The Other McCain

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

Advanced Feminist Logic™

Posted on | April 13, 2015 | 43 Comments

Some will say that it is an oxymoron to speak of feminist logic, but after many months of careful study, I have mastered the basics:

1. Do you have a vagina?
2. Vote Democrat!

This is the simplest understanding of feminism, i.e., whatever arguments are necessary to persuade unhappy women that voting Democrat is the best revenge. However, mastering Advanced Feminist Logic™ requires the disciple to accept without question the premise that women are universally oppressed by patriarchy. All women are victims of this system of oppression, the feminist believes, and all men benefit from it.

“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)

Whether they are speaking of “male supremacy” or “sexism,” whether the immediate object of their indignation is “rape culture,” “harassment” or the “objectification” of women in media, always the fundamental premise of the feminist argument is this systemic, historical and universal oppression of women. What we might call the Patriarchal Thesis is really an extraordinary assertion, requiring us to believe that there are no natural differences between men and women. Rather, everything we consider to be “natural” in terms of human traits and behavior — the masculinity of males and the femininity of females — is socially constructed by the gender binary of the heterosexual matrix.

Those who have achieved Feminist Consciousness understand that differences between men and women are an illusion created by the patriarchy in order to oppress women. And if you don’t accept this extraordinary claim, you are either (a) a woman in need of further enlightenment to achieve Feminist Consciousness, or (b) a male, and therefore a beneficiary of oppression and probably also a rape apologist.

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. . . .
Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men.”

Disagreement with Feminist Logic™ becomes impossible once you accept the Patriarchal Thesis that is the fundamental premise of the feminist worldview. And if you do accept this premise, you will find it quite difficult to deny that “PIV is always rape, OK?”

Heterosexuality itself is both the cause and effect of male supremacy — “most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality,” to quote Professor Marilyn Frye — because, in the feminist worldview, there is no natural reason for women to be attracted to men, and thus it is patriarchal indoctrination that deceives women into the delusion of “love.” According to feminist theory, women’s “love” for men is actually a symptom of fear, a syndrome akin to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a reaction to “sexual terror” enforced by male violence, as Professor Dee Graham explained.

If the preceding paragraph strikes you as insane, then obviously you have not achieved Feminist Consciousness. The premise of the Patriarchal Thesis leads invariably to the conclusion that males are at best unnecessary or irrelevant, insofar as they are not actively engaged in rape, violence and oppression. Fear and Loathing of the Penis — an existential dread of male sexuality — is the underlying spirit of feminism. It is scarcely surprising to see feminists at our colleges and universities promoting hysteria about “rape culture,” as no feminist can possibly imagine why a woman would ever consent to sexual intercourse with a man.

So as I was describing this in my usual jocular fashion on Twitter, I found myself accosted by Ken Simon, a theatrical actor, playwright and director. Rather than ping-ponging back and forth 140 characters at a time, I wrote him a message via Twit Longer:

Let me explain something, as politely as possible.
You came trolling into my timeline, accusing me of “misconstruing” feminism, as if I don’t know what I’m talking about. Never mind the fact that I’m sitting here with about five dozen feminist books within arm’s reach. The tweet to which you responded was, in fact, a subtweet in response to a feminist who had insulted me after I tried to compliment her.
So, here comes the White Knight, Sir Kenneth of Simon, to add further insults and I’m like, “Who is this asshole, anyway?” Go over and check your TL, and you’re a liberal advocate for gun control whose chief concern today is that Hillary Clinton might not be liberal enough for you. You’re inside an ideological bubble, an echo chamber divided from the exterior world by a high towering wall of Epistemic Closure, and I don’t know that anything I say could convince you to reconsider your opinions. There is no reason for me to argue with you, except for the fact that you decided to show off for your friends: “Look how superior I am to This Guy Here.”
Fine. Bask in the warm glow of your self-congratulatory gesture. Just don’t expect me to join in the applause. Also, don’t expect any reward for being a White Knight of Male Feminism.
Ask around, Ken. Feminists don’t actually like Male Feminists.
Eventually, you’ll discover that feminists consider you just another misogynist swine, and your effort to ingratiate yourself to them by parroting their rhetoric will only inspire feminists to hold you in even deeper contempt than they hold men generally. You may not believe me today, but if you are intelligent, honest and observant, one day you’ll realize I’m right.
Feminism is a totalitarian doctrine of hatred. It cannot be reformed, nor can it be appeased. Feminism is an ideology that demands war against human nature, and the question is whether we can stop this deadly menace before it destroys our civilization.
Sincerely,
— Robert Stacy McCain

That’s not a joke. People need to wake the hell up.





 

Category: Sex Trouble

Ethics in Doxxing?

Posted on | April 13, 2015 | 35 Comments

@IjeomaOluo is a feminist and a thoughtful writer.

This is a rare combination. Feminism has for decades been an intellectual ghetto inhabited by bad writers spewing tedious jargon (the misogynist oppressor mansplained, sitting at his desk surrounded by about five dozen books of feminist theory). Oluo writes about a Tumblr vigilante site called Racists Getting Fired:

Finally! A way to battle all those nameless, faceless hatemongers of the Internet . . . Finally, people are having to face some real consequences for their hateful and harmful behavior. This is the moment of comeuppance, and boy, is it satisfying. . . .
So now, now we have doxxing in the name of Social Justice and truth.
But we still have doxxing in the name of control and terror. . . .
It wasn’t long before the inevitable happened to Racists Getting Fired; an innocent person was doxxed. Brianna Rivera found herself on the receiving end of threats and harassment after an ex-boyfriend impersonated her online with posts that made her look like a racist. A few minutes of investigation showed it was fake, but the Internet doesn’t self-correct: People ride the wave of fury and then move on to the next target. By the time a retraction was posted, she had already faced investigations by both her employer and the university she was attending. Even now, people are still sending her hateful messages for her nonexistent bigotry.
Those of us fighting for progress and equality believe that we’re working on the side of good, and most of us are. But when we look at language used around doxxing for “good,” it’s very similar to the language used by those trying to silence us. . . .

You can read the whole thing and, while Oluo makes many of the usual simplistic assumptions — e.g., advocacy of “social justice” is synonymous with personal virtue — her skepticism toward the progressive mob mentality is encouraging. Identity politics invariably leads toward a Manichean worldview and the dangerous self-righteous fanaticism summarized in the radical slogan “By Any Means Necessary.”

Because it’s nearly 9 a.m. ET, I’m going to go ahead and click the “publish” button now, but come back in an hour or two, and I’ll expand this.

UPDATE: “Sources close to the campaign said . . .” How many times have you read a phrase like that in a news article and asked yourself, “Who are these ‘sources,’ and why are they speaking anonymously?” The use of anonymous sources is a fine art in Beltway journalism, to which I got a hasty introduction after I arrived in D.C. in November 1997 and became an assistant national editor at The Washington Times. Although I was new to the ways of Washington at the time, I wasn’t one of these ambitious 23-year-old kids fresh out of J-school who swarm to D.C. every year after graduation, hoping to become the next Political Media Superstar. I was a 38-year-old married father of three with nearly a dozen years of award-winning experience in the newspaper business. Arriving in journalism’s Major Leagues, however, required me to learn a whole new game.

Two months after I hit town, the Lewinsky scandal broke — I remember that first teasing headline at the Drudge Report — and for a few days I had a ringside seat while our reporters scrambled to nail down the story that Michael Isikoff’s editors at Newsweek had spiked. Veteran reporters including Frank Murray and Jerry Seper worked the phones like maniacs trying to get that story, and they had the basic facts, they just couldn’t get the kind of confirmed sourcing necessary for our editors to approve it for publication. Four days after that first Drudge tease, the rival Washington Post finally got the story, and then our staff at the Times had to scramble to catch up and “match” the Post‘s coverage.

Here’s the thing: At my previous employer in Georgia, the use of anonymous sources was forbidden by the publisher, Burgett E. Mooney III. It was his belief that a reliance on anonymous sources undermined the trust of readers and that, furthermore, anonymity was often a disguise used to conceal the malign personal motives of sources. With the advantage of hindsight, I see exactly what Burgett saw. There is a certain kind of shabby journalism that simply cannot be done if you insist that every quote and fact be attributed to a named source or an official document.

Certainly, no reporter could ever get away with “sources said” when covering the county commission, the board of education or high-school football. On the other hand, covering politics and policy in Washington would be nearly impossible without “sources said.” However, no editor in his right mind would grant an unlimited license to use anonymous sources.

One of my regular duties at the Washington Times was to work with the legendary political reporter Ralph Z. Hallow. When it came time to take the pulse of Republican Party insiders, Ralph was the consulting physician — some might say, the proctologist — of the conservative movement. Ralph had a huge network of sources whose phone numbers were filed away in his Rolodex of Doom, and he was on a first-name basis with most of them. To watch Ralph work the phones was like watching Joe Montana run a fourth-quarter touchdown drive. He was simply the best at what he did.

However, getting Ralph’s stories to match the editors’ expectations was often an ordeal, and I was usually the guy who played go-between. About 2 or 3 o’clock, the managing editor would call me into his office and say, “Make sure Ralph backs up his lead on this.” That is to say, the statements made in the first paragraph of the story had to be supported by quotes and — here was the key thing — we needed some of those quotes attributed to named sources. One more than one occasion, we’d be pushing the deadline while Ralph worked the phones trying to negotiate the on-the-record quote necessary to the story. Sometimes, it would be a source he’d quoted anonymously, and Ralph would be trying to coax the source into having his name appear in the story. Other times, Ralph would call a new source — someone he hadn’t previously interviewed for the story — and get a reaction quote from him to back up the general point of the story.

Keep in mind, of course, that this was all legitimate journalism. This wasn’t any kind of scandalous smear-mongering “gotcha” stuff, but solid political reporting. Ralph’s story would include quotes and information attributed to a “Republican pollster,” an “RNC member,” a “former Reagan administration official” or whatever, and these were all legit sources. Still, we couldn’t publish a story whose main premise was derived from unnamed sources, so getting that on-the-record quote to nail it down was absolutely necessary.

Given my firsthand knowledge of the very difficult work required to do reporting the right way, then, what do you suppose I think about some of the reckless nonsense that is perpetrated online by idiots who exploit anonymity as an excuse for acts of malicious dishonest cruelty?

UPDATE II: After spending months on the road covering the Tea Party movement and the 2012 presidential campaign, I came home after the election and thought, “OK, now what?” The political Road Warrior act was fun — doing on-the-scene reporting is what I love best — but it’s a young man’s game and, after getting caught in that damned Louisiana speed trap, it became simply too expensive to continue. So as I was at home recovering from the Fear and Loathing of the 2012 campaign, suddenly the Internet went crazy about a rape in Steubenville, Ohio.

‘Anonymous’ and Steubenville: Online
Lynch Mob Complicates Rape Case

That was the headline on my first blog post about the story, and my main point was summarized thus:

Alas, welcome to the 21st century, where everyone with Internet access can play at being an “investigative journalist,” and every random rumor can be portrayed as a serious accusation which is allegedly being covered up by authorities. This conspiratorial motif and the proliferation of the Amateur Detective mentality online has had consequences in Steubenville . . .

While I am an enthusiastic advocate of New Media and Citizen Journalism, we’ve seen way too many instances of paranoid conspiracy theories and baseless accusations being promoted by dangerous dingbats who don’t have the first clue about how to do basic reporting. Over and over, the Internet has afforded ideological ax-grinders a platform to exploit the biases of True Believers to push wild rumors and false claims that fell apart as soon as they were exposed to careful scrutiny.

As it turned out, the Steubenville story was legit. Two teenagers were convicted of sexual assault, and four school officials were indicted on obstruction of justice charges. One of those officials pleaded guilty to a second-degree misdemeanor. Looking back on that crazy Steubenville protest scene two years later, however, we should ask, “Was that necessary?” Was the outcome of the case significantly influenced by the vengeful swarm of Internet vigilantes and the howling mob of weirdos in Guy Fawkes masks?

Count me as skeptical. I’m aware that the Social Justice Warriors count that as a “win,” but as I pointed out in January 2013, it would be kind of hard to cover up a crime that had already been the subject of a 6,000-word New York Times article. While the SJWs may still be high-fiving each other over Steubenville, I’m still unconvinced that they really accomplished anything that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. Furthermore, I suspect, the general impression created by the Steubenville vigilantes — i.e., that gang-rape is a common occurrence that is routinely covered up by officials — helped lead Sabrina Rubin Erdely and Rolling Stone into the horrible journalistic fiasco of the UVA rape hoax.

Think about this: If you start feeding mob hysteria about “rape culture,” and if crusading journalists set out to validate this fearful climate of sexual paranoia, isn’t it a near-certainty that this effort to “prove” the claims of fanatical True Believers will result in innocent people being falsely accused?

UPDATE III: Rather than to spend all day on endless digressions, let me connect the dots here. Part of what we saw in the Steubenville lynch mob was people with dubious motives, hiding behind the screen of online anonymity, “doxxing” various people they accused either of participating in a gang-rape or covering up for the rapists. You start publicizing the addresses and phone numbers of people and accusing them of complicity in gang-rape, you do so with the expectation that bad things are going to happen those people. But let us ask how different that kind of “doxxing” is from what Sabrina Rubin Erdely and Rolling Stone did to the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at the University of Virginia?

While you’re thinking about an answer to that question, ask yourself this: Why Phi Kappa Psi?

It is now generally agreed, I believe, that whether or not Jackie was ever actually raped by anyone, she was not raped at Phi Kappa Psi in September 2012. So, if Jackie was going to fabricate a gang-rape, why did she decide to blame it on Phi Kappa Psi? Why not Sigma Nu or Alpha Tau Omega? How does a fake victim decide who to blame for her gang-rape that never happened? (“Grab its leg.”) Maybe if Phi Kappa Psi’s defamation suit goes to trial, we’ll get some answers to questions like that, but I expect Rolling Stone and other defendants will make generous out-of-court settlements before it gets that far.

What we already know, however, it that the liar Jackie was very concerned about protecting her privilege to lie anonymously about Phi Kappa Psi, and Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s spectacular journalistic failure stemmed from her willingess to protect Jackie. This was one reason why Erdely didn’t bother to interview the three friends to whom Jackie first reported her alleged rape. If Erdely had interviewed them, she would have learned that their version of events did not match Jackie’s story, and she also might have figured out that this alleged rape was connected to Jackie’s “Haven Monahan” catfishing scheme to make Ryan Duffin jealous.

Oh, but Jackie had to stay anonymous, you see.

What about the proprietors of “Racists Getting Fired,” the Tumblr blog that prompted Ijeoma Oluo’s second thoughts about “doxxing” as a weapon of social justice? Aren’t they anonymous, too? And isn’t their anonymity a way for them to avoid responsibility for their actions? Given the way that site was used for an ex-boyfriend’s personal vendetta against Brianna Rivera, how is it different from “revenge porn”? For that matter, doesn’t Ijeoma Oluo realize that her entire narrative about “doxxing” and “harassment” is a myth?

One reason doxxing feels so good is that it turns the tables. GamerGate, that war on women operating in the name of “ethics in gaming journalism,” has been exposing people’s personal information and using it to silence them almost since the beginning. GamerGate has sent people death threats, inundated target’s employers with calls for their termination, swatted their homes. Many people have been forced into hiding. Men’s Rights Activists have long shared the private information of prominent feminists as a way of harassing and intimidating them.

Dude, check the record. “Doxxing” did not begin with GamerGate. It is a tactic pioneered by Internet hackers, especially those associated with the Anonymous conspiracy that flourished circa 2010-2012. The fact that there is an obvious overlap between videogame enthusiasts and hackers (rather than a “war on women”) accounts for the use of “doxxing” against various people who have made themselves a nuisance to gamers. As for the allegation that “Men’s Rights Activists” (MRAs) are engaged in “harassing and intimidating” feminists, this is just a way of using a label to create guilt by association. Dean Esmay and Paul Elam are MRAs. If they criticize a certain feminist by name, and that feminist is subjected to illegal harassment, the guilt is on the perpetrators of the harassment. Yet it is a fact that feminists tried to shut down an MRA conference last year, effectively hounding them out of the hotel where the conference had been scheduled. So if feminists are harassing MRAs, are we surprised that the MRAs return the favor?

The real question, however, isn’t necessarily about who threw the first punch in the fight, but rather who is responsible for specific criminal wrongdoing. In other words, Paul Elam might call a feminist a despicable liar, but if somebody then targets her for an actual death threat, it’s the person making the threat (and not Paul Elam) who is responsible. In a larger sense, however, when we encounter this kind of conflict, we have to ask which side is responsible for turning an argument into a take-no-prisoners fight to the death. Here I think feminists simply do not wish to be held responsible for their own deliberate aggression. Every day — every single day for the past two years at least — feminists have been pushing this “rape culture” discourse that demonizes all men as responsible for an alleged epidemic of sexual assault on college campuses.

It seemed to me at first that this was simply a carry-over from the “War on Women” rhetoric of the 2012 campaign. When it persisted, however, I recognized that one reason activists kept beating the “rape culture” drum was in preparation for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. There was a clear partisan political agenda behind this, and the Democrat operatives pushing this agenda didn’t give a damn about actual facts.

You can think for yourself, or you can be a puppet on somebody else’s strings. I’m glad to see Ijeoma Oluo asking questions about the ethics of “doxxing.” Perhaps if she keeps asking questions — if she is willing to look at facts and not be misled into accepting partisan mythology — she will eventually begin to doubt the “social justice” gospel that has deformed the souls of so many in her generation.




 

Category: Crime, Fear. Loathing., Intellectuals, Progressivism, Sex Trouble, Terrorism

Rule 5 Sunday: Not Long Before The End

Posted on | April 12, 2015 | 24 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

I was off blowing stuff up in Ingress tonight after my stint in the tax mines to relieve my stress and get a little exercise, so I’m going to reverse the normal order of things and do Rule Five Sunday first this weekend. The FMJRA will probably happen tomorrow, maybe in the morning. In the meantime, by way of noting the NRA convention this past weekend, here’s Dana Loesch on the cover of her book, Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America

Nice guns.

As usual, the following links may lead to pictures commonly described as Not Safe For Work, so exercise discretion in your clicking. Management is not responsible for hair loss, sudden weight gain, excessive flatulence, sore gums, inflamed bowels, or flat feet. If swelling persists for more than four hours, call your doctor.

Average Bubba leads off with the Hump Day edition of Rule 5, followed by Randy’s Roundtable with Lucy Bayet, Goodstuff with preserving the essence of Supergirl [insert Dr. Strangelove reference here], and Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Morning Bare, Kelly LeBrock, and Girls Guns and Dogs. Animal Magnetism chips in with Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, and First Street Journal reminds us “If It Ain’t Rainin’, It Ain’t Trainin’!”

EBL’s thundering herd this week includes Ava Gardner with the Chairman, Rand and Kelley Paul, Party On Marie Harf, Rule 5 Media Heads Who Can’t Be Trusted, Harvey Girls, Film Noir, and Separated At Birth.

A View from the Beach offers Hollywood Cheesecake with Alison Brie, The Solar System is a Really Soggy Place (alien warning), “House Burning Down”, Vive la Différence,Brontosaurus is Back! (with cavegirls), “Flutter”, Water Makes People Stupid, Paula Bunyan, and Hippity Hoppity Easter’s Here!

At Soylent Siberia, it’s your coffee creamer, Monday Motivationer Ahoy!, Overnighty Coy, Tuesday Titillation Twofer, East Side West Side, Humpday Auburn Awesome, Falconsword Fursday Bone Collector, Leonard’s Lunchtime Lesbians, Fursday Overnighty Crimson Carumba, In Lieu Of Corsets: I Forgot Kate Upton, T-GIF Friday Phascinating Phalanges, Happy Hour Hawtness, Weekender Couched in Awesome, and Bath Night Brass Ring.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Simone Holtznagel, his Vintage Babe is Doris Day, and Sex in Advertising is provided by Carl’s Jr. At Dustbury, it’s Iveta Bartosova and SZA, while Loose Endz pries himself away from the tube long enough to post Season Five: Game of Thrones.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox is midnight on Saturday, April 18.


Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America
Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

‘Serious Work’

Posted on | April 12, 2015 | 26 Comments

In May 1862, Gen. Richard Taylor’s brigade of Louisiana troops was assigned to the command of Gen. Stonewall Jackson, whose taciturn nature and Calvinist theology were closely related phenomena.

Taylor’s brigade made a long and rapid march to join Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley, covering 26 miles on the day they reached their camp near Conrad’s Store. Taylor went to report to Jackson, finding him seated on a rail fence. Taylor recounted the conversation in his memoirs:

A low gentle voice inquired the road and distance marched that day.
Taylor: “Keezleton road, six-and-twenty miles.”
Jackson: “You seem to have no stragglers.”
Taylor: “Never allow straggling.”
Jackson: “You must teach my people; they straggle badly.”

Just then, one of the regimental bands in Taylor’s brigade struck up a waltz, and the cheerful Louisiana troops commenced to dance, as was their habit. Jackson had been sucking on a lemon and paused to remark: “Thoughtless fellows for serious work.”

However “thoughtless” they may have been, when it came time for the “serious work” of fighting, those Louisiana fellows were fearless. They sustained some of the heaviest casualties in some of the fiercest fighting of the war. Their high spirits in camp — “Laissez les bons temps rouler!” — were an expression of the high morale they showed on the battlefield.

This is to remind you that, as much as we joke about “political correctness,” the Culture War is quite real and quite serious, and our antagonists are unscrupulous monsters whose shameless dishonesty is exceeded only by their sadistic cruelty. Every day, they strive to destroy all opposition:

Dr. Mark Gilfillan, professor of Jewish History in Northern Ireland’s Ulster University, has raised the ire of local liberals and is being investigated by the university, even though his contract with the university has already expired. This investigation arose because he has recently criticized homosexuality on Facebook.
Lesbian Rachel Kane was arguing with a Christian friend of his about a Christian baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, which turned into a debate on homoeroticism in general, and when Gilfillan brought in statistics and hard evidence, Kane took screencaps and sent them to various homosexual activist groups and Ulster University officials.
Transsexual activist Dr. Eve Jeffrey, a lecturer in Theater Studies at Queen’s University Belfast, and journalist Deborah McAleese, who has previous been called “Northern Ireland’s worst journalist” have further sought to amplify the scandal.

You can read the whole thing. Especially notice the point at which Jeffrey e-mailed Gilfillan to gloat: “Congratulations: You are now unemployable.”

This is how it is now in higher education: No one can be permitted to criticize the LGBT movement. Period.

So, yes, we can laugh — we must maintain a spirit of cheerful courage — but remember this is serious work.

(Hat-tip: @SeverEnergia on Twitter.)





 

Category: Culture, Education, Gays, Sex Trouble

A Brief Primer On Titles Due Her Majesty For You Peasant Scum #Hillary2016

Posted on | April 12, 2015 | 26 Comments

by Smitty

Feel free to be helpy helper-serfs in the comments.

Category: Hillary Clinton

Crazy People Are Dangerous

Posted on | April 12, 2015 | 15 Comments

In a comment on the Deb Frisch post, @GraceGabriel51 shared some of her own experience with trolls:

Many years ago there was an anonymous Usenet stalker who called herself Curio Jones. She conducted an on-line harassment against those she believed were involved in the conspiracy, posting information about the individuals.
Among those she targeted were Carol Hopkins, a school administrator who was part of a grand jury in San Diego, California that criticised social workers for removing children from their home without reason; Michael Aquino, an open member of the Temple of Set and a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army Reserve against whom accusations of SRA were made but dropped as the accusations proved to be impossible; and Elizabeth Loftus, a professor who studied memory who believed coercive questioning techniques by poorly-trained investigators led to young children making false allegations of child sexual abuse.
She so terrorized Carol Hopkins that she left the country. A small group of us worked expose who she was. Turns out she was Diana Napolis MA, a child protection social worker for San Diego County. She was actively delusional she truly believed in ritual Satanic abuse and she was in charge of removing children from their families.
She got a lot of support on the Usenet from her fellow loons and true believers which was why she was so successful at terrorizing people. Ultimately she went over the deep end and tried to kill Jennifer Love-Hewitt who she accused of an satanic conspiracy and using mind controlling “cybertronic” technology to manipulate her body.
She was committed to Patton State Hospital for the criminally insane.

Diana Napolis is quite notorious, but because her career in Internet-enabled madness preceded the social media era, most people don’t recognize how her case connects to the Twitter troll phenomenon. If you are naive enough to believe what feminists tell you, online harassment is always targeted against women by misogynists. Yet I have been targeted for harassment by some of the worst trolls in Internet history, and I’m obviously not a woman. And, as with Deb Frisch, the case of Diana Napolis shows that some of the craziest Internet stalkers are women.

Progressives are easily deceived by any member of a designated “victim” group who claims to be doing battle against Those Dangerous Right-Wing Bullies. No matter how dishonest, selfish or deranged a person may be, they can always count on the support of progressives if they depict themselves as a victim of racism, sexism or homophobia. The Progressive Victimhood Complex tends to enable very dangerous people.

But why bring Hillary Clinton into this?

 

Category: Hillary Clinton, Liberals, Progressivism

Crazy People Are Dangerous

Posted on | April 12, 2015 | 81 Comments

Deborah E. Frisch, Ph.D., is due in court Monday:

The former University of ­Oregon professor released from jail [March 30] after pleading guilty to making a false report against a Eugene police officer is again behind bars on similar charges.
Deborah Ellen Frisch, 53, is facing a charge of initiating a false report and a probation ­violation in the previous case.
According to court records, Frisch returned to her home on Modesto Drive on Monday after being held in the Lane County Jail for 39 days and within two hours of her release called the Eugene Police Department’s nonemergency line.
During that call, court records show, Frisch accused two police officers who served a search warrant on her home of having sexual relations in her bed and leaving behind bodily fluids and sexually transmitted diseases.
Frisch said in the recorded phone conversation that she wanted to document the event because she was afraid she would get a venereal disease, the document states.
She insisted an officer come to her home or she would call 911, according to the report.
Police said 11 minutes later, Frisch called 911 to make a similar report, asking that “someone document a crime scene by the pigs at the Eugene Police Department,” the document states.
She was arraigned on Friday.
Frisch, who has a doctorate in psychology, was arrested in February for three counts of stalking after police accused her of repeatedly harassing a city police officer, another city of Eugene employee, and the director of a local nonprofit agency. Those charges were dismissed eventually, but not before Frisch accused a female officer of sexually assaulting her. She entered an Alford plea to a charge of false reporting Monday and was sentenced to two years of probation.
She is required to undergo a mental health evaluation.
For several years between 1988 and 2001, Frisch taught at the UO psychology department. She then taught at the University of Arizona but resigned in 2006 after writing inflammatory online comments to a conservative blogger.

Oh, that Deb Frish! You remember this notorious moonbat who thought she could use the anonymity of the Internet to make obscene and perverse suggestions against Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom:

Frisch, 44, said she quit her $32,861-a-year part time position not only because she fears for her safety, but because she regrets the [the University of Arizona] ended up in the middle of what was intended to be a “sick joke.” . . .
“These people think I should be incarcerated, that I’m mentally ill or that I should be shot,” Frisch said during a telephone interview from Eugene, Ore., where she is living now. “This whole thing has been crazy to me. People have spent their whole weekend on this.” . . .
At first, Frisch said she was enjoying herself.
“I like to play with fire. I’m a left-wing Rush Limbaugh. I’m a writer and I like to fight with words. I’m a word warrior.”
Suddenly though, Frisch said, the conversation degenerated into disparaging personal remarks, many of a sexual nature. . . .
“I wrote something that would make him as queasy as they were making me feel,” Frisch said.

So she told the Arizona Daily Star in July 2006. Notice that Frisch tries to depict herself as a victim, employs the typical “It Was Just a Joke” defense, and suggests that this was just an Internet argument that got out of hand. That is to say, she engaged in rationalizations that were an effort to shift blame away from herself and evade responsibility.

DARVO — Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender:

DARVO refers to a reaction that perpetrators of wrong doing . . . may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior. The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim into an alleged offender. . . .

We have discussed DARVO syndrome before. It is most typical of sexual perverts, who make accusations of wrongdoing against others in an effort to discredit their accusers and elicit sympathy for themselves.

People engaged in DARVO are “abusive . . . indignant, self-righteous and manipulative,” they typically “threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of lawsuits.” You can click here to read about one of Deb Frisch’s lawsuits, in which she referred to lawyers as “shyster-vermin” and called a federal judge a “frocked cowf–ker.”

Could I explain the psychological causes of such behavior? Sure, but that’s not the relevant point. The point is that this type of personality and this kind of behavior is not unusual among Internet trolls. Remember what Deb Frisch wrote about Jeff Goldstein’s son:

I’d like to hear more about your “tyke” by the way. Girl? Boy? Toddler? Teen? Are you still married to the woman you ephed to give birth to the tyke?
Tell all, bro!

I reiterate: If some nutcase kidnapped your child tomorrow and did to her what was done to your fellow Coloradan, Jon-Benet Ramsey, I wouldn’t give a damn.

Somehow, Jeffy boy, I think you get off on the possibility of Frenching your pathetic progeny, even if it is a boy. You seem like a VERY, VERY sick mofo to me, bro.

You know, Jeff, I just don’t get it. You say, and I believe you, that a human female chose to procreate with you and you have produced a 2 year old progeny. . . .
So the poor bitch is dirt poor and that’s why she pretended you were worthy of procreating with?

Deborah E. Frisch, Ph.D., a professor of psychology wrote that.

This morning, I was trying to explain #AreYouBlocked to my wife. Why is it relevant that a campaign to “blackball” people in the videogame industry has been led by a person under psychiatric care?

In explaining the gravity of this problem to my wife, I mentioned Deb Frisch as an example of where the crazy people come from and what kind of things they do. Then, out of idle curiosity, I decided to Google Deb Frisch to refresh my memory on the specifics and found the Deb Frisch Timeline blog that has been updating readers on her madness for years:

October 14-18, 2010 — Repeating the activity which cost her a job in 2006, Deborah Frisch sexually menaces two young girls in Eugene Oregon. Frisch tries to hide from her crime by sending threatening emails to the victims’ father under a false name; when Frisch’s flimsy subterfuge is blown, she goes on a 72 hour blog/Facebook/email/telephone harassment frenzy.

There is a pattern here, you see: Deb Frisch makes lurid sexual accusations against others, and becomes unhinged when her wrongdoing is exposed.

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

Beware of reprobate minds. Crazy people are dangerous.





 

Category: Education, Fear. Loathing., Feminism, Protein Wisdom

The #AreYouBlocked Test: Gamers, Lesbian Feminists, the Pope and Me

Posted on | April 10, 2015 | 136 Comments

If you’re wondering what the #AreYouBlocked hashtag is about, click here to see the League of Gamers “Blocklist Checker” site.

What has happened? It’s simple: Crazy people do crazy things.

One thing crazy people do is to accuse others of “harassment.”

Randi Harper (@Freebsdgirl) decided to make herself the Social Justice Warrior (SJW) queen by creating a “blockbot” so that Twitter users could automatically block #GamerGate activists. Other SJWs have created a blockbot “that identifies Twitter’s ‘anti-feminist obsessives’ (they’re nominated for inclusion by a group of trusted, preapproved users), sorts them into categories of offensiveness ranging ‘tedious and obnoxious’ to ‘abusive bigot,’ and allows users to pick the level of vitriol they’d like to excise from their Twitter feeds.” (That Slate article was written by @AmandaHess who, of course, has me blocked on Twitter.)

Like many other feminists, Randi Harper suffers from mental illness and has discussed her prescriptions for Ativan (Lorzepam) and Trazodone, powerful drugs used to treat depression and anxiety disorders. The fact that someone under psychiatric care has appointed herself an arbiter of Twitter “harassment” should be a flashing yellow caution light about her project, for which she is using Patreon.com to raise money.

“Let’s give money to a crazy woman! What could possibly go wrong?”

Keep in mind that I have been harassed by some of the worst trolls in Internet history, including Neal Rauhauser and Bill Schmalfeldt. Unlike feminists, however, I am not an emotionally fragile basket case and, also unlike feminists, I don’t qualify as “marginalized”:

[O]nline harassment is a social problem (one that disproportionately affects the same folks who are marginalized offline, like minority groups, LGBT people, and women), and making the Internet a safe and equitable place to communicate requires a social solution.

Again, I’m quoting Amanda Hess, who has me blocked on Twitter, because I’m such a dangerous menace, you know.

Ken White describes blockbots thus:

Various cultural and political conflicts online have led some users to develop blockbots, which are lists to which you can subscribe (to oversimplify the process) to mass-block everyone on the list. Some lists are created by methodology (like automatically blocking people who follow certain Twitter users affiliated with “GamerGate”) and some, like BlockBot, are curated by individuals who choose who goes on the list and why.
Some folks don’t like how they are characterized by these lists. BlockBot targets complain of being characterized by mostly anonymous and unaccountable strangers as “racists” or “transphobes” or “rape apologists.”

Ken White says blockbots are not defamation, and I agree. However, we must consider the original dispute that gave rise to #GamerGate, i.e., the suspicion that undisclosed conflicts of interest were influencing journalism about the videogame industry.

The #GamerGate controversy subsequently involved a lot of other things, but originally it was about concerns that this multibillion-dollar industry was being corrupted by unethical practices. As I understand it, the basic allegation was that some writers were engaged in the videogame equivalent of “insider trading,” which had the effect of providing favorable publicity for certain game developers while stigmatizing other game developers. Biased journalism about politics is one thing, but biased journalism about an extremely lucrative industry? That’s something else, and potentially an illegal something else.

So, hypothetically: What if shady practitioners were using blockbots to prevent exposure of their shady practices? Wouldn’t this amount to aiding and abetting a potentially illegal activity? One might argue that it would and, while I don’t want people to become afraid of tweeting whatever they want to tweet and blocking whomever they want to block, maybe you wouldn’t want to assist a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.)

So you have a controversy involving claims of corruption in a lucrative industry and — deus ex machina — here comes an emotionally disturbed person raising money for a project that aims to silence (as “online abuse”) the people who say they are trying to expose the aforesaid corruption. Am I the only person who sees a basic problem with this?

@adambaldwin is on the ggAutoblocker’s blocklist.

@adambaldwin is on The Block Bot’s blocklist (Level 2).

When actor Adam Baldwin called attention to the #GamerGate controversy, he became Public Enemy Number One for the SJW crowd, thus earning his spot on Randi Harper’s ggAutoblocker list.

@lizzyf620 is on the ggAutoblocker’s blocklist.

@lizzyf620 is on The Block Bot’s blocklist (Level 2).

Wait a minute: What has videogame journalist Lizzy Finnegan done to deserve her inclusion on these lists? What does this mean?

@rsmccain is on The Block Bot’s blocklist (Level 1).

Yeah, so what? This doesn’t bother me at all. It’s an honor.

@VABVOX is on The Block Bot’s blocklist (Level 1).

Wait a minute: They’re blocking lesbian feminist Victoria Brownworth? Can you imagine what a weird worldview must be involved here, for both Brownworth and I to qualify as “Level 1” offenders? At one point, I’m told, the SJWs blocked Pope Francis for his alleged “transphobia.”

Elizabeth Nolan Brown at Reason magazine discusses the blockbot mentality. And, at Breitbart.com, Allum Bokhair explains:

The Block Bot . . . rose to prominence during the online trolling panic of 2013. It claims to be a one-stop shop for blocking trolls and abusers. In practice, the people added to its lists tended to be activists, academics, bloggers, and ordinary Twitter users who fell on the wrong side of political schisms within Atheism. Richard Dawkins, for example, was added to the list as a ‘rapeapologist’ and a ‘transphobe’, despite being neither of those things. Some have accused the Block Bot of engaging in defamation.
The GG Autoblocker is arguably even worse than the blockbot. Whereas the Block Bot decides who to block based on individual reports, GG Autoblocker uses guilt by association. The autoblocker maintains a list of several blacklisted users, including Breitbart London associate editor Milo Yiannopoulos, and at one point, the feminist academic Christina Hoff Sommers. If other Twitter users follow too many of these individuals, they will be automatically added to the autoblocker. You don’t have to do anything or even say anything to become a target. If you follow the wrong people, you’ll be blocked.
Twitter users targeted by the two blocklists have had enough, and are taking to the #AreYouBlocked hashtag in large numbers to demand that the company takes action. Urged on by academic Christina Hoff Sommers and game developer Mark Kern, both popular targets for autoblockers, users have caused the #AreYouBlocked hashtag to trend globally. Using the League for Gamers’ blockchecker as well as the Block Bot’s own search function, they have also uncovered an astonishing range of accounts targeted by the blocklists.

Whether or not this is illegal, we certainly see what feeble minds and cowardly souls must be behind this. SJWs are totalitarians who think they can “win” a debate by preventing debate.

Please thank @League4Gamers, and support freedom!





 

Category: Feminism
« go back — keep looking »