TERROR IN FRANCE – Sixty Dead In Bastille Day Truck Attack

Posted on | July 14, 2016 | 48 Comments

Per the UK’s Daily Express, at least 76 people are dead after a terrorist rammed his box truck into a crowd out celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France. Police apparently found guns, grenades, and other explosives in the truck, which was abandoned by the terrorist; he fled to a nearby restaurant where he was shot by police.

Ace’s LauraW has a link to Fox and the NYDN; Ed Driscoll at Instapundit has more links, including one to Legal Insurrection with live updates. Oh, yes – ISIS has claimed responsibility, and no doubt POTUS will be lecturing us that we can’t jump to conclusions about the [OMITTED] causes for this act of [OMITTED] terror.

Stacy will no doubt be updating this post as events develop.

Category: Ace of Spades, France, Instapundit, Legal Insurrection, Terrorism

In The Mailbox: 07.14.16

Posted on | July 14, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: The “Epidemic” Of Blacks Murdered By Cops In America
EBL: Why Does An All-Female Ghostbusters Suck?
Twitchy: “They Lied To Me” – Eric Garner’s Daughter Rips Obama’s Race Relations Town Hall Sham

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Theresa May Taps Boris Johnson As UK Foreign Minister
American Thinker: 2010-2016, The Era Of Political Repression In America
Da Tech Guy: The Unexpectedly Chronicles – Cause And Effect, Obama #BlueLivesMatter Edition
Don Surber: Flynn – Jihadists Love Their Porn
Jammie Wearing Fools: Bodycam Video Shows Police Gunning Down Unarmed White Teen; Obama Unavailable For Comment
Joe For America: BREAKING ALERT – Day Of Rage, July 15 – #BlackLivesMatter Protesters Set To Attack 37 Cities
JustOneMinute: Poll Shockers
Pamela Geller: GRAPHIC Raw Footage Of Nice Terror Attack, Up To 60 Dead
Shark Tank: Rubio Leads Democrats By Double Digits In Senate Race
Shot In The Dark: My Challenge To The Reverend Bence
The Jawa Report: War Porn – Just Another Day In Fallujah Edition
The Lonely Conservative: Trump Is Cool With Losing The Senate To The Democrats
The Political Hat: Butch Lesbians And The Queering Of Pregnancy
The Quinton Report: Paper Ignores DOJ Criticism Of Bob Ehrlich
This Ain’t Hell: Chicago Ordered To Pay NRA’s Court Costs
Weasel Zippers: Poll Says 67% Of Americans Think Clinton Is “Not Honest And Tustworthy”, All-Time High
Megan McArdle: Sexual Harassment Is Invisible To 50% Of The Population

Shop Amazon Devices – All New Kindle 6-inch
Shop Handmade – School supplies

Category: Linkagery

MIKE PENCE IS TRUMP’S VP PICK

Posted on | July 14, 2016 | 21 Comments

CBS News is among the outlets reporting that Donald Trump has picked Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his vice-presidential running mate, just five days before the Republican National Convention begins in Cleveland.

Via Memeorandum, more reports from WXIN-TV, Reuters, The Hill, The New York Times, Roll Call, The American Spectator and Hot Air. Meanwhile, William Jacobson is asking his readers at Legal Insurrection to respond to a poll: Is Pence as VP a good or bad idea?

I’ve always liked Mike Pence, personally. I remember talking to him briefly backstage at the big September 2009 Tea Party rally at the Capitol. Some of his staffers when he was in Congress were friends of mine, and Pence is a solid conservative who, however, is a bit “soft” on immigration to my taste, but of course, everybody’s too soft on immigration to my taste. It could be argued that, in choosing Pence as his running mate, Trump got someone who could help him ease the fears of the Chamber of Commerce crowd and big money donors to the RNC. Also, if you’ve ever seen Pence in TV interviews, you know he comes across as a smart guy who can talk policy, so that he will be an asset to the Trump campaign in that capacity. Meanwhile, the Left is going berserk.

Mike Pence Has Led a Crusade Against
Abortion Access and LGBT Rights
— Hannah Levintova, Mother Jones

This would have been the spin on almost any Republican picked as Trump’s running mate: “Evil right-wing sexist racist homophobe!”

But what if the voters are in a mood to give hate a chance?

Category: Donald Trump, Election, Republicans

How to Meet Atheist Social Justice Queers (Because Online Dating Is for Losers)

Posted on | July 14, 2016 | 29 Comments

OKCupid confirms every stereotype:

OkCupid used data from nearly 200,000 profiles for its Words and Politics analysis, which also found that liberals looking for love are vegetarians and conservatives like steak. . . .
“Like the outdoors or going to the shooting range? So do a majority of conservatives interested in love,” OkCupid said. “Liberals looking for love prefer museums, yoga, and crying.”
The analysis also found liberals tend to list “The Daily Show, Broad City, NPR, podcasts, and weed” on their profiles, while conservatives mention “Jesus, faith, guns, and Marines.”
Other terms commonly listed on liberal profiles included “Atheist,” “Social Justice,” “Feminist,” and “Queer.” Common conservative terms included “Country,” “Fishing,” “Old fashioned,” and “C.S. Lewis.”
OkCupid said the majority of its users are liberal, and 50 percent of its total users report that they could not date someone with opposing political views.

Why are the majority of OKCupid users liberal? Because they’re losers. Who wants to date an atheist social justice feminist queer?

This is what I keep trying to explain about online dating: If somebody is trying to score a hookup via the Internet, this is an admission of failure to find a relationship among people they actually know in real life. Every online dating site is a toxic pool of weirdos and rejects.

Are there any sane, normal people on OKCupid? If so, why? So you can browse through the profiles and laugh at what pathetic losers they are?

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 07.13.16

Posted on | July 13, 2016 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
Louder With Crowder: #BlackLivesMatter Memes Debunked
EBL: The Golden Age Of Travel On United Airlines
Michelle Malkin: Congressional Black Corruption
Twitchy: Ben Shapiro Unleashes Epic Takedown Of Viral Sensation “White Boy Privilege”

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Tomi Lahren Blames Obama, “Two Black Attorneys General”, For Inciting Dallas Shooting
American Thinker: Chicago’s Collapse Has Begun
Da Tech Guy: Fausta – Senate Democrats Against Free Speech
Don Surber: Gun Control Failed Police Officer Mike Flamion
Jammie Wearing Fools: Obama’s America – Ex-Con In #BlackLivesMatter Shirt Opens Fire On Police Officer’s Home
Joe For America: Trump Surging, Leading In Key States
JustOneMinute: Donald Trump, Bringing People Together
Pamela Geller: Pam Geller, Milo Yiannopoulos, Geert Wilders Headline Historic “Wake Up” LGBT RNC Event
Shark Tank: Politifact Finds Ritch Workman’s Common Core Claims Are Mostly False
Shot In The Dark: Vacuous Hipster Lives Matter
STUMP: Happy News For Vacation Time!
The Jawa Report: Fatwa This! Flying Donkey Edition
The Lonely Conservative: Obama Can’t Even Speak At A Memorial Without Getting Political
The Political Hat: The Presumed Crime Of Not Money Laundering
The Quinton Report: Wanted Teen Taunts Police On Facebook Live
This Ain’t Hell: Pokemon Go And Arlington National Cemetery
Weasel Zippers: Purdue Threatens To Expel Students For Criticizing #blacklivesmatter
Megan McArdle: The Democrats Have Unified. The Republicans Won’t.

Don Surber’s Trump The Press
Amazon Devices- All New Dash Buttons in June. Just Press

Category: Linkagery

Mir Islam, Who SWATted Me in 2013, Has Been Sentenced to Two Years in Prison

Posted on | July 13, 2016 | 35 Comments

The FBI contacted me earlier this month to tell me that the guy responsible for targeting me in a March 2013 SWATting incident was scheduled for sentencing in federal court, but I couldn’t report anything about it until after the hearing. Because of last week’s Dallas attack, the hearing date Monday slipped my mind, but here’s the official statement:

New York Man Sentenced To 24 Months in Prison
For Internet Offenses, Including “Doxing,” “Swatting,”
Making a False Bomb Threat, and Cyber-Stalking
WASHINGTON — Mir Islam, 22, of New York, N.Y., was sentenced today to 24 months in prison on three federal charges stemming from a conspiracy to commit various crimes related to the “swatting” and “doxing” of dozens of victims, and from a false bomb threat made against a university in Arizona and a pattern of online harassment constituting cyber-stalking against a university student, all occurring between February and September 2013.
The sentencing was announced by U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips of the District of Columbia, U.S. Attorney John S. Leonardo of the District of Arizona, and Paul M. Abbate, Assistant Director of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.
Islam pleaded guilty on July 6, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to a total of three charges. They included one count of conspiracy to commit a range of federal offenses, including identity theft; access device fraud; social security number misuse; computer fraud; wire fraud; assaulting federal officials; and interstate transmission of threats. The other charges included one count of threatening and conveying false information concerning the use of explosives and one count of cyber-stalking.
In his guilty plea, Islam admitted to “swatting” and “doxing” numerous individuals, to communicating a false shooting and bomb threat on a university campus in Arizona, and to committing a pattern of online harassment against a university student. “Swatting” is the act of placing emergency 9-1-1 type calls to police departments, usually through Internet-based telecommunication relay services, to make false claims of homicides or other assaultive or criminal conduct by, or against, other targeted individuals at the locations of those individuals. These false 9-1-1 communications are intended to result in, and usually did result in, a tactical police response, including SWAT teams, to the targeted, unsuspecting victims’ residences. “Doxing” is the act of gathering, by licit and illicit means, and posting on the Internet personal identifying information (“PII”) and other sensitive information about an individual, including, for example, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, credit information, employers, and details regarding the individual’s children and other family members.
“The crimes committed by this defendant violated the privacy of dozens of people, fostered identity theft, and endangered the safety of many others,” said U.S. Attorney Phillips. “Mir Islam put people at risk on the Internet and in their own homes, placed responding police officers at risk, created a dangerous situation on a college campus, caused substantial emotional distress to numerous victims, and diverted law enforcement from work they could be doing to protect the public. Today’s sentence reflects the seriousness of his crimes and hopefully will deter others from similar actions.” . . .

You can read the rest of that statement, and you can also read the account by Internet security specialist Brian Krebs, who reports that among the targets of Mir Islam’s online terrorism were Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association and a University of Arizona cheerleader that this criminal hacker spent months cyberstalking.

What the reader should ask themselves is this question: “Why would the NRA president, a conservative blogger like Stacy McCain, and a tech security guy like Brian Krebs all be targeted by Mir Islam (and his yet-to-be-identified co-conspirators) in 2013?”

While the reader is speculating on that, let me add a very curious fact: I wasn’t living at the address that was SWATted in March 2013.

In May 2012, after I started reporting on the Brett Kimberlin case, concern for my family’s safety caused me to move to “an undisclosed location” outside Maryland. However, certain people who were allied with Brett Kimberlin — among them, deranged cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt — went to extraordinary lengths to defame me, and one of their character-assassination tactics was to claim that I had lied about moving out of state. Over and over, these allies of Brett Kimberlin falsely claimed online that I was still living at my former address in Maryland.

And guess which address was SWATted in March 2013?

Yep. A young couple with an infant daughter was living at my family’s former address, and the terrifying ordeal of being confronted in the middle of the night by a heavily armed police tactical unit was a trauma that they will never forget. Who is ultimately to blame for that incident?

Well, Mir Islam has been sentenced to federal prison now, and it would be unwise to speculate about the identities of his co-conspirators, but carefully read this paragraph of the official FBI statement:

According to the government’s evidence, Islam and his co-conspirators swatted at least 20 celebrities and state and federal officials. For example, a former member of Congress from Michigan was swatted because of federal legislation he sponsored; a former State Representative, who is now a member of Congress, was swatted because of anti-swatting state legislation he sought to enact, and an Assistant United States Attorney was swatted in retaliation for a particular prosecution he participated in.

Hmmm. Who was that “former member of Congress from Michigan” and what “federal legislation” caused him to be targeted? Which federal prosecution caused Mir Islam’s crew to target an assistant U.S. attorney?

As I say, it would be unwise to speculate about who else might have been involved in Mir Islam’s SWATting conspiracy, and the FBI made a point of stating: “The investigation is continuing.” When I was notified a year ago that a then-unnamed person had copped a plea with the feds, I said: “Let justice be done. Let the guilty fear punishment for their crimes, so that the innocent need never fear.”

Mir Islam is now in federal prison, but there are still guilty people who have yet to face justice, and they should be afraid — very afraid.

Thanks to all the readers who have supported me during the relentless harassment I’ve endured over the past four years. Most of the evil that has been done to me, I’ve never even mentioned publicly, because I don’t want to give these wicked monsters the satisfaction of acknowledging how much damage they have inflicted, and also because if I described their tactics, other monsters might imitate such criminal evil.

“Never Doubt That God Answers Prayer,” and thanks to all the readers who know the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

UPDATE: Linked by John Hoge at Hogewash — thanks!

Category: Crime, Terrorism

Words Mean Things: @kate_manne and the Elastic Definition of ‘Misogyny’

Posted on | July 12, 2016 | 64 Comments

“I worry that the word ‘reason,’ being as heavily masculine-coded as it is, functions as a kind of buzzword.”
— Kate Manne, Ph.D., January 2016

Misogyny is “the system which operates within a patriarchal social order to police and enforce women‘s subordination, and to uphold male dominance,” according to Cornell University Professor Kate Manne. Thus, a sentiment — misogyny actually means hatred of women — is transmogrified into a “system” through the magic of feminist rhetoric.

“Misogyny” is one of those slanderous insults that feminists fling around so habitually and haphazardly as to be meaningless, the way “rape culture” now means almost anything a heterosexual man says or does. Yet no man can object to such insults, nor protest against this slander, without bringing upon himself the suspicion of guilt. The anti-male propaganda of feminist rhetoric is part of a psychological warfare strategy, one which routinely employs “Kafkatrapping” tactics, where denying the accusation is considered proof of guilt. Males exist only as demonized scapegoats in the feminist imagination, as I have explained:

Feminism provides an analytical framework within which almost any aspect of male behavior can be viewed as “problematic” — yet another example of misogyny, “male entitlement,” etc. — so that every man the feminist encounters is viewed as a suspect, a likely perpetrator of sexism, and she is a detective on the case, gathering evidence to indict him.

Feminism condemns all men as complicit in patriarchal oppression, and nothing so conclusively proves a man’s active role in this conspiracy as when he commits the crime of disagreeing with a feminist. The paranoid circularity of Feminist Logic™ is so obvious that it is frightening to think that Cornell University (annual tuition $49,116) would hire a fanatical ideologue like Kate Manne for a tenure-track position, but let’s read more of Doctor Manne’s definition of “misogyny”:

[M]isogyny is primarily a property of social systems or environments as a whole, in which women will tend to face hostility of various kinds because they are women in a man’s world (i.e., a patriarchy), who are held to be failing to live up to men‘s standards (i.e., tenets of patriarchal ideology which have some purchase in this environment). Because of this, misogynist hostilities will often target women more selectively, rather than targeting women across the board. And individual agents may harbor these hostilities for numerous different reasons; the full psychological explanation of their attitudes and actions will also vary widely. Such hostilities may alternatively have their source in the actions, practices, and policies of broader social institutions. What these hostilities are required to have in common is the above social-cum-structural explanation: i.e., roughly, they must be part of a system that polices, punishes, dominates, and condemns those women deemed to be an enemy or threat to the patriarchy.

If you encountered an ordinary person spewing such gibberish — mumbling to themselves at a bus station about “misogynist hostilities” — you’d figure them for a kook on the brink of a psychotic breakdown. However, Kate Mannes has a Ph.D. from MIT, so her gibberish will be published in a book by a major university press. Among other targets, Doctor Mannes takes aim at Heather Mac Donald:

Finally, there is no conflict between social progress for women and misogynist aggression towards them, contra Heather Mac Donald. Progress and misogyny are perfectly compatible. As each of my main examples in this paper has suggested in their own way, and as my analysis predicts, the former may be precisely what engenders the latter, in the form of backlash. That is, women may be resented and punished precisely because they are achieving rapid progress in certain areas. Some women‘s success in hitherto male-dominated roles, as well as their abandonment of traditionally feminine-coded forms of care work, would be predicted on my account to make them the targets for misogynist aggression. And this is what we find. Misogyny often stems from the desire to take women down, to put them in their place again. So the higher they climb, the farther they may be made to fall because of it. But the women who rise up and the women who fall down may not be identical. The glass ceiling may be broken; but then, there may be smack-down. And some women may be hit by the shards of glass following others escalation.

In other words, the more women succeed, the more men hate women, so that no matter how much actual equality may be achieved, there will never be a point in the future when feminists stop claiming to be victims.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t — feminism is a lose-lose proposition all the way around, with increasing hostility between men and women as the necessary byproduct of “progress.” Why? Because modern feminism is derived from Marxism, i.e., “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Feminists simply substitute patriarchy for capitalism as the oppressive system to be destroyed in the prophesied revolutionary apocalypse that will usher in a future egalitarian utopia. Nothing good ever comes from such radicalism, but Doctor Manne teaches philosophy, not history, so the blood-stained record of Marxist-Leninist regimes in the 20th century does nothing to deter her dreams of dictatorial feminist power in the 21st century. And speaking of feminist dictators . . .

Hillary Clinton is a victim of misogyny, according to Doctor Manne: “When Hillary Clinton behaves as other politicians do, or changes her positions, she is perceived as more dishonest and as having less integrity.” Accusations of wrongdoing against Hillary “are feeding into gendered tropes and stereotypes as old as misogyny itself — e.g., of the woman who can’t be trusted, and to whom we hence don’t have to listen,” according to Doctor Manne. Just as no one can criticize Barack Obama without being accused of racism, now the Clinton campaign is planning to make the 2016 election a litmus test of sexism, and Doctor Manne has published a 5,000-word opus in The Boston Review that depicts Donald Trump as the living embodiment of misogyny:

Trump’s blunt kind of misogyny is a good place to start in understanding the general phenomenon. It is so crude, shameless, and unapologetic that we run little risk of getting lost in its nuances. But we must ask the natural next question: What happens to misogyny when it acquires a little subtlety or goes underground and manages more by way of plausible deniability?
The answer, all too often, is that it is transformed into moralistic forms — which are not . . . historical artifacts. What unites these varieties of misogyny, past and present, and moralistic and non-moralistic alike, is that they enforce the patriarchal order by lifting men up and taking down women. . . .

Four thousand words later, Doctor Manne concludes by wondering whether some “progressive” men will join the misogynistic backlash:

It is not difficult to see why misogynistic aggression might coexist with progressive commitments. Many white men, including those who espouse egalitarian and progressive values — even those who pride themselves on being good feminists — have recently experienced a loss of power and status relative to nonwhites and white women. Some are in denial. And some are angry. Some are lashing out in grief cloaked in outrage.
The strength of these forces will become clearer in November. I confess that I am not optimistic about the outcome. Electing Trump would strike a major blow for patriarchal restoration. Misogynistic social forces are hence pushing in this direction. And if Clinton does win, she will have to govern in the face of a revanchism intensified by Trump’s defeat. Another fear is that the least privileged and most vulnerable women will bear the brunt of the trickle-down aggression.
We will see soon enough. But insofar as there is a distinctively modern strain of misogyny, it is this: the backlash to women’s social progress and to feminism.

What? Does the professor mean that Republicans complaining about Trump are against “patriarchal restoration”? As a leading spokesman for misogynistic social forces, this is very disturbing to me. If the GOP isn’t going to do its part to enforce the patriarchal order, who will?

At least I’m not one of those pathetic progressive dudes “who espouse egalitarian and progressive values” and “pride themselves on being good feminists” while they suffer “loss of power and status,” etc. Equality is impossible, social justice is a mirage, and Progress Is the Root of All Evil.

Of course, nobody who hopes to get tenure at Cornell University would dare speak such blunt truths, and Doctor Manne finds herself surrounded by male faculty members who never dare say a word against her feminist ideology. Their timorous silence probably leads her to suspect that her male colleagues are all secretly plotting to uphold their dominance and enforce her subordination. One reason paranoia is so typical of academic feminism is simply because no one on campus is permitted to dissent. Every member of the faculty and administration at an Ivy League school like Cornell is expected to sing from the Diversity Hymnal, and if any of them privately harbor doubts about “egalitarian and progressive values,” they know they would be persona non grata on campus if they ever gave voice to any skeptical opinion toward feminism. Yet surely not everyone at Cornell shares Doctor Manne’s fanatical zeal, and her ideology tells her that “even [men] who pride themselves on being good feminists” are apt to join the “backlash to women’s social progress.” So who is this Judas at Cornell who will betray her? Which member of the faculty may even now be secretly sabotaging Doctor Manne’s path to tenure?

Madness looms as fear haunts the feminist imagination. Last year, an academic philosophy journal rejected one of Doctor Manne’s articles, which caused her to erupt in a memorable Facebook conniption:

I received a rejection notice from a journal yesterday. This is a pretty routine occurrence in this game, admittedly. Acceptance rates are notoriously low in philosophy; well under five per cent in the top journals. So you have to learn to accept the rejections themselves gracefully. And much as you slightly dread reading the reports, they can be valuable, even invaluable, in making the paper better. They can help to expose unclarities in your claims, gaps in your argument, etc. But sometimes, they simply confirm that you are fighting a losing battle.
This referee report was one such. The reviewer complained about my use of feminist terms and concepts throughout the paper — e.g., “hegemonic dominance”, “messages that are not only false but oppressive,” and “hermeneutical injustice,” being the specific phrases which they listed as objectionable. And they went on to remark more generally that “the rhetoric of the ms. is such that it will, I think, (1) turn off some readers and (2) distract from the author’s argument. The author brings in some concepts and language which, whatever their merits, seem dubious to many of us in the analytic tradition.”
As a feminist philosopher in the analytic tradition, this is a very disappointing reaction to encounter. Many of us — me included — take the above terms and concepts to be standard, useful, and indeed vital, stock-in-trade. And the people who the reviewer feared would be so “turned off” by the language as to be “distracted” from my argument seem to include the reviewer themselves, ironically. They not only managed to completely miss, but handily illustrated, my central point in the paper. The point being that if one espouses politically marginalized views within philosophy, then one is disproportionately likely to be dismissed, disparaged, silenced, or even excluded from the discipline altogether. One is less likely to be given a platform in leading journals, for one concrete example, in view of which one is of course less likely to be able to earn a living wage, let alone get tenure.
Taken alone, my experience is just one data point, of course. But recent work by Sally Haslanger, among others, strongly suggests that it is not anomalous. Feminist philosophy is virtually absent, and plausibly systematically excluded, from top journals, she argues.

You see? Feminism is “politically marginalized” and Doctor Manne is a victim — dismissed, disparaged, silenced and excluded! — of misogyny.

She’s only three or four years away from tenure now, so her dreadful ordeal on the “publish-or-perish” treadmill will soon be over. And if Cornell votes against tenure for Doctor Manne?

Federal lawsuit, guaranteed. She’s probably got a massive cache of evidence already. Every email or text message from any of her faculty colleagues that could plausibly be interpreted as “sexist” is stored somewhere, in anticipation of a future Title IX claim against Cornell. Why are feminists so common in academia and so rare in the private sector? No major business could survive in this litigation-happy country if managers didn’t carefully screen applications to make sure they don’t hire any woman with Gender Studies classes on her college transcripts. Any involvement in campus “activism” is likewise a red flag in the hiring process. The activist mentality represents a potential threat of lawsuits claiming “discrimination,” “hostile work environment,” etc., and companies would go broke paying settlements if they hired kooks who use social-justice jargon like “hegemonic dominance.”

This is the real tragedy of elite education in the 21st century. Parents pay $49,116 a year to send their kids to Cornell, hoping that an Ivy League education will qualify their child for successful careers, and instead the kids are being indoctrinated in bizarre “progressive” nonsense that renders students incapable of functioning in the real world. Honestly, what parent would want their child to turn out like Alanna Bennett, who went to Oberlin College (annual tuition $50,586) and ended up ranting about Ghostbusters at BuzzFeed?

“Hey, how’s your daughter doing?”

“She’s got an apartment and a cat and a job writing for BuzzFeed.”

“My condolences.”

Redefining words — so that “misogyny” is now simply a synonym for something a feminist dislikes — won’t change reality. What it will do is make it more difficult for allegedly “educated” people to understand why the world doesn’t conform to what they have been taught by the ideological commissars who control higher education in this country.