Comment

Yet Another Deluge of Racial Slurs and Hate Speech at Breitbart "News," Directed at Jorge Ramos

277
Nyet8/28/2015 5:23:33 am PDT

re: #275 KiTA

OK, KiTA, I took a look at your twitter TL and I have a question, if you don’t mind.

But first the preliminaries.

1. You retweeted this from Mike Cernovich:

Cernovich is an extremely bigoted creep.

Some examples:

Click to Reveal

A quick look at his blog crimeandfederalism com shows him to be an paleocon white nationalist, to boot.

2. You retweeted this from Milo Y.:

Milo doesn’t need to be introduced to the Lizards. He’s an ultraconservative, bigoted, racist piss stain that works for Breitbart (but I repeat myself). Enough said.

3.

Vox Day is basically a neo-fascist twit. I could create a long list of what is wrong with him, but this one example should suffice.

4. Then there is this:

You followed Roosh too.

Roosh V in his own words:

rooshv. com/how-to-stop-rape

I thought about this problem and am sure I have the solution: make rape legal if done on private property. I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds.

The exception for public rape is aimed at those seedy and deranged men who randomly select their rape victims on alleys and jogging trails, but not as a mechanism to prevent those rapes, since the verdict is still out if punishment stops a committed criminal mind, but to have a way to keep them off the streets. For all other rapes, however, especially if done in a dwelling or on private property, any and all rape that happens should be completely legal.

If rape becomes legal under my proposal, a girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone. If rape becomes legal, a girl will not enter an impaired state of mind where she can’t resist being dragged off to a bedroom with a man who she is unsure of—she’ll scream, yell, or kick at his attempt while bystanders are still around. If rape becomes legal, she will never be unchaperoned with a man she doesn’t want to sleep with. After several months of advertising this law throughout the land, rape would be virtually eliminated on the first day it is applied.

Then there’s this:

While walking to my place, I realized how drunk she was. In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she legally couldn’t give her consent. It didn’t help matters that I was relatively sober, but I can’t say I cared or even hesitated. I won’t rationalize my actions, but having sex is what I do.

Oh, and that fine fellow is an open antisemite too.

Now, unlike many people, I don’t think that participation in “gamergate” *automatically* means someone is a bad person. The prior probability is very significant (esp. by now, due to self-selection), but if someone supports gamergate only because of this (whatever else one might think of that as a reason) rather than any BS about who slept with whom, and if that person keeps away from misogyny and other bigotry (which would be a feat by now), and from the right-wing piles of slime like Vox Day, Milo Whatsisname, Roosh V and Mike Cernovich, I will think of them as probably just misguided rather than probably bigoted assholes. (Granted, this is unlikely, but still.)

So, given the facts outlined above, could you explain why you should be given the benefit of the doubt?