The Other McCain

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

The #FreeStacy Protest Continues

Posted on | February 23, 2016 | 39 Comments

Friends, I am profoundly grateful for all the support my friends have shown in the past few days. Go down the #FreeStacy hashtag on Twitter and RT as much as you can. Here’s the Lonely Conservative:

Stacy McCain is still in the Twitter gulag for speaking out against feminist tyrants who don’t like debate. Twitter even banned his secondary account. He’s been told that his account will not be restored. So much for Twitter’s commitment to “freedom of expression.” They say he violated their rules about “participating in targeted abuse.” I don’t see them shutting down the accounts of people who give me crap on Twitter, but I usually just block those people so they don’t bother me anymore.
Anyway, even though he’s shut out of Twitter, Stacy certainly hasn’t been silenced. Heck, he’s just getting going. Be sure to follow the links and read the posts.
I’m sure there are a few people who think “So what if Twitter shuts downs accounts. They can do what they want as a private company.” That’s true. But the problem isn’t limited to Mr. McCain and Twitter. . . .

Please go hit her tip jar. As a conservative in upstate New York, she has endured horrendous harassment over the years, but you don’t see her trying to shut down people’s accounts. The proximate cause of the current problem at Twitter is Anita Sarkeesian (@FemFreq), so if you’re on Twitter, make sure Ms. Sarkeesian knows you hold her accountable for the implementation of these totalitarian policies. Some people are deleting their accounts, but my guess is that if you tell Ms. Sarkeesian what you think of her — and don’t forget to include the #FreeStacy hashtag — Twitter will be happy to ban you, too.

Check out PublicStatus.org.




 

PREVIOUSLY:

 

Category: Sex Trouble

What @FemFreq Didn’t Say

Posted on | February 23, 2016 | 49 Comments

 

In last night’s post about Anita Sarkeesian ( @FemFreq on Twitter), I neglected to point out this: Nowhere in her Monday blog post about “shadowbanning,” etc., does she say whether she is for or against the suppression of anti-feminist dissent on Twitter.

If you are a student of rhetoric, consider the method of cunning sophistry she employs. She mocks as paranoid conspiracy theory the suggestion that she has any influence over Twitter’s policies, citing a number of individuals who attribute to her this influence she insists she does not have. She asserts that any such suggestion can only be explained as “a manifestation of misogyny . . . a deep distrust and hatred of women.” This unsubstantiated accusation — do you hate and distrust women, deeply or otherwise? — is a defensive counterattack, an attempt to discredit her critics. Like other feminists and sociopaths, Ms. Sarkeesian uses DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) tactics to deflect scrutiny of her own actions and motives by implying that anyone who criticizes her is guilty of some moral failing. Because she has so many critics, it is impossible for her to engage in character assassination against each of them individually. Instead she offers the blanket accusation of “misogyny” as her one-size-fits-all defense. Everyone who disagrees with Anita Sarkeesian is a misogynist. Quod erat demonstradum.

Let us stipulate that (a) “misogyny” describes a real social phenomenon, (b) this anti-woman attitude can be found among many men who play videogames and/or work in the videogame industry, and (c) many negative comments about Anita Sarkeesian are therefore proof of the existence of the problem to which she has dedicated her career. Even with these stipulations, however, it still does not follow that (d) every critic of Anita Sarkeesian is a misogynist, nor that (e) anti-woman attitudes are so pervasive in the videogame industry as to constitute a societal crisis requiring Ms. Sarkeesian’s intervention, and of course not that (f) all criticism of Ms. Sarkeesian is invalid. The most obvious criticism of Ms. Sarkeesian is that she is an opportunistic parasite enriching herself by deploying her feminist “critical theory” as a shakedown racket, the same way Jesse Jackson and other such dishonest “civil rights” hustlers used accusations of racism to get major corporations to pay them off.

Anyone has read Tom Wolfe’s Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers knows how this kind of scam got its start back in the 1960s. Scarcely had the ink dried on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than various “community organizer” types started looking for ways to cash in. The Black Panthers were the most flamboyant (and most obviously criminal) example of this kind of racial racketeering, but during the ensuing decades, variations of the same Mau-Mau operation flourished.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the best-known of these grifters, but back in the day every major city in America had its own Local Civil Rights Reverend whose “ministry” seemed to consist entirely of leading protest marches and being interviewed on the nightly TV news. Most people probably never understood the raw cynicism of the Local Civil Rights Reverend pay-for-play racket. “Give us money, and we will stop accusing you of racism,” was the basic transaction offered, which was soon improved and enhanced. “Give us enough money on a regular basis,” said the Local Civil Rights Reverend, “and we’ll help defend you against discrimination claims, because it would be a shame if your business had to pay out millions of dollars to settle a federal class-action suit filed by our friend, the Local Civil Rights Lawyer.”

It has to be understood that Corporate America didn’t just spontaneously decide to start blabbering “diversity” rhetoric in the 1990s. No, that was all about protecting themselves against discrimination lawsuits, and feminists were eager to take advantage of this situation. Quite ironically, the primary beneficiaries of “affirmative action” were white women from privileged backgrounds. The original rationale of affirmative action, as articulated by President Lyndon Johnson, was to remediate the harms black Americans had suffered from unjust racial discrimination. By the late 1970s, however, after feminists claimed women had suffered from similar forms of discrimination, the specific original purpose and meaning of affirmative action was forgotten. Now college-educated white women — in many cases, the daughters of quite wealthy families — could use the threat of lawsuits to force employers to dance to their tune. The rhetoric of “diversity” became a way to make it seem that hiring women (or Asians or homosexuals) sufficed to prove a company’s bona fides, in terms of defending against claims of discrimination, no matter what the number and status of their black employees.

All that background is necessary to understanding Anita Sarkeesian’s racket. Here was the multi-billion-dollar videogame industry, a lucrative business sector that scarcely existed 25 years ago, where reportedly almost 80 percent of the employees are male. Never mind the reasons why this industry is male-dominated; from the standpoint of Mau-Mau racketeering, videogame companies were sitting ducks for accusations of sexist discrimination and — lo and behold! — here was Anita Sarkeesian producing YouTube videos about sexist “Tropes vs. Women.” Give her money, or hire her as a consultant, and becoming an Official Friend of Anita can thereby help inoculate yourself against any future accusation that your company discriminates against women.

This has nothing to do with actually helping women in general, and everything to do with helping Anita Sarkeesian in particular. And if you are hopelessly naïve, let me clue you in on the secret of this hustle: Just because an organization is “non-profit” doesn’t mean nobody’s making money. “Feminist Frequency is a 501(c)3 non profit,” Anita’s page says in soliciting tax-deductible contributions for her alleged humanitarian philanthropic enterprise, but how much of this non-profit organization’s annual revenue is paid to Anita Sarkeesian in one form or another? Furthermore, doesn’t Feminist Frequency function as a publicity platform that helps Ms. Sarkeesian get income in other ways that don’t show up on her organization’s Form 990? How much free travel and how many free meals does she get every year? What sort of opportunities can a shrewd opportunist leverage from a 501(c)3 racket like that?

Oh, I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night, and you’re never going to convince me that Anita Sarkeesian is an extraordinarily benevolent and charitable person who collects only a modest stipend for her “work.” If her 501(c)3 paid her less than $150,000 last year, it’s not for a lack of greed or ambition on her part, but simply because Anita Sarkeesian has not yet maximized the value of her personal Feminist™ brand. A hustler’s gotta hustle, and there are plenty of other Feminist™ hustlers competing in the same basic racket, so perhaps Ms. Sarkeesian made less money last year exploiting videogame “misogyny” than Jaclyn Friedman made exploiting “rape culture.”

We return, then, to the original question: Is Anita Sarkeesian for or against the suppression of anti-feminist dissent? Do you think that Ms. Sarkeesian would support me having access to Twitter so that I could tell the truth about her Feminist™ racket? Could she be bothered to answer questions about the personal financial gain she has made by accusing the videogame industry of “misogyny”? Well, good luck trying to get Anita Sarkeesian to answer any questions you might have about what she does, or what she gets paid to do it. She does not allow comments on any of her blog posts or YouTube videos and she routinely blocks anyone on Twitter who dares to criticize her. In fact, if you have a Twitter account, you may discover that Ms. Sarkeesian has pre-blocked you, even though you have never had any previous interaction with her.

Everybody’s quitting Twitter, it seems — Ace of Spades packed it in Monday, as did Adam Baldwin and Larry Correia — but this is not my fault, nor do I feel any personal animosity toward Twitter.

What has happened in the past year is that feminist claims of “harassment” on Twitter have been taken as seriously as feminist claims of “misogyny” in videogames. #GamerGate, which began as an effort to expose how dishonest liberal journalism was being used to promote feminism and other “social justice” agendas in the industry, was turned around (by dishonest journalists) to mean something else: Misogynist gamers were harassing women, and therefore Anita Sarkeesian’s claims about misogyny were right!

“Women are an oppressed class. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women.”
— Redstockings, 1969

“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.”
— Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (1990)

“As one student explained to a New York Times reporter, she needed a ‘safe space’ after briefly hearing a conservative speak on campus because ‘I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs.’ Safe spaces are not about freedom from harassment or physical threats. They’re about freedom from intellectual opposition.”
— Robert Tracinski, Feb. 22, 2016

Feminism begins with the belief that all women are oppressed, and that all men are complicit in this oppression, and confirmation bias will always lead them to find “proof” of this belief. Having built their worldview around a belief in their own oppression, feminists are incapable of coping with facts and logic that contradict their worldview. No matter how privileged Anita Sarkeesian actually is (as attested by the fact she could afford to travel to England to get her master’s degree), she nonetheless always presents herself as a victim because, according to the feminist worldview, all women are victims. However, feminists also insist that they are courageously fighting patriarchy. And how do they “fight”? By constantly lecturing us about how victimized they are!

Thus, like other prominent feminists before her, Ms. Sarkeesian strikes an absurd pose: The Heroic Fighting Victim-Martyr, whose endless tales of suffering function as proof of pervasive male evil. These tales require scapegoats and so I find myself accused of “violating the Twitter Rules” for allegedly “participating in targeted abuse,” and banned from Twitter. Was it Ms. Sarkeesian who made this accusation? Or was it some other would-be Heroic Fighting Victim-Martyr like “Zoe Quinn,” Randi Harper, “Sarah” Nyberg or “Brianna Wu”?

 

When Twitter announced on Feb. 9 that Anita Sarkeesian had been appointed to its “Trust and Safety Council,” I called her a “totalitarian ideologue,” and within two weeks — surprise, surprise! — my Twitter account was suspended. Do you believe this was a coincidence? Do you want to ask Anita Sarkeesian if she believes it was a coincidence? Do you trust a totalitarian ideologue to answer you truthfully? Do you expect her to defend critics who tell the truth about her selfishness and dishonesty?

Feminism is always a lecture, and never a debate. Do not expect a feminist to provide an honest answer to a direct question. Be prepared for accusations of “harassment,” and threats of reprisal intended to silence you, if you persist in criticizing feminism and its adherents.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 02.22.16

Posted on | February 22, 2016 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: The Road To Idiocracy
Da Tech Guy: Twitter Doubles Down
The Political Hat: Free Speech Now Illegal On Campus
Michelle Malkin: Who Is Dolores Huerta?
Twitchy: House Ethics Committee Extends Investigation Into Alan Grayson’s Hedge Fund Dealings
Shark Tank: Trump Questions Rubio’s Eligibility For President


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Angry Mob Cheers As Fire Rips Through Migrant Shelter In Saxony
American Thinker: Turning Against Trump
Conservatives4Palin: The Average CEO Makes Less Than Hillary’s Speaking Fee
Don Surber: Karl Rove. Bless His Heart.
Jammie Wearing Fools: Sanders Fan Tries To Put Hillary’s Obituary In Newspaper
Joe For America: Thugs Disrespecting American Flag Get Their Asses Handed To Them (NSFW Video)
JustOneMinute: Time To Face Reality
Pamela Geller: NY Shootout – Muslim Ambushes NY Cops, Opens Fire – Two Of Eight Officers Injured
Protein Wisdom: #FreeStacy – Twitter’s Orwellian “Truth And Safety Council” Suspends @rsmccain
Shot In The Dark: Defining Hate Down
STUMP: Living Beyond Your Means Kills – Debt Is Just The Weapon
The Gateway Pundit: Sad Berntard Cries About Mean Sturmtrumpers (Video)
The Jawa Report: Everyone Wave Buh Bye To Muslima a/k/a Safya Yassin
The Lonely Conservative: Trump On Planned Parenthood – They Do Some Very Good Work
This Ain’t Hell: Fred Cherry, RIP
Weasel Zippers: Cruz Was Right About What Rubio Said On Univision – In Fact, It’s Worse
Megan McArdle: A Libertarian Case For Sanders? Fun, But Not Convincing
Mark Steyn: In Safe Space, Everyone Can Hear You Scream


Join Amazon Kindle Unlimited 30-Day Free Trial

Category: Linkagery

The Hateful Lies of Feminism

Posted on | February 22, 2016 | 143 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




 

Category: Sex Trouble

#FreeStacy: @rsmccain ‘Will Not Be Restored’; @SexTroubleBook Suspended

Posted on | February 22, 2016 | 188 Comments

 

Notified via email:

@rsmccain
Hello,
Your account was suspended because it was found to be violating the Twitter Rules (https://twitter.com/rules), specifically our rules around participating in targeted abuse.
Your account will not be restored.
Thanks,
Twitter
Reference #ref:00DA0000000K0A8.500G000000tVGuS:ref

Twitter, Inc. 1355 Market Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94103

Well, what is “targeted abuse,” what constitutes “participating” in this behavior, and what are the “rules around” it? Where is the evidence that I have been “violating the Twitter Rules”? Who was “targeted”? What was the nature of the “abuse”? Questions like this multiply, you see, if we can be permitted to ask questions of the arbiters of “Twitter Rules,” but that’s just it: No questions allowed!

“It’s as if the grown-ups left for the weekend,
and the SJW interns are in control.”

This morning, again without explanation, the @SexTroubleBook account — which I created last year to promote my book — was suspended.

Everybody is shocked, shocked!

“Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant,
then it tries to silence good.”

Feminism is evil. But you knew that, right?

UPDATE: Robert Tracinski at The Federalist:

On Friday, Twitter suspended the account of Robert Stacy McCain, a conservative blogger and dogged critic of feminism, apparently without warning or explanation. This has led, in true Twitter fashion, to protests under the hashtag #FreeStacy.
Only a few weeks earlier, Twitter had announced the creation of a “Trust and Safety Council,” to which it appointed Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist known for denouncing “sexism” in video games, a prominent figure in the Gamergate controversy — and oh yes, a frequent target of criticism from McCain. So it sure looks like the moment Twitter gave Sarkeesian the power to do so, she started blackballing her critics. . . .
[T]he company’s decision to appoint a “Trust and Safety Council” that will be “a new and foundational part of our strategy to ensure that people feel safe expressing themselves on Twitter.” Among a list of organizations described as members of the council are the Dangerous Speech Project, which has produced a set of guidelines for recognizing such “dangerous speech” — a set of criteria so vague and broad that they could encompass anything from the incitement that led the Rwandan genocide to an average afternoon on talk radio. And maybe that’s the point.
Then there is Feminist Frequency, the outlet used by Anita Sarkeesian as a platform to criticize video games for being sexist. Sarkeesian’s critics accuse her of using claims of online harassment to discredit her critics and get them kicked off of services like — you guessed it — Twitter. So when Sarkeesian and the “dangerous speech” types got appointed as Twitter’s speech police, there was reason to think they’re going to turn Twitter into a university-style “safe space” where “safety” is assured by removing advocates of opposing ideas. . . .

Read the whole thing at The Federalist.

UPDATE II: Karl Denninger reflects on how the declining value of Twitter as corporate enterprise may be hastened by their “Trust and Safety” agenda. Do they really want to be the next MySpace?

Linked at Legal Insurrection, Pax Dickinson, a thread at Memeorandum and welcome, Instapundit readers!

Lawrence Person writes:

It appears more and more that Twitter’s “Trust and Safety Council” should be more properly named “Anita Sarkeesian’s Committee To Ban People Who Say Mean Things About Her.”

I blame the public education government indoctrination system. Earlier today I got a phone call from a faculty member at a university (which I will not name) who spent 30 minutes telling me the absolute insanity that now prevails on campus. The students are ignorant of facts, but very certain of their opinions, all of which are liberal, and this is a religion for them. For many years, the public K-12 schools have been promoting a progressive agenda through their curriculum and policies, and children are taught to value intellectual abstractions (i.e., “equality,” “diversity,” etc.) to such a degree that they are incapable of thinking outside those categories. They arrive on campus with minds full of this ideological nonsense, and are unprepared to deal with contradictory facts or opposing arguments. Feminists like Anita Sarkeesian are incapable of defending themselves in a fair debate against a well-informed critic, and so the critics must be silenced. This is why the First Rule of Feminist is, “SHUT UP!”

“Twitter is revealing its transformation
from social media platform to cult.”




 

Category: Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Sunday: Rally ‘Round The Banner, The Banner Purple And Green

Posted on | February 21, 2016 | 11 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

It’s amusing that among the other crimes against “social justice” Stacy might be accused of by Twitter’s Committee of Public Safety is his support of #GamerGate, though in plain fact if he’s concerned with it at all, it’s as just another example of how utterly deranged feminists like Sarkeesian and Quinn are trying to destroy any semblance of fun that boys and men might enjoy. Still, viewed as a whole, you can certainly say that this blog supports both #GamerGate and its older littermate, the Sad Puppies. Which explains why this week’s appetizer is a young lady cosplaying as #GamerGate mascot Vivian James. As usual, be aware that many of the following links are to pics commonly considered NSFW; the management is not responsible for your failure to save, loss of quest items/experience points, character death, social ostracism, pollution of your precious bodily fluids, or any other repercussions arising from your acting like a dumbass and clicking without exercising the necessary discretion.

“There were supposed to be games.”

Goodstuff leads off this week, triggered by Jessica Gomes’ capacitance, followed by Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Hot Pick of the Late Night, Morning Mistress (Bike Seat Envy), and Girls With Guns. Animal Magnetism contributes Rule 5 Friday and a Super-Sized Saturday Gingermageddon,  The Last Tradition submits Sasha Del Valle and Lisa Morales, and First Street Journal reminds us “If it ain’t rainin’, it ain’t trainin’!”

EBL’s thundering herd this week includes Alexandra Breckenridge from The Walking Dead, Exploding Heads, Johansson and Osorio, and some Daytona 500 Rule 5.

A View from the Beach presents Let’s Try a Rookie – Tanya Mityushina, Soft Core at Clinton.com, He May Have a Point, Seattle Sex Show Cancelled Over Cannibalism Concerns, Denisovan Princess Leaves Bracelet to Science (cavegirls!), Study Takes Rays Off the Hook in Shellfish Decline, Client 9 Accused of Assault and Battery, Rape or Mugging? Just Use the Force!, Depressed About Smoking, Blood Clots or Skin Cancer? Blame the Cavemen in Your Family Line (more cavegirls!), Happy Valentine’s Day!, When Fishing Season Lasts Just 1 Hour, The Facebook Blues, and Be Careful Out There

Soylent Siberia offers your morning coffee creamer, Have A Soylent Valentine’s Day!, Monday Motivationer Snowed In, Tuesday Titillation Ebony Awesome, Humpday Head Hunter, Furlette El Fuego, Latent Lingerie, and Weekender Bath Night Combo.

The DaleyGator’s DaleyBabes this week are Barbi Benton, Renee Young, Kara Allison, Angela Fong, Yui Minami, Ayumi Uehara, and Smiles!

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Audrey Aleen Allen, his Vintage Babe is Mara Corday, Sex in Advertising is covered by Nina Agdal, and there’s also Women of PETA XLIX! At Dustbury, it’s the lovely Taylor Swift and Nancy Wilson.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery, both here and at the FMJRA, where Rule 5 posts are perennially the most-linked posts at The Other McCain! Links for next week’s Rule 5 roundup should be submitted to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox no later than midnight on Saturday, February 27.


Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5, Zeitgeist

#FreeStacy: ‘A Girl’s Name’

Posted on | February 21, 2016 | 43 Comments

Yesterday, I did a short telephone interview with Ethan Ralph of The Ralph Retort, which began with him asking, “What should I call you?” This led to me explaining a bit about why (a) my friends call me Stacy, but (b) I use my full name as my byline.

The actual story of my name is this: My father’s name was William McCain, and my mother’s maiden name was Frances Kirby. My older brother is William Kirby McCain, who was always called by his middle name, Kirby. Our family’s pediatrician in Atlanta was a man named Dr. Stacy Burnett. My mother thought this a fine name, and so I was named Robert Stacy McCain, Robert being a family name on my father’s side, including my Uncle Bobby (who is actually a first cousin, but nearly as old as my father, and therefore my brothers and I were taught to address him respectfully as “Uncle”). Like my older brother, I was called by my middle name. After I started school, I would occasionally encounter the playground taunt, “Stacy is a girl’s name,” and perhaps a Freudian might speculate about psychological overcompensation — becoming in some way hyper-masculine as a defensive reaction to such “issues” — but Freudianism is mostly garbage. Sibling rivalry with my older brother almost certainly explains more of my personality than anything else from my early childhood, but it is amusing when left-wing trolls occasionally mock me as having “a girl’s name,” to which I sometimes reply by mentioning my wife, six children and two grandchildren.

Overcompensation? Maybe, but it works.

Anyway, as I explained in the interview, early in my newspaper career I discovered that unless I used my full name as my byline, I would get phone calls from readers asking to speak to “her.” Although a guy named Stacy could cite other men — including the tough-guy actor Stacey Keach and NFL star Stacey Bailey — in response to playground taunts about having “a girl’s name,” one had to confront the reality of ordinary expectations. So using the byline “R. Stacy McCain” on news articles resulted in people calling the office expecting to speak to a female reporter, requiring me to make an explanation of who I actually am.

Thus the use of Robert Stacy McCain as my byline, which sometimes causes another incorrect assumption, i.e., I’m using my full name as a matter of aristocratic ostentation. Anyway, my eldest son is named Robert Stacy McCain Jr., and he’s just Bob, and if Bob has a son named Robert Stacy McCain III, I’d expect my grandson to be called “Trip” or “Trey.” Maybe 25 or 30 years from now, when Trey McCain sires Robert Stacy McCain IV, the trend in names will have shifted enough that Stacy will be out of fashion as a name for girls, and my great-grandson can be known as Stacy without anyone ever being confused.

However, as I explained to Ethan Ralph, this confusion could sometimes be helpful to the kind of teenage hoodlum I used to be:

Maybe I shouldn’t tell stories like that, but I was a Democrat and a dopehead back then. It was the ’70s, man. Being a teenager in an era when the American people thought it was a good idea to elect Jimmy Carter president is the kind of experience which, if you were lucky enough to have survived it, should permanently cure you of such folly. Polyester pants? Disco? Voting for Democrats? What were we thinking?

Eventually the drugs wore off. Some of us grew up, got married, had kids, paid taxes, and vowed our kids would be spared the helpless gloom of existential despair that Jimmy Carter’s presidency represented. Other people, however, never grew up. They voted for Barack Obama, the narcissistic epitome of political adolescence.

Meanwhile, totalitarian forces seek to silence voices of sanity in this lunatic wilderness of 21st-century “progressive” madness.

Allum Bokhari at Breitbart.com reports:

McCain is not the first high-profile conservative targeted by Twitter recently. From Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos’ unprecedented loss of “verified” status, to actor Adam Baldwin’s temporary suspension over innocuous tweets, Twitter has been disproportionately targeting conservatives for minor offences while leaving left-wing rule breakers on the platform unpunished.
Fears of political bias at Twitter were stoked after the company announced its new “Trust and Safety” council to help the site be “global and inclusive” in its future policies and practices. The council is packed with left-wing advocacy organizations, while not a single conservative or pro-free speech group can be found. More recently, it was revealed that Twitter maintains a “blacklist” of right-wing users whose tweets are “shadowbanned,” or effectively hidden from other users.
As Twitter does not comment on individual suspensions, it’s hard to know for sure why McCain was suspended. Yet the timing of the right-wing blogger’s ban, so soon after these other incidents of anti-conservative behaviour on the part of Twitter and at a crucial period in the election cycle, make it impossible to ignore.

It’s about partisan politics, you see. The whole build-up of the Feminist™ brand the past three or four years has been about establishing a cultural narrative that would benefit Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. This is why, as much as I enjoy talking about myself, #FreeStacy is not about me.

The Left will always find excuses and pretexts for smearing or silencing anyone who exposes the lies by which the Left gains power. Democrats could never be elected if the American people knew the truth about who the Democrats are — unless, of course, the perversity of the culture meant that the American people were themselves so corrupted that they would elect a person as dishonest as Hillary Clinton.

Be afraid, America. Be very afraid.




 

Category: Fear. Loathing., Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: #FreeStacy Edition

Posted on | February 20, 2016 | 9 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Monday: Half Price Chocolate Day Edition
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles from Tyranny
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Guys: Never Talk to a College Girl
GayPatriot
Dustbury
Living In Anglo-America
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

FMJRA 2.0: RIP Justice Scalia
The Pirate’s Cove
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

Crisis: Justice Scalia Dead at 79
Batshit Crazy News

Pro Tip: Don’t Be a ‘Feminist Man’
The Camp of the Saints
Living In Anglo-America

In The Mailbox: 02.15.16
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

‘Jeopardy’ Is Rape Culture?
Instapundit
The Lonely Conservative
A View from the Beach

In The Mailbox: 02.16.16
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 02.18.16
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 02.19.16
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (8)
  2.  A View from the Beach (6)
  3.  Proof Positive (5)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!


Shop Amazon – Save up to 25% on Centerpoint XR175 Crossbows
Shop Amazon – Save 25% or More on Select Crosman Products

Category: FMJRA Award
« go back — keep looking »