Milo, Real Time, and how the left loses a debate

Bill Maher interviewed Milo Yiannopoulos on Real Time with Bill Maher last night. The interview was okay. Maher avoided most of the touchy subjects that Milo is known for. It seemed more like Maher wanted to teach Milo to tone down his behavior than conduct an interview. I got that impression from how Maher brought up the people Milo targets. He also read some jokes from the late Joan Rivers. Maher’s point was that Milo should choose his targets more carefully and thoughtfully, and if not make sure the jokes are funny. Maher clearly sees something in Milo because he later tells Milo that he sees him as a potential “young, gay, alive Christopher Hitchens.”

The intervention tone, however, kept the conversation from getting to anything of substance. Milo’s own behavior did not help. He tends to speak endlessly. Maher does the same thing. They both interrupt others a lot (Hitchens also did this). It makes for a stilted conversation because neither one of them could make a point and dig into it.

What I consider the low point is the end of the interview. Maher tells Milo that he needs to “get off the Trump train”, but ends the interview without letting Milo explain why he supports Donald Trump. While I agree that Milo’s support of Trump is misguided at best and deliberate trolling at worst, it was bad form for Maher to make the comment and not let Milo respond. Continue reading

Marvel Comics abandons its feminist agenda

Marvel Comics decided to abandon their pandering to the progressives and feminists. I have noted several times that for all the political bootlicking Marvel engaged in, it did not result in strong sales. While one can argue that the films and TV shows provide greater revenue streams for Marvel and Disney, the comics still need to make money to justify their publication.

Marvel’s sales have not fallen so low that the publisher would close its publishing branch, but they have not been that good. The Star Wars books sell better than many formly popular superhero titles. This is primarily due to Marvel scrapping or demoting the original heroes.

Marvel did this to bring in new readers. Yet rather than try to win over those who love the films and shows, Marvel decided to appeal to the far left. They introduced identity politics into their comics, and took to alienating their core fan base. These are the same fans who stuck with Marvel after the horrendous Spider-Man clone saga storyline, the company filing for bankruptcy, and the insanity of repeatedly relaunching titles for the sake of quick #1 money grabs.

Comic book fans are among the most loyal fans. Few things run them off of their favorite books. For some reason, Marvel decided to do three of the most likely things to cost them fans: remove their favorite characters, tarnish the histories of those characters, and insult the fans who complained. The latter proved most insidious because the insults accused fans of racism, sexism, homophobia, and bizarrely resorted to stereotypes about comic book fans. Continue reading

#DeleteMarvel: Revenge of the Hypocrites

What do you do when the CEO of a company that has pandered to you for half decade supporters new Hitler?

This is the problem faced by progressives who read Marvel comic books. Their problem begins with Marvel Entertainment CEO Ike Perlmutter, a long-time Donald Trump supporter. Perlmutter has a sordid history concerninh his penny-pinching and general indifference to his employees. However, that has history has little to do with the current situation.

The current situation, the #deletemarvel boycott, stems from Perlmutter’s support of Trump. That is it. There is no concern about the CEO’s handling of Marvel, how he treats his employees, or that his primary concern is money. It is solely that he committed the crime of supporting new Hitler.

That seems one of the pettiest reasons to boycott any company. Perlmutter has little to do with the day-to-day grind of the company. Progressives, however, do not like to miss a chance at virtual-signaling. If that means boycotting a company that scrubbed its line-up of iconic characters to meet their demands for more “diversity”, so be it.

Of course, the boycott will likely reduce the already dismal sales of the social justice themed books. Continue reading

Karen Straughan explains why she’s not a feminist

Karen Straughan released a video titled Why I am not a feminist. In It she critiques the ideology and breaks down the specific reasons she is turned off by the ideology.

I have thought about doing something similar for some time. The primary reason I have avoided doing it is because I do think anyone should have to justify or explain why they do not support an ideology. It is one thing to ask someone directly. To have to provide an explanation as if it is somehow wrong to object to a certain ideology is ridiculous.

However, I found Karen’s video enlightening in terms of her reasons for rejecting the ideology. According to her, several other Honey Badgers will also create videos about the topic. I think I will create a post listing those and perhaps other videos of people explaining their reasoning for rejecting the ideology. Continue reading

Feminist explains why it’s “okay” to objectify men

Who does not love a good double standard?

One would think that movement supposedly built around respecting people’s agency and humanity would avoid anything that would make it appear they do not follow their own standards. For example, if a movement argued that it was wrong to sexually objectify one sex because reducing a person to an object is inhumane, one would expect this to apply to the other sex as well.

Yet one would be wrong. Sabrina Maddeaux argued in a National Post article that it is perfectly fine to sexually objectify men because it is “different”. As she explained:

Male objectification isn’t threatening because men don’t suffer from a severe power imbalance that puts them at risk economically, socially and physically.

A two minute Google search proves this wrong. People judge whether to hire, date, or befriend men based on the men’s appearance. The notion that unattractive men have it easy or that men’s appearances have little impact on how people treat them is nonsense. The evidence suggests that unattractive men do face severe power imbalances due to their looks.

We do not even need to look at studies to demonstrate this. We can follow Maddeaux’s model and use movie stars. Actors like Paul Giamatti and Steve Buscemi do not headline most films. They are fantastic actors, yet they are rarely given the leading man role.

Let us use another example: Aaron Paul. Continue reading

Puritanism’s Shameful Secret

The Honey Badgers had an interesting stream with YouTuber TL;DR about the “puritanism” of the current progressive and feminist movements. The Badgers and TL;DR break down some of the reasons why so many modern leftists fall into the a cycle of smug arrogance. As TL;DR notes in the stream, everyone has this capacity and everyone does it from time to time.

Alison mentions this as well. She notes that she and Karen Straughan went through a series of videos and noticed the smug looks on many feminists’ faces in the videos. This is something I have noticed as well in my dealings with feminists, both offline and online. The contempt for those who disagree with feminists or feminism is often palpable, as is the arrogance when feminists know they are in a protected space.

One can see this in spaces in which the opposition is heavily moderated or banned. The feminists in those spaces behave with a kind of self-righteous indignation based solely on their assumed superiority over whomever represents the opposition. Yet this attitude quickly shifts when they enter uncontrolled spaces. Feminists then become defensive to a comical extent, reflexively accusing anyone and everyone of hating feminists, women, and social justice. Continue reading

Philip Davies and the Temple of Feminist Zealots

One must commend UK MP Philip Davies. He was recently appointed to the Women and Equalities Committee. The committee, in typical newspeak fashion, has little to do with actual equality and instead focuses exclusively on women’s issues, often misrepresenting facts about women’s situation in the UK. Feminists were none too pleased with conservative Davies’s appointment, particularly given his history of criticism of feminism and concern for men’s issues.

This criticism and concern led several UK outlets to brand Davies “anti-feminist” and accuse him of “misogyny”. Davies has not stated or done anything suggesting he is afraid of or hates women. He merely criticizes the modern feminist movement, its control within his government, and the lack of services available to men.

What makes Davies so interesting is that he managed to get on this committee and there appears to be little anyone can do to remove him. Continue reading