Category Archives: social justice warriors
Dear Femtard Morons –
Yes, I call you this, and I’ve put “feminist” in quotes as the title of this post, implying you’re frauds, because you can hardly be compared to the strong, free, independent women who are your predecessors and who paved the way for women’s equal rights. The only thing you have in common with these heroes are your vaginas…
… and even that’s no longer a guarantee, given that there are those among you who were born with a penis, but have claimed your gender as their own.
For the record, I don’t consider you simpering, triggered, vacuous, perpetually offended, pussy hat-wearing femtards, hiding behind your plumbing (or in some cases bathing in mea culpas for the crime of being born with male “privilege”) and eschewing actual accomplishments and hard work, feminists.
You want to be considered strong without actually working to become so.
You want recognition as equal to men without working to make your accomplishments equal to men’s.
You think you’re entitled to the world without earning the world, because you own a twat (sometimes).
You think your perpetual offense entitles you to consideration and respect.
And you think your faults should be revered, because you happen to have two X chromosomes, instead of working to overcome them. You use your ostensible “feminism” as an excuse for your failures, while demanding special treatment because of it.
When you have purged the last vestiges of anything that could possibly chafe your fragile labia from society’s lexicon, entertainment venues, schools, and workplaces, you are compelled find new sources of butthurt, because otherwise you will no longer be able to quell your feelings of entitlement by shaming others into worshipping at the altar of your inadequacies.
Well, I’m here to tell you I’ve stopped paying attention to your impotent squeaks a long time ago.
When everything is offensive, nothing is, and you’ve ceased being relevant.
Two words: Wonder Woman.
Apparently, the paragon of feminine strength, virtue, and beauty is giving you whining shrews heartburn, because ARMPITS! She shaved her armpits!!!
And because you blithering harpies decided that armpit hair is “feminist,” anything that doesn’t toe your arbitrary line doesn’t qualify and must be offensive!
“I just don’t buy the idea that #Wonderwoman would shave her armpits,” squeaks another alleged “man,” who calls himself @anothernewdad.
Others weren’t “offended” per se, but had to air their armpit disagreement.
“controversial hot take: i wish #WonderWoman had visible armpit hair. she was raised on an island of women w/no schick advertisements”
And this, dear feminists – both male and female – is why no one takes you seriously.
I love Wonder Woman. As a kid, I wanted to be Wonder Woman. I wanted to be smart, dedicated, independent, and strong. I wanted to save the country again and again. And as a fan, I’m squealing with excitement about the Wonder Woman movie coming out this summer!
And you screeching morons are ruining it, much like you spoil everything that’s fun, everything that’s exciting, and everything that doesn’t comport with your crazed, unhinged view of the world – a view that tosses economics, science, common sense, decency, and logic under the bus in favor of faux indignation, abdication of personal responsibility, and sanction of anyone who dares to disagree with you as an oppressive member of the patriarchy.
I don’t consider you part of my definition of feminism. I don’t like you. I hate the fact that you insist on sticking your protruding probosces into everything I’ve ever enjoyed and reinvent it into dull-witted, boring, vaginal superiority- and identity politics-filled garbage a la the all-femme “Ghostbusters.”
You want to invent brand new gender identities for yourselves? Be my guest. That’s the very definition of a free country. But don’t think for a moment you will force me to accept your self-identification as a coffee table, and don’t think for a moment I will take your self-righteous whining as a cue to suspend reality in favor of your twisted worldview.
You want to color your unshaven pit hair in all the colors of the rainbow? Great! Go for it. But don’t you dare stick your unwashed, unshaven armpits in my face and demand I accept them and worship them as beautiful.
I don’t care if you’re triggered.
I don’t care if you’re offended.
I don’t care if Diana Prince has clean shaven armpits in the Wonder Woman movie. She’s a fictional character. Get over it.
I don’t care if you’re offended that Major Motoko Kusanagi won’t be Asian in the movie adaptation of “Ghost in the Shell.” She’s a fictional character with lots of “shells” as her cyborg bodies. She could be anyone.
I don’t care about your precious feelings, just as you don’t care about the feelings of millions of people who don’t toe your ideological line and go as far as to marginalize their experiences and lives because they’re part of the whole cisheteropatriarchy garbage boogieman you have created and taught yourselves to despise.
Stop trying to ruin my fun!
A pissed off woman
Today is International Women’s Day. March 8 is traditionally commemorated worldwide to honor women, mothers, daughters, grandmothers, etc. I remember giving my mom flowers on March 8 every year. Kind of like Mother’s Day, but on an international scale, and not just for mothers. And while it has definite socialist roots (it used to be called International Working Women’s Day, ferpetessake!), it was always just a sweet holiday to me, in which we gave my mom carnations and took her out to a nice dinner. (Note to self: must remember to call mom today.)
Well, the perpetually offended uber-feminist brigade decided to hijack today to stamp their hooves and protest… something.
Much like the “Day Without Immigrants,” which appears to have gone unnoticed, and which resulted in some people who thought their political activism was more important than their jobs, getting shitcanned, this particular protest is meant “to highlight the economic power of women — as well as ongoing problems of discrimination and pay disparity.” To show how critical they are, women are being encouraged to take the day off from all work today and not to shop (except, of course at women and minority owned and small businesses). That’s all work, including unpaid labor.
I guess these cunt hat-sporting booger eaters won’t be taking care of the households and their children today either? Kids can fend for themselves, while mommy sits on the couch and impotently pumps her fist in the air, while sporting the trendy feminist scowl, for feminism – is that the way it works?
Once again, the virtue signalling socialist sow coalition is missing the economic point. Much like during the “Day Without Immigrants” protests, the economic impact will be negligible, other than to show them just how expendable they are.
Those same immigrants staging this protest and not buying anything, will purchase what they need tomorrow… or the next day. No harm, no foul. Any money “lost” from any sale today, will be made up tomorrow or the next day, because ultimately people need what they need.
I have no problem with people choosing where to shop based on anything they see fit. It’s their money. But to take one day to virtue signal their support for small and women- and minority-owned businesses is an ineffective and economically stupid message to send.
Shutting down entire school districts and depriving children – including minority, low-income, and female ones – of a day’s worth of education doesn’t send the message that women are important. It says women are selfish twats, who think that their politics are more important than their commitment to teaching kids, who, with those kinds of role models, will likely grow up to be just as entitled and ignorant as these teachers, and forcing some parents, who probably aren’t privileged enough to afford skipping out on work and aren’t protected by teachers’ unions to take a day off.
And “striking from smiling” is literally the stupidest thing I’ve read in months! It honestly makes me want to throat punch the first scowling bitch face I see.
No, you screeching harpies, there’s no such thing as “emotional labor.” You will not get recognized or paid extra for being a nice person. But you might not get hired in the first place, if you go into an interview looking like someone shoved a live, venom-filled snake up your ass. Smiling is not the result of harassment. Smiling is polite. Smiling says, “No, I’m not a pernicious cunt wart, but a professional with whom someone would want to interact and possibly work.” Smiling is also psychologically healthy, which would go a long way toward explaining why these glowering hemorrhoids are so mentally unbalanced.
So, yes. I’m at work.
Because I love my job and my country, and because the work I do is more important than any political gripes I might have.
Because I understand that my value as an employee doesn’t depend on my plumbing, but rather on my performance.
Because manufactured outrage doesn’t trump my responsibilities.
Because I’m not selfish enough to force someone else to take on my duties while I vent my spleen at perceived slights, and I refuse to screw my co-workers.
Because refusing to work means refusing to get paid, and like many women, I’m not privileged enough to be able to afford that.
Because I refuse to demonstrate any kind of solidarity with turd-sucking, whining harridans who possess the economic acumen of rotting stumps, but who believe they are entitled to MOAR respect and MOAR money despite their ignorance.
And because I prove how integral I am to the economy by actually doing a superior job, rather than shirking my duties.
Shutting down a school or business for one day will not prove your value. It may just do the opposite – much like it did with at least 100 immigrants, who failed to prove their impact on the economy, and lost their jobs in the process.
If you haven’t heard, there’s another “The Walking Dead” controversy brewing. Because perpetually offended, howling snowflakes have apparently run out of things about which to be outraged, they are now screeching about a T-Shirt. Thankfully, the shrieking outragery is in the UK… for now. But there are almost certainly aggrieved social justice zealots in the United States who are standing in solidarity with their squealing comrades in the UK in their indignation. Hell, I’ve seen quite a few of them on social media!
The “offensive” language revolves around TWD baddie Negan’s use of the old rhyme “Eeny meeny miny moe, catch a tiger by the toe…” to select the victim he would violently bash over the head with his trusted, barbed-wire baseball bat Lucille..
Now, when I was a kid, we used that rhyme all the time. Most Americans, I would wager, are not and have never been aware of the rhyme’s history, which apparently used the N-bomb instead of “tiger.” I certainly had no idea. But apparently, that’s what it was, and because most of us didn’t know about the rhyme’s history, we’re obviously steeped in white privilege… or something.
Yeah, I know. I had black friends in school, and when we used the rhyme, none of them were insulted, probably because like most Americans, they had no idea about the rhyme’s history.
But in their search for things to get offended about the SJW howler monkeys have now decided to target the TWD t-shirt.
It doesn’t matter that the show is not even close to racist.
It doesn’t matter that Negan ever used the word, and has never, as a character, been shown to be racist in any way.
It doesn’t matter that the show’s and comic book’s creators almost certainly didn’t know the rhyme’s history and meant exactly zero connotations to be gleaned from Negan’s taunts.
And it certainly doesn’t matter that the alleged “insult” wasn’t aimed at anyone.
You see, intent doesn’t matter, because according to one zealot, “the people at the tail end of the insult are the ones who get to decide if it’s offensive.”
Which basically means that anything we do or say can be constituted as offensive to someone.
Which essentially surpasses “thought crime” and lands directly into “insensitivity crime.”
Literally stupidest claim ever.
TWD’s Jeffrey Dean Morgan agrees, this is stupid, and I can’t blame him.
A rhyme that’s been used for decades, and apparently at some point (in the 1800s) contained a word that was common then, but we now – after more than 100 fucking years – find unacceptable. A t-shirt that doesn’t even contain that line. A show that is in no way racist. A scene that in no way had racial connotations.
Imbeciles are literally getting offended at a t-shirt referring to a fictional character’s use of a rhyme that more than 100 years ago contained a word that was commonly-used then, but that is considered unacceptable now, that the t-shirt doesn’t even contain.
And apparently, it doesn’t matter if no insult was actually intended, that the rhyme wasn’t hurled at anyone, because the only thing that matters is pwecious feewings.
And if you disagree, you’re wrong.
If you refuse to bow down to the subjective snowflakery and confirm that what you say and what you mean doesn’t matter, but what the grievance mongers claim offends them does, you’re a racist… or privileged… or something.
The content of the rhyme doesn’t matter. The indisputable fact that the rhyme as said by a fictional character did not contain any racially charged language doesn’t matter. The fact that the majority of people involved with the show, with the manufacture of the shirt and its sale, and in the world writ large, were not aware of the rhyme’s history doesn’t matter.
What matters to these whining, sniveling fucktards is that their subjective feelings be accepted as fact, because apparently, their offense somehow gives them moral superiority over the rest of us.
Nope. I refuse to play these games. It’s an intellectual (or in this case, sub-intellectual) trap that marginalizes everyone except those seeking indignation and gives them license to accuse anyone and everyone of facism/racism/sexism/*insert ism here, regardless of whether their interlocutors really are guilty of fitting those descriptions. It allows the perpetually affronted to offend, denigrate, and demean anyone they don’t like merely by claiming offense. And yes, I find it insulting and and downright abusive to be called those things – especially since I’ve spent my life fighting them.
There’s no justice in this – social or otherwise. It’s a disgusting, biased, discriminatory retaliation tactic against those whom the snowflakes seek to marginalize – those evil, cis/het, white people, whom they believe to be deserving of retribution for the “crime” of being privileged. And while they treat the rest of us like something smelly that attached itself to the bottom of their shoes, they treat minorities like fragile morons, who have to be protected from anything that can even remotely be viewed as “offensive.” Dog forbid someone’s delicate labia get chafed – even unintentionally! MICROAGGRESSION!
Here’s an idea, snowflakes: go fuck yourselves. With a barbed-wire bat. There is no “right” not to be offended.
There will be a longer guest post probably sometime this weekend on the subject of free speech writ large, so I debated whether to address this on the blog today. But given the gleeful crowing on both the left and the right about the so-called “fall” of Milo Yiannopoulos, I wanted to quickly address the issue from my perspective.
I see those on the left cheering Simon and Schuster’s decision not to publish Milo’s book, titled “Dangerous” after a video surfaced in which he “appeared to condone” (notice, nowhere is it written that he did so) pedophilia. The left hates Milo, because he revels in his Internet troll persona, because he ridicules social justice warriors, because he refuses to bow to the gods of political correctness, because he got on the Trump Train early, because… well, you know.
Milo also resigned from his position at Breitbart, to which I say, “Good!” He’s much too good for them.
I see those on the right gloating that the American Conservative Union disinvited Milo from CPAC this year, where he was supposed to be giving the keynote address after this video emerged, because he’s gay, because he’s flamboyant, because he’s not what a typical, nice, Christian, conservative should be. He’s *clutch pearls* GHEY!!! And he’s in a relationship with a black man! OH NOEZ!
Here’s the full video and that includes those comments. If you haven’t seen the unedited version of the video in which Milo purportedly “supports” pedophilia, you might want to take a look before screeching about how he deserved it.
Milo: “This is a controversial point of view I accept. We get hung up on this kind of child abuse stuff to the point where we’re heavily policing even relationships between consenting adults, you know grad students and professors at universities.”
The men in the joint video interview then discuss Milo’s experience at age 14.
Another man says: “The whole consent thing for me. It’s not this black and white thing that people try to paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult, probably…”
The man says, “The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here, we’ve got to pick some kind of an age…”
Milo: “The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”
It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me, another man says, interrupting Milo.
Milo: “And you know what, I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.”
Other people talk. Oh my God, I can’t handle it, one man says. The next thing in line is going to be pedophilia…says another man.
Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty. Who are too young to be able (unclear and cut off by others)…That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”
Another man said, “You are advocating for cross generational relationships here, can we be honest about that?”
Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”
So what did Milo really say here?
He said that child abuse charges have been inflated to such a degree, that we are now even policing relationships between consenting adults, because we disapprove of them.
He said that, generally speaking, the age of consent laws in the United States are proper and right.
He admits there are some people (including himself) who reach emotional maturity at a younger age, and are capable of giving consent at a younger age and points out that relationships are generally complex and nuanced things, completely unsuited for a “one size fits all” mentality.
He said that SOME of those “coming of age” relationships can help gay men feel safe and secure.
And he correctly defined pedophilia as an attraction to pre-pubescent children and made the distinction between the discussion about cross-generational relationships, which could happen between a 17-year-old and his 40-year-old partner, and the gross attraction of a full, legal adult to a pre-pubescent child.
How many of you, screeching that Milo condoned pedophilia took the time to read and analyze what he really said before condemning him?
And how many of you denigrated and ridiculed him and cheered the cancellation of his book and his unceremonious booting from CPAC merely because you don’t like him or what he stands for?
Be honest with yourselves.
For what it’s worth, Milo never was accused of pedophilia. He never condoned kiddie diddlers. As a matter of fact, he spent a lot of time exposing and shaming them – fighting the very thing he is now accused of defending.
He exposed creepy, white nationalist gamergate critic Sarah Nyberg/Nicholas Nyberg/Sarah Butts.
Two years ago, he went after repugnant child molester Chris Leydon.
I would venture to say, Milo has done more to fight child sexual abuse than any of the
critics jerks now eulogizing his silencing.
By the way, Milo’s full statement about this incident is here. I emphasize the following, and note that Milo himself was a victim of sexual abuse as a child.
I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes, in a section that was cut from the footage you have seen, that I think the current age of consent is “about right.” I do not believe any change in the the legal age of consent is justifiable or desirable.
I do not believe sex with 13-year-olds is okay. When I mentioned the number 13, I was talking about myself, and the age I lost my own virginity.
I shouldn’t have used the word “boy” — which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age — instead of “young man.” That was an error. I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.
I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That’s perfectly true and every gay man knows it.
I am certainly guilty of imprecise language, which I regret.
Do I think that Milo is very often over-the-top? Yes.
Do I think that his gallows humor is many times inappropriate? Yes. Vicious? Yes.
Do I agree with him on everything? Absolutely not. (I note here our differences in whom we liked for POTUS, for one.)
But am I going to cheer concerted efforts to silence him by those who disagree with what he says and how he says it? No, I’m going to slam them hard, as I would any attempts to silence dissent and opposition.
I see the glee and exhilaration with which Milo’s critics applaud his supposed “downfall,” and I’m sickened by it.
Were you upset that someone like Milo, to whom nothing is sacred enough to avoid making fun of, was gaining a huge following?
Were you irritated that someone like Milo – a flamboyant faggot in an interracial relationship, who freely talks about blow jobs – all of a sudden became someone to admire in your precious, oh-so-holier-than-thou “conservative” movement?
Did you not like that Milo essentially told Leslie Jones to man up after she got a bunch of racist Tweets in her direction, because “EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS!”
Did you hate his description of feminism as a “cancer?”
Did you think he was racist/homophobic/xenophobic, even though he’s in a relationship with a black man, has a Jewish mother, and repeatedly denied being a member of the “alt-right?”
And that’s why you’re cheering that someone finally found – AND DOCTORED – a video to silence him? How repulsively fascist of you!
You don’t care that the allegations are false.
You don’t care that the recording of Milo supposedly “advocating” child abuse was selectively edited and spliced, and you certainly won’t listen to the unedited version, because that would force you to do some introspective navel gazing to figure out why you were so anxious to believe the worst about someone with whom you disagree politically, that you’re cheering his gagging and the impact on his employment and his bottom line.
You don’t care about freedom or truth.
You’re no different than the shit snorting dick weasels who work to destroy those who do not toe their ideological line. You’re morally reprehensible, petty little tyrants who want to see your ideological adversaries silenced and, ultimately destroyed, instead of fighting them with ideas and reason.
You are gleefully cheering, because someone you don’t like has ostensibly been silenced.
And that makes you exactly the type of person people like Milo and his supporters have dedicated themselves to fighting.
You are the reason he exists.
UPDATE: And if you find Milo’s words to be a problem, but still loves you some Uncle George, you’re a repulsive hypocrite.
No, not that one.
This one. The one you probably have never heard of because it involves Andrew Cuomo’s (D-ipshit, NY) ban on state-sponsored travel to North Carolina because that state passed a law last year requiring transgender people to use the bathroom of the gender with which they were born.
A University at Buffalo pharmacy student is appealing the governor’s travel ban to North Carolina because she says it affects her ability to do rotations there.This student hasn’t gotten any response from the governor’s office despite three months of calls, letters, and faxes to appeal her case, so Christine Piccione finally reached out 2 On Your Side as a plea for help.Piccione is a third year pharmacy student at UB, and one of the final things these students need to do are rotations for hands-on practice.
So, this virtue signaling retard has joined celebutards and other assorted, frothing trash by trying to punish North Carolina for a bathroom law (that I have always disagreed with due to government overreach issues) he felt was discriminatory against transgender people.
Did he ban official government travel to Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is punishable by law? No. How about Iran? Can New Yorkers still travel there? Yes.
You mean, he only banned travel to a single state in the union – a state that saw it fit to dictate who uses what bathroom in a public building?
All that said, who really loses in this scenario?
Piccione was funding her trip herself – with her own money. She has been prevented by the state from studying where she believed was best for her own education, since UNC Chapel Hill is widely regarded as having one of the best – of not the best – pharmacy program in country, and certain laws in NC would allow her to do more than here in New York, according to the report.
“I definitely think it does put me at a disadvantage. I’m going to be competing against the top students in the country for jobs, and I just don’t think it’s fair that I don’t get that opportunity when we can travel anywhere else in the country, anywhere else in the world even, and I can’t travel to one state in my own country,” said Piccione.
And yes, this travel ban infringes on this student’s rights. It inserts government into her personal education decisions. It puts an unnecessary hardship on her, forcing her to waste time and resources trying to resolve the issue, which really just comes down to wanting to study her chosen profession in what is ostensibly the best pharmacy program in the country.
And the state – the ever mighty, overreaching state – has decided in all its wisdom that Piccione cannot spend her own money to study in North Carolina, because Cuomo disagrees with a law there. A student is prevented from studying at the university of her choice, because Cuomo doesn’t like that state’s law.
And let’s be clear – right now that’s all it is: Cuomo’s opinion.
The trial over this law has been postponed until the Supreme Court decides whether the Obama administration’s interpretation of federal civil rights law, that transgender students are protected under Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs, is correct. That case will be heard next month, according to press. So until that issue is decided in the nation’s courts, Cuomo is preventing a student from traveling to North Carolina to study at a highly regarded educational program, because Cuomo has an opinion.
Why is no one protesting that a U.S. citizen’s right to fund her own education and travel where she sees appropriate for her career choice has been violated?
I mean, we’re seeing snortastically ignorant nationwide boycotts in support of people who violated the law by coming here illegally – or staying here illegally. But no one is protesting the ever-intrusive state preventing a student from traveling within her own country – on her own dime. Why is that?
I guess a “privileged” blonde, white girl doesn’t elicit the same kind of sanctimonious outrage as oppressed “people of color.”
And by the way – I remember a place where you had to have government permission to travel for work or study. It was called the USSR.