“Harassment” Doesn’t Affect Nor Negate the Validity of #GamerGate’s Call For Ethics in Gaming Journalism


Retaking The Narrative: Ethics in Gaming Journalism

“Guilt by Association” or rather “Wrong by Association” is one of the most utilized tactics of the online media age. It panders to the to the intellectual laziness in our culture which finds it much easier to dismiss arguments based on where they come from rather then what they are.

It is why you will see/hear people dismiss arguments and positions based on retorts such as, “Alex Jones nut”, liberal whackjob, bible thumper, fundamentalist, ect.  instead of bothering to actually examine people’s arguments  Why? Because it is far less tim consuming to simply dismiss ideas based on who has said them. This is essentially intellectual laziness, which as we can see, is really bad for a culture.

These tactics are used today by not just SJWs, but by most passionate souls on the internet.  Often in order to discredit your opponents argument(s) in the ever watchful internet eye,  opponents will attempt to associate a group or a movement with (1) their most radical members who are examples of poor judgement and unwise actions (2) define what the movement is about primarily about rather then it’s own advocates.

Essentially, they attempt to dictate and control the narrative and construct straw men about what you supposedly believe, and then proceed to beat the ever loving shit out of them.   It’s a dirty sneaky tactic and it is one we should be aware of.

Currently, I believe anti GamerGaters and SJWs have managed to dictate the narrative and determine what we will talk forcing us to often be on the defensive.

We’ve been sidetracked defending ourselves against “harassment” claims of people like Wu, Randi, Chu, ect.  While many in #GamerGate justifiably dislike what SJW’s have slowly done to gaming, they are not the main focus – Corruption and a complete lack of ethics in gaming journalism is.  To make matters worse, it isn’t even just gaming journalism that has gone down hill,  it’s the majority of publications, newspapers, and websites that have been influenced by the “Post Now, Update Later” mentality.

While it is unwise to ignore the actions of the SJWs that will do anything to destroy those who support GamerGate, we can not focus on them, yet we must still be aware of them. Remember, they are their own worst enemy.

I sense a disturbance in the Force

Their actions in doxing, outing, harassing, and threatening minorities, gays, women, transgenders who support GamerGate prove that they really don’t care about them to the neutrals and the rest of the world that is watching.  It shows that identity politics and ideology trumps even the most non-cis transgender black ect, ect, ect, person if they dare to support GamerGate.

It is not enough to be one of the “oppressed” according to SJWs. You have to fall lock and step in with their conclusions on anything, or you will be thrown to the wayside.   Even those who do acquiesce to their complaints about racism, sexism, homophobia, trans-phobia and every kind of phobia and “ism” out there still can’t win.

In the end, SJW’s have seriously curbed the artistic freedom of developers and have been able to successfully shame people with cyber twitter lynch mobs if they don’t hit all of the items on the checklist of Social Justice.  Daniel Vavra who has worked as a designer and writer for 15 years in the gaming industry has some sobering insight as to what SJWs are slowly doing to the industry:

The biggest problem we have is, that there is a group of people that think they know what’s right and what’s wrong and that they have a mission to make the world a better place and protect the oppressed by any means. They don’t even care what the “oppressed” people think. They censor any feedback they don’t like. They try to censor Twitter. They think that they are better than the rest. It’s funny that they are absolutely unable to have any discussion or provide solid arguments. Have you ever seen any of them in direct confrontation with their opponents? I guess you didn’t, because they only know how to bark at others from behind the fence and then how to play victims when somebody barks back.

And they will never be happy. If you don’t have a gay character in your game, you are homophobic, if you do have gay character in your game, you are homophobic, because they don’t like the character. If women in your game look good, you are sexist, if they look bad, you are sexist, if you can fight with them, you are misogynistic, if you can’t fight with them, you are using them as objects, if you don’t have any women, because there is no correct way how to have them, you are misogynistic.

It’s a witch hunt and it’s affecting my artistic freedom.

What is even more concerning is that they have become arguably the dominate representation in Gaming publications and sites and they are only too happy to throw the notion of journalistic ethics out if the “ends justify the means”.

They have been and still are willing to promote terrible game and give them unjust scores that don’t reflect their quality, plot, gameplay, ect as long as said games have the “right” messages.  If the game’s don’t have those “right” messages, they are willing to let that shortcoming unduly effect their reviews and discussion of it.   This is a double-standard that I will address later in this article.

The “Harassment Debacle”

I’ve seen countless twitter battles going back and forth in which Anti-GamerGaters continually attempt to put us on the defensive and divert the narrative away from talking about Ethics in Gaming Journalism to talking about supposed harassment that has happened to Anti-GamerGaters.

Observe that even minor “E celebs” like Mike Cernovich haven’t been just harassed, they’ve been doxxed and with no remorse from the supposed denouncers of harassment.  In fact, Zoe Quinn herself knew about it and helped in the dox.    So much for her complaints about doxxing.  Dox up not down right?


The hypocrisy is noteworthy.

Now, whether every case of harassment they claimed has actually happened or not, it is irrelevant to the our strongest demand – Ethics In Gaming Journalism, but I’ll focus more on this later.

A conversation I had on Twitter with an Anti-Gamergater and what I assumed to be a feminist – rightfully so later as I would find out – kept bringing up the “harassment” claims, as well as the supposed allegations on Hotwheels supporting child porn. Whether 8chan having Child Porn on their boards is factual or not, it doesn’t invalidate any of the arguments being made by GamerGate supporters there.   This is a point I’ll drive home later in this post, but first let’s take a quick look at the story.

I found an interesting forum thread while browsing through the story and one poster summed up the thought process at play here far better than I can:

Think the other major problem is that he’s just being disingenuous. Hotwheels and his volunteer moderation team have always been pretty clear that they do not tolerate illegal content on their boards. The article was supposed to be on how the moderation team at 8chan were complicit in the distribution of child pornography, and I mean the legal definition of the word here. As much as I am opposed to that shit on moral grounds alone, most of the ‘CP’ shown there is completely legal under United States law. If SJW’s don’t like it, then they should be lobbying to get it declared illegal, not complaining about the distributors. But Hotwheels himself has said that he received no reports of CP the night the author of the article supposedly went through 8chan to find CP, which indicates that the author made no effort to actually contact the moderators of the website to get it removed.

This could mean multiple things: 1. He genuinely saw CP, but nevertheless made no effort to contact the moderators to get it removed. This, at best, makes the message of the article moot, as mods cannot do their jobs if the community does not direct them to the one thread in the one board out of literally hundreds. It’s like recording somebody getting mugged to use as evidence of the inefficiency of the local police, while not bothering to actually call the police to report the mugging. At worst it indicates that he does not really care about the distribution of CP, just that he can use it as a weapon to attack his opponents). 2: he didn’t see anything that does fit the legal definition of child pornography in the US, and did not report it because he knows it would give Hotwheels a solid trail to link back to him and call him out for lying. 3: he has no idea how the moderation of 8chan works, and is trying to talk shit about stuff he doesn’t understand.

Also another important point that was made is a rather simple but shocking one: What if he planted the child porn there himself?  We have witnessed SJWs often “dox” and harass themselves in order to gain sympathy and appear to gain the moral high-ground. While that doesn’t necessarily mean that the same thing happened here, we should be VERY skeptical of any claims they make considering the dubious tactics they are willing to employ to “win”.

Anyway, back to the “harassment” issue.

So I undertook the foolhardy task of attempting to first question what “harassment” actually entailed.  Enter the mind of a male feminist SJW with whom I still dialogue with on Twitter to this day.

I found this conversation we had to be very useful for seeing what kind of arguments opposing viewpoints would make and how ingrained assumptions – me and him both – about how words are used and the people that use them affects the discourse.

One of the first things you’ll notice here is that they like to define harassment as actions and words that they don’t like – such as the 1000+ notifications and “telling someone to go die.”   I’m also sure some of you have noticed that “harassment” will also often include essentially anything and everything they don’t like.  I find this unfortunate because it destroys the necessary stigma for the words to actually mean something.

It becomes much harder to believe feminists and/or SJWs who claim they have been harassed because the definition has been applied to just about everything.   I just hope that when an actual case of harassment happens, the concept of “crying wolf” doesn’t hinder someone from receiving the help and support they may need.  No it wouldn’t be vengeance through Karma, it would be an opportunity to show compassion.

My Response:


Catch that?

This is a lesson for me to learn and that the rest of GamerGate should as well.  If the other side is going to chose their own “definitions” for what constitutes things like harassment, and any attempt to refute the obvious shortcomings of that definition can simply be dismissed by them as “redefining”, there is no point to addressing any conversational matter with them that addresses the subject of “harassment.”

I won’t make this same mistake twice.  When dealing with people – specifically SJWs – who literally bend ANY word to mean what they want it to mean, you will likely not be able to actually agree on the definition of the word.  Let it be noted that ideology and worldview – regardless of whatever it is affects how you view concepts as well as how you define them.

As that piece of historical and timeless wisdom says, “He who defines, wins.”

Logically Exposing The Double Standards

Many of our opponents, SJWs in particular, have often engrossed themselves so thoroughly in presuppositions that involved double standards.   The spewing of the entire “privilege” and “racism doesn’t happen to white people because they are not the oppressed race/class” manure is a perfect example of this.

Essentially they are convinced that it is okay for them to be “bad”, but only them.   Everyone neutral onlooker with a half a brain that hasn’t been indoctrinated 1984 style by the US public school system will be able to see through this bullshit.   It is our job to point said bullshit out.

When I challenged him statement that their has been little/next-to-no harassment from the Anti-GG side and showed him several links, he responded with:

For some reason the Twitter URL wouldn’t display the tweet on this page so I screen capped it.

Well now.  Isn’t this the same kind of “victim-blaming” behavior they have been accusing us of when we dared to doubt the veracity of Sarkeesian, Wu, ects claims of their supposed harassment?  Note his tweet is evidence of that “double standard.”  I proceed to point it out:

The Fallacy of Taking Responsibility For Others

In the following tweet I asked “her”  whether she would take responsibility for all the terrible things said by the “radicals” in feminism – specifically 3rd wave feminism – and denounce the label.

He predictably would not, and I can see why.  Notice what he said when I applied the same logic to feminism:

I then pointed out why then would he expect GamerGate supporters to do the same?  If it’s just the extreme exceptions to feminism that are saying absolutely horrific things, then shouldn’t we apply that same logic of “exceptions” to GamerGate?

I refused to accept responsibility for “harassment” in GamerGate and denounce the label because he wouldn’t take responsibility for “feminism” for the things said by radical feminists.

Logic hurts. It also is a valuable tool to employee to the onlookers on the sidelines whose minds have not yet been subjugated to the SJW cog.

Maintaining the Focus

In the long run, It actually doesn’t matter if harassment, doxing, ect has taken place or not.  In fact, let me repeat that:   It actually doesn’t matter if harassment, doxiing, ect has taken place or not.

It is a distraction and besides the point because it DOES NOT diminish in anyway nor invalidate our observations that (1) ethics in gaming journalism is a problem both before and right now, (2) the gaming press still has made no real effort to acknowledge the corruption and blatant bias in pretending to be impartial while actually conspiring to drive a very specific narrative that they felt their audience didn’t need to know, (3) a refusal to disclose collusion which was later revealed by lists in which journalists  secretly admitted choosing which stories they would and wouldn’t cover – the very definition of “biased media”, and (4) their persistent refusal to actually admit the glaring ethics violations that took place, offering no apology or remorse, and instead deflecting the criticism with accusations of “misogyny” and “sexism”

While we can condemn actual harassment that has taken place, we must immediately take back the narrative and focus i back onto what us and neutrals on the sidelines can plainly see:  The corruption and the lack of ethics in gaming journalism.   These attempts to insist that “harassment” diminishes our call for ethics in gaming journalism must be dismissed because they are actually irrational when you employ a tad bit of logic.

Note the exchange below:

His Response:

Let’s think about that for a moment.  Logic 101 dictates that it does not matter WHO advocates an ideology.  What matters specifically is the validity of that ideology, regardless of who actually advocates it.  Either the ideology is valid or invalid. Note that his tactic here is essentially another form of “Guilt By Association” or rather “Wrong By Association.”  

I’m going to break Godwin’s Law here, but not in the way you think.  Take into account Hitler’s and the Nazi’s emphatic support for environmentalism – the kind often endorsed by many liberals. Does that mean that “environmentalism” is automatically wrong because the Nazis and Hitler endorsed it?  No, it doesn’t.  Who espouses the ideas of radical environmentalism is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the ideology has merit or not.

Okay, Next:

Logic 101 again tells us that “truth” and what is “right” or “wrong” can not be accurately nor should be determined by a majority.  Might should not make right.  A majority of “Public” figures supported slavery leading up the Civil War.  Did that make it right?  A majority of “Public” figures opposed the Civil Rights movement during its struggle. Were they automatically correct being the majority?  You get the point.

I think it’s safe to say he missed the point. Entirely.  This doesn’t speak badly about him but rather shows what influence the assumptions of our worldviews have on how we perceive issues as well as others.

Ultimately everyone is GamerGate is responsible for themselves.

This is important to point out considering how many of us do not hold the same views on issues ranging from politics to culture.  I am one of the staunchest proponents of gun rights out there, I think Climate Change is nonsense, and I advocate making ALL drugs legal.

I can guarantee many GamerGate supporters disagree with at least one of those three positions of mine.  So should I denounce my fellow GamerGaters for not subscribing to EXACTLY the same opinions as my own? Nah, I’ll let the SJWs do that as they eat each other which we have seen them do so often.

The Importance of “Objectivity”

Let’s be honest; absolute objectivity is impossible.

Objectivity in journalism terms  these days is often understood to include journalistic concepts like “disclosure”,  telling both sides of the story, ect.  Any “decent” opinion column – that’s about as rare as a comet these days – will argue a position on an issue without completely misrepresenting the opposing side’s viewpoints and will refrain from creating strawmen.

As the internet becomes more and more of an echo-chamber, the definition of objectivity has changed much in the way the definition of trolling has.  If you disagree with someone, you are immediately accused of trolling after you have been accused of being “biased”.

To give you a very simple example, the definition of Objectivity has changed in as much the same way “Democracy” has.  People say America is a “Democracy.”  No, America is more of a Republic with Democratic elements. A pure Democracy is literally where 51% of the people determine the laws.   (Essentially 51% of the people in a “Democracy” could decide they don’t like Asian’s anymore and ban them from driving and it would be “the law”)

In fact, most news outlets and press publications don’t exactly bother to hide their biases. What this entails is knowing that Breitbart leans to the right and The Washington Post to the left.  They don’t attempt to hide it, so readers are aware of it, something that is important.

When it comes to many gaming journalists, they have gone through great lengths to disguise their biases, while still directly letting them influence their reviews of games and effecting which ones they promote.  Objectivity, in the sense of being completely 100% impartial, isn’t necessary or possible to avoid “corruption” in gaming journalism.   Those biases however can’t be left undisclosed if they will be allowed to effect the reviews and the rating scores given to game.

Some journalists have unfortunately allowed their biases to distract them – Bayonetta 2 for example – from reviewing the aspects of a game that matter – content, level design, plot, characters, gameplay, graphics, ect – and instead dismiss games based on whether they like them or not – which some people actually think is fine!  This brings up an important point when you consider the kinds of bonuses that developers can receive for good scores and how personal worldview bias can actually be used to penalize developers for making certain games. In fact, Kotaku ironically pointed this out in an article, “Metacritic Matters: How Review Scores Hurt Video Games.”  It looks like they have perfected this observation into a unique form of cultural warfare.

Eacaraxe – whose blog on gaming and media I highly recommend, expanded upon this line of though in a series of posts, specifically concerning the case of Bayonetta 2:

“Are certain critics, if they are docking points simply for finding the game’s content distasteful, trying to punish game developers and their publishers by denying them review-based bonuses? If so, is this emblematic of an effort on the part of critics to influence what games are produced and how they produced, contrary to critics’ claims? Is this a valid, or ethical, form of protest against content deemed objectionable by critics and those who produce it?”

This is certainly obvious in the case of the recent controversial game, “Hatred”.  Whether a journalist approves or disproves of a game is irrelevant. Their duty is instead rather to inform their readers about the game and include such unnecessary details like plot, character, gameplay, ect.  At least the creators of Hatred are honest and fully upfront with what their game is about, something many journalists are not and refuse to be.   Will however future reviewers allow this to effect their games and also effect the kind of perception that the public – particular the corporate sector?.

Kotaku’s Social Justice influenced reviews aren’t going to be objective and we know that.  We do however expect them to disclose relationships about the games they are reviewing, promoting, and giving attention to.  There is an expectation that they would acknowledge the conflict of interests between either (1) the publication and the story (2) the journalists involved in the story.

Instead of doing just that, they couldn’t be bothered to disclose the glaring conflict of interests at hand between Quinn and journalists like Nathan Grayson.  Disclosing a conflict of interest is Journalism 101. If you take ANY media journalism classes, it is one of the first things you will learn.

Think about anti GamerGate folks like Ian Miles Cheong that can boast that they don’t give a fuck about ethics in gaming journalism, to which no one in the the anti GamerGate coalition seems to object.  The long and documented lack of journalistic ethics still doesn’t appall them in the slightest. This is a point we must continue to ram home.   We can do this as we gather even more evidence that shows and will show just how bad the state of ethics in gaming journalism has become and that the corrupt gaming press still “doesn’t give a fuck”.

Basic Primer: How To Deal With Vitriol From Social Justice Warriors

In every comment section you can be thoroughly entertained Gladiator style. I often scroll through comments to get an idea of reader’s reactions to some of the magical pieces of brilliant journalism that are displayed at sites  … TRIGGER WARNING!!!!!

Nah, I’m joking… at sites such as Jezebel, Gawker, Kotaku, ect.   Fortunately there are some sites that present the other side of the issue – specifically on #Gamergate – such as The Ralph Retort.  To be fair, I find the comments agreeable because of my bias on the subject of #Gamergate.

Context To The Primer

Credit to ArsenicSundae for a comment that presents a very important basic primer on how to respond to Social Justice Warriors. Note that “apologizing” isn’t in there. In fact, NEVER do that.  Don’t back down.

When they come after you, tell ’em to fuck themselves, because all they need is for you to engage them on their terms, which gives them an opening they can exploit.

When you’re willing to “discuss” something with them, it lends credence to their accusations and the next thing you know, you’re owning that shit.

This is an extremely important point because if you respond and try to defend yourself from  the common accusations that you are a sexist, misogynist, racist, ect you have already essentially admitted assumed guilt.  Your response validates their accusations – no matter how false and full of shit said accusations are.

Thousands of tweets later you have now become guilty.  Take Bill Frezza’s article on Forbes, “Drunk Female Guests Are The Gravest Threat To Fraternities.” which was eventually axed thanks to the tolerance views of SJWs on differing viewpoints.  He made the mistake of apologizing on his blog validating the claims of the lynch mob.

What lesson can we learn here? You don’t attempt rational discourse with people who have no interest in it.  They simply would rather attempt to vilify you with labels in the court of public opinion then have an open and honest dialogue with you.  Don’t waste your time by giving them time and most specifically ATTENTION.

The proper response to SJW’s involves dismissing their claims outright and immediately. Eventually labels like misogynist, racist, sexist, ect won’t mean anything because will rightfully not take them seriously after seeing that others aren’t taking them seriously either.

Primer 101:  SJW Accusations & Responses

Familiarize yourself with the usual responses – most notably that of the recent Matt Taylor whose “sexist” shirt trumped his accomplishment of helping to land a machine on a moving comet.   He went even went one step further and cried in his apology.

Yea, it still hurts me to think about that.  Remember bullying is bad, unless you are bullying a grown man into crying over his shirt choice.   What should Taylor have done? Observe the following:

Examples of poor responses to SJW harassment:

“That’s not what I meant.”
“Let me explain.”
“You’re twisting my words.”
“I apologize.”

We are all used to these. Now for the retorts?

Examples of good responses to SJW harassment:

“Fuck you.”
“Go fuck yourself.”
“Get fucked, you syphilitic little prick.”
“To anyone offended by my words or actions, I’m deeply … naw, fuck it … you can all kiss my ass. Thank you.”

Yea, these responses look extreme. But you have to take extreme actions – specifically in concern to your responses when you are dealing with potential extreme SJW’s mobs.  Your livelihood may actually depend on it in it.

Get Over Yourself Because We Already Have.

My favorite Asian badass, Opinionated Man from Harsh Reality, strikes again in a recent post today involving one of the biggest problems that plagues mankind; those who dare to disagree on the internet. In the words of a modern day Asian wiseman, “Get Over Yourself.

One of my favorite responses I often see on message boards, forums, my own facebook, ect. are responses and posts to my own such as:

  • “I can’t believe you said that!”
  • “Tell me you don’t think this!”
  • “How dare you be this ignorant!
  • “You can’t say that!”

Newsflash. I said that, I’m not sorry, and I’ll say it again. Fine, we disagree. I honestly thought it would never happen.  Let’s leave it like that right? Wrong.  The hounds start to bark, the crows start to circle, and the night starts to darken.  Demands for your head, your job, your blog, and your imminent seclusion from internet and blogging life.


A growing number of narcissistic individuals on the internet – I’m shocked – seem to think that they not only should own and control their own havens of internet brilliant dialogue, but that yours should be included in their Iron Curtain like grip.

Do you not concur with the popular group-think on your blog and even Facebook? Then bow down, present your ass for punishment,  and plead for mercy and forgiveness for having alternative thoughts.   These kinds of folks won’t even stop eating their own, so they won’t care if they eat you.  This is why you must ignore them like they aren’t there and never back down.

This was just a slight offense and an apology and clarification weren't enough.
This was just a slight offense and an apology and clarification weren’t enough.

It’s not enough to even delete a post, a tweet, ect these days. You actually need to dress in digital sackcloth and ashes as you admit your sins to an obvious disproving public.   This shit needs to stop and it STOPS with me, you, and all of us with balls.  That includes you ladies.

Let’s engage in a reality check. This isn’t your facebook. It isn’t your blog. You don’t control my blog. You don’t control Opinionated Man‘s blog. This isn’t Reddit. I know that particular mobs of people who can’t handle disagreement or alternative POVs want to downvote your thoughts into oblivion, but are stymied and enraged that they can’t!   This particular mob of internet group-think digital ravagers that inhabit fiefdoms with North Korean like intentions on internet discourse and dialogue however will give it all they have to make you recant. However, we won’t, because we dont give a shit.

Important lessons must be learned early for all self-respecting bloggers.  I’ll kindly, but firmly drill them in:

  1. Don’t give a shit.
  2. . You don’t need to care if people get offended over your blog, facebook, or twitter.  Life is short and you don’t want to be 90 on your deathbed having never voiced your true thoughts.
  3. As OM puts it ,“Even if the world comes crashing down upon you, own your views and don’t allow others to intimidate you into changing your opinions.” 
  4. Stand by what you think and NEVER back down.  Don’t apologize for what you think. Let the wave of intolerant naysayers crash against your polished steel sides.  You shall not be moved.
  5. Assert your thoughts, posts, and conclusions with the utmost confidence.

Don’t cave in on your blog for any reason, because it won’t end there. The pattern you set endangers yourself.  Imagine what is and has been next.  Your private life decisions may be next if you indicate you are willing to submit. Remember Brandon Eich from Mozilla? He lost his job because of this consistent subconscious desire by himself and his employer to give in and back down. Don’t be Firefox.  (Note that The Atlantic isn’t some religious conservative bastion of backwards thought.)

Armenia out. 

My Transgender Roam on “We Hunted The Mammoth.”

A Mammoth Task

In the dark well cultured corners of feminist influenced academia is a deep murky cavern inhabited by a swell male feminist lad named David Futrelle who runs the “Misogynist” tracking site aptly labeled, “We Hunted The Mammoth”.   On a side note, he lives in Chicago so only about 45 minutes from me.  Hopefully, he isn’t a violent fellow who is easily triggered.

Now he is actually a rather fascinating and  cheeky fellow in which Return Of Kings sums him up,

 “And, at risk of driving more traffic to the site, I must mention David Futrelle’s site “manboobz.” Futrelle is the typical male feminist; an overweight, thinking-impaired omega male.”

Futrelle’s specialty is actual misandry on a daily basis, something that he takes quite a bit of pride in.   Rest assured though, his self-loathing of his gender makes him a decent sum of money during his funrasing drives where we witness some of the worst misogyny ever seen – women being tricked into giving their money to men.

Now I’m not sure if its a ploy to make himself more likely to get laid by his fellow feminists, but desperate times call for desperate measures. I did some roaming on the site and some light trolling.  for his gem on Davis M.J. Aurini.  I’ll give Futrelle one thing though, Aurini does look a hell of alot like Anton La Vey in that picture lending the case to Aurini needing a full beard.

My badge of honor.

My roam exposed a fact that we often forget ; when it comes to many feminists,  you can’t criticize anything about any women anywhere for any reason. It doesn’t matter if she killed her kidsbecame a serial killer, or threatened to blow up a Federal Building – I’m a bit more sympathetic with that last one – you are an automatic brutal womyn hating misogynist whose chances of committing rape immediately exceed 9000.

Do you approve of mothers who abuse their kids?


You’re a vicious misogynist!

Hell, I’ve one male feminist left dumbfounded about how any women want to be around me.  Apparently, quite a few, considering the two self-professed feminists that slept with me knowing about my anti-feminist views.  (Good looks, game, and a sexy demeanor can work wonders.)

Recently I stumbled upon an angry gulf in the LGBTQ community between TERFS and Radfems vs the Trans community.   Apparently trans women – who were men – are actually part of a patriarchal ploy and should not be accepted as lesbian “gatherings” who refuse to acknowledge that the penis should be considered part of the female appendage if they identify as… women.  I agree with the TERFS here.  If you are interested in a dive down that way, visit “Mancheeze” at your own peril for a taste of a rather delightful lesbian TERF named, “HouseMouse” or something like that who actually really hates men as well as Paul Elam and MRA types.   (She doesn’t deny this.)

Now considering social justice identity politics, it really shouldn’t surprise us that the radical corners of feminism literally despise trans people – even though their biological argument is a sound considering what science tells us about actual biology.  (Sex vs Gender.)

Honestly, one thing that stood out to me is that modern feminism is all about social interactions, norms, and customs specifically concerning binary gender.  I’m not shocked and neither should anyone else be.

Fighting Fire With Fire

When engaging with social justice advocates who refuse to engage honestly, it’s best to employ their own ideology against them.  Chief among this is the the idea of non-binary and “fluid” gender concepts.    Basically, this means that you can identify as whatever the hell you want at any moment in time. Use this to your advantage.

So anytime some short-haired virulent feminist on tumblr,  Salon, or Jezebel informs you of your male privilege bullshit, make sure you immediately identify as trans.  Yes, you can identify as trans at any time for any reason – specifically in conversations about gender and supposed oppression of women by the patriarchy.  In the world of identity politics where having a lack of privileged is something to be gloriously attained and retained in an iron grip, you will have a headstart in the vicious fight to see who has more privilege and is therefore a terrible who is automatically wrong and not needed in the world.

When it comes to identifying as “transgender” or some other weird gender fluid nonsense, are they going to tell you that you can’t do that?  That’s transphobia of course, and by Futrelle’s logic, its a bannable offense to add to the hundreds of other “offensive” subject matter on the list.

What if they question if you are actually trans?

1. How would they know? 2. Questioning if someone is trans is obviously transphobia.  3. Obviously, they can’t actually tell someone what gender they can and can’t identify as by the universal SJW code.

Most feminists and LGBTQYSJGJAA+++++++  will tell you that you can be whatever gender you feel at any time. Well, use that to your advantage in every encounter.  If they tell you you aren’t trans, drop the “transphobic” card.   There are no winners in the oppression olympics these days, but you can piss them off pretty easily with this simple idea.  Just remember to tell them to check their cis privilege.

Note, this can also be explored when it comes to government benefits.  I urge you to check out Benefits.Gov and when it asks for race and gender just pick “other” for race and “woman” for gender.  (Transracial coming soon)   You’ll be getting some of your tax dollars back, and draining the beast the only way it understands – monetarily. 

The highlights of their very angry commentary can be seen below. It doesn’t take much besides disagreeing with these people to set them off. Classic. They did make many vitriolic efforts to respond to my comments, so I’ll give them that.

My personal highlight is where they completely missed the reference about Anita Sarkeesian and I being the ultimate victims because we can claim the “genocide” and “slavery” card being Armenians. Apparently these Radfems don’t know their history well either – nor are these reputable SJWs aware of their “lack-of-genocide” privilege.

Highly appalling, but not surprising.