jump to navigation

Gawker Bad, Professor Orange Pop Good? October 19, 2012

Posted by FCM in kids, liberal dickwads, logic, MRAs, pop culture, porn.
Tags: , , ,

i wanted to talk a bit about the recent outing of an infamous reddit perv and the ensuing shitstorm implicating free speech, doxxxing and online anonymity.  if anyone has noticed the utter hypocrisy of those condemning the gawker journalist while supporting the infiltrations of radical feminist space by agent orange privileged white male basement dwelling using their work computer during work hours perving and harassing women online while their wives are at work MRAs, well, you arent alone.

in fact, its pretty difficult to miss this very obvious logic fail, and some are actually coming to the conclusion, albeit grudgingly, that within a “free speech” framework one cannot logically support infiltrating, harassing, surveilling, and dropping docs on radical feminists while simultaneously supporting online pervs “rights” to perv on women and children anonymously, with no real-life consequences.  if you support “free speech” in one instance, logically, you must support it in both instances.  (for this part, lets assume that all the children involved were legal adults and that the pervs didnt break any laws, even though that assumption is probably false.  for our purposes, assuming that the speech of each side is legally protected speech, it is logical to support them both in the same way within a free speech context.)

in reality, it is only when one doesnt frame the issue in terms of “free speech” that it becomes acceptable and logical to differentiate between radical feminists and predditors and to support fucking ones shit up while protecting the rights of the other to continue with their work.  so lets go there.  how are people framing it, if not in terms of free speech?

welp…those who support dropping docs on radical feminists while simultaneously supporting pervs rights to perv are probably framing the issue thusly: “i support victimizing and lying about girls and women.”  since pornographers, rapists, pimps, pervs and predditors are victimizing and lying about girls and women, and radfems arent, logically it is perfectly acceptable to condemn one (the feminists) while supporting the other (the pervs).  while obviously a decent-human-being FAIL, this one is at least logically a WIN.  its internally consistent.

at the same time, those who are framing the issue thusly: “i support telling the truth, including the truth about men and what they do to girls and women” are perfectly logically supporting radical feminists right to continue with our work unabated, while supporting penalties alternate outcomes for MRAs and other pervs and misogynists.  this is a logic WIN.

additional issues come to light, and need addressing, when (for example) people support predditors right to break the law, with or without also supporting radical feminist speech.  in other words, supporting a policy whereby pervs and misogynists get to say literally whatever they want about girls and women, even if its against the law because it incites imminent violence, its child pornography, its obscenity etc.  here, the issue is clearly being framed as such: “i support victimizing and harming girls and women across the board, even if it means breaking the law, period, full stop.”

here, the “free speech” framework is a complete obfuscation of the truth, and for that matter, so is attempting to justify that stance with the completely unrelated “but i support radfems free speech rights toooo!!”  not so fast.  in reality, in this instance, the issue is not free speech at all (because the pervs illegal speech is not protected, but the feminists legal speech actually is) and to say so is to equate apples and oranges.  rather, what we have here is a demonstrated policy of unconditional support of misogyny and victimization, including criminal victimization, of girls and women by men.  this framework — of unconditional support of the misogynist victimization of girls and women by men — should be recognized wherever anyone is supporting the pervs rights to perv, even when there are children involved, and even where the pervs actions implicate stalking, rape, or other illegal behavior.

and even when the ones supporting it are the so-called good guys who very democratically *also* support radfems rights to tell the truth without breaking any laws.  gee, thanks doods.  please do not fall for this one mkay.  in reality, these “good guys” are lying their fucking asses off.  in reality, these so-called “good guys” like kiddie porn, and they hate women.

and if all this sounds really boring, BTW, it is.  it really, really is.  thats because this is all male-centric issue framing, including breaking down whats “legally protected speech” and whats not.  because we all know that there are plenty of perfectly-legal ways to harm girls and women, and that the male-centric legal framework doesnt even come close to addressing or redressing these harms.  thats because its not intended to.

its also very boring to address whether its logical or illogical to condemn radical feminists for telling the truth about men, and what they do to us.  because men will do this anyway, even when they cannot rationally justify it.  (see above, hello!)  they simply do not care whether its rational or not, they will do it anyway because radical feminists pose a legitimate threat and therefore must be destroyed.  even at the cost of *gasp* their precious logic (and despite their alleged dislike for doc-dropping and ad hominems for that matter).

so before i bore you all to death, let me get to the point.  my point really is that if anyone wants to go there — and wax poetic about free-speech and stuff, and things  — i can go there too.  im smart like that too.

and more importantly, that “free speech” is not even close to being the real issue when talking about doxing, or making parallels between doxing radical feminists versus doxing pervs, predditors and (other) MRAs.  it is obvious that a goodly fraction of these men are lying — even the allegedly good, democratic-minded ones are fucking lying — about supporting or caring about free speech at all.  they dont.  most of them hate women, and like kiddie porn.  end of.  if they didnt, all of these debates — and indeed, the entire internet — would look very different than they do today.  that is all.


1. FCM - October 19, 2012
2. darleneguerra - October 20, 2012

“most of them hate women, and like kiddie porn. end of. if they didnt, all of these debates — and indeed, the entire internet — would look very different than they do today.”

Gotta say, the reddit award Brutsch’s “jailbait” subreddit won was pretty good evidence of what you say.

That, and leaving up an entire subreddit devoted to doxing radfems. Yessir, we don’t allow no doxing here on reddit, except /s/agentorange. If it’s women getting doxed, that’s fine.

Not to mention that the menstighties are in the process of deciding that radfems are somehow responsible for outing Brutsch, which we aren’t and which there’s zero evidence of. Po-grom! Po-grom!

Let’s also not forget, Brutsch gives them what they want, while radfems object to voyeurism and porn and exposing dead children’s bodies for necrophiliacs to jerk off to. That’s why they’re taking up a collection for him.

Like you say, it does all hang together. There it is, the ugly truth. Thanks for being brave enough to say it.

FCM - October 20, 2012

haha! they suspect radfems of doxing brutsch? we are responsible for everything bad that happens to all pervs, predditors and trannies, because we are witches. my personal favorite hobby is making sure their pillow mints are stale. that’ll learn em!


3. Darlene Guerra - October 20, 2012

What they do is conflate all women when they have a beef. That’s because it’s women they hate, not just particular groups of feminists. Here, a male journalist called out Brutsch, apparently with the support of a libfem site affiliated with a male-dominated news site we are not involved with. Here’s the thread on menstighties discussing whether to pogrom us again. Because any women’s group that stings them must just be a front for ….us, haha!


Note agentorange instructing his naive students about how to get around reddit’s doxing rules. What’s funny about it is that what he says is a lie and will get them banned. He says they can dox away from reddit and announce it on reddit and be, haha, “good to go”. Truth is links to offline doxing sites are prohibited. Or maybe he knows reddit won’t enforce the rule.

In a larger sense, the reason radfems are the usual suspects when the doxers like agentorange get a burr is because we are the only ones telling it straight. And they are stung right now and need a diversion. Look at the photo of Brutsch and think about his award, the defense being made, the collection for him. There he is, the embarrassing real face of patriarchy.

4. mieprowan - October 20, 2012

We need to keep the government out of the censorship business because if we don’t, they’ll start censoring criticism of themselves. We do not, however, have any obligation to provide platforms for unethical behavior. It is not some kind of violation of free speech to kick people off a privately run website. They can start their own websites. The entire debate is based on a false understanding of free speech.

FCM - October 20, 2012

ok, to be clear, the issue here is not an issue of “banning” people from reddit — if that was the case, you are of course correct that the constitution would be useless to protect any of their speech. (anyone can google constitutional law for a quick 101). regarding doxing and online anonymity, i think that redditors value online anonymity bc they want men like brutsch to be protected from IRL consequences, including legal scrutiny. so free-speech proper and “state action” might not be the only issue here, but its not irrelevant either. (in brutsch’s case, his getting fired from his job isnt a constitutional issue — but the cops sniffing around regarding his “borderline kiddie porn” is). i think that many subreddits internal “ethics” are modeled on the first amendment, and are essentially “i might not like what you say, but i support your right to say it.” and part of the way they “support” that is by maintaining a culture of anonymity, where doxing is frowned upon. (except for radfems of course, and the reasons for this distinction were the substance of this post). and furthermore, i think that *some* reddit users and mods are thumbing their noses at any government restrictions on speech at all, and that creating and preserving a culture of online anonymity causes their users to feel safe or more safe to push the envelope and boldly post questionable and even illegal material, so the rest of them can wank to it. especially kiddie porn (featuring young girls preferably) and obscenity.

i think this is what its about. it is a little convoluted bc yes, reddit is a private forum. but its not an issue of kicking anyone off — they all love brutsch. from what i can tell, he was banned multiple times, and he kept being allowed back, and had a HUGE following and was ultimately given a lot of power. they wanted his speech not to be chilled, and they wanted him to more easily avoid legal scrutiny by remaining anonymous.

FCM - October 21, 2012

you know what mieprowan? that comment has actually pissed me the hell off. did you even follow the links i left or look up this gawker stuff at all? brutsch isnt complaining about getting kicked off reddit. hes upset bc hes a pervert and probably a pedophile, and might be going to jail for posting kiddie porn and obscenity. jesus. you didnt follow the links, and this post was most certainly *not* based on a false understanding of free speech. it makes me wonder what you were even responding to.

5. karmarad - October 21, 2012

It’s about money. Brutsch hasn’t been banned, he’s posting on Reddit under aliases, anyway. His sites have been deleted, but similar sites are popping up and will stick when the noise dies down. All Michael Brutsch and Reddit and Brutsch’s employer are concerned about is whether they may be successfully be sued by any of his hundreds or thousands of victims. The employer dumped Brutsch because Brutsch probably used work computers, so there could be vicarious liability. Reddit dumped the sites because the victims might get the idea of suing Brutsch and his publisher Reddit. They could sue for invasion of privacy, defamation, cyberstalking, civil harassment, and quite a few other civil causes of action, now that they know who the perpetrator really is, especially if their photos were recognized and they suffered damages. Some of the victims undoubtedly were minors. That’s a criminal offense not protected by the pornmeister Roth case.

My guess is that “free speech” gives way to these individual civil causes of action pretty fast.

Free speech? Maggots running for cover.

6. ibleedpurple - October 21, 2012

From Valeria Solanas’ SCUM Manifesto:

Secrecy, Censorship, Suppression of Knowledge and Ideas, and Exposes: Every male’s deep-seated, secret, most hideous fear is of being discovered to be not a female, but a male, a subhuman animal. Although niceness, politeness and `dignity’ suffice to prevent his exposure on a personal level, in order to prevent the general exposure of the male sex as a whole and to maintain his unnatural dominant position position in `society’, the male must resort to:

1. Censorship. Responding reflexively to isolated works and phrases rather than cereberally to overall meanings, the male attempts to prevent the arousal and discovery of his animalism by censoring not only `pornography’, but any work containing `dirty’ words, no matter in what context they are used.

2. Suppression of all ideas and knowledge that might expose him or threaten his dominant position in `society’. Much biological and psychological data is suppressed, because it is proof of the male’s gross inferiority to the female. Also, the problem of mental illness will never be solved while the male maintains control, because first, men have a vested interest in it — only females who have very few of their marbles will allow males the slightest bit of control over anything, and second, the male cannot admit to the role that fatherhood plays in causing mental illness.

3. Exposes. The male’s chief delight in life — insofar as the tense, grim male can ever be said to delight in anything — is in exposing others. It doesn’t’ much matter what they’re exposed as, so long as they’re exposed; it distracts attention from himself. Exposing others as enemy agents (Communists and Socialists) is one of his favorite pastimes, as it removes the source of the threat to him not only from himself, but from the country and the Western world. The bugs up his ass aren’t in him, they’re in Russia.

It must really sting that Solanas was right about them.

FCM - October 21, 2012

thanks for that IBP. the SCUM manifesto is breathtaking in its accuracy on so many points. now the MRAs are working themselves into a lather plotting revenge, and planning to “dox the doxers” why again? bc they have a moral objection to doxing? hardly. sure seems like theres more to it than that doesnt it?

on a related note, i recently read firestones “airless spaces” and in one of her essays she mentions knowing solanas in real life, and at the time she did not believe it was wise to accept solanas as “one of us” or a womans liberationist (in firestones words). firestone believed that solanas was very mentally ill (ironically of course, firestone herself was “in and out of hospital”) and that solanas was fetishizing patriarchal women (or something) when she went on and on about how great women are (in contrast to men LOL) the thing that stuck out to me about firestones criticism and shunning of solanas is that they are both dead now, and both of them produced excellent food for thought about our condition, and the truth about men and what they do to us. i think solanas was more correct than firestone in that firestone apparently believed that patriarchal reproductive technologies would (somehow) magically or accidentally or necessarily free women (WTF?) but at the time, firestone seems to have thought it very important to shun solanas, and that solanas made the movement and radical feminists “look bad”. as if we could ever look good right? firestone would have happily discarded solanas and her work…to make the movement look better. but here we are in 2012, and solanas’s assesment of men rings completely true. im glad that firestone didnt have the power at the time to get rid of the SCUM manifesto bc she mightve done it, and for what? how completely shortsighted, how naive to think that it wouldve helped anything. we need more truth, not less.

7. MarySunshine - October 21, 2012

Oh, ibleedpurple, thank you, thank you for that. Valerie Solanas had them totally nailed. I miss her so much. * feeling the love *.

8. Sargasso Sea - October 21, 2012

Thanks, Karmarad, for mentioning that Brutsch was(most likely) fired because he used work computers/internet/time to post his “soft porn” and “gallows humor”.

In the Gawker article he expresses concern that people would google his name plus First Cash and I doubt very much it was because First Cash has a *morality* clause in its employment contract. Because, you know, if they did they’d have to fire the majority (all?) of their male employees.

FCM - October 21, 2012

srsly. now we’re getting somewhere!

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: