Justin - Don't reduce Anne Frank to a 'Belieber'...

So... Justin put this in the guestbook at the Anne Frank House:

"Truly inspiring to be able to come here. Anne was a great girl. Hopefully she would have been a belieber."

As someone who has been to the Anne Frank House and also signed the guestbook, I wanted to say a few things on the matter.

I also just want to say, I understand people who are saying his comments make her relatable to his young fans today - yes, maybe, but surely he could've just said about her age? Isn't that enough? Why does he have to directly link her with them? I've tried to think of other ways he could say it, relating her to his fans, but they still would sound so self-centred if they were coming from him.

And to the people saying "well people are talking about Anne Frank now, maybe his fans will read about her."

1. Anne Frank is more admired than Justin Bieber
2. Anne Frank is studied in schools across the world
3. Anne Frank has had countless documentaries made about her
4. Anne Frank's writing may go over the heads of some Bieber fans (mainly the ones that scream death threats at anyone who goes near their beloved Justin).

I know for a fact that if I have kids, I will teach them about Anne Frank, her family & the struggles of everyone who suffered during the Holocaust.

I will not be teaching them about Justin Bieber.

Dear Daily Mail (WARNING - I'm being all political..!)

Ok. So I hate this paper, but due to the outrageous and crap articles it publishes, it often ends up on my Facebook news feed. This one I just couldn't ignore and am writing an open letter to the editor.

Here goes....

Dear Mr Dacre,

Can I just ask what was going through your mind when you approved this article?

"Michael Philpott is a perfect parable for our age: His story shows the pervasiveness of evil born out of welfare dependency" by A. N. Wilson.

I am aware of the Daily Mail's viewpoint on the welfare system (and it's idea of 'journalism'), but this story is most certainly not a "perfect parable for our age" - it is the sad story of a seriously messed-up couple who killed six children whilst trying to frame someone for attempted murder. A. N. Wilson is using those deaths to push a political agenda by painting all those on welfare with the same brush as those parents. Words fail me.

To steal a brilliant quote from another letter to you, posted on the thread in which I first saw this article:

"At the time of the Shipman murders, did you suggest that he was representative of the dangers of General Practice? Of course not."

So why do you say the Philpotts are the "prefect parable"? Kids I grew up with grew up on the benefits system (and in the few council flats Thatcher didn't manage to sell-off) and now they're all hard-working members of the public, paying taxes. Yeah, you read that correctly - working and PAYING TAXES. Something some of the more wealthy members of our society don't seem to do very well...

But anyway, you say that his dependency on the welfare system made him do this? Well what did the judge think about that?

"Jurors were also told that Philpott may have hoped to obtain a bigger council house, but Mrs Justice Thirlwall said welfare dependency had not caused him to kill." BBC News

Well I think that answers my question. Then again, what does a judge with years of experience of dealing with criminals have compared with a sensationalist journalist with an agenda? Hmm...

In my humble opinion, this was a man who liked sex and being in control. He lived with 2 women and controlled them, their bodies and all their finances. He had kids with both. In fact, this was over a custody battle with his mistress who moved out, taking her kids with her. And before you all go "it was because of the money!", no. It wasn't over the benefit money she was taking from him - he didn't like that she had stood up to him and told him where to stick it, taking his kids and her body with her. He lost control over her and access to his kids and didn't like it. It damaged his pride.

He was angry at what she had done so wanted to do something about it. They wanted to get those kids back and get back at her at the same time. They wanted to frame her and blame her for the fire so they could get their kids back, but they screwed it up and ended up killing 6 of their kids in the process. Now they've been found guilty and will likely be locked away for a long time to prevent them from doing anything else stupid and harming more innocent people.

This guy wasn't evil, he was selfish, stupid and controlling. He was willing to put his kids' lives at risk to frame someone for arson & attempted murder because that person said no to him. He didn't think for one second that he might not be able to rescue the kids inside and neither did his wife or the guy that helped them.

To blame this mess of a man on the welfare system is bloody stupid. There are plenty of controlling men & women higher up in the world who hate it when anyone says no to them. There are plenty of murders over affairs and people leaving one another in all walks of life - it's not just restricted to those on benefits.

This pilot supposedly murdered his ex-wife because she wouldn't give him any of her money thanks to a prenup - should all people married to pilots be worried? Oh, but wait, that must have been a one-off - only those living off of benefits are greedy to the point of killing, aren't they?

Seriously, stop using the tragic deaths of six kids to push forward your own agenda with some thin link and a thin veil of "yes it was a good idea, but look what happens when you just give them money..."

You know why we give them money? So they don't die. So they don't go hungry. So they don't freeze to death in the freakishly cold weather we've been having recently. Yes there are cases where people are just trying to get cash, but benefit fraud accounts for only 0.7% of the money spent on welfare. Most people genuinely need the help. A house with central heating is better than dealing with famine, yes - but what's the point if you can't afford to turn it on? In fact, your own site said that the death toll from the recent cold weather could reach 2500, mostly the elderly on pensions, which makes up the biggest chunk of benefits spending, but we don't see you having a go at the elderly do you? No, because even your readers would turn on you then.

The benefits system is not perfect (especially now thanks to all the cuts), and not everyone on benefits is an upstanding citizen, but neither are all middle class or rich people; there are people who do bad and stupid things no matter what class they are in or how much money they have. Stop vilifying everyone on benefits when most people are just using them to get by and make sure they have a roof over their heads.

Stick to what you're best at: putting up lots of paparazzi-snapped pictures of scantily clad females with creepy captions (even the young ones), and endless pointless celebrity stories.

Regards,

Ellen Rose

----

(ok.... the last bit was a bit snappy, but, come on, it's the Daily Mail...)


----

Edit: Was thinking this over a lot and I just wanted to add an extra important piece of information: you know all the poor people who aren't the most reputable members of society? The anti-social? The drug dealers? The threatening? You know who has to deal with them more than any other part of society? Other poor people - the poor who are just trying to get by and are stuck in a situation. Everyone likes to have a go at those on welfare when they're the ones who are most likely to live next to the extreme cases that end up on Jeremy Kyle.

Be careful what you Tweet....

Ok... So I posted a tweet today that I thought pointed out something interesting. 

The latest "Becoming YouTube", Girls on YouTube, caused a bit of a stir as it seemed to suggest that there just weren't as many girls out there making videos. It actually opens with the question "Why do you think more girls don't do YouTube?" - the assumption is there for all to see and this idea continues throughout the whole thing.

I won't go into details as I already made a response to it (you can see it here), but, in preparation for a shout-out video for some fellow ladies, I went back to the channel and noticed something interesting.

Some channels have a "Featured Channels" list. I don't personally have one at the moment as I currently prefer to do shout-outs in videos or tweet videos to my followers. However, it is something I'm considering adding at some point - it paints an interesting picture, showing who people like to be associated with and who they like to promote, so I decided to look at the one for the home of Becoming YouTube to see if there was a reason why they thought fewer girls did YouTube than in actuality.

Maybe there was a reason. 

I noticed that ALL of the Featured Channels on the page, were male.

I thought this was intriguing & decided to share this with my followers & mention Benjamin Cook to point out to him what I had seen. My tweet was:

Now, I am restricted character-wise by Twitter. Also, just because you read something on Twitter in one way, doesn't mean that's what the writer meant.

After watching the BYT episode, I got the impression that Ben was hugely underestimating just how many girls are out there making good videos. Now, in my tweet I said "any girls" because I was addressing that there weren't any girls in his featured channels.

When Benjamin read it, he assumed I thought he thought there weren't any girls on YouTube. He bombarded me with tweets & told me to stop "spreading lies". I apologised, as I phrased it that way because I was focusing on the channels list, not saying he'd said that, that I was exaggerating to point out something about that list. I pointed this out again later in a tweet, just in case anyone else had missed it.

It became a huge mess of tweets that I lost track of, some of his tweets to me disappeared/have since been deleted & I just stopped replying to him because I didn't want to get into a heated argument & he became extremely rude and patronising (and I was starting to slip into being that too). Nothing I was going to say was going to reassure him that I didn't actually think that and that you can't take every tweet at face-value. All he said about the list was that "you have the same number of girls in yours" - yes, none, the same number as boys in my list, because I don't have one as I just promote in-video instead. Anyone reading only his tweet would think I was a hypocrite with a boys-only list like his. I'm not. I don't have ANYONE on my list, at least not at this moment in time.

Anyway, Benjamin, I'm sorry it came across that I was "spreading lies". I wasn't, honestly. My followers hopefully knew exactly what I meant as they should've already watched your BYT video and my response video to it. I was just restricted by Twitter character-limits and made an exaggerated tongue-in-cheek statement as a commentary on the list to make a point (maybe girls aren't seen much because people don't promote them as much). That was a mistake as it came across like I was just being rude about you & I will make sure to spell stuff out a bit better in future so that no one gets the wrong idea from my tweets. I wasn't having a go at you, or trying to start an argument either, I was just interested to see what you'd say about your featured channels, that's why I @ mentioned you.

I would've tweeted this all to you btw, as I wanted to come back a little while after I left our 'conversation' & apologise if I came across like a mean-spirited cowbag in my original and subsequent tweets, but I can't, because you've blocked me. I'd understand you doing this if I'd hounded you with tweets, but I didn't; I walked away, you hounded me (and have since deleted many of your more patronising and rude tweets to me). Oh well. Sorry anyway - hope I didn't upset you too much. I honestly wasn't trying to be a bitch to a stranger online.


Anyway, let this be a lesson to everyone on Twitter - be VERY careful with what you tweet because, without context & not knowing you, people might not know when you're being tongue-in-cheek and think you're just being rude. Then, they might get offended and have a go at you. Similarly, don't take every tweet at face-value - someone may be joking, being sarcastic or exaggerating for effect.

Ya gotta love Twitter...

Boy v Girl Google Searches

Sometimes Google searches can really show how amazing Internet users can be...or how bad the sex education system is in certain countries.

No, men don't have periods, and no a boy and girl can't be identical twins...

It also shows what people want to know about each other and themselves. Girls want to know if boys like them in general, boys want to know if girls like their body parts.

My favourite is "how many". With boys it's all to do with how many boys there are in the world or were born into the world. With girls, it's how many you've slept with. Lovely. Although, I think this is as much an example of the pressure some men feel to sleep with girls to be seen as 'cool', as well as an example of women being seen as objects to sleep with.

Blehhhhhhh

You know when YouTubers say, "I did create a video, but it sucked / didn't come out as well as I thought it would, so I'm starting all over again from scratch"?

Yeah. I'm doing that right now.

Is Gaming Sexist?

Heylo!

For those of you who don't know, I was on a livestream discussion with Truthloader about gaming and whether it is "sexist".

The guests were myself, Hannah from the Yogscast (aka lomadia) and Adam Sessler from Rev3Games.

Do give it a watch if you have a spare 30 mins. It was a good discussion and I actually wish it could've gone on a little longer..!

I did hear concerns that this could devolve into an anti-man rant, but it really doesn't so don't worry! You'll be pleasantly surprised.

Thanks again to Truthloader for inviting me onto such an interesting debate.

Should whoever came up with "The Replacer" be replaced...?

Ok, so people may know me as a gamer who isn't a big fan of the sexism we can sometimes find in the industry. Well guess my reaction when I first saw this last week:

The Replacer, played by Peter Stormare, explains that he is there to fill-in for MW3 multiplayer players as they'll be spending all their time playing the new maps, fighting zombies and playing with a new gun. 

What does he do in your place? To list a few things: sit with your wife whilst she gives birth, go on a blind date with a fat girl, try and assemble furniture, chat women up at work whilst being an arse to your boss, and listen to your nan moan at you for never coming to visit anymore. Basically, he does a load of things a man "should" be doing.

Now, I could go on about how sexist this is in terms of how there is no female Replacer for the many female fans of the COD series (I'd suggest Jane Lynch), or that they missed a hilarious comedic opportunity for the Replacer to go on a girl's-night-out in place of a female player. Female COD players already put up with not having a female avatar to play as (not a pre-requisite for many female gamers, but it would be a nice touch), and here in the advert we don't see them depicted AT ALL. This is in stark contrast to the marketing for the main game a few months ago, where we see iJustine blowing s**t up with the boys. Here women are represented as angry, moaning or looking down at the silly man who can't build a bookcase. You could see how I could go on a big rant about this whole thing...

However, I'm not. Probably because despite the ad's flaws, Stormare is funny. I particularly love the monkey bit, which I think makes the whole advert and stopped me from raging after seeing the others (mainly because it doesn't involve a woman being annoyed or chatted up).

My main problem is the old joke of gamers as men who are irresponsible and would jump at the chance to avoid doing things they need to do in real life, just so they can play their precious games, often leaving women behind to deal with the consequences.

Now, gamers can laugh at it knowing that not all gamers are like that. The advert is tongue-in cheek really; laughing at a stereotype (at least I hope...I may be giving Activision's marketing team more credit than they're due, but hey let's be optimistic here). But people who don't play games...? They'll look at this and think: "OH THE GAMES INDUSTRY IS ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO LEAVE THEIR LIVES BEHIND TO PLAY THIS GAME! LET'S BAN GAMES!!"

I think we just have to be careful when marketing games, with games such as COD, as it could reinforce all the wrong kinds of stereotypes to people who don't know much about gaming (or much at all...). Shooter-style games are under a lot of scrutiny at the moment due to recent tragedies, and depicting male gamers as those who shut themselves away from real life to shoot at pixellated people is exactly the sort of thing Fox News & Co would like to grab and sensationalise. 

The Replacer is a funny idea, but I do think there could've been a better way to market this DLC and a better gender representation (for both sides) might be a start. To anyone thinking of commenting: How do you think it could've been marketed differently? What was your opinion when you first saw the advert? I'd be interested to know.

Btw, if anyone does need a Replacer to put their self-assembly furniture together for them, give me a buzz. I put every single piece of furniture in my room together. By myself. Even when it suggested 2 people. Hardcore.

They're all still standing too - knock on wood! Well...veneer covered MDF...



EDIT: I originally had John Abruzzi (the role Peter Stormare played in Prison Break) written down because I thought it was funny, because that character is someone you really don't want to fill in for you. Should've clarified that in my writing though, as some didn't realise I was making a joke and corrected me. I have since changed it to avoid any confusion and to make sure focus is on topic rather than a reference. And thanks to people for telling me what happens to him...I haven't got that far yet...

Change of layout!

I decided that reading white text on a black background was the worst idea ever that I should've learnt from during my 14-yr-old Livejournal days, so I have changed my blog layout slightly. Now it's off-white text on a dark grey background and it's startling the difference it makes... Also have gone from pinks to yellows to match my YouTube channel page.

Anyway, hopefully people will be able to read my posts without getting a huge headache from now on.

I'm not sure about the background (just a Blogger one). Might see if someone can make a cool new one for me instead...

Anyway, I'm off. To have a shower. 'cause I smell.

BYE!

Thanks for the views, 4chan!

Well I've heard of these things happening before to many people, and now they've come to my channel! Bless.

Seriously, if you get loads of hate all at once, it's probably because of something like this. Don't get upset over it - it's pathetic stuff, really. These are people with a lot of time on their hands and a lot of hate inside them that, instead of dealing with it and reaching an exciting new chapter in their life, they throw at other people to make themselves feel better. I really do think they all just need a hug. In this case, maybe a hug from a girl...

This is the link to the thread:
http://archive.foolz.us/v/thread/171051985/#171051985

This is the video they had such a problem with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GISjqP6fpw

And, in case it disappears, here are some screenshots I took so they can't blame Reddit. LOLZ.

Little fishy took the bait... ^-^

Well it seems my little plan worked...

When I first saw some of the comments left by a certain pair, I wanted to share my "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA are you seriously still on my channel?! Grow up." reaction with the world. When I first saw the comments there was a feeling of pure disbelief - were they seriously still trying to bug people after all this time? Are they really that bitter? Do they have nothing better to do...? It was bloody hilarious.

So I thought I'd make a video to paint a picture of how ridiculous the whole thing was and how stupid they were making themselves look - the lies, the threats, the hole-digging. It was just so funny to me and the prefect opportunity to show how being a cyberbully just makes you look like an arse. It would be my final word on the matter to say, "just give it up, you look really silly", but hopefully said in a more eloquent and humorous fashion.

BUT, instead of just making a video, I thought I'd turn the whole thing into an experiment - a game, if you will. I wanted to see if I was right, to see if they were indeed just stalking my channel after all this time to leave stupid little comments to try and "scare" or "bully" me off of YouTube. 

To do this, when I made my video, I did not tag them or include their names in the title or description - I made sure not to even say their names. The only use of their names was in the screenshots, which I was using as evidence and didn't want them to turn around and go "NER THAT WASN'T US! THAT COULD BE ANYONE!" if it was just text. It was something unavoidable, but also put there so they would know I was actually talking about them (seeing as they don't recall half the comments they leave online...).

Basically, I tried to make it so that the only way they would come across is it by following my YouTube channel, Twitter or Facebook, and the only way they would know it was about them is if they watched the video. If I got a reaction, they were proving me right. If I didn't get a reaction, then they'd got bored and moved on. Either way, I'd be happy.

Well, I signed into YouTube today to find a little message in my inbox. I double-checked the username and found it has been previously linked to him several times (I thought no one would be so stupid as to use a username so similar to a banned account, but hey...). It seems little fishy took the bait...!

My favourite part is when he calls me "troll bait" - the irony ^-^

A few things..:

• I'm far from upset - I found the whole thing bloody hilarious!

• I'm sorry, but I already played a little game, and you played along beautifully...

• I don't care if I give someone more views by pointing out that they're acting like a spoilt child - views aren't everything, and if someone really wants to watch her videos, or subscribe to her because they like her videos or are just curious about them, then they can - that's fine by me (although I doubt she'll gain subscribers from my shining review...). And thank YOU for the views, as you must have watched my video to know I was talking about you.

• "Troll bait" (in my humble opinion) is someone who reacts extremely angrily to trolls provoking them over pointless things. Your comments may be pointless, but - I hate to spell it out for you (again) - I wasn't reacting angrily. I was actually making fun of you...

• I know what butthurt means, genius. But, butthurt is said to be derived from getting forcefully screwed in the rear, much like idiots say they "raped" someone if they beat them in a game. A couple of people have told me it's to do with spanking, but the first 'origin' is the explanation I've come across the most online, so many people must use it with that meaning. Either way it's a stupid word used by people to try and take focus off of themselves or their weak argument, by going "U JUST MAD I WON - NERRR", when actually the other person won ages ago and already went home with the trophy.

• You could make a video, yes - but then YouTube will know for sure that you're using that account and ban that channel too...

• It's "you have made no sense whatsoever" (yes, the last bit is all one word). I had to read that twice to work out what the hell you were saying. Again, the irony...

• Also I like the really vague threat - I think the "Oh, and if you dare threaten me again, I will involve the police." line in the video description stopped you from being more specific. It also shows how brave you are that you sent it in a private message. It's easier to deny if only one person sees it, who you can then accuse of photoshopping any screenshots; the thing is, due to our differing behaviour, lots of people actually trust me and not many people trust you.

Anyway, thanks for reacting in the exact way I thought you would and proving me right. I've said all I have to say on this whole situation and will say nothing more (and I mean it this time, it's not just me baiting you again). I've had my fun. ^-^

Heed my words and grow up. If you were mature you would've ignored my video - in fact, you wouldn't have even seen it because you wouldn't have been stalking the account of someone who said something mean about your videos 10 months ago.

Feel free to scream and shout all you want, but it will do nothing. I will, however, put up any threats, stupid comments or whinging I receive from you onto the end of this post as evidence of your outstanding behaviour.

Oh, and...

___________________________________________________________________________

I didn't block him straight away because I wanted to see if he would leave lots of angry comments. He did. Thanks! Now I can report you to YouTube!