Rape is no Laughing Matter…

11 07 2012

…unless you’re raping a clown, says the t-shirt that T-Shirt Hell has sold on it’s website for maybe 10 years.

If you don’t know, Yesterday a blog post by a dumb chick about her experience heckling comedian Daniel Tosh went viral, and Tosh himself apologized. Somehow, people on twitter, bloggers, and some commentators in the national media made it known that he had crossed the comedy line, a line that they need to learn doesn’t exist. I shall comment on her story.

So, on Friday night my friend and I were at her house and wanted to get out and do something for the evening. We brainstormed ideas and she brought up the idea of seeing a show at the Laugh Factory. I’d never been, I thought it sounded fun, so we went. We saw that Dane Cook, along some other names we didn’t recognize we’re playing, and while we both agree that Cook’s style is not really our taste we were opened-minded about what the others had to offer. And we figured even good ol’ Dane can be funny sometimes, even if it’s not really our thing. Anyhoo, his act was actually fine…

I’m tempted to jump at Dane Cook’s defense, but I suppose it’s legitimate to not be a huge fan of his. I like him, but I admit I wasn’t totally on board when he became a rock star and sold out arenas. Still, being able to see a comedy show at a club with at least two comedy super-stars (who knows what other names they didn’t recognize) is a benefit of living in LA that she doesn’t seem to have much appreciation for. This is an experience that’s only available to people in New York and LA, and it’s hard to gain my sympathy when you benefit from this fact and display no discernible appreciation for it.

…but then when his was done, some other guy I didn’t recognize took the stage. Of course, I would find out later this was Daniel Tosh, but at the time I thought he was just some yahoo who somehow got a gig going on after Cook. I honestly thought he was an amateur because he didn’t seem that comfortable on stage and seemed to have a really awkward presence.

I’m trying to imagine seeing Tosh live without knowing who he is and making such an assessment. Maybe he really was nervous. Maybe he was trying something awkward. Or maybe this chick just generally doesn’t understand what’s going on in life. Tosh has the demeanor of a serial killer. He’s charming and threatening at the same time. As a comic, he’s a killer and has an amazing ability to make people laugh while tearing them down. He’s got crazy game, you might say.

So Tosh then starts making some very generalizing, declarative statements about rape jokes always being funny, how can a rape joke not be funny, rape is hilarious, etc. I don’t know why he was so repetitive about it but I felt provoked because I, for one, DON’T find them funny and never have. So I didnt appreciate Daniel Tosh (or anyone!) telling me I should find them funny. So I yelled out, “Actually, rape jokes are never funny!”

You’re allowed to disagree. Hell, the point of the bit is that you’re supposed to disagree. You’re not allowed to interrupt his comedy show that others are enjoying and paid to see just to tell everyone what you don’t find funny. You do not have that right. When you do this, the comic or management of the venue have every right to kick you out of the show. This is extremely childish behavior, akin to bawling for your mommy because there’s no milk for your Lucky Charms. You are a selfish asshole if you ruin someone’s art. You are an asshole if you burn a book, deface a painting, cut a film, or ruin a comedians bit just because you’re offended by it. At a comedy show, you have a right to express what you do and don’t find funny by laughing and not laughing respectively. If you’re shocked, you may widen your eyes, drop your jaw, groan, or even boo. You may not “correct” the comedian. He’s not your history teacher who absent-mindedly said the wrong year. He’s trying to do his job, to make people laugh. If you derail this process he will have to find a way to react that works, that makes people laugh even though you ruined his bit. If he ignores your act of stupidity, he will lose the audience, so he must address your disruption to succeed at his job. With many comics, you should expect to be embarrassed. With someone like Tosh, you should expect to be humiliated, to have ego utterly destroyed.

I did it because, even though being “disruptive” is against my nature, I felt that sitting there and saying nothing, or leaving quietly, would have been against my values as a person and as a woman. I don’t sit there while someone tells me how I should feel about something as profound and damaging as rape.

He wasn’t telling you how you should feel. He was doing a bit. You know this. You’re just trying to justify your cunty behavior to yourself and anyone who will listen.

The “as a woman” part leads me to wonder if this chick ever laughed at a joke directed at the comedy fountain of gold that is prison rape. Perhaps the t-shirt should say “…unless you’re raping your cell-mate.” Men and boys are frequently the victims of sexual assault and outright rape. Read all about that here
The stories are graphic and terribly unfunny.

After I called out to him, Tosh paused for a moment. Then, he says, “Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by like, 5 guys right now? Like right now? What if a bunch of guys just raped her…” and I, completely stunned and finding it hard to process what was happening but knowing i needed to get out of there, immediately nudged my friend, who was also completely stunned, and we high-tailed it out of there. It was humiliating, of course, especially as the audience guffawed in response to Tosh, their eyes following us as we made our way out of there. I didn’t hear the rest of what he said about me.

You totally didn’t need to leave. You needed to be the center of attention and succeeded. Suddenly, the show was all about you and you couldn’t handle it. Did you think some dudes were about to stand up, look to Tosh for a nod of approval before tearing your clothes off and taking turns? That was so probably not going to happen. Most of the guys there were probably with their wives, girlfriends, or women they hoped to have voluntary sex with at some point.

I can honestly understand that you felt threatened, but you were really in no danger. Tosh makes people laugh by making them uncomfortable. You were the least civilized person at the show.

Now in the lobby, I spoke with the girl at the will-call desk, and demanded to see the manager. The manager on duty quickly came out to speak with me, and she was profusely apologetic, and seemed genuinely sorry about what had happened, but of course we received no refund for our tickets, but instead a comped pair of tickets, although she admitted she understood if we never wanted to come back. I can imagine the Laugh Factory doesn’t really have a policy in place for what happens when a woman has to leave in a hurry because the person onstage is hurling violent words about sexual violence at her. Although maybe I’m not the first girl to have that happen to her.

“Violent words” you say? There is no such thing. What the fuck ever happened to “sticks and stones…?”

[…]The suggestion of it is violent enough and was meant to put me in my place.

It was absolutely meant to put you in your place as a member of the audience and not part of the act. Mission accomplished.

The popular reaction to this story threatens stand-up comedy. It could do to comedy clubs and “blue” comics what Janet Jackson’s nipple did to FCC regulated media, and that scares me. This is all for now, but I’ll have more to say on this subject by the end of the week.

Why do Nice Guys Finish Last?

6 06 2012

This feels like such a cliche question to which everyone figured out the answer years ago, but it’s not. Dudes are still asking this as I type. Alex on Yahoo Answers said:

Women always talk about how they want a guy to be nice to them, but whenever i try this I get friendzoned. I’m seriously thinking that being a total d-bag towards women is the way to get them, because a lot of my friends treat women like crap, but do well with them. I always respect and try to understand women, and they tell me that I’m so sweet and cute. THEN they tell me about this guy they like who I know for a fact is a total d-bag. BAM immediate friendzone!! I’m not the best looking, but I’m definitely not totally ugly, and I’m pretty short for my age. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I’m just gonna start being a jerk to women, because I know being nice to them will just make me “a sweet guy”. Will it ever change as I get older? I’m in high school. Do women even care about personality, because I’m starting to think they’re even shallower than we are. help me!!!

Okay, I’ll help you. First, you’re in high school and you’re presumably talking about girls who are also in high school, yet you call them “women.” Stop this! It’s weird and indicates that you deliberately misinterpret the behavior of these strange creatures. Women do not generally whine about wanting guys to be nice to them. This is something girls do.

If there’s one thing you need to know about girls it’s that they’re full of shit. Girls don’t talk to inform or convey ideas. They talk to handle and express their emotions. Their words are not to be taken seriously or literally. When she says she wants a guy to be nice, she’s expressing frustration with a guy not being nice, and if she weren’t into this guy, she wouldn’t be frustrated about it.

Girls are generally as clueless as you are about social dynamics and what they’re actually attracted to. Female humans are attracted to males with social status. Strength, power, wealth, popularity, dressing like a clown, and not giving a shit are things that convey this status. High school girls don’t understand this. They may actually want a guy who is nice without realizing that a nice guy does nothing for them. If there’s a difference between girls and women, it’s that women have a firmer grasp on who does and who doesn’t make them moist and why, and they’re also more apt to laugh at the sillier traits that work so well on younger chicks.

When a girl says you’re sweet or cute (to your face), she’s expressing the emotion she feels when she sees basket of kittens, except that you’re not actually that cute. She feels comfortable using words like this at you because they’re superficially good words. It sounds like a compliment, but, as you seem to realize, she’s actually expressing that she couldn’t even imagine liking you like that. The best course of action when you hear such words is to protest loudly and prove such accusations wrong. A completely inappropriate ass-slap during a heart-felt hug would be one way to do this. Pulling your dick out is probably ill-advised, but at least you don’t have to worry about going to real jail if you’re under 18.

Alex, things will change. Girls get a bit more sensible as they get older and become women, but this is not something you should wait or plan for. A 35 year-old woman can be shockingly childish. The big thing that will change is you. Even if you avoid actively bettering yourself with the ladyfolk, you’ll still manage to get laid by accident here and there and that will change your outlook enough to do okay.

Fat Guy Says What?

7 04 2012

I just got a response to a very old post that I’m still quite proud of, Internet Mind-readers and the Fragile Fat Girl Ego. I don’t remember exactly what I said in that, but I felt really smart at the time.

I am 22 year old male who is 5′ 9″ and weighs about 220 pounds. Yes, I am fat. Recently this (fatter) black girl decided to randomly message me saying “your fat, ugly and not ok”. I sent her a bomb of an intellectual hate mail back and got banned.

That’s exceedingly hilarious. That presumably took place on some dating site, a detail that should be included if you’re telling a story about such an environment. “You’re fat, ugly and not OK” is God-damned funny! This should not bother you or make you upset in any way. If this took place on OKCupid, the proper response would have been to go on the forums and share the experience. Generally, nothing good comes of expressing anger at people on the internet.  If you got that upset, you do, in fact, have a fragile ego of a fat girl, if not worse. That’s pathetic.

I think people who objectively spread negativity at random are immoral cunts (be them guy or girl). Being fat is one thing but causing others pain because that’s a coping mechanism for their ill head that’s worse.

Geezus. I know you’re pretty young, but you’re old enough to learn that you’re thinking like a child. There is no practical reason for passing moral judgement on anyone’s being fat or acting thoughtlessly. You’re doing this so you can compare yourself to her, so you can paint her as the bad guy and yourself as the victim. This is not necessary! The facts speak for themselves! She said something mean to you that hurt your feelings, but you should have immediately recognized her words as meaningless.

And in this person’s mind they do not associate with themselves being fatter than me; their mind defends itself from believing that and they hypocracize and who knows becomes a serial killer of fat men.

Yes, the behavior is clear some sort of defense mechanism or projection or something like that. The only reaction this shit deserves is that you look down at her and laugh at her. If you’re a bit evolved it should give you pause, make you wonder if your own brain is so equipped to fool itself.

In my defense, I have had therapeutic chemical tools for the last 3 years that made me gain 33% of my body’s weight in the process. I was a healthy 155 pounded human being. Now I weigh 220 pounds.

Why do you talk like this? Is English your second language? You should clearly state that you’ve been on some drug that made you fat. This is a common and commonly understood phenomena. You could even say what drug it is! Your privacy is pretty safe here. Nobody knows who you are and nobody cares!

I am confident and content and know I need to lose weight to reduce my hypertension among other things. But I guess my argument stands, pass in nice thoughts you want to communicate to others.

What argument? Maybe you made one in your head, but you haven’t done so in this message. You don’t sound confident or content. If you were, you wouldn’t be so upset about things of no consequence.

You’ll most likely not meet anyone you talk to on the internet because the temptation to falsify info and make fraudulent dating accounts is to be expected.

A lot of people end up in relationships with people they’ve met through the internet, including me. Although, the level of attention most guys get on dating sites is underwhelming, to put it mildly. The numbers are such that fat chicks will confidently reject fat dudes. Have a profile up here or there, but don’t take this shit seriously. Doing so makes you appear desperate (which you clearly are). Don’t take yourself too seriously in your profile, don’t put a lot of energy into contacting girls, have no expection that any of them will ever reply, and for God’s sake don’t get excited if a chick messages you. If you’re going to burn calories meeting women, do so in meatspace. This can help turn you into the kind of dude women find attractive.

And someones profile photos are most likely to be outdated. And peoples sexual orientation is most likely inaccurate, especially in younger crowds.

What the fuck are you talking about? Inaccurate photos are a always possible, and I feel strongly that people should meet as soon as there’s a hint of mutual interest, before you feel like you have anything to lose, when you have no expectations. Of course, you could be the type of person who always has expectations, but having them crushed a few times should put an end to that nonsense. I have no idea what you’re on about regarding sexual orientation. What is in it for anyone to lie about that?

People are testing the waters, and for our audience’s sake lets hope that someone who posted an outdated fat picture loses weight.

Okay. I’ll put that near the bottom of my list of things to hope for. Who cares?

The most important question to ask yourself is: do we want whats best for ourselves vs. Do we want whats best for ourselves and others? Helping others in turn helps you.

That’s not the most important question for me to ask myself. I have a strong desire to attempt in futility to make the world a better place by arguing with idiots and saying things that most people are too God-damned nice to say. I don’t need anyone to talk me into helping others, including people I’ll never meet who I don’t personally care about. If I need anything, I need the opposite. I need to be reminded that I can’t fix the world and that most people are too dumb to ever get it.

Why not ask a fatties you’re attracted to be your work out buddy or better yet, ignore them alltogether.

I’m not attracted to fatties. Nobody is! That’s kind of been my point!

hope I corrected some of your thoughts.

You’re fucking delusional if you think coming to my blog and crying some emotional nonsense at me would get me to think differently. Anyway, you seem like a nice kid who’s mommy lied to him his whole life about him already being good enough. You’re not, and you never were, but you can get better. I’m not even talking about you being fat. Grow up and become a man.

I kind of want to try and help you, but I’m out of gas for now, and I don’t fully understand what your problem is. I honestly don’t know why you’re angry.

Happy Blackout Day!

18 01 2012

You may have heard or discovered yourself that today Wikipedia and a bunch of other websites of turned themselves off to the English-speaking world to protest SOPA (HR 3261) and PIPA (S 968), to acts in the US House and Senate which stand for Stop Online Piracy Acta and Protect Intellectual Property Act. They are similar and designed to shut down digital piracy where DMCA stops by DNS blocking and/or re-routing. I’m kind of a geek, but I forget exactly how the internet works. Basically this would allow the fine folks at the MPAA and such to effectively shut down websites outside of US jurisdiction to people within the US (and possibly outside). There are a number of problems with these, particularly that they would literally breaks the internet. IP (Internet Protocal) works a certain way as decided by some body of geeks somewhere and this would legally force pieces of the internet to fail to work as IP  requires. Unforeseen consequences may ensue, and the blocking of sites would very probably effect people outside to the US’s jurisdiction. Lots of people know a lot more and have a lot more to say about this stuff.

Anyway, I’m very excited that this legislation has gotten so much negative attention, and feel there’s a pretty good chance that it will wind up getting shot down altogether. However, people who are concerned with internet censorship should remember or learn for the very first time that the internet is already censored and has been for years. The DMCA (Digitial Millennium Copyright Act) was passed way back in 1998 and not only permits websites to be shut down, but also for search engine results to be culled.

Further, a very nasty piece of legislation was recently signed into law by Obama that expressly allows for indefinite detention of anyone in the world without trial and without Habeas Corpus. The 2012 NDAA has gotten relatively little press. It got a lot of attention, but if one bill was to get enough negative attention to wind up not becoming law, this is the one I would’ve picked.

Libertarians, Anarchists, and Cavemen

25 09 2011

Over a year ago, I posted something about the conflict between my anarcho-capitalist political stance and my newer understanding of human behavior. This came about because market anarchism and other “idealistic” political theory tends to presume and depend on rational behavior among humans. The problem is, that much of our behavior is irrational. I began to realize this when I discovered game, the art/science of being attractive to women.

Game, as it is understood today, came about as a mechanism to get men, especially men of high intelligence (who arguably think too much), to stop projecting rational thinking onto women. Instead, we should behave in a way that takes advantage of their instinctual drives if we should hope to get what we want from them. This doesn’t just work for men on women they want to bang, but it’s definitely the scenario where it’s most pronounced.

I’ve also learned, and this is similar, that if you want to convince people to agree with you, rational argument is not normally the most effective means of accomplishing this goal. It is generally more effective to appeal to one’s emotions. If you can appeal to the more powerful emotions like fear, even better. Understanding this helps explain why democracy doesn’t work so well, why the people who manage to get elected to political offices tend to be awful human beings with no discernible conscience.

Rational arguments work on critical thinkers, typically people of well above average intelligence. The problem is that most people are not critical thinkers. The structure of anarcho-capitalist society is a hard sell, largely because of it’s necessary complexity. It could be argued that people in an anarcho-capitalist society don’t need to “believe in” anarcho-capitalism for things to run smoothly, but I’m not convinced. I’m not saying anarcho-capitalism is the necessary endpoint of critical political thinking, but that any sufficiently complex and sufficiently different social arrangement is too far-out for the typical idiot to understand or accept.

More recently, I’ve been heavily into the ideas of the paleo diet community, and when you think about the natural environment of our ancestors and how it differs from what we have, it’s easy to wonder if we might be seriously ill-equipped to deal with the society we’ve accidentally created. A very recent post by Andrew at Evolvify addresses this. There’s a lot I could say about his post, but right now I’m mostly just referencing his claims about hunter-gatherers. He’s got a lot of footnotes, is what I’m saying.

When we think about humans in paleolithic times or even modern hunter-gatherers, we see small groups of 20-100 people where everyone knows each other. Such small societies are inherently orderly because each person needs the rest of the group for their own survival and reproductive success. Hunting, gathering, and child care are performed communally. Violence within groups exists almost exclusively among males vying for the mates.

What we don’t see are property rights outside of a man’s hut, his tools, and maybe his wife. We don’t see individuals lost among thousands of fellow humans who neither know nor care about each other. Outsiders may be welcome among hunter-gatherers, but they will certainly have to demonstrate that they are trustworthy before they are trusted. In such a world, a man is never expected to interact peacefully with people he’s never met and has no reason to trust, as we are expected to when we go about our business.

The problem here is that this world is very different from what we have today and very different from any future world we can imagine that doesn’t involve massive depopulation, something I’m not a supporter of, to put it mildly. What we can do here is question the practicality and necessity of private property in land, I suppose. I’m not one to argue against the private ownership of land, but I’ve always felt the the arguments of georgists or geoists have some merit. If you fell off a cruise ship, landed on an island, and met a guy who claimed to own the entire island because he got there first, you might really have a problem with his further claim that you must either do as he demands or leave.

In the Evolvify post I linked to above, Andrew notes how common it is for paleo people to also be libertarians and how these ideas are at conflict. Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism support the institutions of private property, and individual responsibility and autonomy. Communist anarchists favor limited private property rights and shared responsibilities, and this sounds a lot more like the environment to which we are best suited, as long as we’re talking about the social arrangement inside the monkeysphere™. If you’ve never heard the term, please follow the link to Cracked.com and learn. Basically, it’s the size of a group of people we can be part of and care for everyone else in the group, estimated to be about 150 for humans. Of course (as if this is common knowledge), communist anarchists typically support collective societies on a much larger scale, all the way up to the entire population of Earth.

It may well be a good idea be part of a monkeysphere™ of some sort, where wealth and and responsibilities may be shared to some extent. I think fraternal orders might be good for this, and I think those who embrace paleo-living concepts would likely benefit from building interdependent groups based on this one common interest. I also think that it’s impractical and unwise to totally abandon private property and individual autonomy for several reasons, including the fact that the cost of being shunned from a group just isn’t what it used to be and that we quite literally don’t need to depend on each other the way we once did. Also, I can’t ignore the reality that even if we build wonderful monkeyspheres™ for ourselves we will still need to deal peacefully with outsiders on a regular basis.

In conclusion, I don’t really know what to conclude. I still believe the state, especially the nation-state is an unnecessary evil, but maybe voluntary socialism on a small scale isn’t a terrible idea, and I should point out that we have that already in families. I’ve touched on a lot of stuff here, and I have a lot more to say in seven different directions. For inspiring me to think about this stuff, in addition to the game and paleo bloggers out there, I’d like to acknowledge Joe Rogan, for continually referencing our ape ancestry and our evolutionary limitations on his podcast, the Joe Rogan Experience, which is the most open-minded and informative podcast by a household name in all of the internet. I should also mention Richard Nikoley of freetheanimal.com, who twittered the Evolvify post to me and recently posted two related articles, If You Want Someone Dead Kill Them Yourself and Are You More Moral, More Benevolent and More Competent than Any Politician? Then Act Like It.

You’re Lucky!

19 03 2011

You’re in a poker tournament (no-limit Texas Hold ’em, what else?) with a healthy chip stack.  Some players are fairly short-stacked and people are getting knocked out left and right.  The one player at your table with more chips than you raises under-the-gun from 400 to 2500.  You look down and see KK.  You posture a bit, pretending to struggle to decide what to do, and push all-in with your 20k or so chips.  The dude calls and flips over AK off-suit.  You know you’re the favorite to win.  You might even know that you have almost exactly a 70% chance of winning.  The board doesn’t give him an ace, a straight, or a flush, and he says, “you’re lucky that ace didn’t come up!”  But you’re not lucky.  The most likely outcome is exactly what occurred.

You’re at a dark, loud, and crowded bar full of drunk people and bump into a dude. Hard.  He glares into your face and shouts, “you’re lucky I’m on probation!”  Of course, if you’re the type of person who likes to get into fights and don’t feel too threatened by the convict or the prospect of being forcefully removed and possibly 86’ed from the bar, this would be the prefect time to kick some ass.  If he fights back he might just go to prison.  Alternatively, you could end up in jail, the hospital, or worse, but probably not.  If you’re more risk averse you could simply say, “you’re lucky I’m not a grizzly bear!”  He could trump you by saying, “you’re lucky I’m not Godzilla!”, but he probably won’t.

The whole “you’re lucky!” thing is childish threatening language intended to intimidate or belittle the “lucky” person.  I think it’s a good idea to escalate the dialogue to the absurd:

  • You’re lucky I can’t breathe fire!
  • You’re lucky I suck at poker!
  • You’re lucky you’re not made of cheese! (then people would eat you)
  • You’re lucky it’s not 300 degrees in here!
  • You’re lucky there’s gravity!
  • You’re lucky you’re a white male born in the United States! (wait, people actually use that and don’t consider it absurd at all)

Oh My!

9 12 2010

Ferdinand Bardamu, one of my favorite bloggers, over at In Mala Fide, has published the home addresses and telephone numbers of Julian Assange’s accusers, Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen. I will not repost this info, make any effort to verify its accuracy, or suggest that anyone use this info for any purpose. According to the comments, the fine folks at 4chan (aka b-tards) have become aware of this information. Understand that 4chan is probably home to those who’ve been launching retaliation cyber attacks against those who’ve wronged Wikileaks/Assange, such as Amazon.com and the government of Sweden.

Prepare to be entertained. Get some popcorn and have a seat.

Also, Ferdinand and The Spearhead are both reporting a massive increase in traffic over the past few days, apparently because people are looking for info on these women and the major media outlets aren’t publishing it. I must say, I’m experiencing this too. I’ve never seen traffic like this before. It’s pretty fucking amazing.

While I potentially have an unusually large audience, I’d like to draw your attention to what Joseph Lieberman is saying:

Julian Assange, an Australian, is guilty of treason against the United States for publishing leaked documents? I don’t usually bother spending energy on hating people, but I really fucking hate this guy.