The Hateful Lies of Feminism

Posted on Comments

 

Anita Sarkeesian (@FemFreq on Twitter) is a jargon-spewing pseudo-intellectual who made herself obnoxious by using feminist “gender theory” to critique videogames. This proved to be enormously lucrative for Ms. Sarkeesian, who became a heroine in the eyes of every left-wing ax-grinder who, like her, hates the idea of heterosexual white males enjoying themselves without being constantly lectured about what awful racist, sexist homophobes they are. Sarkeesian’s crooked hustle — “Pay me money to tell you how to abolish misogyny in videogames” — is a shakedown, a corrupt scam with which no honest person would wish to be associated. Sarkeesian’s modus operandi spawned imitators, who congealed into a money-grubbing feminist clown show that was exposed to the light of day in August 2014, #GamerGate.

Sarkeesian and her dimwit followers are incapable of original thought, and as soon as they began getting blowback from their shabby scam, they all began to shriek in unison, “Harassment!” This became the Official Media Narrative of what #GamerGate was about. Supposedly, every supporter of #GamerGate is a vile woman-hater, just harassing women qua women, because patriarchy or something. This claim is bullshit on stilts, but what else do the lazy hacks of the liberal media ever do except repeat whatever bullshit on stilts they are spoonfed by professional ideologues and Democrat Party propagandists?

The supposed “victims” of #GamerGate were a crew of no-talent mediocrities like Zoe Quinn (a tattoo-covered, mentally ill ex-stripper whose real name is Chelsea Van Valkenburg), perverted lunatics like Nicholas “Sarah” Nyberg (alleged to be a pedophile who likes little girls) and latter-day Mussolinis like Randi Harper. Regardless of whatever “harassment” has been directed at these people, it is difficult to ignore the fact that all of them are suffering from psychiatric disorders. Bad causes attract bad people, and are we surprised that this feminist “Girls in Games” racket attracted such a swarm of kooks and weirdos?

So, about two weeks ago, Twitter announced its Orwellian-sounding “Trust and Safety Council,” of which Anita Sarkeesian is a member. When my Twitter account was suspended Friday, some people (including Robby Soave of Reason magazine) put two and two together and concluded that perhaps Ms. Sarkeesian had something to do with this matter. Was this deduction valid? I don’t know. Twitter has cited nothing specific to justify its claim that I was “participating in targeted abuse,” and this opaque accusation was delivered as a verdict, so that I do not even have any way to know whom I was alleged to have “targeted.”

For dishonest women like Anita Sarkeesian, feminism is a sort of alchemy by which bullshit is transformed into cash, and she has collected hundreds of thousands of dollars for her “non-profit” activism. How do you suppose such a shrewd opportunist would react to the suggestion that she might have some role in the apparent crackdown on Twitter dissent? Ms. Sarkeesian (a) accused her critics of being paranoid conspiracy theorists, and (b) offered her own paranoid conspiracy theory:

Blog posts have been written, video rants have been filmed, and hundreds of tweets have been posted as this ludicrous conspiracy has spread. According to this conspiracy, any opinions I don’t agree with are being quietly silenced, while the people expressing them are being ominously “shadowbanned.” . . .
Of course there isn’t a shred of truth to this perception, but for the people spreading it, the truth is irrelevant. . . .
This conspiracy and others like it are themselves a manifestation of misogyny, borne out of a deep distrust and hatred of women. They’re designed to foster fear and serve as a warning to other women about what awaits them if they challenge the status quo. . . .

What Ms. Sarkeesian failed to do, of course, was to explain why she is so hated in particular (Answer: Because she lies) or whether the suspension of my account was prompted by a complaint from her or one of her allies.

You see that feminism’s hegemonic cultural authority is the real “status quo” in 2016, and what better “warning” — “designed to foster fear” — than to silence the social-media voices of those who “challenge” the lies told by Anita Sarkeesian. She has never dared to debate any of her critics, and why? Because liars are always cowards, and feminism is always a lecture, never a debate.

Feminist rhetoric is so obviously false, and its logic so circular, that it seems condescending even to point out its errors. What would Ms. Sarkeesian say, for example, if I merely inverted her own accusation, to assert that the ideology to which she owes her entire career is “borne out of a deep distrust and hatred of men”? What if I said that, to feminists like her, “the truth is irrelevant”? How could Ms. Sarkeesian disprove such accusations, if they were directed at her? In fact, this kind of finger-pointing Grand Inquisitor style of rhetoric — Accuse! Accuse! Accuse! — is the sum and essence of feminism. It is all about ginning up anti-male hatred by making tendentious claims about “objectification” or “slut-shaming” or “rape culture” or whatever, and no one is ever permitted to question the authority of the accusers. Why should anyone care what Anita Sarkeesian says about videogames? Where is the “social justice” here, and whither does Ms. Sarkeesian propose to lead us? What real harm is caused by the alleged “misogyny” in videogames of which she complains? What is she doing, other than hustling a dollar?

Anita Sarkeesian, “Zoe Quinn,” Randi Harper, “Sarah” Nyberg, “Brianna Wu” — a parade of selfish frauds, “shrewdly exploiting gender as a means of gaining lucrative advantages,” as I have said.  No honest person could admire these shabby swindlers, nor would any wise person trust them.

Actor Adam Baldwin Quits Twitter “For Good”
In Protest Of The Platform Censoring Conservatives




 

143 comments

  1. I was there! Did you see Dick Tater, the bassist for SS, puke all over their lead singer and knock over their Marshall stacks, before they carried him out of the arena? LOL! Speaking of which, didn’t he get a gig with the Predispositionalists after he got out of rehab?

  5. Been hammering out re-tweets of all anti-anita tweets I can find, poking the beast to provoke a response…

  10. Twitter should have been a gubmint program. Then its share price would…. well, it wouldn’t exist, much less matter. Is it a buy at 50% off peak? Not when you check their usership trend. In two dimensions it graphs like a double-diamond ski run. In three dimensions it is a tightening spiral… a flush. The Saudis are buying. Probably everyone should sell to them. Cash munny beats funny flash trash…. meaning Twitter.

  13. No, I took the empirical approach to your null hypo; still jibberish

    and as u kno, If the P is low, the Ho must go

  20. >Freezepeach.xyz
    >
    >It took me literally HOURS yesterday to get on there and create an account.

    Looks like a GNU social node, meaning it’s just one of many from which you can choose. If one node is running slow, you can find another. That’s the beauty of decentralized networks: no single point of failure.

    I never did Twatter, so I can’t quit a service I never used. I recently set up a Diaspora node, but that’s more of a Farcebook replacement than a Twatter replacement. Time for me to look at Gnu social, perhaps?

  21. QUITIX256:

    1. At least this video allows comments at the youtube site, unlike Sarkeesian’s videos.

    2. There’s not enough evidence to support the overarching narrative of your story. All of the “threats” and the escalated, nasty rhetoric do closely coincide with Sarkeesian bringing in a ton of crowdfunding money. There is no way to objectively know, for certain, which came first.

    3. There is a long history of “hate crime” hoaxes:

    http://fakehatecrimes.org/

    Sarkeesian’s story could certainly be taken in connection with these.

    4. If Sarkeesian was to blame for RSM’s banning from Twitter, it actually undermines your narrative. RSM was not taking random, violent potshots against anyone. He was taking apart, bit by bit, the false edifice that is modern feminism.

    RSM was showing how the feminist belief system, so counter to biological and historical reality, was actually creating the impression of mental illness on feminist Twitter. (In my opinion, many of those young women need years of therapy).

    RSM was showing the overt misandry, the terror of the male, the hatred and need for protection from the hated straight male that runs all through the feminist Twitter narrative. He also demonstrated why this was a catastrophe for the family and for society.

    He was not attacking Anita Sarkeesian for having a particular body part or for being of a particular ethnicity. RSM was attacking the MESSAGE, not the messengers. The fact that Twitter couldn’t tell the difference between taking down a philosophy and harassing individual people is a testament to the stupidity of its administrators.

    The title of your video, “Why are you so angry”, is an attack on the viewer, and, in this context, an attack on all of us. Your assumption is that we are just “angry”, that we were “angry” before Anita started trying to censor people, and that the “angry” feelings are just irrational and have no explanation.

    You need to understand that Anita is causing much of the “anger” against her. When you try to censor people–when you attack them because they disagree with you and you can’t handle it–you produce justified anger in those people.

    Anita has to stop fooling herself. When you try to control others so that your world can be all sunshine and flowers, you soon find out that you’ve poked a wasps’ nest.

    As a religious man, I pray for all people who cross my path. I will pray that Ms. Sarkeesian gains some enlightenment into her coercive and controlling behavior. Allowing for the fact that there are indeed crazies on the internet, I will also pray for her safety.

  26. I don’t want to believe it, but it is alleged you have a problem with interracial marriages. The head of GOA has likewise made poor choices in venue for interviews (though not quite as repugnant as the Ralphed Distort; infowars is pretty awful) and has had nasty allegations of racism thrown his way; but he’s married to someone from Panama. Do you have a problem with that; marrying outside of ‘tribe & tongue’? On the off chance you do, I’m better spending more of my spare time on further studies and software development than refuting your confirmation biases & whataboutisms (echoed from dubious sources) point by point.

  27. I never really “got” Twitter, though I enjoy the author’s tweets, along with IowaHawk’s and others’ immensely. I have abandoned the service as of yesterday, however, in solidarity with Stacy and others

  32. I was disappointed. Considering Brin’s reputation, he was nothing more than a petty and insulting blog tyrant who couldn’t even defend his ideas or debate. Some of his regulars seem actively retarded and bratty.

  33. Oh noes!!! The Racisss card!!!
    The accusation is utterly irrelevant. You’re simply spamming hoping something will stick.
    You’d find that going about your studies would be a better use of your time. I hope your software pursuits are of higher quality than what you have posted here.

  34. A short history of Anita Sark…’s anger? …it wasn’t really that short and I still don’t understand why she’s so flipping angry all the time…

  35. Give up RSM, he totes knows that you’re of the southern persuasion, eat goober peas, gots up to five toofs, keep your womanfolks in the kitchen when they ain’t in the bedroom, are a faithful follower of brother John Birch, belong to the Antioch Baptist Church and will continue wear the Stars and Bars underwear till the South yet rises again…

  37. We need to send a message to Twitter. They better hope they fix this before an alternative is viable. Millions will move and so will the advertisers to setup shop in both platforms. I cannot believe #killTrump is still alive and well, no twitter ban. Should not the Secret Service be involved?. They fully let dozens of ISIS accounts on without so much as a afterthought. What if they started a k*ll hildabeast or obummer? Imagine the outcry from the media?

  43. […] The Hateful Lies of Feminism Anita Sarkeesian (@FemFreq on Twitter) is a jargon-spewing pseudo-intellectual who made herself obnoxious by using feminist “gender theory” to critique videogames. This proved to be enormously lucrative for Ms. Sarkeesian, who became a heroine in the eyes of every left-wing ax-grinder who, like her, hates the idea of heterosexual white males enjoying themselves without being constantly lectured about what awful racist, sexist homophobes they are. […]

Comments are closed.