The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Truth Wins, Feminists Lose

Posted on | January 25, 2016 | 102 Comments

 

In 2012, Canadian feminist Stephanie Guthrie (@amirightfolks on Twitter) decided to ruin Greg Elliott’s life, because (a) she didn’t like him and (b) he disagreed with her. Friday, after subjecting Mr. Elliott to a three-year ordeal, Ms. Guthrie’s destructive vendetta reached its final conclusion of failure in a Toronto courtroom:

Gregory Alan Elliott was cleared of two charges of criminal harassment that stemmed from his Twitter interactions with two Toronto women’s rights activists. Judge Brent Knazan’s lengthy decision dwelled on both the nature of Twitter and freedom of expression in a ruling that is among the first in Canada.
Elliott was cleared, in part, because — though the judge noted his words were sometimes “insulting and homophobic” — his tweets were not considered overtly sexually or physically threatening.
Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly accused Elliott of harassment partly based on his use of hashtags — a word, acronym or phrase after a number symbol used to create trackable conversations — they used. It was an assertion the judge found contrary to the open nature of Twitter. He said the pair may have felt harassed, but he couldn’t prove Elliott knew they felt that way, nor did the content of his tweets include explicitly threatening language.
Knazan also discussed the link between Twitter and freedom of expression. People must “tolerate the annoyance” of oppositional views as part of that Charter right,
“Freedom of expression represents society’s commitment to tolerate the annoyance of being confronted by unacceptable views…One man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric,” he said, quoting from Robert Sharpe and Kent Roach’s book the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The judge also noted a lack of “reasonableness” in Guthrie’s assertion she could expect to use Twitter to make negative comments about Elliott and not be exposed to his response or self defence.

This is an important ruling because there is no First Amendment in Canada. Americans are prone to take free speech and freedom of the press for granted, and thus have been slow to recognize the menace to liberty posed by feminism (a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It). Feminists are notoriously intolerant of criticism, and have effectively prohibited opposition in academia, where Lawrence Summers was purged from the presidency of Harvard University in 2006 after he dared to suggest there are “innate differences” between men and women.

Having obtained hegemonic authority in academia, feminists are endeavoring to silence opposition to their radical agenda in every other venue. The persecution of Greg Elliott as a scapegoat was clearly intended to make an example of him, a form of terroristic intimidation using the power of government to crush him, so as to send a message: “Disagree with a feminist, and this will happen to you, too.”

Greg Elliott’s victory in Canada is important. Toronto Post columnist Christine Blatchford remarks of the ruling:

He was acquitted, not, the judge was at pains to point out, because he didn’t find Guthrie and Reilly credible when they testified they felt harassed and were genuinely fearful, but because that fear was unreasonable.

To fully explain how the case developed would require more space than I want to devote to it, but basically it’s this: In 2012, Guthrie was looking for someone to design a logo for her Toronto feminist group. Elliott, a graphic artist, sought the contract and met for dinner with Guthrie to discuss the project. Evidence indicates that, after meeting with Guthrie, Elliott developed a romantic interest in her, but she had a boyfriend. Elliot did not get the contract, but Guthrie continued friendly communications with him. However, to quote the judge’s ruling:

In the meantime . . . Ms. Guthrie had researched some of Mr. Elliott’s tweets. She concluded that opinions he had expressed showed that his philosophy was not compatible with her organization and that they could not use his skills. . . .
Ms. Guthrie testified that she was not being entirely honest in her courteous emails and tweets to Mr. Elliott. She testified that she feared him from the time she had dinner with him — as being “creeped out” is a kind of fear — but that she was wrestling with her feelings given that women are criticized when they express them.

There is no evidence that Guthrie ever explained her attitude to Elliott. Any man experienced in dealing with women in business can probably relate to Elliott’s predicament. Sometimes, a woman will exhibit unexplained hostility and any attempt to resolve the mystery — “Hey, why didn’t you answer my email?” — is futile, because this is just the way some women are. They do not differentiate between their personal feelings (e.g., Guthrie feeling “creeped out” by Elliott) and practical considerations of business life (e.g., the value of Elliott’s skill as an artist). And if a woman like that decides she hates you, she never bothers to explain why she hates you.

Elliott did not cope well with Guthrie’s mysterious behavior. Feminists use the phrase “male entitlement” to describe the attitude of a man who, failing to read a woman’s mind, continues to talk to her after she decides she hates him. The guy who fails to take a hint — however subtle the hint may be — is apt to be labeled a “stalker” or “harasser” if he continues talking to a woman who hates him. In his mind, he is doing nothing wrong, but he fails to realize that her hatred of him means everything he does is wrong. His mere existence offends her.

Once Stephanie Guthrie decided she hated Greg Elliott, the only “right” thing he could do was avoid her. Because she continued to be overtly courteous in her emails, however, Elliott did not realize the intensity of Guthrie’s hatred toward him. In July 2012, matters took a turn described in Judge Knazan’s ruling:

[Bendilin] Spurr, a young man from Sault St. Marie, Ont., put a video game on the internet that permitted players to punch a prominent American feminist [Anita Sarkeesian] in the face. It was graphic in its violence. Ms. Guthrie tweeted about it on July 6 as follows: “So, I found the Twitter account of that fuck listed as creator of the ‘punch a woman in the face’ game. Should I sic the internet on him?” . . .
Ms. Guthrie sent a tweet linking his local newspaper to a story about his work, and tweeted: “Sault Saint Marie employers, if you get a resume from @BendilinSpurr, he made a woman facepunching game…” She attached an article from the Huffington Post online site about the “sick” online game that invited users to beat up a virtual Anita Sarkeesian.
Everything happened rapidly at the moment that Ms. Guthrie says was the turning point. Mr. Elliott tweeted directly to Ms. Guthrie: “@amirightfolks He’s got 11 followers. Why bring attention to the guy? Media attention will only add to more ‘virtual face punching.’”
Mr. Elliott tweeted that it was revenge.
Ms. Guthrie replied, putting a period before Mr. Elliott’s handle: “.@greg_a_Elliott Because I think the Sault Ste Marie community should be aware there is a monster in their midst.”
The exchange was becoming heated, but was a logical and fair debate.
Ms. Guthrie had enough of Mr. Elliott, the discussion and his views. She tweeted to him: “@greg_a_elliott If you think it’s revenge, you’re not paying attention. I’ve had it with you [. . .]” She then blocked him from sending tweets to her.

Stephanie Guthrie decided to destroy Ben Spurr, Gregory Elliott objected to her attempt to “sic the Internet” on Spurr, and from that point onward, the conflict descended into online war. Guthrie and her comrade Heather Reilly filed harassment charges against Elliott, the prosecutor took the case seriously and thus began a three-year nightmare ordeal for Elliott. Lauren Southern concludes of the ruling:

Anyone following this case knows that Greg is only guilty of the crime of wrongthink. He was arrested for critically engaging with people who disagreed with him. It wasn’t any different from what people do on social media platforms every day. . . .
He never threatened anyone, and he never gave anyone reason to fear for their safety.
All he did was argue with people that hated him so much they demanded he be shut down.
I don’t believe Stephanie Guthrie or her cronies felt victimized for a second. We’re talking about people who have posted images of themselves drinking from mugs with “male tears” written on them, after all.
They wanted Elliott to pay for having challenged them, nothing more.

Exactly. The problem is that feminist monsters like Stephanie Guthrie have convinced themselves that anyone who disagrees with them is guilty of “the crime of wrongthink,” and that such a thought criminal has no rights at all. The beastly cruelty that Stephanie Guthrie displayed in her crusade to destroy Greg Elliott shows how feminism has become an ideology of hate that attracts paranoid fanatics who view their critics with a dehumanizing contempt.





 

Category: Canada, Sex Trouble

Comments

102 Responses to “Truth Wins, Feminists Lose”

  1. Dang
    January 26th, 2016 @ 8:36 am

    The photos of the two parties are great at showing what’s going on. The guy is happy and the female is not. Nor will she ever be. She has chosen a life of anger, depression and envy. He’s having a good day and that pisses her off. She’s chosen to be mentally ill. Sir, have a nice day. You’ve earned it.

  2. Canadian feminist loses in court attempting to ruin a man’s life
    January 26th, 2016 @ 8:41 am

    […] Rulings like this are always good news in the land of no first amendment. […]

  3. Squid Hunt
    January 26th, 2016 @ 8:47 am

    Anyone consider tar and feathering the prosecutor that took up the case?

  4. Fail Burton
    January 26th, 2016 @ 9:16 am

    “If you play a white supremacist on the Internet full time, you are, for all intents and purposes, a white supremacist.” – Cathy Young, “Donald Trump’s hate for political correctness is comfort food to racists,” Jan. 25, 2016

    Good point. Too bad she can’t see how much that applies to Third Wave Feminists. No matter what the cultural interest they always whine about straight white men first and foremost.

    It’s that failure across America to have lightbulbs go off in the first place that is the problem. TWFs are not “feminists”; they are supremacists. Those 700 gender studies classes across America are nothing more than a hate Madras in mullets.

  5. FromNJ
    January 26th, 2016 @ 9:26 am

    What a nightmare indeed. I love these SJWs who bombard us with their rhetoric, but the minute someone disagrees with them they cry harassment.

  6. Insanity
    January 26th, 2016 @ 9:54 am

    Feminist activists are among the most intolerant bigots that walk this earth. Small minded and vile.

  7. CrustyB
    January 26th, 2016 @ 12:14 pm

    I used to listen to Tracy Chapman but I’ve gotten over my suicidal period.

  8. Ilion
    January 26th, 2016 @ 12:37 pm

    What!? Her music is depression-inducing? And I never knew?
    Of course, I also didn’t really get some of her lyrics. For *years* I hears then line, “Why don’t I dream anymore?” as “Why don’t I drink anymore?” It didn’t make sense, of course, but that’s what I heard.

  9. Steve Skubinna
    January 26th, 2016 @ 2:52 pm

    REM’s The Sidewinder Sleeps Tonight.

    I know the line is “Call me when you try to wake her,” but nonetheless every time I listen to it it’s “Only in Jamaica,” damn it!

  10. Steve Skubinna
    January 26th, 2016 @ 2:52 pm

    Damn those pallid penis people and their logic!

  11. Steve Skubinna
    January 26th, 2016 @ 2:54 pm

    The patriarchy won’t permit the feminist heroines to be interred there, the bastards.

  12. Steve Skubinna
    January 26th, 2016 @ 2:55 pm

    What that judge did is tantamount to RAPE!!!11!!elebenty!!1!

  13. Hillary: Abraham Lincoln for $200 | Regular Right Guy
    January 26th, 2016 @ 3:02 pm

    […] Truth Wins, Feminists Lose […]

  14. Joe Joe
    January 26th, 2016 @ 3:35 pm

    Fierce and cowards: excellent. That’s exactly what I’ve seen for years. It’s like those small dogs that bark fiercely but run when the big dog comes after them.

  15. MC227
    January 26th, 2016 @ 4:07 pm

    Psychos they need to check back in to the mental hospital they escaped from!

  16. theoldsargesays
    January 26th, 2016 @ 4:16 pm

    “In their hearts, they know they’re losers…

    And so they join with others if their ilk in hopes that we won’t notice them the cowards truly are.
    Lawfare,doxing and anonymous online attacks allow them to pretend that they are not scared little losers- that they a SocialJusticeWarriors fighting for what is right.

    Losers and cowards….all of ’em.

  17. theoldsargesays
    January 26th, 2016 @ 4:17 pm

    But do you have cats?
    If both the the album thing may be overlooked….for now.

  18. Ilion
    January 26th, 2016 @ 4:28 pm

    No cats.

  19. Ilion
    January 26th, 2016 @ 4:28 pm

    The ‘w’ really stands for ‘wankers’

  20. theoldsargesays
    January 26th, 2016 @ 5:05 pm

    Well said.

  21. theoldsargesays
    January 26th, 2016 @ 5:33 pm

    Thanks for the link. So it appears that she wanted to blast this poor schmuck and make sure that everybody knew she was blasting him .
    As RSM says…crazy people.

  22. theoldsargesays
    January 26th, 2016 @ 5:37 pm

    Yet. We won’t permit their internment yet, but this is something I intend to bring up at our next meeting.

  23. Valerie Stewart
    January 26th, 2016 @ 6:00 pm

    The fanatical radfem are scary in their persistence, but what makes this debacle even scarier is that the lawyers are willing to go with this insanity just to make a quick buck and score political points no matter the outcome.

  24. theoldsargesays
    January 26th, 2016 @ 6:36 pm

    +1 for “…hate Madras in mullets.”

    Mullets, very confusing that. Why do some womyn, just wanting to be with women, go to such extremes to create such a manly appearance?
    On the flip side, why do other women, only wanting to be with women, end up with womyn who try so hard to look like men?

  25. Fail Burton
    January 26th, 2016 @ 7:01 pm

    Well, no one really knows what going on there. The truth is I don’t care whether they’re nuts or born that way. What I care about are supremacists who actively work to eff me up in the public arena, or anyone for that matter. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the FBI should be looking into those gender studies classes. Or they can just say preaching hate is cool.

  26. Fail Burton
    January 26th, 2016 @ 7:03 pm

    #CemeteryDiversity

  27. Finrod Felagund
    January 26th, 2016 @ 11:06 pm

    Offtopic: Brave Sir Donald is bravely running away from Thursday’s debate because of Megyn Kelly.

  28. Prime Director
    January 27th, 2016 @ 2:22 am

    I remember shroomin with some work colleagues a few years back. Radio playing top 40 late 90s shit in the background. Chapman’s Fast Car plays for a couple secs. Jumangi (not his real name) says “Theresa (his ol lady) just bought this album. Wanna listen to it?”

    Bilbo and Lemmony Snickets laugh on cue; I was so fucked up, I said “yeah.” Last time those fuckers invited me anywhere.

    Drugs are bad, sometimes.

  29. Ilion
    January 27th, 2016 @ 10:38 am

    Keep in mind that I despise Trump — nonetheless, it’s not just Megyn Kelly whom he is avoiding, but also her intellectually dishonest “white knighters”.

    Megyn Kelly is either Trump’s equal or she is not. If she is his equal, then she doesn’t need to be protected by other men (*) when he returns her fire. On the other hand, if she can fire at him, but he is not allowed to fire at her in return, then she is not his equal.

    (*) moreover, protected by misrepresentations and lies

  30. Quartermaster
    January 27th, 2016 @ 10:52 am

    I doubt staying away will hurt Trump in the slightest.

  31. Quartermaster
    January 27th, 2016 @ 10:53 am

    Not in Soviet Canuckistan.

  32. Ilion
    January 27th, 2016 @ 11:21 am

    So do I.
    I mean, really: who, besides the talking heads and the horse-racers gives a damn about any of these pseudo-debates?

  33. Finrod Felagund
    January 27th, 2016 @ 11:27 am

    Enh, he can return fire all he wants, but if he can’t handle a debate with Megyn Kelly, how’s he going to handle the general election debate where he’s going to have to face reporters a lot more hostile than her?

    Trumpbots never seem to have an answer to that one.

  34. Ilion
    January 27th, 2016 @ 11:43 am

    Of course. But you seem to be missing my point.

    Think back a few weeks to when the “conservative” talking heads and white knighters were all in a tizzy becasue Trump had “engaged in misogyny” against Megyn Kelly.

    Except, of course, that he hadn’t done that.

    And, even if he had, so what? Is Megyn Kelly is equal, or is she not?

  35. Finrod Felagund
    January 27th, 2016 @ 12:28 pm

    I don’t have a dog in that fight.

  36. Ilion
    January 27th, 2016 @ 12:38 pm

    What I’m hearing is, “I don’t give a damn about lies unless they are about something/someone in which I am personally invested”.

  37. Ilion
    January 27th, 2016 @ 12:39 pm

    Also, if you don’t have a dog in the fight, what was the *point* of your post to which I was responding.

  38. Ilion
    January 27th, 2016 @ 1:25 pm

    Since you don’t have a dog in that fight, you probably won’t like this: We Are Most Seriously Displeased

  39. Finrod Felagund
    January 27th, 2016 @ 5:07 pm

    What was your point in responding to my comment?

  40. Finrod Felagund
    January 27th, 2016 @ 5:08 pm

    You say “lies”, I say “whiny bitchslapfight that I don’t give a fuck about”.

  41. Finrod Felagund
    January 27th, 2016 @ 5:13 pm

    Iowans.

  42. Finrod Felagund
    January 27th, 2016 @ 5:20 pm

    You keep going on and on and on about ‘protecting’ Megyn Kelly, when perhaps you should be considering that it’s not in the best interests of the GOP to nominate a candidate that’s regularly a jackass towards women, especially since his general election opponent will probably be a woman. Handing your opponents a rhetorical bludgeon for them to beat you with is rarely a winning strategy.

  43. RubyMontana
    January 27th, 2016 @ 7:19 pm

    I’d agree if I thought Hillary was a woman!

  44. Finrod Felagund
    January 27th, 2016 @ 7:38 pm

    Valid point, but she plays one on TV, which is what matters to too many people.

  45. RubyMontana
    January 27th, 2016 @ 7:43 pm

    LOL!
    FACT!

  46. Ilion
    January 28th, 2016 @ 9:01 am

    Oh, I’m sorry, I had missed the point — you are intellectually dishonest.

  47. NeoWayland
    January 28th, 2016 @ 3:43 pm

    You’re sounding very libertarian there.

    I approve.

  48. Ilion
    January 28th, 2016 @ 3:50 pm

    My position on libertarians is this — when push comes to shove, almost every one of them will side with the leftists.

  49. NeoWayland
    January 28th, 2016 @ 4:07 pm

    Depends on the topic.

    We support smaller government and fewer taxes. Most of us don’t like imposing force.

    We don’t like government interfering in sex or religion either.

    Oh, and modern liberals side with us on those topics. We were doing it before them.

  50. theoldsargesays
    January 28th, 2016 @ 9:20 pm

    Agreed.
    Just to reaffirm….that “Madras in mullets” line was epic man.