The Creepy Freaks of ‘Social Justice’

Posted on Comments

 

Perhaps “Sarah” Nyberg (@srhbutts) thinks I’m stupid. Or perhaps Ms. Nygberg has been fooling people for so long now, Ms. Nyberg thinks that bogus little “victim” act will never fail. At any rate, after I was first suspended from Twitter for a five-month-old tweet about Ms. Nyberg, I had hoped that my response would caution Ms. Nyberg against further aggressions. Alas, as Benjamin Franklin said, experience keeps a dear school but fools will learn in no other. Some genuinely frightening people have tried to shut me up in the past, and have learned that I am not easily frightened. In fact, some of those people are in federal custody now because this is not a game that Homey D. Clown plays.

 

It appears Ms. Nyberg is leveraging friendships with Twitter support personnel in order to delete any mention of Ms. Nyberg’s male past and male name. You will call Ms. Nyberg “Sarah” on Twitter or else you will be shut down. The faux-female does not wish it known that he is faux, you see. And so it was that, after my first suspension on Friday, I was locked out of my account again Sunday. In order to log onto Twitter this morning, I had to delete two tweets:

 

This isn’t going to work, Sarah Nyberg. You are trying to evade the consequences of your own folly — using the pseudonym “Sarah Butts” while trying to shut down 8chan.net — and hope to conceal what was learned about you as a result of that blunder.

Just in case anyone has forgotten what we learned:

[“Sarah”] tried to shut down funding for the website 8chan.net, which had supported #GamerGate, by falsely accusing them of hosting child pornography.  However, he/she failed to anticipate the reaction,i.e., that the people he/she had attacked would figure out who he/she actually was, connect the dots, and expose [“Sarah’s”] unsavory background. It appears that “Sarah” had been something of a nuisance in various online forums circa 2006/2007, allegedly engaging in discussions about pedophilia and sex with dogs.
One of these discussions was about lowering the age of consent to 12, and Sarah said someone who had “a positive, fulfilling, non-abusive sexual relationship with an adult as a child are more likely to realize such relationships are not inherently abusive, and be more likely to admit they’re attracted to kids.” Sarah said that while “most people aren’t ready at 12,” this is not “a valid reason to outlaw sex at said age.” Sarah asserted that “most people” don’t understand “childhood sexuality,” because it doesn’t involve “full-blown intercourse” and therefore it is “inherently less dangerous and virtually impossible to lead to pregnancy, etc.” Sarah said “childhood sex play” is “nothing harmful” and that “what’s harmful is society pretending children are asexual.”

Have any of Ms. Nyberg’s friends ever asked him/her to explain that? Perhaps it was just a moot hypothetical discussion. Or not.

If we look at the forum where that discussion took place, we find that it was inspired by news about a fringe political party in the Netherlands, (Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit, PNVD). Widely known as the “Pedo Party,” PNVD advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. It would appear Ms. Nyberg was enthusiastic about this idea, but perhaps I am misinterpreting his/her comments. The problem is that (a) it does not seem Ms. Nyberg has ever adequately clarified his/her views on the subject, but instead (b) is pretending to be a victim of harassment in order to (c) play a game of “Let’s Erase the Evidence” and also (d) depict anyone raising these questions as a hateful bully.

You may fool some people into believing your act, Nyberg, but you can’t fool everyone, and you sure as hell will never fool me.

DARVO — Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender — it’s a rather well-documented tactic, and when I see people (a) with sexual idiosyncracies (b) allying themselves with a “social justice” movement and (c) claiming that people who tell the truth about them are “bullies,” my suspicion is (d) they’re just angry their shady hustle got busted and (e) they’re trying to exploit sympathy by (f) posing as a victim.

A Martyr for the Sacred Cause! This is a game I’ve seen “social justice” types play many times before, and Homey don’t play that, see?

Was there a case a mistaken identity? Are you . . .“Sarah” Nyberg, the same Sarah who wrote so enthusiastically about “childhood sexuality”? If so, were your statements about having “a positive, fulfilling, non-abusive sexual relationship with an adult as a child” based upon your own personal experience?

Simple questions, really. Why aren’t they being asked? Meanwhile, a Reddit commenter quotes the Twitter rule behind my suspension:

Personal information includes full names, locations, phone numbers, email addresses, etc. Things that aren’t linked together on social media count as personal information. For example, if someone’s name isn’t linked to their Twitter bio, it’s safe to assume that posting it would count as dox. If you’re uncertain of whether or not a post is as liability for including personal information, please message the mods.
This extends to posting links to pages which contain such information.

What this rule was presumably intended to do was to prevent “doxxing,” and I am anti-“doxxing,” but this rule is written so broadly that, if applied as written, I could change my Twitter identity to “Latonya Q. Robinson” with a photo of a black woman as my avatar and then demand Twitter punish anyone who mentioned that I am, in fact, a white man named Robert Stacy McCain. Ah, but you see, this rule is not applied consistently, and is being used by “social justice” activists to protect themselves from critical scrutiny. Favoritism has been alleged by supporters of #GamerGate who say that their enemies are unethically exploiting personal connections with Twitter personnel:

SushiLuLu (also known as Stephanie Greene) was forced to delete tweets critical of Randi Harper in order to have her Twitter account reactivated. Randi Harper has demonstrated her unusual control over Twitter support before, and it turns out that Randi Harper and Del Harvey, Vice President of Trust and Safety at Twitter, are connected.
She has . . . become vocal against anti-GamerGate personalities such as Randi Harper,proprietor of the GGAutoBlocker, which labels prominent GamerGate voices such as Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos as “shitlords” and their followers as “sheeple.” SushiLuLu even went so far as to write a three-part series solely on Randi Harper, focusing on the irony of someone who regularly flames her opponents (particularly Chris von Csefalvay, who did the statistical analysis on GamerGate) on Twitter having the gall to start the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative
Unfortunately, on the night of March 17th, SushiLuLu found out that Randi Harper has powerful friends. . . .
It appears on the night on March 17th, SushiLulu’s account became locked, and when she attempted to deactivate it, she was told to delete five tweets which were negative toward Randi Harper. . . .

You can and should read the whole thing.

Every responsible and intelligent person familiar with Randi Harper regards her as a disgusting and arguably dangerous individual. So far as I can discover, nobody actually likes Randi Harper. By striking a posture of victimhood and attacking #GamerGate, however, she made herself useful to the “social justice” cause which needs self-declared victims of “bullying” and “harassment,” because this is the argument they use to silence their critics. Randi Harper resorted to totalitarian tactics to suppress #GamerGate supporters, creating a videogame industry blacklist that “branded some 10,425 Twitter accounts, including those of journalists, as harassment ‘offenders’ in a humiliatingly ill-conceived attempt to provide a ‘blocking tool’ to its members”:

The blocking tool, which has been widely mocked online for its lack of sophistication and “blanket ban” approach, was assembled by Randi Harper, a persistent online agitator. The tool prevents users from seeing not only the tweets of users Harper has decided are implicated in harassment, but also many accounts who simply follow those users, by blocking a list of thousands of users with the use of an automated “bot.” . . .

Randi Harper is a clumsy, hateful thug, and you can click here to see Twitter conversations between Sarah Nyberg (@srhbutts) and Randi Harper (@randileeharper). Bad causes attract bad people, and these two are part of a clique of bad people with no discernible talent who are using “social justice” politics in a dishonest attempt to shake down the video game industry. They are losing, because they deserve to lose, and they are desperately trying to silence #GamerGate supporters who have exposed them and their “social justice” allies as miserable frauds.


Well, let Harper and Nyberg run squawling to Del Harvey, whining about how mean Mister McCain told the truth about them. They are liars and creepy freaks who should never be trusted.

“God gave them up unto vile affections . . . God gave them over to a reprobate mind . . .”
— Romans 1:26-28 (KJV)

Beware of reprobate minds. Crazy people are dangerous.





 

173 comments

  2. “If you’re born blind, you’re blind, regardless of whether you can find an erstwhile savior to rub spit in your eyes and declare you healed.” – certain respectable people from history

  4. It is widely known, but apparently not to you, that wiki has a leftist agenda and is not firmly attached to the truth.

  7. Hardly. A man who thinks he’s a woman is not right in the head. There is no “unsubstantiated” there.
    Assuming you like it here, you would be well advised to change your ways as you will find yourself banned. Trolls are not tolerated here.

  8. It is, however, firmly attached to citations, which the quoted article has several of.
    Bias, real or imagined, is no excuse to dismiss everything that is said out of hand. I’d’ve thought the Left’s baseless disregard for Fox News would’ve taught you to take the high road in that regard.

  9. What’s a “normal” nose? What norm do you adhere to? Are norms social constructs or objective statistical data points? If I “identify” as Napoleon Bonaparte, is it wrong for people to refuse to bow down to me as their Emperor? If they call me “G,” is that disrespectful? If a person identifies as a stop sign, is it ridicule to drive past them without stopping? I grew up calling the garden implement used to plant roses a spade. You are free to call it a banana if you like…but don’t insist that I call it a banana or I may make some rather unflattering assumptions about your screwed up world view (or make the mistake that you have a sense of humor). If you put a bumper on a toaster, does that make it a car? If you think so, you might want to follow “Toaster witha Bumper” on Twitter (calls people names who eat toast…likes to make Vroom vroom sounds…transmechanical pain in the ass…).

  10. I ain’t trolling, sirrah. I’m responding to a great number of poorly constructed arguments questioning my sanity.

    As for “not right in the head” — this would have to be the only ‘mental illness’ in existence that affords the ‘sufferer’ a normal, pain-free existence as a happy, productive, intelligent member of society, with the only side effect being a desire for expensive plastic surgery.
    (Unless you count body-image problems as a whole as mental illnesses, of course! I’d also mention being a celebrity, but that isn’t exactly productive)

  11. I’m not forcing my views on anyone here – except to the extent I’d really prefer folks not refer to me as crazy. Beyond that, you can call me whatever the heck you want – it doesn’t break my leg or pick my pocket, or affect my life in the slightest.

    As for ‘normal’ nose – I’d say if you resemble that penguin from Bloom County you’re prolly over the line.

  12. Oh, because the objective reality of being able to see or not cannot possibly be confirmed by any means… You can kick against objective reality all you want in the social milieu, just please don’t do it on the highways…

  13. And the objective reality of significant differences of brain chemistry and structure in trans* individuals is different because what – you can’t see it? ‘Cause it’s been confirmed by repeated studies at this point…

    Incidentally, blindness is at some level only visible to the sufferer – you see its effects (they can’t read, walk with a cane, etc.) but not any outward physical sign in most cases. Could you tell the difference between an actual blind man and someone pretending to be blind for sympathy points, for instance — without swinging something at their head?

  14. I’d prefer a lot of things…but when they don’t correlate well with the objective realities of the world around me, I find myself confronted with certain decisions… Calling Bruce Jenner a male is not an act of hate merely because he desires to be called a female. His mental state does not trump mine merely because the mob says it does. OTOH, I will concede that he is not a man.

  15. Absolutely – it’s not hate.
    On the other hand it is quite deliberately rude to call her a man to her face… Kinda like if someone went around calling conservatives bigots to their faces. (Speaking from personal experience, both insults hurt about the same)

  16. Ah yes, the old “I don’t know you’re a woman because I haven’t biopsied your brain,” ploy. That didn’t work out so well when I met my last employer’s wife. I shrieked, “That’s a man baby!” as I punched a hole in her skull to extract the necessary sample. Three days later the lab proved me wrong. I was SOOOO embarrassed…

  18. In the end it’s up to you *which* situations you extend the benefit of the doubt. But some consistency would be nice. If you call all transwomen ‘men’, please also call all blind people ‘fakers’ and ‘people who can see perfectly well’ until they prove otherwise.

  19. I think one of the worst thing to gig these sicko perv freaks is to NOT go along with their delusions and call them by what God gave them.

  20. You mixed a specific individual and a huge class of people in your analogy which is silly. Again, I’m more than willing to stipulate that Bruce Jenner is not a man…but he is a dude. I would never call Bruce Jenner a man to his face, nor would I call him brave in any context. Also, calling people what you think of them to their faces is far less rude than doing it behind their backs. A man would understand that. With that, I’m done feeding trolls. Sorry everybody. My morning coffee just kicked in…changing my brain chemistry…please call me Cait now…

  21. It’s typical with these freaks like Randi Harper, but they always choose cute little elfin pictures for avatars when they bear a strong resemblance to a New York Giants blocking sled.

  23. Your definition of ‘troll’ is rather interesting – it appears to include anyone who differs in any way from the site runner’s opinions on all issues.
    I came here for discussion – though I’ve read the site for several years now without actually talking. I intend to stick around and discuss some more – and if that discussion happens to touch on things where I disagree with the majority of the site’s userbase I’ll discuss that too.

  24. My original point still stands.

    To continue your vapid analogy, if someone has had rhinoplasty, I do not have to accept the denial of reality that their nose is not the one they were born with. The nose is still the nose. A trans person is asking me to believe in opposites.

    And why would I ask myself the question you pose? You do realize that people from all walks of life endure ridicule. I don’t think you should be ridiculed, I think you should be helped with therapy.

    And yes, body modifcations of all sorts are by very definition “unnatural.” Don’t mangle the language too.

  25. Did you mean “lightly”?

    Stating simple facts does not make me rude. Crazy is simply a denial of reality. Which is precisely what you’re doing. I’m under no obligation to participate in your alternate reality, and your expectation that I must is actually what is rude.

    You see, words have meaning, and you seem to be struggling with them. I’m not the one who needs to take a step back here.

    Your political ideology is perfectly irrelevant. Are you going to change it because I refuse to accept your alternate reality? No? Then try making a coherent point.

  26. I took the high road a long time ago. Wiki demonstrated, repeatedly, I might add, that it can’t be trusted. Consequently, intelligent people looking for truth ignore wiki. YMMV.

  27. Looks like you started off the rails with your first sentence.

    Not only is that a strawman, but what follows is factually incorrect on a number of levels.

    It’s just icing on the cake that you seem to think political ideology is somehow relevant at this point. That you can’t seem to craft a logical argument at this point is unsurprising. I don’t even have to get to the factual errors yet.

  28. You can think anything you like, but a man that thinks he’s a woman is not right in the head. As for the rest, it would be in spite of the mental illness.

    Yes, you are trolling.

  29. You don’t have to accept it, but it’s considered good social grace to stop calling them “that guy with the huge nose” after they get it reduced. Just as it’s considered good social grace to call someone ‘ma’am’ who has taken great pains to live and present as who they believe themselves to be. But hey — that’s a secondary concern entirely to your vague sense of superiority and “kick the cripple,” yes?

  31. Yes, I did mean lightly. Curse my finger-typing not being completely accurate! >_>

    Crazy is not a denial of reality, though – it signifies a specific set of mental conditions and breaks. Transgenderism is not one of them. That you continue to insist it is without proof or knowledge, perhaps, reflects poorly on your grasp of reality instead.

  32. Based on the vast number of studies you’ve done? The research you’ve amasssed? Lived experience?

    …no? Then kindly don’t attempt to throw out the argument of the one who has lived experience and amassed research on the basis of “It doesn’t fit with my views, damnit!”

  33. Political ideology is relevant because it reflects poorly on whatever aspect of the Right you claim to represent that you’re apparently willing to cut the Right’s figurative arm off to make the “big tent” just that little bit smaller.

  34. Intelligent people found wiki couldn’t be trusted. When a man can’t correct the article about his own doctoral dissertation, and the “facts” posted on wiki are egregiously wrong. wiki is a total loss. YMMV, but people wanting truth and facts go elsewhere.

  36. If the guy’s nose isn’t huge anymore, why would I continue to call it huge? But three things are still clear – the fact that it is still a nose, it still serves its biological function, and it was simply a cosmetic alteration. Your analogies are awful.

    For that reason, your further comparison is flawed. No, it’s not good social grace to lie to someone, expect to be lied to, or expecting someone else to lie.

    I’m not displaying any sense of superiority, I’m merely stating facts. What you’re attributing to your imagined sense of my superiority is your struggle with those facts.

    How is wanting you to receive help and therapy “kicking the cripple”? Your ability to craft a rational argument seems fatally impaired.

  38. Crazy most certainly includes a denial of reality. It can also include the inability to grasp it. In your case, it seems to be the former. Words don’t change meaning just to protect your feelings.

    Transgenderism falls well within the spectrum of crazy. That you continue to insist that active denial of objective reality isn’t crazy isn’t a situation in which I must provide proof.

    Now you’re just projecting.

  40. And precisely what aspect of the Right have I claimed to represent? Take your time, Sport.

    You’ve certainly got an inflated self image to think that the trans crowd is on par with a figurative “arm” on the Right, or that my assessment of your mental state means that I reject your political ideology.

    So, you gonna quit the Right now because someone was finally honest with you?

  41. If only we can kick out those Cleveland and Columbus liberals and turn Ohio permanently red. lol

  42. Surgically altered genitalia still serve every bit as much biological function as sterile genitalia (which you have no issue with). So it’s absolutely a fair analogy.
    As to sense of superiority — mostly this is in other posts, but you and the other antagonistic folks here seem determined to preserve your right not just to “call it like you see it”, but to hurl insults and misnomers into the bargain. (See also, the ‘crazy’ discussion below.)
    You don’t call people crazy (or freaks, or anything else) as part of a rational argument. You do so to feel superior to them (and “kick the cripple”).

  44. It is the opinion of the APA (but wait, you undoubtedly consider them bogus!), various statisticians who’ve studied the subject (But wait! One physician at Johns Hopkins disavowed it so it must all be wrong!), and hundreds of thousands of trans*folks who lived this argument, myself included (But wait! You don’t count because you’re crazy!) that transgenderism is not, in fact, under the definition of crazy.
    But you’ve defined it so, and thus for the set of premises you bring to this discussion it cannot be otherwise. To you, “transgenderism is crazy” is a stated bedrock fact, and I’m just wasting my breath.
    Thing is — premises used to support an argument must either be based in objective evidence or held valid by both sides of the argument. I reject utterly your premise. It is inadmissible. Try again. (Or come up with some actual proof of claim, beyond just “You try to change what you were born with”, which I’ve already demonstrated is a condition equally true of myriad accepted not-crazy people)

  45. Oh ffS…
    I didn’t name names because I didn’t know who you support as far as branches.
    Though given your predication to causing offense, I’m guessing Trump…

    The Right cannot survive on being “heteronormative Christians” alone. You have to understand this fact. And the more you antagonize those who don’t fit under that label, the more you endanger all the good things about you.
    I have friends who actively fear you – because to them, you appear to hate who they are. They might otherwise vote for the Right, but because folks like you can’t or won’t work for common ground – and Attack folks who *do* work for that common ground – they want nothing to do with us as a whole and instead help put Hillary Rodham Clinton on the throne.

  46. Indeed. Blocking sleds are beyootiful and useful when properly used. I would suggest a class action lawsuit to deal with the hideous slander.

  47. You’ve been trolling. The question is not starting, but how it will end.

    The APA stopped being a professional org when it deleted homosexuality from the DSM. It was not done of scientific reasons but for the sake of politics.

  48. I see — it’s like an accusation of racism. By directly responding to it I cement my guilt in the eyes of my accuser.

    The APA may have stopped being a professional organization in your eyes at that point, sir. But even you must understand you are but one of many voices, and your opinion as to their legitimacy is not, in fact, any more significant than your one opinion. You cannot delegitimize them by calling them illegitimate. Sad but true.
    Edit: All that to say, cute. But pointless.

  49. I’m sure you think you’re argument has been highly intelligent. You’ve been owned 6 ways to Sunday, but still can’t back down. That’s also a species of insanity.

    You’ve already had it broken to you that trans people are mentally ill, and that’s bets you are going to do in the comment threads of a site where people deal in facts, and credit very little to emotional argumentation trying to pass itself off as intelligent debate. You’ve literally offered nothing since you came here in defense of mental illness is actually normal assertion. What you’ve gotten in return is the best you’re going to get.

    The only thing people of your sort have to fear from us is a dose of the facts. If the facts are hate to your type, that too is a species of insanity.

  50. You have repeatedly stated your opinion that it’s a mental illness. You have not, at any juncture, backed this up with logical arguments, facts, or statistics.
    I have done all three at various points. (Comparison to rhinoplasty, blindness, XX males, Intersex folks, pointing out the fallacy of starting from an unacceptable premise, pointing out the fallacy of dismissing what a source says out of hand, et cetera.)
    Your move, sir.

Comments are closed.