most certainly would not go that far. That's giving them waaaaaaaay too much power which is the last thing I'd want to do. At best they moreso resemble those people who kept getting Lenny Bruce dragged into court so many times for violating what they called "decency laws" (whatever those are). I think these people are trying to establish some new kind of "decency laws" that they can use to pseudo-legally harass the Lenny Bruces of the present and future.
I'd say they resemble Marge Simpson the closest.
More specifically, the resemble Marge in that episode when she campaigned against Itchy & Scratchy. And really that's the way it should be. Just like in that episode, these SJW screwballs have all the freedom to bitch and whine against what they don't want to see to their tiny hearts desire. However, just like with Kent Brockman, when they are given the platform to express their thoughts on the matter, they must realize that their position violates every single free speech laws that exist in every country with even a small trace of democracy, is dripping with hypocrisy and then BACK THE FUCK OFF. That is the best way to maintain any balance in the universe.
Before anyone says anything, yes I've heard some murmurs of Nicole and her ex boyfriend and all the drama around that. I'm sure that must have been unpleasant for both of them. I've also seen many of her more vocal opponents site that as a reason that she can't be a comedian and doesn't deserve any of the fame or adulation she's been given. Let me offer you some perspective.
Groucho Marx traumatized the children he had in his first marriage. He wasn't abusive or anything. Just like his nickname states, he was quite grouchy alot of the time. He even has a psychological complex named after him.
I'll also bring up his brother Chico. He cheated on his wife more times than NASA can count. Seriously, watch any Marx Bros. and look at all the women in the background or with bit parts. Chico most likely had sex with one or two of those women (on a slow day when he smelt like onions), but it is with 100% certainty that he tried to have sex with all of them.
Johnny Carson was, and in many ways still is, the undisputed king of late night variety TV. Even 10 years after his death, every talk show host wishes they could be even 1/5th as good as Johnny. On TV he exuded wit and charm. However, his em-battered children tell a different story. To them he was a strict disciplinarian who was not fun to be around at all.
And then there's Woody Allen. Besides his "incestuous on paper" relationship with his adopted daughter Soon Yi, he also put his thumb up his daughter Dylan's butt-hole and told her "this is our little secret". She was only 8 at the time. He was also quite a creepy-crawly "hands on" type of dad with her.
How about Mr. Jell-O Pudding Pop himself, Bill Cosby, a bona fide sexual predator. There's enough women accusing him of rape that they could form their own baseball team. Although I don't think Bill would want any of them to holding blunt objects like baseball bats while he's nearby.
Here is Chevy Chase. There's no scandal around him, he's just kind of a jerk sometimes (okay, lots of times).
There are plenty of comedic talents with more than a few anti-social skeletons in their closets. And, you can see from the examples above, some are much more intense than others. However, none of that detracts even one iota from the Emmys, Oscars, fan clubs, or any other awards or achievements they received over the course of their careers. So, I say here and now, to anyone who want to use any of her ex-boyfriend rumours to discount anything she's said or done, that information is irrelevant, inadmissible, and NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS. That issue is for those two alone to deal with. Noone else has any input to give on that situation whatsoever. Are we clear? Good.
At this point I'd like to bring up the recent actions taken by Sarah Silverman. It is a relatively noble attempt to remain relevant to SJW infestation on most college campuses (and many other pockets in North America). However, at the same time, it's also quite naive. She may think she's appeased the PC crowd now but that certainly won't last. From now on, if she says ay little thing that could even remotely upset anybody the SJWs will jump down her throat even harder. There'll be cries of "WHAT?! Come on, Sarah! I thought you were one of the good ones now!" and the attack campaign on social media will be even worse.
One example I can think of is Michael Che. Back in his days of an obscure stand up comic and SNL writer, he had kind of an SJW mind set. I found a Twitter-feud of his inwhich stated very succinctly that "rape jokes are bad" and so on. I'm not sure if he participated in any social media attacks, but he did sympathize with the attackers. However, that all changed when he stepped into the limelight first being a correspondent on The Daily Show and then getting to be a co-anchor on SNL's Weekend Update. While on SNL, he made not one but two different jokes on two different days that more than a few people considered to be 'misogynistic' and even 'anti-woman'. So now, he was on the receiving end of an SJW social media attack. It got so intense for him that he had to just completely delete his Twitter and I think he Facebook page too. But first he issued this apology:
I think he found a very nice way to tell everyone to indeed go fuck themselves and also make them feel like shit for their actions. He is a very clever man. My hat is off to him.
I see a similar fate in store for Sarah. After a similar attack, she'll either try to revert back to her pre-PC ways or she'll delete her social media and go into an early retirement. I really hope she doesn't do the latter of those two options because we need sharp minds like hers in the entertainment industry now more than ever. It should not be silenced over any reaction or the fear of a reaction.
In contrast, Nicole Arbour will have things much easier. Now that the bulk of all the backlash for her more racy material has subsided, she's in a glorious spot where she can say anything she wants. There is no such thing as too far for her now. Her fans will love it like always and all of her opponents will just throw up their hands in frustration. She's in a similar type of sweet spot that both Monty Python and South Park are in. Nothing they say or do needs to be processed through any filter.
Which of course is another reason I'm following this Nicole Arbour saga that much closer. I'm trying to find that sweet spot she found. Hopefully I can pick up some tips watching her and others like her.
I mentioned Lenny Bruce earlier in this post. So I think it would be a nice idea to end this post with some of his material. Here is a small clip from his act that noone would have the stones to even begin to say today. Hey, SJWs and various Censor Monkeys, don't bother sending him any angry hate-messages on any social media platform or wherever, he's been dead for almost 50 years.
