Someone just emailed me a link to a Daily Mail article by Jennifer Smith reporting on the “torrent of death threats and sexist remarks,” (apparently one comes with the other) that was allegedly unleashed on journalist Carolina Criado-Perez after she advocated for images of women being placed on British bank notes. A man and a women have been arrested and will soon be charged. They either tweeted something offensive, or threatening, or sexist, or something else altogether. The article did not say if the woman or the man threatened to rape Criado-Perez.
It is really hard to tell what precisely is alleged given that Smith did not cite the content of any of the tweets.
That is correct. An entire article in Daily Mail about criminal proceedings against people for making illegal tweets, only it did not include, you know, the tweets. To make matters worse Smith rambled through her piece never quite making up her mind whether the tweets were actual threats, or offensive or sexist or all three. She just kind of traded the terms back and forth like she was in a creative noun contest, and to make sure readers were confused as to what actually happened. That tends to happen when you don’t tell them what actually happened. Or when you are making it up as you go along.
The article was also replete with other forms of confusion, not all of which was Smith’s fault, but which she could have clarified a little more by bothering to ask the right questions. For example, this passage:
Detectives ruled there was insufficient evidence to prosecute one suspect, while another who is accused of sending offensive messages to Stella Creasy MP will avoid sentencing as prosecution ‘would not be in the public interest’.
Hmm, what could be in the public interest here? Maybe not prosecuting people who have not committed crimes? Maybe not turning satire or internet taunting into a legitimate rape threat only to find out that things like actual criminal codes and the like will get in your way if you want to prosecute someone?
Yeah, public interest. That’s the ticket. The public isn’t interested in it because it is pure bullshit.
The story is not a new one. It goes back several months before the Crown started to showboat the latest feminist outrage with the current witchhunt. Typhon gave it a brief treatment in a video back on August 1.
It is really hard to add anything here to what Typhon just pointed out. It is just a lot of obscure allegations about tweets that can be found by the millions all over the internet, and which are aimed at everyone and their brother. It is a part of modern life in the age of the internet. If you speak up about anything, someone will tweet you badly for it.
Most of us just get over it. Feminists play it like a cheap violin. You can bet your ass some woman will be on a £100 note now that the feminists have figured out how to damsel their way into it.
It is time to add to the lexicon, and we might as well give credit where it is due. This technique of using damseling to achieve goals that are quite likely stupid or worthless, like choosing people to be on currency because they have a vagina, or raising a cool $160,000 to make YouTube videos about video games that you don’t even play can only be called one thing. A Sarkeesian.
I know, it is awkward, and it presents challenges. Am I really going to find myself typing words like Sarkeessianed, or Sarkeesianing? Well, yes, I am, because this is how third wave feminists are going to find support for their pet projects now that governments are starting to figure out just how much they cost. And now that white knighting and woman firsting is all the social rage, it will deliver in spades.
Want to raise a quarter mil to study the incidence of sexist remarks in Quentin Tarantino movies? Just start blogging and tweeting your intentions. When the inevitable jokester tweets that Tarantino should rape you, get the screen shot and tell your tearful story to Jennifer Smith. She’ll announce your KickStarter and the next thing you know you will be taking notes on Django Unchained from your cabana in Antigua.
Do the Sarkeesian. You could laugh right in the face of your most avid supporters and blow their money on cocaine and Stoly. They won’t even know the difference.
In this day and age, this is what we call being oppressed.
- Interdisciplinary Shaming Dept. Part III – Tom Pynn - January 26, 2015
- Byron Hurt throws black men under bus while feminists drive it - January 25, 2015
- Interdisciplinary Shaming Dept. Part II – Stacy Keltner, garbologist - January 19, 2015
- KSU feminists panic over AVfM stickers - January 18, 2015
- Interdisciplinary Shaming Dept. Part I – Introduction - January 16, 2015