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.
This chick has gone full retard. Not only has she been blatantly attempting to copy amor hilton (as has been mentioned in previous posts about her), but now she’s proving herself to be a spoiled, unintelligent brat. Check out the conversation between she and I below (from her facebook where her status was about how she believes all men should be raped). She attempts to be “hardcore” and “tough” by saying she doesn’t care about children being raped and that they’re “morons” for “letting” it happen.
This girl promptly blocked me when I told her off. She can’t handle any criticism because she’s a child; a bratty, ignorant, weak child. Her tough act isn’t fooling anyone. Not to mention she acts like a wigger day and night attempting to gain “street cred”. What do all of you make of it? Additionally, troll her if you can. I don’t usually condone trolling but someone as stupid and weak-minded as her absolutely deserves it.
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.
I sat here for quite a while thinking of how I could start this post, and nothing came to mind. I really don’t know where to begin so I’ll just say it.
When someone rapes a woman LIVE on the internet and turn themelves in, HOW ARE THEY INNOCENT?
You can’t fake proof like that, and I doubt this girl and John Hock (or John COCK as i call him) staged a live rape for publicity. Especially since a stunt like that would have ruined his life.
Try convincing this girl.
Im not sure if she’s the one on the left, but it seems that in her world, she and hock were made to rule the scene kingdom.
As pretty as she is, she can be sane if she’s madly in love with a RAPIST
and a fugly one at that.
She has started a stickam page as the first step in proving Hocks innocence.
Never mind that he has scarred a poor young girl for life and that hes had a history of being a creep. He’s hot ,so he has to be innocent right?
Her “About Me” states, “I am one of many Guardian Angels looking over and protecting John Hock from this cruel world all humans have to endure …”
She is on stickam “to Free John Hock from the injustices that have been placed on him by human society … for only GOD may judge him as he straddles Heaven or Hell ”
I think we all know where John is going 😉
Her only hobbies are “Freeing John Hock”
Unsurprisingly, the only thing she loves is “John Hock”
And the only thing she hates is “the people that are doing this to him … and all of the John Hock haters that hate him just to hate … That have never even meet him …”
It gets worse! She has devised a plan for all her other john obsessed fans to declare their undying love for this scene peice of shit hobbit-look-alike rapist. She claims that “if anybody would like to chat with John Hock personally … send me your phone number … and I will forward them to him … it is a collect call that costs $2.30 per 12 minutes … no cell phones … times will vary … thanks”
Who would waste money talking to that horny hobbit?
I sure as hell wouldn’t. I’d probably say something like, “she won’t think he’s innocent when he rapes HER,” but we can clearly see she longs for his shriveled up scene hobbit crotch,and its not rape if you want it.
I don’t see why he didn’t just have sex with her on stickam.
He wouldnt have gone to jail,and her life would be complete.
heres her myspace
Oh Dani do you really have NOTHING better to do then sit there and make up stories to make people feel sorry for you?
she was saying things like ” I GOT RAPED 4 MONTHS AGO I THINK IM PREGGO” and “MY BEWBS WENT FROM A 36C TO A 38 C” no one feels sorry for you Dani. Get over it:]
we should pity him so much for his unfortunate 4th.
what do you all think, real or fake?
I’m not sure if my linking worked, so here’s the tinypic links.
With the recent news of Mr. Hock’s incarceration spawning a rash of posts, I noticed a thread of commonality in the comments with other cases involving sociopaths. While I understand that most of these comments were merely apologetics to the idea of “John Hock” from some of his more sycophantic groupies; I’m sure this doesn’t account for all of them. While we can all wax reminiscent at the antics of the convicted serial killers and rapists, Richard “Night Stalker” Ramirez and Ted “Lady Killer” Bundy. We must not forget that during both of their trials, where the vicious brutality of their crimes we covered in explicit and morbid detail, both of these eligible bachelors received numerous wedding proposals and outright fawning protestations of undying love and belief in their innocence. Sounds kind of familiar doesn’t it?
Not sure if this is Ramirez or just a grainy picture of Isaiah Garnica.
It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. Mr. Bundy’s psyche profile was one of many that were used to create the composite character “Buffalo Bill” in Silence Of The Lambs.
As a flight of pure whimsy, I began to wonder exactly where these defenders of Mr. Hock fell on the lines of the two categories, groupies and would be suitors. Would you show the devotion of the suitors of Ramirez and Bundy, hoping against hope that one day they would escape the death chamber and emerge to marry, torture, rape and then kill you? Or an even better scenario, would you fantasize of conjugal visits or commit a crime in the hopes of becoming cell mates? I tried to put myself in your shoes and imagine who I would like to be housed with if my thought crimes ever put me in the pokey.
Sorry Taylor, I guess it will have to be in the next life.
Unfortunately Taylor Hanson has conspicuously avoided committing any felonies. My thought experiment on this issue had seemed to have hit a brick wall since substituting Hock for Hanson would never work as he is utterly repellent to me and would render me impotent as well as produce projectile vomiting. I thought all was lost until I read an update of a story I had been following over the last month. It seems a suspect had been arrested in connection with a series of cat killings and mutilations.
Happier times for Mr. Weinman.
Tyler Hayes Weinman’s mug shot. Apparently his happiness level takes more than multiple felony counts to get him down. From that phrase on his shirt in the previous photo, “HALF FULL”, he must just be the quintessential optimist. Perhaps he could become Hock’s spiritual advisor?
Enter accused serial cat killer Tyler Hayes Weinman, 18, was arrested this morning and charged with 19 felony counts of animal cruelty, 19 counts of improperly disposing of an animal’s body and 4 counts of burglary. He was held on $249,500 bail and must subject to psychiatric evaluation prior to his release and would also wear an electronic monitoring device if he is indeed released. The animal cruelty charges carry a penalty of up to six months in prison per count and a mandatory $5,000 dollar fine. Unfortunately his Myspace account had been closed by the time I read of his apprehension and his Facebook was private.
So let us go wild mydrama patrons, who’s butt juice would you slather over your tongue?