On April 24th, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, interviewed at the Women In The World summit, sounded off again on the UVA débâcle. In WITW’s video of the interview, the relevant question begins at around three minutes and thirty-six seconds (3:36).
The UVA story, commencing with Rolling Stone‘s retracted “A Rape on Campus” (by disgraced Sabrina Ruben Erdely), still highlights a problem for Gillibrand—not hoaxes, but rapes that never happened. Back in March, she insisted that we not “blame the victim,” Jackie Coakley (technically liable to criminal charges under Virginia state law).
What criminals and false accusers look like in Virginia.
Now the Senator hopes that rape hoaxes will shine a spotlight on the problem of rape on campuses. The problem with ‘the problem’ is that it’s nothing more than statistical distortions, lies, and hoaxes exactly like the one debunked. However, feminists never let facts get in the way of a good story—and the Coakley-Erdely hoax is no exception.
Evidence grows daily to suggest that both accuser and journalist were not simply mistaken, but lying. In light of this, it’s becoming ever clearer that the campus witch-hunt (kicked into high gear by Erdely’s fairytale) was the paradigmatic case of how bad it gets when feminists go unchallenged.
Sen. Gillibrand’s opportunistic remarks only underscore the urgency of the problem. Witch-hunts and manufactured mass hysteria (e.g. “rape culture”) depend upon this ugly aspect of human hive-minds: reputations are besmirched by virtue of accusation itself, not necessarily by proof. Frankly, we wouldn’t have heard this shoddy attempt at journalism otherwise.
Hit-and-run Journalism
The voice of the Social Justice conscience.
Erdely wasn’t the only “idiot” playing jump to conclusions. Feminists didn’t stop to verify the claims or even notice that Coakley’s remarks (even without Erdely’s embellishment) were too fishy and forced to be plausible.
Man-hating mujeres and their obedient eunuchs were clambering over one another just to be the first to shout “I told you so.” Anyone questioning the outrage, for any reason, was an “idiot,” according to Anna Merlan. Without the rush to please institutional feminsts, this travesty wouldn’t have happened.
Why must journalists or policymakers, who recognize only the unruly court of popular opinion and fashionable outrage, bother with such boring matters as the presumption of innocence or the due process of law? Leave such unfashionable matters to jurists! On the contrary, guilt is assumed by institutional feminists—not just any guilt, but guilt-by-association. A “fratboy” (real or invented) is accused of a crime, therefore he’s guilty. Therefore fraternities are dens of unprosecuted rapists. So goes femilogic.
One white knight commenting on Merlan’s half-assed apology is a textbook minimizer, dismissing her wrongdoing and insult-throwing thus: “everyone makes bad calls on the internet now and then.” He calls her apology “abject,” despite its reasoning being as follows: I was wrong about this, because I make these assumptions as a matter of course, but we need to continue making these assumptions which bring us to the wrong conclusions. It’s virtually the definition of deranged thinking, adapted to first-person pronouns.
This same doublethink is at work in the Senate chamber. Gillibrand’s argument is as bad as that of any witch-hunter throughout history. Seventeenth-century Salemites accepted the following: The first witch was acquitted? No matter, we’ll keep going until we find a scapegoat we can put to death!
More recently, a whole country bought this: …But if we keep looking, we’ll definitely find WMD! The former was enabled by Puritan fervor; the latter by the insane logic that no evidence of WMD means there’s even worse WMD and even more of them than we’d feared.
The Lie That Doesn’t Want to Die
Sen. Gillibrand’s attempt to keep the feminist momentum of the Rolling Stone story going is necromantic, seeking to revivify the undead outrage while sending the inconvenient facts of the case down the memory hole. She wants it to eat our brains, as it did to social media feminists the first time around.
Gillibrand’s proposal is beneath debate: it must be mercilessly mocked. Femilogic needs to be exposed to as much thorough ridicule as possible, on a continuous basis, to irreparably harm its credibility.
Luckily, in this case, the goons themselves are making it easier: Gillibrand in particular is a magnet for the absurd. She’s already jumped to the same conclusion in the Columbia rape stunt (“hoax” seems a little bit of an understatement for this scale of attention-whoring), announcing “I believe Emma” via her publicist, before the facts of the case came to light. She brought Sulkowicz—the mattress-carrying feminist (and probable sociopath) at Columbia, who likes it “in the butt”—as her plus-one to the State of the Union address.
Utter this dark incantation and you, too, can attend the State of the Union address.
Crucially, they’re both seeking—and getting—publicity. Gillibrand has used the metaphor of a “spotlight” on a number of occasions, which gives us an insight into her psychology. That’s the danger in bringing together fantasists like Erdely and Coakley; and spotlight-craving performers like Gillibrand and Sulkowicz. Both “victim” and advocate benefit from the exposure.
So long as Sen. Gillibrand can keep one or more of these plates of deceit spinning, then whatever else the spotlight might be on, it’s also on her. She wants these scandals to shine a spotlight on a problem which doesn’t exist, so she can pass a law as a “solution” to it, to placate her braindead constituents.
It goes without saying, though, these hoaxes shine a light on just how limited a problem campus rape is at present (statistically, for the record, there are proportionately less incidents of women raped on campus than off). Nowhere is the statistic 1 in 4, 1 in 5 or anything like it. When hoaxes are discovered, we have a chance to put problems in their proper perspective, instead of blowing something out of proportion as news outlets are wont to do.
Context And Consequences
Narcissism? Now it’s called social justice and gender equality!
How does “A Rape on Campus” fit into all of this?
It fits seamlessly into the establishment narrative. There might not be a perfect victim, as the fembots say, but there’s indubitably a perfect story—and Rolling Stone printed it. We don’t have a rape culture, but we have an accusation culture, an (attempted) egalitarian culture, a hotbed for feminist lunacy. Institutionally, feminism is supported in every imaginable way. Socially speaking, overt opposition to feminism is suicidal. Feminists aren’t oppressed, they’re not fighting the establishment. They are the establishment.
Otherwise, no story of this kind could go viral.
When a prestigious organization like RAINN (concerned with real, not fake, instances of rape) concludes that the ‘rape culture’ theory confuses the issue, it’s time to quit. You have lost the debate, feminists, and you won’t win again. (See: Jezebel‘s damage control.) Your only successes hereafter will come from Reichstag fires, because the facts aren’t on your side.
Then again, Roosh’s provocative thought-experiment showed that feminists don’t really care about anything but scoring points and harming men. The victim card is just another weapon against us.
Sen. Gillibrand can push the Enabling Act all she likes; men will push back. She’s not defending victims from backlash, but prompting an even bigger backlash. I’m not a fan of the casually litigious culture in America, but I support Paul Nungesser’s legal response to being defamed by Sulkowicz. In any case, this is just the beginning. Take heed, feminists: if you sow the wind, you and your daughters will reap the whirlwind.
Carry that weight.
Read More: Why Haven’t The People Who Pushed Rolling Stone’s UVA Rape Hoax Story Been Fired?
Spot on article. I’m aghast it wasn’t written sooner– Senator Gilbrand is the worst and most powerful anti-male agitator in politics. She bullied that German kid. He should sue her after he’s done suing his university.
I would if I was him.
I just saw Jameis Winston is suing his false accuser. A fucking Men. I’m ecstatic to see men finally punching back
Mattress Girl
http://gothamist.com/2015/05/09/columbia_students_mock_sexual_assau.php
Why are you calling them “Man-hating mujeres”? Sulkowicz, Gillibrand… It’s not like feminasties are coming from Hispania. Or I’m missing something here?
Light alliteration. That’s it. Nothing more than that. “Mujeres” is “women”, but starting with the letter I wanted. “Man-hating mujeres” was just a little easter egg thrown in for my own pleasure.
Maybe next time I’ll go with “frenzied feminasties” or something similar.
In any case, I like the Spanish word. The Romance languages, incidentally, contain some of the best ‘red pill’ proverbs you’ll find anywhere. (Makes sense, when you think of Mediterranean cultures and the ‘Latin lover’ stereotype.)
I hadn’t thought of that. Thanks.
Their obsession with a rape culture despite the facts showing it’s no where near as common as they say, an how they stick up for proven liers making false rape claims proves to me they arn’t interested in stopping rape. They just want to keep the victim narrative going for personal gain.
Fact – SJWs actually WANT women to get raped, just to serve their political narrative.
Proxy rapists.
Just like Marxists need poverty. The same demented philosophy with its in-built requirement for sacrificial lambs.
I don’t want poverty. I don’t want women to get raped. But then again I’m not leftwing so I don’t parasite on, and demand, human misery
yes, sarifices have to be made to serve the greater narrative of the world to come. Seen this way, even the likes of Jackie Coakley not just her falsely accused victim are sacrifices
Yeah good point.
All cannon fodder in the campaign to fuck over the human race
Yeah it’s just like after the Sandy-Hook shooting Happened the Left Was Scrambling to take advantage and use the Disaster to Promote their Gun Control Agenda. The Victims, the Raped, and the Graves of Dead Children are very Useful to Liberals.
Suffering in all its forms is bread and butter for leftists.
Without it they’re fucked. And that’s a pretty malignant vested interest
Hell..gun makers should have used that incident to promote guns. See…if more citizens had been armed then no problem. It’s funny how only certain states seem to have this problem.
That’s the Logical Answer, to arm good Citizens so they Can Protect themselves against the Scum of the Earth, but then again Liberals and Logic….that don’t Mix well.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
You didn’t need to, sir.
That’s why I’m here 😉
Yeah, well, The Dude abides.
The Dude abides. I don’t know about you but I take comfort in that. It’s good knowin’ he’s out there. The Dude. Takin’ ‘er easy for all us sinners. Shoosh. I sure hope he makes the finals.
Alternatively, they create a problem and provide a solution! Unfortunately for them, people have awaken and don’t buy into their bullshit easily and new the SJWs need to create “real” events to fuel their ideology!
indeed
the left salivates every time someone is victimized – just so they can rush to their blogs and spout off about their compassion
If rapes were stopped you can bet the left will hire men to rape women to keep their narrative going. Without their victim status thy have nothing.
White men to be exact. Those are the enemy of the lefty, SWJ’s. Perhaps they’ll use the white knights? Who knows.
Yep it has to be white men to further their narrative
They believe the mantra of let no crisis go to waste. They exploit it any way they can in a cynical way. What oprah did with the duke incident, and RS did with UVA incident, it was calculated.
Right. Rahm Emanuel got caught saying it once (“let no crisis go to waste” is a close paraphrase, if I recall correctly) and he took a lot of heat and had to really play it down. The fact is, though, that he’s not even that extreme, by comparison. He’s just an ultra-Zionist Democrat, not a Far Left space cadet.
The main thing about Zionism is that it’s a forced union of religion (Judaism; specifically, the desire of having a Jewish homeland in the physical realm) and politics (England used WWII to ratify Balfour 1917, which effectively set up Israel into a post-WWII British bastion in the Mideast, much to the justified paranoia of the Arab world).
Seeing how the mainstream Anglosphere media IS the 4th Estate, it’s painfully obvious why Israel gets painted as a designated victim each and every single mainstream narrative.
TL;DR: England doesn’t want to lose its last de facto stronghold in the Mideast.
That’s a remarkable oversimplification of British-Israeli relations. You give Britain way too much credit.
For example, in the lead-up to Israel’s official establishment as an independent nation-state, Jewish terrorist organizations engaged in anti-British violence which went totally beyond the pale of the Rules of Engagement. This was because the British Mandate rule in Palestine was against the interests of the coagulated Jewish people trying to form their own regime.
In favour of your argument, at least prima facie, is the Suez Crisis, but that was a simple convergence of English, French and Israeli interests. (In other words, the economic interests of England and France compounded by the existential interests of newly minted Israel.) Notice that the US went against its usual allies in this endeavour, because its interests were different at the time.
The UK’s Middle Eastern strongholds, like those in the Far East, are long gone. The US finally superseded the UK economically in the aftermath of the First World War (Wall Street became the financial centre of the world, replacing the City of London), while it finally superseded the UK as a de facto imperial power after the Second. In fact, the US boxed out and replaced the UK in the post-war world by making moves like the ANZUS treaty, which preceded the Suez Crisis by five years.
Geopolitically speaking, he US has been cockblocking the UK for about a century now. Israel, on the other hand, cockblocks everybody and still expects handouts. Such is Zionism.
All of that said, it’d be wonderful if we could return to the point of the thread, which is the pernicious dealings of fembots.
There are always going to be people who live by tearing others down. They have to keep lying so their psychopathy is not revealed to others.
Wrong.
They want to get raped *AND* have an abortion.
That’s like getting their “Eagle Scout” rank….
Does that mean you want to be victimized by feminists and leftists?
What even started this whole “rape culture” bullshit? It’s not like there ever was a time when a bunch of rapes actually happened.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rape+culture+origin
There actually are real “rape cultures”: African and Muslim culture, namely. But SJWs won’t talk about those for some reason.
214 young girls from Africa were just rescued from Boko Haram. They were all pregnant by terrorists! Let’s all wait to see the feminist outcry for this……….
Feminists never criticize Islam you won’t hear any outcry.
Seriously??
That’s fucking incredible
This is good for a lol or two.
Listening to any SJW try to defend Islam is lol worthy considering they criticize Christians an non Muslim white men for far less.
Good luck with that one.
The reason they only criticize western men is because we won’t chop their heads off.
We should. That sounds fucking awful,
The colleges are run by Isis now I see.
You can criticize Islam in The West without getting your head chopped off, the fact is SJWs hate straight white men an Christians. Sure there’s white Muslims but most of them arn’t, so SJWs classify them as a minority oppressed group but ignore all the oppressing Muslims do all over the world.
Except for your first sentence, I agree. How ever, I have to disagree with your claim that you can freely criticize Islam without physical threat. What just happened in Texas and France? You can get shot for drawing pictures of Mohammad!
Actually you are correct butthis came about beavus Western governments were to soft on Islam from the beginning an SJW an feminists were some of Islams strongest supporters.
Oddly, they never seem to mention the lack of diversity in those countries’ leadership either. It’s almost as if Western nations have the most diverse political & business organisations in the world, which would make them better according to their beliefs, but that obviously can’t be right. It’s probably my penis’s fault.
On Wikipedia: Countries that have been described as having “rape cultures” include Pakistan,[47] India,[48][49][50] the United States,[51] the United Kingdom,[52] Canada,[53] Australia[54] and South Africa.[55]
How surpising, countries with real rape culture, and then all the countries from the anglosphere.
there is no country with rape culture, as it does not actually exist
The western plague(a.k.a Feminazism) allows the western cunt to take all the benefits of a civilized country, complain about the men who made such a standard of living possible for them, simultaneously commandeer the victim statuses of 3rd world women who face real struggle & hardship (war, starvation, rape, disease) on a day to day basis and then postulate that men(particularly white men) should… heh… check their privilege.
Damn!
edit: this is what happens when women are so pampered, protected & pedestalized that they end up having NO real problems in their lives.
I saw a documentry on poor women in india and they were complaining that middle class indian women that claim to fight for their right are not getting help at all..it just benefited the rich city indian women…pretty eltist. Poor women or people are just mascots just so they can profit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
pakistan n india are anglosphere countries too
the local feminists act just like them
indias per capita rape rate is tied with canada and pakistan is only 1 point higher then usa
but south africa is way up there. What would you consider rape culture problems. By raw numbers or by per capita
its just another way of playing victim cooked up by academics
people who live in western countries should always think twice before empathizing with any victim
It’s the current battle cry for modern feminism to achieve its ends via legislation and public support.
Stopping rapes is not really the main goal and, if anything, would actually stall the momentum feminism has gained and will gain in the future.
Social control and wealth transfers from men to women are the ultimate ends.
“Rape Culture” is to feminism as “The War on Terror” was/is to Neocons.
I would point the finger at the Campus Sexual Assault Study from 2007, which is where the false “1 in 5” stat came from. However, even the researchers themselves have objected that their study was taken way out of context. So somewhere these SJW crusaders in search of a cause came upon this report and decided they would fix another problem that didn’t exist–widespread rape on US campuses.
http://time.com/3633903/campus-rape-1-in-5-sexual-assault-setting-record-straight/
I bet she totally has rape fantasies.
The Rest of the Fantasy is getting an Innocent Man charged as a Rapist and Tarnishing His Reputation, I bet she Really Faps Hard to that.
Camille Paglia (a self-described dissident feminist) said:
“The feminist obsession with rape as a symbol of male-female relations is irrational and delusional. From the perspective of the future, this period in America will look like a reign of mass psychosis, like that of the Salem witch trials … The fantastic fetishism of rape by mainstream feminists has in the end trivialized rape, impugned women’s credibility, and reduced the sympathy we should feel for legitimate victims of violent sexual assault.”
The SJWs will probably draw and quarter her for that comment.
She doesn’t give a shit.
Make that “exposed women’s credibility”
You’re welcome camille.
According to mainstream feminist’s fluid definition, sexual assault need not be violent.
No doubt Team Hillary has its media surrogates all over this, working double over time to use the issue to energize her political base. Its a foregone conclusion that feminist friendly media outlets will endorse Hillary, and anyone who dares challenge her will be labeled misogynist or potential rapist. Maybe they use her daughter Chelsea to make a teary eye speech about her female friend who must remain anonymous who has been victimized, and all men no matter how they have lived their lives are collectively guilty because “patriarchy”.
The US is about to see a presidential campaign based entirely on gender
Here in the UK a partially black guy is about to be elected the leader of the opposition. Meaning said opposition will spend the next 5 years playing the race card
Welcome to 21st century politics
“Here in the UK a partially black guy is about to be elected the leader of the opposition.”
Labour?
Yes, sir
Steady on, he hasn’t entered the running yet. If he does and Burnham does as well, I reckon it could be a close call. We will have to wait and see.
That’s ok, we’re just finishing two terms that made everything entirely about race, even when it isn’t, and we’re doing fi…. oh wait, no, we’re fucked.
Strange thing is, if you start of the baseline of all the women in the US senate, Gilibrand, comparatively to the rest of the female Senators, is one of the “hotter” ones as opposed to say Mikulski. I would have expected this more from one of the other female senators.
…hotter… or less ugly?
It’s a relative term.
Well yeah
Like saying Hitler killed less than Stalin
Or saying Lindy West weighs less than a whale.
(which hasn’t been officially confirmed yet)
Gillibrand is a stick-her-finger-in-the-wind opportunist. When she was first elected to the House a decade ago, she was a conservative Democrat, because she represented a historically Republican district in upstate New York. When she was appointed to the Senate, she suddenly took a hard left turn in order to appeal to the Democrats who dominate the state as a whole.
It’s clear she’s beating the drum on rape hysteria because she thinks it’ll help her advance her career.
Otherwise known as a modern politician
…And there’s that.
Right. But also, like so many others wielding authority in modern America, Gillibrand enjoys having unearned power over helpless males, and enjoys harming males.
The political is personal.
Cheers.
There is no such thing as a “conservative democrat” anymore. All Dems are radical leftist /socialists/marxist/feminists nowadays.
There’s any number of possibilities here.
She used to be one of the Beltway fatties before she shed some pounds, so it’s possible she’s still got a chip on her shoulder.
I hinted in a couple of directions, throughout the course of the article, but intentionally left it open. It could be any one of the possible reasons or any combination thereof.
There’s the obvious one, though: she’s a woman in politics. A woman can be as beautiful, competent and unbroken as you like, she’ll still have irrational quirks.
Bangable or banishable, women are women.
All good points, you totally called it too with the fatty thing.
Image below from mid to late 2000s
Who is this? Looks like Katy Perry
http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Equal.jpg
It’s a cockhound, you can tell by the oval shape of her mouth and the “lights are on but nobody’s home” look in her eyes.
That’s all we need to know.
The shot is perfect, I can’t deny
How can any straight male look at that picture and not be thinking of sticking their cock in that mouth?
Any guy who says otherwise is either a liar or gay. In fact, this pic could be a form of Turing test to that effect. All you have to do is hook a male up to a penile encephlagraph, flash that picture and record the results.
Of course she probably looks hideous without make-up. But I’m just judging the pic as is.
I’ve seen her with less makeup and without it altogether and, still, I’ve got to say…
…I wouldn’t kick her out of bed.
I will argue that make up or no make up, nothing improves a woman’s apperance more than having my cock in her mouth.
I dare say that, mutatis mutandis, most of us here would feel the same way.
It’s Layla Subritsky. She was on the Australian Big Brother a while back.
It may be objectively completely false, but it feeeeels truthy, and that’s the important thing.
A fucking plus.
Thanks for bringing up Anna Merlin and her insane, inane, disgustingly entitled, soulless behavior. Never forget.
This woman is an absolute disgrace to this country and her office, most politicians are these days.
On a side note, I have stopped referring to leftists as “liberals” and “progressives,” they don’t deserve these titles. They are Statists through and through and use liberal talking points as a ruse for their totalitarian goals.
Statism is the belief in the primacy of the State over the rights of the individual which means that their existence is in complete contradiction with everything that this country was built on; rule of law, due process, the dignity of the individual, checks and balances, VERY limited government.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, politicians such as Gillibrand and her proponents are far more dangerous to this country than are foreign threats such as ISIS.
Feminism is the most predominant form of institutionalized bigotry in our present day. Putting men in jail/prison is the feminist version of the Nazis putting Jews in concentration camps.
And unfortunately, every major state sponsored college and university has a women’s studies department. This endorsement from the academic world, combined with mainstream media’s reinforcement, gives feminism all the “credibility” it needs.
These false rape accusations will continue as long as women’s studies department professors are allowed to dedicate their lives strategizing these criminal abuses of the justice system.
At the risk of derailing this thread, author did not talk about the UN and was referring to the unrelenting establishment propaganda about WMD. Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and hundreds of other talking heads pushed the WMD scare across the full spectrum of media to sell the country on war. I won’t bore anyone with further details but the article’s comparison was apt.
As for the UN “inspectors” please don’t make me vomit. They were heavily infiltrated by the CIA and *that* is why Saddam kicked them out. Even the mainstream press reported that – ONCE (in a tiny paragraph on the back pages of the NY Times)!
Besides, Saddam was a saint compared to the coalition government and everything that came after.
Now back to the main thread: Feminists are insane…
They found WMD in Iraq. Weapons of Mass Destruction, or CBRN, as it is known in the military, are any weapons of a Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear nature. The weapons found in Iraq were primarily Chemical, comprising thousands of mustard gas shells and VX gas rockets.
No they didn’t. Get lost government troll.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Middle%20East&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=Multimedia
From the New York Times, not exactly an organ of the Bush Administration.
Are you really that naive?
The New York Slimes is TOTALLY an organ of state propaganda, completely infiltrated by the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird many decades ago.
No self-respecting red pill man would even wipe their ass with that paper.
They do things to support their political agenda, which aligns with the current occupant of the White House. You’re nothing more than the second stage of a Human Centipede, with your face sewed to Alex Jones’s ass. Why don’t you go swallow that InfoWars shit somewhere else.
Disreputable Gent Did they find your missing brain ???
The future will soon belong to us, my fellow kings. We are very close to perfecting holographic technology and creating artificial wombs. Soon we will be able to do away with 3D women altogether, and stick with the 2D waifus we were made for. Biological women will die out as we populate future generations full of men using artificial wombs, and give each of them the newest generation oculus rift holographic technology to develop an intimate relationship with his own waifu. We will be the first generation of god kings that inherit the Earth.
Man your commenst are to Great (with a big G) to dissapear in old disqus threads, start a blog or write an ebook or something… yes i admit it i am reading through all your comments and i have to say your solution to the baltimore riots are the most logical of them all.
Hmmm. Sounds fascinating. I think the future is already here and is, technically, already ours. I’m curious to know your views on this. Bottom-line: we have feminism because of a centralized propaganda machine known as the mainstream media that social engineers people. So long as this medium remains centralized the propaganda and with it the institution of feminism (and progressivism) will persist. This enables a very small cabal of people, in this case, antagonistic and despondent females that probably reside in some broccoli fart encrusted women’s studies department, to control the culture and control us. But, what if a new media arises that is the polar opposite of the centralized media we have today? What if each of us can control our own customized cultural experience? I think its dissolves these “ism” groups because without propaganda natural law takes over and so does reality, which, among many other things, shows that males are different from females. The good news is that this new media is here and its via the web. The old media that gave us feminism is dying…quickly I might add, for instance, nbc has all but given up on sitcoms and ratings are plummeting all over. The future will not include a singular centralized politically correct narrative and therefore its ours to take.
Some good news fellas. Jameis Winston the Florida State QB phenom drafted by the Tampa Bay Bucs who was FALSELY accused of rape and exonerated is now countersuing his accuser . Read it on
Breitbart.com . Apparently this bitch is hounding him still and Jameis’s lawyer is suing this crazed harpy. This is what must be done. Fight back every time. I have not heard the UVA frat is suing Rolling Stone however which is tragic.
A false narrative like this got my granduncle and countless other falsely accused men LYNCHED, pre-Civil Rights era.
This is an uncomfortable truth for feminists.
The Do-Good Brigade wants to pretend that all of its pet causes gel perfectly, but they don’t. That’s the nature of identity politics.
Oftentimes, being, say… pro-feminist means being anti-Islamic and vice versa. You might say, as another example, that supporting black workers and black business-owners often means opposing extensive immigration of unskilled labourers. This opens the door to accusations of racism against Hispanics.
Screwed if you do, screwed if you don’t.
Ignoratio elenchi (i.e. appeal to the irrelevant). Please look it up.
The premise is not ‘off’. Yours is a fallacious argument.
I wasn’t addressing whether or not the 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified, nor how it was _legally_ justified to the international community.
I was talking about nothing other than the deranged logic which led neocons and their FOX-transfixed followers they influence — not the UN, not their weapons inspectors or anyone else — to conclude that “no evidence of WMD means there’s even worse WMD and even more of them than we’d feared.”
I used the word ‘neocon’, not the words ‘the UN’, ‘the international community’, ‘weapons inspectors’ or any variation whatsoever on your theme.
What I’d said was that this is how they drummed up popular support for it and, by and large, it is. My argument wasn’t even about WMD itself, let alone the supposed legal basis for intervention. Whether the neocons were motivated by irrational hostility and whether they smeared Saddam’s regime with very little basis has nothing to do with a Security Council Resolution.
(Even if one accepts your premises for the sake of argument, they still don’t necessitate that Res. 687 was any more than a legal pretext, a useful fiction for doing what they wanted to do.)
In any case, the fact is that the wonky WMD point was the thrust of the argument, even in the (albeit unsuccessful) request for a UN-led invasion, even in discussions over UNSCR 687 itself. Interesting that this fanatical reasoning actually superseded the importance of the resolution itself, which again proves my argument.
Even more so was this the case in the attempt to sway popular opinion in the Coalition countries, esp. the fear-addled American populace. There was a conscious effort to conflate 9/11 and WMD, Islamic terrorism and Iraq, which only strengthens my analogy for the way perpetrate their smears. Supposing I’m wrong and you’re right, the US wouldn’t have prevailed upon the UK to produce (in the literal sense) evidence of the “yellow cake” (which was falsified intel, as we now know).
So, your argument isn’t about the substance of the analogy, the relevant parallels or the actual premises of my argument, but about Iraq, WMD, etc., etc.
In other words, again, it’s an ignoratio elenchi.
The point of the thread and the point of my analogies were the same, so let’s stick to them: “Feminists are insane”, to use Binko’s words.
how about crowdfunding a campaign to sue jackie coakley and rolling stone? Sponsored by the manosPhere/redpillers
But 550 tons of yellowcake that was not being used for fuel was found in Iraq, as well as many chemical weapons. Everybody seems to underestimate the media’s ability to tell a lie and drown out the truth before any other voices can be heard without a biased ear. Don’t fall for the same trap that allows lies like this rape hoax to proliferate and become entrenched.
Untrue.
I’m assuming your recall is wonky here, since even the most ardent hawks never claimed this. What they said at the time was that Iraq was attempting to obtain 500 or more tons of yellow cake uranium from Niger. This was probably the most flagrant fabrication the Blair and Bush governments used to make their case. By constantly playing hot potato and attributing the discovery of the yellow cake docs to another country’s agencies, Western governments were able to disavow responsibility for dubious intel.
Anyway, it has nothing to do with this thread, except for proving that hoaxing can be used to create a false sense of danger.
No this was revealed with wikileaks. The military kept it under wraps so insurgents wouldn’t target them while they were moving it. Remember, this was happening an ocean away and the newsrooms were much closer. Never underestimate the media’s ability to lie to you. They still did find chemical weapons. I would not have invaded to remove the threat though.
The Wikileaks release, even assuming it was true, didn’t prove the Niger story. Supposing anything was ‘found’ and ‘removed’, it was leftover materials from the breeding reactor project damn near turned into a parking lot by Israeli bombing.
Assuming it’s true for the sake of argument, this means that the yellowcake intel is accurate only in the sense that a broken clock still happens to have the right time twice a day. In other words, it’s not really accurate at all.
…Or, if you’d like to return to the matter at hand, the feminists were right about one or two rapes, therefore rape culture. The premise isn’t logically sufficient to draw the conclusion.
It’s lazy reasoning.
You are comparing apples to oranges, and predictably, the shaming language starts moments after the fallacy. The idea that I agree with any feminist just because of my stance on a completely unrelated topic is disingenuous and actual lazy reasoning. It was found in Iraq, and that is a fact.
https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:Saddam_nuke_lab_at_Tuwaitha_Iraq_clean_up_photo
The feminists are clearly wrong, and are using the exact same forces used to suppress this information to suppress the fact that the UVA story is a hoax. Look up the propaganda effect. People will ardently defend a headline and believe it to be true after it is proven false.
As I said, I would not have invaded; Saddam had destroyed his country’s manufacturing capabilities to the point that he would have never gotten it refined enough to even make a dirty bomb. But the fact remains that it was found their; the media’s reporting, in my country and yours, was a blatant lie.
https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Saddam_nuke_lab_at_Tuwaitha_Iraq_clean_up_photo
You posted the talk page for this actual file, the page I was talking about. Even the Wikileaks editor, near the top of this page, says they wouldn’t draw the same conclusion that there was a cover-up. Also, Wikileaks didn’t even break this story, but only provided some insider info which is, it turns out, as flawed by personal bias as any subjectively sourced info.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp
And the media is not subjectively sourced information? Because it could not be considered weapons, the media ran with it to get higher ratings. And the whole country was not led on a witch hunt for years, the war weariness had already settled in a few months after the tanks rolled into Baghdad. There was no cover up; people are merely too lazy to listen to recantations. Which is why the public will take these media outlets word that the rapes happened and later say calling it a hoax is “dubious at best” and perhaps even “subjectively sourced”.
This is getting taxing, you can believe whatever you want; I do not care.
…But you cared enough to digress and keep the yellowcake rhetoric (not proven by a Wikileaks picture) going.
Got it.
No, I still believe in that, I just don’t care enough to put any more stock in trying to change your opinion.
PS: It sucks you didn’t get your independence. I thought it was going to go through with the support it had.
As long as we’re addressing non-existent issues brought to light by fictional stories, I just watched an episode of Walking Dead and I’m wondering what we’re doing about the zombie problem in the US.
if you don’t already have a plan its too late.
Lets get to the crux of the issue. Fuck politics, media and all that we all know its corrupt to hell so leave it.
I bring up this quote:
“Anyone questioning the outrage, for any reason, was an “idiot,” according to Anna Merlan.
Men, stop allowing the verbal assaults from women, media, propagandists et. al. belittle your manhood.
Stand up and do what you feel is right as even the threat of physical violence will always defeat that of any verbal assaults.
“rape culture” is yet another historical case study of the Salem Witch trails category. Writ large, these were the conditions that the community of Salem Massachusetts suffered as they were overtaken by female hysteria. We all can agree that society is better off without hysteria, I think this ultimately proves that women are incapable of broad societal leadership. I didn’t say revoke their right to vote or bar females from leadership, but, good God, numerous rape hoaxes have been revealed and some of them are still at it? This isn’t about “rape” its about living in reality and, as follows, hysteria. Alas, we require our leaders to, at least, be in firm grip of reality.
They want to keep that victim narrative alive. She is right, though, there is a problem with rape on campus but it’s women falsely accusing men that’s the problem. This Senator is clueless and another politician.
So wait, you have proof Jackie lied? Why don’t you share it? Why do the police say there is no proof that she lied? Are they secretly controlled by Gloria Steinem?
About Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Just two words. “Stupid broad” !
UVA is suing RS and Ederly, a nice expensive lawsuit will give editors pause when the next Ederly comes along with a fantastic tale.
Narcisexism: Not doing whatever a woman wants you to do, whenever she wants you to do it, even if it contradicts what she’s previously told you.
I swear every single time I see that mattress carrying radical I burst out laughing. I mean… she’s carrying a fricking mattress that she claims gives her bad memories (doh!) around campus. A mattress……. no seriously…. a mattress……
Can you imagine how that radical meeting went and how it was decided she would tow that thing around? Hilarious.
On a side note, isn’t that a health hazard since her butt sauce likely leaked through the sheets and on to it? I am not kidding here…. she is probably bumping numerous people walking the campus in the head with her e.coli mattress.