Can You Separate Art From the Artist?

So much like the rest of the world, I have seen the internet's shared rage at J.K. Rowling's stalwart campaign to be the most hated person this side of Trump. Now this isn't the first time Rowling's been in deep trouble with her problematic views, namely her virulent transphobia, but lately she's gone out of her way to make sure everyone knows in no uncertain terms that she is transphobic. This has caused Harry Potter fans a great deal of emotional conflict, since apparently this is the first time they've ever dealt with a creator of a piece of art that they enjoy being problematic, and they're now trying desperately to try and act like Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling are completely separate entities and having nothing to do with each other. But is that really the route they should be taking? Is separating art from the artist even possible? 

To examine the situation more closely, we should have a terse discussion on what death of the author is. Death of the author is when a creator's intentions are null and void in interpreting their work. This is often invoked so that way people aren't left thinking there's only one correct interpretation for a piece of work, such as a book or a movie, and thus discord is sown amongst fan bases. Now death of the author gets a relatively bad name these days, and that's largely cuz stupid people invoke the term so they can continue consuming media that was created by terrible people and evade any sort of guilt. That's not how death of the author works. If you're still consuming the media of an awful person because you just don't give a fuck about what they've done since it hadn't effected you personally, that is not death of the author. For example, you can't claim death of the author in any of the songs on Megadeth's Endgame because Dave Mustaine himself said that the songs are directly based on his political views (which if you know them, are pretty fucking obnoxious). You can still enjoy the musicianship, but you can't say that Mustaine's beliefs aren't present in his music. On the flipside, you can do this with Aerosmith since none of their songs involve impregnating a teenager and then convincing her to get an abortion (but still, fuck you Steven Tyler). 

But that leads into the next question: is death of the author a good idea from a moral standpoint? This is where things get tricky. Obviously if you find out the creator of your favourite book/movie/game series is a scumbag, you'll want to justify your fanship somehow, because their creation happens to be really good and/or might have shaped you in some way. Lovecraft fans can talk with you for hours about that. And trust me, there's a solid 50% chance your fave is problematic. You could just take the easy way out and be like "well as long as their beliefs aren't present in their work then I can still enjoy it", but that won't be as easy as you think. Because you see, a creator doesn't have to be overt in blending their personal philosophies with their work. Frank Miller's 300 almost romanticises ancient Sparta, which was a eugenic military dictatorship that reveled in slavery, and portrays the Persian kingdom, who in all actuality were very progressive and egalitarian for their time, as the arseholes. Now Miller doesn't openly announce that he's in favour of slavery, military dictatorships, and eugenics, but the fact that he portrayed a civilisation that exuded such qualities as heroic and likable is pretty damning that he likely doesn't find them too deplorable. So how does this relate to J.K. Rowling you might be asking? Well I never read any Harry Potter books, but I have plenty of friends who have, and many recent internet posts have been pointing out some of Rowling's other subtle prejudices, such as making the bankers long nosed goblins (I'm sure I don't have to tell you who that's supposed to symbolise), naming Dobby, an elf who only wears tattered clothing, after the word dhobi, which refers to the poorest in the Indian caste system, and naming the only prominent Asian character Cho Chang, like for real she might as well have named her fucking Pork Fried Rice or something. So Rowling, aside from being transphobic, also might have a racism/classism problem. 

But surely there is merit to death of the author, right? Well of course. If we were to account for the creator's intentions in every one of their creations then we'd never be able to enjoy anything. And like I said, even a terrible person is capable of making something good, and they're very good at concealing their true nature from the public eye. What matters then is how you act once their shamefulness is brought to light. Whilst the creator can inject their own politics into their creation as I've stated before, if they keep the two separate, then the onus shifts onto you if you wish to continue supporting them. And really whether or not it's worth it could depend on the level of the offence. For instance, if you're willing to consume the media of a known virulent anti-Semite whilst maintaining the idea that you don't agree with their views with full knowledge that they're still gonna profit from the consumption of their product, then you're still responsible for platforming them. And if they're still turning profits with their vile opinions out to the public, that tells them that they can say whatever bigoted bollocks they want and no one will care. With people like Ian Watkins and Gary Glitter, still listening to either of their music has a gray area to it; whilst both of them are detestable child predators, neither of them profit off of their music anymore, so you aren't platforming them. On the other hand, are you really still comfortable supporting the work of child molesters? Sure, their music might be good to you, but it's still a question worth thinking over. 

At the end of the day, separating art from the artist is reliant on whether the art still platforms the artist or not. And let me be clear here; I in no way intend to cast a shadow of guilt over anyone who supports the art of otherwise problematic creators. I'm a massive Ozzy Osbourne fan, I know what it's like to support a controversial figure. Enjoy what you like, take your favourite elements out and enjoy them on their own if you have to. But please don't take the route of attempting to divorce the content from the creator through means of embarrassing mental gymnastics. It just makes you look more ridiculous than anything else. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch a James Bond flick. Ian Fleming all the way. 

Is "Karen" Derogatory to Women?

For any woman reading this named Karen, I deeply apologise that you are once again being made reference to by proxy. However, I've been seeing this topic float around for a while now and I figured I might as well try to add my input that no one asked for. Apparently, the "Karen" meme is now a slur and is sexist and classist towards "outspoken" upper class women. We'll get to that in a bit, but the mere fact that it's being referred to as a "slur" kinda caught me off guard and now I feel like I have to talk about it. Now of course this proclamation is jetted out by TERFs so it's not hard to see why no one takes it seriously, so I wanna give a more in-depth look and see if the Karen meme really is offencive to women. 

Right off the bat, what exactly entails a "Karen", beyond just being named such? According to its common usage on the net, a "Karen" is described as normally a white middle-aged blonde woman with a short haircut and is somewhere in the middle class and often married with kids. That's as far as stereotypical appearances go, anyway. "Karens" are defined as entitled people, usually white, who treat service workers like shit and follow pseudoscience (see also: anti-vax mum, which I'll get to as well) or vote Republican. You've probably met someone like this before, I know I have, maybe "Karen" is just the perfect word, or name, to describe them, as if just has that ring to it. Although it is a caricature of a woman, "Karen" is sometimes used as a gender neutral insult, like being a Karen is a mentality in the same vein that "boomer" is. 

Now that you have a decent idea of what a Karen is, let's talk about whether or not it's sexist or classist. I'm gonna deal with the classism aspect first because I have no bloody idea how anyone beyond an uber-privileged white person could even come to that conclusion. Like, classist towards upper class women? Really? I'm not gonna pretend that classism against upper class women doesn't exist, such as no one believing a woman can be rich or financially well off without sleeping her way to wealth or some other easy-come-easy-go means, but this is far from any conceivable classism I can detect. Firstly, I can promise you I'm probably richer than like 75% of these Karens you've come across (I'm just throwing numbers around so don't think too hard on that). Second, if you're attempting to garner sympathy for the upper class, you're failing miserably. No one's gonna leak a solitary tear for some upper class toerags who happened to be distraught over simple name calling. That's pretty insulting to lower income people who actually do face classism on the regular don't you think? Oh of course not, you're the people engaging in said classism anyway, not that you care. 

Now onto the sexism aspect of this. I probably have one of the most unpopular opinions on the subject but here goes nothing: I actually do believe there's a scoop of sexism to be had within this meme. Like I mentioned earlier, Karen is a caricature of a woman, and it'd be remiss of me as a feminist to not call attention to how a caricature of a woman is being used as a common insult. The parallel between calling a man a Karen and telling a man he hits like a girl is noticeable if you really think about, cuz in either vein you're saying he's acting like a woman and that itself is a huge problem. As for the outspoken woman part, I don't think this is valid. Karen originally means someone who is rude to service workers, and feminism definitely does not encourage women being needlessly hostile in the name of empowerment. I will be 100% fair and say I'm aware of the male equivalents of Karen, such as Kyle and Chad, who are misogynistic caricatures of men, but I've seen way more variants of Karen and it's definitely the more invoked. I think what really makes the sexism of the Karen meme stand out to me is that personally, I've seen WAY more men act like Karens than women (even women named Karen to boot) so it almost feels like it projects men's behaviour onto women, something that's happened time and time again and still happens. This ties into my issue with the "anti-vax mum" stereotype, since Karens are also used to refer to anti-vaxers. The whole "vaccines cause autism" bollocks was started by a man, but anti-vax women are almost always shoved into the forefront and unwittingly furthers the stereotype that women are stupid and don't belong in science (thereby leading to them being gatekept from STEM fields fyi). 

With all that said, do I think Karen is a slur? The answer is no. It is the last thing from it. For one thing, if it was, then every woman named Karen is a raging bigot. Second, whilst I don't want to devalue how harmful it can get if it's used more prevalently, at present, it doesn't cause lasting damage. Sure, I'll probably roll my eyes/groan if I were to see it on my news feed, but it isn't as harsh as being called a "bitch" or a "cunt". And for that reason, I think we as feminists can pick our battles a bit more wisely. Our plate's overflowing as it is, we don't need to add anymore side dishes when this one can be saved for later. 

...And now I'm hungry. Bugger. 

Men Talking About Their Feelings, And Is It The Real Issue?

So I'm sure most of you have already seen a comic from Sarah Andersen where she pokes fun at fragile masculinity. In it, there's a guy dressed in Roman centurion armour boasting that masculinity is strong and tough. Then a girl dubbed "the slightest threat of femininity" pokes him with a spear and says "it's ok to talk about your feelings". This causes the guy's armour to crack and a look of shock and terror has befallen his face. Now I personally found the comic funny, as it perfectly illustrates all the broflakes I've encountered spreading the good word of feminism across the internet. However, just as I suspected, the broflakes in question took to Twitter to aptly prove the comic's point, with many of them strawmanning Sarah, a couple of them making stupid edits that were just clear MRA whining and projection, and just overall creating a whole mess. Sarah later clarified that she wasn't intending to mock men as a whole, and actually encourages men to talk about their feelings, and it got me to think about whether or not that's the actual problem and if we should even be telling men to do that.

Here's the big question: Should men talk about their feelings? As a counselor, my answer might surprise you, but I don't think men talking about their feelings is the problem, or at the very least, it's not that simple. Why is that? Because they already are. When sexist men ramble about how women are stupid and whiny, or how they call women who wear revealing clothes sluts and whores who deserve to be raped, or incels creating whole bloody manifestos about how "fEmAlEs" are property and that they should be equally distributed amongst virgin men for a chance to score, they're letting you know how they feel. Men love nothing more than to insert unnecessary commentary onto anything that has nothing to do with them simply because they think they know more about it than those pesky womz. If the goal is to have men be open with their feelings, then I'd say mission accomplished. 

Saying that men should talk about their feelings just simplifies the issues and completely misses the actual problems that we should be discussing. Men not talking about their feelings isn't the problem, how they deal with their feelings is. As a whole, men are told from day one that sensitivity is bad and that anger is the only acceptable way they're allowed to showcase displeasure. That certainly is the catalyst, but there's more to it. Men always claim that they're held responsible for everything wrong in the world, but when you look at it, men jump at the first opportunity to point fingers at someone else for random problem X. Boy becomes a violent criminal? Blame his single mother. Father is a moody and angry? His wife must be such a nightmare. Young men following incel culture? Well this wouldn't have happened if feminism just stopped talking about toxic masculinity, even though most of these fuckers don't even understand what we mean when we say toxic masculinity. I've talked to death about toxic masculinity so I won't do it again here, but it really is to blame for this issue. It's not that men are bottling up their emotions, they're just replacing any and all sensitivity with rage. They can blame feminism all they want, but it won't help them. 

And don't even try coming at me with that bollocks about depression is only taken seriously when it comes to women, because that's not true and you know it. Women's mental health has repeatedly been used to justify why women should never be taken seriously and how we're "too emotional to handle anything" when in reality, we're not anymore emotional than the average person should be. Patriarchy treats women as the opposite end of the spectrum, the "extreme" if you will. It tells men that you should never be vulnerable or else you're as bad as a woman, and no matter how "woke" you think you are, you still possess a subconscious bias not be "that kind of woman". Even women fall into this trap to avoid being dismissed as crazy or anything. 

So what can be done about it? First and foremost, deconstruct gender roles. Listen to what feminists say about toxic masculinity and what it means instead of knee jerking to think it means all men are toxic. Second would be to end the false causes. Women being "slutty" or wanting reproductive rights isn't what's causing male suicide or depression, capitalism and patriarchy are. Third, teach men how to properly manage their emotions. For instance, anger is ok, lashing out at innocent people is not. And finally, show men proper outlets for their emotions. This means not using your girlfriends as your emotional baggage btw. Toxic masculinity coupled with the the irrational fear of femininity is what ultimately creates a dangerous environment not just for women but men as well. No one's demanding men become women when we say it's ok for them to be sensitive. It's time to correctly allow men to explore an emotional spectrum, one that benefits them in ways that actually work instead of boiling everything down to "talking about their feelings". 

If I Were President

Every once in a while, someone messages me and says "Hey Kristal I wish you ran for president cuz I'd totally vote for you". Pfft, like they'd ever let my arse anywhere near the White House. It's just not gonna happen mate. But that would be interesting though, so I'll dedicate this blog post to show you all what it'd be like if I were president. 

Firstly, I'd wanna have a nice little chat with you gun enthusiasts out there, you 2nd Amendment fanboys. I swear to fuck, you're the brattiest fucking toerags in the multiverse, you're practically unrivaled. All you do is flip shit everyday because the government wants you to surrender a little bit of your collection. NONE OF YOU have any reason to own an assault weapon. Your only reason to own one boils down to some unnatural fetish you have for military-grade guns that aren't even necessary for basic protection needs. Every last one of you have been safeguarded at the expense of others, and now you're throwing a fit because we're asking you to give away only a small portion of your unnecessary armoury? What is wrong with you bloodthirsty fuckwits? I'm so irritated by you. 

It's one of the most frustrating things ever to hear gun nuts in this country throw tantrums. "Oh woe is me. The government wants me to surrender my AR-15s. I'll go from owning 10 guns to 9. Whatever shall I do?" You're a bunch of fucking entitled pricks. You're gonna be fine. You're still strapped to the teeth with guns. How much is enough for you violent fucks? At what point do you say to yourself "You know, I have enough guns to protect my home as necessary. Maybe I'll chill out on my obsession with owning guns instead of buying enough to supply a strike force". But you never think that. You're too busy inventing scenarios in your head where you'll be disarmed and carted off to your death because something something Nazis were pro-gun control. Almost every single shooting that has been carried out in America since the Aurora theatre shooting was done so by use of an AR-15 and similar weapons. And the moment any politician proposed regulating gun ownership, you bloodthirsty bell-ends cried all the way to the doorstep of the NRA so they can lobby to let you keep guns that you realistically don't even fucking need whilst mothers grieved the deaths of their teenage children. To me, that's just plain evil. 

I've had it up to here with you entitled pendejos, so my first order of business is to prohibit the sale of assault weapons without a legitimate excuse. You wanting to own a weapon capable of mowing down a crowd of 50 people in minutes out of your sci-fi fantasies is not amongst these excuses. You gun owners claim that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Well in America, we have a gun violence incidents every bloody week. Where the fuck are these good guys with guns? It's infuriating, for real. The good guy with a gun narrative doesn't exist. Even those brave souls who do genuinely return fire at mass shooters as the carnage is happening are the exceptions, not the norm. Gun culture gives me a fucking headache. These gun nuts don't care about you, not in the abstract. Now gun ownership is not without its merits. It can provide security to those who feel they can't protect themselves otherwise. With all that firepower you gun nuts have stashed away, you could arm women, black people, trans people, anyone who's a prime target for hate crimes and help them live to see another day. Do you really think safety is achieved by keeping these weapons of war tucked in your closet or wherever all your life, only to come out when you wanna shoot empty beer cans? Of fucking course not, you know no one is safer this way. But you don't really care do you? You're only in it for yourselves. And don't get me started on the racism aspect because you know for a fact that if it were a black woman being shot dead by police for merely exercising her second amendment rights, ustedes would be more silent than a library after the apocalypse. 

I'm tired of fragile white men with zero personality outside of owning guns pretending shooting people is a core value of America. I couldn't care less about your sponsorships or any NRA stickers, I'm not gonna bow to you because I don't care if I get re-elected. I'll spend my 4 years in office doing the public a service and putting you selfish gun nuts in your fucking place for letting the public be in danger. Just try whining about the assault rifle prohibition gun nuts, see where that gets you. My next step will be to put you in jail for owning one. Don't test me. 

My second plan, and I mean like immediately after, would be reforming women's self-defence in this country. We demand women take full responsibility for their own safety when police action is not possible and then we punish them for using it? What the hell kinda backwards thinking is that? It's insane the logic we use here. Abusers killing their wives? Getting slaps on the wrists and often times escaping jail altogether. White supremacists who kill minorities? Escaping justice. Cops who kill unarmed civilians? Pretty much getting pats on the back the whole way. I don't get this society. By doing this, we only discourage anyone from taking measures to protect themselves since it's obvious they'll be treated like the bad guy for not letting themselves fucking die. So I would give a full presidential pardon to any woman who's been imprisoned for killing an abuser or any other attacker who made her fear for her life. I don't care how long you were sentenced, if you're in there for killing in self-defence, you're going the fuck home and I fully apologise that you were even there in the first place. 

This system is so fucking broken. Self-defence is an imperative method for survival. And instead of condoning and encouraging it, we let the predators and the evil ones feel safer and get away with harming the innocent. All we do by punishing those who were protecting themselves leads to is more innocent people dying. Haven't you people found it odd that you're getting fucked over? 

So I'm gonna be clearing the prisons of all the women who are in there for justifiable homicides, and then I'm gonna fill them back up with the slimeballs who should actually be in there. That's right, I'm talking about rapists. Rapists are literally living among you. These obviously predatory people are silently preying on civilians everyday, and only 2% of them ever see a day behind bars. What the holy hell people? You see what happens when you never make people face the consequences for their actions? The threat they pose continues and sometimes gets stronger. You have to give these people what they deserve. You need to show these gross pieces of shit to everyone and expose them for the scum that they are. Which is why I'll propose a new crackdown by giving civilians reasonable authority to deal with rapists by the means at hand. We'll clean up the streets of these bastards one day at a time and no longer take their deeds lying down. I'd do what no other president in history has ever done, and that is make rapists face consequences. It's a disgrace how no president has ever had the stones to do this. It really shows you where their interests lie doesn't it?

And also, I just have to ask: what the everlasting hell is wrong with the public? You all do realise that your own lives are in danger by letting these rapists run around without consequences right? They're endangering the lives of everyone around you right under your noses and you don't even care? You disappoint me and need to get your priorities in check. 

My next target is the church. By some accounts, the church takes in 170 billion USD in revenue annually. That's absolutely batshit insane. What the hell do churches need all that money for? It's not like they're using it for anything. And isn't it a sin to horde wealth? Sounds like they're not even taking their own advice. My proposition for this is to tax churches by 30%. That may seem like a lot, but even by then the church would still be much richer than they need to be. If they cannot survive by living on just enough for them to be set forever, then maybe the entire institution needs to be supplanted. 

And once we've taken care of taxing churches, reforming women's self-defence, and prohibiting assault rifles, we can focus on other matters, like immigration. There can be no freedom where humans are illegal. Name me one genuinely rock solid reason why immigration is a huge problem that doesn't boil down to a subconscious prejudice against brown people. Chances are, you won't find one. That's why I'd draft legislation to start open borders in this country. No more immigration police, no more 90 day visas, fuck them. Immigration should not be as complicated as America has made it to be. If you're coming here for a new life, nothing should stand in your way. I'll even strengthen citizenship processes to ensure immigrants who choose to live here permanently can be American citizens faster than before. No one should have to wait 3 to 5 years to finally be considered a member of this society. For real, if it's been more than like 6 months, chances are they're not going anywhere. 

And speaking of things that should be available and easy, so should housing. It's genuinely confusing as to how much every administration has dragged its feet in the mud in solving the homelessness problem in this country. We have a homeless population of 554,000 and tripled that amount in available houses. What the hell are we waiting for? No one should have to fight over finding a house. This country has all the resources to ensure homelessness and poverty never exist and we just let it go to waste so billionaire scumbags can line their own pockets with it. Not on my watch. And so with all the money we get and save by taxing churches, I'll start socialised public housing for everyone in this country, all fully maintained and insured so you never have to worry about losing everything in the event something goes wrong. We can help abused women and children, college students, and the homeless find shelter without having to wait in line. Now if you still want to buy these huge houses and pay thousands in mortgage, go right ahead, doesn't matter to me. But if you can't afford that and need a place to live due to certain circumstances, the government will help you as necessary. We will set up all sorts of housing choices, apartments or houses, whichever you want at the price that's right for you. Housing should be a right for every person. I'll make sure you get it. 

I'm Madame President Kristal Colt and I love every single one of you little bastards. I'm honoured to bring this country to greatness, and liberty and justice for all (except Fortnite gamers). 

Feminists Are Allowed to Hate Men

Oh boy, it was only a matter of time before I addressed this topic in particular. What was it I said in a previous blog post from last year?

"I don't hate men"

Oops, looks like we all make mistakes XD. 

So as it turns out, after seeing the horrors of male rapists getting absolutely ludicrous punishments, or lack thereof, for some of the most vile rapes ever set before my eyes, men who rape and beat women run for office and come close to winning elections, and anything incels have ever fucking done, let it be known that the misandry flows through me and vitalises me like no other stimulant. Let it also be known that whilst I do currently have distaste for men as a whole, I'm more than just a simple-minded hater. There are men I like besides my husband, and I do appreciate having male allies around. That said, I'm not gonna pull any punches here. For any good men out there reading this, this likely won't apply to you, but if you do get offended, you might not be as good as you think. 

So what caused me to finally talk about man-hating feminists? To be completely blunt, I am at my wit's end with these "cool feminists" who are too afraid to piss men off to get their point across, how the system is the problem and not men, even though men created the system that kills women and men alike with toxic gender roles and violent abuse. Plus, why the fuck can't women hate men? How many men have actually died at the hands of misandry? I mean actually died as a result of socially integrated man-hatred, not just MRAs blaming men's deaths on feminism. I'll give you a hint, the answer is 0. Even the most patient of feminists admit that they are fed up with men's shit. The kill count of misogyny is kilometres long and there's not enough days in a year for me to go down that list right now. 

The idea of hating your oppressor is one that I'm very fond of, because having negative feelings against a person or group of people who've wronged you for so long is a natural thing to do. Then there's the phrase "don't fight hate with hate", which is basically a gaslighting technique at this point. It makes it as if taking any sort of harsh action against an oppressor suddenly brings you down to their level. That's like saying stopping home invaders with force makes you the real criminal. It doesn't work that way, and being too nice in these times where human rights are up for debate (somehow) is what got us into this mess. A woman saying she hates men isn't comparable to a whole nation hating women so much that they'll elect a man who's been accused of sexual violence by many women (speaking of that, notice how all the people saying Hillary defends rapists suddenly cried about Trump supposedly being falsely accused of rape. I think we found out who's really on the side of rapists) just to show them what for. I want you to think about the most radical man-hating lesbian feminist you know. Have you ever heard one say raping and abusing men should be legal? How about them saying husbands are property of their wives? I bet you haven't, but you'll see many men saying these things about women (hey incels, it's been a while hasn't it?), and the men who think and say these things are sitting down proposing them as laws right now. Misogyny is a threat at large here in the states. Misandry isn't. 

But really, the over-obsession of feminists hating men, as if that's the worst thing anyone can do, is not unheard of or at least it's not like I don't see why that's the case. Since society was even a thing, humans have overvalued men even when it wasn't earned, and it still persists today. Men's behaviour is always backed by some pitiful excuse. The whole "boys will be boys" mantra refuses to fizzle out meanwhile girls are policed for every little thing they do. So if males are allowed to just roam freely and be nigh-immune from consequence, why are females expected to just go with it and kiss arse just to be accepted as people? Like I said before, this whole "fighting hate with hate" rhetoric is a form of suppression. It implies that any resistance or force against the enemy makes you as bad as them. You might as well say whoever kills Hitler is the new Hitler, or that the Marine raiders who killed Nazis in WW2 were the real Nazis for "continuing the cycle of violence", which I also think is pretty problematic on its own but that's a story for another time. 

The point I'm trying to get at beyond my constant off-topic proximation is that if you're willing to concede that people have the right to feel angry that a certain group of people dealt them a shitty hand for an extended period of time, why should feminists, and by extension women, be the ones you police? Because you happen to belong to the group they hate? That's not an excuse. When gross misogynist men commit acts of violence, people are lightning fast to blame the woman for "not giving him a chance" and find it reasonable for men to hate women based on the principle that "bitches be crazy", but women can't hate men for all the abuse and torment they've received at their hands? But sure, bring up equality when it suits men, I'm sure you'll sound smart eventually. One more thing before I let you go, typically when you learn someone hates you, you tend to wanna find out why or get them to not hate you. I think men should consider following that dynamic if they're so concerned about "misandry". 

Are Celebrities Only Allowed To Be Leftists?

So in the latest installment of "Things That Aren't Censorship But Are Still Considered Censorship By Right-Wing Fuckwits", Roseanne Barr, sitcom extraordinaire and reputed racist, has had her show cancelled following a now-deleted Twitter rant where she called Valerie Jarrett apelike. Naturally, her description of a non-white woman being similar in appearance to a primate generated a negative reaction from her rebooted show's parent company NBC and now thanks to her idiocy, her co-stars and many other show workers are now out of a job. Now shortly after, Samantha Bee unleashed on Ivanka Trump, calling her a 'feckless c*nt'. Samantha apologised in the heat of it, meaning it was genuine regret, and wasn't punished for it. This resurged the long heated talking point regurgitated by the right known as this: celebrities are only allowed to publicly showcase liberal beliefs. 

To be quite frank, whilst I don't agree with that sentiment in the least bit, I can understand why people would think that. It seems like having a right wing opinion is grounds to tar and feather a person whilst left leaning celebs appear to breeze through everything with no issue. Only problem is, there's a good reason and excuse as to why that's the case. The big idea is the fact that the right has delved into a cesspool of monolithic and selfish shitlords who care more about offending and pissing people off than making any societal change. And when the political party that fought against Nazis suddenly decides Nazis are ok because they "trigger the libs" then it's time to vilify that party to the extreme. At worst, the left is annoying. At worst, the right is perilous. I've swung way far left at this point where I don't see myself agreeing with anything a conservative will say. That said, I challenge any conservatives reading this to throw something we can agree on my way ;). 

So are celebrities only allowed to be leftists? Well, the answer is no. There are some celebs with right wing beliefs that aren't hated. Need an example? Chuck Norris. Chuck is one of the grossest bootlickers I've ever seen. As a surprise to no one, Chuck is a down home Republican, and lately the one thing he's been doing with his time is being very anti-LGBT+. He's even against a campaign that protects trans students from bullying. Now tell me, when's the last time you heard anyone shit talk Chuck? I got more of these. Aerosmith's Steven Tyler and Joe Perry are republicans and last I checked, people still go crazy for the Bad Boys From Boston. Hell, fucking Dave Mustaine from Megadeth is right wing, going as far as to being an Alex Jones fan, supporting Ted Cruz, and claiming the Sandy Hook shooting was a facade. Megadeth isn't blacklisted now is it? As you can see, being publicly right wing isn't a one-way ticket to street justice grabbing ya by the neck. 

What also bugs me is that left-wing celebrities don't get off scot free either like conservatives claim. Trevor Noah for example is loathed by conservatives and even people who are "centrists" for his leftist ideals. Same goes for Mark Hamill, one of the biggest movie stars in history. Once he started being critical of Trump and his administration he was immediately branded an "SJW" (fuck that term btw). Obviously being a leftist isn't as easy as conservatives want you to think. These same people want to say that leftism is the only acceptable ideology yet you'd find them on Youtube videos made by small feminist channels with like 50 subscribers blasting the poor girl's video with thousands of dislikes and supplementing them with extremely disgusting rape threats and the like. So yeah, tell me again about free speech going both ways? 

Speaking of free speech, did you know that the White House wants to cancel Samantha Bee's show over her insulting Ivanka? Yeah you know what it's called when the government wants to end a public TV show because the host said something they don't like? CENSORSHIP. Ya know, that word that's basically meaningless now? Censorship specifically and only applies to LEGALISM. If your network cancels your show for saying something discriminatory, that is not censorship. If you are sued by the government for writing an article and having your entire social media tracked and being fined each time you publicly post, that is censorship. If the government is attacking and limiting the rights of people who display leftist beliefs, then that's a pretty damning sign that being a leftist isn't all that accepted. What's more is that the government and by extension the President is supposed to hold themselves to a much higher standard than the average citizen, not a lower one. So if Captain Grapefruit wants someone's show to be illegal just because the host said something mean about him, he needs to step the fuck down because he is not fit to do this job. I know he won't, but he needs to.

I can't entirely say I'm surprised this turned into the hell storm it did, but the fact that these instances were at the forefront of news reports instead of the 5K death count of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico or the THOUSANDS of missing immigrant children thanks to the negligence of ICE just infuriated me to levels I did not anticipate. Roseanne Barr is an ignorant trollop, this is not news. She dressed up like Hitler during a bakery photoshoot and now people are somehow shocked that she called a non-white woman apelike. Her getting her show cancelled is HER FAULT. She very much had this coming by shooting her mouth off. Samantha Bee is not comparable because all she did was get furious with Ivanka being all glitters and rainbows whilst her family destroys everything good in the world. It's not nuclear armageddon because a bland sitcom from the late 20th century had its return cut short, and there is no SJW propagandist wrongthink going on. Get the hell over yourselves. 

What Is Psychopathy?

Let's talk about psychopathy. Psychopathy is kinda meaningless now. Or at least it must be because the way this word is used irritates the fuck outta me as a counselor (yeah turns out a lot of things bug me now that I'm a counselor XD). Psychopathy has become stripped of its original meaning and description by movies and armchair activists and is now ascribed to anyone who does something bad. That's not psychopathy. Simply being a bad person is not psychopathy. Sociopathy is not psychopathy, despite how much they might crossover into each other. I will not only be examining the differences between sociopaths and psychopaths, but I will also be talking about what a psychopath is and how you can spot one, because I am very sick of how overused this word has become. 

To begin, psychopathy is a mental disorder. One does not simply become a psychopath; you have to be born as one. One thing that psychopaths and sociopaths share is antisocial personality disorder, though with psychopaths, the case is more complex and difficult to deal with for reasons I am about to explain. With a psychopath, their actions come from nature. What I'm about to say might be controversial, but it's important to keep in mind that psychopaths aren't malevolent, they simply...are. They don't have any specific reasons for their bad behaviour. They just do them. They tend to rationalise their actions by saying "this is just who I am and people will have to accept that". Most of what people know about psychopaths is just glamourised Hollywood tropism. Movies portray psychopathic villains as bloodthirsty tortured souls or are batshit insane, both of which are misconceptions. There are plenty of evil people out there with completely normal mental states, normal meaning fully functioning hypothalamus and amygdala, both of which are impaired in psychopaths. Plus, psychosis and psychopathy are not the same thing, even if they tend to overlap. Hollywood also tells you that psychopaths are geniuses, when the reality is that on average, psychopaths are actually pretty dumb. Keep in mind that just because they have brain disorders and typically don't know better, that doesn't justify their bad behaviour. 

Another thing psychopaths are known for is lying. When a psychopath becomes aware of their affliction, they will try their damnedest to hide it from others. They will be cool and calm, tell some jokes, put on a noticeably fake smile, all of that to hide their instability. They're also pathological liars, and can form cover stories as they go along. One thing to note is that whilst psychopaths regularly lie, they're also kinda bad at it. It's easy to catch them in a standard lie, since they don't carefully plan them out if they're making it all up right then and there, and you can pick up on some discrepancies that contradict something they said. That's why sociopaths aren't psychopaths as many people would confuse. A sociopath would be upfront with what they're like, and they were socialised to be the way they are. Psychopaths are worse off than sociopaths, since their mental state is natural and can't be fixed, only treated, but sociopaths are more prone to violence than psychopaths, since their violent impulses come much more unpredictably and they have very short fuses. Psychopaths have specific triggers. Not like shell shocked people, but they have a specific type of tick that causes them to lose their shit. However, once their episode is done, they'll resume as if nothing happened. Also, contrary to popular belief, psychopaths and sociopaths are capable of empathy, but very little of it and it tends to be selective. 

What about their patterns of violence? This is usually the defining difference between sociopaths and psychopaths. Sociopaths are volatile and destructive and don't care about the mess they made. Psychopaths on the other hand hate sloppiness and will make sure no one sees what they've done. Psychopaths don't bathe in their victims' blood (unless you're Richard Chase but I digress), they don't make sunglasses out of fingernails, they don't do anything of that sort. Sorry Hannibal Lecter :/. In fact, DC Comics's Joker is a prime example of the mislabeling of a psychopath. Whilst he meticulously plans out his schemes, his volatility and impulsion ultimately makes him cross over into sociopath territory. Sure he's insane, unlike most people with APD, but he's still a sociopath nonetheless. But what if you're dealing with someone who's just plain evil? Well, for starters, "evil" isn't really a medical term, and is simply an adjective. No therapist or mental hospital is gonna diagnose someone as evil. If someone is just pure evil and shows no signs of APD or psychopathy or sociopathy, then their mental state is normal. People like Hitler and Bashar Al-Assad are what we consider evil since they don't exhibit psychopathic tendencies and have/had clear reasons for what they do/did. Being a murderer or criminal doesn't automatically make you a psychopath, as I mentioned before. I could easily say that the members of ISIS and the KKK are psychopaths, but I'd be wrong. 

One thing that may freak you out is that the general population exhibits plenty of psychopathic traits. We've all lied to cover our arses, we've all thought of violence or committed it, but that doesn't mean we're mentally unstable and are bound to destroy a nursing home or whatever. People aren't perfect after all. 

The last thing I wanna talk about is the concept of remorse, which psychopaths apparently are incapable of. This is also a misconception. Psychopaths can feel remorse for what they do, but the level of remorse they feel is not enough to create full on guilt, especially since they never fully realise the gravity of their actions. They'll treat breaking a person's arm as if they accidentally bumped into them, for example. Either that or they'll blame you for it, even if it wasn't your fault. I'm not trying to scare people into thinking that psychopaths are all over the place, because they're not. The world population of psychopaths is around 1%, and you'll likely have run into one of these folks at least once on the street and just don't know it yet. That might sound contradictory, but the fact is that Hollywood has planted seeds in your head that warp reality about these people just to get you to buy a ticket about some guy who launches nuclear missiles at people when he hears the word "chicken". 

So what false facts about psychopaths did you believe? Did this help your perception of them? Do you now feel like you can properly identify one? Psychopathy is still a mental health issue, let's not let the movies force that out of our minds. The better we understand something, the more effective we'd be at dealing with it.