Amy Schumer butthurt over teen's twitter joke
If you are a vulgar comedian who makes a living by being "edgy" and "insulting" you need to learn how to take a joke. Men typically are funnier and can take jokes better than women. I think it is because we men have a tradition of insulting each other in a friendly fashion. We learn to toughen up and give it back. Women like Amy get butthurt and offended.
Movie critic Jackson Murphy, who is only 17 years-old, tweeted out an obvious joke Monday morning, and a joke that is very much in keeping with Amy Schumer’s bawdy brand of comedy. Proving that with unearned fame comes a brittle diva attitude, rather than laugh along or ignore it, Schumer chose instead to publicly humiliate the teenager.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/01/18/diva-amy-schumer-cant-take-a-joke-humiliates-17-year-old-film-critic/
Kid started out pretty funny.
But then apologized.
Yes, Amy. You are a whore. And you aren't even funny. Just like Sarah Silverman. I don't get why those female "comediennes" get so much attention. I don't find them funny. Women are not funny.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the old saying?
ReplyDelete"You treat a whore like a princess; and, you treat a princess like a whore".
Another saying rings loud here: "The truth hurts".
She's an entitled bitch but he is a pathetic pushover. We seem to be breeding a generation of cucks who don't know how to stand up for themselves.
ReplyDeleteNot only isn't she funny, but she's seriously unattractive, with a face that increasingly resembles that of John C. Reilly.
ReplyDeleteJackson's tweet was pretty funny. Well done, kid. But don't apologize.
Victim culture has led to something like an aristocracy.
ReplyDeleteAristocrats were BORN to favored status. Just on the basis of blood lineage, they were deemed superior to the rabble and deserving of privilege and power. Even if they didn't do anything positive, they were part of a superior breed. They could be vain, wasteful, indulgent, abusive, and vile. But no matter how they acted, they had superior status over everyone else because of their blood lineage.
Well, that kind of aristocracy is long gone.
But we have the same logic in what might called the AGGRIEVE-TOCRACY or Aggrievtocracy. Just because some of your ancestors were victimized or oppressed for a certain period many generations ago, you get to act morally superior toward everyone else.
Even if you're a lout, punk, moron, thug, bum, or total idiot, YOU ARE SPECIAL simply by the virtue of having been born with the noble blood of past 'aggrievement'
So never mind that you're infantile, stupid, puerile, irresponsible, thuggish, criminal, and/or a menace to society. You can claim superiority simply on the basis that you carry the blood of past suffering..
Long long ago, the warrior class of noblemen fought to defend their domain and the people in it. Since they fought bravely and made sacrifices, a system developed whereupon their descendants were to inherit noble privilege forever and ever. And this privilege didn't just pass onto brave and honorable children but to craven and cowardly children as well. Just because the first breed of warriors fought bravely, all their descendants for all time were supposed to be consecrated with noble blood.
Likewise, just because a certain people were oppressed in the past, the blood of all their descendants are supposed to be consecrated forever with the holiness of noble suffering. So, it doesn't matter if the descendants no longer suffer and, if anything, do wrong onto others with bad behavior, trashiness, obscenity, criminality, and rampages.
In some ways, the logic of aggrievtocracy is worse than that of the aristocracy.
While it is true that the descendants of aristocrats inherited privilege simply by being born with noble blood, they also inherited the responsibilities of warrior-hood and good governance. Even though some aristocratic children turned out to be loutish brats, many did honor their responsibilities, and many gave their lives in war to defend the domain. And some lived up to the principle of noblesse oblige. So, aristocrats were born with privilege and obligations.
In contrast, the aggrievtocracy is about being with the privilege of complaint and moral upmanship without any obligation to one's fellow man or woman whatsoever.
A nobleman or aristocrat was born superior but also burdened with responsibilities to demonstrate his superiority in battle and governance.
In contrast, the aggrievtocrat can feel better than everyone else without any sense of obligation on his part to fix his own problems or care about other people.
DeleteIn America, not only blacks with slave ancestry get to play the aggrievtocrat but even black African immigrants whose ancestors captured and sold slaves to whites. Obama hasn't any black American slave blood --- his father's side is Kenyan --- , but he talks like any other black aggrievtocrat.
White Liberals may think they are doing a favor to blacks by upholding this aggrievtocratic principle, but it has only created more problems in the black community, usually in the form of black-on-black violence. Since every black American feels totally justified on the basis of past history, he or she is incapable of any self-reflection or moral self-examination. Every black person, man and woman, thinks he or she is totally right all the time on the basis of his or her noble aggrievtocratic blood. So, naturally, there is a lot of black-on-black violence. Every black person, on the basis of his or her noble-victim-blood, thinks he or she is never ever wrong.
To be sure, blacks are naturally wilder and more aggressive, but the culture of aggrievtocracy makes them much worse.
All this BLM nonsense is the product of the aggrievetocratic mindset. In actual fact, most blacks are killed by other blacks. And there are tons of black-on-white violence, as well as black-on-brown, black-on-yellow, black-on-Arab violence.
But blacks are completely blind to their own foulness because they think their blood makes them naturally noble and morally superior.
Indeed, why make an effort to be good when you are said to be born with the superior blood of goodness?
Indeed, a black guy can become a thug rapper and sing awful garbage, but the Liberal media will treat him like a poet and prophet spouting the most amazing sermon.
Or a total idiot like Tahenesi Coates can babble on and on something that makes little sense, but the Liberal community will shower him with praise and treat him like a genius and prophet because he was born with black blood, or the noble blood of black victimhood.
The culture of aggrievtocracy + naturally disposition of blacks toward aggression + lower IQ among American blacks(though not necessarily among Nigerian blacks) = worsening racial problems with the black underclass.
PS: Aggrievtocracy is even crazier among Jews. At least, many blacks can still make the case that they are faced with economic problems and hardships, even if much of it is caused by themselves.
In contrast, Jews are, bar none, the most powerful and privileged people on earth. And yet, all Jews everywhere think they are holy and noble simply because certain populations of European Jews were killed in huge numbers during WWII.
So, even the likes of Jordan Befort and Anthony Wiener think they have some right to feel superior to the rest of us.
Idk who this Jackson kid is, but if he wasn't such a cuck, he could easily pass for ramzpaul's illegitimate son.
ReplyDeleteFunny joke, Ramzpaul. Most Hollywood actresses would need it explained to them.
ReplyDeleteThe verification program does have a practical goal. Twitter brims with bogus or parody accounts. So when customers are sifting by a listing of opportunity usernames, it helps to have signals that will help locate the true individual they need to follow. twitter verification
ReplyDelete