Return to Very Few Apologies


Yes. Dr. Ciftci is a man who is accused of the crime of tweeting images showing Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and Gollum in similar positions "eating, expressing surprise and amazement", clearly an act with real potential to be an utter atrocity. It's a good thing the judicial process is underway to put a stop to this sort of population-threatening mayhem. So the question that must be answered: is this an insult to the President? And the answer.....


"A Turkish court has asked experts to assess the character Gollum from The Lord of the Rings... The experts will be a group composed of two academics, two behavioural scientists or psychologists and an expert on cinema and television productions"


That's right. A panel of experts, including the highly specialized position of "academic", has been convened by the Turkish government to study in excruciating detail the ficticious character of Gollum. You may be wondering, amongst other small factors, why form a panel of experts for such a thing? Well, sadly...


"The judge took the decision after admitting he had not seen the whole of the Lord of the Rings series in which Gollum features."


Shame on you judge. But at least you had the sage wisdom to consult the experts for such a grave matter.


But wait!! The plot thickens....



You read it right!! In a monumental development it turns out that the pictures did not actually feature Gollum alongside the Turkish President but Gollum's benign alter ego, Smeagol. How will the panel of experts deal with this unexpected development!!? It seems that, according to Lord of the Rings director and producer Peter Jackosn, Dr.Ciftci was actually referring to Erdogan as a "joyful" and "sweet" character. I can't argue with that analysis. That's exactly how I would describe a man who thinks it's reasonable to imprison another man for comparing him to a fictional character in a series of fantasy movies that have absolutely no even remote semblance to real life. The case has now been adjourned until February presumably to give the panel of experts sufficient time to deal with these riveting developments.


Look, yes, a mass shooting and likely terrorist attack on our own soil is important, but it's about time we had a new development in the "shaming" movement. Perhaps the most confusing part of the shaming movement is whether or not shaming is a good thing or a bad thing. For example, "body shaming", i.e. making fun of somebody's selfie that they post publicly on the internet, is a huge no-no. The right for people of all shapes and sizes to post pictures of themselves on the world wide web without getting any negative feedback is something my generation is willing to fight for. A truly noble cause, indeed. People who are mean should be censored. Body shaming is "bad." 


This new one, however, is "prayer shaming." And it is "good." Politicians who oppose gun control but offer thoughts and prayers to victims of gun violence are shamed for their supposed hipocrasy. Though one could argue that the only way a prayer could be hypocritical is if the individual is a self-procliamed absolute atheist, the point remains: because that politician has not supported gun control, a "good" thing, they must be shamed in the public sphere for offering condolescenses to the families of the dead. And in all honesty, they should probably be censored. Case in point:


That's right. Look out for that truly influential $2,000 contribution.


Look, this piece of writing isn't to debate gun control; I personally think it's idiotic for anyone to argue that we shouldn't have basic background and mental health checks for an individual who wishes to purchase a deadly firearm, particularly because the people arguing against those checks are generally perfectly capable of passing those sorts of tests.


My point is this: the "shaming" movement and the ideology behind it is also idiotic. What the fuck do we even mean? We assume we always have the higher moral ground? Stop this! Stop making fun of this person! You can't say that! That's offensive!! That doesn't align with our views, and our views are for the greater good, and so yours should be censored. Motherfuckers, free speech means you're gonna have to hear some offensive and idiotic shit. You don't have to like it, and you can argue against it, and if you're ready to actually think, you can probably win those arguments. But the fact that contingents within my generation are willing to give up part of this freedom just to block out words and views they don't like is absolutely incredible, and honestly terrifying. So you know what? Shame on you you shaming motherfuckers.




While the intial debate of why anyone gives a flying fuck about what the sprawling clan of multi-last-named Kardashians are doing at any given time continues, a new development has surfaced. Kylie Jenner, in another move in her continual low key war to usurp Kim from the throne, has posed for a model shoot in a wheelchair. And not just any wheelchair: a GOLD wheelchair. See below for more details on the "able-bodied" star:

Look, I don't have a lot to say here, because I'm sorry if this made people who actually have to use wheelchairs feel shitty. That sucks, honestly. But my point in these kinds of posts is to point out the utter absurdity that our society is increasingly gravitating towards. Let's step back and think about these things as if we were looking in from the outside... Case in point, that some random 18 year old girl from a family famous for a sex tape, marrying a hip hop mogul, Olympic athletics 30 years ago, a shit ass TV show on a shit ass TV channel, and most recently a transgender father, is capable of making the news for sparking national outrage by sitting in a fucking wheelchair and having her picture taken. A GOLD wheelchair, sorry. You couldn't write more absurd shit in a fictional story. Fuck me if this what it's come to. 




my . artist run website