Monday, April 14, 2014

Are false rape allegations rare or rampant?

When it comes to statistics about rape, there is one very popular dogma among those concerned about justice in our legal system.

It is the idea that false allegations of rape are either rare or rampant. Since "rare" seems to be winning, let's start there as a baseline.

The idea shows up in numerous places, on Twitter:




And in numerous articles:

In the period of the review, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 111,891 for domestic violence. During the same period there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape, six for making false allegation of domestic violence and three for making false allegations of both rape and domestic violence.

Even BuzzFeed has picked up on it. (Belated trigger warning: it's BuzzFeed...)

Despite one of their own doing a decent job of speaking to these statistics, he narrative is popular on FreeThoughtBlogs as well. Zvan has written several posts on the subject.

And the idea is most recently cited by "A Million Gods":

False rape allegations are relatively rare. In the UK the Crown Prosecution Service between 2011 to 2012 prosecuted around 5400 rapes and 35 false accusations.

Even Jason T, a man falsely accused of rape, keeps a "6%" number in his pocket when the issue of false allegations comes up:

it’s more grievously harmful to name the person on the off chance that they fall into the ~6% of false rape claims than it is to screw up that person’s chances at harassing or raping even more people.

And of course, the godfather, PZ Myers, also likes to drop the same statistics:
Isn’t it fascinating how many men are absolutely certain that most rape accusations are completely false, that it’s just wicked women conspiring to bring men down? Yet when you look at the numbers, you know that data that skeptics are supposed to care about, the frequency of false rape accusations is low, about 6-8%.
Let's get something straight very quickly.

All rape statistics are bad. Always.

It makes no sense whatsoever to look at these numbers and make a determination about how likely people are to lie about rape. 

Let's investigate some facts that inform what we think about "false allegations".

1. Rape is underreported

Estimates of underreporting vary. It's difficult to measure what people do not want you to measure. However it seems like an educated assumption is that there is some number of victims that have enough evidence to bring a conviction in court that simply do not choose to tell anyone.

Let's say we see a shift in circumstances and some number of these people do come forward. What does this do with the "false allegation" rates that are always cited? 

They drop. However if real numbers of false allegations did not drop, the true risk of being a victim of a false allegation would have not changed. Funny how that works.

2. "Guilty" is not always guilty

Any view of reality that relies on the criminal justice system not making mistakes is just broken. 

The truth is that a conviction does not always mean that a crime occurred nor does it always mean the person in jail is actually guilty of said crime.

This is particularly evident in the United States which makes a habit of executing a lot of people and then wondering if several of the judgments were actually based on reliable and complete information.

3. Measures of false reports do not encompass all false reports

Let's say a charge of sexual assault fails to arrive at a conviction. Does this mean the accusation was false? No.

Imagine for a moment that someone accused O.J. Simpson of a crime. If it happens that Simpson is found not guilty, does the criminal justice system then prosecutes the accusers for bearing false witness?

The following scenarios are possible:
  • The victim of the crime is telling the truth and the perpetrator is convicted
  • The victim of the crime is telling the truth and the perpetrator is not convicted
  • The "victim" is lying and an innocent person is convicted
  • The "victim" is lying and an innocent person is found not guilty
  • The "victim" is lying and an innocent person is convicted. Later, "victim" charged with false report.
  • The "victim" is lying and an innocent person is found not guilty. Later, "victim" charged with false report.
Notice that there are two cases where the victim is lying but is not proven to be a liar. In criminal justice metrics, this is not counted as a "false report".

One can easily imagine that not every false accusation will invert itself as an charges targeted at the reporter. The allegations, if plausible enough, can simply remain as the victim's testimony. That is, not everyone that is lying are found to be liars as the system does not exist to prove that events did or did not happen. The system simply exists to judge the likely guilt of the accused.


4. Not all allegations are reports

Three words are generally used interchangeably:
  • Allegation
  • Accusation
  • Report
The English language in this case is painful. Statistics used generally follow reports. That is, allegations that are documented in a police report.

The trouble is that people are easily accused of a crime without the justice system as we typically understand it being involved at all.

In this age, allegations are gathered not only by police, but also by:
  • Schools
  • Employers
  • Bloggers
  • Social networks
For those keeping track, the Atheism+/FreeThoughtBlogs cabal of ne'er-do-wells have themselves been party to allegations against of sexual assault leveled against several people. 

Some names that come to mind:
  • Michael (Anonymous victim, no corroborating witnesses accounts)
  • Ben (SciAm and Slate took down articles containing obvious factual errors, more details in question)
  • Christie (Accusations proven false)
What do these names have in common? No police reports. 

Are the allegations true or false?

It is difficult to say, however it would be very stupid to suggest that the allegations are somehow more likely to be true given that the "false report" rate is low in some Crown Prosecution Service study.

That would be akin to saying that some accusation of murder made on Twitter is plausible because the NYPD does not actually prosecute many people for filing false murder claims. It's just completely different data.

Let's move away for a moment from the world of primarily online allegations. There is more to the world than blogs.

An illustrative example of where allegations are often handled is perhaps an incident at Sarah Lawrence college.

The allegation made to both police and the school was that a young black man had raped a young white lesbian woman. The woman did report the incident to all relevant authorities in a timely manner and evidence was gathered.

The suspect was arrested, but later released as there was said to be inconsistencies in the accounts meant there was not enough evidence to prosecute. One could assume that this does not qualify as a "false report" at this stage as far as crime statistics are concerned.

The story becomes stranger as even though the police have decided to not move further with the case, the pair are put in front of a tribunal at the college. The administration assures students that the campus is a safe space. Unsatisfied with the messaging and the speed of justice, the accuser writes an "Open Letter to Dean Green". A poem includes phrases "tying nooses", "hanging your boys up" and "legs stop twitching".

When both the suspect and the Dean are black, these are not the right words to choose.

The resolution of this incident is not key to what one needs to witness - the justice system that received the most focus was the one at the college level.

Colleges, employers and similar organizations are able to do several things:
  1. Keep more secrets than the justice system
  2. Make decisions without knowing all details
  3. Use punishments that are injurious - but so injurious as to be extremely cruel if misapplied
  4. Move very quickly - the goal of the institution is largely to save face
  5. Place the "secrecy problem" on the accused - challenging punishment would make allegations more public
Given these factors, it's easy to imagine a lot of instances of sexual misconduct being entirely handled outside the justice system. As institutions grow in power, this option becomes more attractive.

Even allegations of serious sexual assault could avoid referrals to the police if there is the willingness to institute policies concerning conduct that are more sensitive than the law of the land. The only thing that the investigators would perhaps really need to hear was an admission that unwanted communication of a sexual nature happened.

5. Eight percent is not "low"

Assume for a moment that the other problems with the data do not exist and allow us to run with the numbers cited by PZ Myers and Jason.

The authorities of the land stand at the podium and state:

"We've crunched the numbers and it turns out that 6-8% of rape allegations are demonstrably false. Not insufficient evidence, not of questionable guilt, not failure to reach a conviction -- simply false. In these cases, the most heinous crime committed was the filing of the report."
A citizen concerned with rights, identifying as feminist or not, would be outraged at this discovery.

Are police coercing victims to recant their stories? Which gender is more likely to file a false report? Is the justice system operating a victim-blaming boys club or are they laughing in the face of men that claim to be raped by women?

Instead of the number coming up as a frightening statistic, it is most often provided as a number somehow "proving" that the "men's rights activists" are exaggerating how pervasive false rape allegations are.

It is true that one can find in the expanse of the internet some people that believe that nearly every charge of rape is completely bogus. Presumably these people think that a lot of people in jail are innocent. It is difficult to have a conversation with these people.

Occasionally a light shines on the data as the social justice crowd realizes that the false report metric could be due to coercion by the authorities.

However the soundbite arrived on by the social justice warriors is not quite:
"It's difficult to arrive at conclusions based on rape statistics. Underreporting is rife, the authorities may be fudging data. Something must be done!"
Instead it more closely follows:

"What if that all 'false reports' are due to the authorities coercing victims into retracting their stories? That would mean feminism's critics are even more wrong!"

Somewhere along the line we've lost our minds.

Compromised numbers, compromised behavior

The numbers on rape. They're bogus. That's something that is clear.

Let's now examine the stereotypes, behaviors and fears that people that actually put credence in the numbers actually harbor.

It turns out PZ Myers himself was the victim of a false rape accusation:

Wait…she listened, & all she took from it was 1 or 2 sentences which she then misinterprets to mean I’m forever denying the possibility that a woman might make a false accusation? Nonsense. I’ve been threatened with a false rape accusation, one that could have totally destroyed my career.
I took it very seriously and moved quickly to provide evidence that it was false.
But of course we have to accept the personal testimony of women’s experiences. In that case, it would have been totally injust to simply say, “oh, she’s a woman, therefore she’s lying”. Most rape accusations are not false, so a priori dismissals are inappropriate, and if that woman had gone to the authorities (she didn’t, because I immediately brought in witnesses to make her effort futile) I would sure as hell hope they’d treat both of our positions with equal seriousness.

The interesting thing here is that we have two men, Jason and PZ, both apparently falsely accused of rape while simultaneously reminding everyone that this almost never happens. The conclusion is based on bad data, and even if the data was good eight percent would be a travesty -- so how exactly this is is reconciled with their existence is a mystery.

Cognitive dissonance, perhaps?

This mentality has followed Myers for quite some time, as he shares in 2010:

I won’t meet privately with students either — I always keep my office door wide open, and when I’m working with students in the lab, I find excuses to move out and let them work on their own if it turns into a one-on-one event. I just can’t afford the risk.
I was also subject to accusations of harassment, once upon a time. A female student came into my lab when I was alone, unhappy about an exam grade, and openly threatened me — by going public with a story about a completely nonexistent sexual encounter right there.
Zoom, I was right out the door at that instant; asked a female grad student in the lab next door to sit with the student for a bit, and went straight to the chair of the department to explain the situation. I had to work fast, because I knew that if it turned into a he-said-she-said story, it wouldn’t matter that she was lying, it could get dragged out into an investigation that would easily destroy my career, no matter that I was innocent.
I was in a total panic, knowing full well how damaging that kind of accusation can be. Fortunately, I’d done the right thing by blowing it all wide open at the first hint of a threat, and getting witnesses on the spot.

And he has gone as far as to document his approach to an accusation:

How I responded to that instance is just part of a protocol for how people should work together. Here’s what I do:
  • I don’t harass women, or anyone for that matter.
  • I maintain complete transparency. Not only do I not harass women, but any accusation that I do founders on the implausibility of the circumstance.
  • I deal with any potential situation by defusing it immediately. Not arguing, not protesting my innocence, not begging the person to refrain from hurting my reputation, but going straight to departmental authorities and explaining the situation. Again, transparency: the slander isn’t going to stick.
  • I bring in witnesses, preferably women too, who can testify to my innocence. And I don’t just mean people who will say I’m a nice guy, but witnesses to the incident who can describe all the details of the event.
  • I keep myself protected against false claims, which also means that I’m keeping my students protected from any harm. We all work just fine together, with nothing to hide.
  • I don’t sexually harass my students or colleagues. Period.
Not only is my reputation spotless, and honestly so, but there’s no way to even realistically bring such a charge against me. And of course the great majority of my interactions with students bear no risk of any such problems — we can trust each other. But then, there are always people like those slimy ones, that minority of nasty untrustworthy liars commenting on Radford’s thread, who are happy to distort and make false accusations, and I deal with them in the same way that I did that earlier incident: with transparency and honesty and frank admission of what actually happened. I don’t deny that such unpleasant people exist, especially when so many of them are already populating that thread and the existence of contemptible liars is so apparent. But when one has no interest in harassing people, it turns out to be relatively easy to maintain one’s integrity — I don’t have years of stalkerish behavior and complaints and administrative disciplinary actions to make excuses for, unlike some people.

Myers maintains his viewpoint is somehow consistent. 

Myers goes to great lengths to create a world wherein the allegation made against him was out of the blue - Myers is well liked by his female coworkers, and Myers does not have a documented history of harassment. The assumption here is that Myers has data that the rest of us do not, that would show us his attributes are more saintly than others that have faced charges of rape. 

Presumably we're to believe Myers over his accusers, as Myers has a binders full of women that would come to his defense. Also, PZ Myers also pays his taxes on time. 

It makes one wonder if Myers' politics is simply a ploy to immunize himself from false rape allegations.

In the same thread, Myers admits the accuser did not face any sort of penalty:

It is the only time that has happened in 25 years of teaching. And it didn’t go far at all: ten minutes of worry, and then the student recanted and apologized.
She wasn’t punished, except for the fact that she did fail the course…but that was going to happen anyway.

Funny that Myers' accuser is not tracked within the percentages that Myers loves to cite.

But it gets even stranger - as Myers also mistrusts women at conferences:

Except…I was really surprised the first time a woman at a conference offered me her hotel key. I know I’m not personally attractive or otherwise appealing in any physical way, and it was simply that eroticism of intellectual stimulation, as you mentioned, and the impulse to indulge in a fleeting crush. You know speakers get a little edge from that position when I’m getting sexual opportunities!
It felt like cheating, didn’t actually represent my ideal (all of my physical relationships have also been serious emotional relationships), and just generally seemed like something we might all regret when the first brief flush of enthusiasm wore off. So I’ve always gently turned down those offers.
I don’t want to give the impression that I turn them down, so everybody else ought to, too. I’m really just saying that there’s some weird primate psychology going on, and we ought to be wary of it.
As for numbers, it doesn’t happen at every conference, it’s probably happened to me 8? 10? times? Thereabouts. A couple of times a year.
I suspect it’s much more common for younger, handsomer speakers who aren’t geeky bearded weirdos. And I would imagine most of them would also turn down the offers, but I don’t know — maybe I’m a horrible weirdo in another way too.

Why is what PZ Myers has to say on this subject important?

Is PZ Myers an awful person for saying these things?

No, PZ Myers is not an awful person. 

This is important because PZ Myers is simply average. Normal. Much of what Myers says is simply taken for granted in academic and professional environments. 

Where the hypocrisy arises is that PZ Myers also represents a very specific type of social justice warrior. 

People like Myers are a large part of why rape cases that show up in the media very quickly turn into battles within groups online. 

On one side, there are those peddling the "believe survivors" and "rape culture" slogans, that ultimately believe that it's insulting victims to show anything but overwhelming sympathy and trust. This is the gang most excited about false rape allegations being deemed "rare"

On the other side, there are those that would go as far as to view every accusation with the assumption that the "victim" is using the legal system for money or revenge. This is the gang most excited about false rape allegations being deemed "rampant".

The issue becomes especially troublesome when social justice warriors like PZ Myers are themselves are primary sources of sexual assault allegations. An anonymous email goes to an energetic social justice warrior and immediately it appears on a blog or Tumblr post. This is seen largely as an effort to "give a voice to the victims". The overall effort is to purge evildoers without a conscience from their respective communities.

Perhaps it a coping mechanism - these men view themselves as unquestionably the "good guys" in the reality they've created only because they've been so viciously accused of being one of the "bad guys". The "weird primate psychology" is that these people then feel compelled to frequently prove to their peers that they are their betters. It's as if they cannot again be the accused if they are now frequently the accusers.

The Adam and Eve of social justice warrior

Let's say there are two archetypes of social justice warrior. Or, if you prefer, tropes. Also, let's just use the gender binary. Adam and Eve. Hopefully they can distill what we've seen over the past few years in this various "progressive" movements in support of "intersectionality".

First, Eve. Eve is the typical well-educated, well-intentioned woman that rightly believes that there is a lot of work left to do when it comes to gender equality. 

Eve talks big about "feminism" as an all-encompassing social project. Viewing the growing "men's rights" movement as obvious adversaries to feminism's goals, Eve will go as far as to say that "feminism" will do more to solve racism than its critics.

The problems occur when Eve loses a handle on where we're going in regards to objectification. Or porn. Or physical assault. Or Islam. And things get particularly uncomfortable when Eve's own stated politics collide with her risk assessments.

More relevant to this post is the subject of Adam.

Adam, in this case, may be an individual like PZ Myers.

Adam is well-educated and looking to make an impact. He is keenly aware that men have an easier time of landing high paying careers. He is also cognizant of the fact that a lot of violent crime is committed by men. Despite many advances, he still understands the many ways that women have it rough in modern society.

On his platform, Adam is ready and willing to be a terrific ally for "feminism". Adam understands that key to empowerment is being heard, and works to bring many women's voices to the table. Adam also knows that if women are going to be a part of the future, they will need representation in the science and technology fields that will dominate in the coming years.

The problem is that Adam also exists in the real world.

Pulled aside from gender politics, placed in an environment with only beer and other males, Adam describes his own approach to keeping the cushy job the patriarchy gifted him with.

Here the real grenade is thrown down. Here it is openly admitted that women are entirely capable of being selfish, amoral, mentally unstable, prone to regret and not in control of their sexual desires.

It is soon clear that Adam's behavior is such that he must believe that his family stands more risk to be injured by rumor than physical assault.

Adam slowly outlines his strategy to staying alive within our "gender equitable" workplaces. Build credibility with several women that one is disinterested in. Establish an identity within the brand of feminism that feels most frequently violated. Minimize the number of closed door meetings with women - "the broads" will talk and you don't want to be hear gossip or be gossip. Finally, deflect attention towards men that are already in the process of being blackballed.

It's like blending in as a "true American" while secretly reading a lot of Marx.

The offspring of this Adam and Eve duo is ill-concealed fear. The stereotypical case in the modern political arena might be the bandwagon activists that talk big about how prison sentences are not the same as rehabilitation yet do not wish to live anywhere near ex-cons. NIMBY.

Paint by numbers

The moral of the story again, of course, is that all rape statistics are bad

Just stop citing these figures in attempts to either elevate or destroy someone's story. What is the point? Instead, view the data for what it is - only a piece of the puzzle. Each allegation of serious crime needs to be viewed on its own merits instead of being prejudged by questionable data.

Finally, let's ignore the social justice dudebros that like to feign concern about rape culture while citing this bad data and claiming they are one of the scarce unicorns with a real story of a false allegation.

As you know, it does not matter how they dress it up, their behavior is still based on man's baser assumption that they have been unable to shake:

"Bitches be crazy".

If they believed otherwise, they'd behave otherwise.

Friday, April 11, 2014

Mostly Residing in Crazytown

Suey Park and one of her social justice sidekicks are at it again. This time, in an article on Time's website.

Much has been said about Suey Park's antics. Some of the best summaries have been written by Joslyn Stevens and Juliet Shen.

At this point, there is no point in trying to go further down the rabbit hole of putting a lot of thought into what Suey Park has to say. Intelligent people by now have hopefully had an opportunity to read Stevens' and Shen's perspectives and put them in context of Suey's own words. (1 2 3)

However there are a few things that stand out as weird about the TIME article.

First, the focus on the word mainstream and the desire to be treated like adults:

Young Asian American women, with little institutional power, are not supposed to be this loud.  [...] Our age and appearance have led to us being infantilized
[...] 
Our role in mainstream media is the perpetual race commentator — unable to exist in a way that isn’t reactionary and defensive to whiteness. We were only heard when we responded to a beloved white man.
[...]
The irony is that we want complexity, we want nuance, we want critical representations of race, gender, class, sexuality, disability, and more. But we reject the idea of representation being our end goal. We will not mute who we are in order to be accepted into the mainstream. If our liberation is dependent on getting our oppressors to humanize us, then we have already lost.

Suey & co seemingly want to be a play a part of the "mainstream" in terms of popularity, but view themselves as being distinct from it. Also, they are sick of being treated like children.

The bio is especially weird:
Suey Park (@suey_park) is a writer and activist currently living in Chicago. Eunsong Kim (@clepsydras) is a writer, researcher and educator mostly residing in San Diego.

Wait, what does this mean?

"Currently living"?

"Mostly residing"?

If an editor at TIME wrote this bio, they should be ashamed. If the authors of the piece wrote this bio, then we should not be surprised.

The language is that of hipster activism.

For some reason the authors wish us to be certain that their existence in a city is completely tentative. Commitment to a place and community is so passé.

While they present pointless details like hyperactive teenagers that love to use every opportunity to mention they are in a relationship, these intrepid social justice warriors wish everyone to accept them as adults.

Luckily in the real world, no one gets extra points for being a nomadic warrior of pointless "activism". A few hundred years ago, people like this would conceivably be regarded as wandering prophets offering forgiveness and a new moral philosophy.

The only difference is now the charlatans do not even bother expounding their values when given the chance. They are tired, they have anxiety problems and they do not feel like you deserve to have them enacting the labor that would allow you to hear the good word.

You were born a sinner, you may always be a sinner.

In "social justice activist" philosophy, as popularized by Twitter, Tumblr, and "Atheism+", nobody has a moral obligation to educate their neighbors.

Moreover, nobody has an obligation to be a neighbor.

You cannot fault the activists, however. You wouldn't want to be stuck in a patriarchal cisheteronormative colonialist home owners association, would you? They would hold discussions about landscaping without even as much as a trigger warning. The oppression would never end. So very mainstream.

And people may be married and conforming to traditional gender roles. How could one breathe?

Instead it is simpler to bathe in the privilege afforded only to young people in western nations, the privilege of not having to answer to anybody while somehow remaining able to pay the bills. The greatest privilege of all may be the ability to ignore most everyone in your "meatspace" life and never having start with someone as they are. You can simply let them find you if or when they happen to mind-meld with your political opinions online.

So repent, sinner.

How does one repent?

Look it up on Google, shitlord!

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Fact checking David Futrelle

The title refers to a one David Futrelle, but the rest of the content could just as well be fact checking any shallow "feminist" sources over the last few days. Fact checking Futrelle, SJW reddit mods, and of course, oolon.

Let's get started with a brief history of events.

Chapter 1:

  1. A person (let's call her "B") tweets a series of provocative statements.
  2. B has a conversation with a another college student, "D" from now on, about colonialism.
  3. B & D have a completely unproductive, sarcastic exchange
  4. B posts screencap on Twitter, along with D's LinkedIn profile.
  5. This exchange is spread around Twitter
  6. D's LinkedIn profile happens to disappear completely.
  7. B claims victory on Twitter, despite D's school apparently being silent on the matter
  8. B's tweets of this nature capture the attention of many critics. (See article here)

Chapter 2:

  1. Some unknown person writes a post on the /r/MensRights subreddit, claiming to be a student in B's class
  2. The reddit post author claims that B said some ridiculous things during class
    • Some statements implying circumcision was funny (B did not say this - read on) 
    • Some statements implying homeless white males do not deserve help (B did not say this - read on)
  3. The reddit post author links to several tweets made by B and provides commentary
  4. The reddit post author asks the readers of the subreddit if he/she should be "worried" or "concerned" about B's behavior.
  5. Several subreddit readers provide "advice" that is absolutely creepy, obsessive, and vengeful
    • Similar to "write it all down, you can use it to destroy her career later"
  6. The creepy advice garners the attention of the anti-MRA subreddits and SJWs all over Twitter
  7. Several individuals are accused of participating in "doxxing" B
  8. B changes her Twitter account to being protected 
  9. B changes her Twitter handle
  10. The reddit author makes a comment that makes his story about being a classmate seem spurious
  11. Some brilliant allies proceed to reveal new name as part of their Atheism+ BlockBot campaigning

The last item in that story might be the most depressing. Having Atheism+ on your side is like having a band of mercenaries that work for free, only to show up on the battlefield armed with some plastic spoons that they are destined to injure themselves with.

Perhaps the most well-read example of the "feminist" perspective on this matter will be the article written by David Futrelle, on his site named ManBoobz:

No long post today. Instead, I urge you to go over to the AgainstMensRights subreddit to read about how several long time Men’s Rights Redditors have doxxed and harassed a college student, with one of the regulars gleefully setting forth a plan to stalk her and ruin her life and another seeming to suggest he might want to pay her a visit to “debate” her.

The thread (which remained up for many hours) has now been scrubbed by the Men’s Rights mods — I got these screenshots from u/Aceyjuan and u/TraceyMorganFreeman’s respective timelines – but as of right now none of the doxxers have been banned from the subreddit, or from Reddit itself.
The “crimes” of the woman in question? According to her main stalker — who has apparently been harassing her for months — she’s tweeted comments like “white men are like the gum on the bottom of my shoe” and “Jared Leto looks like the kind if guy that gives you herpes.”
Yep. Apparently the second-worst evil misandrist comment she made was … a joke about Jared Leto. For these comments, apparently she deserves to have her life ruined.
Here’s the thing: If you don’t like someone’s comments online, you are certainly well within your rights to quote them and point out why you don’t like what they said. That’s kind of the point of this blog. But it’s one thing to point out these comments, and another thing entirely to track down their identity and stalk them in real life. It’s another thing to whip up a virtual mob against them.

The rest of Futrelle's post is diverges into a never-ending drama between him and his opponents, so that has been edited for length. Rest assured Futrelle wants you to believe this is just another episode in a history of obsessive MRA behavior.

What's missing from this picture? 

A number of things.

Context - notice that the first chapter is completely missing from Futrelle's recounting of the story. It's just gone.

The bit where B leaked a private IM conversation and tweeted a link to a LinkedIn profile. As far as the readers of Futrelle's blog are concerned, it did not happen. They are operating with a completely different version of reality, with a different list of heroes and villains.

But who needs context, anyways?

Facts - Futrelle claims that someone had "tracked down [B]'s identity". When did this happen?

The reddit post that Futrelle gets his information from lists some key details.

The datapoints revealed were:
  • Location (State)
  • School
  • Full name
And it's true - these details were out in the open.

How did this happen? The information was in B's Twitter bio. As soon as anyone shared a tweet link, the tweet author was supposedly "doxxed".

The first name and last name of B's Twitter bio was a completely plausible given name and surname. Unless B was actually operating under a pen name and the reddit post revealed a true name, the reddit post did not reveal any information that was not immediately available to someone who took a quick glimpse at what B had to say via her public Twitter profile.

However no one has yet claimed that B did not have her real, true, full name in her Twitter bio along with statements about her connection to her home state and college.

So to run with this definition of "doxxing", if you are a self-published author of online content and someone you disagree with links to you, that then must qualify as being "doxxed".

If "doxxing" is maintained to be a strictly factual revelation of details previously unknown, it would appear the only fact "leaked" was that B actually was a real person in a real place and did in fact attend classes.

Did anyone have doubt this?

Where we are now is that reddit (or at least the "controversial" subreddits) have apparently banned linking to Twitter. The basis of this is that reddit has strict rules about linking to Facebook.

The difference, of course, is that Twitter has more in common with Tumblr than Facebook. Whatever rationale that applies to Twitter must also apply to Tumblr, Blogger, Wordpress... the security models and information sharing mechanisms are practically identical.

Yet it is difficult to circumstance that would cause reddit will to block linking to these sites as a general rule. The thinking must be that more words somehow maps to more necessary responsibility for those words.

The crime that the reddit author did commit was publishing a fabricated story to an audience of people that were unsympathetic towards B's cause. To what extent this storytelling and embellishment whipped up additional rage is unknown, but is unquestionably unethical.

Let it be known - making up stuff about someone in order to cause drama is wrong. It's still wrong even if you write for FreeThoughtBlogs. A lot of people forget that.

Consistency - Futrelle writes:

If you don’t like someone’s comments online, you are certainly well within your rights to quote them and point out why you don’t like what they said. That’s kind of the point of this blog. But it’s one thing to point out these comments, and another thing entirely to track down their identity and stalk them in real life. It’s another thing to whip up a virtual mob against them.

Futrelle is so oblivious and hypocritical. Futrelle admits that his blog does the very same thing that the /r/MensRights posters did, except when Futrelle does it it is "quoting" instead of "tracking down" people. What logic is this?

As for virtual mobs, does donglegate not count? What about accusing an acquaintance of sexual harassment based on false rumors? What about publishing a name of a man before you know for sure?

What about accusing a mentally ill friend of being a sexual predator?

Finally, what about taking down someone's LinkedIn profile and then making a fuss when events force you to take down your own Twitter profile?

There is still another layer of the consistency puzzle - the word safety.

Why do Twitter social justice warriors make their accounts protected accounts?

Mostly because they are embarrassed, but the reason cited will be "safety".

The humorous part of this claim is how obviously false this desire for safety really is.

This is the quick and easy five-step program to Twitter "safety":

  1. Make your account protected
    • Optional: Rename your account for additional security
  2. Continuously tweet within your "secret" account about the evildoers that are "harassing" you
  3. Your followers will even more engaged than before!
    • Their public replies will conveniently reveal:
      • When you are making baseless allegations
      • When you are leading a report & block brigade
      • When you are carrying on a racist or sexist joke train
  4. Consistently ask your followers to report & block specific Twitter users
  5. Engage with the Atheism+ BlockBot brigade. They'll elevate your profile by tweeting your new account details while gleefully libeling old enemies.
    • This kind of undermines Step 1, but you knew Step 1 was a charade
  6. Bring your account back online and claim to be a brave activist

The important part: Never ask the supposed evildoers to redact information or correct articles.

The evildoers might actually do it, and then where is your social justice hero story?

Every hero needs a story!

Preferably a fantasy.

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Publicly shame your family

There are certain people one does not want to meet on the internet.

Bhaswati might be one of them.

She tweeted:



The conversation quoted, presumably in a private IM exchange, is the following:

<context cut out>
David: I also focused on postcolonial studies 
David: It's amazing how everything went so downhill after we left. 100 more years of colonialism would have malfunctioning countries like Zimbabwe and India actually okay. 
Bhaswati: I know! After a hundred years, you could have murdered the rest of my ancestors. Awesome! 
David: Of course we wouldn't have. We still needed the expendable military manpower obviously.

We don't have the full context of the chat, but it's rather entertaining to think this exchange is what now qualifies as one that you immediately publish to Twitter to name and shame. (Who needs context?)

All it takes is one sarcastic reply to a sarcastic comment and voila, you have enough to go on to link the person's details and label them evil.

Nobody needed any more context than what was given, as the target already qualified as an elitist oppressor:



Yikes. Is it possible that social justice warriors hate the educated elite more than the Republicans are said to?

The school apparently did not respond but nonetheless the Google-bomb was effective:



When pressed on the matter, social justice warriors insist they are consistent in their treatment of people:

Given this magnifying glass on what David-at-Harvard said in what he likely expected was a private conversation, let's imagine for a moment that SJWs actually played this ballgame consistently.

Enter Grimalkin:



Grimalkin, for those that don't know, may indeed be the same Grimalkin that posts over in the Atheism Plus forums. She seems to like Jen M, hates the HRC and loves f-bombs. (Update: It was mentioned by a kind anonymous person that A+ Grimalkin is actually @Grrmalkin. In this case, @GrimalkinRN is innocent of all A+ related charges, and her impact at this point seems limited to being one of Bhaswati's Twitter pals)

Grimalkin's social justice problem right now is her grandmother. Many of us closely following social justice can be forgiven for being confused as to why Grimalkin did not drop a direct link to her grandmother's Facebook profile.

That is how things are done on Twitter, is it not?

But not to focus on this one example - this is just one small indicator of a much wider problem.

Why aren't people publicly shaming their family members on social media?

Why is the target of a shaming merely a passing acquaintance?

Nobody is actually fighting the real "oppressive" actors in their lives. Despite it being the weak sort of social justice "activism" that is ultimately accessible, it would actually be personally and professionally costly.

If it were to come to openly discussing a high school teacher, a college professor, a condescending aunt or uncle, an ultraconservative mother, things might be real. Or they may get real, real fast.

It is much easier to pick fights with a random student at Harvard, as one can be so narcissistic as to believe their privilege is entirely stolen and undeserved. As a rule, white people at Harvard cannot have stores that would cast themselves in a sympathetic light.

It is also simple to wage war on shallow offenses on late night comedy television or take pictures of strangers in public places. Or focus on whether or not rape jokes are or are not acceptable.

Here is a grand challenge to people who think "name and shame" works - actually go name and shame someone!

And by "someone" we don't mean some pop culture icon that Tumblr is preoccupied with. Nobody needs another dissection of Macklemore.

Get out there and shame someone you know. Are your cousins being bullied into patriarchal marriage arrangements by their traditionalist parents? Did your father say something homophobic at the dinner table? Is your mother being a poor role model? Did your brother join the army?

Shame them all. Tweet LinkedIn and Facebook profiles, call their employers, write a tell-all book and most importantly start a hashtag.

It might actually change society at large. If everybody stood a chance of becoming a minor celebrity at the hands of their own family members, it's a sure thing that behavior would change at a rapid pace.

Alas, don't expect too much from this "shame your family" revolution. If it were to happen, many questions would need to be resolved.

Shaming your family does not pay the rent.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Celebration of ignorance

Suey's at it again, bombing another interview.

Whereas the first question of the last interview was apparently "loaded", the first question of this Salon interview is merely "irrelevant".

The interview is conducted by Prachi Gupta. Given that the interviewer and the interviewee are both "women of color" in Suey Park terminology, the interview is hopefully absent of Suey Park accusing the author of being a condescending liberal white man -- but Park is not a predictable person.

Some snippets:

Gupta:Did you watch the Monday night segment on the “Colbert Report”? 
Park: No, and I think that’s an irrelevant question. 
Gupta: Why do you think that’s an irrelevant question?
Park: Because you’re still trying to understand my context, rather than the reaction and the conversation that I was trying to create. 
Gupta: You don’t think understanding your context is just as important? 
Park: I don’t think so.

A few things stand out from this exchange.

Suey Park allegedly:

  1. Ignored an episode of a world famous television show in which she was the subject
  2. Doesn't think context matters a great deal
  3. Had a grand, devious plan for the #CancelColbert hashtag
Each of these items are incredible claims alone, however let's focus on the fact that Suey Park apparently didn't watch the follow-up episode.

Suey Park would then be a person that happens to read Colbert punchlines on Twitter but doesn't actually care to watch the show at all.

If she actually did watch the show in the first place she would not look like such a fool, yet she chooses to continue to refuse to watch content before discussing it.

It's another level of unbelievably when one considers that it's actually a personally and professional risky behavior to be entirely unaware of what the continent may have learned about you in a late night comedy show. 

Continuing on later...


Gupta: In that case, do you think that “The Colbert Report” itself is oppressive or just that specific joke or comment was oppressive? 
Park: Neither.
Gupta: Neither? 
Park: I’m talking about whiteness at large.
[...] 
Gupta: Do you want to continue your thought? 
Park: Yes, because I think this is important. A lot of white America and so-called liberal people of color, along with conservatives, ask, “Do I understand context?” And that’s part of wanting to completely humanize the oppressor. To see the white man as always reasonable, always pure, always deliberate, always complex and always innocent. And to see the woman of color as literal. Both my intent behind the hashtag and in my [unintelligible] distance, is always about forcing an apology on me for not understanding their context when, in reality, they misunderstood us when they made us a punch line again. So it’s always this logic of how can we understand whiteness better, and that’s never been my politics. I’ve always been about occupying the margins and strengthening the margins and what that means is that, for a long time, whiteness has also occupied the margins. Like, people of color get in circles with no white people in the room and we see that whiteness still operates. So I think it’s kind of a shock for America that whiteness has dominant society already, it also seeps into the margins. What happens the one time when the margins seep into the whiteness and we encroach on their space? It’s like the sky is falling.
Gupta: Do you think race has a place in comedy? Is it OK to joke about race, and if so, under what circumstances?
Park: I mean, I don’t think people realize what I write about. I write a lot of comedy myself, I write scripts, I write jokes about race all the time, but I think they’re supposed to make a social commentary. A cheap joke is hitting a trope of a minority in order to get a point across. I think a better joke is to point to the depths and the roots of white supremacy, not simply joking about the Ku Klux Klan, not simply joking about Dan Snyder. But actually, like, when are we actually going to have these conversations about how white supremacy has caused Orientalism, slavery and genocide? When will we actually touch on those big things? And I don’t think that we’ve seen that yet in comedy, and I do think it’s possible, but no one is ready to flip the switch to make the white person the subject of the archetype.


We learn quite a few things from this exchange.

  • The joke itself was no big deal. The real problem is "whiteness at large"
  • "Whiteness" can be present (even "operate") in a place absent of white people. "Whiteness" is ethereal, like a flatulence that smells of patriarchal cisheteronormative colonialism
  • "White man" is viewed as "always innocent"
  • White supremacy caused Orientalism, slavery and genocide

The last bullet point being the strangest, as at first glance it seems like a legitimate claim. There are numerous examples of "white" colonialism, imperialism, etc being guilty of serious crimes.

However what appears to be key in Suey Park's reasoning is not the fact that military and economic dominance was established, it was that the supremacy also had a "whiteness" factor. 

The Suey Park ideology sets "whiteness" aside as something all its own. Genocide and slavery apparently aren't merely functions of inherently xenophobic tendencies in the human race - they have a special affinity to history's experience with the "white" race exhibiting its "whiteness".

It ties in nicely to how social justice warriors view the troubles of former colonies. These countries had their development stunted by imbibing "whiteness" and modern conflicts within these regions can be viewed as buttressing white supremacy. Colonial powers came in, set up systems more vulnerable than that would have existed otherwise. White people either did this purposefully or did this out complete incapacity to understand.

And in cases where white people are rendered incapable of understanding, Suey Park cannot be bothered to explain.

Once we've arrived here, out of necessity the solution cannot include white people.


Gupta: What is the best way to work with white people, to get them on our side?
Park: I don’t want them on our side.


You're welcome to read the rest of the interview

But you'd be better off watching Colbert.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Merry Sexual Assault Month

Writing about what Suey Park has to say at this point is like beating a dead horse with Thor's hammer. However it is a stallion so infested so with social justice insanity that it takes altogether too much principle to ignore.

So without further disruptions...


It turns out after all the Colbert Report drama, Suey and her supporters would like to highlight that Suey Park has received rape and death threats on Twitter.

It could be mentioned that this treatment is not unique and impacts almost every F-list celebrity that happens to graduate from a contentious season of Big Brother.

Yet even ignoring that fact, we can make another more direct comparison to the treatment of another female Asian American (apologies - woman of color). Suey's new friend, Michelle Malkin. Referring to an incident of direct homicidal threats, Malkin writes:

Funny thing is, I’ve been getting e-mails like this on a regular basis since, oh, about 1992.

If threats make Park more a more virtuous and/or correct individual, Michelle Malkin is more than two decades more pitiable.

Oddly enough, nobody gives a shit about Michelle Malkin.

Why?

Conservative. She's a conservative commentator.

After you flip the conservative bit, solidarity evaporates. Threats are evaluated in context and suddenly logical risk assessments are made. Further, distance is created from Malkin's "critics" and insane "nutjobs".

The most brainwashed "progressive" "activist" would continue playing the privilege limbo.

They might even go as far as to look up Malkin's history to determine whether she would qualify as a rape survivor as Suey Park does.

The problem with privilege limbo is that you eventually lose.

As Suey Park learned:





Suey Park make the mistake of using her Twitter profile to create a parody of an Asian American boy. (Or was it satire?)

The mistake was that the only people on the planet so sensitive as to be offended by her parody were her suffocating, perpetually disappointed followers.

Maybe karma does exist.

Suey Park does deserve recognition as a rape survivor though, as she's shown her strength of character to shatter the stereotype that rape victims are somehow destined to be angry, preoccupied, hateful, validation-seeking and suspicious of a large group of people to the point of damaging their career and interpersonal relationships.

Surely rape survivors could do no better than Suey Park as their self-appointed representative. Who else could better weaponize the problem in order to score points in a drawn-out Twitter feud of their own creation?

It's important we use this month to consider the impact of sexual assault and how to prevent it. It is crucial that we consider sexual assault and what we might do about it in April, before spending the busy summer months aware of War, Homicide and Genocide.

There is no better evidence that rape culture exists in our society that we only find a measly thirty days contemplating how we may ultimately teach males to not rape. Why don't we have a Sexual Assault Awareness Semester?

Worse yet, even feminist organizations can't seem to find the time to stay on topic.

Instead of criticizing the bigotry of The Colbert Report, they are busy celebrating that a case of female genital mutilation has been brought to trial in the United Kingdom for the first time in history.

Hats off to all those keeping sexual assault awareness in Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

Everyone else, please stop with the misogyny.

Monday, March 31, 2014

Long Live the Redskins

Some time ago, The Colbert Report covered the topic of the Washington DC Redskins:



The bit relevant to this starts at 4:45 of the 8 minute video.

The video makes fun of Snyder's (the k-word who owns the DC Redskins)  attempt to make good with the Native American community by having Colbert state that he was effectively starting a foundation to buy "triangle hats" for "orientals".

The problem begins on Twitter. It is rather routine for comedy shows to tweet punchlines from their episodes - what this specifically achieves is unknown. Perhaps it boosts ratings and elevates the show's profile somewhat. Have to hit that Twitter demographic.

The show chose to tweet the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong (now known as c-word-c-word d-word-d-word) without much context as to what it was referring to.

Enter Suey Park, a legend for all those little social justice warriors that dream to someday create a hashtag that becomes a trending topic. Big ambitions.

Ms Park saw the tweet (probably passed along via the outrage of another short-sighted Twitter user) and responded:




Note: Ms Park is known to highjack stock photos and/or pictures of other users, usually men, in order to to create a half-baked parody in search of an elusive point. For this reason, do not be surprised if @suey_park is sporting a photo of a sunglasses wearing teenage boy. It kind of suits her. Moving on...


As one could predict, Twitter exploded. Colbert - racist? It couldn't be true.

And it was not. The conversation diverted to whether Suey Park understood the joke, or had even seen it.

Stephen Colbert made a point of linking to the video to give the tweet context:





Colbert, like any rational human being, expects the truth is that none of the outraged people on Twitter even bother to watch his show.

All eyes on Suey, she replies:


Not "Yes, I've seen this before", or "Yes, this is the clip I was talking about" but a toxic insult about how Colbert is failing to please her funnybone.

If there was a sense of privilege or entitlement, it would be the idea that all comedians need to always entertain you.

The takeaway is that it's clear that Suey Park & co didn't bother to obtain context tbefore becoming outraged at c-word-c-word d-word-d-word.

Right out of the gate, we're at a point where the social justice warriors are playing the role of hypocritical assholes and word police.

It gets worse.

Suey Park goes on HuffPo Live:



Rough transcript of the interview exchange:

Josh: Why cancel Colbert? What do you hope to acheive with that?

Suey: *laughs* That's a loaded question, I think it's sad but unfortunately a lot of times our demands aren't really met unless we have really serious asks or generate these larger conversations... mmmm... unfortunately people usually don't listen to us when we're being reasonable so I think it's really to make a statement that this sort of thing happens weekly that Asian Americans are always a punchline and soI think we're just trying to make a point that people are going to be held accountable the next time they do these sort of things.

Josh: So just to clarify the context, the tweet was related to a segment that was lampooning Dan Snyder , who is the owner of a certain Washington DC football team that has a racist name -

Suey: Of course

Josh: -- it was meant to be satire, I mean, do you understand the point of satire? You say something that is intentionally absurd in order to ridicule not the people who are the target of what you're saying but other people who might say it?

Suey: Of course I understand satire, I'm a writer. I think satire caters to the audience that you're speaking to so it says something about what the audience finds humorous or acceptable when you're using those sort of jokes and I think satire is supposed to "punch up". Unfortunately he's not doing that when he draws a parallel to orientalism to make a point about native american mascots

Josh: But isn't his point that there are lots of stupid racist people who even in their attempt to be conciliatory on race end up putting their foot in it and saying something dumb?

Suey: I don't think we're going to end racism by joking about it, like I'm glad that the white liberals feel like they are less racist because they can joke about people who are more explicitly racist but that actually does nothing to help people of color

Josh: Why attack a satirical attack on Dan Snyder's racism instead of attacking Dan Snyder's racism?

Suey: Well if you're familiar with my activism or my work I've been very vocal about native american mascots, I went to the University of Illinios for my undergraduate career [Career? WTF?] we had Chief Illiniwek and I was incredibly vocal about it and had the same sort of backlash and that kind of backlash happens no matter what you're really attacking whether it be the word 'oriental' being used as a slur, yellowface, jokes against Asian American people or if I'm really talking about native american mascots and Dan Snyder - I know I helped trend #NotYourMascot on Superbowl night to fight, you know, the name Redskins and #NotYourTonto and I had the same sort of backlash so it really isn't fair to kind of individualize these things and ask why I'm not shifting my behavior because honestly if white liberals cared about really getting rid of the mascot there is a lot they can do to help organize or get involved besides caring about their joke so for them it's not really about whether or not the Redskins exist or whether or not racism is over, it's really about them feeling like they can't have fun anymore and feeling entitled to be able to laugh at things that aren't really funny

Josh: Part of the whole gag here is the use of the term 'orientals' which is such a weird old loaded, just a stupid stupid word, like to get upset about the use of that word when it's in a satirical context strikes me as misguided, I want to take a look though at a tweet which Colbert Report has tweeted out for the record --

Suey: Wait hold on. AS A WHITE MAN YOU DON'T...

Josh: Hang on Suey, I'll come to you in just a sec - (Reads Tweet : "For the record @ColbertReport is not controlled by Stephen Colbert or his show. He is @StephenAtHome Sorry for the confusion #CancelColbert") Colbert himself has responded to some of the criticism on Twitter, (quotes tweet from @StephenAtHome above) Suey - you were just going to jump in?

Suey: Uh, yeah, I was gonna say I feel like it's incredibly patronizing for you to paint these questions this way, especially as a white man - I don't expect you to be able to understand what people of color are actually saying with regards to #CancelColbert - he has a history of making jokes....

Josh: Suey- Suey- being a white man doesn't prevent me from being able to think and doesn't prevent me from being able to have reasoned perspectives on things -

Suey: (sarcastic interruption) : I know, white men are totally logical...

Josh: - I didn't give up my right to have an intellectual conversation when I was born

Suey: I know, but white men definitely feel like they're entitled to talk over me, they definitely feel entitled to kind of minimalize my experiences and they definitely feel like they are somehow exempt and so logical compared to women who are painted as emotional, right?

Josh: No, no one is minimalizing your experiences, no one is minimalizing your right to have an opinion, it's just a stupid opinion, it's a misunderstanding of what satire is and it's a misunderstanding of what irony is

Suey: You just called my opinion stupid. You just called my opinion stupid. That's incredibly unproductive. I don't think I'm going to enact the labor of explaining to you why that's incredibly offensive and patronizing

Josh: Explain

Suey: I just told you I would not enact that labor

Josh: Okay. Thanks for being with us, Suey

Suey: (silently smiles and nods into the camera in a sarcastic manner)

</interview>

Where to go from here?



Some of the many crimes of Suey Park


Crime #1 - Failing to have basic context

It's one thing to know what happened and have an opinion about it. It's entirely another to become incensed about a 140 character view of an event. The event, in this case, happened to be a show which she did not watch.

To reiterate a question posed to Twitter:



Crime #2 Basic questions are not "loaded"

Simply put, asking what Suey Park hopes to accomplish with her #hashtag activism is not a loaded question. It's the first question.

Crime #3 Intentionally popularizing pointless drama

Suey Park verbatim : "unfortunately people usually don't listen to us when we're being reasonable" - implied in this is that she knows she's participating in unreasonable faux outrage about things that do not matter.

Crime #4 Misunderstanding Satire. Satire will never "punch up"

Anyone with any critical thinking skills realizes why satire will never "punch up" and meet some goals for politically correct cleanliness. It's because satire exists to be outrageous.

If it isn't an absurd, embarrassing and offensive to somebody, it's not satire. It's a knock-knock joke.

Of course, Ms Park doesn't mind offending people - so long as the punchline offends white people. Who cares about offending white people?

Crime #5 Pointless references to her "work"

Suey Park's reference to her activism about her university's mascot is ultimately pointless and stupid.

It's stupid because the opener "well if you're familiar with my activism or my work" underlines just how ineffective her activism has been in comparison to a 20 second joke on The Colbert Report.

Everybody in America knows about the Redskins controversy, partly because comedy shows aren't afraid to satirize race issues.

If pop culture just didn't touch the subject altogether and left it up to Twitter to opine about the problems, none of them will truly end.

It becomes more absurd when one realizes that Suey Park's "activism" relies on white people being "progressive" enough to care and listen while being "ignorant" enough to screw it up and needing her advice. There's a reason that Ms Park is not bothering to smear Fox News commentators - the Fox News audience already doesn't care about her issues.

Crime #6 Waking the beast that is Michelle Malkin 

Yes, it would seem the person most happy about Suey Park's critique of white "progressives" is an Asian American that wrote a book in defense of interment camps and racial profiling.

What a win this is for the end of racism!

Crime #7 Stealing the limelight from Native Americans

Why is there no Native American version of anybody in the above interview?

It's because they're all dead. They aren't in their dorm rooms following Ms Park on Twitter, they're dead.

The fact is that native peoples don't see Ms Park as their savior, no matter how much "intersectionality" invades this issue.

Suey Park took an issue that was supposedly offensive to Native Americans and asked people to think harder about just how Comedy Central chose to cover the issue.

Why should Native Americans care about Suey Park? Why should Native Americans view Suey Park as anything more than "White Folks 2.0"?

Ms Park loves to describe her defense as one of being on the side of "people of color". ("POC")

Yet let's examine a comment from a "Ryan Joseph" on this column:
Politely, I'm a white-passing Métis who appreciated Stephen Colbert's analogy between the Washington Redskin's mascot, and the sort of ignorant racism that's imposed upon Asians of any descent when backhandedly referred to as 'Orientals'. And didn't appreciate Ms. Park's dismissal of arbitrary (and equally racist) criticisms of 'whites'.
Should I be dismissed? I'm not white, but you could presume I am, if you were to look at me. How about Hungarians? Those of British descent? The Irish (who, in a historic context, have a history of being treated as equal to black slaves in early American history)?
Or is it the fact that I was born male-gendered that prevents me from understanding the racism inherent in both the use of faux-native imagery, and the archetype of the 'Oriental'? I didn't understand the need to bring my reproductive organs (and affiliated hormones) into the equation, at all.
I do wish this had engendered positive discussion. I wish it was along the lines of how Colbert does so traditionally - which is to say, satirizing like issues to draw important analogies that our society decides to not speak on - but after having taken the time to look over Ms. Park's (entirely serious) deconstructions of her views regarding race and gender, that doesn't seem to be the case. She meant this, both the sexism, and the racism.
And I'm glad for the outcome of her actions. And thoroughly ashamed of her. I'm a feminist, and I'm proudly anti-racist. And I stand firmly against Ms. Park's position. Shame on her - and those who'd enable her.
Taking a moment for Suey Park to look up the word "Métis" (we shall not "enact that labor")...

There exists some reality in which Suey Park's voice is one of authority, since she was offended by having to have heard c-word-c-word d-word-d-word in a comedy sketch about the Redskins.

In the troubled reality we inhabit now, however, it would seem we should be happy with the "Redskins" as if we choose to leave the fate of racism in Suey's hands it may be the only trappings of Native American life left within a culture of self-congratulatory would-be Twitter saviors that are saving us from the constitution...



And the "racist institution" of marriage...




Long live, long live, long live the Redskins.