The Other McCain

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

The World Has Gone Mad

Posted on | June 23, 2016 | 18 Comments

 

The site Medium.com is an interesting platform, which I have not previously used, but this topic seemed appropriate for a first effort:

The rise of transgender mania — for which Bruce “Caitlin” Jenner is the celebrity poster boy/girl — can best be understood as a belated consequence of culture shifts that occurred 40 or 50 years ago, especially in the field of psychology. Whereas once heterosexuality was officially understood as normal, and homosexuality defined as deviant, this understanding was cast aside by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973. If there was no such thing as normal sexual behavior, then it was no longer possible to describe any sexual behavior as abnormal. Pandora’s Box had been opened, and the potential results of this were difficult to predict.
Parents who have more or less traditional expectations for our children find ourselves compelled to protect our children against a culture which increasingly condemns “normal” as a synonym for oppressive. Progressive intellectuals consider you a very bad parent if you expect your boys to be masculine and your girls to be feminine, and you are simply hateful if you expect your children to be heterosexual. . . .

Please read the whole thing at Medium.com.




 

 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 06.22.16

Posted on | June 22, 2016 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Lefty Journalist Neil Steinberg Denied An AR-15 Because He’s A Drunken Wife-Beater
Michelle Malkin: Horror And Hush-Up In Twin Falls, Idaho
Twitchy: Did Rep. John Lewis’ Commitment To Civil Rights Have An Expiration Date?


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant To Shut Down
American Thinker: Senator Sessions Says Trump Is Right On Muslim Immigration Ban
Da Tech Guy: Baldilocks – Remembering A 2008 Entitlement War
Don Surber: Trump Hillary
Jammie Wearing Fools: Hilarious House Dems Stage Temper Tantrum Over Gun Control
Joe For America: Migrants On Welfare Protest – Their Demands Will Piss You Off
Pamela Geller: Muslim Former FBI Agent Who Refused To Wiretap Fellow Muslims Now Homeland Security Adviser
Shark Tank: Marco Rubio’s Running For Re-Election
Shot In The Dark: One For Your Mental Library
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Islam Has Nothing To Do With Islamic Terrorism
The Lonely Conservative: Obama’s Economic Predictions Vs. Reality
The Political Hat: Being Raped Is Now Jewish Privilege
This Ain’t Hell: Marines Toughen Physical Standards For Combat Jobs
Weasel Zippers: Clinton IT Specialist Pleads The Fifth 125 Times In 90-Minute Deposition On E-Mail Scandal
Megan McArdle: Maybe Pharmaceutical Reps Aren’t Actually Bribing Doctors
Mark Steyn: “Steyn Was Right And I Was Wrong”


America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It
Shop Amazon Fashion – Extra 25% Off Men’s Suits & More

Category: Linkagery

More Feminist Tumblr Stupidity

Posted on | June 22, 2016 | 7 Comments

Here is a classic in the annals of bad logic:

I’ve never met a self-identified men’s rights activist in real life and I’m guessing that’s due to any combination of the following reasons:
1. They realize that their passionate crusade against a fictitious version of feminism doesn’t hold up outside of their Reddit/4chan/meme troll internet culture of mostly male aggression/entitlement, so if they bring it up in person they really can’t just attack anyone who points out “hey that’s pretty fucked up” without the personal displacement of a keyboard and back up from other members of the environment that nurtures the toxicity
2. They just don’t go outside and interact with the actual social current buzzing around them while they complain about feminists and SJWs online
3. God loves me and is actively keeping them away from me

Where to begin? First, feminists hate God:

It was Mary Daly who celebrated the feminist movement as “the Second Coming of female presence not only as Antichrist but also as Antichurch,” as a “rising woman-consciousness” to destroy the “Christocentric cosmos.” Mary Daly was an influential professor, so if she declared feminism to be the Antichrist, who am I to disagree?

If the Tumblr feminist thinks God is doing her favors, she must be under the influence of “strong delusion” (II Thessalonians 2:11-12), as feminists generally are. If God is keeping “men’s rights activists” (MRAs) away from a feminist, it’s because he is doing the MRAs a favor.

As for the claim that MRAs “just don’t go outside and interact,” I’d wager $100 that most MRAs have a more active social life than the typical Tumblr feminist who fills her blog with angry rage because the producers of an obscure cable TV show killed a lesbian character.

If we can exclude from our theories (a) divine intervention and (b) the stereotype of MRAs as basement-dwelling geeks with no social life, this brings us to (c) the characterization of MRAs as engaged in a “passionate crusade against a fictitious version of feminism doesn’t hold up.” In other words, the Tumblr feminist believes MRAs are fearful, or intellectually incapable, of engaging in real-life arguments with actual feminists. This is also likely a mistaken belief. More likely, MRAs are wise enough to simply to avoid feminists. Most women are not feminists, certainly not of the batshit-crazy Third Wave SJW Queer Feminist type who congregate on Tumblr. Avoiding mentally ill women with facial piercings, tattoos and strange hairstyles is much easier in real life than it is on feminist Tumblr. There are still plenty of sane heterosexual women in the real world, even on college campuses, so why would any intelligent man waste time talking to the kind of angry tattooed weirdos who major in Gender Studies?

 

Every feminist believes that men are hopelessly stupid, and that men are therefore incapable of rationally pursuing their self-interest. Despite their talk about “equality,” every feminist is arrogantly convinced of her own intellectual and moral superiority to all men. The only way a feminist ever looks at a man is down, and her hateful anti-male prejudice is readily apparent to any man who is unfortunate enough to encounter her.

It’s not hard to detect a feminist, even if she doesn’t advertise herself with “The Deliberate Ugliness of Feminism.” A general attitude of paranoid hostility toward men is one common trait of feminists, who radiate an aura of fear and hate. If, however, a man ignores these signals and engages in a conversation with a feminist, he will notice her tendency to employ condescending sarcasm toward him, conveying her belief that he is an inferior unworthy of respect. Most men are smart enough to cut short a conversation with any woman who exhibits the characteristic arrogance of a feminist, but if he isn’t shrewd enough read the initial signals and walk away, he will regret it. Sooner or later, her irrational anti-male rage will be turned against him. I’ve explained how this works:

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. . . .
All men are her moral inferiors, the feminist believes, but the evidence of their inferiority can be difficult to find, because their sexism is not always overt. There are subtle shades and degrees of sexism, and the feminist injustice collector becomes an expert at detecting the tiniest bits of evidence, like a forensic investigator scrutinizing a murder scene for latent fingerprints and microscopic traces of DNA.
This suspicious mentality, rooted in an attitude of profound resentment toward males, is apt to metastasize into dangerous irrationality.

All men are bad and everything a man says or does is always wrong — this is the basic core of feminist belief. This is why feminist rhetoric is an endless monologue of insulting accusations against men, who are generally demonized and scapegoated, blamed for everything wrong in the world — objectification, harassment, “rape culture,” etc. This is the psychological warfare tactic of Kafkatrapping:

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping” . . .
The aim of the kafkatrap is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt in the subject, a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals. Ideally, the subject will then internalize these demands, and then become complicit in the kafkatrapping of others.

Once you learn to spot this tactic, you refuse to be intimidated by it, and feminists are apt to respond with apoplectic fits of shrieking fury. Most guys don’t want to waste time playing these games, and the far easier thing to do is simply to avoid feminists. That’s probably why the Tumblrina was ranting about never meeting an MRA in real-life. Maybe she has, and just doesn’t know it, because as soon as they spotted her as a feminist, they shunned her. This is what I’ve advised men to do:

Never talk to a feminist.
Guys: Learn to take a hint. Learn to walk away.
If a woman tells you she is a feminist, say nothing and walk away.
No feminist wants to hear what a man has to say, and life is too short to waste your time taking to feminists. Just walk away.
Leave feminists alone, and then they can complain about that.

Feminism is an express train to Crazy Cat Lady Land.





 


Category: Sex Trouble

Did Atheist Reddit Save Her Soul?

Posted on | June 22, 2016 | 43 Comments

There was a rather notorious incident in 2011 when a 15-year-old girl using the handle “Lunam” posted the photo above on the Reddit atheism forum, showing a copy of a Carl Sagan book her “super religious mother” bought her for Christmas. This being Reddit during its Wild West heyday — when the infamous troll “Violentacrez” was still in action — the reaction to Lunam’s photo was, uh, memorable. Which is to say, it was an atrocity, a human rights violation, worse than the Holocaust.

If you’re going to denounce sexism, go all-out, I say.

Rebecca Watson did a post in which she cited some of the predictably atrocious comments, e.g., “Well 15 is legal many places, including my country, so I’ll only have to deal with abduction charges.” To which another commenter responded with a meme: “You call it kidnapping. I call it surprise adoption.” There were comments even worse than these which got “upvoted” hundreds of times, which showed that Reddit is “a whole community of people who congratulate one another for being awful,” Watson concluded. And maybe her conclusion was correct.

On the other hand, maybe the average cubicle-dweller lives such a dehumanizing existence — crunching code, responding to inter-office emails, attending pointless staff meetings, etc. — that when he finds an unrestricted Internet playpen where he can say whatever he wants behind the screen of a pseudonym, his inner adolescent inevitably emerges.

Eight hours a day, five days a week, the cubicle-dweller does whatever it is he does to pay the bills, and there are all these rules, see? The 21st-century office environment is quite hostile to free expression. The list of Things You Can’t Say grows longer every day, and the cubicle-dweller’s inner adolescent must be strenuously repressed, lest he accidentally say or do something “offensive” that will get him written up or fired for violating the human resources policy. This regime of repression, I suggest, is why so many guys delight in saying rude things in any Internet venue where anonymity protects them from consequences.

Making rape jokes about a 15-year-old? Obviously this is a very bad thing to do, but what do you expect on a Reddit atheism forum?

The 2011 “Lunam” incident was cited by prominent atheist author Richard Carrier when he issued a manifesto in August 2012:

There is a new atheism brewing, and it’s the rift we need, to cut free the dead weight so we can kick the C.H.U.D.’s back into the sewers and finally disown them, once and for all.

What is a “C.H.U.D.”? “Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller,” a reference to a 1984 horror/sci-fi movie. Anyway, Carrier’s call for a “new atheism,” free from the “dead weight” of scummy Reddit types, did not make him any friends among the scummy Reddit types. Carrier was much hated as a fun-spoiling douchebag because of his pretentious call for “building a system of shared values” in order to “start marginalizing the evil in our midst, and grooming the next generation more consistently and clearly into a system of more enlightened humanist values.”

“Eat your broccoli, kids — it’s good for you!”

The recent downfall of Richard Carrier — banned from Skepticon because of sexual harassment allegations — inspired widespread celebration not only among feminists within the atheist community, but perhaps even more by anti-feminists. Carrier’s enthusiastic devotion to feminism had made him obnoxious to male atheists like Phil Mason, who feel feminists have hijacked atheism. What feminists have done in recent years is to attempt to redefine opposition to feminism as “hate speech,” so that being against feminism is equivalent to being a neo-Nazi, and thereby justify silencing dissent. Contrary to their constant claims that they are being “silenced” by online “harassment,” feminists are in no danger of losing their positions as university professors of Women’s Studies, as authors and newspaper columnists, as employees of non-profit feminist organizations. Their security within the Feminist-Industrial Complex is nearly absolute. And no one is trying to “silence” feminists. Who has quoted feminists more often than I have? Only by quoting feminists can I demonstrate how dangerously crazy they are, and I can’t very well quote them if they are “silenced,” can I?

“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786

This is what I believe — that “free argument and debate” are necessary if truth is to prevail. And it is strange how things happen when free speech is permitted. Remember how “Lunam” was a teenage atheist, proud to get a Carl Sagan book for Christmas? She posted her picture with the book on Reddit and the forum erupted in rape jokes because, hey, it’s atheists on Reddit, and what do you expect from such people? And . . .

So I’m a Christian now! Weird huh? 😀
It’s a big step up from Christmas when I made the top of r/all with an atheism post. I’m just excited and wanted to tell the (reddit) world!
Have a wonderful day.

That’s what “Lunam” wrote in August 2012, about eight months after her famous Reddit moment, and don’t you think that the raw sewer of filth spewed at her by those Reddit trolls may have influenced her against atheism? Let people be who they are and say what they think — remove the repressive force of political correctness — and sometimes things happen that are so amazing we almost might call them miracles.

It’s easier to believe in miracles than to believe in coincidences, when atheists on Reddit end up leading young souls to Jesus.





 


Category: Religion

God and Man at #Skepticon: Atheist @RichardCCarrier Gets Banned

Posted on | June 21, 2016 | 60 Comments

Richard Carrier mocks Christianity at Skepticon 2011.

“I am a feminist because feminism is simply the belief that women should be treated as fairly as men, and there is no factual or rational reason to want the world to work any other way.”
— Richard Carrier, 2012

“The accusations specifically against Richard Carrier are, sadly, not so surprising to the Skepticon organizers. . . . What has been made clear by the recent discussions is that our attendees’ well being and comfort is put at an unacceptable risk by Carrier’s presence, and so we are officially prohibiting Richard Carrier from attending any future Skepticons.”
— Lauren Lane, “Keeping Skepticon Safe Richard Carrier to Be Banned,” June 20, 2016

Women who hate God also usually hate men and sex, and the influence of feminism has proved the undoing of the “New Atheist” movement, as Ph.D. scientist Phil “Thunderfoot” Mason said in a December 2015 video: “Make no mistake, it wasn’t the religious who effectively destroyed the atheist movement, it was feminists, who infiltrated, derailed and effectively destroyed what, until then, had been an exciting and vibrant new atheist movement.” This was a subject I wrote about a few years ago after Rebecca Watson denounced atheist men who “sexualize” her.

Atheist women are soulless monsters incapable of normal affection. Hate is the only emotion atheist women ever feel, and they especially hate atheist men who are “creepy” — a feminist synonym for heterosexual.

 

Richard Carrier has a Ph.D. from Columbia University and is the author of several anti-Christian books. He spoke at the very first “Skepticon” event in 2008 at Missouri State University, and returned to speak at the conference every year thereafter through 2013. Carrier was also a frequent speaker on college campuses, where his appearances were sponsored by the Secular Student Alliance. Even as he rose to prominence in the pantheon of New Atheist celebrities, however, Carrier’s fame as an anti-Christian was becoming problematic. In 2012, Carrier declared himself a feminist. Around the same time, when he was in his mid-40s, he began having extramarital affairs. In 2015, Carrier announced he was divorcing his wife of 20 years, explaining he “had a few brief affairs, because I found myself unequipped to handle certain unusual circumstances in our marriage.” At the same time he announced:

I am polyamorous.
I have, and will continue to have, multiple girlfriends who are likewise poly or aware of my being so, and that will be the way of my life from now on.

Being “polyamorous” is what used to be called “swinging,” which has always been a notoriously creepy scene full of dangerous perverts — voyeurs, exhibitionists, bondage/sadomasochism freaks, etc. Carrier’s divorce and “coming out” as polyamorous came a few years after the Rebecca Watson incident, which caused Vox Day to mock atheist men:

No wonder they’re so furious at God. He created all those lovely women with those beautiful breasts and they aren’t even allowed to even talk to them.

Whatever else feminism may include, it always includes implacable hostility toward male heterosexual behavior, which feminists condemn as “sexism,” “harassment,” etc. Not all feminists are lesbians, but all feminists condemn men’s sexual attraction to women. Any male who expresses admiration of female beauty is engaged in “objectification,” and any man who flirts with a woman is guilty of “harassment” if she decides his interest is “unwanted” or “unwelcome.” (See “The Queering of Feminism and the Silencing of Heterosexual Masculinity.”)

Men cannot even be allowed to talk to women, according to the ideology Professor Daphne Patai exposed in her 1998 book, Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. This radical anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology has become increasingly evident in feminist rhetoric. “Feminism is about redefining our social value system,” Anita Sarkeesian explained in May 2015, and elsewhere proclaimed: “Feminism is about the collective liberation of women as a social class. Feminism is not about personal choice.” The feminist agenda of “the collective liberation of women” requires that male/female differences be eradicated. “The gender binary is an entirely artificial and socially constructed division of male and female,” Sarkeesian declared in a 2013 video, denouncing the “false dichotomy” of viewing men and women as “two distinctly separate” kinds of human beings. This attack on the “gender binary” and the agenda of “redefining our social value system” are aimed toward a goal Richard Carrier probably did not understand when he called himself a “feminist.”

“Women under patriarchy are raped or romanticized — often both simultaneously. Partly for this reason, radical feminists argue that, under patriarchy, heterosexuality itself is oppressive to women. . . .
“Apart from the pressure it puts on women to suppress the lesbian side of their sexuality, patriarchal norms of heterosexuality define masculine and feminine sexuality in such a way that the woman is an object for the man.”
— Alison Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988)

“It is women’s subordination within institutional heterosexuality which is the starting point for feminist analysis. It is resistance to this subordination which is the foundation of feminist politics.”
— Stevi Jackson, Heterosexuality in Question (1999)

“Heterosexism is maintained by the illusion that heterosexuality is the norm.”
— Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

“Gender is a hierarchical system which maintains the subordination of females as a class to males through force. Gender is a material system of power which uses violence and psychological coercion to exploit female labor, sex, reproduction, emotional support, etc., for the benefit of males.”
— Rachel Ivey, 2013

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. . . . Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men. . . .
“Being around any man constitutes a threat to us, because they are our oppressors. Being wanted by a man and him treating you as if you were his is inherently violent.”
— Radical Wind, 2013

“Heterosexuality and masculinity . . . are made manifest through patriarchy, which normalizes men as dominant over women. . . .
“This tenet of patriarchy is thus deeply connected to acts of sexual violence, which have been theorized as a physical reaffirmation of patriarchal power by men over women.”
— Sara Carrigan Wooten, The Crisis of Campus Sexual Violence: Critical Perspectives on Prevention and Response (2015)

Once you understand feminist gender theory, you see that feminism is simply incompatible with heterosexuality. Feminists condemn men as “oppressors” who impose heterosexuality as an “institution” that enforces “women’s subordination” through “patriarchal power.”

Richard Carrier evidently never bothered to study feminism before swearing his allegiance to the movement. In August 2013, when one atheist blogger complained that feminists were “attempting to redefine flirting as sexual harassment and sexual intercourse as rape,” Richard Carrier responded by asserting how pro-sex the atheist movement is:

Indeed, many of my friends in the atheist community are polyamorous, or actively participate in the BDSM or swinging communities, some even have orgies and sex parties . . . at atheist conferences! . . .
Polyamory and swinging and even the attending of orgies requires more ethical behavior and more careful attention to boundaries and consent than traditional sexual relationships do.

That paean to the “ethical behavior” of orgy-goers was about two years before Carrier’s divorce and “coming out” as a polyamorist. (A memorable reaction to that disclosure: “Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD — A creepy, dishonest hypocrite.”) Carrier’s behavior at atheist conferences, however, had caused others to label him “creepy,” as he admitted in a June 2015 blog post where he confessed to what he called “failures” involving “bad flirtation” and situations where he “behaved awfully.”

Now, if you were in benefit-of-the-doubt mode, favorably disposed toward Richard Carrier, you might read his mea culpa as motivated by sincere remorse over a few incidents of behavior that was mildly offensive or inappropriate — “relatively small and correctable,” as he said. However, despite his claims about the wild swinging “pro-sex” attitudes of the atheist movement, Richard Carrier had become a target of feminists who were not favorably disposed toward him and who did not consider his misbehavior “correctable.” Carrier allegedly crossed the line after a speaking appearance at Arizona State University on April 3, 2015, when a student named Amy Frank said Carrier “sexually harassed me and touched me.” This was reported to the Secular Student Alliance, and Carter responded to the SSA by email:

“I did express interest in a student at an after event. And I recognized she did not appreciate that, and I apologized to her at the time. If she does want any further apology, I will definitely provide her one, so do relay that if that’s the case. But I don’t want to bother her by contacting her any further without her consent. I definitely felt bad about it. I thought the interest was mutual and I was very wrong. I won’t be doing that in future.”

SSA has a “zero-tolerance” policy, and responded by removing Carrier from their Speakers Bureau, although he continued to appear at SSA-affiliated events at Ohio State University (Nov. 16, 2015), University of California-Riverside (April 23, 2016) and Florida Tech (May 13, 2016).

Let us be clear that there is a difference between “expressing interest” in someone and “sexual harassment,” however, when a 45-year-old man is invited to speak on a university campus, for him to “express interest” in a student is inherently inappropriate. Here’s how Carrier describes it:

I did not touch her. Nor did the SSA tell me she had claimed so. And indeed, our interaction was more ambiguous than she makes out. Apart from publicly flattering her abilities as I would anyone as competent, we had one private conversation in which she expressed interest in opening her relationship with her then-boyfriend (or husband?), but noted he wasn’t sure about it yet. In response to that I mentioned that if she ever does, I’d be interested in dating her, and she should feel free to contact me if that happens. She smiled and said she would. That was the extent of our interaction that could be described as sexual harassment, and that only at quite a stretch. Amy also mentioned in that conversation that her then-boyfriend reads her private emails and messages. Implying I shouldn’t attempt to contact her. Even though I hadn’t said I would.

Question: Why would a college girl tell a 45-year-old man she was considering “opening her relationship” (i.e., polyamory)? Was this because Richard Carrier had a well-established habit of bringing up the topic of polyamory in cocktail-party conversation, as a sort of prompt to see if any women he’s talking to might be up for some action?

What does a middle-aged divorced atheist polyamorist consider “appropriate” behavior toward girls half his age? A commenter at Carrier’s blog, “Jimmy From Chicago,” raised this issue:

“Even if we’re to believe you and not believe her, you’re still the creepy middle-aged man who goes to the off-campus bar, hits on the students, and makes everyone uncomfortable. To do this at an event where you’re the invited speaker is unprofessional.”

To this, Carrier responded:

If you think ageism and infantilizing adult college students is better, I think we just have different values.
Meanwhile, I have many successful relationships with college students.

And furthermore Carrier added:

Except for some rare mistakes I have already publicly discussed, I only express interest in women when they have, or when they’ve made an indication it’s safe to. . . .
Their age and your age is completely irrelevant. That you think it is relevant is ageist; that you think young woman can’t make decisions for themselves and don’t want to be given the chance to, is infantilizing them.

So, girls half his age are fair game to the middle-aged atheist who has had “many successful relationships with college students.” It is “agesist” and “infantilizing” these girls to suggest that the age difference matters.

Far be it from me to play the judgmental pharisee here, and we know there are college girls who have no problem with a “sugar daddy” arrangement, but do we respect people who engage in such behavior? If slutty college girls actually are chasing middle-aged men, do we respect the girls? And if middle-aged men are chasing slutty college girls, do we respect the men? Even if such behavior is mutually consensual, it’s still not praiseworthy. The problem in the 21st century is that feminism has created a New Double Standard, where women’s can never be criticized for their sexual misbehavior (because that would be “slut-shaming”), yet men’s sexual misbehavior can destroy their careers.

So, Amy Frank made her complaint to the Secular Student Alliance, and this damaged Richard Carrier’s reputation, but her accusation was not made public until this month, when Amy Frank discovered that Richard Carrier was involved in Camp Quest, a summer event for atheist kids. This prompted Amy Frank to go public — big time:

Richard Carrier, the man who sexually harassed me and touched me a year ago after speaking at ASU is now an official employee of this organization. Camp Quest and the Secular Student Alliance are partners, and fully aware of what transpired last year. I’m not even close to being his only victim, and there are even more victims of other speakers of the SSA.
Want to know why he continues to be involved after being banned from being an SSA speaker? He is dating the wife of the Executive Director of the Secular Student Alliance. This woman is the head of Camp Quest.
Corrupt people continue to destroy what could be wonderful organizations. I am officially BOYCOTTING the national Secular Student Alliance until their leadership is completely dismantled. Students deserve to have an organization capable of handling sexual harassment and assault, with no conflicts of interest. Not only is abuse fairly common at SSA events, but the organization itself goes out of their way to undermine the reports of its very own members’ trauma.
I’ve held my tongue far too long. No more sweeping this shit under the rug. Time to own the fuck up and face the music. The victims have had enough.

Some would find the words “victim” and “trauma” here a bit much. However creepy and inappropriate Richard Carrier’s behavior may have been, what “trauma” is involved in brushing off a guy’s pickup line?

Ah, but remember feminist theory? All women are victims of “a hierarchical system which maintains the subordination of females as a class” through “violence and psychological coercion.” Feminism is about “resistance” to “women’s subordination within institutional heterosexuality.” Therefore, if a middle-age atheist guy tries to pick up a college atheist girl, she is a “victim” who suffers “trauma.”

THE PATRIARCHY IS OPPRESSING HER!

The many traumatized victims of Richard Carrier’s oppression have united, and he has now been banned from attending any future Skepticon, and his posting privleges at Free Thought Blogs have been suspended. He is now persona non grata in the atheist movement. This renders highly ironic the subject of a campus speech Richard Carrier gave in April:

Is Feminism Evil? What Feminism Really Is
& Why Movement Atheism Needs More of It
The internet has spread a mythology of sexism and misogyny that is now predominantly embraced by atheists, impeding understanding, and progress towards women’s equality. Like racism in the South, anti-feminism is now spread not always explicitly, but often through code words, fake concerns, and subtle bigotry. And its effects are being felt within movement atheism.
Feminism is about understanding and fighting this, and finishing what the Enlightenment started. Resistance to this is not rational, as we can see by the illogical and ill informed ways atheists attempt to claim they do not harbor outmoded sexist ideas, and thus end up perpetuating the very sexism they claim doesn’t exist. Personal stories, documented facts, and published science verify all of the ways women are still being treated unequally, and what to do about it.

Yes, feminism is evil, Dr. Carrier. You learned this too late.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 06.21.16

Posted on | June 21, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 06.21.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Eleanor Mondale and Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky
Michelle Malkin: Exposing Obama’s Most Gaffetastic Whitewashes
Twitchy: Dem Rep Fattah Just Convicted Of A Crapload Of Crimes


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Out Today – Dana Loesch’s Flyover Nation
American Thinker: The Insidious Power Of The Media’s Disinformation Campaign For Hillary Clinton
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Field Of Graves by J.T. Ellison
Da Tech Guy: An Invitation To Thieves And Terrorists From A Restaurant In Maine
Don Surber: Illegal Alien Tries To Assassinate Trump
Jammie Wearing Fools: Memo To Democrats – If “Climate Deniers” Can Be Sued, So Can Frauds Like Al Gore
Joe For America: Pro-Gun, Pro-Gay West Hollywood, With Fabulous Posters
Pamela Geller: DHS Islamic Advisor Claims Orlando Jihad Was Not Islamic
Shark Tank: Marco Rubio Senate Re-Election Watch Continues
Shot In The Dark: Good Customers With Guns
STUMP: Where’s Meep?
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Top Terrorist Forum Offline
The Lonely Conservative: Democrat Senator Laments Due Process For American Citizens
The Political Hat: School Punishes Meat-Eating Thought Criminal
This Ain’t Hell: Alcoholic Wife-Beating Chicago Journalist Can’t Buy A Gun
Weasel Zippers: Race Hoaxer Sentenced To 90 Days In Jail, Must Repay $82K In Damages
Megan McArdle: Obamacare Premiums Are Going Up. Again. Now What?


Category: Linkagery

In The Mailbox: 06.20.16

Posted on | June 20, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 06.20.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Louder With Crowder: Bob Ross Paints Muhammad
EBL: Will Great Britain Leave The European Union?
Twitchy: Is Fauxcahontas Clueless On Gun Rights? Signs Point To Yes!


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Trump Cans Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski
American Thinker: Voter Photo ID – NC Proves It Works Very Well Indeed
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Tom Clancy’s Duty And Honor by Grant Blackwood
Da Tech Guy: Loretta Lynch Lying Or Telling The Truth, Which Is Worse?
Don Surber: Gun Debate Makes America Less Safe
Jammie Wearing Fools: Four NYPD Officials Busted In DiBlasio Fundraising Probe
Joe For America: Guess Who Was A Guest At Obama’s White House? Hint: “Orlando”
JustOneMinute: The Power Of Positive Wishful Thinking
Pamela Geller: In Idaho, Muslim Migrants Rape Five-Year-Old
Shark Tank: Obama Administration Redacts All Islamic References From Orlando Massacre 911 Transcripts
Shot In The Dark: Lie First, Lie Always – Audio Carnage
STUMP: Puerto Rico Roundup – Still Waiting On Congress
The Jawa Report: Fatwa This! The West Is The Best
The Lonely Conservative: Does Donald Trump Even Want To Win The Election?
The Political Hat: Ain’t No Rest For The Triggered
This Ain’t Hell: The Pentagon Wants To Hire Officers Off The Street
Weasel Zippers: FBI – On Second Thought, Releasing Redacted Copy Of Orlando 911 Transcripts Omitting References To Islamn Was A Bad Idea
Megan McArdle: Game Of Thrones Is Showing Symptoms Of Michael Bay-itis
Mark Steyn: A Note To Our Readers (And Listeners, And Viewers)


Shop Amazon – Save Up to 42% on Summer Coleman Gear
Shop Amazon – Save up to 60% on select open-box sunglasses

Category: Linkagery

[Redacted] Is a Religion of Peace

Posted on | June 20, 2016 | 27 Comments

The Obama administration and the liberal media have decided that when a radical Islamic terrorist kills Americans, the one thing the narrative cannot be about is radical Islamic terrorism. It’s OK to talk about the Orlando massacre in terms of homophobia, gun control or “toxic masculinity,” but don’t you dare mention Islam. Don’t mention that Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat, or that he’s the son of an immigrant from Afghanistan or that his father supports the Taliban.

This obvious pro-Muslim bias has become increasingly blatant:

Justice Department Replaces ‘Allah’ With
‘God’ in Censored Orlando Terrorist Transcript
— Katie Pavlich, Townhall

FBI Omitted ISIS From Orlando 911 Transcript
— Mary Chastain, Legal Insurrection

FBI releases 911 transcripts of Omar Mateen
— with references to ISIS omitted
— Allahpundit, Hot Air

The media would have you believe that this sensitivity is necessary because, if radical Islamic terrorism were identified as the cause of a gruesome mass murder, Americans would be seized by irrational “Islamophobia” and commit hate crimes against random brown people. In fact, the reason that the administration and the media are so intent on downplaying the role of Islam is because they are afraid that if they told the truth, people might vote Republican in November.

Therefore, the media won’t tell the truth. Then again, it’s been a long time since the media in this country told the truth about anything.




 

Category: Islam, Media Bias, Terrorism
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin