An associate professor at Georgetown University recently penned a column in the Washington Post describing her confrontation with
alt-right neo-Nazi yambag Richard Spencer. Christine Fair proudly admits to have accosted Spencer while he was working out at a local gym, causing him to lose his gym membership.
“Are you Richard Spencer?” she asked him, describing the encounter in an online post. “No. I am not,” he replied.
“I said, ‘Of course you are, so not only are you a Nazi — you are a cowardly Nazi,’ ” Fair said in an interview, invoking a common characterization of Spencer. “I just want to say to you, I’m sick of your crap — that this country belongs [to people like you]. . . . As a woman, I find your statements to be particularly odious; moreover, I find your presence in this gym to be unacceptable, your presence in this town to be unacceptable.”
After Spencer took to the Internet ostensibly to hurt Fair’s feelings by calling her “dumb, ignorant, fat, hideous, triangular and the ugliest woman he’d ever seen” (really Richie – you couldn’t have possibly portrayed yourself any more puerile, illiterate, and insecure), Fair decided to use the Washington Post to publish her screed about how odious Spencer is, and how his status as a festering scrotal pustule entitles her to accost him in a public place.
She details how horrible Spencer is in minute detail, linking to every racist comment she could find.
She indirectly blames Spencer for the tragic death of Bowie State University student Richard Collins III at the hands of Sean Urbanski and the heinous murder of nine churchgoers by Dylann Roof two years ago, as if every incident of racist violence is somehow his fault.
She points out Spencer’s refusal to denounce Hitler or the KKK.
To be sure, I think Spencer is a world class, syphilitic dick drip. As someone who was born Jewish, and who escaped the USSR after multiple abuses and discrimination, I find his views repugnant. There’s very little that sets me off and evokes a nearly violent visceral reaction than racism and prejudice, and he represents everything I hate, having lived through some pretty horrible abuses as a Jewish kid back there.
However… as a veteran and as someone who swore an oath to defend the Constitution and Americans’ rights, I will also defend to the death Spencer’s right to be a syphilitic dick drip, to spout Nazi bullshit, and to advocate whatever hateful, revolting shit he wants. It is his right. And as difficult as it is, I would have to defend it, no matter how nauseating.
Fair took it upon herself to accost a fellow American, because she found his views repugnant. She took it upon herself to claim (and speak for everyone else present) that Spencer’s presence at the gym created a “hostile environment” for gym patrons, when most probably didn’t even know who he was (including the one gym patron who came to his defense, and whom she accused of enabling a neo-Nazi, because she wanted her to stop screeching and let everyone work out in peace). She caused a disturbance, and then claimed she was somehow justified in doing so.
No person with a shred of sense or common decency will defend Spencer’s views, but if we accost him and his ilk, where will this end?
The very SPLC, which Fair apparently holds as an authority on hate groups, has denounced the American Enterprise Institute, Dinesh D’Souza, the TEA Party writ large, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and others who may be critical of certain religions, social groups, and leftist policies as “hate groups.” Does Fair support “confronting” anyone who doesn’t toe the leftist line and whom the unhinged SPLC labels as a hater?
Do we start accosting anyone with whose views we disagree? Do we assault them? Do we demand that they be kicked out of venues, even if they have paid their membership dues, because we find their views abhorrent?
Where does it end?
Fair’s lack of decorum, impulse control, and general respect for freedom is unsurprising, coming from the unhinged left.
Fact is she accosted someone she didn’t like, when he was causing no disturbance and simply minding his own business, and harassed him and others.
Fact is she narcissistically anointed herself to be the arbiter and authority of who should or should not be allowed to patronize a place of business.
Fact is we have the right to be assholes in this country, and we don’t need her permission – or the permission of any other prognazi shitslurper – to visit a public venue or pay for a membership there.
In her article she portrays herself to have been a heroic, courageous, righteous warrior battling the evil racist right.
Fact is, she’s nothing but a cunt-chafed, unhinged shrew, who takes it upon herself to attack anyone with whom she disagrees, even a former Georgetown professor, who happens to be Muslim, and who happened to have supported Donald Trump.
She’s not courageous. She’s in dire need of a lesson in manners. And maybe some psychological counseling for her rage and narcissism issues.
P.S. – the harridan claims on her Dumblr site that “Despite what some clowns have said, NO ONE finds themselves mocked on #ShitMenSay without harassing me. No one.” The fact that she proudly admits to have confronted another gym patron who was quietly working out and bothering no one, merely because she finds his views repulsive, contradicts that claim. That makes her a liar.
A couple of weeks ago, I was walking to the office from the metro, when I saw a tiny little creature sprawled on the sidewalk next to a tall tree in LaFayette Park. It was a tiny black squirrel baby, and he was teetering around on his tiny little squirrel legs, apparently still too young to run around. I assessed he had fallen out of the tree, or was pushed out by his siblings.
He stumbled over to me and just sat in front of me.
I bent down to stroke his soft little back, and he didn’t run away.
I wasn’t sure what to do, so I called DC animal control, because I was afraid inattentive humans, whether walking with their noses in their phones or riding their bikes would run the tiny little guy over. The nice man on the other end of the line was probably amused at my near-panicked concern about this teeny creature, and told me to pick him up and place him near the tree out of the way of pedestrians and bikes. (Yes, I assumed the squirrel’s gender, and in my head I named him George)
While I was on the phone with animal control, George decided to clumsily climb onto my foot and play with the buckle on my shoe! George was obviously a very brave baby squirrel.
After hanging up with animal control, I scooped George up into my hands and carried him to the tree, away from uncaring humans and speeding bicyclists. George sat in my cupped hands and made little squeaky squirrel noises. He sniffed me and may have taken a tiny little nibble of my thumb. He didn’t break the skin; I think he was just trying to figure out what I was. I looked closely at George’s tiny little face, resisted the urge to take him to the office with me wrapped in my suit jacket, and placed him next to the tree.
George was a black squirrel, or an eastern fox squirrel, apparently native to eastern and southeastern United States.
I never considered George’s color, nor what he ate. I thought about bringing him some nuts. I know we have all kinds of squirrels in LaFayette Park, including ginger, grey, and black ones. He looks grey-ish in this photo, but he actually was a little black critter.
But apparently, I should have noticed, because eastern fox squirrels are ostensibly the victims of RACISM! The media is apparently biased against black squirrels!
How do I know this? Because some bored, attention-seeking, perpetually aggrieved sow of an “associate professor” (emphasis mine) at California State Polytechnic University says so, and has done an entire research paper on the topic! No, I’m not kidding. I wish I was. Get a load at this word salad.
Drawing on feminist food studies and feminist posthumanist theories of intersectionality and performativity, this article draws out the implications of a feminist posthumanist politics of consumption for animal geography and feminist geography.
By juxtaposing feminist posthumanist theories and feminist food studies scholarship this article demonstrates how eastern fox squirrels: (1) are subjected to gendered, racialized, and speciesist thinking as a result of their feeding/eating practices, their unique and unfixed spatial arrangements in the greater Los Angeles region, and the western, modernist human frame through which humans interpret these actions (Deckha 2012; Hovorka 2015; Lloro-Bidart 2016) and (2) ontologically defy society’s boundedness as they demand the freedom to eat whatever they choose in the city.
This is how far the Covenant of the Chafed Cunt is willing to dig to find offense, racism, marginalization, and other “evidence” of just how depraved our society is. This “professor” dug through 18 months’ worth of news articles, blogs, government publications, and other sources to find evidence for her contention that eastern fox squirrels are the victims of RAAAAACISM in California, when viewed through the feminist lens. She claims that because most of the popular news articles maligned these little guys for their feeding habits, she figured she’d focus her lens of feminist rage on this particular issue.
…eastern fox squirrels’ consumption of bird eggs and baby birds and mammals has similarly made them the target of conservationists in southern CA. In this case, instead of ‘concerns about cruelty’ related to the killing of animals for food becoming ‘a vehicle for ethnocentrism and even imperialism,’ (Kim 2015, 83), such concerns become a vehicle for conservationists to displace their own concerns about species loss in the greater Los Angeles region onto the eastern fox squirrel.
These connections between the eastern fox squirrel’s eating of ‘everything’ and the fecundity of the [nonnative] squirrel resonate with what Subramaniam calls the ‘oversexed female’ narrative, where ‘[f]oreign women are typically associated with superfertility – reproduction gone amuck’ (2001, 31).
In other words, this perpetually aggrieved, constantly searching for offense, word vomit spewing bobblehead is claiming her funhouse mirror feminist telescope is showing her that poor eastern fox squirrels are being discriminated against on the West Coast.
In the process she disgorges SJW buzzwords such as “intersectionality,” “feminism,” “power,” “ethnocentrism,” and “resistance” in order to show how our views of fat women color Angelinos’ views of darker squirrels… because they’re gendered, racialized, and speciesist… or something.
Really. Is this freak pickle getting paid to spew this shit?
Interesting note: I wanted to see what else this creature has spewed, but her social media and her website have all mysteriously disappeared.
Recently Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor sat down with Aspen Institute’s Latinos and Society Program Executive Director Abigail Golden-Vazquez for a chat about civic engagement, Latinos, and opportunities. I will say I agree with her on the importance of education and civic engagement – not just for Latinos, but for everyone! The issues she discussed aren’t endemic to just Latinos. When she says, “None of us can afford to be bystanders in life. We create our community, and we create it by being active participants in our community,” it shouldn’t be limited to Latinos, or to anyone of a particular ethnicity, religious affiliation or lack thereof.
A lot of the challenges with a lack of civic participation are not limited to Latinos. When Sotomayor says, “If you’re working 14 hours a day at your job, it is hard to make time for civic participation. And for many Latinos, that’s the quality of their life. We have to engage with that reality,” this is not an insurmountable problem faced only by Latinos. It’s one that plagues much of the working class. Latinos aren’t the only ones working multiple jobs more than 14 hours per day and the weekends. But we make time, and we do what we can. And sometimes we don’t get a lot of sleep. And many times we don’t have free time on the weekends. That’s just the way it is, but we sacrifice for the things that are important. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that.
And no, it’s not fair that some people inherit immense wealth, giving them opportunities to attend the best schools without accruing massive debt.
And no, it’s not fair that some kids get to grow up without ever worrying about how much something costs, while others – that’s their first concern.
And no, it’s not fair that some kids grow up in cramped apartments, while others live in opulent mansions.
There are a lot of things that aren’t fair. Life isn’t fair. And yet, we all work to make our own opportunities.
Which is why this bit from Sotomayor’s conversation galled me.
“There’s a continuing tension in America between the image of the person who pulls themselves up by the bootstraps, and the person who believes that you need a lift to get up sometimes,” Sotomayor told the program’s executive director, Abigail Golden-Vazquez. “Those people who believe that everyone must pull themselves up ― they don’t believe that people are entitled to help.”
“For those of us who understand that sometimes no matter how tall the heel on your boot is, the barrier is so high that you need a small lift to help you get over it ― they will understand that the inequalities in society build that barrier so high,” she continued. “Unless you do something to knock it down or help that person up, they will never have a chance. I had those things. I had a unique mother who was able to understand the benefits of education and encouraged me to use education as my liftoff. But not everyone knows that.”
For a jurist on the nation’s highest court, perhaps she needs a lesson in English.
It’s not that we don’t believe in help. I’m more than happy to help – whether it’s by donating time or money – those who are in need. But there’s a difference between asking for help and being entitled to it.
The definition of “entitled” is: believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
Sorry, but this is where she lost me.
No one is ENTITLED to my help.
No one is ENTITLED to the fruits of my labor.
No one is ENTITLED to what I earn – to assets that should be going, first and foremost, to help me and my family – simply because they consider themselves deserving of said assets.
Need is not a claim check.
It’s not a claim check to my work. It’s not a claim check to the fruits of my efforts. It’s not a claim check to my sympathies.
No one is entitled to anything produced by another person without that person’s willingness to give it. The value people get in exchange for helping others is determined by that person alone – whether it’s the satisfaction of helping a fellow human being, or a promise of repayment or work – and not by politicians in power who think that forcing people to give up their earnings to “help,” which usually comes in the form of a handout that keeps people dependent or a bureaucracy that does squat, is the way to get those greedy rich people to contribute.
Everyone understands that sometimes people need a hand. It’s just that we also understand that undermining others to level the playing field is not really leveling the playing field, but crippling others so everyone exists on the same field of misery. That’s not helping those who need help. It’s merely crippling the competition, and negating the need for the person to put forth effort to help themselves.
That’s what I think about when I see this graphic.
It’s not just taking away two boxes from the tall person, who can see over the fence. What Sotomayor and other statist politicians want is to cripple the tall person, so they can’t stand to see at all. They want equality of outcome at any cost – even at the cost of crippling those they consider privileged.
Equality of opportunity is equality before the law. It’s the understanding that you will not be prevented by those in power from pursuing your goals, whether they’re educational, professional, or personal.
The graphic depicts equality of outcome, which looks really good in that little picture, but assumes silliness, such as 1) the tall person needs the box to see in the first place 2) there exists an equal number of boxes 3) the tall person wouldn’t willingly give up the box they don’t need to help out the short person, and 4) the means to sustain your family, the fruits of your labor, the value of your work, the results of your achievements are somehow identical to a fucking box!
You take away a box from the tall guy in that graphic, the worst that will happen is he won’t see a baseball game.
You disadvantage a kid because you feel he’s too privileged by giving away an educational opportunity to someone you consider underprivileged, but who may not have earned it, and you have just figuratively crippled him.
You reject a college applicant, who may have higher grades, who may have worked harder, and who may have participated in more extracurricular activities in favor of a poor kid, who may have had to work after school to help support his family, or just didn’t have the talent or the drive to get the grades, and all you’ve done is taken away an opportunity from one human being and handed it to another, with the government as the arbiter of who is more deserving, rather than objective achievement.
You deny a job to an applicant with superior skills, because said applicant happens to be white/cis/male/*insert privilege here*, and you’ve just screwed a superior applicant AND your company, or worse yet, you’ve allowed the government to do it for you – to pick a winner and loser based on arbitrary politicians’ whims.
You take earnings away from one family to feed/clothe/educate another – even though may be a noble goal – and that’s that much less that family has to spend on their own food, on their own sick kids, on their ailing parents, on their leaking roof, or their car repairs.
Helping a person up does not and should not mean, crippling another to “level the playing field.”
And yes, sometimes life is unfair. Yes, some people are more fortunate than others. But to people like Sotomayor, “pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps” is somehow a negative thing, because we won’t always be successful, and because we have to work harder than some others to succeed. She assumes that certain demographics simply CAN’T succeed and achieve without government force giving them an advantage.
I find that to be an abhorrent prejudice against said demographics. Fact is they can and do succeed. You can’t tell me that Do Won Chang, who started Forever 21 after immigrating to the United States from South Korea, in 1981 and worked three jobs simultaneously, as a gas station clerk, a janitor and a coffee shop employee had a level playing field. No, he simply worked harder, even though he started out penniless, without much English, and without a college degree.
My own parents came to this country without English, and with $300 in their pockets, and they are now comfortably retired – without ever having asked the government for a hand up, because they didn’t feel they were entitled to it.
People can and do succeed, even without the advantage of starting out rich. To claim they cannot, because they have brown or black skin, and therefore are in more need of help than others, is a pernicious, racist lie.
I’m a bad person; I can’t help it. I shouldn’t laugh at others’ misery. But when the misery is brought on by one’s own lies and refusal to admit wrongdoing, then I can’t help it. I giggle.
Remember Rachel Dolezal? She’s the former college professor and NAACP official who was exposed by her own parents to be pure, unadulterated white, and who had been lying about her race.
In the aftermath of the scandal, Dolezal lost her job and her position at NAACP. She claimed – spitting in the face of biology and common sense – that race is just a “construct,” and that she’s “transracial,” because she identifies as black, even though the bug shit crazy bitch is whiter than I am.
And now, poor little lying Rachel is having a tough time finding a job.
The former professor and columnist told the Guardian she’s applied for more than 100 jobs, but not a single place will hire her. The only offers that have come her way have been for reality television and porn.
Dolezal now relies on food stamps to feed her family and has been receiving help from a friend to cover her — next month she expects to be homeless, the Guardian reported.
You know, I just can’t find it in my heart to feel any sympathy for her. She lied. She lied to everyone about who she was. She used those lies to get a position with a civil rights organization and a college. And when she was discovered to have lied, she decided to pull the victim card and claim how she’s always felt wrong, how she FEELS black, and she made a mockery of black people’s experiences.
So, no. I don’t feel sorry for her, especially since she refuses to even acknowledge she did anything wrong.
Oh, and she has a memoir coming out, discussing how she “suffered” as a black person. This, after more than 30 publishing houses turned her down.
I really want to give her a high five. In the face. With a chair.