Sunday, January 14, 2018

This Week in Social Justice Warrior-Dom (Jan. 15, 2018 Edition)

Trigger warning activated! Our biweekly recap of everything that irked, irritated and aggravated SJWs is back with a vengeance!

By: Jimbo X

One of the U.K.'s most prolific media outlets advocates buying children dildos for Christmas

You know, maybe the name This Week in Social Justice Warrior-Dom just isn't apropos anymore. Indeed, it seems that every week the deluge of progressivist inanity and insanity I trudge through is less a condemnation of the hyper-liberal hivemind as it is firm evidence that Western civilization is headed towards terminal madness and collective cultural suicide. Indeed, mayhap one day, the completed TWISJW omnibus will serve as an unplanned field guide to the decline of humanity as we know it, sort of like The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire only with way more grammatical errors and dead URL links. Well, few items as of late prophesy that inevitable downfall of civilization as much as a recent Metro article penned by the publication's lifestyle editor, Ellen Scott, charmingly titled "Why You Should Buy Your Teenage Kids Sex Toys."

No, that's what the editorial board CHOSE to call it. For real. And no, as much as we all may want to believe it's a parody, I assure you - this thing is 100 percent legit. The article went live on Dec. 30, but it's since been pulled from The Metro website - no doubt due to intense public blowback, which I'm sure the publication was no doubt blindsided by. I mean, who in the world would've ever suspected that people in this day and age would be offended by a column advising moms and dads to purchase pocket pussies and vibrators for their underage children? Alas, even though that particular website has tried to scrub the article from their online archive, I had enough foresight to archive the article myself BEFORE it got removed from The Metro. Let's let authoress Ellen Scott take the lead, why don't we?
"...As a parent, it’s your responsibility to make sure your children’s entirely normal exploration of their sexuality is safe, healthy, enjoyable, and in their own hands. You can do that by buying your children their own sex toys. Don’t panic. I’m not talking about getting your son a Fisher Price version of a sex doll or presenting your daughter with an eight inch strap-on on her eighth birthday. I’m talking about a starting point, a way to introduce your offspring the concept of self-pleasure."
Folks, that's literally just the introductory paragraph of the article, and we've already got references to giving dildos to first graders and the coy suggestion that it's a parent's moral obligation to teach their chilluns how to jack off. And if you don't know how to tackle that thorny topic, no worries! There are already "educational" videos making the rounds on YouTube in which moms and dads oh so delicately tell their prepubescent young 'uns the ins and outs of how vaginal lube and strap-ons work. Now THAT is what I call progress, folks.

But surely, Scott - whose Twitter feed, SHOCKINGLY, prominently displays a literal monument to her litany of mental health disorders - can't possibly find a way to go even deeper down the rabbit hole, can she? Oh, how wrong you'd be. Continuing, Scott states:
"When young people aren’t encouraged to think of masturbation as a normal, healthy thing to do, they look for sexual gratification elsewhere – usually at the hands or genitals of another inexperienced person. Their first time is uncomfortable and disappointing, and they’re set up to accept that this is just what sex is like. This is a problem for girls in particular, who are less likely than boys to try masturbating thanks to the shame connected to the act (for boys wanking is seen as entirely normal, whereas girls are still battling the stigma of having their own sexual needs), and later, probably as a result of being unable to learn what gets them off early on, are less likely than men to achieve orgasm during sex. Without early masturbation experiences, the first time young people discover sex is shown to them by someone else – someone who won’t magically know what their sexual partner likes, who’s been influenced by their own experiences, and who could end up delivering a terrible first time. What’s more, if their first sexual experience is with another person, issues of consent and legality come up."
So even in an article advocating parents to instruct their kids how to diddle themselves, Scott STILL tries to position herself in the moral high ground by drudging up all the ways the totally abstract, wholly arbitrary and completely non-existent concept of society makes women feel bad about beating themselves off, complete with a completely explanation-less and evidence-less "correlation" between masturbation abstinence and rape.

But this isn't about sexualizing young children, she defends her column. No siree, Scott's article, she declares, is meant to keep young women safe. And why, oh why, does she think parents purchasing their daughters "legitimate" sex toys will keep them healthy and well-minded? Because if they don't, she warns, they might end up sticking a vase up their hoo-ha and having to go to the emergency room.
"When teenagers aren’t taught about masturbation – how to do it, what feels good, that it’s normal – and given the tools to try it, they reach for whatever objects they think might do the trick. When I was at school I heard of girls exploring their vaginas with hairbrushes (the handles, thankfully, rather than the bristly bits), electric toothbrushes, bananas, and, most worryingly, a shot glass (any kind of fragile glass in the vagina is a terrifying idea). For most of these girls their experiences were just that – funny first-time masturbation trials that weren’t that exciting. But putting objects into the vagina that aren’t designed to be in there can lead to all kinds of worrying consequences, ranging from a nasty infection thanks to the bacterial balance caused by masturbating with fruit, to severe abrasions and injuries that require hospital treatment."
Again, Scott is saying this isn't sexualizing children. I mean, purchasing inanimate objects for their own offspring to shove in their reproductive organs for sexual pleasure has NOTHING to do with sexualizing children, and you'd have to be an evil Nazi Republican Trump supporter to argue to the contrary, you woman-hater, you.

But surely, this whole article - complete with its surprisingly graphic cartoon artwork of female ejaculation tainted panties and a couple engaged in mutual jerkin' it - isn't just Scott griping about her own early sexual preferences and then projecting it as a major moral dilemma for society at large, is it? 
"My shaky attempts at masturbation were dismal enough to put me off any self-love sessions for years. I hadn’t been taught about the clitoris, I didn’t have any understanding of how the vagina worked, and I thought thrusting my fingers in and out would be enough to leave me writhing in pleasure. It was not. If I’d had a sex toy and been given the essential ‘here’s the deal with masturbation’ chat that came with it, perhaps I would have learned about orgasms and my own body a lot more quickly. Perhaps I wouldn’t have gone on to have disappointing sex with no way to express what I needed. It’s a parent’s responsibility to bring up masturbation and give young people the tools they may need to do it safely, because if they don’t, they’re failing to equip their children for a positive relationship with sex."
...oh, nope, never mind. It totally is. But come on - it's not like Scott's asking parents to take 11-year-olds into porno shops to purchase sex toys, is she?
"Buy your child a beginner’s sex toy for the purposes of masturbation. When? Probably earlier than you think – anecdotally, I’ve heard of a lot of people masturbating for the first time at age 11 – but you should be able to chat to your children and suss out if sexual pleasure is even on their mental radar. Buy them the sex toy and give it to them – or take them along to pick out their own – and explain that whenever they’re curious and want to try things out, they’re completely free to use their own sex toy."
You know, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Ellen Scott probably doesn't have any children of her own. And I reckon I'll go out on another limb and say that Ellen Scott will NEVER have any children, nor find a man insane enough to stay with her long enough to even contemplate reproducing with her. And in a way, Scott practically embodies the new Moral Majority of unwed, childless, feminist liberals - the sorts that, without any childrearing experiences whatsoever, feel the compelling onus to tell procreative people how THEY ought to raise their children in a way that projects their own sexual frustrations on them. Thus, instead of The Metro penning columns about how parents can teach their children to be more financially responsible, emotionally stable and logical, they're instead getting literally insane cat-owner spinsters-in-training to pound out clickbait urging mommies and daddies to buy their fourth graders ram rods, butthole oil and French ticklers. 

These are people who honestly think teaching children how to use sex toys ISN'T shamelessly sexualizing children, but some kind of liberating progressivist holy cause. Which, naturally, allows me to wrap this one up with a comment from another U.K. social commentator - heavyweight boxing champion Tyson Fury, who in 2015, stated the following:
"There are only three things that need to be accomplished before the devil comes home. One of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is abortion and the other is paedophilia. Who would have thought in the '50s and '60s that those first two would be legalized?"
Well - is he right, folks, or is he right?

California man prosecuted for trolling mosque online

I've always said that if you want to take a gander at America's future, you first take a look east to the U.K. - where people are jailed for posting videos online of their pugs giving Nazi salutes - and then a glance westward ho towards the Golden State - where gangbangers are given a universal basic income just for not killing anybody that month and people with AIDS are free to infect as many other people as they want without fear of criminal prosecution. And hey, what do you know, it looks like wacky old California is the first state in the Union to attempt to legislate U.K.-style anti-electronic hate speech diktats into reality. In 2016, Mark Feigin was arrested by police after he allegedly called a mosque in Los Angeles and left a death threat - which, for the record, has never been released to the public, nor even transcribed, so who knows what was actually said in the call. Secondly, there's strong evidence to suggest that Feigin was not the person who supposedly left the death threat on the mosque's voicemail, which even hyper-leftist multiculturalism-uber-alles champions like CNN have embraced as la verdad. So even after raiding Feigin's home and taking all his guns and finding no evidence that he was dialing up death threats to mosques, the California A.G. is still trying to put Feigin behind bars - this time, for posting mean things about Muslims on the mosque's Facebook page. Anyway, for stating "THE MORE MUSLIMS WE ALLOW INTO AMERICA THE MORE TERROR WE WILL SEE" and "PRACTICING ISLAM CAN SLOW OR EVEN REVERSE THE PROCESS OF HUMAN EVOLUTION" online, the powers that be in California are looking to put Feigin away for quite some time under state penal code 653(m)(b), which is still just a misdemeanor, but COULD be elevated to a felony under - what else? - California's obtuse interpretation of what constitutes a "hate crime." Regardless, Feigin's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the online trolling charges as a violation of their client's First Amendment rights, which, considering the outcome of U.S. v. Popa (in which a Romanian immigrant who called Eric Holder's office and repeatedly called him the "son of a negro whore" was cleared of all charges), seems like a fairly reasonable outcome.

But then again, this is the Ninth Circuit Court we're talking about here. And if there was ever a legal venue in the country that would go full-on Orwell and breathe "wrongthink" into life, it'd definitely be the same line-up of robed jackasses that once ruled the terms "marriage" and "natural family" to be illegal hate speech.

Baltimore reverend blames increase in black homicides on lax police involvement

You might have heard of something called "The Ferguson Effect" before. Basically, it's this theory that ever since #BlackLivesMatter rose to power, police forces across the nation have been too terrified to interact with black suspects, so as a corollary, the number of black people murdering one another in our finest and dandiest inner cities has skyrocketed. Of course, when people like Heather Mac Donald bring this up, the vanguard of the liberal media just HAS to denigrate it as crypto-racist nonsense, even though the actual homicide stats from major cities like Chicago, Dallas and Milwaukee indeed paints a clear correlation between reduced police interaction and increased black-on-black murder. Well, the MSM is going to have a hard time playing the race card against one of Baltimore's most outspoken proponents of po-po prioritizin' P.O.C. patrollin' - the Rev. Kinji Scott, who apparently has done a 180 on the great American black men/police dyad since 2015. Back then Scott lamented the high profile death of Freddie Gray and his similarly deceased black kindred, but now that Baltimore's per capita homicide rate has reached its highest levels since 1993 (this, despite the population decreasing by roughly 100,000 people), he's now demanding that the boys in blue do SOMETHING to keep the vibrant African-American youth of urban Maryland from massacring one another in droves. Indeed, in a recent NPR article, he said that Baltimore's black community NEVER wanted police to stop intervening in the first place - a misconception he pinned on the transferred well wishes of "progressives" and "our liberal journalists." Let's hear the good reverend preach it himself, why don't we?
"...We know for a fact that around the time Freddie Gray was killed, we start to see homicides increase. We had five homicides in that neighborhood while we were protesting ... I look at the conclusion of 2017, these same cities — St. Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans and Chicago — these same black cities are still bleeding to death and we're still burying young men in these cities ... We need the front line police officers and we need the heart of the black community to step to the forefront of this discussion. And that's when we're going to see a decrease in crime."
Huh. So what's that old saying about not knowing what you've got 'til it's gone? Well, you got your wish Baltimore - and if you'd rather die alone on the streets than live among law enforcement officers, I just reckon that's something you've got to deal with on you own.

Newsweek criticized for tweeting photograph of Martin Luther King Jr.'s corpse

I think it's pretty safe to say that the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is the single most revered human being in America. You can go on live prime time television and say "fuck the Pope" or "Jesus takes it up the ass" and nothing happens, but if you dared to raise any questions about King's philandering and confirmed hobnobbing with actual communists, you're likely to lose your job, get blacklisted from your professional field and be forced to beg for forgiveness for the remainder of your life for besmirching the good name of MLK, who is undoubtedly the purest and most decent human being who has ever lived on this planet. And that's a lesson Newsweek learned firsthand earlier this year when they tweeted out a picture of MLK in a casket with the caption "Has anybody here seen my old friend Martin?" Now, for those of you who aren't fucking 70 years old right now, that's a reference to the 1968 Dion hippie anthem  "Abraham, Martin and John," but I'm guessing most of the under-40 Twitter populace didn't get it and simply assumed Newsweek was making fun of God-Man King by NOT displaying him as messianic superhero and therefore, promoting some sort of dastardly, super-duper racist alt-right agenda. Even Bernice King - the daughter of MLK himself, who, as an aside, has made millions licensing her dead father's likeness to whichever gaggle of guilty white liberals wish to exploit his visage - was outraged over Newsweek's tweet, which - not at all surprisingly - was deleted shortly thereafter. Not that it didn't stop white women who look like 8-year-old boys from taking the publication to task - you know, just like the Good Rev. Dr. would've wanted.

Report: violent crime in London almost DOUBLES under Mayor Khan

As the capital of the U.K. - and therefore, the capital of Europe, if not economically, certainly culturally - London is pretty much in the driver's seat of steering an entire continent's financial and social policies. Which is why progressivists in jolly old England are STILL patting themselves on the back for voting Sadiq Khan as London's first ever Muslim mayor back in '16, who since then has saw his humble city - and by proxy, the rest of the country - slowly but surely embrace more and more free expression-squelching legislation as a necessary deterrent to the abstract conceptualization of hate, which is a notion so obtuse even U.K. police have said they have no idea how to objectively define what is and isn't "hateful." Well, new crime stats from the Mayor of London's Police and Crime Office reveal that - despite Khan enacting ordinances that ban "fat shaming" in public advertising and make possession of bacon a felony offense - London hasn't exactly become a safer society under his stewardship. In fact, in just Khan's first two years as Mayor's office, knife attacks, robberies and thefts have risen in excess of 25 percent, while rape and gun crimes have increased 18 percent and 16 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, total homicides have shot up a remarkable 27 percent, while youth homicides have gone up a dizzying 70 PERCENT. Of course, rather than focus on this incredible upswing in violent crime over the course of just two years, local media is instead zeroing in on the city's 26 percent rise in "Islamaphobic offenses." Which, I think we can all agree, is certainly more troubling than the city government doing Jack Shit about an explosion in juvenile-perpetrated murders and an overall homicide rate that rose a full quarter over the course of only 24 months.

England may become home to world's first vagina museum

Give or take a century ago, Freud coined the term "penis envy" to describe the dual subconscious antipathy women feel towards themselves and their kind, as well as their intense frustration over not having genitals that, if so desired, can be wrapped around just about any cylindrical object imaginable while simultaneously allowing the ability to piss standing up. Well, considering the excessive (if not wholly irrational) "pussy pride" sweeping the nation in the wake of Donald Trump's presidential victory, mayhap old Sigmund might have been on to something. Enter non-testicled Florence Schechter, a 20-something comedian of the Jewish persuasion who has resolved herself to opening the world's first vaginal museum about 50 miles to the South of London. Naturally, Schechter said she was inspired to open the museum after learning of Iceland's world famous "penis museum," which was the focal point of the documentary The Final Member, which she - of course - cites as an example of "gender inequality." Among other eye-pleasing sights, she told The Jerusalem Post her hypothetical museum would feature galleries dedicated to clitoris mutilation and a litany of vaginal infections, in addition to an in-house bakery that will serve guests vulva-shaped cupcakes. Alas, the one thing Schechter doesn't have is the seed capital available to open the museum; we'll just have to wait and see if her feminists pals have enough pocket change to get the project off the ground, but if I were a betting man? Much like a Hillary Clinton presidency, I'd bet the bank that this tribute to twats never comes to fruition.

Germany goes full-Hitler when it comes to new online hate speech laws

Seeing as how old Deutschland is responsible for that whole Holocaust thing, I suppose it's only natural they'd try to atone in this, the current year, by doing everything in their power to suppress, stamp out and generally silence anything that even remotely resembles hateful rhetoric. Well, on Jan. 01, the really, really hard to pronounce Netzwerkdurchstezungsgesetz law officially took effect, meaning all social media networks with more than 2 million users will now have 24 hours to "act after they have been told about law-breaking material" or face fines as high as 50 million Euros. Indeed, Facebook has already hired hundreds of staffers to patrol German users so as to comply with the expansive online surveillance edict, with all the other social media Leviathans like YouTube and Twitter no doubt sure to follow in their footsteps. Alas, some civil libertarians with the audacity to think that one's inherent right to free expression is more important than shielding the easily bruised egos of minorities with special governmental protections have criticized the law as overbroad, with some satire accounts making fun of right wing politicians getting "gassed" for looking and sounding too much like real white supremacist chit-chat. Alas, don't expect German Justice Minister Heiko Maas to overturn their controversial law anytime soon. "Calls to murder, threats, insults and incitement of the masses or Auschwitz lies are not an expression of freedom of opinion," he told the German publication Bild, "but rather attacks on the freedom of opinion of others."

Yeah - nothing authoritarian sounding about this motherfucker, is there?

Confirmed: The DNC tried to bribe women to lie about being sexually abused by Donald Trump

With all this riffraff about still unproven "Russian collusion," it's kinda' interesting that the mainstream media, by and large, has steered clear of making the same ruckus over extremely verified evidence of Democratic National Convention collusion in the 2016 election. Case in point? The newfound evidence that two big time Hillary Clinton donors, David Brock and Susie Tompkins Buell, paid Lisa Bloom - yep, the attorney behind the #MeToo movement - $700,000 in an attempt to bribe a woman to come forward with unsubstantiated (read: fake) allegations of sexual maltreatment from The Donald in the lead up to the 2016 general vote. And - of course - despite being faced with overwhelming evidence that DNC heavy hitters were actively trying to financially compensate a third party to lie about being sexually abused, in a New York Times write-up on the matter writer Kenneth P. Vogel still has the audacity to declare Trump has "fought back by suggesting, mostly without evidence, that their accusers are being paid by Democratic partisans."

Yes, this in the very same article in which Vogel explicitly states Brock and Buell funneled money to coerce a woman to lie about being sexually assaulted by Donald Trump. So do these assholes even read what they write before they turn it in, or are their editors so sloppy they don't even catch day one fuck-ups like this? Either way, such editorial execution speaks volumes about the alleged "impartiality" of the media's biggest movers and shakers. In fact, it's almost as voluble as their silence when it comes to the ethical misdeeds on the part of their ideological teammates in D.C., ain't it?

Somali immigrant tries to rape pregnant woman after sneaking into Italian hospital

As we all know, celebrating diversity is the single most important thing we can do as a society, and multiculturalism-worship is such a worthy undertaking that we're essentially required to condemn any and all forms of ethno-nationalism (well, at least one kind of ethno-nationalism) and gently turn the other cheek when people with swarthier complexions commit trifling misdeeds, like running over 100 people with a transfer truck or anally crucifying a 10-year-old. As such, it's probably for the best if we - as a global collective - simply gloss over a rather lamentable episode in Rome recently in which a 43-year-old woman going into labor was sexually assaulted by a 38-year-old Somali immigrant, who apparently snuck into the hospital and stole a nurse's uniform before committing his criminal misdeed ... I mean, unintentionally non-conforming to cultural norms. According to The Daily Mail, the suspect ... I mean, the innocent refugee still coming to terms with the complex, if not inherently prejudicial, customs of Western civilization ... "walked into the delivery room, where he groped the woman's thighs and genitals and began masturbating." Granted, such is a despicable gender-based hate crime when people like Harvey Weinstein do it, but we simply must cut this Somalian some slack. I mean, how was he supposed to know that in Italy, it's considered impolite to jerk off on pregnant women and try to shove your hands inside their vaginas without permission? Anyhoo, the suspect (i.e., victim of white oppression) is now staring down several aggravated sexual assault and theft charges. Thankfully, however, the accused (who has been living in Italy for five years) will undergo a rigorous mental health screening before he stands before a judge; here's hoping the "would-be rapist" is declared mentally incompetent ... and therefore, fully entitled to all of the government hands-out he deserves.

In early Troll of the Year nominee, WikiLeaks publishes entirety of anti-Trump screed online

Unless you've been living under a rock since New Year's Eve, you've likely heard a thing or two about Michael Wolff's tome Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, which virtually every mainstream news outlet in the world described as a factual "bombshell," this despite multiple allegations that a large amount of intel in the book is either exaggerated or totally fabricated. Also overlooked by the ever-zealous press? Author Wolff's long track record of alleged journalistic malfeasance, which includes not only repeated accusations of misquotes, but creating wholly fictitious "sources" for his 1998 book Burn Rate. Regardless, the media's nonstop promotion of the book has the tome on track to sell about 30,000 copies during its first week on the racks - this, despite some rather humdrum reviews from The Chicago Tribune and The Guardian decrying the book for being aesthetically unpleasing. Alas, self-described libertarian Julian Assange and his merry band of hacktivists over at WikiLeaks are so committed to exposing the alleged misdeeds and misdoings of the Trump Administration that they've done Wolff one better and published the entirety of Fire and Fury online via Twitter, making it free and available for download to anybody who was aware of its existence on Google Docs before it was eventually yanked down for copyright infringement. While the original link is dead, enough early adopters grabbed the copy when it was live that literally one Google search will net you a gratis PDF copy of the tome - and thus, deprive Wolff of whatever royalties he would've gotten from the $18 MSRP. IF this is a coordinated attempt to hurt Wolf's sales, then you have to give Camp WikiLeaks some dap, 'cause nothing sticks 'em right in the gut like forcing an ideological rival to sacrifice financial compensation for wider public penetration. I mean, if the information therein is as important as Wolff and his supporters claim, than surely, he would be happy that others were gaining said info even without having to pay for it, right? Alas, consumers hungry for some anti-Trump literature may be the ones costing Wolff the most potential profit from his new treatise - as it turns out, scores of would-be readers are actually purchasing a 2009 book with the same title by accident and leaving angry memos online about supposedly being gypped by the publisher. Well, we all know not to judge a book by its cover, but in this scenario, would it be OK to judge a book based on the dumb asses too stupid to figure out how ISBNs work?

... and a few headlines that speak for themselves ...


Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.