As was reported on Reaxxion just a few months ago, the #GamerGate controversy was invited onto Wikipedia by none other than Jimmy Wales himself. As the article was being written, however, it became apparent that many of the editors had an ideological bent against ethical journalism practices and were attempting to portray #GamerGate as nothing more than the usual muh-soggy-knee and harassment of females. There were many who believed that the #GamerGate Wikipedia article would forever remain in control of SJW’s, but Jimmy decided to call out the white washing and directly lobby for the removal of the biased editors.
At first, nothing happened and the #GamerGate article remained a bunch of propaganda. However, behind the scenes of Wikipedia a resolution process was quietly underway, with dedicated editors tirelessly working to present the gamers side of the story and resist being silenced. Across Twitter, Reddit, and Tumblr, battles raged in the fight for Wikipedia.
Everything came to a head this past weekend when Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, also known as ArbCom, decided to topic-ban many editors not only from discussing #GamerGate, but also from any gender related issues on all of Wikipedia. The hammer came down much harder than anticipated and many hardcore feminists who counted on influential Wikipedia editors to shill the party line now found themselves ally-less. The official ruling reads:
Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.
Amazing how what started as a dispute over video games has now extended to cover all of feminism. This is the unintended consequence of politicizing a topic that shouldn’t be politicized. The blowback against Wikipedia’s feminist ideologues is so harsh that I wouldn’t be surprised to see these editors quit altogether (god knows if they have anything else better to do with their time other than to follow their university brainwashing). These users were basically single-purpose editors, and it was obvious that they could not be neutral on sex-related topics.
Pathetically enough, you have the “other side” of anti-GG’s writing at the Guardian and Gawker claiming that the feminists of Wikipedia were unfairly discriminated against, while the pro-GG editors were only throwaway accounts whose bans mean nothing. However, considering that the feminists were only topic-banned and not perma-banned, what is the problem? If these feminist accounts were really interested in being good Wikicitizens, why does it matter if they cannot comment on just one particular topic in a website with thousands of topics? It’s obvious that these feminist editors weren’t interested in anything other than pushing their agenda, otherwise this ban would mean nothing to them.
The true colors of the feminist editors are clearly exposed if you visit Jimmy Wales’ talk page, where already the whining and anger is on full display from those affected by the ban. The butthurt is real:
The Arbitration Committee is probably the biggest factor to Wikipedia’s disrepute, especially towards female and LGBT editors. I said so after Sexology, I said so after Manning naming dispute, I said so after GGTF, and I’m saying it again now after Gamergate. In all four cases, people who were trying to prevent specialised POV pushing from bigots were reprimanded severely and said bigots were given free reign in their topic areas. Far from being a neutral arbiter of disputes, ArbCom, no matter who is on it, seems intent on keeping and worsening the heterosexual cisgender white male systemic point of view.
– Sceptre
If you were skeptical of just how crazy and idiotic some of these feminists are, re-read the bold in the quote above. First is the statement that no matter who is in on it, ArbCom will have a terrible hetrosexual cisgender white male POV. Of course this is a contradiction in terms, because the solution is to get rid of straight white males, is it not? And it’s not like such a thing should be hard—after all, just get more women to sign up as Wikipedia editors! The entire draw behind Wikipedia is that anyone can edit an article, so there’s nothing stopping women from being altruistic enough to edit millions of articles, for free, right? Right!? And after they finish editing the next Wikipedia article, for free, we can expect women to go out and pay for the next man they have a date with, no doubt.
Second, what the hell is a cisgender white male? I’ve probably read more feminist literature than the average feminist (pop quiz: who is Jean Paul Sartre and why is he important to second wave feminism?), and I still can’t figure out what a cisgender white male is. The term cisgender must imply something negative to be avoided, so why not just call them cisgender and leave it at that? What difference does it make if it’s male or female?
The third and most revealing part of the above quote is just how badly feminist shills have infiltrated a website dedicated to a neutral point of view. Such shills have no place on Wikipedia. Anyone who takes the feminist ideology so seriously they need to label anyone who disagrees with them is plainly brainwashed. It’s sad that such people exist, but the world was cruel to them. Nonetheless, they are not Wikipedia editor material.
The fallout from this decision means that many Wikipedia articles, such as on Cultural Marxism, #GamerGate, and the Frankfurt School, can actually be given a fair treatment for disinterested third-parties to read and decide for themselves. This is a big victory for gamers, free speech, and anyone else who opposes fringe feminism. May today’s culture warriors continue forward emboldened by their efforts, knowing it is not in vain.
Source
I believe this is the best response to the feminists at Wikipedia getting fired. Fuck you,bitches you lose.Way to go Jimmy Wales. Jimmy,if you're reading this you know who else fucked up Wikipedia and hired the feminists thereby dragging your reputation and that of Wikipedia in the ground? Kevin Gorman that's who. You may want to fire his ass too.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Monday, January 19, 2015
All men are rapists
One Day, All Men Will Be Considered RapistsJANUARY 13, 2015, 5:06 PM 41
One of the things defenders of feminism continue to vehemently deny is that it contains elements of outright man hatred. “It’s just about equality”, they’ll say. Even if there are reams upon reams of evidence of feminist theoreticians from the 1970s until today attacking heterosexual men as such, that’s not representative of what most who identify as feminists, most of whom “only want equality”, believe.
To which I will reply: nice try. One need only look at how public and policy discussions of inter-gender violence don’t even bother to ask about women’s violence towards men. A good example of this is domestic violence, which has been shown time and again in non-feminist surveys and studies to come from both directions, but in public campaigns, it is always only the men who abuse. Another example of this bias is rape.
Rape is a horrific and execrable crime. To the extent that it is possible within the confines of the law and due process, rapists can and should be punished to the maximum. But moral panic about rape, fueled by claims of “rape culture” and anti-male stereotypes has turned the campaign against criminals into one which paints as many men as possible – most of them innocent – as criminals.
The worst example of this thus far is the often touted statistic of “1 in 5″ women are raped on college campuses, with the implicit hint that as many as 1 in 5 men are rapists. This is a statement based on single and highly problematic study, which greatly expanded the definition of sexual assault beyond even what the respondents considered to be such. It has been debunked and picked apart time and again; more responsible and thorough studies by the American Department of Justice put the number far lower. Yet the meme of “1 in 5″ lives on.
Now that number threatens to become worse. A recent study even more distorted than the first is now being reported, with the blazing headlines on feminist sites that fully 1 in 3 (!) men would rape a women if they faced no consequences for doing so. Critics can and will point to the small sample size, the even more distorted method of questioning and the fact that asked about a theoretical and impossible consequence-free world – most men and women would admit to wanting to commit all manner of crimes and horrific acts.
But to the feminist activists, all means are legitimate in the fight against patriarchy, rape culture and heterosexuality. All that matters to them is that 1 in 5 will soon become 1 in 3. Pretty soon, it will be 1 in 2. You know what comes next.
This is not a debate about gender roles. It is not about economics or the esoterica of hateful radicals in an ivory tower. This is a war, an ideological campaign to smear all men as moral monsters. It is not a war against “patriarchy” or some imagined evil rich guy. This is a war on men as such – of all races and social classes. It is a war against your brothers, sons, fathers, friends and relatives. And right now, the bad guys and girls are winning.
Silent disapproval of this campaign is nowhere near enough. Anyone who truly cares about men, anyone who means what they say when they claim they are for all genders, must openly, vocally and repeatedly fight back and help turn the tide before it’s too late.
As for those of you who truly believe that all men are guilty as charged when accused of rape regardless of evidence or circumstances and that they are all truly monsters – may I suggest you practice wearing white sheets, because there is no moral difference between your attitude and that of racists who used to hang innocent Black men from trees on false rape charges. You are a bigot. Kindly own it.
The time for action is now. I know where I stand. The question is: do you?
Source
That last sentence was something I would have wrote and he's right. What you go to do about it? I'll fight on my feet before I'll live on my knees. That's what I'm going to do about it.
One of the things defenders of feminism continue to vehemently deny is that it contains elements of outright man hatred. “It’s just about equality”, they’ll say. Even if there are reams upon reams of evidence of feminist theoreticians from the 1970s until today attacking heterosexual men as such, that’s not representative of what most who identify as feminists, most of whom “only want equality”, believe.
To which I will reply: nice try. One need only look at how public and policy discussions of inter-gender violence don’t even bother to ask about women’s violence towards men. A good example of this is domestic violence, which has been shown time and again in non-feminist surveys and studies to come from both directions, but in public campaigns, it is always only the men who abuse. Another example of this bias is rape.
Rape is a horrific and execrable crime. To the extent that it is possible within the confines of the law and due process, rapists can and should be punished to the maximum. But moral panic about rape, fueled by claims of “rape culture” and anti-male stereotypes has turned the campaign against criminals into one which paints as many men as possible – most of them innocent – as criminals.
The worst example of this thus far is the often touted statistic of “1 in 5″ women are raped on college campuses, with the implicit hint that as many as 1 in 5 men are rapists. This is a statement based on single and highly problematic study, which greatly expanded the definition of sexual assault beyond even what the respondents considered to be such. It has been debunked and picked apart time and again; more responsible and thorough studies by the American Department of Justice put the number far lower. Yet the meme of “1 in 5″ lives on.
Now that number threatens to become worse. A recent study even more distorted than the first is now being reported, with the blazing headlines on feminist sites that fully 1 in 3 (!) men would rape a women if they faced no consequences for doing so. Critics can and will point to the small sample size, the even more distorted method of questioning and the fact that asked about a theoretical and impossible consequence-free world – most men and women would admit to wanting to commit all manner of crimes and horrific acts.
But to the feminist activists, all means are legitimate in the fight against patriarchy, rape culture and heterosexuality. All that matters to them is that 1 in 5 will soon become 1 in 3. Pretty soon, it will be 1 in 2. You know what comes next.
This is not a debate about gender roles. It is not about economics or the esoterica of hateful radicals in an ivory tower. This is a war, an ideological campaign to smear all men as moral monsters. It is not a war against “patriarchy” or some imagined evil rich guy. This is a war on men as such – of all races and social classes. It is a war against your brothers, sons, fathers, friends and relatives. And right now, the bad guys and girls are winning.
Silent disapproval of this campaign is nowhere near enough. Anyone who truly cares about men, anyone who means what they say when they claim they are for all genders, must openly, vocally and repeatedly fight back and help turn the tide before it’s too late.
As for those of you who truly believe that all men are guilty as charged when accused of rape regardless of evidence or circumstances and that they are all truly monsters – may I suggest you practice wearing white sheets, because there is no moral difference between your attitude and that of racists who used to hang innocent Black men from trees on false rape charges. You are a bigot. Kindly own it.
The time for action is now. I know where I stand. The question is: do you?
Source
That last sentence was something I would have wrote and he's right. What you go to do about it? I'll fight on my feet before I'll live on my knees. That's what I'm going to do about it.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Alan Dershowitz files lawsuit against his accuser and her lawyers
‘Jane Doe’ Lawyers Sue Dershowitz for Defamation
By JACOB GERSHMAN
Alan Dershowitz has vowed to slap a defamation suit on the two lawyers who claimed in a court document that Florida financier Jeffrey Epstein arranged sexual liaisons for him with an underage prostitute.
Those lawyers have beaten him to the punch.
Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards, who represent a woman claiming she had “sexual relations” with Mr. Dershowitz at Mr. Epstein’s direction, have filed a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Dershowitz in Florida circuit court, according to Mr. Cassell.
States the lawsuit:
Immediately following the filing of what the Defendant, DERSHOWITZ, knew to be an entirely proper and well-founded pleading, DERSHOWITZ initiated a massive public media assault on the reputation and character of BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL accusing them of intentionally lying in their filing, of having leveled knowingly false accusations against the Defendant, DERSHOWITZ, without ever conducting any investigation of the credibility of the accusations, and of having acted unethically to the extent that their willful misconduct warranted and required disbarment
It cites an interview that Mr. Dershowitz gave to CNN International in which he called Messrs. Cassell and Edwards “sleazy, unprofessional, unethical lawyers” who should have known that their client is “lying through her teeth.”
Told of the lawsuit on Tuesday, Mr. Dershowitz told Law Blog that he was “thrilled” by the development, “This gives me a chance to litigate the case. I can expose their corruption,” he said. “I can show how fraudulent the allegations are. This makes my day.”
Mr. Dershowitz said the lawsuit will allow his lawyers — among other things — to depose Messrs. Cassell and Edwards and their client, a woman identified in court papers as Jane Doe #3.
Mr. Cassell had no comment concerning Mr. Dershowitz’s latest remarks.
Mr. Dershowitz has sought to shoot down claims that surfaced last week in a court filing by plaintiffs as part of a lawsuit against the federal government over a 2007 non-prosecution deal it struck with Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein is a former client and friend of Mr. Dershowitz’s who pleaded guilty in 2008 to a state charge of soliciting underage prostitutes.
Mr. Epstein avoided federal prosecution as part of a deal with U.S. prosecutors that Mr. Dershowitz helped negotiate. That agreement is the subject of a lawsuit against the U.S. government brought by alleged sexual-abuse victims, who seek to invalidate what they claim was a secret sweetheart deal, a charge the government denies.
Jane Doe #3, a woman seeking to join the lawsuit, says Mr. Epstein ordered her to have “sexual relations” with Mr. Dershowitz on the businessman’s private plane, on his private Caribbean island and also his homes in New York City and Palm Beach. The same document also links Prince Andrew, the son of Queen Elizabeth II, to the prostitution ring, eliciting a strongly worded denial by Buckingham Palace.
Mr. Dershowitz, in a sworn statement filed in federal court on Monday, labeled Jane Doe #3 a “serial liar,” while accusing her lawyers of deliberately making a “false and defamatory” charge.
Martin Weinberg, a lawyer for Mr. Epstein, who isn’t a party to the lawsuit, told Law Blog in an earlier statement that the allegations against Mr. Dershowitz “are old, and discredited, and appear designed to do nothing more than generate as much tabloid publicity as possible.”
Source
This is where the rubber meets the road. Now the showdown is about to commence.
By JACOB GERSHMAN
Alan Dershowitz has vowed to slap a defamation suit on the two lawyers who claimed in a court document that Florida financier Jeffrey Epstein arranged sexual liaisons for him with an underage prostitute.
Those lawyers have beaten him to the punch.
Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards, who represent a woman claiming she had “sexual relations” with Mr. Dershowitz at Mr. Epstein’s direction, have filed a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Dershowitz in Florida circuit court, according to Mr. Cassell.
States the lawsuit:
Immediately following the filing of what the Defendant, DERSHOWITZ, knew to be an entirely proper and well-founded pleading, DERSHOWITZ initiated a massive public media assault on the reputation and character of BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL accusing them of intentionally lying in their filing, of having leveled knowingly false accusations against the Defendant, DERSHOWITZ, without ever conducting any investigation of the credibility of the accusations, and of having acted unethically to the extent that their willful misconduct warranted and required disbarment
It cites an interview that Mr. Dershowitz gave to CNN International in which he called Messrs. Cassell and Edwards “sleazy, unprofessional, unethical lawyers” who should have known that their client is “lying through her teeth.”
Told of the lawsuit on Tuesday, Mr. Dershowitz told Law Blog that he was “thrilled” by the development, “This gives me a chance to litigate the case. I can expose their corruption,” he said. “I can show how fraudulent the allegations are. This makes my day.”
Mr. Dershowitz said the lawsuit will allow his lawyers — among other things — to depose Messrs. Cassell and Edwards and their client, a woman identified in court papers as Jane Doe #3.
Mr. Cassell had no comment concerning Mr. Dershowitz’s latest remarks.
Mr. Dershowitz has sought to shoot down claims that surfaced last week in a court filing by plaintiffs as part of a lawsuit against the federal government over a 2007 non-prosecution deal it struck with Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein is a former client and friend of Mr. Dershowitz’s who pleaded guilty in 2008 to a state charge of soliciting underage prostitutes.
Mr. Epstein avoided federal prosecution as part of a deal with U.S. prosecutors that Mr. Dershowitz helped negotiate. That agreement is the subject of a lawsuit against the U.S. government brought by alleged sexual-abuse victims, who seek to invalidate what they claim was a secret sweetheart deal, a charge the government denies.
Jane Doe #3, a woman seeking to join the lawsuit, says Mr. Epstein ordered her to have “sexual relations” with Mr. Dershowitz on the businessman’s private plane, on his private Caribbean island and also his homes in New York City and Palm Beach. The same document also links Prince Andrew, the son of Queen Elizabeth II, to the prostitution ring, eliciting a strongly worded denial by Buckingham Palace.
Mr. Dershowitz, in a sworn statement filed in federal court on Monday, labeled Jane Doe #3 a “serial liar,” while accusing her lawyers of deliberately making a “false and defamatory” charge.
Martin Weinberg, a lawyer for Mr. Epstein, who isn’t a party to the lawsuit, told Law Blog in an earlier statement that the allegations against Mr. Dershowitz “are old, and discredited, and appear designed to do nothing more than generate as much tabloid publicity as possible.”
Source
This is where the rubber meets the road. Now the showdown is about to commence.
The hypocrisy
Feminism is all about female supremacy. Fine,that has been stated all over the place. It is total vagocentric hogwash. It is total female nacrissism. Female pain is maginified while male pain is minimized. Women are the queens men are the serfs. Female hyprocrisy is out there for all to see. This is why I don't give a fuck about women. This is why I can't stand them.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
Tell Matt Groening to cancel Lena Dunham's appearence on the Simpons
Cancel Lena Dunham's appearance on "The Simpsons."
Brian McQuiston
Fayetteville, AR
Lena Dunham is a vulgar, talentless, slag and a confessed child molester who does not deserve a guest role in a venerable piece of Americana like "The Simpsons."
To sign petition
She's gone after MRA's so let's go after her. Sign the petition.
Brian McQuiston
Fayetteville, AR
Lena Dunham is a vulgar, talentless, slag and a confessed child molester who does not deserve a guest role in a venerable piece of Americana like "The Simpsons."
To sign petition
She's gone after MRA's so let's go after her. Sign the petition.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Alan Dershowitz stands up to false rape accusation
Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz fights accusations of sexual assault
BY ASHE SCHOW | JANUARY 2, 2015 | 12:29 PM
Unlike other celebrities and politicians who have allowed sexual assault accusations to ruin their careers, attorney Alan Dershowitz is fighting back early — and hard.
Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor and outspoken critic of how colleges have been handling sexual assault, was accused of having sex with an underage girl by a former witness against billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein.
Dershowitz categorically denied the allegation, calling it “totally, unequivocally and completely false.”
The woman, identified in court papers as Jane Doe #3, made the allegations last Tuesday against Dershowitz and several prominent Europeans — including Britain’s Prince Andrew.
Jane Doe #3’s complaint accuses Dershowitz and others of taking part in Epstein’s transgressions. Her lawsuit accuses federal prosecutors in Florida of violating the law by not consulting with Epstein’s victims before arranging a deal requiring the investor to be sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Jane Doe #3 mentioned several occasions in which she allegedly had sexual relations with Dershowitz. Dershowitz says he has documentation to prove he couldn’t have been in the same place as Jane Doe #3 at the times she claims, except once. And in that one instance, he was there with his family.
"I'm planning to file disbarment charges against the two lawyers who signed this petition without even checking the manifests of airplanes or travel itineraries, et cetera," Dershowitz told Politico. "I'm also challenging the young woman and the lawyers to level those charges against me outside of the courtroom, so that I can sue them for defamation. ... Finally, I’m challenging the woman to file criminal charges against me because the filing of false criminal charges is a crime."
Source
Go,Alan,go. Nail their asses to the wall. That's what I like about Dershowitz he takes no shit and he especially goes after feminazis,that is why they hate him. If feminazis hate him he is alright in my book.
BY ASHE SCHOW | JANUARY 2, 2015 | 12:29 PM
Unlike other celebrities and politicians who have allowed sexual assault accusations to ruin their careers, attorney Alan Dershowitz is fighting back early — and hard.
Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor and outspoken critic of how colleges have been handling sexual assault, was accused of having sex with an underage girl by a former witness against billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein.
Dershowitz categorically denied the allegation, calling it “totally, unequivocally and completely false.”
The woman, identified in court papers as Jane Doe #3, made the allegations last Tuesday against Dershowitz and several prominent Europeans — including Britain’s Prince Andrew.
Jane Doe #3’s complaint accuses Dershowitz and others of taking part in Epstein’s transgressions. Her lawsuit accuses federal prosecutors in Florida of violating the law by not consulting with Epstein’s victims before arranging a deal requiring the investor to be sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Jane Doe #3 mentioned several occasions in which she allegedly had sexual relations with Dershowitz. Dershowitz says he has documentation to prove he couldn’t have been in the same place as Jane Doe #3 at the times she claims, except once. And in that one instance, he was there with his family.
"I'm planning to file disbarment charges against the two lawyers who signed this petition without even checking the manifests of airplanes or travel itineraries, et cetera," Dershowitz told Politico. "I'm also challenging the young woman and the lawyers to level those charges against me outside of the courtroom, so that I can sue them for defamation. ... Finally, I’m challenging the woman to file criminal charges against me because the filing of false criminal charges is a crime."
Source
Go,Alan,go. Nail their asses to the wall. That's what I like about Dershowitz he takes no shit and he especially goes after feminazis,that is why they hate him. If feminazis hate him he is alright in my book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)