Category Archives: Slander Culture

How to Tell That Someone is a Pedophile

iris sternly regards

DISCLAIMER: This post is sarcasm.

You know all those times when someone is accused of being a pedophile, and you hear your friends say, “I knew it. I can tell the signs.”? It happens every time someone is outed as a pedophile, even though they don’t seem to say anything about it until after the facts are known.

You nod and say that you could tell the signs too, but we all know the reality of the matter, and that’s that you really didn’t see it coming. Don’t you feel left out when your friends have the ability to determine that someone is a pedophile, but you don’t?

Well, have no fear! By the time you’ve finished reading this article, you’ll have had the training you need to determine whether someone is a pedophile, well before you either see them on the news or they are accused on Facebook.

To tell whether someone is a pedophile, you have to look for certain mannerisms. To be more specific, if they do something that you find at least mildly irksome, that’s a sign that they might be a kiddie-diddler. The more irritating that you find someone’s behavior, the more likely it is that they’re a pedophile.

For example, if you find it annoying how that guy on the corner taps his feet when waiting for the light to change, that’s a sign of pedophilia. His pedophilia, of course. Or, if someone in front of you is just a little too slow or is taking too long to get out of the way, that’s a classic sign that he’s a pedo. You don’t know for sure, but play it safe and assume the worst. Or, if someone pays for a small grocery order with a check, that’s a sign he’s a pedophile, too. Keep your distance, and regard with disgust.

In fact, the longer that you pay attention to someone, the more little signs you’ll notice that he’s a pedophile, and it will continue to add up. Proven fact.¹ You might notice that there are a lot of pedophiles in public places you frequent, such as big box stores. In spite of the fact that true, clinical pedophilia is something rare, they tend to congregate everywhere you go, for some reason.

Another sign that someone is a pedophile is that they’re being too nice. How is that a sign of pedophilia? It’s a little known fact that a large percentage of child molesters are someone who the victim knows. Pedophiles are actually quite methodical; they’ll build a positive rapport in an effort to get closer to the one their sights are really set on: your child. Don’t have children yet? They’re planning ahead for the eventuality that you get one. They’re really cunning.

But, what about your children? What if the mean people go right for your kids when you’re not around, and try being nice to them? There is a time-proven method for preventing child abuse, and that’s to teach your children about “stranger danger”. How it works in principle is pretty simple: just teach your children that people they don’t know are molestation waiting to happen, and your children will be much better prepared to take care of the rest. Your children may have their ability to form interpersonal relationships stunted for the rest of their lives, but that’s a small price to pay to avoid having their faces show up on milk cartons.

While we’re talking about your children, we know it’s hard to avoid taking them into public. To avoid having a pedo snatch them away, teach your kids to scream “RAPE” at the top of their lungs in the event that someone gets too close.

The exact odds of a child abduction may be significantly lower than them being struck by lightning, but you’re still not willing to take that chance, are you? Besides, people get struck by lightning with frequency compared to winning the lottery. You buy tickets, don’t you? Play it smart.

Another sign to watch for is whether someone seems to be particularly jittery about being accused of being a pedophile. It’s true that accusations of pedophilia are going around like crazy, and are increasing all the time. But no one would actually be afraid of being called a pedophile unless they have actual reason to be concerned, right? And who would be more concerned about being outed than an actual pedophile! Am I right?

So, how can you use this to determine whether someone is a pedophile? Easy, just bring up pedophiles and how much you hate them, every opportunity you get. Say how much pedophiles make you angry, and what you’d do if you met one. If there were any pedophiles in earshot, they’d start to get at least slightly fidgety. That’s a giveaway! If anyone so much as breaks a sweat, they’re busted.

The last method for finding pedophiles is by far the most effective. Just go around and accuse people of being pedophiles. It can be for any reason or no reason at all. If it turns out that they’re not pedophiles, don’t worry, they’ll be screened by the criminal justice system. In the meantime, there will be plenty of media attention surrounding that person’s alleged pedophilia, so people will keep their distance from them and employers will avoid hiring them, which will makes things much harder for that pedophile in the event that they actually are one. And if they’re not, the press will just go back over their archived news articles and search engines will edit their automated indexes, and things will be all better again. That’s how it works, right?

And if it turns out that that person actually is a pedophile, you’ll have been the person to have nailed them. Sweet victory! Just be aware that you might have to take a few shots with different people until one of them rings true.

So, there you go! Because you stumbled on the right article while using the internet, you’re now armed with knowledge, and ready to spot those pedo-meanies with your EAGLE EYES! Child molesters won’t be able to resist your ability to see the green-colored glow that they emanate.²

I’m glad I was able to help. I aim to please.

Works cited:

  1. I’m not sure. Some guy on YouTube probably did the legwork or something. Look it up.
  2. Do NSA-type folk actually have the ability to see green glows around pedophiles? I don’t know. I heard it somewhere, and decided that it would sound neat for this article.

Being a Voice of Reason in the Face of Drama

A few prominent Pokemon YouTubers have been accused of preying on minors. As it often goes, it started with one person coming forward, and afterwards, more people came forward claiming to be victimized by prominent members of the Pokemon community.

It’s really nothing new that some people misuse games and social media to attempt to take advantage of other people, but it’s still disappointing when it happens.

When it comes to the nature of the crimes committed, I know that it may not be popular to speak as a voice of reason, but it’s still important, considering that society would quickly break down if accusations (true or false) were allowed to run all over the place without scrutiny.

civilization doremi.jpg“And we can’t have that.”

So, considering what’s at stake, let’s be brave enough to use our heads. There are a few important points to consider as this and any similar drama unfolds.

First, accused does not mean guilty.

I don’t mean to make excuses for these guys in the event that they actually did sexually abuse a minor. If that were the case, I say throw the book at them. I’ve known a couple people who were sexually abused as children, and that’s the kind of thing that can mess a person up for a very long time.

However, people are capable of making stuff up, children included. If it turns out that at least one of the accused is innocent, this whole matter really sucks for them. Worse yet, it can ruin opportunities down the road, as their name will continue to come up in connection to crimes that they didn’t actually commit in web searches for years to come.

When it comes down to it, it’s for a court of law to determine innocence or guilt. We the public may be presented with convincing evidence, but the evidence has a lot of potential to have been doctored or be one-sided. Therefore, let’s not be too hasty to rush to conclusions, considering that we may not have the full story.

Second, if you really were a victim of sexual abuse, you need to take this information to the proper authorities.

By “proper authorities”, I mean “the police”, since law enforcement would have a better chance of stopping the predator and bring the person to justice than your Twitter audience, no matter how big the audience may be.

I know how hard it can be to come forward, considering that sexual predators usually intimidate their victims out of doing so. Making it harder still is that people don’t want to be known as the person who was victimized. Still, it’s very possible that the predator has other victims, no matter how things may seem. Because of this, it’s important to come forward.

To law enforcement, of course. Taking it to law enforcement would allow the victim to maintain their dignity and remain anonymous while an investigation can be conducted, and in the event that guilt is determined, justice may be served. On the other hand, taking it to social media comes off as a grab for attention, and law enforcement still might not get wind of it.

I know it sounds like I’m really laboring the point here, but bringing the matter to social media isn’t as productive as it may seem. People might be outraged and bang their pots and pans together, but the end result is likely the predator remaining free and picking the next victim just shortly afterwards. It’s law enforcement that gets results. Law enforcement.

Third, a few scummy people don’t define an entire community.

While we already know this, the corporate media is very predictable, and there’s a big chance that they will use this to make the case that the Pokemon community, or even gaming communities in particular, are populated by predators. We know that this is not the case, but old media tends to sensationalize things in an effort to get their audience interested.

If they pull this, just remember that they’re old media, and they don’t matter as much as they used to.

Old media makes bank off of mischaracterization, sensationalism, and outright libel. You don’t, so you have no incentive to do the same thing. Don’t be like them.

I know that there are other points to make, but that’s satisfactory for now. I’m interested in seeing how the drama unfolds, and in the outcome in the event that these YouTubers are taken to law enforcement. Come to think of it, have any of the accusers taken the matter to law enforcement? It’s kind of important that they do.

The Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory Fizzled Out

russian-collusion-club.jpgNo silly, it’s “password“. Now try again.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, there was no collusion between the Russians and the Trump administration to win Trump the 2016 presidential race. This was the conclusion that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has arrived at after having spent two years and $30 million taxpayer dollars at the insistence of Democrats.

Wow, $30 million dollars? There have been times in the last couple years that I’ve been eating macaroni and cheese to get by, and wouldn’t have minded just a few dollars to go out and buy a hamburger. And all this money was wasted in an effort to give credence to a blasted fantasy?

Now that one conspiracy theory is debunked, a set of fresh new ones are likely to emerge, such as Mueller possibly being paid off. I doubt I was the first to call it, but by now we’re familiar with how the shills think.

We all know that the reason why the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory came to be was because it was the best that the left could come up with after the DNC’s email server was hacked, and oodles of their emails were circulated, including ones showing that they screwed over Bernie Sanders to favor Hillary Clinton, bypassing the will of voters from their own party. So they blamed the Russians, and claimed that they hacked their emails and were in league with the Trump campaign.

To say that the DNC’s emails were hacked is pretty generous. If one could have called it a hack-job, it would have been one of the simplest hack-jobs in history. All that happened was someone guessed their password. That’s it. A grade-schooler could have pulled that off.


What you just read in that blockquote was the DNC’s password for their emails. I kid you not. When I say “A grade-schooler could have pulled that off”, I wasn’t kidding. They invented the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory in an attempt to hide just how dim they are with cybersecurity.

I don’t know what the code for Hillary Clinton’s briefcase might be, but I suspect it’s 1-2-3-4-5.

So, what did we learn? For one thing, liars don’t prosper in the long run. Also, don’t set your password as “password”, especially if you’re hiding evidence of a conspiracy to subvert the will of the American electorate.

Twitter Sued for $250 Million Over Anti-Conservative Bias

twitter donkey bird.png

Twitter is being sued by Devin Nunes over the platform’s anti-conservative bias, and the platform’s failure to moderate content that impersonates his mother, and his cow.

If you were to read this story from traditional media outlets, you’d have to read between the lines of their scathing bias, which wouldn’t be much of anything new if you are among those that still pays attention to them. And, naturally, they’re focusing more on the false accounts that defame him, considering that this gives them opportunity to pass along the tweets that ridicule him, as Daily Mail is doing.

But if you’re up for some old-fashioned media not giving anyone to the right of Karl Marx a chance, check out what Mashable has to say about it. The following quotation in particular caught my eye:

“Sure, maybe his feelings are really hurt, but given the fact that Trump and others have brought up strengthening libel laws multiple times — the old “you can’t take what you dish out” syndrome — it could be setting up more nefarious actions to come.”

Yeah, “nefarious actions” like making sure that the corporate media isn’t getting away with libel, which it committed against the “MAGA kids” who were falsely branded as a hate mob.

I’ve had a number of social media accounts in the past. From what I remember, impersonating someone else and posting defamatory content was against the terms of service of most of them. I know that it’s grounds for a civil case, which leads us to the story being discussed, today.

As for whether there is an anti-conservative bias in social media and the tech industry, there’s pretty much no question that there is. Shadow-banning has been a weapon of choice to ensure that conservative voices aren’t heard. If you haven’t heard of shadow-banning, that’s when a person is allowed to post, but far fewer people see the poster’s content. It’s a way to silence someone without them knowing what’s going on. It’s one of the expressions of the left-wing establishment’s control over social media.

If you’re wondering what it’s like to be a conservative voice in social media, imagine that you’re playing a game of chess against a child. Imagine that in this game of chess, you’re not allowed to move your pieces to the other side of the board. Not only that, you’re not allowed to capture the opponent’s pieces. Worse yet, the child gets to change the rules of the game while the game is in progress. More disturbing still, the child is convinced that you’re a hateful, evil person who deserves to lose for disagreeing with them about anything.

You may have wisdom and know how the game is played, but the child owns the board and can set things up so that you don’t stand a chance.

One point of view on the matter is that Twitter is a private company, and if they wanted to, they could ban conservatives altogether. Whether that’s the case or not, I would expect an American-run company to conduct itself in a manner consistent with American values, including the principles of protecting free expression on a platform conductive to the free and open exchange of ideas.

In any case, I think the rest of us can appreciate that liberals are making this about an attempt to regulate social media, and that they were finally made to admit that regulating something would be a bad idea.

The next time you try comparing someone to Hitler…

just say no

If you’ve been compared to Adolf Hitler or called a Nazi at some point, you’re pretty far from alone. The first time I was compared to Hitler, it wasn’t while discussing politics in an online forum, it was in an IRL chat about video games.

People seem eager to compare those that they disagree with to either Hitler or the Nazi party, especially the closer they are to losing an argument. But do these people really know what Adolf Hitler or the Nazis were really about?

It seems like all that most people really know about them was that they didn’t like Jews. But that in itself doesn’t make for a political ideology or philosophy, especially considering the Jews’ relative lack of influence. That’s like someone asking you what your religion is, and you answering “I’m not Zoroastrian”. There has to be more to what you believe in than you just saying that you’re not a member of a minority group.

The general consensus is that Hitler was right-wing. Those on the right usually answer that by saying that Hitler supported gun control, which isn’t a very right-wing stance to take.

But what was Hitler and his Nazi party really about?

People talk about Nazis all the time, but the topic of the Volkish party rarely comes up, even though the ideology of the Volkish was Nazism in its embryonic form. The Volkish were a folkish movement (Volkish literally means “folkish”) characterized by a rejection of urbanization and an embrace of rural and natural living. They were heavily conservationist and rejected industrialization. They were largely naturalistic in their thinking, and some of them embraced naturism, with not a few of them being nudists. Many of them were vegetarians; Hitler’s professed vegetarianism was a consequence of him belonging to the movement, though as vegans point out, Hitler didn’t really stay true to his vegetarian diet.

So yeah, the Volkish that Hitler belonged to were largely hippies. They were the most hellish hippies in history. Their beef with the Jews largely stems from the fact that Jews embraced technology, urbanization, and were meat-eaters. It also didn’t help that many of the conspiracy theories about the Jews that persist to this day were around back then, too.

The Volkish switched gears once they seized significant political control of Germany and became rebranded as the Nazi party. At that point, they seized control of the military-industrial complex and turned Germany into a socialist state.

Don’t believe me? “Nazi” is shorthand for “National Socialist German Worker’s Party”.

Next time you try to malign someone by comparing them to a maniacal dictator, check to make sure that you yourself do not ideologically align with the very same dictator.

Covington student files defamation suit against CNN

dxuvqgzwsaet6_nThe smiling kid who may very well take down a corrupt media.

In one of the more refreshing recent news developments, one of the “MAGA kids” students is suing CNN for defamation after CNN had carelessly portrayed them as a hate mob.

As you may recall, back in January, the corporate news outlets have covered a story about a group of kids in a confrontation with a native American group, portraying them as hatefully throwing taunts at an elderly man. Since then, mainstream news outlets have backpedaled after full video of the confrontation had been posted online, which shows that the only hateful rhetoric thrown out came from “another organization”, which the corporate media seems to be too terrified to acknowledge by name.

The Black Hebrew Israelites.

As a result of CNN’s careless coverage, the Covington students that pretty much did nothing but stand there smiling have been repeatedly threatened by those naive enough to take the corporate media at face value. Therefore, the student at the center of the controversy has decided to sue CNN for $275 million for defamation.

There’s a lesson that the corporate mainstream information media needs to learn, and that’s that there are repercussions for carelessly handling information, even if you feel justified in how you’re portraying someone by reason of the narrative that you prefer to peddle. If people like the MAGA kids who have been victimized by the corporate media’s irresponsibility with their informational positions make it expensive for them to libel, that just may be what it takes for them to feel discouraged from doing so.

While we’re on the topic, there’s something that has had me concerned, and this is an opportunity to bring it up. It seems as though tech companies have an interest in making sure that the corporate media’s biggest mistakes don’t receive too much attention.

The reason why I bring this up is because I voiced my opinion on the MAGA kids incident back in January. Since posting my article, I’ve noticed a suspicious trend in the traffic to this site:

stats since 1-24.png

What’s pictured is this site’s traffic. As you could see, prior to the posting of the article, the traffic to this page was widely varied, and there have been days when the traffic was substantially higher than usual. But in the days after it was published, the traffic to this site was steady, and traffic seemed to approach a sort of “cap”.

Noticing this, I decided to perform an experiment by taking the article off this site by reverting it to draft. Afterwards, the traffic to this site returned.

stats 2.png

Something seems suspicious.

It’s not news that tech companies have long had a left-wing bias, but I suspect that search engines are now silently throttling traffic to pages that refuse to toe the line for the left wing narrative. This has apparently been going on for a long time. Back in 2017, I made an article criticizing the SJW movement for comparing itself to the Resistance from the Star Wars films.

As noted in an edit to the article itself, I performed searches for the article to try to find it on Google, but had difficulty in finding it. A Bing search showed the article as the first result of my first attempt at finding it. Today, a DuckDuckGo search similarly brought the page right up as the first result of my first attempt at finding it.

It would seem like something suspicious is going on with Google.

David statue Magnetricity Google censored

pioneer 1 magnetricity censored by google

100 francs eugene delacroix magnetricity censored by google

Today, the librarians of the digital age don’t have to go as far as to burn books, all it takes to silence someone is to omit them from search results. Now that Google has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, why trust them for informational purposes? It’s prime time to consider setting an alternative search engine as your default.

I’m interested in seeing whether mainstream news outlets change the way they handle information in the face of a public willing to fight back by making it expensive for them to commit libel. Perhaps the best way to stop the tide of defamation from news outlets is to ensure that they can’t afford it.

As for what we the public can do about tech companies that are making apparent attempts to censor us, perhaps the best thing we can do for the time being is use the services of their competitors.

TWAT News: The MAGA Kids and the Crime of Smiling

DxUVqgZWsAET6_n.jpgThe smile that drove millions of leftists insane.

There are still ongoing developments surrounding the MAGA kids incident, but the dust is beginning to settle, and what’s becoming apparent is a whopper of an indictment against corporate news outlets and leftist-controlled social media.

What it comes down to is that a group of kids showed up to a confrontation already in progress, and smiled at the ridiculousness that was taking place. Afterwards, the leftist elements of social media and the corporate mainstream information media went full-tilt to smear the children, because they hate Trump and the MAGA (Make America Great Again) hats that the children were wearing.

As the institutional leftist shills would have you believe, the kids were committing a hate crime by provoking a native American during a confrontation. If you’re interested in knowing what really happened, I did manage to find a full video of the incident. If you’re not up for watching it, that’s understandable, considering that the video is over an hour and 40 minutes long. But if you’re interested in seeing the involvement of the MAGA kids, skip to 1:12:00, as the video poster suggests.

The video starts with an argument between the Black Israelites and Native Americans concerning which of the two are the true Israelites. That last sentence is a doozy, so go ahead and read it again and allow it to sink in just what we’re dealing with.

If you’re wondering who the Black Israelites are, they’re a group of professing Jews that make a point of saying that the Israelites were actually black (while ignoring all the genetic information we have concerning who belongs to Israel and Judah). While I know that not everyone in the group is like the ones in the video, some of their most passionate members are among the most insufferable people in the religious landscape.

Somehow, I get the idea that throwing taunts at people in the street is not how you’re supposed to demonstrate that you’re a model nation. The moment that I saw that Black Israel was involved and taunting people in traditional garb, I strongly suspected that the video wasn’t going to show us the best of humanity.

But things got more interesting when a group of Catholic students happened to be nearby, and they were planning on attending an anti-abortion rally while wearing MAGA hats.

The Native Americans that were present attempted to de-escalate the situation by singing while beating on drums. That’s good on them. While this was going on, the MAGA kids (as they would come be known) just looked on and smiled, even as the Native Americans went right up to them.

And, that was it. They just smiled. Could anyone blame them? It had to have occurred to them just then the sheer ridiculousness of what was taking place. There was a group of Black Israelites proudly boasting of their professed heritage. There was also a group of singing and dancing Native Americans playing instruments. And they themselves were schoolkids in MAGA hats that just happened to be there on the way to an anti-abortion rally. Even in Washington DC, one would have a hard time finding a more ridiculous scene.

But apparently, something about school kids in MAGA hats with big, beaming smiles rubbed the leftist shills in social media the wrong way, because they went full-on cray-cray trying to smear them by (what else) accusing them of committing a hate crime.

Suddenly, the blue checkmark typicals joined forces and proceeded to dox a bunch of kids in an effort to threaten their school into expelling them and ruin their career prospects for just happening to be somewhere and not harm anyone. All because they didn’t like their hats.

Among those participating in the doxing was a former contributor to Vanity Fair, Kurt Eichenwald, who stated that the kids should be denied work “in perpetuity”, and in an effort to make it easy to identify (and harass) the kids, he shared photos of them on his Twitter account.

The thing about the leftist media is that they have something to prove. They face the ongoing threat of the internet and social media driving them into obsolescence. So, they dove right in and joined in the smear campaign.

Now, why would we expect something like investigative journalism from an outdated media outlet that mainly caters to old people and kids that don’t know any better?

Nathan Phillips was one of the Native Americans in the video shown playing the drum in one kid’s face. The corporate media made sure we knew that he was a Marine Corps veteran. According to Phillips, the kids were repeatedly chanting, “Build that wall, build that wall.”

That’s interesting, because we have video of the confrontation above, and that didn’t happen. Oops. Now, it’s coming to light that Nathan Phillips has misrepresented his military service, as reported by the Washington Post.

So, a bunch of kids in MAGA hats are being smeared and threatened and libeled all over the place, and all anyone has to go on are the claims of a proven liar?

nathan phillips marine corps vet.png

Watching old media backpeddle in real time is quite refreshing. In fact, an article on Yahoo News courtesy of The Wrap pretty much admitted that the students did nothing but stand there and offer no disrespect. The Native Americans didn’t do any harm, either. If anything, they were attempting to defuse a situation. It’s evident that the real bad guys were the Black Israelites, who themselves were the ones throwing out the racist rhetoric.

In fact, if you want to see who the real violent and hateful people in the confrontation were, go to 11:55 in the video (link goes right there). That’s a sampling of their threats and verbal abuse. What kind of religious language is that?

I don’t own a MAGA hat. But you know something? I’m actually considering getting one.


It’s become an expression of solidarity with those who have been slandered on social media and libeled by the press. Institutional leftism has gone full-on to try to shame a bunch of kids just for wearing these hats, and the outcome is that the hats themselves look far more attractive.

Apparently, smiling while wearing one of these hats is what it takes to get a Disney producer to threaten you with a wood chipper. A Disney producer. Complete with an image of someone being stuffed into a wood chipper. Congrats to these kids for being able to draw that out of a producer who works for a company that makes family entertainment.

I really don’t know how to follow that up. Seems like an interesting place to end the article. I know that 2019 is just getting started, but leftism is going to have to work pretty hard to outdo themselves.

Cool your jets, James Gunn probably isn’t a pedophile.

I’m going to go ahead and be a voice of reason when it comes to the whole James Gunn debacle so far (as things are still developing, more facts can come to light, and my position can change). As you might have heard, James made some tweets a few years back wherein he made some jokes about pedophilia. These tweets somehow didn’t surface until it became clear that he wouldn’t toe the line for the social justice narrative.

Disney has subsequently fired James, which ended his role as director of the Guardians of the Galaxy series, considering that the nature of the jokes didn’t fall in line with Disney’s family-friendly image. This would be the same Disney that recently picked up a sci-fi series depicting dismemberment and decapitation with laser swords and mysteriously strangling people from across the room, but I digress.

Fans then started pressuring Disney to bring James Gunn back, saying that while his jokes were crass, he was exercising his constitutionally-protected freedom of expression. Whether a company fires someone for their conduct outside of work doesn’t have much to do with freedom of expression, but I suspect that the fans are motivated by the possibility that without Gunn, the Guardians movies are finished.

Shortly afterwards, some images surfaced of Gunn having posed in a photo-op during a “pedophilia-themed” party. As you could imagine, the reactionaries went ballistic. By now, they’ll have already given themselves strokes from how violently they spazzed out, making sure that we know how much they hate pedophiles, saying things like:

“Pedophiles are totally awful! I’m glad I’m not a pedophile! Did I mention that I’m not a pedophile, today?!”

What reasonable people want to know is, how is it that the idea for a pedophile-themed party was pitched, a bunch of people agreed to it, and it somehow came and went without causing an uproar?

The answer is, it didn’t. It wasn’t a pedophile party. It was an anti-pedophile party.

The party in question was themed after the hit TV show, To Catch a Predator, which featured Chris Hansen. On the program, Hansen and members of law enforcement used chat rooms to arrange meetings with pedophiles who were led to believe that they were meeting up with children. It was redneck entertainment in the same sense as Cops and America’s Most Wanted, except easier to admit to watching. And it’s fun to watch again and again, even if the premise doesn’t change much from entrapping creepy, debased men who thought that they were getting this:


But instead got this:

chris hansen.jpg

A party based on that? Still sounds like a count-me-out kinda dealie, but I can see how someone might find that amusing. And it’s certainly far less outrageous than what people have been imagining against James Gunn since those party pictures came out. And it so happens that their imaginations hard-railed to the most negative possible implications that there could have been, like an op amp with a vicious slew rate.

In today’s connected world, a lie can travel around the world many times in the time it takes for the truth to get its shoes on. That being the case, let’s be at least a little careful with the facts. If you react without considering the information available, you’ll likely end up being a part of the problem.

While we’re at it, can we all just stop randomly accusing people of being the worst thing we can possibly imagine? A person isn’t a horrible criminal just because you think they’re kind of weird. The real problem is that you’re a peevish misanthrope.

It’s pedophiles today, but back in the nineties, if someone wanted to make someone else seem like a horrible criminal, they’d call them a psychopathic mass-murderer. We all know how reasonable it is to expect to find a serial killer walking down the street, instead of in a jail cell, right? And in the eighties, it was satanists. Yes, satanists.

It’s amazing how many people there are that know how to read, write, speak, and listen, but they find it hard to think.

If you can’t identify the real problem, don’t expect a real solution.

love complex

I’ve decided to provide a critical analysis of an article titled “Conservatives will not stop pushing the ‘Pence rule’ as a solution to sexual harassment”. If you want to, you can read the article for yourself. This article mainly picks at the parts that I most feel like arguing against. The article may be a few months old, but that doesn’t mean I can’t still critique it.

For one thing, the title of the article is missing the last word, which, if inserted, would make it closer to correct. If the word “claims” were added to the end, it would come far closer to the heart of the matter.

The author Casey Quinlan opens her article with the following frilly statement:

As stories of powerful men masturbating in front of women, forcibly kissing and groping women, and forcing teenage girls’ heads into their crotch have gained national attention, it’s sparked widespread conversation about how to prevent sexual harassment and assault.

This opening paragraph is almost graphic enough to be a porno. It’s obvious that she’s trying to invoke some pretty strong feelings here. And what better way to spark productive conversation than to drive your audience into an emotional frenzy?

The solution seems obvious: The best way to prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault of women and girls is for men not to sexually harass and assault women and girls.

Because we’re not naive, we all know that telling someone not to do something is no guarantee that they won’t do it. After all, telling someone not to murder isn’t stopping murders from occurring. Therefore, the best we can do is criminalize the undesirable behavior and enforce the law when someone steps out of line.

And I do have some good news for you from the current year! Sexual harassment is already illegal! That means that all we need to do is enforce the law when we determine it may have been broken, and mete out punishments when (and only when) a court of law has determined guilt. Yay, progress!

But wait, there’s more. I’m going to let you in on a little secret: Laws against sexual harassment were written, passed, and enforced primarily by men. If there really were some patriarchy that was out to get women (as many feminists claim), this would not have occurred. Looks like men aren’t your enemies, after all.

But conservatives appear to be less interested in finding ways to teach men how to co-exist with women, who comprise 47 percent of the U.S. labor force, than discussing how best to avoid women altogether.

In particular, conservative writers are increasingly focused on the “Mike Pence rule,” pointing out that Vice President Mike Pence does not eat dinner alone with women who are not his wife and does not go to events where alcohol is being served when his wife is not present. Pence first revealed this detail in a Washington Post article published in March.

Now, this is the heart of the matter right here: That men are starting to avoid women like Casey Quinlan, and they feel as though they are being punished. Not only that, more men are adopting the Mike Pence rule, which was obviously designed so that there’d be a witness in the event that yet another obvious false accusation arises, the likes of which we’ve been seeing on the news on a near-daily basis.

In a sense, the Mike Pence rule is a lot like the “stranger danger” that many of us were taught about as children. It’s a terrible thing to teach a child in any case, as it conditions children to distrust people they don’t know, they’ll lose the desire to meet new people, and their interpersonal skills suffer in the long run. And the type of people it was intended to protect them from are actually very rare. Yet, like “stranger danger”, the Mike Pence rule came to be because there are some messed up people out there.

A slander culture has developed that was intended to snipe the careers of men who were successful, so it stands to reason that men, particularly the more successful ones, take measures for their own protection. It’s an unfortunate side effect of the Pence rule that women sometimes feel that they’re being regarded with suspicion, but it’s amusing to see a left-wing writer complain that this is the case, considering that she’s done her fair share to manufacture the conditions of her own plight.

Casey, on the topic of a piece by writer David French, writes:

French argues that people are sometimes attracted to each other in professional settings, regardless of their marital status. He doesn’t explain why those people, regardless of their gender or marital status, can’t be expected to exercise judgement.

It’s not really surprising that Casey would (mis)use David’s article to prop up the idea that men can’t be bothered to exercise self control, but she brings up the main point in the next paragraph, even if with only a dismissive attitude. It’s as though she doesn’t want to admit what the problem really is.

French goes on to write that abiding by such a rule “protects both sides from” reputational harm, suggesting that high-profile men must always worry about women lying about them.

Do you suppose that perhaps these men’s concerns may be justified? After all, there have been copious allegations of sexual harassment against high-profile men in the last year. Just within the last month, Stormy Daniels and Michael Wolff were both found to have lied about claims of infidelity against president Donald Trump.

It’s as though we were in the middle of a false accusation epidemic.

Of course, it also doesn’t help to train people to be oversensitive to dating requests or mere pick-up lines. I suspect that Casey Quinlan would think it sexual harassment to be called “gorgeous”, though she doesn’t have to worry about very many men directing that at her.


As part of a 2016 survey, women told Harvard Business Review they were worried about retaliation from their harasser or the organization they work for if they reported. Women have a lot of reasons to ignore or downplay harassment, whether it happens to them or someone else because it seen as the price women have to pay for excelling in a male-dominated workplace, according to HBR.

I’m including this in my criticism because this is the worst citation I’ve seen in my life. The page she links to isn’t a study, it’s an article from Harvard Business Review, and it will be one of three article views you’re permitted on that site before having to sign up to read more. The article she referenced didn’t call harassment “the price women have to pay for excelling in a male-dominated workplace”, they called it “a cost to being attractive”. Apparently, Casey Quinlan doesn’t respect her own sources enough to avoid distorting what they’re saying.

The paragraph she referenced contained two links. One of which lead to a Huffington Post article. Did Huffington Post perform the study? No, they were merely discussing a study performed by Cosmopolitan. Yes, the same Cosmopolitan that sometimes takes a break from talking about sex to discuss celebrity gossip. So I followed the link that Huffington Post provided, and finally found the “study”. Except it wasn’t a study, it was an infographic. No information about methodology such as sample selection, variable consideration, or error control. Just a bunch of numbers on a chart which, for all we know, someone could have just made up.

The second link led to a study (yes, an actual study), but to view the study, you have to make an account or at least purchase short-term access. How unreasonable is it to assume that a college student has tons of money to throw around for citations for their research papers? If they’d have the $25 just to view this study, they’d probably put that money towards a month’s supply of ramen.

How is it that Casey Quinlan became a professional writer? When I did research papers in college, if I didn’t properly cite my sources, the professors would have given me a failing grade. They certainly wouldn’t have accepted me making them follow a maze that would maybe lead them to something of value.

If you’re going to cite a study, LINK TO THE STUDY ITSELF.

In any case, if a victim were concerned with the consequences of coming forward with a sexual harassment complaint, why does it seem easier for them to come to the spotlight of information media, rather than the anonymity of law enforcement? It’s law enforcement that would launch an investigation to determine guilt for the crime that had allegedly taken place. What would be the problem with that?

But French is not alone in his focus on the “Pence rule” in the midst of sexual harassment allegations. In October, former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump, Sebastian Gorka, tweeted the alleged instances of sexual assault and harassment that dozens of women say Harvey Weinstein committed could have been avoided if Weinstein simply didn’t meet with women one-on-one at all — referring to Pence’s rule.

From this point, Casey provides several examples of the Pence rule being taken too far. As she was cherry-picking, her ability to detect sarcasm was turned off.


The subtle suggestion that Sebastian made was that those women were making things up, and if there were witnesses, they’d have had a much harder time getting away with it.


Stating the obvious in an ironic fashion. Of course, you’d have to tell an SJW that John was using his sense of humor. After all, SJWs selectively take things at face value.


It’s over-the-top and obvious why it’s not a practical solution. That’s an ample hint that Timothy was being sarcastic. Most of you could see that. Casey Quinlan did not.

Not only is it absurd, but it is also deeply harmful to the careers of women in the workplace. When men avoid women for fear of looking “improper” or for fear that they can’t control themselves, they deprive women of opportunities to gain sponsors in their careers and to build better working relationships with colleagues and supervisors.

Casey made it to the end of her article and still didn’t figure out that the Pence rule was crafted in response to something. Until she figures out what, she’s not likely to understand that the whole slander culture that she’s working so hard to enable is backfiring in a big way.

When you start making things up about people, don’t be surprised when they act in their own defense. Also, consider the possibility that things might end up with you not getting what you want. In any game of strategy, your opponent gets to make moves, too.

Anyhow, let’s not be too hard on writer Casey Quinlan. After all, if you offer most writers enough money, they’ll write just about anything.

Michael Wolff is a liar and a coward.

rubber chicken

Michael Wolff, the author of Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House was a guest on the Australian morning program The Today Show. However, he walked off the set during a live interview after he was asked a question about Donald Trump.

The question concerned whether Wolff was sure that Trump was having an affair behind the back of his wife while Trump is president of the United States. Here is the question, as asked by interviewer Ben Fordham:

“You said during a TV interview just last month that you are ‘absolutely sure’ that Donald Trump is currently having an affair while president behind the back of the first lady, and I repeat you said you were ‘absolutely sure.’

“Just last week however you backflipped and said I quote ‘I do not know if the president is having an affair.’ Do you owe the president and the first lady an apology, Mr. Wolff?”

It was a valid question. After all, being “absolutely sure” of something and to “not know” about it are two very different things. An irreconcilable contradiction is a sign that something is wrong.

Michael Wolff was put in a very tight spot, with the only means to save face being to find a way out. He hatched a plan: he pretended that the audio equipment was not working. Maybe if he did that, the interviewer would become discouraged, and move on to a question that Wolff was more comfortable with answering.

Too bad his plan didn’t work, as Ben just repeated the question. Running out of options to evade it, Wolff insisted that he still didn’t hear the question, then walked off the set. Afterwards, The Today Show confirmed that the audio equipment was indeed working. When asked to explain his own words, Wolff turned chicken and backed down.

The hard part about lying is remembering what you said.

So, why did Michael Wolff turn from his claim that he was “absolutely sure” that Trump was having an affair? He specified the other party as being Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations. However, Haley evidently didn’t like Wolff making up things about her behind her back, and she sharply denied Wolff’s statement.

When you go around making up lies about people, you end up making enemies. Who’d have thunk it?

Slander culture has been dealt another vicious blow, and they set themselves up for it. Perhaps soon, they’ll figure out that their approach doesn’t result in substantial gains in the long run. But I suspect that they’ll have to be shown quite a few more examples of their approach backfiring before they finally get it.

Business Insider
The Washington “Democracy Dies in Darkness” Post