I'm taking a stand against this racist, sexist, privileged, problematic page

The bullshittery has gone on long enough.

I’ve known about this website for a while. “Funny”, you might call it, if you think the racist, sexist oppression of minorities and disenfranchised groups - or expressing an opinion that I don't share - is funny. Too long have we let such privilege go unchecked. For years, this site has been allowed to offend. To trigger. Well, no more.

Finally, I decided I’d do something about it. But, halfway through calling the author a "homophobe" and a "racist" on Twitter, using a trendy, clever hashtag that would definitely have changed the world, I thought I’d actually do something.

So I put away my mug of male tears, crawled out of my offense-free safe space ball pit, said twelve "Hail 'Yonces" and hacked his account. I wasn’t even hard. It was the first password I tried: “Ih8womenKillAllMinoritiesKKKstrangleSmallKittens69”.

Who am I? I’m Angie Davison. I’m a diasexual, brynxagender, polymorphic, fairykin pan-amorous feminist whose preferred pronouns are “zyrdl”, “zyrdlre”, and “xzyv” (LEARN THEM OR I WILL BLOCK YOU) and who identifies as a pan-gendered demi-theist, myxa-romantic pluraphorialist (but I’m not sure about that last one so I’ll see how I feel next week). And I am so DONE with this problematic fuckery.

So why did I hack his blog, you ask? Well, all across the world, in colleges and universities from Britain to America to South Africa, Freedom of Speech is under attack. Every time we - feminists and protesters like myself - say or do something virtuous and pure, hordes of droning troglodytes are allowed to reply with their wrong, stupid opinions. Large rallies of Christians and Republicans, and all flavours of controversial speakers are allowed to poison the air with their vituperative agendas, veiled under a thin pretense of "the right to political association and freedom of expression". They're allowed to lampoon our sacred, holy, universal beliefs. It's sick.

For every paper or publication we ban on campus, another pops up. For every song we get blacklisted on campus, another one takes its place. For every problematic noun or word that gets added to a list of potential Disciplinary Offences, a new one is created. For every dissenting, evil voice whose career and life we destroy on social media through paranoia, virtue signaling, and mob hatred, another one pipes up from the gorgeous, progressive silence.

Universities should be a safe space, where all of us - whether you're a POC, a Critical Studies student or someone fighting for a cause I already support - should be allowed to discuss our ideas freely and safely, without criticism or dissent.

I am done with cis-gender white men thinking they can rule and oppress the world and everyone. These straight, white male scum stereotype and box everyone by their sexual orientation, gender identity, race and sex, and then try to make them feel bad about just being who they are. It’s bullshit. They're a bunch of man-spreading, mansplaining, micro-aggressing bigots who reduce everything around them to an oversimplified straw-man. Every day, they inflict mental and systemic violence on hundreds of people just by being there. Their violence is disgusting. If we want to create a more peaceful, tolerant society, we need to kill them all #YESALLMEN.

MICRO-AGRESSING SCUM.
pic: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:FriedC

They’re probably even worse than second wave, sorry WHITE feminists, who did even less for society. You’d think that fighting for the vote, reducing voting age, securing fair labour laws and working towards our social and sexual emancipation would have been high on the agenda, but no, Becky with the Bitch hair was too busy listening to hubby, wearing pink and making cute cupcakes to stop the OPPRESSIVE PATRIARCHAL SHITLORDS from continuing their shitty, oppressive, democratically elected campaigns of terror into 2016. Worse still, their practices were hugely islamophobic and Eurocentric. How can scum like Ayaan Hirsi Ali have the audacity to criticise other cultures, or tell them how to treat their women? EUGH YOUR FAVES ARE SO PROBLEMATIC.

They didn’t even think of the biggest issues of our time. Things like white guilt and white privilege. As a white female, it sickens me to think of how many white people there are that don’t make effusive, complicated internet confessions of their sins to seem more enlightened and morally superior than those around them. It makes me so angry I almost spilled cappuccino onto my Macbook Pro's keyboard.

Despite there still being a pay gap in some small areas of society when you don’t adjust for job experience, qualification, time off and maternity leave, do they focus their efforts on this? No. And how can they, because they DON’T UNDERSTAND THE WORLD like we – twenty-something unemployed bloggers with four year degrees in Media Studies and Gender studies – do.

How can you begin to lobby for better, more progressive legislation without a spicy FIRE hashtag? How do even consider studying for something like a law degree to ensure that existing legal frameworks that ensure equality between men and women of any race or creed are upheld and followed to the letter without getting to grips with the deep lattice of competing systems of bigotry and prejudice that make me a lot more oppressed than you? How can we work towards a better, more considerate society if we aren’t ostracising those who think differently from us and use words or ideas that offend me?

Let this be a lesson to all of you out there. We are woke. We are watching. The days of this kind of oppressive, unfunny, fuckery that masquerades that “satire” and makes fun of things that I don’t find funny are numbered.

Making fun of Donald Trump or insulting African and traditional leaders who hate gay people is okay. I don't mind if he writes highly charged, ironic posts about how female voices are underrepresented in traditional, academic and legal spheres. I can even support his parodying of Men's Rights Activists. But to make fun of things I don't find funny, or my personal beliefs is a level of privileged fuckery that I won't tolerate. Say one more goddamn word about bell hooks and I’ll give this blog the Blurred Lines treatment: it'll be gone faster than a tweet that disagrees with whatever I say or do.

The choice is yours, boy: Check your privilege and check your hate speech, or Muse and Abuse goes bye-bye.

“Hands off our users’ data” say Apple, Google to FBI. “That’s ours!”

The FBI has been dealt a serious blow today, after Apple, Google, Twitter and Facebook banded together to take a stand against “anyone but us tampering with your private data and personal information.”

The union between these massive conglomerates and companies released a joint statement today, blasting the FBI’s desire to have a 'back door' into users' devices and saying that no government agency or outside entity that wasn’t a listed subsidiary of their parent organisations had the right to invade into users’ private spheres.

“We have to take a stand for what is right,” said the letter, which was co-signed by Jack Dorsey (CEO of Twitter), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Sundar Pichai (CEO of Google) and Marissa Mayer who apparently still thinks Yahoo is a thing. “We can’t just let anyone who isn’t one of our technicians, marketing data analysts, stockholders or data miners tamper with or collect our user’s personal information and private data. That would be hugely unethical. “

“To let a company that isn’t us have a free back-door into your divide and personal data would simply be just wrong.”

The letter continued:

“The repercussions of giving organisations who aren’t us - and who didn’t legally bind you with that other document we published but you didn’t read (our user Terms and Condition) - unfettered access to your data is unimaginably dangerous,” it read. “If we let [the FBI] access our data, then they might mine it for demographic data, user trends and usage patterns to create billion-dollar ad-placement algorithms and targeted marketing.”

“Or even worse, they could find your deleted search history.”

Apple now says it would redouble its efforts to protect its devices and software.

“We would never let anyone ever interfere with your device without our permission,” they said. “It doesn’t matter if it’s the FBI or a phone repairman fixing your screen of home button in a country without registered Apple repairmen. We would rather totally lock anyone – even legitimate users – out of their devices forever and render them completely unusable forcing you to buy another one than see your private information fall into the hands of someone who isn’t a registered subsidiary of Apple, Inc.”

The united companies were resilient in their defiance.

“We would never give any outside government organisation your personal data,” they said. “Well, except maybe for PRISM and the National Security Agency. But no one else, scout’s honour, cross our hearts!”

However, the FBI has since backed off from its demands, saying it realises “if we got into your phones and Facebook feeds we’d have to sift through all your incredibly boring drivel on social media only to find out you’re not a crazed ISIS cell member.”

However, user reactions have been mixed.

“It’s outrageous!” said one Apple user, Amabaya Nufone. “I have lots of top-secret, sensitive information on my phone. If all those SMSes to my mom, those funny memes my friends sent me over Whatsapp, or my browsing history were to get into the hands of the FBI, who knows what awful things they would do it?”

“I think the FBI are right: we should support them and hand over all our personal information,” said another. “If the cost of protecting our hard-won freedom and democracy is just sacrificing a couple of freedoms and democratic rights, then that’s a price we should all pay gladly. “

“I shudder to think of the future if things continue like this. We could soon be living in an extremist state where you have no privacy or rights and your every movement is scrutinised by fundamentalists dedicated to their particular beliefs – and that's just the government. I haven’t even mentioned what ISIS might do!”

“Go fuck yourself” now a legally-permissible argument

Citing the sheer overwhelming number of deserving articles, posts, statuses, opinions and stories posted every minute all over the internet, Supreme justices, advocates and judges at every level of the Legal System have today allowed full legal permissibility and support of the argument that someone should “go fuck themselves”.

According Justice Eric Secutioner of the Supreme Court, the decision was made after many hours of hard,vigorous debate, when one Justice sneakily checked her phone and saw a tweet from part-time “singer” Steve Hofmeyr proclaiming that blacks were the architects of apartheid.

The Supreme Court roll clearly records the events, showing that Justice Annabelle Torrends rolled her eyes and said aloud, “oh, go fuck yourself”, which was shortly followed by her passing around the phone. Other justices then gave various renditions of “just kill yourself” and “choke on a fat one, you fucktard”, eventually agreeing that “go fuck yourself” would be permissible as it made no allusion to homophobic slurs and did not constitute a death threat.

“It’s important to be progressive with these kinds of things,” they explained.

Legal experts now say that this “Go Fuck yourself” legal rebuttal is based in powerful legal precedent, in the form of the Reasonable Person measure.

"Look, when you post shit like this on Facebook and Twitter, it’s clear that any reasonable person would tell you to go fuck yourself,” said legal expert Lawyer. “Or rather, as we say in legal circles, ‘describe to you in graphic detail how to use your genetalia to go commit auto… autoerotica? autosexual something? Eroti… er, whatever fucking yourself is in Latin.”

People across the country have voiced widespread support for this new introduction.

“When I see a dumb post on Facebook or Twitter, I think, geez, I could easily debunk this using a rational and critically-analytical approach, showing the logical inconsistencies and rhetorical weaknesses of the poster’s argument,” said one internet user, “but what with the time and energy it would take to do this, and the likelihood of him actually reading the response with genuine interest and taking to heart my central criticisms and suggestions and ultimately changing his flawed way of looking at the world, it’s honestly just easier and saves more time and effort to simply tell him to take two Viagra, bend his cock under his balls and through his gooch-hair and stick it right up his own ass.”

Other online commentators said that the decision would be well received in the online community.

“Sorry to offend, but in my books dickheads and arseholes tend to be indistinguishable and quite inseparable on the internet,” said another. “So why not also in actual real life with the human body? Go figure.”

Pic of judge (my edit) by maveric2003