Melissa Click, the University of Missouri professor who tried to physically remove journalists from a black “safe space” on the public university’s campus, has been charged with misdemeanor assault.
The professor has been excoriated in the mainstream media for her appalling behavior, particularly her call for “muscle” to forcibly remove journalists from the safe space, but the assault charge is the first time she has faced anything other than criticism. The university did not fire Click after her November 9, 2015 confrontation with the journalists.
Although we have mentioned Click’s SJW antics in posts condemning so-called safe spaces, StickyDrama would normally not report on Click because she is not an Internet personality, or rather she was not prior to the November 9 incident. But she has since been transmogrified into countless SJW memes, and she embodies the worst of SJW sentiment.
The concept of a safe space was seemingly benign: To give traditionally oppressed or marginalized groups a place–whether a physical or online location–to express their anger and frustration without fear of so-called privilege explaining. However, the concept has been corrupted; safe spaces have become Orwellian zones of fascism where public land is appropriated and contrary viewpoints are not tolerated, sometimes at the threat of physical violence.
Even though the maximum punishment Click faces is a paltry fine and a few days in jail, hopefully her prosecution will send the message to SJWs that feelings do not trump civil rights.
Freedom of speech, which has been under attack lately, was ultimately reaffirmed today when a Toronto man was found not guilty of criminal harassment on Twitter. Caveat: the ruling applies only in Canada, which has given us nothing but trouble, trash and maple syrup.
Gregory Alan Elliot had engaged in a Twitter fight with two feminists, Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly. Elliot had previously met Guthrie IRL; however, they didn’t really begin to butt heads until they argued over a game called “Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian,” an infamous Canadian feminist who critiques patriarchal themes in video games and has been one of the primary targets of #GamerGate. While things got pretty heated, Elliot had not actually threatened the women physically or sexually.
The judge’s opinion included this message, which runs counter to the feminist notion of an online safe space: People must “tolerate the annoyance” of oppositional views in an open platform like Twitter. The judge further noted that the feminists’ position was unreasonable, insofar as they expected to be able to criticize Elliot’s views without his being able to respond. The judge furthermore rejected the contention that including contrary viewpoints in feminist hashtags constituted harassment: “Once someone creates a hashtag, anyone can use it. Everyone has to be able to use it freely; anything less will limit the operation of Twitter in a way that is not consistent with freedom of expression,” he wrote.
Christie Blatchford, a reporter for Canada’s National Post, was present in the courtroom and described an eye-opening exchange between Elliot’s attorney and Ms. Guthrie on the witness stand:
There was Chris Murphy, the lawyer for accused stalker Gregory Elliott, asking Stephanie Guthrie, the alleged victim of Mr. Elliott’s alleged harassment, reading aloud a Tweet of his client’s.
“Blaming the majority of normal men for rape…is wrong,” Mr. Elliott, a 53-year-old Toronto man, wrote back in September of 2012. “Rapists are not normal men; they’re crazy. Why not blame the mentally ill?”
It hardly rang in my ears as the ravings of a perverse woman-hater, nor apparently in Mr. Murphy’s, because after reading it for Ontario Court Justice Brent Knazan, Mr. Murphy asked, in his reasonable way, “That’s a pretty good point?”
In the witness stand, Ms. Guthrie snorted, yelled, “Are you kidding me?”, pounded her fist and then announced, “I know lots of normal men who have raped; I have been raped by normal men.”
If he was as gobsmacked as I was by that, Mr. Murphy didn’t show it; he simply asked if that meant Mr. Elliott’s was an offensive point of view.
“Offensive?” Ms. Guthrie replied. “I would say dangerously misguided.”
While the ruling sets an important precedent, it was a Pyrrhic victory for Elliot, who was arrested in 2012 and terminated from his job immediately thereafter. For the last 3 years, he has been forbidden to use the Internet during his trial, which made it difficult for him to find work in his field of graphic design.
In the United States, the definition of harassment mainly concerns a person’s objective conduct: repeated unwanted contact. In Canada, the definition places more emphasis on the target’s subjective perception of that conduct: “conduct… that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.” Unsurprisingly, the feminists claimed that Elliot’s tweets made them feel “unsafe”—a claim that personifies the term crybully.
Thankfully, the Canadian court looked to objective evidence that vitiated the supposed victims’ claim of feeling unsafe. For example, Guthrie and Reilly’s conduct did not demonstrate fear or intimidation: They conspired in feminist groups as to how to shame Elliot publicly and whipped their Twitter followers into a frenzy by demonizing the man with insinuations of pedophilia.
As StickyDrama has repeatedly stated on this website, safe spaces are intellectually and physically dangerous. Normally, an individual user’s efforts to block and silence dissenting opinions on their social media profiles do not implicate free speech. But in this case, the Third Wave feminist campaign to carve out safe spaces online directly threatened free speech, because Guthrie attempted to usurp the power of the Crown in her fascist mission.
Most of the media hailed the not guilty verdict as a victory for free speech, but the usual culprits had a more somber outlook. The ridonculously SJW Buzzfeed, of course, claimed that the verdict “opened the floodgates” for “a new wave of vitriol against women”; the staunchly feminist Huffington Post wrote that Elliot was really guilty but got off on a technicality; and the British Guardian painted a one-sided picture of the row.
The pursuit of social justice has been corrupted. At some point, the righteous battle for the civil rights, fueled by legitimate grievances, was hijacked by social justice warriors with fascist agendas. But 2015 was the year that saw the SJW narrative crescendo and collapse on all fronts.
Rape Culture: The Witch Trials Of Third Wave Feminism
It is unfortunate that feminism has become a dirty word, given its noble origins. We should speak of feminism in three “waves” to separate the good from the bad: the First Wave can be considered the suffragettes who fought for the right to vote during the early 1900s; the Second Wave, which is concerned with equal pay and reproductive rights, arose during the 1960s and still exists today; the Third Wave reared its ugly head in the 1990s, and that’s when all the trouble started. When conservatives complain of man-hating feminazis, they usually mean the Third Wave feminists.
Viewing the Third Wave in the most favorable light, one would say that it is concerned with ending patriarchal attitudes in society. Put it in more judgmental terms, the Third Wave is obsessed with a female victim/male oppressor dichotomy where women are always innocent victims and men are always vile assailants. The Third Wave believes that society facilitates rape by excusing or rationalizing men’s behavior–so-called rape culture, a nebulous term that has been criticized as unhelpful by the rape survivor group RAINN.
In order to combat rape culture, the Third Wave thinking goes, alleged rape victims should never be questioned. How to conduct an investigation without questioning the victim? Feminists like Zerlina Maxwell argued that, since proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a difficult standard to meet and too many rapists escape punishment, an accusation of rape should be enough. The presumption of innocence and due process should be discarded, according to these feminists, because the harm a man suffers by a false accusation (which they claim almost never happens) pales in comparison to the harm a woman suffers when her rape claim is doubted.
Unfortunately the federal government lapped up the Third Wave’s narrative–in universities for now, and one shudders to think that this insanity will invade our courts. In its infamous “dear colleague” letter, the federal Office of Civil Rights implemented the lowered standard of proof and the abrogation of due process that militant advocates like Maxwell have clamored for. At university, an accusation can ruin a male student’s academic career, such as in the Emma Sulkowicz “Mattress Rape” case at Columbia.
Thankfully the Third Wave narrative unravelled when Rolling Stone published Sabrina Ruben Erdely’s “A Rape On Campus,” which was exposed as one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of journalism. Immediately after the story’s publication, dozens of fraternity members at the University of Virginia received death threats and suffered property damage when the world believed that they had orchestrated gang-rapes as an initiation ritual.
Most journalists could not see past their own biases–frat boy rapists, of course!–and praised Erdely for her reporting. But the Washington Post bravely challenged the politically correct policy of never questioning a rape victim, and in doing so they exposed the Erdely’s “A Rape On Campus” as a work of SJW fiction. Even feminists took Erdely to task for setting rape activism back 30 years by making skepticism politically acceptable.
The Cotton Ceiling: Trans Doublethink
It ain’t easy being trans. Boys Don’t Cry depicted a brutal account of the rejection and violence faced by trans men and women. But their victimization does not justify the Orwellian thought control being paraded around as tolerance.
It began with insidiously reasonable requests relating to language. Deliberately referring to a trans person by his or her original gender became “misgendering,” which is hateful transphobia. So far, so good: It seems fair that everyone should be able to choose one’s own name and identity. (Except when you invent words that don’t remotely resemble English.)
But courtesy veered into historical revision: Referring to a trans person’s original sex was verboten even when discussing someone’s pre-transition life. For example, we must say that Caitlyn Jenner won an Olympic medal, that she was an athlete, even though all the record books say that Bruce Jenner won an Olympic medal and that he was an athlete. It’s not an entirely unreasonable request, even if it values sensitivity over accuracy.
The next battlefield was over the bathroom, particularly in schools. While it is foolish to think that transsexuals have any prurient interest in using this or that bathroom, it is likewise foolish to expect everyone to be OK with this. (At StickyDrama’s dorm in the University of California at Berkeley, all bathrooms were unisex, which worked out fine after an initial discomfort.) By using the language of victimization, the trans advocates won the ear of the federal government, which has forced school districts to allow trans students use whatever bathroom they please. Here we see how the mantra “trans women are real women, trans men are real men” is used to justify a sort of sexual de-segregation.
But the new trans agenda has caused even the most liberal and progressive non-trans groups to rethink how far they will allow such nonsense: the so-called Cotton Ceiling.
The Cotton Ceiling was coined by trans activist and porn star Drew DeVeaux. It refers to the tendency of lesbians to exhibit supposed transphobia by refusing to have sex with trans women. If a lesbian refuses to have sex with a trans woman—in other words, a person who was born male, including a trans woman who still has a penis—she is transphobic, bigoted, hateful, even if the lesbian is otherwise supportive of trans advocacy.
Trans advocates attempted to shame lesbians who refused to have sex with trans women. To the lesbians who were uncomfortable with a trans woman’s penis, the trans advocates reply that “sex is more than genitals” and that refusing to try sex with a trans person simply because of the genitals is, you guessed it, transphobic. Trans women are real women, they say, and any distinction of biological sex versus gender identification is invalid. Anyone who dares to deny that 2 + 2 = 5 is transphobic.
Enough, screamed the lesbians. We support your civil rights, just please don’t shove your lady sticks in our faces. Outraged trans advocates termed this group of lesbians TERFs: Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists.
What trans advocates are really advocating is the abrogation of the right to freedom of association–in this case, an intimate association. Lesbians prefer to associate with natural-born women, which runs counter to the trans position that “trans women are women”; i.e. no difference exists between a trans woman and a biological female. Therein lies the Orwellian doublethink: trans women’s bodies are different than biologically female bodies, regardless of politically correct exigencies.
Cultural Appropriation and Safe Spaces: Politically Correct Fascism
If trans advocacy attacks the freedom of association, cultural appropriation attacks the freedom of expression.
Cultural appropriation began with the condemnation of blackface and Native American themes in fashion. Then, it was somehow decided that white women should not braid their hair. It has developed into a labyrinth of guidelines and prohibitions on how to look and what to wear, especially on Halloween.
The problem is, parodies–even racially insensitive parodies–are sacrosanct in American jurisprudence. And nothing enrages advocates more than suggesting that they should just deal with it: Instead of a dialogue–“listen to minorities,” the SJW says–obedience is really the goal, and anything less than full immediate compliance is met with a shouting match.
“But we’re exercising our right to free speech by voicing our discontent,” say the SJWs. No: Free speech encourages a debate, but it does not tolerate the silencing of contrary views, whether by physical force or shouting. SJWs do not want a dialogue, which by definition is a back-and-forth; SJWs want to be the only voice in the room. Even if that room is on a university campus.
From that sentiment arose “safe spaces.” In a safe space, only one voice is permitted. Any opposing view is supposedly unsafe; however, unsafe is merely doublespeak for offensive. Again, by exploiting the language of victimization (“this speech makes me feel unsafe” rather than “this speech offends me”) SJWs attempt to deprive the holders of contrary views of their most fundamental civil liberties.
This fascist mentality was actually gaining traction in universities across the nation–until Melissa Click. When the university professor used the threat of physical violence to intimidate a journalist from entering a safe space, even the most liberal news media organizations were appalled.
Social Justice Isn’t Justice–It’s Extortion
Radical feminists, trans advocates, race baiters: The Internet united these relatively small, marginalized groups that had been scattered around the globe into hordes of formidable influence. By coordinating their efforts, these hordes forged victimization into a weapon against the descendants of their traditional oppressors. These beneficiaries of imperialism felt guilty for the sins of their ancestors, and the hordes accordingly exploited the language of victimization to gain political power. This tactic was termed social justice.
Social justice can be distinguished from traditional justice. Traditional justice values above all factual truth and fairness to the individual, and it aims to achieve equal opportunity in society by protecting civil rights. Traditional justice is not so much concerned with crimes that took place hundreds of years ago and their effects on society today.
By contrast, social justice aims to create equal results in society by remedying past wrongs. Factual support is ideal but not necessary; in social justice, the agenda or narrative trumps all, even the truth. And while SJWs would argue that social justice is also concerned with fairness, their brand of fairness values groups over individuals–fairness that is viewed through a generational lens.
In social justice, innocent individuals inherit the collective guilt of their ancestors, and in one form or another must pay accordingly. The SJWs’ demands could conceivably be justified if they were a form of compensation for actual wrongdoings. But when predicated on ideologies that ignore or outright deny any inconvenient fact, their demands amount to nothing more than a confidence game. Thankfully, 2015 was the year in which mainstream society realized that the SJW platform is un-American and no less dangerous to our way of life than an invasion by China.
The Arapahoe County Sheriff confirmed in a telephone call with StickyDrama that Dahvie Vanity, lead singer of the popular emo band “Blood On the Dance Floor” or BOTDF, was arrested on September 13, 2009 on charges of felony sexual assault.
The above “criminal history record” is on file with the Colorado Bureau of Investigations. The Sheriff was unable to provide any information besides confirming the authenticity of the above document, since the case was sealed by a court order. Rumors that Dahvie’s alleged victim dropped charges or that the case was dismissed are impossible to confirm or refute.
StickyDrama’s determination that Dahvie was indeed arrested for sexual assault calls into question another blogger’s assertion that rumors of his statutory rape against @JessiiSlaughter are “unfounded.”
11-year-old cyberstalking victim @JessiiSlaughter got her 7 minutes of fame—true fame, not e-fame—on today’s “Good Morning America.” But GMA’s own viewers didn’t have much sympathy for Jessi, with the overwhelming majority of them criticizing Jessi in the comments to ABC’s online version of the story.
Most commenters placed the blame squarely on Jessi and her parents, with more than a handful of them expressing outrage that the broadcast’s hosts blamed rap music for Jessi’s foul and violent language.
Interesting to note that neither the Slaughters nor GMA mention 4Chan, where the campaign of harassment against the Slaughters began, nor StickyDrama, where a MyDrama author posted screencaps of Jessi boasting of her relationship with Blood on the Dance Floor lead singer Dahvie Vanity. (In fact, Jessi is still following us on her Twitter.) Also interesting to note that ABC brought Internet Safety expert Parry Aftab into the fray. Our readers will recall that Ms. Aftab also commented on John Hock’s 2009 sex assault, in which the so-called expert confused Stickam and StickyDrama. StickyDrama asked Ms. Aftab how we could make our site safer back then, but we never heard back from her. A former Stickam employee familiar with Ms. Aftab explained: “She only advises you in internet safety if you pay her an ‘honorarium,’ a donation. It’s her racket.”
@JessiiSlaughter’s dreams of fame might be realized.
The 11-year-old girl who skyrocketed to e-fame as videos of her “emotional breakdown” racked up around 2 million views on YouTube is scheduled to appear on Thursday’s “Good Morning America.”
Earlier this year Abyss2hope, a Google blog “centered on date rape” and operated by Marcelle Chester, published an article about John Hock’s widely-reported 2009 broadcast in which he sexually assaulted his passed-out drunk girlfriend at her home in Phoenix, AZ. StickyDrama eventually learned of the post, and has decided to respond openly to several accusations, misunderstandings and outright lies in Abyss2hope’s article, of which the main source seems to be feminist blogger Fugitvus. The article is split into two parts; but the second part does not address StickyDrama’s involvement in the case, and so this response concerns only the first.
Let’s begin with the obvious: If not for my publicly posting images of the assault, there would have been no arrest. Period. The victim would have no idea what happened to her. The media would not have cared. The police would have no evidence–in fact, the Phoenix police have repeatedly thanked me over the phone for my cooperation and for basically handing this well-documented case to them. Publicly calling attention to the assault was the only way action was going to be taken. At the time of the assault, and for months afterwards, I had no idea exactly where Hock was and which state’s police I could have called. Publicly posting my evidence sparked a huge online outrage, and the outraged public’s efforts to contact the police and inform the victim of what had happened to her is what led to her assailant’s arrest. I know from my own experience reporting sex crimes that one complaint is often not taken seriously by the police, particularly if the victim does not personally report it.
Rape is horrible. Now, this particular sex assault involving Hock is controversial. It’s horrible too. But it is controversial because of the unprecedented nature of the crime: broadcast live for an audience of hundreds or thousands. The controversy is why the story has been reported around the world, including on Abyss2hope. The controversy prompted discussion about what is rape, the right to privacy, internet safety and so much more. I stand by my statement that the controversy will shock teens into being more careful with whom they associate from the internet. It is true that I reported this rape and often refer to it in a flippant or humorous tone—the same tone in which I report everything. What Harriet and others don’t understand is the context of that tone. StickyDrama is truthful, but satirical. Its tone comes from years–years!–of watching vile internet filth like Hock commit crime after crime after crime, and being able to get away with it despite terrabytes of video evidence documenting every unlawful act. I’ve called the police. I’ve called the FBI. Once I even started an epistolary campaign with the FCC (case number CIMS00000732137). No action was taken. I’m still frustrated that none of the news reports mention Hock’s 2007 sex assault in Paris, California:
I told all the reporters about that incident and provided them a link to the post, but you won’t find a word of it in any of the hundreds of news articles about this case.
I have been accused of shaming girls. Never once did I say Hock’s broadcast assault was the victim’s fault. But I think it’s fair to say she was not as cautious as she should have been. Say I leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition and return to find it stolen, it’s not “my fault” that I was victimized—but it would have been smarter to lock the car. I might not like to hear that, but it’s true. And my lesson will not only make me more cautious in the future, but hopefully serve as a lesson to everyone else who doesn’t want their car stolen. And significantly, the fact that my unwise decision to leave my car unlocked with keys in the ignition made the thief’s job easy doesn’t mitigate his crime; the theft is just as illegal as if he had broken a window and hot-wired my car.
Stickam.com–the live streaming social networking site where Hock’s assault was originally broadcast–used to be a voyeur’s paradise. Adults—along with teens well under 18 years of age—would constantly get naked, masturbate, do drugs, have sex with household pets, set themselves on fire and god knows whatever else. Stickam bans such users, but the bans are easily circumvented by re-registering with a new email address. Only when my site emerged, and the prospect of one’s online actions being permanently, publicly displayed, did Stickam users tone down their behavior. For all the “womyn” decrying me as a villain, there are 10 times as many “cappers” and “sex-tortionists” who complain that I have made it very difficult for them to trick others into getting naked on camera.
In early 2010 I posted a censored version of the Hock sex assault video, blurring the victim’s face and privates although neither is required by law.
I did not post the video in order to “indulge male fantasies of rape” … indeed, even the uncensored portion does not contain much sexually graphic content. I posted the video in order to provoke discussion and, hopefully, condemnation of the Maricopa County Superior Court’s recent ruling that the video did not depict ANY sexual activity.
Rape advocates everywhere—particularly Harriet, who wrote of this case “that it’s been verified as rape”—should be outraged by the Court’s decision, not my reporting of the crime. Criticizing me is killing the messenger—albeit a vulgar and insolent messenger. Saying the fucking truth isn’t any less valid than politely saying the truth.
Furthermore, the idea that I’m indulging in some heterosexual rape fantasy is idiocy. Reading the comments on Abyss2hope and Fugitivus, I can see several “womyn” are too busy taking on the big evil straight male establishment to bother with facts. For example, commenter Jennifer Drew wrote “Stone himself stated he is ‘giving what male viewers want.'” Where the hell did I ever say that? Nowhere, that’s where. She made up that statement to suit her argument. Another Abyss2hope commenter Erica wrote, “the woman in this video was not drunk, and was sleeping in the supposedly “safe” arms of her boyfriend.” In fact, the victim did tell investigators she had passed out from drinking alcohol at party she herself hosted. Read the warrant! Another completely false assumption is that the video of the assault was posted on my site immediately after the assault, and then removed once I feared it might be unlawful to have posted it. That’s flat-out wrong and I have no idea where that rumor started. The police executed a warrant on my web host and concluded that the video was not on my server; and in point of fact the video had never been on my server until AFTER the Court’s ruling.
Lastly, the idea that I profit or directly benefit from this rape is laughable. Just laughable. The money I make from StickyDrama pays for its server and little else. I concede the controversy has brought heavy media attention and traffic to my site, but I don’t have any “rape dollars” in my wallet because of this crime.
Running a tabloid site like mine, I can understand the urge to comment on current events reported in the traditional news media. But it’s impossible to speak with any significant knowledge about my site and this particular crime, based off a few blurbs written by mainstream reporters who do not fully understand the seedy online world in which today’s teenagers are so absorbed. Most reporters and so-called experts cited in news reports aren’t very knowledgeable of social networking sites nor live streaming video, or even of WordPress blogs. Such technologies are the everyday playground of the young, but most middle-aged adults regard it all as modern digital Voodoo. For example, some people assume that Hock himself wrote all posts about him, because his name appears in the title! Ignorance of the facts of this case and of the technology through which the crime was committed and reported is responsible for 90% of the criticisms against my site and my actions.
Perhaps when Hock’s actual trial begins this August and the case is again explored by the media, more womyn will have taken the time to investigate this story more thoroughly before opening their damn moyth.
Check this out:
Looks like the charges are real.