Sunday, December 13, 2015

Australia: Some typical feminist lack of perspective below

The woman below -- "Em" Rusciano -- is crying into her beer because she and other feminists cop online abuse.  So what else is new?  She should try being a conservative blogger and see what abuse she gets from her friends on the Left.  It's a two-way street Madame.

There she is!  Complete with feminist haircut.  I wonder why she is "Em"?  Short for "Emilia"?

Abuse is so common on the net that the writer below clearly has a glass jaw.  She just can't take the heat.  She is a fragile little female petal.  Is she missing the courteous way men used to treat women?  Seems like it. Does she want men not to swear in front of women the way they once did?  She needs to look in the mirror if she wants to see who has destroyed that old-fashioned courtesy.  Everybody wants to have their cake and eat it but even feminists are not going to achieve that.  They asked for equality but the writer below is testimony that they can't handle it.

But she is typical of feminists in her total lack of perspective. Feminists see only the difficulties that life throws at women.  They seem completely oblivious of the fact that men have burdens too.  Men are just braver at coping with their burdens so you rarely get any sexist whining from them. You want to know who has the bigger stresses?  Look at life expectancy.  Men die about 5 years sooner than women.

So my advice to the lady is old-fashioned to the point of cliche: "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen"

THE INTERNET is an amazing invention that has united humanity, but it has also taken humanity and given us the worst version of ourselves.

This week writer Clementine Ford reported a man to his employer for an abusive comment he wrote on her public Facebook page. After investigating the matter his employer chose to dismiss him, and at first she received overwhelming support from members of the public. Sadly, it wasn’t too long until the ever reliable troll train arrived and she was fielding death and rape threats at a frightening rate.

Hundreds of irate men smashed out angry comments, (engage sarcasm font) incensed that she’d taken away another man’s livelihood. And right before Christmas!

Stop being so sensitive sweetheart!

Grow a pair!

You can’t even get a man!


(You guys pick a metaphor would you, she can’t be both unlovable and a tart OK?)

Cyberspace has truly become the final frontier for hardcore misogyny hasn’t it?

The men who are truly opposed to feminism have been smoked out and driven to the dark corners of the universe, to be united transformers-style when a female dare stick her head up and say: “No, I’m not going to endure your bulls*** behaviour. I’m going to hold you accountable for it”.

It’s also clear to me that this is a very small minority of men, I’d go so far as to say only a few lousy per cent. None of the awesome males in my life would partake in this kind of behaviour.

When you think about it this small group of infuriated dudes have nowhere left to turn, I mean imagine if Mark shouted the thing he wrote on Clem’s Facebook page on a street corner.
Hahahahahahahaha? WHAT THE HELL MARK?

Hahahahahahahaha? WHAT THE HELL MARK?Source:Facebook
Dear Cody, I’m confused, what version of World War II were you told and my follow up question is: are you calling Hitler a sl**?

Dear Cody, I’m confused, what version of World War II were you told and my follow up question is: are you calling Hitler a sl**?Source:Facebook

Aaaaaaaaaaand that’s enough of that.

After I had finished forensically examining these men’s Facebook pages trying to gather some clue as to why they were so full of hate and rage, I released that there was a common theme among all of the comments.

I noticed their resistance to change, their worry that somehow women will rise up against them and smear the streets with our menstrual blood.

That we’re starting a secret cult that wishes to castrate them and take away their jobs, rights and lives.

We’re totally not! I just want my daughters to be paid the same as men, to not receive death and rape threats for having strong opinions and to be free from the constraints of archaic gender stereotypes.

That’s reasonable, right?

I could sit here and say that when I am attacked viciously by these people online I don’t care, that it doesn’t effect me, but that would be completely untrue.

It stings. I feel raw, vulnerable and exposed. It makes me not want to put myself out there, it makes me want to hide and protect myself and my family.

It still manages to take my breath away, the ferocity at which these men come at me, the fact that they can’t just disagree with me in a civilised manner. Is this how they handle differing opinions in their own lives? Shouting obscenities at anyone who irks them?

I’m all for robust discussions and differing opinions but having: “Die you short haired feminist c***” written under an article or column I’ve written doesn’t encourage debate, it just makes me feel sick. Let’s be honest, I’m a comedian so I’m not exactly hitting the hard issues on the regular, but I still manage to rile them by having a strong opinion on anything at all.

I don’t need to get a thicker skin or toughen up, they need to stop being aggressive a***holes.

We’re not opposed to being opposed, we just want the death and rape threats to stop.

That seems reasonable, right?

I’m here today to inform you that thousands of women are copping this kind of ferocious vitriol online from men on a daily basis.

When I sat down to write this column I was worried about putting myself in the firing line, then I realised that’s what they want and what good am I to any of you or my girls if I let that fear censor me?

I’m done with pretending this doesn’t happen.

I’m adding my voice to the growing roar of females who voice their opinions online that this behaviour is not OK.

That if you write something offensive, malicious or abusive you will be called out. That if you’re stupid enough to put your name, photo and employment details anywhere near it to expect consequences.

What I want to say to these men is that I see your aggression and I now see past it, to your fear.

You have been reduced to scared, marginalised, children having a cyber tantrum and we’re not going to put up with your s*** anymore.


Poll the BBC told you about... and the one they didn't

Petition calling on immigration to the UK to be stopped until ISIS is defeated has almost as many signatures as one calling for Trump to be barred

A petition to ban Donald Trump from entering the UK last night became the most popular ever on Parliament’s website.

As of last night, more than 450,000 people had signed up to the call to ban the US presidential hopeful for hate speech in the wake of calls to ban Muslims from the US.

Started two weeks ago, before Trump’s comments that the US should bar all Muslims and that parts of the UK were no-go zones for police, it has comfortably passed the 100,000 threshold required to force the Commons to consider debating the issue.

However, until yesterday another petition demanding the UK close its borders had attracted almost as many signatures – but received less coverage in the media.

This petition on Parliament’s website - called ‘Stop all immigration and close the UK borders until ISIS is defeated’ - had attracted 444,000 signatures as of 6pm.

But despite the interest created in the Trump petition, this one had been all but ignored by the liberal media and the BBC, which promoted the Trump petition via its BBC News Twitter account.

The petition refers to a warning in February from Dr Jamie Shea, Nato’s Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, that Islamic State terrorists might inflitrate Europe posing as Syrian refugees.

The petition was created last September, before the Paris attacks.

It was set up by Tina Reeves, 62, a copywriter who is originally from Plymouth but spends half the year at her holiday home in Jaén, Spain.

The petition says: ‘Allowing uncontrolled immigration and taking in these refugees potentially endangers the entire UK population. At any other time in our history this would be tantamount to a declaration of war and borders would be closed.’

The government has already responded and on petition website a Home Office spokesman wrote: ‘The UK government will not close Britain’s borders.

‘It will ensure access for legitimate travellers and trade whilst operating its borders securely to protect the public from the threat of terrorism.’

Meanwhile the petition to ban Trump received prominent coverage by The Guardian and the BBC, which even provided an analysis of whether or not he could prohibited from entering the UK.

The Trump petition was set up by a Scottish woman who has said she is ‘pleasantly shocked’ by the amount of support it has received.  Suzanne Kelly, from Aberdeen, created it on Parliament’s website because she was appalled at Trump’s incendiary rhetoric. She put it up on November 28, before Trump called for his ban on Muslims entering the US.

Kelly has long investigated Trump’s golfing development in Balmedie, Aberdeenshire, for community website Aberdeen Voice.  But she was moved to act after his anti-Muslim comments and calls for a database of everyone who worships Islam.

She told the Guardian: ‘The more I looked at Donald Trump and the remarks he has made before entering the presidential race, the more my hackles were rising. This man is no longer a joke in the corner, but someone who is aiming to become leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world,” she said.

‘There are few things a person in my position can do against a person like that but make use of this country’s wonderful laws and procedures. This petition also gives all those people who agree with me a platform to say we also disagree with hate speech.’

Her petition states: ‘The UK has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech. The same principles should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the UK.

‘If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the ‘unacceptable behaviour’ criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.’


The world war on Donald Trump is truly ‘unhinged’

We must defend free speech even for politicians branded ‘fascists’

The civilised world, it seems, has finally found the will to unite and fight against evil; not by waging all-out war against Islamic State or anything, but by shouting a global chorus of You Can’t Say That at Donald Trump.

To judge by the extraordinary outburst of headline Trump-bashing this week, one might imagine that the Republican presidential contender had led an armed assault on an abortion clinic or a mosque. In fact, what Trump the ‘billionaire buffoon’ did aboard retired aircraft carrier the USS Yorktown, in the wake of the San Bernardino massacre by an Islamist couple, was not to launch air-strikes. Instead he made a speech calling for ‘a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States while we figure out what the hell is going on’. Trump acknowledged that his proposed ban on Muslims was ‘probably not politically correct’ before concluding: ‘But. I. Don’t. Care.’

Trump’s combination of offensive speech and a refusal to apologise was enough to have the entire Western political mainstream effectively demanding ‘a total and complete shutdown’ of Donald Trump. The Obama White House declared that Trump’s ‘incendiary’ speech was not just ‘morally reprehensible’ but even ‘disqualifies him to serve as president’. In other words, he should be kicked out of the election for talking out of turn.

Senior figures in Trump’s own Republican Party, who would like nothing better than to ‘disappear’ The Donald, have joined in the assault on the ‘unhinged’ Trump. One Republican strategist announced that ‘There was a whiff of fascism around this guy. Now there’s a reek of fascism.’ Many others have accused Trump of being a fascist, compared him to Hitler and, perhaps even worse, branded his remarks about Muslims ‘un-American’.

Nor has the war on Trump been confined to American soil. A spokesman for United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon condemned his ‘Islamophob[ic], xenophob[ic]’ and hateful rhetoric. In the UK, Tory prime minister David Cameron broke the unwritten rule of non-intervention in US election campaigns to denounce Trump’s words as ‘divisive, unhelpful and quite simply wrong’. Then the Metropolitan Police broke their own rule on political impartiality to attack Trump, after he suggested they were too scared to police radicalised areas of London. To put the tin lid on it, after Twitter users compared Trump to the evil Lord Voldemort, Harry Potter author and ‘national treasure’ JK Rowling tweeted: ‘How horrible. Voldemort was nowhere near as bad.’ (After all, the fictional Dark Lord was only a mass murderer seeking to establish his ‘pure-blood’ domination of both the wizard and human worlds…)

It seems as if every politician, public figure and social-media poseur wrestling with the big questions of our age, such as who we are and what our societies stand for now, has finally come up with the answer: we’re not Donald Trump, and we all stand united against him! Who needs to bother with the struggle against IS abroad or nihilistic terrorism at home when you can establish your moral authority by hate-bombing The Donald?

This reaction to Trump appears truly, to coin a phrase, ‘unhinged’. Many of us may not want to defend a word of the nonsense he talks about Muslims, Mexicans or much else. But we should defend his right to say it.

Instead, the response to Trump’s troublemaking speeches throughout the campaign has been not to engage with and challenge his arguments (such as they are), but to try to shut him up, and so shut down controversial debates. As Democratic Party hopeful Hillary Clinton declared in response to Trump’s earlier attacks on Mexican immigrants, ‘Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable. You don’t talk like that on talk radio. You don’t talk like that on the kind of political campaigns.’

That is the real meaning of branding Trump ‘fascist’ this week – that he is beyond the pale and unfit to take part in democratic debate. After all, who wants to bother having a political argument with Hitler or Voldemort? The widespread use of the label ‘un-American’ is also telling in this respect. It conjures up the ghosts of the congressional committee investigating ‘un-American Activities’, which led the anti-Communist witch-hunt during the era of McCarthyism – a time when even the US Supreme Court refused to uphold the First Amendment free-speech rights of the blacklisted Hollywood 10.

The historical irony of it now being brandished against a maverick rightwinger rather than leftists does not alter the danger of using ‘un-American’ in a bid to outlaw political opinions you find offensive.

As always with free-speech issues, there are two reasons why we should, however reluctantly, proclaim ‘Je Suis Le Donald’ – one a question of principle, the other is a matter of practical politics.

The principle is that free speech is an indivisible liberty that we defend for all or not at all. Once you start trying to cherry-pick who qualifies for that liberty, you turn free speech into not a right but a privilege, to be handed down by the authorities to those deemed deserving. As George Orwell famously put it, ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’. Or, in the words of Larry Flynt, publisher of the Hustler porn mags, ‘If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you’. The principle of unfettered free speech must be defended even for dirty Larry and The Donald, or we will all be the losers.

In practical political terms, the lesson is that attempts to ban or close down your opponents don’t work. Indeed, having the entire political establishment come out against Trump in such vituperative terms is more likely to consolidate his support among a section of voters as the ‘outsider’ candidate.

And, as ever, what you think about free speech reflects your view of the public. The true target of much of the censorious bile directed at Trump is not the billionaire himself, but the ‘ordinary’ Americans who might support him and be moved by his words. Many in US and Western public life now view such voters as a wooden-headed lump, just waiting to be set ablaze by an incendiary word from a rabblerouser in a bad toupee. Or as the head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations puts it, ‘Donald Trump sounds more like a leader of a lynch mob than a great nation like ours’.

Trump is, of course, an unlikely victim of political censorship – he is everywhere. Nor is Trump any worthy champion of free speech; defending his other idiotic recent proposal to ‘close down’ parts of the internet, he dismissively noted that some people would object: ‘“Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.” These are foolish people.’ Speak for yourself, fool.

However, the unhinged response to Trump is a revealing sign of the creeping culture of conformism and You Can’t Say That which seeks to delegitimise and outlaw any opinion that could not be expressed at a polite Manhattan dinner party. That’s why we should stand against any demands for the ‘complete and total shutdown’ of Donald Trump.

One UK newspaper has been running a readers’ poll asking ‘Should Donald Trump be banned from the UK for his views?’. The two answers we are asked to choose between are ‘Yes – he’s a hate preacher’ and ‘No – he talks a lot of sense’. The correct answer surely ought to be ‘Yes, his views might be hateful – but no, neither he nor anybody else should be banned, gagged or disqualified for expressing foolish, “fascist”, “un-American” or otherwise offensive opinions’.


Counteterrorism Chair: ‘There Should Be Much More Surveillance in the Muslim Community in United States’

Rep. Peter King (R.-N.Y.), who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, told reporters Thursday that he believes “there should be much more surveillance in the Muslim community in the United States.

King was responding to a reporter who asked him what Congress could do to prevent something like the San Bernardino terrorist attack from happening again.

“The only way you are going to find out this in advance is to do the same type of 24/7 surveillance that was done in the Italian-American communities when they were going after the mob, mafia, and the Irish communities when they were going after the Westies,” said King.

“You look where the terror threat is going to come from and right now it is going to come from the Muslim community, and it is a small percentage but to me the only way you find out about it in advance is to have sources and informers on the ground with constant surveillance,” he said.

Here is a transcript of part of King’s exchange with reporters:

Question: "What can you do on Capitol Hill to prevent something like this from happening again?"

King: "Well, that is part of the process now. I have my own view. But that’s a different--I believe there should be much more surveillance in the Muslim community here in the United States.

The only way you are going to find out this in advance is to do the same type of 24/7 surveillance that was done in the Italian-American communities when they were going after the mob, mafia, and the Irish communities when they were going after the Westies.

You look where the terror threat is going to come from and right now it is going to come from the Muslim community, and it is a small percentage but to me the only way you find out about it in advance is to have sources and informers on the ground with constant surveillance. It was done--"

Question: "Should they have known sooner? Should authorities have been alerted sooner to the fact that those two people were there and were a potential threat?"

King: "Well, again, we’ll to have to find out. I think the only way you are going to find that out in the future is if you have constant surveillance on the ground. Unfortunately, police departments have been pushed away from that. I think if every department followed the model of what the NYPD was doing you would have much less chance of a plot like this succeeding."



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: