Mike Cernovich Presents Danger & Play

For those who want more out of life.

You are here: Home / Dangerous Reading / Glenn Greenwald, Rape Hoaxes, and Gutless Journalism

Glenn Greenwald, Rape Hoaxes, and Gutless Journalism

By 56 Comments

Insisting on pushing the narrative at all costs, whenever a scandalous rape accusation involving men surfaces, the media rushes spreads it like so many other urban legends.

Those who challenge the narrative are labelled misogynists and victim blamers.

Even women find themselves the victim of online hate mobs, as women who support free speech and due process of law are viewed as a sort of female Uncle Tom.

The culture of censorship has grown so strong that even formerly brave voices like Glenn Greenwald’s have been silenced.

How many more rape hoaxes do we need before journalists start acting ethically?

There have been too many high-profile rape hoaxes to keep track of.

We now know, beyond all doubt, that African America Hofstra university students were falsely accused of rape.

We now know, beyond all doubt, that the Duke lacrosse rape never happened.

We now know, beyond all doubt, that the much reported-on UVA frat house rape never happened.

Unfortunately America’s love of a good rape hoax has spread across the pond, where men who face false rape accusations (and the women who defend them) find themselves the victim of unethical journalistic practices.

The Oxford rape hoax shows there is an assault on men and women who believe in free speech and due process of law.

Ben Sullivan was a 21-year-old Oxford student we all love to hate. He’s straight, white and obviously a man of great privilege.

When privileged men like Ben Sullivan are accused of rape, our patriarchal system ensures he is not given the presumption of innocence and those who defend him are censored.

Mr. Sullivan was dragged from his bed late one night by police. Held for questioning, Mr.Sullivan was told he had been labelled a rapist.

In our patriarchal system of justice, men who are accused of rape are publicly identified in news headlines. Protests are held. Vandalism occurs. Nothing is off limits to the hate mob.

There is no right to privacy for the wrongly accused.

There was only one problem. Mr. Sullivan was the victim of a rape hoax.

Oxford Rape Hoax

Despite past experience showing these high-profile rape accusations tend to be hoaxes , the media pushes these rape hoaxes down our throats.

Why is there such a reluctance to question rape accusations, especially since so many turn out to be hoaxes?

Why do women who stand up for due process of law lose their jobs?

Women who refuse to spread rape hoaxes like urban legends lose their jobs.

After text messages and correspondence between Mr. Simon and the rape hoaxer surfaced, a feisty female journalist wrote an article reporting the truth.

Ameila Harper, a courageous woman and strong supporter of free speech, was removed (the British are too polite to say sacked) from her position as editor for the Oxford student newspaper.

Women who write truthful articles about men falsely accused of rape should not become journalists.

False rape accusations

The rape accusation against Mr. Simon was false. Full stop. Provably false. There is no room for debate.

Yet a woman who reported on the story was removed from her position.

Even formerly courageous journalists have gotten the memo. If you question rape culture, you will lose your status.

Even former hell raisers like Glenn Greenwald become political hacks on gender issues.

Glenn Greenwald is a man I once admired. Lawyer and journalist, he was fearless.

Greenwald took on Wall Street. He took on big government. He took on the NSA. It was hard not to have a mancrush on him.

That Greenwald was a radical liberal and someone I’d disagree with on many issues was irrelevant to my assessment of his character.  When thoughtful people disagree, it occurs to me I’ve believed absolute folly before. Maybe I’m wrong now?

Yet Greenwald’s lionly courage has shrunk to that of a field mouse’s. Famous for taking on the journalist establishment, Greenwald has said nothing of the Rolling Stone rape hoax.

Forget the discredited article in Rolling Stone. Why did the journalist establishment uniformly pump and promote the Rolling Stone rape hoax article?

Why did no one other than Reason magazine and a lone editor named Richard Bradley report about the problems with the article? Greenwald remains silent. I asked him what had happened to him.

I provided Greenwald ample evidence of his decline, including his insistence on promoting the voices of Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte, two well known hacks.

Glenn Greenwald.png

There’s no question Valenti and Marcotte are professional trolls at best (they get those page views, and a writer has to eat) or cultists at worst.

How can Greenwald claim to stand up against the journalist establishment while himself being afraid to speak out against those journalists who promoted the Rolling Stone rape hoax?

Yet there’s no doubt Greenwald knows he’s a gutless hypocrite on “rape culture” issues.

Jessica Valenti was outraged when Reason magazine questioned the Rolling Stone rape hoax story.

Amanda Marcotte expressed similar ire for Reason magazine.

Marcotte of course spread the Rolling Stone rape hoax with equal furor, claiming those who questioned the Rolling Stone rape hoax are Holocaust deniers.

Those are who Greenwald promotes as rational, reliable voices.

Greenwald has no choice. He will either toe the line or face the consequences of “social justice.”

Why I care about ethics in journalism.

If you want the world to be a better place, then we need brave men and women speaking truth to power.

Yet men and women are silenced. Women who try seeing both sides of the “rape culture” debate find themselves fired from jobs and falsely labelled as harassers.

Even formerly brave men like Glenn Greenwald are afraid to speak out. He is left with no choice but to kiss up to the likes of Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte.

Are you keeping track? Let’s review:

  • Even after several high profile rape hoaxes (Hofstra, Duke lacrosse, Rolling Stone, and Oxford), the media continues to spread false rape accusations.
  • An Oxford Student Union president was falsely accused of rape. He will forever have a black cloud hanging over his reputation.
  • A woman who wrote a truthful article was fired from her position as a journalist. She has not received her job back.
  • The woman who falsely accused the man of rape has never faced any repercussions, and under UK law cannot even be publicly named.
  • Journalists continue to cower in silence.

Who needs ethics in journalism? We all do!

  • krish

    Mike the word you are looking for is “presstitute”

    • Mike Cernovich

      With Greenwald, it’s that he’s actually afraid of the online hate mobs/social justice crowd. I don’t think he’s lying. He’s just afraid.

      • Anon

        Ask him to get another spine (seems like he lost the one he had earlier). Maybe look to Frank Cho for inspiration.

      • anon1

        i can understand why even if i dont agree that he’s doing it, he’s stepped on a lot of toes on the left and right to be as hard hitting as he was in the past. he feels he cant afford to have SJWs turn against him.

        • Mike Cernovich

          Yeah, I “get it” and don’t morally judge him, as it’s not my place. He has bills to pay and being a writer isn’t easy.

          This piece is more along the lines of, “Journalism is so biased that even Glenn Greenwald knows his place!”

  • http://powerandwill.com/ Chase Power

    Good stuff Mike. Thanks for this. I think a lot of this comes down to feminism ideas that all men are rapists. When some slut at a frat party gets fucked she shouldnt be ruining guys lives because of her own shame. Once again, thank you and keep fighting the good fight Mr. Cernovich!

    • Mike Cernovich

      Thanks, Chase!

  • http://derekthewolf.com Derek Wolf

    Great write up, Mike.

    I *do* hope men – and women! – take heed to this. If anything, because of the precedent that’s being set.

    Hoaxes perpetuated to further agenda… but worse still, people being silenced for bringing attention and facts to the matter? Dangerous, very dangerous precedent.

    Perhaps this is leading to the fall of traditional media? Many have known MSM to be “influenced” for years, but this is a whole new level.

    And I can’t say that I’ve seen people blow apart their credibility so quickly.

    A fascinating and yet horrifying observation, however, is that as people are polarizing over these issues – plenty of “harpies” “sheeple” “etc” are gobbling up nonsense and complete falsehoods. Outright lies! And not caring about that, because it aligns with their dysfunctional agenda.

    For Christ’s sake, these are adults! Not children! Logic and reason have been sold down the river in favor of “the feels.”

    Is “The System” simply lobbying towards them to gain support/votes, in similar way to gaining votes with gov handouts?

    Whatever it is – it smells and looks like bullshit. As more independent journos and media outlets come forward, it accelerates the downfall/pushback against this nonsense. I welcome it.

    I believe the world’s making an omelet, and this is what it looks like when the egg cracks.

    It may be a rough ride, but the omelet’s going to be worth the wait.

    Be well,

    • Mike Cernovich

      Thanks, Derek. It does amaze me when ‘adults’ fall for the same hoaxes over and over again.

    • http://manwithoutfather.com/ Tom Arrow

      The interesting thing is that 12 years of regular state school have no single dedicated subject on rational thinking.

      You are right, logic and reason are not existent today. Why? Because reason is a method; it has to be learned. And there’s no one to teach.

      My first experience with real rational thinking was during my Honours research at the age of 22.

      It sounds like a cliche to say that schools teach you to repeat, but it’s true. You learn the words of great philosophers. When you get the task to think, you are expected to arrive at a certain outcome, especially in classes regarding ethics and morality. But despite there being a right answer, there’s no rational basis there; the method is “common sense”. You basically try to guess what your teacher expects you to write.

      • Enigma

        When I was growing up, we had a “gifted and talented” program, where a small group of kids would be pulled out of their regular classes for a period of each week and placed in a separate class with other bright students. During middle school, especially, the teacher would actually “teach us to think”. We’d do logic-based exercises, deductive reasoning, learn Latin root words, etc.

        Honestly, that’s the one class that I learned by far the most from. I don’t even remember half of the other shit they taught in school, and I was actually a decent to good student.

        But the sad thing is, it was only the kids who were already smarter who got exposed to that material. The “average” students just got taught to regurgitate a bunch of facts and think the same way as everyone else.

        • http://manwithoutfather.com/ Tom Arrow

          awesome. would have loved that. but yeah, it should be the basic stuff before anything else. it’s just the basis; from logic, you can go anywhere.

          i wonder what would happen if people would spend 2 years learning logic and then sent out into life instead of 12 years of specific stuff. 10 years of extra experience towards a certain direction. sure, you also need to learn the consequences of your actions. but seriously, how does school teach you that? by showing you that if you do something wrong, some authority will give you a lower grade?

  • Jacob Luchowski

    Maybe it’s just me, but I think radical feminism, SJWs and false rape accusations are just symptoms of a much bigger problem.

    Children are being raised without influence of their fathers. By single mothers, in families where fathers travel a lot (this one is pretty common) or in families where men don’t act like men.

    Men who were raised by women think differently. I know that first hand, because I was raised by women and men who looked up to them. We grow up to be perfectionists, dishonest about our motives, manipulative, always avoiding confrontation, people pleasers with low self-esteem.
    I assume women raised without their fathers’ influence have the same issues as well.

    There is no wonder why so many people these days can’t stand up for themselves (or stand up for truth) – nobody in their life gave them an example of how to do that.

    • Mike Cernovich

      Interesting take, Jacob. I wonder if other men raised by single moms would have to say.

      • Guest

        Jacob’s got it about right. Speaking as a man raised by a single mother (and older sister with an all but useless father), there is a marked difference in the way men think and behave when they’re raised by single mothers.

        Men raised by single mothers are more sensitive to everything. You’re taught to run things by how other people feel, not what you think is right. Everything you think is based on how other people FEEL about you, a derivative of the general herd mentality women partake in.

        If someone else’s feelings don’t approve, you’re in the wrong. You can only IMAGINE the kind of impact that has on a young man’s self-esteem.

        Life is about emotions instead of logic or instinct. As Jacob put it, you learn to be dishonest, people-pleasing, and manipulative instead of independent and learning proper decisions making skills.

        There’s a SERIOUS but subtle demonizing from day 1 in regards to aggression and dominant behaviour. Aggression is bad, violence is bad, fighting back is bad.

        What makes this worse is that, even though you’re not explicitly taught to be a doormat, you’re not taught to be assertive, which causes you to revert to the only thing you know: a sensitive, emotional way of thinking.

        But what I personally found to be devastating to my identity was this:

        When young kids are forming their identity, they mimic people. When you grow up without a father figure, you mimic female behaviour. You literally just have nothing else to mimic. You grow up doing girly things and involving yourself in female pop culture, where you get indoctrinate and pussified.

        Luckily, it’s in large part, reversible.

        I hope with my spiel I was able to shed some light on the topic. Oh and a big thanks to you Mike for being something of a role model for me. Peace!

    • http://manwithoutfather.com/ Tom Arrow

      My whole regular family consisted of my mother and my grandmother. My dad was on Hawaii. Both told me he was a selfish prick. It took me 23 years to realize that he was indeed selfish, but not a prick.

      I agree.

    • Brandon Simon

      I wasn’t raised by a single mother, but my dad definitely looked up to my mom, which I have always in the back of my mind thought was somewhat inappropriate, if only because I always felt my dad could have a whole lot more fun in his life if he took the lead and made sure the situation worked well for him firstly, instead of always nipping at my mother’s heels.

      Though I have recognized this for a long time on an intellectual level, I definitely suffer from the psychological symptoms Jacob mentions, and the past few years of my life, maybe more than that, though not as consciously, have basically been about shedding all of that bullshit and learning to behave like a normal fucking dude.

      The really funny thing about this “disease” of institutionalized pussitude is that, even though you act wiggly and without intention, you are still a man, and you can cause a lot of damage when you’re just going around not knowing what the fuck you’re doing (looking for someone to give you what you want). In my case, I have proclivities towards leadership. I like to take charge, and will do so whether I am acting intentionally or not. You can see why it might be detrimental to the people around me if I am not taking appropriate care.

      The biggest motivation in changing my behavior has thus become compassion others. I have realized that people do in fact want me to be strong, to take charge. It works. But I’ve learned that if I want to play dangerously like that, when people are putting their faith in me, I sure as fuck better have a plan.

    • SongTalkingMan

      Take a look at the statistics of children raised by a father and a mother, a single father, and a single mother. Compare those three groups. Look at crime, grades, work, and everything else. The children raised by both are great, raised by a father is great to fine, and the ones by a single mother is trash.

      Life and lives are built and grown and made by masculine MEN.

  • http://www.divorcefieldguide.com/ Chris Vaughan

    At the end of the day Mike, I think your quote here sums up the entire debate;

    “There’s no question Valenti and Marcotte are professional trolls at best (they get those page views, and a writer has to eat) or cultists at worst.”

    “Journalists” like these didn’t grow up in a time when journalistic integrity reigned supreme in the business. Because these new “journalists” grew up blogging, and eeking out a paltry sum with adsense on their blogs, desperately hunting clicks, everyday, with every piece of content produced, headline, meta data, or whatever they threw in, integrity is probably at the very bottom of that days to do list. This is an entire generation of writers.

    And its not just obscure journalists, its the very people that now run the media companies. Even the editors, who may still understand integrity. No, to survive today, they need clicks.

    The click is what did it.

    • Mike Cernovich

      The media has always been pretty biased, although in my lifetime it seems to have gone from mere “bias” to journalists actively inciting mobs and trying to ruin lives and get people killed.

      • http://www.divorcefieldguide.com/ Chris Vaughan

        totally agree, and in this era its gone from political bias to traffic bias

        • Mike Cernovich

          Perfectly put.

      • http://manwithoutfather.com/ Tom Arrow

        May be due to the rise of social networks. Creates a lot of interaction very quickly, making things boil up that would normally only simmer.

        When the plane crashed, I put up an article about it and posted it on a newly created Facebook page about Andreas Lubitz. It stayed visible for about 30 seconds until other posts flooded it away, but I got 25 simultaneous visitors on my site from that alone.

        Single people before social networks just didn’t have this power to be heard.

        • John

          it’s the modern day mob.

      • Lewis

        I agree Mike. We see that not only in the rape cases but in many “racial” cases as well. Remember the Tawana Brawly case from the late 1980’s. I am only 25 years of age so that is way before my time but I did study it in great detail through many visits to the local library.

    • http://manwithoutfather.com/ Tom Arrow

      I worked for a German automobile club. The news that were posted were nothing dramatic, a lot of lobbyism basically. Sometimes there was some online survey and from that a press release was generated. Absolutely not representative, but people are just people and want to get things done and eat something at the end of the day. Why should it be any different in journalism. Everyone has one’s own agenda. Business.

  • Gladius

    Great article sir….
    I’m shocked at how much these people WANTED these rapes to happen….
    They are disappointed that these stories are hoaxes…
    Their lust to believe this stuff is kinda sick. A psychiatrist might call this projection i.e. the hidden desire to truly desire something you say you hate (e.g rape..)

    • Mike Cernovich

      Indeed. There is no “rape culture” in he West and that’s *great* thing for women. Only a true sicko would wish it were otherwise.

      • The Leader of GamerGate

        I’m afraid that some of these people may very well be sick in the head. Sadly, I think it’s possible that some of the types of people who falsely claim rape for attention find it complementary to them. As in, they want to subconsciously perpetuate the idea that someone found them so desirable that they were willing to break the law and spend life in prison just to have sex with them.

        Espousing rape culture only makse it easier for those nutjobs to do what they do.

    • http://manwithoutfather.com/ Tom Arrow

      A helper always needs a victim to take care of.

  • http://www.adziemann.com AD Ziemann

    I use to read Rolling Stone religiously, I couldn’t wait to see anything by Matt Taibbi plus I love music. I eventually stopped not sure why but seeing this whole rape hoax story has been disheartening.

    Sure I could tell the magazine wasn’t the same as it used to be years ago but this was on a whole other level. The crazy part is no one is getting fired. Why? Well we know that answer.

    I think my favorite part of their apology though is at the end saying they hope this doesn’t prevent any rape victims from coming forward in the future. What about we hope this doesn’t prevent any young men from wanting to go to college seeing there’s a witch hunt going on?

    Reality keeps getting stranger and stranger it seems.

    • Mike Cernovich

      Yeah Matt Taibbi backed the Rolling Stone hoax. He had to, I guess. If I had been him, I’d have quit. Now everything I’ve ever read by Taibbi has me think, “Nah, probably bullshit.” UPDATE: I was wrong. I did a fact-check and Taibbi did not praise the story.

      https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/547034773534015488

      Check his Twitter status, so Taibbi still seems trustworthy.

  • Cedric Roggins

    Like my retired military Intel friend says-
    Today’s generation of women who act like this are going to get what they deserve.

    I say-
    When you persecute men and try to repress masculinity on a societal level like the leftist idiots are doing in the West there will be no heros left to save you.

    A society of cowards and Marxists won’t produce anything innovative or ascend to the upper echelon of human potential. They’ll just nanny state and legislate themselves into poverty, tyranny, and blight.

  • http://manwithoutfather.com/ Tom Arrow

    I agree that truth is noble. I don’t agree that it is noble to use the business of your employer to spread your own idealism.

    If the woman who wrote the truthful article had been instructed not to write such an article, she deserved to be fired. Mike, I respect you for publishing the truth on your own. But I don’t respect a woman who makes her employer pay the price for her standards. Ideals have a price tag that has to be afforded; asking others to pay it for you is the same as asking others to feed you.

    Yes, maybe she wasn’t instructed, but then I wonder why she was fired – she could have been simply told not to do it again.

    • Mike Cernovich

      The column was published by a UK paper, The Telegraph. The Oxford student paper, an entirely different enterprise fired her. So it’s not an issue of disobeying your employer. It’s an issue of telling the truth in another paper and then your *other* bosses pitch a fit.

      • http://manwithoutfather.com/ Tom Arrow

        Still depends on the agreement they had. I can see how a newspaper would be concerned with it’s reputation and not want it’s employees to express differing views in general. It sounds twisted, but people dig this kind of shit up from everywhere.

        • Raskolnikov

          Tom, having a good knowledge of the situation, she was not requested to not write such an article. The newspaper was supposed to be editorially independent. After they published the article, student activists lost their shit and started a big petition to have her fired. The Student Union, which is nominally independent, caved to outside pressure.

          • http://manwithoutfather.com/ Tom Arrow

            I see, interesting; in that case, I don’t judge her. Thanks for pointing it out.

            Doesn’t pertain to the things I’ve said, but I believe independency to be an illusion. You are always dependent on someone or something. And if that someone or something doesn’t like what you do, you’re fucked.

          • Raskolnikov

            You’re right- it’s an important lesson we learned from this case.

  • Neocrummer

    The one place where you can freely speak your conservative/libertarian views is the gym. How many male weight lifters do you know call themselves a feminist, liberal, or social justice warrior?

    • Mike Cernovich

      The women, too. By accident/law of attraction some men with pretty big names in fitness found D&P, started linking to it, and now there’s a bunch of fitness women who like my stuff. It’s a “market segment” I didn’t even actively seek out, but they are receptive to D&P more than others.

  • tiraniyaya son

    Check this tweet
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/540159059731951618

    After posting this twitter post he was called rape apologist.

    You are criticizing him for liking the points that two journalists are making. As much as I understand, you don’t criticize those particular points but you just don’t like those journalists.

    Even if he never mentioned the rape hoax cases (which he did) that would not be grounds to attack someone. It should not be you are either with us or against us.

  • The Ugly Oracle

    In any society that values material possessions above all else, skewed ideologies will
    prevail.
    We are at the tipping point where notions of popularity, false victim ideology, display
    of wealth and infotainment trump the core human values of integrity, honesty,
    compassion and devotion to a just cause.

    As an example the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2012 was awarded jointly to Sir John B. Gurdon and Shinya Yamanaka “for the discovery that mature cells can be reprogrammed to become pluripotent” – yes there are many still that devote their lives for the betterment of humanity, but I would wager that these names have no meaning to the vast majority of western population, yet mention Kim Kardashian or Homer Simpson – instant recognition is assured – the only questions are why? and what value do these characters add?

    Yes, I’m ranting and raving somewhat and could easily pen a thesis on the subject, to return to topic – one of the universal ethics of human society ” thou shall not bear false witness” ( pardon the religious connotations) can easily be forgotten. Little wonder, when the powerful can invade sovereign states(Iraq), promote, arm and assist fundamental terrorism(Syria) when it’s convenient, act as judge, jury and executioner(Drones – various regions) all in the name of liberty and justice,the little indiscretions will be disregarded/overlooked!

    • St Martyr

      The world has always been twisted but I agree it’s appalling now.

  • bear

    Good information about Greenwald. I too have always admired his courage and enjoyed reading his exposesl. But now seeing his reaction to these Modern day Marxists – I realize that he’s not a man to be fully trusted. What I have found with most of the individuals doing these “exposes” of the inner machinations of our government is that many of them lead lifestyles that are not normal. Greenwwald is gay, Manning is a tranny etc. As a die hard libertarian I don’t care at all about their personal lives. However lets face it -they fit much more comfortably in with the modern day Marxist (SJW) crowd versus the neoconservative or libertarian . These are such strange times that we live in. It wouldn’t surprise me that when history is written we find out that many of these individuals (Greenwald et al..) were paid shills. Their purpose being to expose and agitate against the current ruling paradigm so that the masses lose faith in it. The loss of faith and credibility, combined with its own ineptitude, resulting in its collapse. Behind the scenes however waits an equally totalitarian government ( that Greenwald et all may enthusiastically support) waiting to fill the vacuum that has been created. However this one will be more Marxist/communist versus the Fascist one we currently live under. In both instances individual freedom and autonomy is glaringly absent. What I notice with the Tibbis, Greenwalds, Mannings etc… is that they are great at indicting and exposing the problems but very weak on laying out any solutions that don’t involve further empowering the State that has so callously been crushing out the light of freedom here in the West. This weakness implies to me that its a philosophical issue that boils down to the fact that deep inside they don’t really value individual freedom. In short they don’t trust their fellow man to act upon his or her own best interest. They have an impetus to use the heavy hand of the State to dictate what they think is best for the collective. I may be wrong about all of this but as an astute observer and reflective thinker this is how I see it.

    • Divided Line

      The equation of Marxism with social justice warriors is inaccurate and moronic. If anything, SJWs are the left wing version of traditional religious conservative culture warriors, both groups assume that historical outcomes are the result of morally reprehensible ideas and actions rather than considering what historical conditions produce beliefs and actions. That’s historical idealism while Marxism begins with historical materialism. It’s literally the opposite of what Marxism is about.

      And Greenwald has always been a socialist. He’s even spoken at the socialism conference. You can watch it on youtube.

      • bear

        You would make a stronger argument if you didn’t use ad hominem attacks. In the sense that the SJWs are atheists, believe in egalitarianism and place the values of the collective over the importance of the individual, – they are much closely aligned to communist philosophy than any other philosophies out there. Lastly you must really feel the weight of the manosphere on your shoulders considering your are the self appointed apologist for those in the ” movement” who fail to measure up to your standards of being semantically correct. Sheesh..you truly are a man tasked with great responsibility.

        • St Martyr

          SJW’s are NOT atheists AT ALL. They hate Richard Dawkins and people like Ricky Gervais.

          As an atheist we believe in FACTS, RATIONALE. None of those hypocrites believe in ANYTHING factual.

        • Divided Line

          None of these things are relevant. Atheism has nothing to do with Gulags. As far as “collectivism” goes, you need only look at traditional and religious culture warriors to see that they have their own brand of conformity and collectivism. Why else would anybody care about gay marriage? You don’t see how imposing their religious conception of marriage and gender relations because they believe that the “family is the unit of society” is coercion in the name of collectivism? Apparently it’s only collectivism when the left does it.

          As far as egalitarianism goes, it’s a basic tenet of the enlightenment. Equality under the law is not a left wing totalitarian concept, it’s at the root of republican revolts against monarchy and is probably the root of all political modernity.

          As for the manosphere, antifeminism is pretty important. Feminism is a bigoted, vicious political cult that will destroy western civilization. This is pretty easy to argue and to demonstrate the moment we no longer have to apologize for people whose understanding of history comes from the history channel. Until then, the truth gets relegated to an ideological fringe and disregarded. I don’t see how you could be comfortable with that.

          Also, you don’t understand what an ad hominem is. Personal invective and insults are not ad hominem. Casting doubt on somebody’s reason for making an argument without logically refuting the argument is. The point of the ad hominem is to deflect from the fact that you don’t have a counter argument by attacking somebody’s character. If you have provided a substantive rebuttal to an argument and then call somebody a fucking moron, that is not ad hominem, it’s just somebody being a dick. I reserve the right to be a dick.

          The irony here is that you haven’t really provided a substantive rebuttal to anything I’ve said, but instead simply complained about a supposed ad hominem. That would actually be an ad hominem.

      • St Martyr

        He may have spoken at a Socialism conference but under Socialism, who would be HANGED and he knows that. Like the author said, the guy is trying to survive because now, you can’t say anything w/o outrage. I’ve even seen the gay community try to bully him because he talks about freedom.

        • Divided Line

          “He may have spoken at a Socialism conference but under Socialism, who would be HANGED ”

          lol

    • St Martyr

      As a British person, I find it very depressing and somewhat shocking-though not anymore-that Libertarianism is only right-wing in the US.

      To be ‘liberal’, comes from the GD word of ‘libertarian’!? Am I in the twilight zone??!

      I’m part of the Lib Dem party in the UK, so we are liberals, which means we have the far right Libertarians, as well as the left wing Libertarians.

      LIBERTY.

      Socialism is the opposite to Conservatism. Which these SJW’s fall into.

      I guess because American education isn’t that great or worldly, you know nothing of so many Libertarians on the Left who wrote many books in England and France during the 18th century. Especially artists.

      You should really read up on what liberty actually means-which has nothing to do with gender, sexuality or race BUT freedom! Esp from government.

      The problem w so much American thinking is that your deep thinking is based from a Biblical Christian outlook-it shaped your land, so innately you grow up with issues on gender, race and sexuality.

      Thank god I’m an atheist. And a liberal. And a left wing Libertarian.

  • Bear Hands

    One of the most disturbing things I’ve ever heard from a family member was that free speech wasn’t that important. Without it, I would certainly be incarcerated or dead for beliefs I’ve spoken of publicly. For at least all my adult years, truth has not been as important to the general public as feelings. To even question stories like these rape hoaxes is to label oneself alien. For the last year or so, I notice with disturbing frequency that most people care more about the emotions of a story than the truth of it.

    Is it a strength or a weakness that I now read emotionally-charged articles and automatically disbelieve them because of their presentation? If I see emotional manipulation, my instinct is to counter it now. This behavior is weakening bonds with some of my family members, but I am happier to choose my action or inaction based on logic instead of emotional appeals. The emotional manipulation is still getting an emotional response from me, but the responses tend to be anger towards what is meant to make me feel obligated and indifference towards what is meant to make me passionate.

  • MarxMarvelous

    Nice to see you call out GG. I lost respect for him when he sold out to the Ebay guy, and decided to hold on to the Snowden info.

  • rustbeltexpat

    Not sure if you’ve noticed Mike but Greenwald has been stepping it up and trying to remind everyone of his civil libertarian bent since a certain lawyer took him to task on twitter.

  • http://yourmace.wordpress.com/ Jacob

    The media isn’t changing anytime soon. The only way to stop this is to counter sue those spreading false allegations of rape with slander. Once the case gets to the point that it’s revealed it was a hoax from the start, it’s time to go on the offensive and sue the pants off of them (no pun intended). Do that a few times on these high profile cases and bleed them for every drop you can and you’ll see the amount of false rape accusations quickly drop.

Read previous post:
Do People Get What They Deserve?

The past several weeks have been busy, hot, and humid. Today I endured the humidity to drop another podcast for...

Close