Attention Male Pigs: Just Rape Someone So We Can Crucify You Already

null

In a world where sexual assault is such a hot commodity, and victimhood a badge of pride to be respected, it is no surprise that women with long-harbored rage would be blowing their Mt. Vesuvius tops to cover the rest of us in ash.

This is now a culture where facts are decided ahead of time, and evidence cherry-picked on the fly. There is a tornado of harassment with allegations circulating the internet from everyone to Hollywood elites, to politicians, to local business owners.  Accusations are indictments, and in this wave, the acts of Weinstein are now equal to Franken.  100+ victims are now comparable to a dumb and shameful photo on a USO tour. 

Can we take a breath, or find the nearest potted plant.

Of course, it would be horrible to imply that consent is something to play fast and loose with. Unwanted sexual advancement placed upon another person is despicable. Status and power carry…..something…

While consent should never be taken for granted in the bedroom, there seems to be a double standard when it comes to recollection outside of the sheets. In one of the more high profile cases, a Louis CK accuser has revoked consent years after the fact. When recalling an incident where CK asked to masturbate in front of her, the anonymous woman has said on record that she “went along with his request, but later questioned his behavior.”

null

Another case of regret being apparently equivalent to rape is the infamous case of the Mattress Girl, the Columbia University student who accused a male peer of anally raping her. She was then found to have exchanged texts with him prior to the incident begging him for anal sex. In addition, there have even been widespread reports of her texting him flirtatiously even after the fact. Her case has been proven false, and the man cleared of all wrongdoing with the university settling out of court with his family. The social stigma, of course, will probably follow him for the rest of his life. She, however, is often still celebrated as a hero to this day because of her “artistic” interpretation of self-proclaimed victimhood.

“In a matter of hours I was tried, convicted and sentenced for something I did not do.” – Zach Ward (via News & Observer)

But here is the problem with online accusations: they stick. They always stick. Even without any form of real evidence or due process. In my home town, a man named Zach Ward who owned a comedy club woke up one day to an old fling from years prior accusing him in graphic detail of sexual assault. There were no witnesses, no proof, nothing damning other than her word against his. There was no approach to the police at the time of the incident nor at any point afterward. The result though was him being forced to step down from his business that he built from nothing, and to sell the property in haste at an enormous loss in value. No one in the community for one second thought to give him a fair shake. He maintained his innocence and provided a counter story – was labelled a pig for denying her statement. The accuser has seen an incredible resurgence in her prominence within the community, and the man who led the charge to believe her without any semblance of a question has seen himself become a hero of the people. Well, to everyone but Zach Ward.

null

Journalist Emily Lindin came under fire for posting a decidedly brash statement on Twitter

So where do we go from here? It appears that we are actively trying to erase all of the social progression achieved from the “sexual revolution” started in the 60s, which seemed to have snowballed into something that approached sexual equality until just recently. Women were free to enjoy some level of promiscuity without the judgment of yesteryear. It’s hard to imagine many men having a problem with this development either. But it seems that society has screeched to a halt at a glaring red light – and the crossroads we face is, as Douglas Murray so eloquently puts it, a very complicated one. Men are afraid of vengeful women; women are afraid of vicious men. Moreover, everyone seems to be afraid to speak their minds, because those who do get tackled in some way. In particular, anyone with conservative thoughts.

One thing that has become more obvious over time is that people on the far left, intersectional, trigger-happy political spectrum continuously speak out of both sides of their mouths. They have pushed a narrative of “hate speech” not being free speech, although the definition of hate speech seems to constantly change. However, when this idea is turned onto them, as it was when Facebook started banning comments from women advocating violence against men, it is met with outrage, condemnation, and accusations of sexism against the social media behemoth. “It’s just a joke to say ‘Kill all men,’” they said! Meanwhile, right-wingers have been banned from Twitter and the like for making far less offensive jokes than that.

Although free speech is a fundamental constitutional right, Facebook is indeed a private company, and is completely within their rights to remove anything they feel is not in line with their terms and conditions. There is also an argument for the advocacy of violence not falling under free speech due to Supreme Court precedents. For some reason this leaves me with the impression that the new, regressive version of the left tends to meet most things with negativity.

And with that in mind, is it any wonder that they are closing both their minds and their legs?

Your Friend,

Owen

 

Keith Ellison, Because Identity Politics Bro

kii

(Ellison finding wisdom from the plagiarized teachings of an illiterate 7th century desert dweller that took sexual concubines and married a 6-year-old.)

It is beyond stupid to elevate Keith Ellison to the position of DNC Chairman. Ellison has had a long relationship with anti-Semitic organizations such as the Nation of Islam and CAIR, and he is himself a Muslim convert. As an Atheist, or otherwise, person living in the 21st century, I  have no respect for a persons religious proclivities, but I can at least understand them when a particular person is born into a particular faith.

With that, I think it is necessary to ask religious people, particularly converts, what convinced them. Nonbelievers seem to be fine about criticizing Christians with regard to their faith, but at the same time have no curiosity concerning Islam, or moreover, Islamic converts whose faith is entirely antithetical to their principals (#ISLAMOPHOBIA). This is particularly troubling in that nonbelievers specifically should be the most curious.

I think that the DNC should look to the UK, and what has happened to the Labour Party in order to avoid similar mistakes

Placing a religious loon like Ellison at the head of the DNC is not just an affront to common sense, its kerosene for the flames of the identity driven narrative the progressive movement seems ready to bask.

And for you leftist here is Alan Dershowitz explaining why Ellison is such a dangerous choice.

Below is expert Bill Warner, who has concluded that 51% of Islamic Doctrine concerns non believers, or the Kafir.