By I haven’t checked in on my favorite little dumbass feminist, Amanda Marcotte lately, and just as I suspected, she’s dumber than ever. Let’s take a look at her latest column at Raw Story!
While the left is hardly innocent of it, it’s safe to say that the politics of personal destruction is far more central of a political strategy on the right.
The left is hardly innocent? Oh you mean like that time they outed an executive at a rival news organization for being gay just because? Or maybe when they cheered on Emma Sulkybitch and her false rape accusation against Paul Nungesser, who is now suing and likely to succeed. Like all the men falsely accused and punished for rape and sexual assaults that didn’t happen, who are also suing the left-wing kangaroo courts that convicted them, and winning huge, and hugely justified payouts? Or maybe when they slandered and libeled a Dean at UVA for mishandling Jackie’s rape that never happened?
It might be safe to say the politics of personal destruction is a strategy of the right, especially within the bubble-wrapped confines of the feminist/SJW hug-box, but it sure ain’t accurate. Words: they mean things.
Part of that is because there’s usually more ethical considerations for liberals in play. Doing things like outing people or making someone’s biography a central issue requires some kind of justification on the grounds of relevance. Is the person a hypocrite? Does this actually speak to their credibility? If not, it’s none of your business and move on.
Gosh, that’s exactly what critics said about Gawker when they outed a private citizen, criticism that didn’t stop key players at Gawker from having a tantrum and leaving the playground.
But for the right, simply being a liberal is seen as reason enough to constantly target people for stalking and harassment.
I think Milo explains it best, but people sending you mean tweets is not ‘stalking and harassment’, you idiot.
And we’ve seen an utterly shameful demonstration of that fact this week in the story of Shaun King, a Black Lives Matter activist that Breitbart targeted for one of the malicious “take out” attacks, based on extremely shady accusations that King had somehow faked being black. Clearly inspired by the Rachel Dolezal story, right wingers went digging and found that King, who is light-skinned, had a birth certificate calling both his parents white. This was held out as a smoking gun and somehow a reason to discredit King’s activism and the entire Black Lives Matter movement.
No, dumbass, it was a reason to discredit Shaun King, who took money out of the pockets of Black people, to fund his own education and sanctimonious blathering about racism and social justice. Ain’t it neat how the same people who will blatantly ignore the fact that Elliot Rodgers had no connection of any kind to the men’s right’s movement, but use his murderous rampage to discredit the entire concept of gender equality that includes men and boys, will also throw a hissy fit when Breitbart reveals one of the central actors in the #BlackLivesMatter movement to be a possible race pretender, claiming it discredits the entire Black Lives Matter movement?
A little consistency would not go amiss here, Amanda.
From the get-go, it was clear this was bullshit. Dolezal became a spectacle in part because her story is a pretty unique one and it’s obvious, to me at least, that she has some serious personal and familial problems that led to her strange choice to reinvent herself as a black woman. In addition, despite all the attention she got from the liberal media, you didn’t really see anyone trying to suggest that her existence somehow disproved that racism is a problem or claiming that her activist choices, while self-interested, were somehow invalidated because of her deceit.
So when one of their own acts like a complete bag of garbage, lies and steals money and opportunity from Black people, she’s mentally ill, but don’t you dare suggest a man who shoots up a movie theatre has mental health issues: he’s clearly a misogynist who hates women!
But that’s what King’s detractors wanted you to believe: That he is lying and ergo everything he cares about is somehow a sham. It wasn’t logical, and that, to me, was reason enough to roll my eyes at it and move on.
Yes, yea, we know. Feminists think liars and shams and charlatans should be forgiven, as long as they think the right thoughts. #ListenAndBelieve. But god help the married Christian who gets caught in a lie. Every single thing he has every advocated for is now tainted forever more by his lie. But remember folks, feminists don’t hate Christians. Or men.
But you will not be surprised to find out that King is not a liar. After enduring days of abuse, he finally caved and fed people’s curiosity, explaining something that seems embarrassingly obvious in retrospect: The man listed as his father on his birth certificate is not his biological father. If this shocks you, you better sit down because, it turns out, this isn’t even that unusual a situation. Depending on where you live, about 5-15 percent of children born have a different father than the one listed on their birth certificate.
And the evidence for this is….? Because Shaun said so? So he threw his mother under the bus, called her out as a cheating whore, and this is to be accepted at face value because…..? Who exactly stands to gain with this very convenient explanation? And you can’t seriously think that anyone is shocked by cuckolding?
Clearly, race and identity and reproduction are complex issues, far more complex than ambiguity intolerant conservatives can probably handle.
Ambiguity intolerant? People who don’t like being lied to, or lectured to by a conman are ‘ambiguity intolerant’? I suppose this kind of mental vomit is to be expected from the same woman who angrily declared the Duke Lacrosse rapists guilty because some woman said they were, who has never apologized for her breach of all journalistic ethics, not to mention just all around shitty, man-hating ways.
But what really bugs me about this is that here you have a bunch of people hounding this poor guy for days on end with demands for information that they probably should have known beforehand was going to be private and potentially embarrassing for his parents. Instead, they forced this guy into a corner where the only way to protect himself was to explain a very painful personal history that was none of our business. But are these bottom-feeders at Breitbart going to apologize for their behavior? Hell the fuck no! They are shameless monsters who are, you can guess, doubling down and blaming the victim with quotes like, “But if there was confusion about Shaun King’s race, it’s because he allowed it.”
Which is totally different from you, Amanda, banding together with a cabal of witches to burn the Duke lacrosse players at the stake in the court of public opinion without a single shred of evidence they were guilty of anything. The bitch who accused them went on to murder her boyfriend. And yet still no apology from you, Amanda. Too busy sobbing over a very, very white guy who has accused his mother of having an affair in order to maintain his image as *ahem* lily-white in sanctimony.
Hey, you fuckhead, try this on for size: If there’s confusion about someone’s race, why don’t you move the fuck on and get a goddamn life?
Hey fuckhead, try this on for size: If there’s confusion about someone’s race and they are taking money out of Black people’s pockets how about you act like you give a fuck about Black people? If King, like Dolezal, took money away from Black students to acquire a college education, he deserves to be held accountable for that. Or is that too ‘ambiguity intolerant’ for you?
Why is it so fucking important to you to put someone in a box? What kind of derangement has gripped you that you can’t handle the possibility that race, which is socially constructed*, might therefore not be as simple as black and white?
No one gives a flying fuck what box you choose to live in right up until the moment you start acquiring money, opportunity and privileges for yourself, simultaneously denying them to the very people you claim to love so much. If King is indeed a light skinned Black man, let him prove it. If he intends to profit from being a Black man (moreso than he already has), then he can damn well answer some simple questions before pocketing scholarships and opportunities intended for actual Black people.
Adding to the grossness of this, the entire obsessive attack on King is about trying to discredit the Black Lives Matter movement. Just chew on that for a moment. This is about trying to derail a movement whose sole and only purpose is to stop unnecessary violence that is perpetuated because of unfair stereotypes about black people.
The way you, Amanda, work tirelessly to discredit an entire movement whose sole and only purpose is to acknowledge that men and boys are human beings and that any discussion of gender equality that doesn’t involve them, or only considers them oppressors and aggressors is necessarily flawed and incomplete? Like that, you mean?
What part of that movement is so fucking offensive to the right? Are King’s detractors for violence? Do they think shooting unarmed black people is a social good? Do they think that the world is a better place when lives are lost for no good fucking reason? What the fuck? This is just an onion of evil, with each layer just making you sicker and sicker to ponder how truly terrible these fuckwads are.
What part of the men’s rights movement is so fucking offensive to the left? Are MRA detractors for inequality? Do they think drugging boys so they can participate in education is a social good? Do they think the world is a better place when half of humanity is considered disposable and useful only as cash machines to support women? What the fuck? This is just an onion of evil, with each layer making you sicker and sicker to ponder how truly terrible these fuckwads are.
Jill Filipovic has an excellent piece, which she interviewed me for, at Cosmo about Twitchy and the right wing hate machine. Reading it, it becomes clear that so much of what motivates the modern conservative movement is just straight-up sadism, a bully’s desire to hurt and destroy for its own sake. That’s why they went after King, because they thought he was a soft target and the pleasure of potentially destroying someone’s life just drowned out all common sense and reason. It’s not even about accomplishing political goals anymore. Destruction is being handed out for destruction’s sake. The idea that some elderly woman who hasn’t done anything to anyone has to have a long-ago heartache dragged out into the public eye should embarrass them. Instead, I’m guessing many of the Breitbart crowd are gleeful as fuck over it.
Jen Oritz is about to publish an article, which she interviewed me for, at Marie Claire about feminism and the left wing hate machine. If Oritz is fair and balanced, it will become clear that so much of what motivates the modern feminist movement is just straight-up sadism, a bully’s desire to hurt and destroy for its own sake. That’s why they went after AVfM founder Paul Elam, because they thought he was a soft target and the pleasure of potentially destroying someone’s life just drowned out all common sense and reason. It’s not even about accomplishing political goals anymore. Destruction is being handed out for destruction’s sake. The idea that Elam’s alleged daughter, who hasn’t done anything to anyone has to have a long-ago heartache dragged out into the public eye should embarrass them. Instead, I’m guessing many of the feminist crowd are gleeful as fuck over it.
For shame. Truly, for shame.
Indeed, Amanda.
For shame. Truly, for shame.
Source
While the left is hardly innocent of it, it’s safe to say that the politics of personal destruction is far more central of a political strategy on the right.
The left is hardly innocent? Oh you mean like that time they outed an executive at a rival news organization for being gay just because? Or maybe when they cheered on Emma Sulkybitch and her false rape accusation against Paul Nungesser, who is now suing and likely to succeed. Like all the men falsely accused and punished for rape and sexual assaults that didn’t happen, who are also suing the left-wing kangaroo courts that convicted them, and winning huge, and hugely justified payouts? Or maybe when they slandered and libeled a Dean at UVA for mishandling Jackie’s rape that never happened?It might be safe to say the politics of personal destruction is a strategy of the right, especially within the bubble-wrapped confines of the feminist/SJW hug-box, but it sure ain’t accurate. Words: they mean things.
Part of that is because there’s usually more ethical considerations for liberals in play. Doing things like outing people or making someone’s biography a central issue requires some kind of justification on the grounds of relevance. Is the person a hypocrite? Does this actually speak to their credibility? If not, it’s none of your business and move on.
Gosh, that’s exactly what critics said about Gawker when they outed a private citizen, criticism that didn’t stop key players at Gawker from having a tantrum and leaving the playground.
But for the right, simply being a liberal is seen as reason enough to constantly target people for stalking and harassment.
I think Milo explains it best, but people sending you mean tweets is not ‘stalking and harassment’, you idiot.
And we’ve seen an utterly shameful demonstration of that fact this week in the story of Shaun King, a Black Lives Matter activist that Breitbart targeted for one of the malicious “take out” attacks, based on extremely shady accusations that King had somehow faked being black. Clearly inspired by the Rachel Dolezal story, right wingers went digging and found that King, who is light-skinned, had a birth certificate calling both his parents white. This was held out as a smoking gun and somehow a reason to discredit King’s activism and the entire Black Lives Matter movement.
No, dumbass, it was a reason to discredit Shaun King, who took money out of the pockets of Black people, to fund his own education and sanctimonious blathering about racism and social justice. Ain’t it neat how the same people who will blatantly ignore the fact that Elliot Rodgers had no connection of any kind to the men’s right’s movement, but use his murderous rampage to discredit the entire concept of gender equality that includes men and boys, will also throw a hissy fit when Breitbart reveals one of the central actors in the #BlackLivesMatter movement to be a possible race pretender, claiming it discredits the entire Black Lives Matter movement?
A little consistency would not go amiss here, Amanda.
From the get-go, it was clear this was bullshit. Dolezal became a spectacle in part because her story is a pretty unique one and it’s obvious, to me at least, that she has some serious personal and familial problems that led to her strange choice to reinvent herself as a black woman. In addition, despite all the attention she got from the liberal media, you didn’t really see anyone trying to suggest that her existence somehow disproved that racism is a problem or claiming that her activist choices, while self-interested, were somehow invalidated because of her deceit.
So when one of their own acts like a complete bag of garbage, lies and steals money and opportunity from Black people, she’s mentally ill, but don’t you dare suggest a man who shoots up a movie theatre has mental health issues: he’s clearly a misogynist who hates women!
But that’s what King’s detractors wanted you to believe: That he is lying and ergo everything he cares about is somehow a sham. It wasn’t logical, and that, to me, was reason enough to roll my eyes at it and move on.
Yes, yea, we know. Feminists think liars and shams and charlatans should be forgiven, as long as they think the right thoughts. #ListenAndBelieve. But god help the married Christian who gets caught in a lie. Every single thing he has every advocated for is now tainted forever more by his lie. But remember folks, feminists don’t hate Christians. Or men.
But you will not be surprised to find out that King is not a liar. After enduring days of abuse, he finally caved and fed people’s curiosity, explaining something that seems embarrassingly obvious in retrospect: The man listed as his father on his birth certificate is not his biological father. If this shocks you, you better sit down because, it turns out, this isn’t even that unusual a situation. Depending on where you live, about 5-15 percent of children born have a different father than the one listed on their birth certificate.
And the evidence for this is….? Because Shaun said so? So he threw his mother under the bus, called her out as a cheating whore, and this is to be accepted at face value because…..? Who exactly stands to gain with this very convenient explanation? And you can’t seriously think that anyone is shocked by cuckolding?
Clearly, race and identity and reproduction are complex issues, far more complex than ambiguity intolerant conservatives can probably handle.
Ambiguity intolerant? People who don’t like being lied to, or lectured to by a conman are ‘ambiguity intolerant’? I suppose this kind of mental vomit is to be expected from the same woman who angrily declared the Duke Lacrosse rapists guilty because some woman said they were, who has never apologized for her breach of all journalistic ethics, not to mention just all around shitty, man-hating ways.
But what really bugs me about this is that here you have a bunch of people hounding this poor guy for days on end with demands for information that they probably should have known beforehand was going to be private and potentially embarrassing for his parents. Instead, they forced this guy into a corner where the only way to protect himself was to explain a very painful personal history that was none of our business. But are these bottom-feeders at Breitbart going to apologize for their behavior? Hell the fuck no! They are shameless monsters who are, you can guess, doubling down and blaming the victim with quotes like, “But if there was confusion about Shaun King’s race, it’s because he allowed it.”
Which is totally different from you, Amanda, banding together with a cabal of witches to burn the Duke lacrosse players at the stake in the court of public opinion without a single shred of evidence they were guilty of anything. The bitch who accused them went on to murder her boyfriend. And yet still no apology from you, Amanda. Too busy sobbing over a very, very white guy who has accused his mother of having an affair in order to maintain his image as *ahem* lily-white in sanctimony.
Hey, you fuckhead, try this on for size: If there’s confusion about someone’s race, why don’t you move the fuck on and get a goddamn life?
Hey fuckhead, try this on for size: If there’s confusion about someone’s race and they are taking money out of Black people’s pockets how about you act like you give a fuck about Black people? If King, like Dolezal, took money away from Black students to acquire a college education, he deserves to be held accountable for that. Or is that too ‘ambiguity intolerant’ for you?
Why is it so fucking important to you to put someone in a box? What kind of derangement has gripped you that you can’t handle the possibility that race, which is socially constructed*, might therefore not be as simple as black and white?
No one gives a flying fuck what box you choose to live in right up until the moment you start acquiring money, opportunity and privileges for yourself, simultaneously denying them to the very people you claim to love so much. If King is indeed a light skinned Black man, let him prove it. If he intends to profit from being a Black man (moreso than he already has), then he can damn well answer some simple questions before pocketing scholarships and opportunities intended for actual Black people.
Adding to the grossness of this, the entire obsessive attack on King is about trying to discredit the Black Lives Matter movement. Just chew on that for a moment. This is about trying to derail a movement whose sole and only purpose is to stop unnecessary violence that is perpetuated because of unfair stereotypes about black people.
The way you, Amanda, work tirelessly to discredit an entire movement whose sole and only purpose is to acknowledge that men and boys are human beings and that any discussion of gender equality that doesn’t involve them, or only considers them oppressors and aggressors is necessarily flawed and incomplete? Like that, you mean?
What part of that movement is so fucking offensive to the right? Are King’s detractors for violence? Do they think shooting unarmed black people is a social good? Do they think that the world is a better place when lives are lost for no good fucking reason? What the fuck? This is just an onion of evil, with each layer just making you sicker and sicker to ponder how truly terrible these fuckwads are.
What part of the men’s rights movement is so fucking offensive to the left? Are MRA detractors for inequality? Do they think drugging boys so they can participate in education is a social good? Do they think the world is a better place when half of humanity is considered disposable and useful only as cash machines to support women? What the fuck? This is just an onion of evil, with each layer making you sicker and sicker to ponder how truly terrible these fuckwads are.
Jill Filipovic has an excellent piece, which she interviewed me for, at Cosmo about Twitchy and the right wing hate machine. Reading it, it becomes clear that so much of what motivates the modern conservative movement is just straight-up sadism, a bully’s desire to hurt and destroy for its own sake. That’s why they went after King, because they thought he was a soft target and the pleasure of potentially destroying someone’s life just drowned out all common sense and reason. It’s not even about accomplishing political goals anymore. Destruction is being handed out for destruction’s sake. The idea that some elderly woman who hasn’t done anything to anyone has to have a long-ago heartache dragged out into the public eye should embarrass them. Instead, I’m guessing many of the Breitbart crowd are gleeful as fuck over it.
Jen Oritz is about to publish an article, which she interviewed me for, at Marie Claire about feminism and the left wing hate machine. If Oritz is fair and balanced, it will become clear that so much of what motivates the modern feminist movement is just straight-up sadism, a bully’s desire to hurt and destroy for its own sake. That’s why they went after AVfM founder Paul Elam, because they thought he was a soft target and the pleasure of potentially destroying someone’s life just drowned out all common sense and reason. It’s not even about accomplishing political goals anymore. Destruction is being handed out for destruction’s sake. The idea that Elam’s alleged daughter, who hasn’t done anything to anyone has to have a long-ago heartache dragged out into the public eye should embarrass them. Instead, I’m guessing many of the feminist crowd are gleeful as fuck over it.
For shame. Truly, for shame.
Indeed, Amanda.
For shame. Truly, for shame.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment