Parliament nears resolution on crucial “which superpower is the best” debate

Weeks of arguments and rhetoric are going to pay off today, after MPs and parliamentarians announced that they are on the brink of reaching a resolution on the heated and months-long debate over which superpower would be the best.

The debate – which has seen proponents for “totally sweet” invisibility at loggerheads with advocates for “frikken awesome” flight or like really cool laser-beam eyes – has raged in the halls of our nation’s legislative centre for nearly two months; and both sides have been staunch and unmoving.

“Those idiots don’t even get it,” said the leader of the Freedom Front Plus party, Lay Zerbeems. “I mean, how sweet would it be to be able to fly? Like, no more walking from place to place, just you and the eagles in the sky – how frikken cool would that be?”

She explained at length.

“Some of our critics have put forward super strength as an alternative – but when do you ever lift anything heavier than like a suitcase at the airport?” she said, to loud “exactly”s from the Minister of Argiculture.

“Besides, all your friends would just always ask you around to their house whenever they need to move house and you’d have to move all their furniture – and just think, all this time you could have been chilling with the hawks in the boundless blue skies above,” she finished to resounding murmurs of approval, agreement and “so friggin’ badass” from gathered MPs.

The debate has unleashed a slew of controversy.

“This whole debate is just silly and a massive waste of time, because it stops us from asking important questions,” said chief whip of the opposition party IKP, Ian Visabel. “Questions like, 'How would you even breathe in the thin upper atmosphere?'. It's glaringly obvious that you’d freeze to death without some kind of heated suit, and the baddies would see you easily and use radar to fight you.”

The answer, he explained, was obvious.

“Everyone knows mind control or telekinesis would be just so awesome,” he said, speaking at a deliberation over a moratorium of debate proceedings, “like, you could lift things with your mind.”

“Or, like, block bullets and throw things around without even having to stand up, so freakin' cool,” added the Minister of Rural Development.

But even this brings has only served to add fuel to the flames.

“The Honourable Member is misguided and wasting our valuable time, my Fellow Honourable Ministers,” said the chief whip for the Democratic Alliance. “You can’t just say ‘mind powers’ because you can’t have more than one, that’s cheating and totally not fair.”

And despite contentious and tiring debate, citizens are showing their support for the democratic process.

“I think it’s important,” said Johannesburg accountant Flei Mbreff. “After all, how can we deliberate over trivial issues like Nkandla and the growing issues around unemployment, the education crisis and worsening corruption when we can’t even agree over whether we’d use our ice breath to freeze the baddies or swish our hands to fight with the metal around us like we’re Magneto?”

“Besides, it gives us a great insight into our politicians,” he added. “Like that one minister of finance wanting invisibility? Bloody pervert probably just wants to sneak in the ladies’ volleyball changing room, the creep. Or steal money in a way that doesn’t involve some intricate tenderpreneurship scandal.”

“And that guy who wanted to slow down time? Shows you why he’s the Head of the Department of Home Affairs.”

But despite all of this, the Office of the Presidency has assured all South Africans that the real answer is in their hands.

“We don’t really listen to parliament, and this time is no different,” they said in a statement early this morning. “Besides, if you’re looking for a power that will give you unlimited control over a whole nation, totally freedom from attack and accountability, and as much wealth and luxury as you want, I think it’s pretty clear which power is the best of them all.”

“Being Jacob Zuma.”

Science and evolution: God’s hidden punishment

Enough time has passed for the death threats to be considered “low risk”, and so Guest Writer Johan Van Eksteen is back. This time on his blisteringly hot skillet of truth: the rancid lie-meat of science and evolution.

People always ask me, “Johan, you’re really smart and good-looking, and incredibly charismatic and well-read, not to mention just generally the nicest guy around, but how do you balance seeming opposing views of science (and its central tenets of evolution, phyletic gradualism and the development and origins of life) against close-held and personally cherished ideas of God, religion, and a Biblical and true creation story?”

And for most people who read the Bible, the answer seems easy: that science is a lie, a gargantuan, Brobdinagian confabulation designed to keep us from trusting in God and his unconditional love that requires only that we obey his every word and command.

But really, my friends, the answer is much more simple and cunning: science and evolution are real. But God created them to punish us feeble nonbelievers and doubters.

Actual photo of Charles Darwin.

Now of course, evolution is just a theory. It’s not even based on facts; this is true of all science theories. Even scientists know this: that’s why they’re called “the theory” and not “the fact of evolution” or “the fact of gravity”.

But in this world of tens of thousands of gods appearing in a plethora of cultures across geological ages in all corners of the globe, and the overwhelming, constant lies of science, you need to think critically and carefully, take all the data into mind - and then use it to reject the sceptical, aloof mindset that always seems to think you need proof to think something is true.

“It’s impossible” I hear you scoff smugly like the heartless atheists you are. “The two are contradictory and mutually exclusive, and indeed the facts of one are diametrically opposed to the core beliefs of the other!”

But that’s where you’re wrong.

They aren’t mutually exclusive phenomena, but instead happen alongside one another – and not in the way you’ve heard: where we decided God invented evolution after only 200 years of denying its existence. You see, science didn’t “kill god” as some say – science was invented by God to mislead and punish the wicked.

Only God – a truly benevolent being of infinite power, wisdom and love – can create sunsets, ice-cream and medicine. He created Eden. He creates beauty, magic, awe, wonder. He created you and me. He created Supersport and casual racism.

Scientists: truly evil. Photographs don't lie. 

However, he knew, in his might and wisdom, that people would doubt the Bible; that people would say “Leviticus this” and “radiometric dating that” and “lack of empirical evidence that can be used to qualify and validate a given hypothesis” yada yada yada. So he created Evolution to punish them.

Only something as evil as evolution and Darwinism could take a harmless, joyful God-handcrafted little fruitfly and force it to change, slowly, over hundreds of years, in minor incremental steps to develop a stinger that would allow it to suck the blood of innocent babies, and inject symbiotic deadly parasites in their tiny veins, infecting and killing them slowly. Only evolution – a vile and twisted concept, I’m sure you’ll agree – would take the billions of illness- and pestilence-free viruses and bacteria and slowly but surely make them build up minor changes to their DNA structure that would let them ravage the human body and kills millions of people.

God knew science and scientists would one day mislead people. So created science – things like evolution, not to mention astrophysics, geology and chemistry – to mislead the scientists.

God created what is good; science turns it into evil.

It’s just another one of God’s ways of testing your faith, like purposefully putting dinosaur bones on the Earth or making a seemingly true set of physical and astronomical phenomena that go against the truths of Heliocentrism. Evolution is nothing better than the hundreds of thousands of other heathen clay idols – like Allah, quantum physics and the idea that the All Blacks are a better rugby team – put on Earth to misguide you.

My friends, you need to educate yourself to avoid eternal damnation. The next time you hear a scientist say something like “oh, We don't actually come from monkeys; rather, we and the apes share a common prehistoric ancestor that underwent thousands of minor changes over thousands of years to give two very different but related organisms”, just use some very simple arguments to checkmate them.

Arguments like, “Then why are there still monkeys around?”

Arguments like, “So you’re saying we should fuck monkeys, you sick bastard?”

God made man and woman. Just remember also that he made monkeys too, and that those monkeys evolved to become scientists. And why in the world would anyone trust a monkey?

Johan is a guest columnist at Muse and Abuse. Widely renowned for his non-nonsense approach to controversial topics, Johan shines a blinding light of truth on subjects like the hideous scourge of immigration, why white people should vote ANC, why Blackface isn't the real racist problem in SA, and how Black Privilege is an ugly truth that no one wants to admit. He also thinks gay marriage should have been outlawed years ago.

Google launches new Rhodes-debate-inspired App

Internet commenters unsure which racial epithet to use

'Uncle Tom Sell-out, or arrogant whitey?', ponder debate enthusiasts

Following a comment posted ten minutes ago online concerning the controversial issue of the University of Cape Town's Cecil John Rhodes memorial statue, online commenters, social media activists, and digital bigots on both sides of the debate have told reporters they are still unsure which utterly unnecessary, hurtful racist slur to bash into their well-worn keyboards.

Citing the "ambiguous profile picture" of the Facebook user in question and touching on her "scant profile information", internet users across South Africa are still uncertain whether to reply to her call for a "return to calm and considerate debate free from ridiculous racist slurs, mockery, ad hominem attacks and rhetoric fallacies" with a "STFU you stupid and arrogant white crybaby upholding a legacy of oppression" or a "OMG look at this sellout counterrevolutionary Uncle Tom brainwashed into defending white privilege."

"When you click on the thumbnail of the post next to this peaceful, non-toxic plea to her fellow citizens that we treat each other with the respect and dignity that we all, as human beings, deserve, all we can see is a group shot with four girls of a varying range of skin colours," said 1st-year politics student and fiercely involved social media RhodesMustFall debater, Vlei Mwar.

"So, as of this moment, we can't be sure which form of cyber bullying and utterly disrespectful slander to employ. I mean, at this stage we don't know if she's white or black, so how are we supposed to pick which racially charged epithet to use in scorning her personal, subjective stance on the matter?"

"I mean, we could just call her a 'fucking stupid bitch' who should 'go and educate herself' and 'read a book about the history of this before you bring your dumb comments' - you know, a general, non-racial smear that is easily applied to people of any race, religion or creed online," explained Mwar, "but when it comes to debates as important as this, we think that if we're not going to be considerate, thoughtful and critically engaged in the current discourse, we should at least apply that high-level logic-based rational thinking to our short-sighted, debate-sullying engagements with other people."

However, not all internauts agree, with one side of the camp calling for a calm and respectful waiting period before heaping ridicule and abuse on her and likening her to something that should be universally despised and ostracised.

"We're not mindless animals," said Rashad Homnem. "I mean, why in the world would anyone in this nationally-watched debate sully the importance of mature, respectful discourse with ridiculous things like making over-simplistic comparisons between two unconnected, vastly dissimilar people?'

"Besides," added Homnem, "even if someone doesn't tip us off, what's not being able to call one out of hundreds of people a 'fucking stupid blind moron who should shut the fuck up because you don't know what you're talking about'? I'm pretty sure we can let this one slide."

Muse and Abuse would like to get this debate going by preemptively calling you all massive festering cockworms.

Rhodes Statue “must fall” says UCT study

University of Cape Town administration is finalising plans to remove the ‘offensive and racist’ monument to Cecil John Rhodes, after a study was published this morning confirming that it was indeed the central anchor of institutionalised racism in South Africa and that its removal would immediately end all racism and hatred everywhere.

“We’ve crunched the numbers and looked at the data, and we’ve come to a conclusion we all knew was coming,” said Bart Hert, a researcher from the International Statistical Institute of South Africa, which was commissioned by the obviously Apartheid-worshiping tertiary institute to produce the study. “This statue is the root of all the anger, violence, and racism in not just the institutional culture in universities like UCT, but in all of South Africa as well, and removing it would instantly make the issue go away.”

Hert outlined the study’s findings in detail.

“You know, there are a lot of misconceptions about this debate. There are many people who believe that effecting the kind of institutional and societal change towards respect and dignity – a giant cognitive shift in our country’s paradigms that make us more tolerant and less likely to apply backwards and retrogressive ideas of racial discrimination – on such a large scale would take lots of effort and debate beyond shallow gestures that give the mere illusion of acceptance and progressivity."

"People assume it would require a massive improvement not just in our levels of basic education, but also in introducing complementary programs that allow hugely subsidised access to high quality education for all, regardless of origin or colour,” he told reporters. “This is obviously all wrong. We’ve found that we can just skip all this with a chisel and a hammer, and perhaps a set of sturdy chains and a M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank.”

Taking down statues has been proven to drastically
improve democracy, as shown in Iraq in 2003.

Ever since it shattered the global speed records for a comparison to Hitler, the debate around the iniquitous statue has been heated, with both sides staunchly standing by their False Dichotomy entrenched extremes. However, with the publication of this eye-opening study, both sides have put aside their differences.

“Since its earliest days of calm-level headed poo flinging and rational, logical accusations of racial bias, colour privilege, and empty ‘revolutionary’ lingo, it’s easy to see how some people were worried this entire thing would just devolve into another cesspit of racial slurs, facile and puerile comparisons to previous dictators ‘photoshopping’ history and fractious name-calling,” said one commenter who took time out of sipping lattes and buying apple Products to speak to reporters about white privilege, “but I really think this debate has brought out everyone’s compassionate, considerate side. And at the very least, it got me couple of retweets.”

UCT, which is still taking the difficult decision of which replacement statue of Nelson Mandela they’ll use, has responded to the study with their full cooperation, saying the “evil token of Satan” should be knocked down on Friday at the very latest.

“Maybe it’ll be Nelson Mandela sitting in a chair. Maybe it’ll be him standing up. Or maybe, now that we’re free to ‘improve’ history as we like, we can just have him wielding two massive machine guns like a colonialist-head-stomping Xhosa Django. “

Whatever their decision, one thing is for sure: the statue is coming down.

“Not because of who he was or how his legacy of oppression can be toxic to our university environment,” said the University in their lengthy statement, “but mostly so that you’ll all just shut the fuck up on Facebook and Twitter.”

Rhodes University was not available for comment, because they’re sitting this awkward one out.

Pics: Creative Commons.

Read more from Muse and Abuse on this hot topic:
Protest creator admits he "actually just shat [him]self" and another calm, balanced take on the whole matter.

New SA Zoo popularity soars

A new zoo has hit the South African big-time, after video footage of a savage battle between the different members of this private enclosure went viral online.

“This zoo has been around forever,” said media analyst Wile D’animo, “but recently its popularity has soared through the roof – all because of a massive and fierce fight between the various specimens in this small space. There was howling. There was yammering. There was hissing and roaring. It was true primal savagery, the likes of which we have never seen before - even in the far calmer, far less bloodthirsty Kruger [National Park].”

Though many experts are baffled by the sudden interest in this beastly, chaotic slice of nature’s true ugliness and disorder, some believe it is due to the sudden remarketing of a brand fraught with misguided preconceptions.

“This particular enclosure is only one of many similar hundreds across the world,” said one zoological specialist. “However, where most iterations of this zoo in other countries are boring, calm, quiet and peaceful zones where battles between the various species inside its walls are short and almost cordial, this one broke the mould. It was chaos. Like staring into the black, abyssal heart of Mother Nature’s dark side.”

The zoo, which is maintained by tax payers’ dollars and is known only as the PoRSA, has captured the public's attention with its wild spats and blood-thirsty struggles between opposing beasts.

"Where else in the animal kingdom can you see the mighty Ayencius Phumelele Stone Sizani locked in mortal struggle against its archnemisis Deeyayus Mmusi Maimane, or embroiled in a life-or-death brawl with Iyeffeffius Malemia Julius?" asked one Youtube commentator who differed from the rest in that they didn't use the footage as the basis for a lengthy thesis arguing smugly in favour of white supremacy. "There is just something about watching these animals fighting over the rotting and slowly festering remains of that favoured prey, Kountree Southus Africensis, the you just can't look away from. It's like nature's car crash."

Other media analysts, however, say that the popularity will be short lived.

“Really, they’ve ravaged all the best parts of what is left of the lifeless, devoured carcass, and now they’re locked in a tooth and claw battle over the last few bones,” said Johnathan von Johnathanson. "It's only a matter of time until something gives."

And though visitors can hope for a sighting of the rare and reclusive Ayencius Zumus Jacob, zoological experts says they shouldn’t get their hopes up.

“There have been many pleas and calls by thousands of visitors and fans of the zoo to have this animal finally make an appearance, you know, actually be visible in this enclosure,” they said, “but they shouldn’t get their hopes up. The King of the Beasts rarely ventures out of his large Private Enclosure, and prefers to remains in his preferred natural habitat of gold and green".

Pics (edited): Hyena by Joanne Goldby, Vulture by Jerry Pank, Lion from Rochkind, and Olive Baboon from Nevit Dilmen

Gun debate sees massive changes to US schooling

As the gun debate heats up in the United States of America, teachers, principals and students are seeing a huge set of sweeping changes aimed at securing their educational spaces and lessening the chance of future tragedies.

“It’s been a while since the last mass shooting,” said principal of Bay High in Utah, Luke Hanlode. “Really, when you look at the historical statistical data, we’re about three months overdue for the next senseless slaughter of preschool, highschool or university students and their teachers. We must act now.”

And while principals and gun lobbyists agree that banning the sale of fully-automatic firearms and increasing the depth, number and frequency of background checks and firearm safety and proficiency tests would do “absolutely nothing” to lower the likelihood of an incident, they say there is much that schools can do to prevent being the next iteration of World-wide breaking news.

“We already care about our children’s safety, which is why we have things like drug awareness campaigns, road safety classes and self defense courses like Karate and Judo,” said one teacher, “but we need to step it up. We need gun classes in school. Our kids don’t need a blackbelt. They need a bandolier and holster. We could make it fun: just think, Trigger-nometry.”

Publishers and book houses are already hard at work 'remastering' much-beloved classics to teach kids the necessary skills every school-going American child needs.

This is not all, they said.

“The answer is counterintuitive but simple: more guns,” said a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association. “Armed guards in the hallways. Teachers with concealed carry permits. Snipers in the football lights. Automated sentry guns on the CCTV cameras. We need to think of our children’s safety. If we weren’t wasting money on unnecessary Public Health and Obamacare, we would be able to reallocate funds into our always-cut Military Defense budget and arm every child.”

Though teachers have commented on the possible risk of actually being the one who blows all their students away because that little shit Billy in Grade 6 Maths won’t Shut The Fuck Up for ten seconds and never hands in any homework, they agree that it’s a risk they’re willing to take.

“We need to put their interests first,” said Maths teacher. “Even if teaching sometimes makes me think, ‘these psychopaths may have had a point.’”

Companies across the country have jumped on the bandwagon, and are now offering protection aimed at young Jane or Jimmy.

“With our new line of bulletproof children’s clothing and Kevlar-lined sunhats, as well as fun and exciting rebranding on our most popular lines of firearms, not only will you be protecting little Timmy from brain-destroying high-velocity fragmentation, low-caliber projectiles and the deadly Ultra-violet rays of the sun,” said a company statement by military supplier Arma Inc, "but you'll also be bringing yourself just that little bit more peace and comfort."

"Machine-washable and stain resistant, the fibre is a breeze to clean, and its breathable material means your child won’t feel hot and bothered any time, whether he is kicking a ball around with his friends or running for his life through the blood-soaked halls of his once innocent schoolgrounds.”

Only one thing remains certain, however: this debate is not one that has any easy fixes.

“Some people think that just banning guns will sort out the problem, but guns don’t kill people. People do," said one resident, who said that that argument doesn't equally apply to poison or Class 5 illegal narcotics or Biological and Chemical weapons. "You want to ban guns? Well, just look at godless hellholes like Australia and Britain. Do we want to go down that same, socialist road?"

He shook his head and pumped another depleted-uranium pyrophoric armour-piercing high-velocity explosive-tipped thermobaric anti-tank round into his fully automatic shotgun. "I'd rather die. Or, in this particular case, that my children die."

Pic (my edit) composed of Public Domain images and Ak47 by Burnyburnout and Rebel (inserted) from Al Jazeera Creative Commons

“You fucking racist” – the state of debate

Logging onto the internet after last weekend, I was greeted by a message from a fellow internaut. Curious, I clicked the message.

“You racist, this just shows the arrogance of white people. You shud be ashamed you idiot.”

Now, most people would feel insulted by such a message. But not me. By being called a racist, it meant that I had won.

Just one of the many reactions I got.

A bit of context perhaps: blackface fever has gripped South Africa and the internet circles I roam. There are lengthy debates, twitter furores, and at my Alma mater there are long web discussions about this subject.

Of course, me being me, I had to pitch up in this subject. But a part of me suspected something horrible about all the discussion, all the endless pages and pages of outrage and confusion and accusations. And so, I tried to tackle this the only way I saw fit.

Satire.

I stumbled across this art form in high school after a friend of mine pinning a hurtful “satirical” newspaper page on the hostel bulletin board. Slightly miffed that it wasn’t funny, I was determined to show everyone that you can make fun of teachers and hostel masters without outright insulting them. And so, the Dorm Six Voice (or the D6V) was born. Two years later, I started (read: was forced to start) a blog by our Digital Journalism lecturer. I wrote one satirical blogpost about the potholes in Grahamstown actually being Rhodes pools under construction and the reaction was enough to hook me into this subtle and incredible genre of writing.

But in all my years of serious writing (if you can call a few serious blogs like this and this, and working for the campus newspaper for years on end “serious writing”) I have noticed that online debate is mired in what I call TL;DR syndrome.

We all love so much to have our voices heard. That’s the beauty of the internet: that no matter what you believe, there is a free and endless platform for you to exercise your freedom of speech. But reading is a different matter. Anything longer than 300-words that isn’t broken up by hilarious GIF images, anything that doesn’t subscribe to a beloved listicle format, or even anything that doesn’t express our exact feelings to the letter, well… that we love slightly less.

But modern culture has instilled an incomparable rapidity (vapidity?) in our dealings with content. Any long, worthwhile discussion of a topic can inspire comments and “debate” that is fervently and fixedly a two-sided game of binaries that won’t shift. We comment, but we don’t think. We say what we feel, but do we really get the message?

When I posted my piece on blackface, Why Blackface is okay - the Plague of Reverse Racism, I did it to highlight this problem. I wrote it in a way that aspires to Poe’s Law complete with a (fake) guest writer’s name and a serious click-bait headline that was designed solely to grab attention and anger those who saw it. The content, however, is so obviously satirical (the post itself appears just after one about the Top Ten Sexiest Dictators of all time) that anyone would be immediately reassured of my sentiments towards blackface.

But that was not to be.

You see, the moment I was called a racist, or told that “omg blackface is wrong u need to change your mind” (and some even going so far as to say that they can’t believe this could be a legitimate opinion) my point was proven.

When discussing anything – be it blackface, abortion, women’s rights, (insert controversial hot topic here) - we must try as hard as possible to shove away our emotional knee-jerk tendencies. Even if we are disgusted by what we read or see, disgust alone is not enough to say whether or not it should be permissible. Gay Marriage, women’s rights, miscegenation (i.e. mixed marriages) – these have all been thought at some point in history (even today) to be disgusting or an affront to moral value.

Any subject should be balanced on critical reflection and relative merits, ethically and open-mindedly. Immediately taking one side and blowing down anyone who speaks a different tune is tantamount to hegemonising opinion. What if some people legitimately don’t understand why blackface is wrong? What about blurred lines, where it isn’t so much blackface but someone wanting to respect and honour one of their favourite characters in fiction?

This is why balanced, reasoned debate is important.

However, the issue with modern debate goes beyond this, because many of the comments I received showed that my post had not even been read before they blurted out how much of an idiot I am. The fact that some of these comments were deleted after it became clear that it was all jest just proves my point.

In today’s world, where whatever clarity or information you seek is just one internet tab away, we should be able to seek out the full story before condemning or deriding. This inability to see beyond our own preconceptions is indicative of why “discussions” like that of Gamergate can be such ugly battlefields. The problem with online readership is beautifully summed up by this social experiment done by the NPR and aimed at highlighting this exact problem.

We need to read. We need to inform ourselves before we swing the stick of judgement. To succumb to internet culture and immediately lash out in outrage and righteous vengeance because someone had the gall to not have our opinion is not the answer.

But hey: TL:DR, OP is faggot, amirite?

Why Blackface is okay: the plague of reverse racism

A guest post by Johan Van Eksteen
Head of Race Studies and Representation at the International Institute of Social Sciences

We’ve seen it again and again: a controversy that crops up its ugly head every few months, and I think that, as a whole, we can all agree that it’s time to put this ‘Blackface’ nonsense into context and address the core issues at the heart of the centre in this topic’s middle.

Blackface. What is it? Harmless students having fun? Leon Schuster making us laugh our asses off? An insulting spit-in-the-face of black people drawing on a history of discrimination and marginalisation? Perhaps we’ll never know.

But what we can know, is that black people are also guilty.

Recently, in my travels across the harsh, bleak blogosphere, I came across a so-called ‘tradition’. A tradition that sickens me. A tradition that makes me want to take my size-13 veltschoen and throw them out the window the way the government it throwing this blerrie country out the window.

Every year, wherever you go in the country, there is a special Xhosa ritual where black people mock white people. They dress up in blankets and robes – perhaps trying to poke fun at our tendency to blanket our emotions and opinions in a swaddle of self-censorship and guilt – and paint their faces white.

It’s disgusting.

After thousands of years of oppression, misunderstanding and marginalisation, to the point where we whites as the people who were the kings of this land can’t even get a job unless it’s in a city or a village or a town or in our dad’s garage or even in an apprenticeship anywhere in the country through any of the numerous employment options afforded to us through privileged education, we have to face this 'whiteface' ridicule. What are parents teaching their children? That it’s funny or a part of their so-called “heritage” to paint their faces white and mock at least six years’ worth of white discrimination?

It gets worse.

Oh yes, these boys (sometimes as young as sixteen or even younger!) will do this for a whole month! And they’ll do it without having access to food or water – perhaps a sign that this hateful culture wants us, white people, to starve and die of dehydration, with no sustenance or help around us. And as one final kick-in-the-ribs to white people, they then circumcise the boys. Are they trying to make fun of our tiny, limp, quiescent penises? How dare they?!

I am sick and tired of this hypocrisy. A few university students dress up as a maid and the whole world goes bananas. You know, they didn’t even look like black maids, that’s the worst thing. I myself have three black maids – one for each house I own – and eight garden boys. People are jumping to baseless conclusions.

Let us also look at the media. Yes, it’s also guilty. Have you ever heard of a man called Dave Chappelle? No? Okay, what about the Wayan Brothers?

These sick “actors” go around dressing up as white people, and no one says anything. Not a word. Not even a single angry tweet or page-three report in the Mail & Guardian. Yes, I know lots of people will immediately go to the tired and over-flogged horse of “oh, but Leon Schuster” – but at least Schuster is funny. Look at how funny he is. Funny. Laugh. How many movies has he made? Dozens. They’re funny. But where do we draw the line?

This is where the debate gets even worse. There are companies out there who sell women white face powder. Is it okay for women to insult white women by creating such horrific and disgusting caricatures of Western, white and idealised notions of beauty by covering their faces in an insulting and symbolic ‘vok jou’ to white skin?

I don’t think so.

The truth, ladies and gentlemen, is that black people have been guilty of cultural appropriation for years. Does the media say anything? No, it’s all “Miley Cyrus” this, and “Die Antwoorde” that, and “yada yada Iggy Azalea”.

But every time Kanye West spends a million dollars, do people ask whether he isn’t taking advantage of white peoples’ culture of being rich? Every time a black person gets a degree or an education, how come no one accuses them of stealing our rich heritage of having easy access to higher-quality knowledge and self-improvement?

It gets worse. Yes, I know you’re all vomiting and retching emptily now in dismay, but I’ve almost finished revealing to you the festering, grotesque mess of this media and society conspiracy to its deepest, ugliest depths.

They appropriate our religion and our culture: the most important things to us. When we brought printing presses here, did we ask them politely to become Christians? Of course not! Did we ask them to take our names in place of their own names, choosing “Charles”, “George”, “Peter” and even “Nelson”, over… um… lots of X’s and Q’s? No. We didn’t.

What is missing in this debate are sane, rational thinkers: leaders of clarity and well-reasoned logic who can debunk these myths one at a time. Voice who will define this generation’s truth and perspicacity. Voices like Steve Hofmeyr.

Next time we inevitably see a Stellenbosch University student do this, let us remember: pots can’t call kettles black.

Or white.

Pics: Pic 1 of two boys: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/photogalleries/south_africa_faces/images/primary/Xhosa.jpg
Pic two of one kid: http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--C2S-D7Gl--/18erpzhk5qiamjpg.jpg
Dave Chappelle: http://www.candidtam.com/WP/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/good-ol-chapelle.png
Leon Schuster: youtube.com
White chicks: http://www.jackasscritics.com/images/movies/white_chicks_01.jpg

Girl no longer hot enough to jump queue, get her essays done by someone else

pic:impathilm
Pichost.me

Today was a bad day for 23-year-old part-time waitress and student Jessica Heiders, after the Court of Public Opinion ruled in favour of Men Everywhere’s claim that the defendant, Heiders, was “not really all that hot any more” and no longer “good looking enough” to warrant the continued acts of desperate males stooping to social lows in an attempt to escape the friendzone and get with her.

Though Heiders used to be hot enough to get away with anything (like many other reported women) the Counsel for the Prosecution argued that she was no longer considered by “a lot of guys we know” as “actually all that bangable anymore” and so no longer qualified for her various I’d-Tap-That privileges.

“We live in a society of constantly shifting agreements of which women met the strict criteria of our white, idealised notions of beauty,” said lead prosecutor Ayam de Villes-Zadvokat. “There are only so many girls we can let pretend we’re good enough friends for them to jump the queue at Friars or any nightclub, only for us to be dropped within seconds for someone else who happens to be closer to the douche bouncer and his prized entrance.”

De Villes-Zadvokat went on to add that “there was really only so much extra homework we can do for other people in hopes of us getting in there”.

Many men have agreed.

“It’s been months now of me listening to her blathering-ons, opening the door for her, being polite and kind and complimentary, and just generally being really nice to her,” said 23-year-old fellow French student who sometimes does her translation assignments Charl Louw, “and still she hasn’t slept with me. I’m beginning to think she’s taking advantage of my honest, sincere friendship.”

Now after months of trial hearings and scathing cross-examination, the Court ruled that men should no longer do her Politics assignments or be understanding or sympathetic when she’s really just being an irrational bitch to you.

“The evidence speaks for itself,” said Justice Jimmy Haders, pointing out Louw’s Formula of Attractivenes. “If we look at the objective science, she just isn’t worth it anymore.”

He continued.

“I know a lot of you used to be okay with her droning on about her tedious and empty life of meaningless and ultimately irrelevant problems with her drug-addict father and depressed mother because you totally want to hit that, but this is no longer acceptable. She doesn’t meet the basic subminimums for this sort of preferential special treatment.”

The controversial precedent for Men vs Heiders, 2014 has now been set and the Court’s decision may have far reaching implications for women and men everywhere.

“Every day, thousands of men around the world treat certain women with more patience and kindness than their lesser, inferior, lower-than-a-low-seven counterparts,” he said. “No longer. Now the world has become a slightly more equal place.”

Heiders, however, has since lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court, but inside sources say her application has little chance of success.

“The judge in charge of submissions is really busy with a whole bunch of other legal matters,” they said, asking not to be named because they were pretty much making all this up as they went along. “Besides, there’s this totally smoking babe in the Courtroom - Chelsea, god, bro, you should see her, you’d die - and she asked him to fill in a little bit of paperwork for her if he wasn’t too busy, nothing too serious, just a couple of full legal applications in triplicate. And so he’ll be busy with that.”

Heiders, however, remains heartbroken at the decision.

“This is terrible!” she wept in bitter and impotent rage. “However will I get by without hundreds of spineless men whose lack of talent, charm, charisma or real sexual attraction forces them to try get into my pants with meaningless acts that anyone can do? Without these guys, who assume that doing said acts automatically requires me to sleep with them, however will I cope?”

Academics to sort out /10 rating system

The popular system of rating members of the opposite sex out of ten is to undergo much academic scrutiny after the announcement of plans by Rhodes University to begin a Theory of Physical Attractiveness course.

According to the first Head of the newly formed Department of I Would Tap That, Sha Louw, this is the first time that a critical eye is being turned to the much-loved base-ten system.

“A lot of the debate right now just deals with whether or not such a system is sexist or shallow,” said Louw. “But before we can even think of that stuff, we need to see if it’s actually  right. What if we’re calling chicks an 8.2 when we’re actually going about it all wrong? What if they’re really just a 6.1?”

Many professors at the University are pleased by the decision, calling it a massive step forward in rating how hot chicks are.

“We’re glad this course is being put forward," said Chair of Women’s Studies Khoze Mopolitan. "We’re all for gender equality, and so a rating system that subjects both men and women to the same equally  oppressive system of grossly exaggerated expectations is a massive step forward in transforming so many hurtful gender-biased societal practices.” 

According to Louw, rating other human beings on a scale of attractiveness from a general “I would rather cut off my own legs with a rock than go near him/her” to “I would cut off my own legs with a rock in exchange for ten minutes with him/her” is a tradition that stretches back in time to the caveman era.

“We have recently unearthed evidence in caves thought to belong to our early pre-hominid ancestors,” said an excited Louw. “Cave paintings we found have shown that even our apelike ancestors had a basic rating system for picking partners.”

Newly unearthed cave paintings have shone light on how our ancestors used to rate okes.
Pick (modified): Jeannine Fletcher, Flickr.

However, these early humans use to choose based on biggest cave or food source or other such pro-survival criteria - a rating system that does not translate to the modern age.

“A few hundred thousand years later is where is really gets technical. The Romans, for example, never had a number for zero, so we can’t really trust any Roman-based numeracy systems to accurately portray someone’s bangableness,” said Louw. “On the other hand, the Egyptians used a strange base-14 system that missed out a few middle ratings, going from 1 to 7, and then 13 to 20.”

Our base-ten system, Louw says, has too many flaws to be a trustworthy system of hotness ranking.

“The problem with our system is that it theoretically starts at zero, but in practice never goes below 5. It’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that we wouldn’t bang anything below a 6, so why do we even have low numbers?” he said.

The system is also entirely unobjective, and is easily influenced or outright broken by alcohol, drugs, or long periods of not seeing truly high-ranking examples of the opposite sex.

“If I go on a sports training camp in the middle of nowhere for three weeks and come back to campus, I’m gonna think that every girl is a 18.6 out of 10,” he said. “God help me if I add a CrackBomb to the equation.”

Many guys who have never actually talked to a real girl before new theorists have been quick to offer alternative rating systems, but the business of picking one is extremely difficult. One theory that gained some momentum was the dual-rating system proposed by Sexiness lecturer at Wits University’s Department of Hotness Ray Tinchicks. Tinchicks proposed a preliminary rating out of one to determine whether or not “you would”, and then further rating out of five to allow for a nuanced ranking system.

Louw, however, remains unconvinced by all offered systems.

“Some have offered a percentage system, but that’s far too complicated,” he said. “And some choose to supplement the current system with a decimal subsystem to allow for refined ranking and nuances, but these are too hard to reliably assign accordingly.

Louw has since come up with his own rating system that accounts for smokiness of the room, distance from the person and even blood alcohol level.

Louw hopes that his rating system will do away with older, incorrect systems.

Many other theorists, however, have attacked this system, saying that it’s “imprecise and too prone to variable influence”. “I give his ranking system a 6.5723 out of 15.7,” said Associate Professor of Sexiness Studies Kreeh Pinhard. In spite of this, Louw remains unfazed.

“Other noted academics in my field, such as Vinny D, Mike The Situation and The Guys In Friars, have criticised my initial suggestions, but that’s the whole point of this course, isn’t it? We won’t just stumble on a perfect system right away. It's going to take a lot of consideration, careful thought and attention, and deep philosophising before we can all agree on how hard, exactly, we'd hit that."

Name-change committee to present decision

According to a press release given out today, the committee charged with deliberating on the decision whether or not to rename Grahamstown will present its final decision tomorrow morning.

However, according to head of the committee, Will Renaimit, the decision has not been so clear-cut as many would at first believe.

"There are many issues facing Grahamstown today, such as the water problem, robbery, assault, rape and murder, but these are all subordinated to this new debate. After all, who can care about violent crime and extreme social issues - let alone do anything about it - when you can't agree on where, exactly, it happened?" he told reporters this morning.

Renaimit went on to outline the several options that the committee members have been deliberating since the name-change issue first arose.

"At first we toyed with the idea of just naming it Nelsontown, or Mandelaville, or even Madibasfontein, but we realised that might get our town confused with every street, road, stadium, shopping complex, bridge, highway, office block, university and town square that uses that overused much-loved moniker," said Renaimit.

This easy option out the window, the committee was forced to consider other alternatives.

"There's a Welsh man in our committee, and we know how fond they are of long, complicated names. He suggested that we just throw every option together, and please everyone," he said. However, after some trial runs and tests on official documents, maps and road signs, the committee decided not to rename the City of Saints, ""GrahamskanamakandhaeRhinijozingotownsbergsvillesfontein," he said.

The template for one of Grahamstown ???stown's new name

Soon after this development, tensions were high.

"We were at our wits' end," said another committee member, Rex Consile. "And then someone came up with a brilliant idea: if we choose one name above the rest, we'll only make one group happy, and everyone else unhappy. So why don't we just make everyone equally happy by making them all equally miserable with us?" According to Consile, this move came straight out of a post-2000 ANC Ministerial behaviour guidebook.

So, after almost a year of debates, fights and angry letters, the decision has been made.

"We'll make the announcement early tomorrow morning," said Consile. "We just hope that everyone's happy with the name 'ThetownthatusedtobecalledGrahamstown-town'."

*This article first appeared in Grocott's Mail under the title "A name that might stick..."

SRC posts in SRC page; students gasp in awe

At approximately 7pm this evening, reports from numerous students at Rhodes University indicated that a real-life SRC member actually posted in the Rhodes SRC page.

"I was absolutely blown away," said one student who was speaking metaphorically.

This makes this the 5th SRC member sighting this year, and the first report of an SRC post in this group in the history of Rhodes.

According to the Head of the Department of Mythology and Folklore, Billy Vitornot, the SRC is a group of super-beings charged with making the university a better place. According to the myth, they vanished in early 2009, amid a storm of confusion, superstition, and Spur vouchers.

"The last time we saw such strong evidence of someone in charge was in the General Lecture Theatre earlier this year, where almost 200 people - that's almost 3% of our students - reported a large so-called 'Grazzle'," he said excitedly.

Vitornot explained that this 'Grazzle' used to be a pagan rite to offer up praise to the Dark Lord of Apathy, Baalrorgh. 

"Legend has it that it the the rite was so effective that people stopped going entirely," he said.

Many students, however, have been so stunned that they have not even commented on the post, which, believe you me, is a HUGE deal.

One of the most famous SRC member sightings ever, at the Rhodes pool in 1997.

"When I first saw the notification, I thought it was just that Matthew guy being a dick to someone or someone posting a silly video. But as soon as I saw the profile picture, my heart stopped," said third-year Journalism student Rytin Toumoro.

After doing some investigative work (thereby making her ineligible to ever work at The Citizen), she found out that poster was allegedly voted into the SRC.

"My first thought was: is this what it is like seeing Big Foot?"

Many have refuted her claim as "ridiculous". 

"Next she'll be saying she saw a Tokoloshe, or an LLB student in Friars on a Wednesday night," said second-year BFA student, Sam Drew.

Just another day on the SRC page

However, digital archaeologists have unearthed new evidence that shows that the page may once have been the site of important debate and meaningful discussion. 

"According to ancient texts dating back all the way to when Nokia was still a good phone to buy, this page was once used as a line of communication between students and their representative council," said head of the research team who has been investigating the page, Doug Spadin.

However, many students have immediately and loudly refuted this claim.

"We all know that 'SRC' stands for 'seriously retarded comments'," said a second-year who refused to be named because I couldn't bother messaging and asking him for his real name.
"Next thing she'll tell us is that the group has a moderator or admins."

Many more have indicated that the post in question is, in fact, just a clever hoax perpetuated by the worst trolls of the University, a claim that has been backed up Lexicologists from the Rhodes University Department of Linguistics.

"Though a careful analysis of the post in question, we have determined that it's a hoax - but a very clever hoax at that. In fact, it's so good that it ranks up there with the event telling us that facebook is changing its colour, if you'll just do one survey," said James de Bunktales.

"As we can see, the post reads, 'The SRC Facebook page is network provided to the students of Rhodes University to channel healthy discussions and debates on contemporary issues facing studentship, society and youth in general'. Clearly, this person knows how an SRC member would write, but they included gaping contradictions, such as 'healthy discussions and debates'," he said. 

"They really lost all trust when they ended with, 'Its aim is to be a positive, helpful aid to all students at Rhodes University'. I mean, even that guy who forwarded me that video of The Undertaker supposedly killing Rey Mysterio would be like, 'ya, i'm not falling for that one,'" he said.

Since the post, reports have been flooding in that other SRC members have posted in the group, a fact that has excited Bess Tiary, who works in the Department of Mythology and Folklore catagorising potential mythological creatures.

"We've now added to the SRC beastiary another three possible phantom sightings. Added to the list are Esarcius Presidentius, Councilloria Project-manageriae, and Councilloria Medius. This is more mythical additions to our compendium since Thabo Mbeki's AIDS stance, she said.

Meanwhile, the Dean of Student Prohibition has been unwilling to comment.

"We can neither confirm nor deny the supposed sightings made here today #trololol," said Dr Klivian van Derk in a tweet statement earlier this evening.

Whether real of not, many Rhodents agree: there hasn't been something this exciting on the group since, um, this morning.

For more info, log onto the graveyard of the internet at www.facebook.com/groups/src