Manufactured Outrage Against The Scarlet Label – The Roosh V/ROK Meetups

feminists target with violence, threats, Roosh V, media, lies

People See What They Want To See

feminists target with violence, threats, Roosh V, media, lies
Violence is okay against people we don’t like

I was listening to a podcast in which Mike Cernovich was interviewed by a Muslim feminist Mirriam Seddiq.  The topic was broached as to why he didn’t bother to make it clearer to detractors/haters/trolls that he didn’t hate women, something his then girlfriend and now wife Shauna asked him.  His response to her was that people see what they want to see.

That is precisely what this “Roosh wants to legalize rape” media frenzy is doing as it panders to juicy and downright libelous headlines for clicks.  His detractors, plus people who are willing to believe the absolute worst about someone because “someone said so online”, don’t really care about truth if they can demonize an “extremist” or someone they don’t like.  Rocking Philosophy makes this point perfectly regarding the Roosh V witch hunt:

“Particularly hypocritical is the way leftists pretend not to recognise satire. There have been countless occasions when the Left, with the backing of their media cohorts, have used the ‘satire’ and ‘humour’ defence when they’ve overreached (or they just deny something ever happened). One example is the EndFathersDay hashtag. Another is the KillAllWhiteshashtag. Anything found on website, the Onion, can basically be put in this category, too.”

Remember, it’s only satire when they do it.  You are now seeing  media manufactured outrage at its peak, created in part by rabid feminists like David Futrelle which is where this chain of stories first started a week back.  I wont link to his site, just google, “We Hunted The Mammoth”

The fact that it was a thought experiment in the form of satire is irrelevant – Futrelle the king of disingenuous quote mining – now that a very dedicated mob has their torches and their game-plans worked out.  Obviously, Jonathan Swift was a pro-cannibalism and slavery advocate.

Well, an article by Snopes debunking the idea that a group of men attending meetups around the world who support legalizing rape has been out for almost 24 hours.

Of course, this hasn’t stopped minor to major media outlets like Chicago’s very own WGN from pretending that this group of heinous vicious possible patriarchal misogynist rapists in the underground volcano are indeed as villainous and their headlines and stories would suggest.

It doesn’t matter that Roosh has made clear that the article in question that has garnered him recent headlines such as, “Nearly 50,000 sign petition to ban pro-rape pick-up artist” and Militant pro-rape ‘pick up artist’ Roosh V organises event for followers in Manchester City Centre  was satire.

That is just out of what is now over 300 news articles in the last several days virtually saying the same thing as they piggyback information off each other with each description of Roosh getting worse than the last.    Strangely vacant in most of them is the disclosure of the satire in question, because who cares?

Emboldened indeed.   Below is just in the last hour when this was written…

What’s even more shocking is that the same people who sincerely and utterly believe that rape is VERY bad – as do 99.9% of the rest of the population – have no problem making rape threats against Roosh and any men who plan on showing up to the meetups.

It’s even more ironic that these as well as threats of beatings via baseball bats, castration, and even death are coming from people who often speak out against feminists being subjected to online “harassment” and “abuse”.

Roosh has now been doxxed, something feminists often complain they are threatened with, but don’t seem to show much outrage toward at the moment.

At least we can say we showed consistent condemnation of the censorship of free speech when #istandwithbaharmustafa trended worldwide on Twitter in response to the nonsensical hate speech laws of the UK, even though she tweets things such as #killallwhitemen.

I explained this to my wife who was seeing articles about Roosh pop up on her Facebook feed and she asked me, “Can’t he do something about it?”  Roosh can do something about it, but his target audience are the observers in the background who will be made aware of just how vicious and downright appalling the conduct of his critics are.

To do this, documentation of the threats they make is essential and this post aims to do just that.

Hear Supposed Evil, See Supposed Evil

Notice how members of these protest groups against the meetups are willing to encourage violence, rape, and death-threats toward anyone who dares attend:

Well now.
“Put a bullet in his head”, “shoot him”, “send him my way, I have a gun ready…”

Notice that particular quote from Mr. Brent Vee , “Mate if you ever go to Sydney and i gope my boys meet you, belt the f** k out of you, bend you over and rape every hole on your body with every cylinder like object they can find…  I hope you’re chucked into a sydney jail where the boys have a field day with you…

And more…

Did anyone else notice Mr. Daniel Karp uttering the following polite and cordial words, “Im going to smash your fucking face in. You going to be begging for death when I am finished with you.  You fucking piece of shit. Die fucker die!” or the kind words from Victor Rook, “Hey fuck stick, come to ct sometime, I feel like raping a little bitch named roosh.”  Clearly, he believes rape is a terrible thing that no human being should suffer…

“Kick the living shit out of them” Apparently, he really isn’t all that opposed to violence as long as it’s the right people.

Threats And More Threats

Note: Any images that appear are because The Roosh V Forum is currently in private mode due to signs of imminent doxxing, rape, and death threats.  This will change in the near future. 


Anyone who agrees with Roosh deserves to have their spleen removed and their testes stomped.  He sounds like a nice tolerant guy.

Catch that as well?

He doesn’t find the idea of rape abhorrent if it someone who he abhors getting raped.  I’m noticing a pattern here.


“IM GOING TO FUCKING MURDER YOU CUNT!!!…”  courtesy of Mr. Jake Lawrence.  Isn’t that kind of violent speech illegal in Australia?

See that? Roosh needs torture followed by a bullet. A perfectly acceptable call to violent action and murder.

What is the common theme that you – most intelligent and perceptive reader – have noticed throughout these posts? How about the following  tweets and posts?

Note, I’m not going to bother to block out any of their names.  This is on them and the public format they are shouting threats from.   Take a look at who the real animals are.





Violence is bad – except if it’s directed toward a group of people that it’s acceptable to vilify.  So is apparently is rape, that is unless you are raping acceptable targets.  I wonder where we have seen that before.  The tirade of various vicious threats continues.




Speaking of even more death-threats…



I planned on going to the Chicago meetup, regardless of tough guy anarchists.  Let their tactics demonstrate just how willingly these people are willing to go to silence dissenting.

The Scarlet Label

If you browse through the various comments on all of the media coverage on Roosh, both through social media and the sites’ comment sections, you’ll notice labels tossed our way like “archaic”, “misogynist”, “medieval”, “stone-age”, “rapey”, “outdated”.

What these labels do is determine particular “crime-think” for the unwitting masses.  Your ideas aren’t debated, rather they and any individual who dares discuss them are labeled.

Essentially, the messenger is always shot, or in our case threatened with doxxing, rape, and death.   The messenger deserves no trial to defend themselves because an archaic patriarchal creepy misogynist who supports legalizing rape couldn’t possibly be innocent of all those terrible buzzword labels.

That’s the point.

It literally is Rules For Radicals applied to thought-criminals that don’t subscribe to the cultural hegemony. The “individual” – thanks to digital mainstream culture and socio-fascist SJWS and feminists – is now a legitimate target ranging from their reputations and family to their jobs and even legal welfare.

The “protesters” version of peaceful protest and assembly seemed to involve everything from castration and rape to physical beatings and even death rendered toward the thought criminals who planned on meeting for drinks.

None of their threats had anything to do with “debating” us.  In fact, they were willing to go as far as plastering our faces with all the juicy labels attached – including “pro-rape” – online and in the streets in an effort to cost us our jobs, if not much more.
I loathe feminism and social justice, but never could I imagine going after someone with this level of vitriol and threats – assuming they weren’t already at this level engaging in these tactics, in which you must fight fire with fire.

It should now be clear; our most ardent and slanderous critics aren’t interested whatsoever in debates.  As Quintus Curtius has pointed out in his article, “We Will Not Debate You, We Will Replace You,”

Debate, if that word is to have any rational meaning, can only take place if there is good faith on the part of all participants.  When there is no good faith–that is, when one side deliberately lies and distorts the views of the other–then there are no grounds for rational discussion.

Violence is apparently quite golden when we are in the cross-hairs. It’s even justified against reprobate scoundrels like us in the manosphere, Alt-right, and anglosphere who have been labeled everything villainous under the sun.  We put Bond villains to shame with this newfound level of media created infamy..

We are on the worlds most wanted list of thought-criminals and its time to render unto Caesar what is Caesars; the scorched earth approach to our enemies who have showed no such caution in doing it to us.

This is what operation Bull-Horn is about; accountability by those with a pulpit who have chosen to lie and slander with it – nothing more and nothing less.

If you as a journalist lie blatantly and deliberately, then we will have no reservation in letting your current and future employers, as well as your audience and peers know of your deliberate malpractice.

We will fight back.

1. Through establishing a close support network founded upon trust, loyalty, and “iron sharpening iron” so we can coordinate our efforts to fight back effectively and efficiently.

This is why the meetups were so important and will occur in the future.   In order to truly trust someone, you need to at least see them face-to-face and experience the non-verbals that help sharpen our instincts.

2.  Through words – emails, posts, letters, and even social media posts to generate acute awareness, as well as other various ways, each according to their own.

3. With pictures and video. Whenever the mob threatens action, always have your phone ready, recording every interaction where anything even remotely violent is attempted.

If they are okay with plastering our faces everywhere with the intent to destroy our lives, then we should retaliate in kind when they are caught assaulting us in public.   Violent offenders are a danger to the public, are they not?

Carpe Diem and always be prepared if they do manage to get to you.


Envy Is Destroying Western Culture

Envy Is Destroying Western Culture

Envy is at the roots the core problem that plagues our culture – specifically that of the West.  It is destroying my generation.

Why Envy?  It’s all about that tenth commandment from that terrible mythical book that tells us not to covet.

What prompted this realization was a podcast by Quintus Curtius entitled, “Letting Go Of The Anger And Resentments Of The Past” in which he goes over why it happens and where it comes from.

I’ve seen people who have been so thoroughly damaged by their past that their anger consumes them and is dished out upon the surrounding world.

Their inability to let the past go cripples them.  Unlike the song, they shall not overcome.  Instead, they give into a formidable and dangerous form of envy, because its easier then taking any responsibility.  Why work on yourself, if others are completely at fault?

It is indeed envy more than it is jealousy because envy is the reaction to lacking what others have while jealousy is the usual reaction to losing what you have – usually not just in possessions, but people as well.

Look at the roots of the Social Justice dogma that plagues my millennial generation; it is a fundamental belief that you have been deprived, wronged, and prevented from having what is rightfully yours.  Everyone else is oppressing you.

The 1%, the cis straight white male with a decent white collar job, the normal everyday blue collar worker with no criminal record; they don’t deserve it, but the fact that they have it and you don’t leads to that boiling rage and all consuming fire of envy.  It’s not even just limited to success, as people covet the looks of others, blaming those looks and their lack of them for their inability to succeed.  On social media, this has been dubbed, “The Instagram Effect”. 

Look at the results of that fire. It destroys the lives of those who social justice types and feminists who have subconsciously and unknowingly became nihilists as the logical conclusion of their ideology tears into reality.

Consider the critics of men like Mike Cernovich.  What is at the root of their anger toward him? His success.  His influence. His ability to self-publish a book and sell over 15,000 copies in less than six months. Because they can’t have it, no one else can.  They want his “fame” and “fortune”, but they don’t want any of the hardwork that went with it and the family that Cernovich has created in these last few years.

They firmly believe that they are simply “leveling” the playing field, but don’t actually realize that they are destroying it because they hate themselves and what they have become.

Of course they can’t realize this because they are so thoroughly broken by their pasts, that they can’t see beyond their own pain, nor see the pain of other “privileged” people in front of them.

The resentment that Quintus talks about is all consuming. People who have more then you do aren’t just “privileged”, they are an enemy. Because they have what you don’t, they must be taken down a notch and made to “check their privilege.” Why create when you can steal, plunder, and destroy what was your enemies?


Envy Is Destroying Western Culture
Creating something new.

But even that isn’t enough. They are a kind of evil, to be vanquished. The homeless cis straight white male on the streets isn’t evidence of holes in their ideology, but rather a confirmation that the “Patriarchy”, “White Supremacy”, or whatever other buzzword effects the “privileged”.

Envy when left unchecked, and the anger and resentment that give birth to it, eventually result in a complete lack of empathy.  Ironically, that lack of empathy is exactly what they credit as to leading up to “systematic racism”, “white supremacy”, “Patriarchy” and the rest of it.

They have become that monster they despised and fought against.  Not only are they now becoming the establishment in both academic and media circles, but they are far more vicious and less empathetic then the dethroned evil they had fought against.  Even their fellow revolutionaries can be apart of the oppressive establishment and their  their supposed allies problematic, hence the recent inquisition by feminists targeting the “misogyny” of the gay community.

Why? What is turning them into Medusas that turn to stone everything they see?

Nietzsche was right when he said, “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”

They are now that monster, fueled by anger and resentment of what others supposedly have which they do not.  Leveling the playing field isn’t enough anymore; they must now destroy and dismantle everything that the previous “establishment” has created and produced.

This is why political correctness isn’t just running amok, its becoming more personal each and every day as the political becomes deeply personal.

Envy is indeed dangerous, especially to those who are desperate to find a cause to give their life meaning and in turn adopt causes like “Feminism”, “Fat Acceptance”, and “Cultural Sensitivity” because they know their life doesn’t have purpose.  So does everyone else.

Because of that, no one else’s life can either.

This doesn’t have to be any of us. It doesn’t have to be you.  Even if everyone else is completely at fault for your problems, it won’t change the fact that you still face those problems.

“Stop hating and start creating.” – Mike Cernovich

When To Use Scorched Earth Against SJW’s

When to Employ scorched earth against SJWs/Social Justice Warrior
When to Employ scorched earth against SJWs/Social Justice Warrior
Scorched Earth

Vox Day via Milo Yiannapolous makes an important point in a recent post, “Embrace Your Extremists” regarding the current culture war and how we should deal with particularly active, aggressive, and rabid SJWs who are on the attack.

“If you want to stop people using bad tactics, the only way to do it is to make them prohibitively costly. And the only way to do that is to use the same tactics with such brutal efficiency that they cry “uncle” and agree to a ceasefire.”

I’ve come to realize that the moral high-ground isn’t just useless vs particularly active and vicious SJWs, but a dangerous handicap.  As Internet Aristocrat has said, “You can’t reason with these people. They don’t care. They are narcissists to the core.”

Now each situation is different, but when you deal with SJWs actively trying to go after you, fighting fire with fire is an absolute necessity – for instance when they try to change the Code of Conduct of a company/organization to begin their Stalinist purges and thought-police even the most meek of dissenters.  Note that these dissenters are often moderates, who at a certain point will get fed up.

If an SJW is going to attempt to get people fired from their jobs, dox people, and threaten them, then they should be subjected to the same treatment if not harsher to make them realize what terrible dicks they actually are – note legal restrictions.  This is exactly why Milo Yiannapolous wrote up his three part expose on Randi Harper to demonstrate how much of a vicious terrible hypocrite she actually is.

Now “scorched earth” tactic that Vox Day endorses in his primer “SJWs Always Lie” – which has been described as the digital Art Of War of are time for good reason – isn’t necessary all the time when dealing with SJWs. It’s the one’s that pick up the rifles that need to have salvos fired in return. If I learned anything from #GamerGate, its that the same boycott tactics, public shame, and pressuring tactics SJWs employ can be utilized against them with devastating effects.

Companies and corporations still have yet to realize that disgruntled people sending emails to them usually don’t represent even 5% of their customer base. Until they do, these tactics will continue to be effective and we should utilize them like our cultural enemies are.

If your enemy has a tank, you need one as well. If Julie Bindel wants to put all males in a camp for the proper re-education, we should advocate the same for her.

Consider the current raging tornado surrounding Sarah Butts who may have actually molested a child, not withstanding her views on the subject of pedophilia.

To be honest, Sarah was trying to engage in a philosophical conversation over the issues of age of consent, sexuality, ect on “her” forum posts and blogs.  However, when she started labeling opponents – namely #GamerGate and others with every “ist” and “ism” under the scalding sun – while trying to destroy any critics and GamerGate supporters, she began her own Pearl Harbor and the response she is receiving is her just due.   She refrained from actual honest intentions in her dialogue and began her campaign of extermination.

Now every SJW isn’t Sarah Butts.

I know some SJWs in real life. They aren’t active and they don’t participate in email and social media campaigns to destroy people.  They should be treated as POWs.   Never employ “scorched earth” against those who haven’t initiated it first. Guilt By Association SHOULD not be attached to what I would call the, “nominal SJWs.”

We don’t want to turn “thinkers” into flag-burning revolutionaries so to speak, which is why each SJW individual should be handled differently based on what they actually do and endorse.

The “Extremists”

Vox’s use of the word “extremist” is also telling and its an important indicator of how important the war over words actually is.  Consider what used to be considered an “extremist” 100 years ago or yet better a “fundamentalist”.

The connotation went from having fundamentals to being some sort of religious… extremist.  Brilliant when you think about it. “Extremist” is today’s current expansion on that concept and it’s unfortunate that the radical social justice left is winning when it comes to attaching a specific connotation when the word is used.

Labels are again the primary weapon.   SJWs will label anyone who dissents from their narrative as extremists.   Now any normal person who hears the word “extremist” attached to an individual or group will immediately assume a negative about them before hearing anything they have to say.

It’s important for us to use the word when referencing SJWs so that (1) their wordplay can’t be used to control the narrative, (2) they cant effectively utilize attacking the individual instead of the ideas by causing people to dismiss “extremists” without hearing what actually makes them extreme from a source that isnt an SJW.

Remember, when your opponents engage in demagoguery, label slander, and every other slight under the sun designed to destroy your character and reputation, it is absolutely necessary to not only fight back with their same tactics, but to do it with urgency.

Reputations of semi-private individuals can be destroyed online and the truth won’t matter, rather what the neutral public observes from the loudest mouths will shape their perception of who you and what you stand for.  It’s up to you to shape that.

Tanzila Ahmed Doesn’t Date The White Devil

Tanzila Ahmed: A noble advocate of letting white men know what devils there are.

“Mooooom!” I exclaimed, exasperated. “I would never marry a white guy! I would marry anything but white. Person of color, only.”

“Ehhh!” Mom responded, frustrated. “Why not? He could convert!”

“It’s like being with the colonizer. Or an oppressor. I can’t do that.”

– Tanzila Ahmed: Oppressed Bangladesh girl overwhelmed in a world of evil white supremacy.

You may be asking yourself, who the hell is Tanzila Ahmed?  Before we begin, you need to check your privilege, you sick oppressive male and probably white shitlord devils.

Since I’m half/white and half/middle-eastern, I’ll only proceed to check it half-way.  Oh wait, genocide and slavery cards erases it all together.  The beauty of identity politics.

Now we can proceed.

How Social Justice Destroyed A Woman’s Love Life

Let’s get some context on Tanzila Ahmed so we can get a good idea of who she is and the noble ideas she stands for.

Tanzila Ahmed: A noble advocate of letting white men know what devils there are.

So what happened to her?

Well, she was fresh-faced, eager, and full of life.  And then she fell.  Her face to the foe, which took no mercy, would be that of the terrible white devil first boyfiend which would make her dating life irrecoverable.

Yes, it’s a shocking and harrowing tale.

She has one hell of a harrowing tale to tell all you oppressors out there.  It just so happens that she is one of the writers for “Love, InshAllah” a site that offers “fresh perspectives on love” that are so damn fresh, they may no longer represent any actual Islamic doctrine on love, marriage, and all that freaky frisky banter between the genders.  Yes, just the two genders.

In a fantastic and brilliant column filled with a rich and thorough analysis of the Quran, Ahmed – a Bangladesh immigrant – pens a wise and must-read treatise on why she doesn’t date white men simply entitled, “Why I Don’t White Men.” though she is willing to make one exception:

Why does Ahmed “strongly disprove of the white devil men? Her foray into social justice and activism would build a foundation so strong and impervious to empathy and compassion that all barriers and annoyances had to be removed – even the romance of love.  Prepare for an inferiority-complex so strong and ingrained, that it makes the Kardashian sister’s feud about who is more famous look like a Dr. Seus story.

This complex and it’s horrifying results wouldn’t just be limited to her, but her fellow revolutionary compatriots would affirm their romantic breakdowns in all too saddening detail.   Behold one of the comments that in particular caught my privileged shitlord eye; a comment by Hong Gwi-Seok (Peggy) who loved her white husband with all of her heart:

“i hear you. thank you for the beautiful, insightful, honest writing. i am korean american and was married to a white man for 26 years (stayed to raise our 3 kids). as i evolved in my racial identity, he could not come along. he took every criticism of white supremacy personally, so that i felt like i could not speak from my heart to him. he had too much privilege over me, so that i felt second class in my own home. having been there, done that, i am now choosing to be joyfully unpartnered, no money but in the midst of radical community, doing my life’s work.”

Yea, fuck my marriage so I can be joyfully un-partnered because “white privilege” and “white supremacy” are crushing my evolving racial identity.    Her partners refusal to bend over and take it in the ass everyday for the cause of social justice permanently destroyed their passion.

I am still flabbergasted by that comment and just how much social justice ideology could destroy a marriage. Perhaps, we should be less worried about “toxic masculinity” and more worried about toxic racial identity. 

Ahmed would prove to be a rather rebellious ardent and pious Muslim who would actually date men who weren’t Muslim – a sin worthy of family expulsion if you know about the penalties of dating a non-Muslim.

Childhood And The White Oppressors

Ahmed would begin her slow descent into a curious inner narcissism. It would begin in school, in which she was always the girl in the way of the other girls that the guys really wanted to talk to.  She didn’t take this well.  It of course wasn’t her fault, but rather of everyone else.

“The thing was, as a child of immigrants in the 80s, the good Bangladeshi Muslim boys in my age range were few and far between. The crushes I developed were the same crushes that all the girls in my grade school developed: on blond, blue-eyed, athletic, popular boys.”

Note, one should definitely ignore the racial demographics of the highschool and how it IS NOT in Bangladesh concerning “cute boys”.   It wasn’t that she developed her own taste for what was attractive in a boy based on the actual boys in the school, but rather it was environmental influence of those boy-stealing white girls who always seem to prevail – hooting, hollering, and reveling in their white privilege.

Those terrible white cis straight girls.  What oppressors.

“By the time I was in high school, this taste was fully developed. Of course, I never acted on my crush – dating was haram, and my parents would never allow it. But what did it matter anyway? As a brown girl, I wasn’t attractive to these boys either. They were drawn to the tall, blonde cheerleaders. I was always the sidekick to the pretty girls – the geeky, nerdy, student government, asexual, “other” Muslim brown girl. I was the girl that guys would talk to so that they could get closer to my pretty best friends.”

This terrible and traumatizing experience would destroy her self-esteem instilling in her a subconscious desire for revenge and disdain for the white man and his cultural supremacy… in the US… where he makes up 70% of the population, but I digress.

As she displays later and throughout the post, this embrace of social justice would eventually jeopardize her last and final relationship with the white devil, as she just couldn’t be true to herself.  She would describe some of the “problems” with her first oppressive straight white male boyfiend.

“During those years, I was also learning about what it means to be a person of color and how white supremacy plays out in the U.S. In the petri dish of our relationship, I noticed how his white privilege compared to my lack thereof. I had overwhelming student loans, made much less money then him,”

Yes, because “white supremacy” is having less student loans then someone else.  Reverse it, and then let that shit sink in.

“Our relationship came to an explosive end near election day, 2004. I promised myself that I would never actively date a white man again. I needed to get on solid ground on what it meant to be a Desi, an American, and a racial justice activist. I hated the feeling of constantly being reminded of how little power I had as a woman of color. It felt hypocritical to my political beliefs to be dating white.”

Yes, one of the best reasons to break up a relationship is because you need to find yourself as an activist on a quest for power. More power.  That last sentence is a real beauty.

“Most importantly, my career was about training and educating people on social justice issues. The last thing I wanted to do was come home to a space where I had to continue to educate. I wanted to be in a relationship where I could be my full self, no explanation or education needed. He embodied privilege: white privilege, class privilege, gender privilege, education privilege. How could I be in a relationship with a person who constantly reminded me of how much I was lacking?”

Re-read those last two sentences one more time.

Her boyfiend at the time had committed the cardinal original sin of social justice – he was born with white privilege.  Of course it was too much of a strain to “educate” the white devil on his white privilege devilry, because his innate privilege was just too much.

Sit back and take that in.


Fuck that.  His social, class, gender, and education privileges render him as a person to not only be irrelevant, but scum of the white-washed earth.

“When you are dating as a woman of color, it’s a struggle. But when you are “poor” and dating, the struggles are nuanced and different. Passing becomes of the utmost importance. Pretending to have privilege is paramount.”

I always wonder to myself why dating as a “woman of color” is any more difficult then the destroyed dating market the rest of the population is dealing with.   But, I’ll take her word for it, less I be a misogynistic sexist male shitlord – because when women tell you something, you should always believe them, even if it makes no actual sense.

Wait, let’s check that privilege again.


Assumptions About Objects On The Spreadsheet

Okay resume and observe this four paragraph description in which Ahmed makes about the sheer insane amount of different class and cultural filters she ran these men through:

“You wonder what your significant other will say when they see the peeling paint on the walls of your parents’ house, or the roof that needs repair. How what you thought was a middle class home will be perceived as less than when viewed by privileged eyes. How they’ll see your immigrant parents as less intelligent because of their thick accents. How will they even communicate? Will he remember not to touch you or kiss you while they are watching?

You wonder if you pass enough. You weren’t raised to understand the importance of brands and labels, but as an adult have had to learn enough so that you can have conversations about his car, or her purse, or their baby stroller. You wonder if your first date outfit says attractive or exudes cheap. When he orders food for you, you pretend that you know what you are eating, that chewy calamari or slimy oysters. You tout your master’s degree, but you are careful to not talk about how you carry the weight of your school debt because you learned early on that not everyone carries debt the way you do. You avoid conversations about how you had to work as a teen or how your parents borrow money from you. You hope, after looking at the menu, that this is one of the dates where he picks up the bill.

You choose your words carefully. Never say the words that gave away your improper pedigree, avoid the words you never learned to say. Google big words before saying them just to make sure you are using them correctly. Be carefully vague. Say your Mom works “at the airport” instead of as a cashier in the airport parking lot. Say Dad was an engineer and is now semi-retired. There’s no need for them to hear your family’s survival stories. Talk about how your parents own their house, but don’t talk about how it was almost taken away, or how you the roof leaks now and there’s no money to fix it. When they ask, “Why don’t you put it on your credit card?” pretend you don’t have credit cards for ethical reasons, not because you wouldn’t be approved for one.

You are careful to highlight the “exotic” nature of being brown – how you eat fancy “Indian” dishes, when really you ate at home because it was the cheapest. How you do yoga at home, but fail to mention that it’s because Indophile yogis in Silverlake studios annoy you. Nod when they note the Third World poverty of your motherland. Pretend to know enough about South Asian foreign policy so you don’t look stupid when they mention something they learned in their private school education. Talk about the non-violence movement and smile when they say Gandhi is inspiring. Don’t talk about family vacations as a child – because your only family vacations involved seeing extended family in Bangladesh. Suppress your look of envy when you hear their stories about sleep-away camps, cruise ship family vacations, or family dinners at fancy restaurants.”

Wow. No wonder dating is so damn hard for her. She assumes the absolute worst about all perspective romantic possibilities and turns every encounter into a sitcom where every situation is cringe worthy and awkward.   It’s not about her character as a person, but about the clothes she has and the important degree she doesn’t know if she mention or not.

I don’t know about you, but based on those four paragraphs, I can feel the connection and sparks of romance in the air.

It almost seems like she is talking about “objects” in a spreadsheet that are being run through a complex dating algorithm on OKCupid.    Take the movie the “Notebook”, insert two robots with deficient programming, and reverse the entire plot of the movie and her qualms start to make more sense.

What missing in this miring complexity of cultural, racial, economic, and every other fucking possible factor of diversity?

Love. Romance. Passion. The stuff of every romance movie of the last 5 decades.

All the stuff that makes our stomachs flutter and our ladies giggle.  Suffice to say, but I thought most actual living human beings in most Western countries date for love and don’t give a shit about your motherland, your weird cultural dishes, or how much money you or your family has.

“So you give up on dating. Because when it comes down to surviving and finding love, you can’t figure out how to do both sanely at the same time. You’d rather survive alone. And you wonder, how long you can pass until people discover you are a poser. Or if you’ll spend the rest of your life simply passing.”

She now has nothing left – except for her books, cats, and racial community classes.

“Tanzila Ahmed is an activist, storyteller, and politico based in Los Angeles. She can be heard and read monthly on the #GoodMuslimBadMuslim podcast and Radical Love column respectively.”

Well, fancy that.

I don’t know about you, but she definitely appears to be very fulfilled with her life and to be loving every moment of it. That’s how I want to be – an ideologue with a romance so strong, that education privilege can doom it to the dustbin of tumblr relationship advice gone terribly wrong.

You know, I’m not surprised that all the actual eligible Bangladesh men aren’t falling over each other in an attempt to grab this beautiful snowflake and carry her off to the magical lands of passionate love.   Also the fact that she seems to be about as much of a practicing Muslim as I am an ardent Buddhist is certainly scoring some major brownie points in her romantic favor.

For her sake and that of others, perhaps it’s best that Ahmed doesn’t date anyone – for a very long time. Or perhaps it’s just one big ploy to get those devil hunters out there and after her because those shriveling ovaries aren’t getting anymore fertile now that she’s in her 30s:

Hell, at least when I hooked up for the only time with a Muslim girl, our differences didn’t matter as much as the passion of the moment and my dazzling eyes that she couldn’t look away from did.  (Okay being half Armenian, good looking, and very knowledgeable about Muslim culture and history did help.)

The Crucifixion Of Ben Schoen – The Fate of Male Allies

 The Sinner

Disclosure: I’ve recently talked a bit with Ben via digital means.  He also points out that he does not identify as a feminist.

Ben was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

The vengeance for all of the cat-calls, all of the “creepy” men with their ingrained misogynistic awkwardness,  and the sum of all “harassment” that they had ever experienced was visited upon Ben.   His apology was scorned. These militant feminists; they know not what they do.

Or do they?  

You terrible male cis shitlords, check your privilege. 

It wasn’t until this week that I found out who Ben Schoen was.  He is actually the the owner of Feminspire and what one would call an equality feminist – similar to that of Christina Hoff Summers.   Arguably, he’s put a lot of time, effort, and resources into fighting the good feminist fight.

Ben Schoen seen here in his interview with Chuck Johnson after the Twitter lynch mob attacked.
Ben Schoen being interviewed by Chuck Johnson

But, based on a series of interactions that certain feminists didn’t approve of, none of that mattered at all.  Anything he had done to help women – because they obviously aren’t capable of helping themselves – was all thrown out the window.

Today in popular feminist online blogging and academic culture, the burden of the sinful male feminist is a tough, exhausting, un-rewarding, soul-sucking, and constant mandate to prove the support they have for their female feminist masters.

Ben’s mistake was one he was born with, one that all of us terrible male shitlords who breathe oppression suffer from on a daily basis – he is male.

This is the original sin of not just 3rd wave feminism, but of much of today’s social justice tripe that focuses on only your biology, while entirely ignoring your character.

The Entitled Interaction

Our story begins with a message to a Buzzfeed writer, Grace Spelman who decided to air all of their personal dirty laundry which started this twitter lynch mob – something that should surprise none of you.  (Note that when I tweeted at Ben, she suddenly followed me then blocked me.  I reciprocated the favor.) 

Ben used to be involved in a Harry Potter fan podcast and she friended him on Facebook because of that podcast about eight years ago.   Forward to present day and  a certain site had an article on Grace’s twitter – or instagram – profile as one with 10k followers that people should check out.

Well, he did just that and realized he knew her.  He then sent her several tweets, to which she didn’t respond.  So he sent her a message though Facebook, one that I must admit while somewhat humorous was awkward.  (Another reason why men should learn about Game.)

After her “rejection”, she insists she blocked Ben on Twitter and Facebook.   What she didn’t bother to include in the screenshot was the rest of it that I have managed to acquire:

Look at those last four messages before she blocked him.
Look at those last four messages before she blocked him.

Well, Grace clearly felt harassed over these vicious messages from this male feminist oppressor.  She would proceed to block the shitlord to ensure her safety.

Ben, who still did not know why he was blocked,  would make his displeasure known on Twitter over the interaction in somewhat of a mini-blow up.

Consider some of the gems Grace has written for Buzzfeed.

  • “30 Shirts For The Weirdos In Your Life” with the sub header, “Embrace Your Inner Weirdo”.   Besides all the shirts apparently being made off Zazzle’s shirt maker in 30 seconds, that inner weirdo embrace definitely didn’t seem to apply to Ben.
  • 18 Pickup Lines You Should Try Immediately”  I particularly enjoyed 6. I noticed your arm grazed against my sweater. Pretty soft, huh? Go ahead, feel it. Do you know what it’s made of? Cashm-—CRAP, I mean, “boyfriend material.” I’m sorry. I’m really nervous.
  • 18 Sexts You’d Actually Love To Get.  My personal favorite, “About to go through your Facebook and like all your profile pictures.”  That’s not at all creepy and stalkerish that every male feminist should embrace…

Ben would then send her an apology though email, which would be the last contact he would have with her.

It was here that Ben made a crucial mistake; he apologized to this nasty harpy innocent glorious snowflake princess worthy of all admiration. His mistake is highlighted in Mike Cernovich’s excellent post, “How To Survive A Public Shaming” which I suggest you all read and thoroughly take to heart, because any of you male feminists – no matter how devoted to the cause – could become next.

What remains to be seen is why Grace felt compelled to publish the messages and emails, despite the apology.  No, I’m joking.  Never, ever, apologize to people like her.  They don’t want an apology, they want blood.

They would get that blood when Spelman shared these conversations between them available to the ever controversy and outrage hungry feminist audience. (In all fairness, Ben did express his fustration on twitter before Spelman made these public.)


The Bleeding Frenzy

The timing of this was of course fantastic. It all happened right during the hashtag prominence of #ThingsFeminstMenHaveSaidToMe.     A male villain to go with the tag had just presented himself and confirmation bias would strike a vicious blow with Ben as its target.

Eight hit pieces came within a matter of 72 hours from sites that all publish articles concerning Feminism and how it also care’s about men.   I thought I was a terrible piece of sexist misogynistic male  anti-feminist racist homophobic transphobic ableist trash, but I would have nothing on one of their own, namely Ben Schoen.

I didn’t even bother linking the hordes of other ones off blogs.  I’d estimate there are over 100 different sites which covered his terrible misogynistic actions.  These actions of his were of course so atrocious, that they make women cower in fear for their very lives every time they sneak a look at  Twitter, read an email, or browse through Facebook in search of the powerful patriarchal oppressors who control every aspect of society.

These articles would direct thousands of tweets to Ben’s twitter, all telling him what a terrible misogynistic piece of shit he was.  His tweets specifically were pointed out as tweet rape harassment as tweeting at someone must be a consensual activity governed by enthusiastic, clear, and concise verbal consent.

Feminist hurricane Spelman would continue to rage, but she would make one very interesting admission concerning why she didn’t accept the apology. This might not be as ideological driven on her part as I initially thought.

She found it funny.

That angry mob spewing threats, harassment at Ben, and every other vicious form of Twitter rape at him was funny.  I think we know who the real victim is here Scoob.

Yea, she found it funny, but the lynch mob angered over his vicious retaliatory responses to her “rejection” didn’t and they would continue to go after Ben.

This was all deliberately blown out of proportion for the sake of the cause – the unwilling martyrs of #ThingsFeministMenHaveSaidToMe – don’t matter.

The supposed sin that Ben committed was that he didn’t respond the “right” way – according to SJW feminist dogma- about how to handle his “rejection”.    He was accused of the usual “male entitlement” when it comes to conversations with women.  Observe the tactic from the NewYorkMag:

“The whole exchange is pretty emblematic of the inherent difficulties of rejecting men, both online and off. Women are frequently made to toe a line between being polite enough to not set off the suitor, but not so polite that their manners are interpreted as flirting.

“You can’t win in these types of situations,” Spelman told the Cut. “Even if you are polite in your rejection, they’ll demand that you tell them WHY you did it. It’s just a mixture of entitlement and the fragility of the ego … Because you don’t know how they’re going to handle it, you don’t know if you should be afraid or not.”

“I still am not quite sure if I should be scared of this guy or not,” she added.”

Considering who the mob’s pitchforks have been stabbing, I’d say Ben should be scared.

Now reverse the genders for a moment, and you will notice that this same concept of “entitlement” in regards to conversations between the genders is not applied. You will also notice a specific expectation – or dare we say entitlement – by feminist women as to how men should respond to “rejection” in conversations.

Who are the real entitled one’s here?

Rhetorical question, shitlord. Of course it’s us terrible male cis straight oppressors.

You will respond how they think you should, or you will be castigated with every “ist” and “ism” under the sun. They don’t care about the women and angry girlfriends  in the thousands of YouTube videos who are destroying their ex’s car, home, possessions, and property. In fact, it’s considered funny.  Humorous.

Now could Ben have initially handled it better?


Is it “harassment”?

No, not even close.   But that’s the key tactic at play.   If you can label this as harassment, Ben is a complete and utter shitlord, despite how ACTUAL interactions between men and women occur.

This is as much “harassment” as is Dish sending you two more additional letters asking if you would renew your Cable subscription with them.

Observe some of this BS

Yea, this snowflake actually thinks this is legal cyber harassment.

Wow.  He’s guilty of stalking her and the police should jump on this vicious criminal.

Yea! What a fucking creep!!!    

Where have we seen this labeling tactic before?

You know what’s worse then being called a slut? Being called a creep.  People at least want something from sluts.  They prefer to completely avoid creeps.   It’s not enough to shoot someone down, you have to label him in to practically an untouchable for his awkward approaches.  That’s the kind of forgiving 3rd wave feminism encourages.

Think of what this entire situation implies to all male feminists out there.

Have an interest in a girl who is an ardent feminist and you are a male feminist?

Don’t bother.  You are a manipulative oppressive betraying shitlord who is taking advantage of her trust placed in you as a worthless slave ally.  In fact,  expressing interest is harassment and a manifestation of Patriarchy, so back the hell away and check your privilege for the 1000th time today.

Obviously, you should wait for her to express interest in you, and if that never happens, too bad.  Sit down, and shut up. Listen in silence like the slaves you are and make sure to kiss her shoes while you are bowing down, face to the ground.

The Disposable Cannon Fodder Ally

I ask myself, “How can one allow themselves to be treated with such disrespect and dehumanization?”   Female feminists take their male allies for granted, that is why.  They demand respect, but refuse to offer any in return.

Respect is earned, not given. Until male feminists realize this, they will be treated like dirt and disposable tampons for purely emotional use and support.

Ben was then further accused of harassing her by threatening her job.  Well, let’s look at what he said.

The so-called threat was Ben hinting that he was going to check Buzzfeed’s policies on the matter.  Ben’s response:

Your article is printing a flat out lie. I never threatened her career. She started posting private emails and I said I would let her bosses know as that is against the policy of many media companies.

Of course, this was made out to be vicious harassment, despite the fact that companies like Buzzfeed have policies about not publishing people’s private emails and correspondence.  As the infamous shitlord Vox Day has said, “SJWs always lie.”

Regarding his own employment, the mob would wish him well:

They literally blew up his private life, bringing up conflict between him and his ex-girlfriend who had been the co-partner of the site before he bought her out.  His side of what happened in their relationship was irrelevant to their narrative.

Ben would go on a livestream with infamous and now Twitter banned Chuck Johnson to explain his side of the story.

During the interview Ben points out that he still identifies as a feminist – don’t ask me why he tortures himself.  He did however make a key distiniction about it, “I am sincere about being a feminist when feminism truly means equality.”

Considering modern day feminism has nothing to with “equality” when men are the subject of conversation, that will happen when pigs fly across the English Channel.

Notice something else about these harpies; Both Ben and Chuck were attacked during their interview for their weight.

So much for Fat Acceptance.

While it’s amusing that they think grade-school like insults based on someone’s physical appearance will hurt them or their arguments, it highlights an internal inconsistency in the “fat is beautiful” crowd; the body positive image part of intersectionality -another faux cause feminism claims to advocate for – is subject specifically to the person in question.

If you don’t personally like them, that oppressive male shitlord should feel not only creepy, but ashamed of his overweight exterior which apparently is not very beautiful at all.

I have a question for you male feminists: Why do you let these small groups of malcontent harpies dictate no only how you should act, but how the rest of us of how should behave and respond in interactions between “insert marginalized/oppressed group here” and whoever else seems to rank lower in the progressive stack?

This whole fiasco and public shaming debacle is what happens to male feminists who are “Allies” and mess up – even slightly – regardless of their apologies. Yet woman like, Bahar Mustafa who writes #KillAllWhiteMen and bans certain people from diversity meetings because of their biology isn’t condemned or called out, but rather affirmed as an SJW of courage? She messed up that bad, and no lesser white feminists of note/faux journalists even called her out.

Speaking of her, shes actually Turkish.  Turkey is a nation that has been oppressing everyone around it for over 500 years.  Fun Fact: Talking about the Armenian genocide there is illegal, let alone acknowledging it, I consider her an oppressor whose privileged ancestors brutally murdered, oppressed, enslaved, subjugated, and genocided my ancestors for hundreds of years deeply and profoundly triggers me.   Her ancestors are one of the primary reasons my ancestors have a hell of alot less today than they should have. 

Back to you male feminists:   You are considered scum of the earth by radical female feminists.   Everyone else matter and needs a voice – except you.  Your role is to listen and shutup. R.S. Mccain sums it up well, “Feminists who say their movement is about “equality” are lying. Feminism is a movement about power — absolute and unlimited power — and therefore the first rule for men in feminist movements is, SHUT UP. “

These man-haters aren’t even trying to hide it, in fact they are deliberately trying to make your life hell.  Ever heard of Kafkatrapping? It’s a rather devious, sinister, and merciless tactic used to intimidate and bully “allies”.

Abandoning The Feminist Inquisition

As Robert Stacy Mccain Points out in a recent article, “‘Nice Guys,’ Failure, Self-Pity and Cruelty”:

“No matter how “nice” you are to a feminist, she will never respect you. The feminist always mistakes male kindness for weakness, and is incapable of gratitude toward males, so that being “nice” to her will only serve to convince her of how infinitely contemptible you are — a servile lackey, a fawning slave who appeals to her sadistic impulses.”

Here’s a confession: I’ve slept with two self-identifying feminists who were well aware of what I think about feminism and social justice.  It didn’t matter.  Ever wonder why they choose to sleep with “misogynistic sexist deuchebags” like myself instead of their male servants who think all the right things but aren’t ever seen as even the slightest romantic and/or sexual possibilities?  (Of course being attractive, good at sex, in good shape, and having some game greatly helps, as it did in my case.)

You are being used, abused, discarded, and then trampled while they insist they care for you.  It’s like child abuse, except most of you aren’t children.  They are superior to you – based on their gender – and you should shut up. 

The call-out culture these feminists in their Twitter lynch mob happily engage in as they target Ben is toxic.   However, when fighting a war involving scorched earth – I mean men who have their lives and reputations deliberately destroyed to try to make them permanently unemployable (Yes, some women as well) – I  encourage all of you to engage in like reciprocity of call-outs and shaming with feminists who throw the first punch.

Fight back.   Stop calling yourself a feminist, because the movement isn’t just not about men, it despises them.  There are men and women out there who actually care about you and want you to succeed and prosper as a man,  despite the tripe and lies feminists spew about them. 

I’ll never forget a quote I saw in the NewStatesman in which a radical feminist dominatrix uttered what she really thinks about the men she’s trying to sexually liberate:

“As feminists, we rightfully put the interests of women first, and we are sceptical of ostensibly feminist arguments that appeal to men’s interests. Solidarity should motivate the privileged in their struggle for change, not self interest; to make an analogy, it would be offensive and misguided to ask the black leaders of the Ferguson movement against police violence to tout the benefits of anti-racism to white people. Likewise, feminists should not be obliged to sell feminism to angry men.”

“But I would offer another analogy: when we combat fascism, it behooves us to offer an alternative to those that fascists would recruit. We may not be able to reach the most hateful misogynists, but feminists must directly attack the false ideology of men’s rights. We must offer a real answer for men consumed by anxiety, and especially those who feel a sense of sexual frustration.”

Avoid vicious women and men like this. Avoid people who label themselves as such feminists and constantly use social media to go after people’s jobs.  They don’t care about you. They only care about your original sin- that you were born with the wrong set of genitals.


—— Grace Spelman has had her spotlight, online fame, and reputation boosted from this encounter from the internet trampling of Ben.   Evidence of this and her hypocrisy will be exposed and documented in a later article. 


A Disturbing Social Justice Narrative In Psychopolitics

Another day, another stumble upon a new educational “field” that most of us don’t want to pay 40,000$ to impress our family with.    Today’s discovery is that of an older post concerning that social justice culture blog, Vox Populi and “psychopolitics”.  (No not Vox Day’s Vox Popol)   It starts off rather innocently and ends in an interesting and unintended rabbit hole

In particular the about me “resume” of one of the co-founders, Nisha Gupta, is probably one of the most ironic I’ve ever seen.


Irony doesn’t get much better than this.

Catch that?

“She explores the use of art and social media as interventions to foster societal empathy and bridge differences.”

I’m almost flabbergasted in this could be mistaken for veiled sarcasm, but assuming she isn’t a usurper troll of vast privilege,  this is again some rather real irony.

Since when has social media ever been used as a means to foster social empathy on targeted heretics? Memories Pizza anyone? Donglegate?  The call-out culture social justice warriors use doesn’t bridge differences, it exacerbates them.  It eliminates the “civilians” and turns everyone into front-line soldiers that are essentially cannon fodder with no training.   They never expect the war, but it doesn’t stop their lives from being turned into WW1 no-man land’s shell shocked moonscapes.

Maybe I’m reading into this, but “interventions” on social media are more like inquisition racks.  Someone is called out, and everyone shames them for at least a 48 hour period.   Perhaps, that is the entire point.   Now the interventions she desires are far more devious in nature and not just limited to those on social media.   To understand this, you have to enter the underground manifesto like world of “Psychopolitics.”

What In The Hell Is Pyschopolitics?

“Psychopolitics is an apt description for “Clinical Psychology” that deals with the impact of social justice in that it’s often rather psycho in the treatment of the supposed bad privileged people perpetuating those worldwide social injustices.

I didn’t exaggerate the psycho nature of “psychopolitics.”

Most of us who live and interact in the non safe-space real world probably have never of this term.  I sure as hell hadn’t.   A necessary google search turned up a rather nasty and blunt summary of “Psychopolitics.” on the first page.

Wow.  Soviet Style Brainwashing
Wow. Soviet Style Brainwashing

“Asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus, and masses…”

Well, at least it’s honest.

Here’s a fun summary from Pyschopolitics on the subject with the same name, of which is some kind of communist manual on conquering populations.

“A psycho politician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the fields of “mental healing.” He must recruit and use all the agencies and facilities of “mental healing.” He must labor to increase the personnel and facilities of “mental healing” until at last the entire field of mental science is entirely dominated by Communist principles and desires.”

Substitute “communist” for Social Justice Warrior, even though alot of SJWs would embrace the principles of communism if not the label outright.    Mental healing can be substituted for fostering social empathy.  Try doing some more substitutions below:

“A psychopolitician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the fields of ‘mental healing.’ He must recruit and use all the agencies and facilities of ‘mental healing.’ He must labor to increase the personnel and facilities of ‘mental healing’ until at last the entire field of mental science is entirely dominated by Communist principles and desires.

To achieve these goals the psychopolitician must crush every ‘home-grown’ variety of mental healing in America. Actual teachings of James, Eddy and Pentecostal Bible faith healers amongst your mis-guided people must be swept aside. They must be discredited, defamed, arrested, stamped upon even by their own government until there is no credit in them and only Communist-oriented ‘healing’ remains. You must work until every teacher of psychology unknowingly or knowingly teaches only Communist doctrine under the guise of ‘psychology.’ You must labor until every doctor and psychiatrist is either a psycho-politician or an unwitting assistant to our aims.”

More astute googling turns up statements by Isaac Prilleltensky who is said to have coined the related term of “Psychopolitical validity”.

“The interdisciplinary nature of psychopolitical validity lends itself to empowerment studies and social change [7] and could potentially be a useful construct in other critical disciplines within the academy. Prilleltensky and Fox suggest that psychopolitical validity should be institutionalized as a method of preventing wellness and justice from being discussed in isolation. This type of validity brings the two concepts together and politicizes the concept of wellness promotion.”

Anyone else seeing that mutual connection or should I say synonym-like exchange between “mental healing” and “wellness promotion?” But why focus on the mental wellness fields for interdisciplinary reasons?

The definition which I assume comes from Prilleltensky  is rather telling:

“Psychopolitical validity refers to the extent to which studies and interventions in the community integrate (a) knowledge with respect to multidisciplinary and multilevel sources, experiences, and consequences of oppression, and (b) effective strategies for promoting psychological and political liberation in the personal, relational, and collective domains…”


Yes, Liberation. 

The use of this word and what it means to Social Justice advocates is telling.  It’s just yet another example of how important the war over words in our culture and the connotation of who uses them is so important.

That cushy and noble concept of “liberation” in social justice speak is yet another code for the chaos and resulting domination mentioned from the Pyschopolitics website.   By liberating the “mental health” and wellness fields, they seek to destroy it and then rebuild it in their own god-like image with their own definitions, experts, and influence . Note, this is the exact same thing that’s happened to much of higher academia since the last 1840s and Horace Mann and John Dewey didn’t even try to hide the social conditioning element to the education they had planned for the country’s malleable youth.

A rise in what psychologists could consider “disorders” these days might be more political in nature then we realize.   If you are deemed to have any kind of mental disorder – a list that is expanding exponentially every year – there are alot of fields, jobs, and other lifestyle choices you would be excluded from as well as numerous amounts of medication you would constantly need to swallow.

You of course can’t run for political office because you aren’t mentally “well” in the social justice definition of psychology.   For one, you most certainly can’t own a firearm.  (In fact, in states where I live like Illinois, just 1 out of 10 doctors declaring you mentally unstable or “mentally retarded” is enough to ensure that you can never legally own a firearm.) You also might be excluded from certain public places, buildings, and jobs because of the “risk” you might present.

Any dissenting opinions could be considered a disorder of some kind and those of course are expensive and MUST be treated.   The pills, clinics, therapy, and health services would ensure financial profitability.  On the trendy side, at least the new normal will be to not be normal – which would include a large segment of the population.

If you think about about it, this is exactly what social justice advocates are trying to in every sphere of life today.  Diversity of opinion isn’t for those who have “privilege” and individuals who step out of line and they would need to be subjected to accepted thoughtspeak and wellness promotion to get them back to mental health.

A New Impending Attack

Look at who controls much of mental health institutions and it probably only a matter of time before the concept of “mental healing” takes on a very ideological underside.  Maria Konnikova made the case about how dominant those of liberal persuasion have become in the higher academia departments of Psychology  point in her article, “Is Social Psychology Biased Against Republicans?”  for TheNewYorker They of course hold that field of “study” with an iron fist.   (Again an example that absolute power corrupts absolutely.)

One paper I came across by Kathy A. Gainor entitled “Social Justice: The Moral Imperative of Vocational Psychology” expands on this goal.  The Association for Psychological Science is even more direct when it comes to intertwining into educational curriculum and courses, “Putting Social Justice into Practice in Psychology Courses.”  Here’s just a tidbit as to what putting social justice into their courses means to them:

Explain to students that psychology is not always value free. Modern psychology is often framed as a science that uses empirical methods to advance knowledge about the mind, the brain, and behavior in an objective manner. However, students also should understand that psychologists’ worldviews shape the questions we pose in research, the strategies we use to answer those questions, and how we understand phenomena.

For example, most psychological research uses quantitative methods. Students learn to conduct quantitative studies in research methods courses; instructors most often rely on quantitative findings to inform their lectures. Psychology instructors can teach about qualitative research that models greater power-sharing between researchers and participants through its open-ended questioning and community immersion (Kidder & Fine, 1997). Moreover, qualitative research can advance social justice by amplifying the voices of research participants, particularly people who have been mischaracterized by psychology and broader society, such as women, people of color, and sexual minorities.”


Whenever SJWs talk about “amplifying” marginalized voices, they really mean is that you would give far more emphasis, validity, and credibility to those specific voices and the research they produce – often of very dubious scientific nature.   Alot of the early “privilege” theory comes from what is known as “Standpoint Theory” along with “Muted-Group Theory” which is basically the idea that because marginalized minority voices haven’t gotten enough voice in history – a mistaken and false conclusion – researchers, teachers, and society overall must give much more attention to said voices then any other ones.  Essentially, those minority marginalized voices must be given 70% or more of the attention and the scraps will be distributed among the rest until society is “balanced”    Note, no SJW knows or has even formulated a position as to when that actually will occur so luckily for them, that horse can always be beaten for eternity.

Prepare yourself.


Rejecting Guilt By Association

Regardless of what mortals you follow, adore, admire, and pay homage you will at some point disagree with them.  Whether it’s most of the time or almost never, no one will ever hold exactly all the viewpoints that you have come to cherish.

A tweet from Milo Yiannapolous prompted the above line of thought in which he voices disagreement with libertarians on the NSA spying incident – color my libertarian tendencies irked.

Obviously, he is mistaken, as his his later tweet about Snowden being a traitor and not a hero.   I’m also above reproach in my conclusion. 

Today, the internet echo-chamber or “communities” as we call them is often bereft of any actual substance in discussion when it comes to disagreement over just about anything.  Dissenters are labeled “concern trolls” or just “trolls” in general.   In fact the word, “troll” has lost it’s meaning because of the abuse of the term.

Throw in “safe-spaces” and this takes on a whole new layer of people who immediately dismiss anything that comes from an opposing side.   If you make the mistake of identifying with a label that is considered “bad” or triggering, everything you say is immediately dismissed – regardless of the validity of what you say.

We need to start judging statements, comments, and opinions based on what they actually are –  the merit and validity of them – instead of who said them.    Whether they come from a radical liberal feminist or a neo-con warhawk, it shouldn’t matter; we need to reject guilt by association.

Encountering the “Other Side”

Take for example Cindy Brandt’s site/blog which I recently came across and her post, “You Don’t Need To Tell Me You Don’t Agree.”   She actually makes alot of good points, despite certain… social justice affiliations.

Well, I don’t agree.   Okay, I couldn’t resist.  Take a look at this specific observation:

“Which one of us agrees on everything with any other single person? No one! Certainly, many of us share similar passions and congregate according to common interests, it’s only human to interact with those who you resonate easily with. But if you dig deeper, or you spend enough time together, it isn’t long before one discovers there are indeed some, if not many points of disagreements with those we are in relationship with.”

As she points out, no one will  ever agree on everything, but with today’s identity politics and culture its often either all or nothing.  If someone doesn’t share enough “similar” passions, interests, and convictions,  chances are that most people won’t give anything they say the time of day.   This is more likely if they know about your “opinions” and affiliations before they evaluate what you’ve actually said.

“If we are honest with ourselves, adding the phrase is a form of social insurance. We want to protect ourselves from the risk of being associated with certain things this person represents. “

It certainly is a form of social insurance, but why?

People seem conditioned to pre-judge and make assumptions based on labels and what they “represent”, so what choice is there but to adjust? Unfortunately, this is the reality of where we are at.  It rather sucks that these qualifiers are needed, but can anyone point to topics of conversation where they aren’t?

The risk of being associated with someone who is deemed a racist, bigot, homophobe, ect or any other culturally deemed demagogues can be cause for your employment to be revoked. Consider Razib Khan who was initially hired by the New York Times, but then let go because of his “association” with right-wing publications who were deemed to be mired in racism.    So much for diversity of opinion right?

Whoever was working here must have spilled this paint...
Whoever was working here must have spilled this paint…

Shockingly, the fact that he isn’t even white was enough to save him from the wrath of social justice warriors who usually excuse certain people from terrible actions, deeds, and statements based purely on their genetics.  Another mighty journalism giant bows before Gawker and SJWs.    Apparently, all you need to do is label someone a racist enough to make them suffer the effects of today’s modern heresy.

For instance, Cindy describes herself as “social justice-y” on the side bar of her site.  GASP!

Someone, pull the alarm.   Danger is near.

  My spidey sense is tingling.

Now a large amount of people will probably dismiss anything she has to say because of the affiliation with social justice.  Don’t make that mistake; don’t fall prey to guilt by association.  I  may fall to this ever constant trap subconsciously, but then force myself to read what is actually state.  Some exceptions are made for Tumblr…

I strongly disagree with almost everything  modern day social justice folks advocate – what normal sane person wouldn’t – but I won’t necessarily dismiss something because of who is advocating it.

“We can dialogue with people as people, other human beings with different personalities, life experiences, and ideas. We can celebrate common ground without erecting walls or drawing boundary lines. We can connect without disclaimers, embracing the whole of our conversation partner along with her ideas. Let’s base our conversations with one another from a place of shared humanity instead of basing it on fear by association. “

Is this really possible? Can we connect without disclaimers? I don’t think we can.

Tales From The Online Crypt

I recently encountered and “argued” with some conservatives on TheRightScoop about the subject of police abuse.   Obviously, they deny this is a real problem.  In order to even get them to look at anything I have to say, I had to utter the following disclaimer, “I’m not a democrat…”

This is of course true, but if I didn’t point this out, said conservatives would assume I’m some sort of liberal because I disagree with one of their viewpoints.

Behold, the current state of online discourse.

If you disagree with someone on an issue you are immediately considered to be a follower of the opposing “side”.   If you disagree with some of the trash on the Huffington Post, you are a right-wing bigot, ect, ect, ect.   If you take issue with something on Breitbart you are left-wing marxist, socialist, ect, ect, ect.    Qualifiers are absolutely necessary.

“The power of association, of tribes, of communities, is so strong that we take extra measures to ensure boundaries are clearly marked, compelling us to insert disclaimers even in casual conversation. We are so fearful of being grouped with the “wrong” crowd as perceived by the person we are speaking with.

I do not think this is a healthy way to dialogue. I think it is a sign of disrespect to curate someone’s ideas, extracting it from their whole selves with all of their complexities and personhood.”

She is right; it’s not a healthy way to dialogue.   Yes, we must consider the context of a person – if that makes sense –  which is necessary to fully understand their ideas and why they have them. However, in today’s charged, “guilt by association” culture, you absolutely have to introduce qualifiers into the conversation or anything you say will be dismissed based on you supposedly are.

The need for safe spaces...
The need for safe spaces…

One popular “Debate” tactic is Godwin’s law.   To sum that up, it means that you equate a certain argument, idea, or even person to Hitler.  This of course invalidates anything they have to say.  Or does it?

Just because Hitler said something, doesn’t qualify it as being incorrect – such as his radical environmentalism, state control of “healthcare”, ect.   In fact, I’m sure almost everyone today holds some positions that Hitler advocated on economics, state control and power, and the environment.

Color me shocked.

This time-held tactic is “guilt by association/wrong by association” and is employed by disingenuous teenagers, tumblrites, and many adults who want to shout down others based on who they are, rather then what they’ve said on extremely important blogs and websites where their comments clearly make a difference.


Don’t be one of “those” people.

People who engage in daily displays on their Facebook feeds in guilt by association tactics usually have something in common;  they are angry, upset, and jaded.

Their life is a never ending stream of  un-fulfilled selfies, self-loathing, and vicious attacks on anyone who looks like they wallowed in depression for weeks upon end.   All of these bitter people online have one goal in mind; if they can’t be happy – neither can you.

Go outside of your bubble and live.

It’s been said that you can’t argue with certain people, and that is true. Argument however shouldn’t be the goal of every interaction.  You don’t need to “win”.    All you need to do is engage, discuss, and see if any new seeds are planted in either your mind or your “opponent.”   In order to any of that, you must reject guilt by association.

Perhaps, you may just develop a relationship with someone where you don’t need qualifiers, but you must take the initiative to do just that.

I encourage all to go out and have face-to-face conversations with people you know you disagree with. You will be surprised at what happens when both of you or others involved have a conversation that isn’t based on “convincing” anyone of a particular point, but is focused on the exchange of ideas and worldviews.

This is how you grow and become a more rounded individual.

 It is one of the first steps in today’s vicious culture in becoming a renaissance man.

Reject guilt by association.

Weight Loss and Caring About Your Friends

How much do you care about your friends?
How much do you care about your friends?

A friend of mine has been struggling in the dating market – to put it simply.  She wants a guy that is attracted to her, and she wants to share in that same reciprocity.   We will call her Liz.  A Facebook status about it went up.

(Disclosure: Liz had a crush on me for a long time.  Her weight was the main reason I didn’t share the same feelings.  You can’t force attraction. ) 

Now Liz isn’t exactly the most attractive girl, and the fact that she is overweight doesn’t make it any easier for her to improve this.   Most of her friends posted things like, “Oh you are sooooo pretty,” and “Guys will and/or should like you for your personality.”

I decided to be more honest, though I made sure to cushion it, “It wouldn’t hurt to lose some weight.”

Sensible advice right? Weight loss is one of the most effective ways to make yourself more attractive, assuming you are overweight.  Your 20s are a time when you should be making the most out of your looks – regardless of how limited they may be.   It is when you are at your physical prime.


Getting to a normal healthy weight?

Damnable fat shaming, body hate social media heresy.

One response involved something like, “Those people are shallow anyway, they should like you for who you are, and they wouldn’t be worth it if they don’t like you now.”

That’s flattering and to some extent is true, but it doesn’t nullify the fact that the potential dating pool of nice guys who may be interested in Liz for her personality and who she is are far and few between.   Then then throw in the percentage of “those”  nice guys who Liz is actually attracted to and the prospects are rather grim.

It is in fact a comfortable lie, but it ignores a fundamental truth; People are shallow. I’m shallow. Even those people who are not are very unlikely to give her a chance to reveal her inner beauty.

Instead of telling Liz the truth like real friends would, they continue to lie and tell her things she knows isn’t true.

As Andrew from TheRulesRevisited pointed out, in regards to a guy and his girlfriend,

“When you do these things, you are letting your girlfriend wallow in her mediocrity. If you tell your friend that she looks good when she doesn’t, she isn’t going to make an effort to look better next time”

You can boost her ego, but that won’t help her situation get any better. It also won’t promote REAL confidence.

Liz’s situation isn’t unique. It’s far more common then we realize and it means that there is a large group of people all seeking romance, but doing it with what is essentially a paper bag on their heads when compared to the more in shape parts of the population.

Basically there is an abundance of overweight people who don’t want fellow overweight people, but the slimmer more attractive folks they see in TV shows and film.   We all want a mate of the opposite sex who is more attractive then us.  (Excluding the 5% or lower of “other” sexual attractions.)

Don’t believe me?

A Large Nation-Wide Problem


Obesity and curse of being overweight have struck our society hard. Romance – or at least the possibility of finding it – is made even more difficult for a rather large percentage of the population:

  • Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are obese: 35.1% (2011-2012)
  • Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are overweight, including obesity: 69.0% (2011-2012)

Let’s not pull punches.  Being overweight and obesity has killed members on my dad’s side of the family because of things like heart disease, diabetes, and sleep apnea.   Thing is they already know about this and about how bad it is, but it’s so hard for them to lose the weight and there is a rather scary reason for it.

If we are perfectly honest, if you were overweight as a kid, it’s much harder to lose weight as an adult than it would be if you at a normal weight as a kid.

“The number of fat cells a person has is determined by late adolescence; although overweight and obese children can lose weight, they do not lose the extra fat”

What can we do with inconvenient truth?   Well, I could encourage her to “accept her body” and hope things get better.  Natural confidence right?  It won’t change the situation and it isn’t going to magically attract any “good-looking guys” to her,  but it should make her feel happy and proud about her body.

According to the body and fat acceptance crowd at Identities.Mic it will.

“The intersectional issues of size, health and weight loss are far more complicated than we’ve been led to believe, and this lack of understanding has led to weight-based discrimination becoming a serious problem across the world. Widespread anti-fat prejudice typically stems from misconceptions about health, weight and body positivity, and negatively affects millions of people every day.

People are allowed to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies, but we need to start treating people of all sizes with respect.”

Somehow, I don’t see how this is going to help these overweight people find the storybook romance they so desperately seek instead of the in-game WOW partner we are encouraging them to quest with.  Nor will it deal with the vicious health problems that will occur once you hit your 30s and later.  Note some damage is irreversible, and when that becomes the kind of body power/acceptance doesn’t seem very “feminist” to me.

Now, your life doesn’t exactly stop when you are overweight – nor should it,  but will you actually get the romance and love life you desire from the people you are attracted to?  The crew at RandolphRiot definitely seem to think so.

“Fat Fashion is all about women feeling comfortable in their own bodies no matter how big they are! This form of feminism is helping women feel empowered by their own bodies no matter how small or big the woman might be, and I believe that is an amazing accomplishment. This gives me hope!”

Hope.  It’s a big deal – for anyone. In fact without it, people have loss the will to live.  It can motivate you, but is the self-backlash worse if you realize the hope is false and/or misplaced?

“…Do you think this form of feminism can lead to the elimination of the perfect body image?”


Because people are visual creatures, and because some kind of “preferrable” standard will always exist.   We can eliminate all the current media driven standards on beauty and any words used to describe them, but culture will simply form new ones.    Why?

People are shallow.

I’m shallow.

However, most people aren’t going to wade through the unattractive waters to see if anything desirable lies beneath. Liz won’t be given the chance.  Perhaps those guys who don’t give her the chance aren’t worth it, but the guys who will?   Chances are, she isn’t going to be attracted to any of them.   I’ve seen it happen many times already.   Is there still a chance for the magical and mystical quest that is Romance?  Some fat-acceptance advocates on Psychology Today seem to think so:

“Love, sex and romance did not stop for close to a hundred million people! Let’s face it—we live in a culture that shames fat. An entire diet industry is built around that shame

We also live in a culture that shame cigarette smokers, but I suppose that doesn’t count. Well, is it shameful to encourage people to be healthier?

“The message that is being delivered in great big heaping doses is pretty simple: if you lose the weight—you will find love, romance and sex. Thin equals happy and entitlement. Fat equals broken and not worthy. What they don’t tell you is that there are plenty of unhappy thin people too. Thin is simply not the magic bullet”

She actually is right, but it will greatly increase your chances. People might actually give you a second look on Tinder before they swipe.  They might be more likely to help you out in the store – happens to me alot.  Guys might actually look directly at you for a while before looking at your friends next to you.

Is this mean?

At this point in the social justice epidemic, I can’t be bothered to care anymore if I want to continue merely drawing breath; thanks Tumblr and feminist fat acceptance screeds.   However, boosting their self-esteem by lying to them isn’t going to land them any more success in the dating market.   It doesn’t mean that they should give up and stop trying, but things could be much easier.

In case you don’t know, I’m actually a hopeless romantic.

Deep down, I want everyone to find someone to live that idea Notebook life with – that includes social justice warriors and ardent radical feminists.  I want them to experience love, romance, and that good old life that I myself desire.

Something else the manosphere has got wrong is its reaction to the fat acceptance movement and this whole “fat shaming” theory that is raging in the feminist blogosphere.   I’m not shocked that overweight obese feminists want to abort beauty standards, “cultural norms” of what is attractive, and the ideal body weight.  You would too if the men you were interested in were getting snagged by more attractive and fitter competition.

However, Fat Shaming” isn’t the answer.    If I’m brutally honest, I found ROK’s #fatshamingweek to be hysterical with some of their tweets.  Yes, I still find dark morbid jokes that deal with obesity to be funny.  (All or nothing when it comes to my take on comedy and what the limits are.)

As Mike has later realized, this does nothing to actually help, besides generating outrage, which it did very successfully.  None of that however is going to convince people to lose weight.  They already know they are overweight, and they know it is affecting them.    The hope you can provide support to the people you value in continuing to help them lose weight, exercise, and even diet.

What Can You Do?

If you really care about someone, you present them the cold harsh truth, but you are supportive in how you do it.  You are essentially giving a friendly critique, rather then a trolling criticism designed to make them feel more shitty.

Here’s a personal story that relates to my family:

My dad who was about 5 foot 7 inches and weighed over 360 pounds struggled to be able to do any exercise.   He started to rapidly gain weight when he hit about 23 and the weight just kept adding up.   Around 48, he started experiencing nausea, dizziness, feeling light-headed, and he was drinking an excess of water as he felt constantly thirsty.  He was was exhausted and never felt rested; his sleep apnea made this even worse.

A similar weight, lack of exercise, and bad diet had killed my dad’s father at only 54.  I was worried about his weight and so were my mom’s parents in particular.

What woke my dad up was finding out that he had the signs of type two diabetes.   From this point, he did everything he could to try to improve and change his diet.  He started to eat only whole foods, and avoided processed foods.  When he ate meat, it was grass-fed.  He would switch to actual raw milk.

Upon reading “Forks Over Knives” and doing a lot of his own research, he would become a Vegan for dietary reasons.  Fast forward just about two years and my dad has lost over 120 pounds.  He reversed the type 2 diabetes, has lower blood pressure than me, and has no signs of heart disease.

Just over a year into his Veganism, he started to be able to finally exercise, play floor hockey, and feel refreshed and full of energy.   (Note, I’m not a Vegan.)

That support is key.   Once you hit a certain threshold, it becomes VERY difficult to lose weight, like it was for my dad.  Often people’s jobs actively hinder exercise and our American time centered culture usually entails to many people frequently eating terribly on the run.

Often, I see many people in the fat acceptance movement promote the same kinds of lifestyles that killed my Grandpa so early as something to be embraced. It is isn’t and it rather angers and disturbs me that the movement is lying to people in the way it is.

However, that won’t blind me from the fact that it really is hard to lose weight, my dad being the anecdotal evidence.   My dad’s life didn’t come to a stop just because of his weight issues, but they were a profound barrier and hindrance to him living well, active, and actually enjoying each day.

People in the Fat Acceptance/Body Acceptance movement will stand by it, but sometimes it’s critics – myself included – overlook the efforts they put in to trying to live healthy lifestyle, being active, exercising,  losing weight, and trying to get healthier. (Diet may be the easiest approach at first.)  Instead of trashing them, we should be encouraging them.

Take for example a somewhat better known fat acceptance advocate by the name of Ragen Chastain who runs the advocacy site, “Dances With Fat”.   While we may facetiously chuckle at the title, Ragen is on the frontlines fighting the fat fight – but doing at least some of it in a healthy way.   She teaches a dance class, does some dancing herself, as well as from what I can tell some form of exercising.

Dancing is very good exercise.

She of course is a social justice advocate, member of the “fatosphere”, an ardent feminist, and she brings awareness to tumblrisms like, “Thin privilege,” in her fight against “cultural beauty norms”.  It perturbs and saddens me.  She lists more about her ideas:

As a plus-sized professional athlete, I practice Health at Every Size and as a human being I am an unwavering advocate for Size Acceptance – the civil rights truth that every body deserves respect and that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable, not contingent on size, health, or dis/ability.

Wait what?

The civil rights truth that everyone deserves respect…  Well,  with ideological opponents, you often have to agree to disagree.

She also promotes health at every size.   What exactly is that?  Well according to her it is:


  1. Accepting and respecting the diversity of body shapes and sizes

  2. Recognizing that health and well-being are multi-dimensional and that they include physical, social, spiritual, occupational, emotional, and intellectual aspects

  3. Promoting all aspects of health and well-being for people of all sizes

  4. Promoting eating in a manner which balances individual nutritional needs, hunger, satiety, appetite, and pleasure

  5. Promoting individually appropriate, enjoyable, life-enhancing physical activity, rather than exercise that is focused on a goal of weight loss

Well there is plenty there that I and others would point out is wrong, but instead let’s focus on what she said that she get’s right which I’ve underlined and bolded.   At least she is trying to do better and get others who struggle with weight to engage in things like, “Life-enhancing activity.”    In fact, she does actually have some decent diet and activity ideas worth checking out.

(She actually finished a 26 mile marathon in Seattle about two years ago.  For her size and weight, that’s pretty damn impressive. I haven’t even attempted a marathon that long.) 

Good for her.

Hopefully, she lives a well-fulfilled life and enjoys every moment of it to the max.  I do however suspect that if she lost some weight, her beauty wouldn’t be as obscured.  Like it or not, people are more respectful, are friendlier, and more partial to those they regard as beautiful.

Insisting that everyone is “beautiful” at every size isn’t going to magically make it so.     Reducing the word so that it means essentially nothing won’t change that either.   It will just be replaced by words like, “preference”.

That is the point.  

If you want to widen your net to include more attractive dating partners, you will have to make an effort to do the same.   This may be shallow, but it’s something that will never change – regardless of how many times social justice warriors insist that it just merely another cultural norm that must be eliminated.

Encourage your friends to widen their nets by losing weight.  Yes, you can be happy and still be overweight, but you could be so much more.

Speak up.  


Don’t be afraid.


Tell the truth.


Support them. 


New Logic: Why Skinny Shaming Isn’t Reverse Discrimination

Skinny Shaming Isn’t As Harmful as Fat Shaming Because Equality. 

Confused? Me too. Another day in the femsphere and another confounded look on my face.  If you are skinny, prepare to enjoy yet another slap upon the usual skinny slaps for daring to take care of your body.  I have a skinny but fit body, so I’m already checking my privilege as I take my lumps.

I stumbled upon this article on my newsfeed and since I don’t completely immerse myself just in my own preferred bubble of thoughts, I made sure to read though it.  Of course, it confirms my pessimism even more in our “Western” society.  Here are some choice quotes:

“You can’t oppress the people who have social power. That’s not how it works.”

This “logic” astounds me. Really?  If 40 Christians in Syria beat the ever-loving shit out of an Arab Muslim on the street it would still be oppression.

And sometimes, justice looks unfair.

If it looks unfair, it’s probably not justice.

Sometimes it looks like people are getting special treatment. But because they wouldn’t need that special treatment if equality existed, what it really is, is a leveling out of the playing field.

This is the same kind of logic with affirmative action and racial quotas. You need to use discriminatory methods to fight previous discrimination and rectify it’s effects – except it never seems to work and exacerbates the already polar racial climate that exists in the U.S.  The playing field will NEVER be leveled out if you keep un-leveling parts of it to level the other parts.

Oppression is oppression. It doesn’t change regardless of who engage is it. There are no free passes.  Discrimination is Discrimination.  You can’t simply jump through special hoops to make it okay when you do it, but not when others do.

Atheism, Self-Hedonism, and Shintoism help us.

Twitter Fun with SJWs angry with Forney.

On Friday, twitter was still abuzz and very angry over Matt Forney’s article on ROK: 5 Reasons Girls With Tattoos and Piercings Are Broken.  Well 20,000+ comments later and still raging, Forney has been fortunate enough to soak in the hate and slew of death threats.  The internet these days is entertaining. Say something people really don’t like, and you can expect for people to threaten to kill you.  Just got to get used to it.

Well, I saw two SJWs on twitter tweeting about hating Forney and the like so I figured I would have some fun. The tweet that got me was the one telling Forney his mother should have an abortion.

Challenge accepted.

1.  I also led off with my favorite shock style endorsement of the pro-choice position.  I encouraged all feminists to always have an abortion.  To this one of them responded that she was now going to get pregnant and have a kid named after me.

2.  I immediately dropped some buzzwords like  “cis” , “privilege” and “gender.   Both of the tweeters then mentioned how I must hate them being non-white. Nice try though, and I dropped my “half-white” card.   Now the genocide cards works pretty damn well in terms of privilege arguments, but it was tough considering one was Jewish.

3. I identified as transgender for the conversation and told them to check their privilege. The tweets went back and forth but they were amused by an MRA troll – apparently that’s what I am – being transgender.   That definitely could have entailed further labels and transphobic accusations.

In reflection what I should have done after being accused of being a troll is to accuse them of a new level of transphobia based on insisting that transgender folks can’t have certain opinions without being labeled trolls.  Whole new level of transphobia, right?

I’ll try it out on some new angry tweeters later.  It’s amazing to see what throwing in the right buzzwords can do nowadays.  The internet really is the ultimate form of entertainment.