Campus Free Speech

Bret Easton Ellis Unloads on Social Justice Warriors, 'Authoritarian Language Police'

'Oh, little snowflakes, when did you all become grandmothers and society matrons, clutching your pearls in horror?'

|

Brett Easton Ellis
Everett Collection / Newscom

Bret Easton Ellis—author of American Psycho and The Rules of Attraction—is not a fan of lefty outrage culture.

"Why is it once again that I feel the well-intentioned young liberal self-proclaimed feminist left has become so oversensitive about everything that we have entered into what is really an authoritarian cultural moment?" he said at the end of a 15-minute monologue.

The subject of Ellis's ire? L.A. Weekly recently ran an article about musician Sky Ferreira that focused on why her sex appeal "is what pop music needs right now." The author, male music critic Art Tavana, was roundly criticized by websites like Jezebel and Teen Vogue. The piece reduced her to an object, ignoring her music entirely, they argued.

"Today a boring man was allowed to publish a think piece about not-boring musician Sky Ferreira that began by discussing her "killer tits," as seen on her last album cover, and comparing her cup size to Madonna's (in a deeply uninspired collation he carried out 'til the very end)," lamented Jezebel's Julianne Escobedo Shepherd.

Taking the extreme opposite view: Bret Easton Ellis.

"Oh, little snowflakes, when did you all become grandmothers and society matrons, clutching your pearls in horror at someone who has an opinion about something, a way of expressing themselves that's not the mirror image of yours, you sniveling little weak-ass narcissists?" he said during a recent episode of his podcast.

A full transcript of his remarks is available here, courtesy of The Independent.

Ellis thinks there's a double standard going on here. No one complains when the artist being sexualized is male, he says.

He might have a point. As I write this, the internet is experiencing a collective freakout over the nude photos of actor Orlando Bloom—not because this represents a creepy and disgusting invasion of his privacy, but because, well, he looks good in them. A lot of people want to see more, and aren't afraid to admit it.

"The photos, taken in Sardinia, Italy, are censored by the Curse of the Black Box," complained Mashable. "But you can always count on the fine people of the internet to using their imaginations to determine whether Bloom's packing a hobbit or an orc."

When it comes to celebrity photo leaks, hypocrisy abounds. When Jennifer Lawrence's nudes were leaked, Jezebel wrote, "You have got to be fucking kidding me," and "no one and nothing is safe." When Justin Bieber's nudes appeared on social media, Jezebel made jokes about it: "How to Talk to Your Significant Other About Justin Bieber's Big Dick," was the headline. Admittedly, these things are not exactly the same: Orlando and Bieber were naked in public or semi-public areas, whereas Lawrence had her phone hacked.

Ferreira, the subject of the L.A. Weekly piece, appears nude, by choice, on the cover of her album. Says Ellis:

In our society, social justice warriors always prefer women to be victims. In all of these cases, from Jezebel to Flavorwire to Teen Vogue, they all succeeded in recasting Ferreira as a victim of something, reinforcing her supposed victimisation. This is the usual hall of mirrors loop they find themselves in when they're looking for anything to get angry with. The reality of the world is that men look at women, and men look at other men, and women look at other men, and women especially look at other women and objectify them. …

But because the little Nazis policing language have a new rulebook about how men and women should and should not express themselves about their desires, this allows Jezebel and Flavorwire to write their own childish responses, placing Sky in the delicious position of victim. But the sad ending of this story is that the LA Weekly, which edited and posted the piece, felt like they had to apologise for the piece after so much online complaining, apologise about a piece where someone was clearly writing honestly—sometimes embarrassingly so—about what was on his mind in the moment about a performer, and the way he was looking, and yes, gazing at this performer, and that was it. That is allowable.

The overreaction epidemic that is endemic in the culture, and the implicit calling for censorship by removing the piece, is what should not be allowable, and it should be called out every time SJWs ignore the First Amendment.

Of course, Ellis goes too far here. Criticizing the Tavana piece isn't actually censorship—the so-called snowflake justice warriors are engaging in free expression as well. The First Amendment is not undermined when public outcry persuades a private actor to retract a statement.

Nevertheless, it's a fascinating monologue from an interesting author. Listen here.

Advertisement

NEXT: There Were No Survivors: Libertarians Debate Donald Trump, Pro and Con, at FreedomFest.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sex appeal is what Jezebel needs right now.

    1. I didn’t know who this sky person was and I have to say she is not very sexy. She looks like a poor man’s Brittany Murphy.

      1. She looks like a poor man’s Brittany Murphy.

        I just looked her up. You’re right.

      2. Really, I thought the resemblance to a semi-goth Kelly Bundy came to mind.

      3. So… pretty much entirely decomposed?

        1. That’s what I am saying, yes sir.

      1. Not bad, but not good. I give it a 1/4 chub.

    2. Sex appeal is what Jezebel needs right now.

      … and people in Hell want icewater …

  2. A lot of people want to see more, and aren’t afraid to admit it.

    It’s my guess that it’s also mostly men.

    1. I’ll share a little secret with you: Women have filthy minds too. Why else would we be scouring the internet to see Justin Bieber’s cock and writing editorials about it? (Not counting myself amongst that group, because I have good taste.)

      1. Do the people scouring the internet looking for pictures of some famous guy’s junk understand that the male member can be various sizes during the day, depending on temperature, what clothes you’ve had on, etc? And that there’s also some guys who are pretty small ‘at rest’ but ‘telescope’ into a very sizable erection? (I’ve heard this described as some guys are ‘growers’ while others are ‘show-ers”.) All this means that whatever picture you might find of a guy naked on the internet is not a real gauge of what his penis would be like during arousal — and you shouldn’t be disappointed when you see a guy at rest until you’ve seen him hard.

        Asking for a friend.

        1. You’ve… uh, really thought about this, haven’t you. A lot.

          1. All guys think about sucking cock… but you gotta push that shit down, keep that shit bottled up.

        2. You know what’s funny? Growing up, every guy from middle school through young adulthood always tried to claim 8″ — no bullshit, it was to the point where that figure was near-universal. If only they had all been as straightforward as, uh, your friend there.

          1. It is right there in the imperial unit chart.

            1 inch = 1,000 thou
            1 dick = 8 inches
            1 foot = 12 inches
            1 yard = 3 feet
            1 chain = 22 yards
            1 furlong = 10 chains
            1 mile = 8 furlongs or 7,920 dicks
            1 league = 3 miles

      2. I’ll share a little secret with you: Women have filthy minds too

        Do you like me:

        [ ] Yes
        [ ] No
        [ ] Maybe

      3. Why else would we be scouring the internet to see Justin Bieber’s cock and writing editorials about it? (Not counting myself amongst that group, because I have good taste.)

        Woman: What? I do to like to watch porn!

        Man: Ok, then let’s watch some porn.

        *watches*

        Woman: We… we… well not that kind of porn.

        Man: Then what?

        Woman: You got 50 Shades on DVD?

        1. Hmph, what lame women do you know? I wanna see schoolgirls like myself getting tentacled, personally.

          1. octopus or squid?

            asking for sheer prurient interest…………………

          2. Go on.

          3. Who says there are no Libertarian women?

          4. Like “The Fisherman’s Daughter 2: The Rententacling”?

        2. That’s when you pull out your Kink.com collection.

          1. See, Hazel knows what’s up. That makes two libertarian women on this one, which is basically, uh, scientific consensus.

  3. There’s power in victimhood.

    1. If by “victimhood” you mean “third” then no, there’s no power in it.

      1. Links Posts Matter, not All Posts Matter.

    2. There’s power in being CONSIDERED a victim. A bit different.

  4. It’s not censorship yet. I have no doubt that certain parties want it to be.

    1. Disagree. I believe in the power of legal fees, and liabilityphobia. You don’t have to have a law to cause damage. Look at Ke$shit and Dr. Luck. She crushed his deals and, lo, she drops her case without so much as a whimper from the media.

      The fear of being an -ist is a powerful tool indeed.

      1. So you don’t think that the eternally aggrieved are hoping for the day that big daddy government officially has the power to shut people up?

        OK, I guess.

        1. If it saves just one Clinton…

        2. I DO think Statists want the veto power vested in their moral representatives. I am arguing effective censorship based on fear of branding, laziness of the populace, and buzzwords.

          What more would the government do but drive this stuff underground?

    2. Perhaps Loretta Lynch can convene a panel to, you know, ask questions.

  5. Sophisticated Sapphistry can only go so far, Sister-brothers.

  6. Jezebel

    I’m assuming the reason that Jezebel articles read like they were written by bratty 14-year-old girls is because those “writers” get paid shit money to write about stupid shit that sane people don’t give two fucks about.

    1. It’s probably better for your sanity if you believe that.

      1. He’s talking to empty chairs. I don’t think he has to worry about his sanity.

        1. This guy/gal gets it.

      2. Actually, given Gawker’s current financial situation, they might actually be hiring high school writers now.

    2. You may want to consider the possibility that the writers actually are bratty 14-year-old girls.

      1. Good point.

      2. The writers actually are bratty 14-year-old girls trapped in dumpy, unwashed, Lena Dunham bodies.

        1. Like all progtards, they must be euthanized. Best thing for them. Surely there are some nearby veterinarians who can help?

        2. Wait, are you trying to imply there’s a washed version of Lena Dunham?

  7. Shorter Easton-Ellis:

    “Why don’t people complain about me being un-PC anymore?”

  8. I heard willem dafoe had to have a body double for a nude scene because his penis was so large it would detract from the mood of the scene. May be an urban legend.

    1. They wouldn’t even cast me in the part, period, because my penis was so large it would detract from the mood of the entire film. Not urban legend.

      1. Do you have to have special underwear made for your large penis, like Frank Sinatra did?

        1. Sort of. My underwear is bigger on the inside/

      2. I always wondered what happened to Little Donny after he grew up.

    2. The director of the film he starred in with Madonna said that this was true.

      Body of Evidence — Uli Edel dir.

    3. I heard Willem DaFoe was from Florida.

      Coincidence, Mr. Hipster???

  9. Shame is like antibiotics. It’s vitally important for curing social illness, but when you just toss it out half-assedly for anything and everything, then you start to get shame-resistant strains of social illness. Like… a certain someone.

    1. Gary Busey?

    2. Robocop?

    3. Hitler? It’s Hitler right?

    4. Rod Blagojevich?

    5. Nine out of ten Americans?

    6. Ke$ha?

    7. Pretty much this.
      Trump is a multiple-drug resistant strain of flesh-eating bacteria.

  10. “Today a boring man was allowed to publish a think piece about not-boring musician Sky Ferreira that began by discussing her “killer tits,” as seen on her last album cover, and comparing her cup size to Madonna’s (in a deeply uninspired collation he carried out ’til the very end),” lamented Jezebel’s Julianne Escobedo Shepherd

    What is about having a hyphenated name that automagically transforms someone into an unthinking Nazi shitweasel?

    1. Feminist parents. Because taking the father’s last name = patriarchy.

    2. Greed. You start from a place without compromise.
      “Mom, why is our last name hyphenated?”
      “Because your father and I don’t believe in rigid patriarchal traditional oppressive systems, Eugenia.”
      “Jesus. Got it.”

      1. There can be legit reasons for it.

  11. you sniveling little weak-ass narcissists

    I totally don’t know who this guy is, but I like him already. A lot.

    1. While he occasionally says things that insult and offend the right people, in general he’s a bloviating has-been who wrote two OK novels in mid-80s, got a ton of praise, ran out of ideas, wrote American Psycho to shock people into paying attention to him for a few more minutes, and then went *poof*.

      Every couple of years he pops up desperately seeking relevancy, but he really is sort of a pathetic character at this point.

      1. You’ve crushed my hopes and dreams.

        1. Then my job here is done. He’s like Orson Scott Card, but for “serious” fiction.

          1. You don’t like Ender’s game? I actually never read it, but I liked the movie.

            1. Ender’s Game was really good. Speaker for the Dead was better.

              He’s spent the 30 years since sitting around on his website bitching about foreigners.

              1. But in Ender’s game, in the end, he saved the fureners from genocide. So he’s just giving the other side a fair chance.

                1. And he spends the whole second book looking for a planet to transplant them to so that they can come back.

                  That’s the weird thing about Card – it’s like he hasn’t read his own books.

            2. but I liked the movie.

              Oh hell no.

              1. Yeah – haven’t seen the movie, but heard it was shite.

            1. More “mediocre talent overestimating the quality of his ideas trying to recapture the glory days by trying hard to say shocking things to get attention.”

              But yeah – Card has a spittle-flecked ideology while Easton-Ellis is just a spoiled brat who needs attention.

      2. Show us on the doll where Bret Easton Ellis touched you

        1. (points somewhere less than zero)

          1. (points somewhere less than zero)

            These masturbation euphemisms are getting pretty negative.

        2. It was in my unwilling brain. Can I call rape?

          1. There are few writers that have ever really rubbed me very wrong

            mainly because if i grok that they’re all-talk no-trousers, i stop reading and find something else. Its not like a movie where you’re probably going to sit through the whole execrable thing, or music which is going to play in the club/bar/radio when you’re trying not to feel like strangling anyone.

            I’ve never had any particular animus or bitterness towards writers who are popular (but shit!); BEE was very popular for a minute in the 1990s, but i don’t think the ‘overhyped’ thing works quite the same way in literature, mainly because not that many people read book, much less read about reading, etc.

            anyway, i liked 2 of his books, thought 2 others were average/not so good. But he doesn’t reside on some secret shit-list and don’t understand why anyone would have one re: once-popular but now marginal writers.

            1. What about Jane Austen? ; )

              Mostly I’m just being snarky. BEE had his moment, and he earned it. I suspect the buzz went to his head and he doesn’t seem like he’s been able to produce anything worthwhile in a long time, but I think he got a little addicted to the attention.

              I also just find him annoying, on a personal level – and that’s most of it to be perfectly honest.

              But you can’t judge artists’ work on their personalities – most of them are insufferable assholes. He just happens to be a well publicized one.

              1. His podcast does have some good interviews from time to time. The one with Eli Roth where they both go after the SJW crowd is fun, as is the ones with John Carpenter and Quentin Tarantino.

              2. Yeah, I don’t think being hailed as a literary wunderkind upon his debut has done Ellis any favors in the long term- he seems to be a case of arrested development.

                “Brat Pack”, indeed!

              3. “” What about Jane Austen?”””

                We were required to read (and write) about Jane. I respect her talent. I never read any of her work for pleasure or illumination

                I suspect I will read Austen in my 50s and be enthralled

      3. two OK novels

        I’m not sure I would go that far.

  12. Of course, Ellis goes too far here.

    Thanks for the parenthetical, you were getting dangerously close to the end of an article without any social signaling.

    1. Robby doesn’t want to paint himself out of a market portion, especially when Fruit Sushi is so hard to find.

      1. Fruit sushi is like tofu and bugs. I refuse to eat it!

        1. In fact, no one who eats fruit sushi is cool, in any way whatsoever.

    2. +1 cosmotarian take down.

    3. Or maybe, y’know, Ellis was just plain wrong in asserting that 1A had anything but jack shit to do with his particular case.

    4. I almost think Reason is trolling at this point.

  13. Easton didn’t go too far. He misspoke. Yes, these fascist assholes whining and getting someone to retract an article is not a 1st Amendment issue. It is, however, a freedom issue. The government is not the only threat to your freedom. If you can’t say something without a fascist mob showing up to destroy your business, you are just as unfree as you would be if the police showed up and did it.

    These people are scum. I don’t know why Robby feels the need to constantly equivocate and excuse them.

    1. What kind of scum?

      Criminal? Villainous? de Terra?

    2. Because you are a dumb fuck. And when I say dumb fuck, I mean DUMB. FUCK.

      1. Do you forget your meds today Sparky? I guess you we can take this to mean that you think that people going around and trying to ruin the business of anyone who violates their increasingly fanatical speech restrictions is a good idea?

        You have never been particularly interesting but you have never been insane either. I guess things change.

        1. It’s not censorship, dickhead. Which is exactly what Robby said. You stupid fuckbags whine about him not using precise language. Then when he does you fucking whine again that he’s equivocating. I swear, if I were Robby, I’d tell you all to go back to fucking your crusty socks with a golf ball up your ass.

          1. as per below, robby didn’t even capture the full quote where Ellis was talking about the nature of “censorship”

            1. Gravy. And where is your discovery in relation to John’s retarded logorreah?

              1. John can speak for himself. I’m just pointing out you’re defending Robby’s mis-quotation.

                When Ellis said “the implicit calling for censorship by removing the piece, is what should not be allowable“”, he goes on to explain what that means.

                e.g. “…The LA Weekly should have pushed back on this and defended their writer – and by extension freedom of expression – and just walked away.

                Robby chopped it short to pretend that he’d achieved a Gotcha.

                Its willfully ignoring Ellis’ point in order to achieve his false “middle ground” where he can tut-tut both sides. its robby’s M.O.

                You want to defend that sort of cheap-tactic, fine. I’m just helping clarify what was actually there.

                1. Correct. I am defending what actually was reported in the article which a bunch of dumbfucks saw fit to be critical about.

                  1. Someone was critical of something on the internet? FUCK ME

          2. Would it be better if people called it suppression? I mean, it’s not the technical definition of “censorship” since there is no government force involved.

            But it does hue to the colloquial use of “censorship”, which is basically “someone is trying to stifle my voice with their heckler’s veto”.

    3. The equivocating is in fact a defense mechanism against the Internet Backlash.

        1. Fuck these murderous nutbags…
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .

          But moderate Islam is ok!

  14. Well at least the link to B.E.E’s piece was valuable.

  15. “But you can always count on the fine people of the internet to using their imaginations to determine whether Bloom’s packing a hobbit or an orc.”

    I’m so confused. I thought he was an elf.

  16. Of course, Ellis goes too far here

    And here’s what followed what was quoted =

    The LA Weekly should have pushed back on this and defended their writer – and by extension freedom of expression – and just walked away. But no, they felt they needed to say ‘I’m sowwy’ to all the snowflakes who found this innocuous piece so offensive and threatening, and how it crossed some imaginary line of decency, and placating all the crybabies who wanted the post taken down….a nd kudos to the LA Weekly for not taking it down, because if it had that would have been actual censorship, which is what the left’s social justice warriors really want.

    I think its a little dishonest to quote the first sentence in a paragraph and then pretend its a conclusion…. rather than the beginning of a statement.

  17. there’s only one way to express yourself….. as some kind of neutered thing, this mound, this clump, turning away from your gender-based responses – towards women, towards men, towards sex.

    This neutering, this castration, is something no-one really wants or believes in, I hope

    Fruit.
    Sushi.

    1. The crushing despair and hopelessness of today’s society, in 2 words.

  18. I’m tired of hearing these people being referred to as “Social Justice Warriors”. The one thing they’re not is warriors. Now, if you want to call them Social Justice Whiners I’m okay with that.

    1. Social Justice Fuckheads.

      1. Please! They’re social justice cry-bullies!

        1. Cry bullies is definitely the best term yet.

          Unless anyone actually believes that a ‘warrior’ is someone who remains in the emotional, intellectual, and social skills state of a toddler, well into their 30s.

          1. Third-wave reich?

        2. I miss the days when SJW’s were properly called ‘dorks’, and when the mouthed off about their whiney bullshit, we properly smacked them.

          We need to get back to that. Its worked much better than pretending that they have any kind of valid opinions.

    2. I call them Obama Youth because nobody has heard of Hong Wei Bing.

      1. Other than ethnicity is there a difference?

    3. Personally, I’m inclined toward Social Justice Cadres.

      The mindless obedience to the dictates of the Party seem to call for it.

    4. It’s ultimately self-defeating.

      The cultural grievance people are really just setting themselves up. It’s just so boring. Who can sit around being bored for decades?

      They would be creating what they love, or talking about what they love, but they don’t have the capacity for it anymore. Or there’s just too much of it? Anyway, they’re reduced to whining as their primary cultural contribution.

      It’s an obvious dead end for the long term. But, perhaps it’s all they have. I’m sure they’d explain to me how that’s all part of the unfairness of reality, or something: that whining is their primary skill.

      1. whining is their primary skill.

        As someone else* said (I think, correctly) – the “most millenial expression” ever is, = “….and Here’s Why That’s a Problem

        [*the people who said this are acknowledged to also be very awful people. But still, i don’t see why a decent observation should go unaccredited]

        “Pathological solipsism and mile wide but inch deep self-esteem are a bad combo.””

    5. War isn’t about violence, it’s about power. Violence just happens to be an effective means. Their whining is also about power.

      1. And whining is less dangerous. That’s a very good point.

        1. “Anyway, they’re reduced to whining as their primary cultural contribution.”

          Why denigrate whining? It actually works. Doesn’t hurt anyone either. What more do you want of it and why the moralistic tone?

          1. I’m not sure what part of my tone was moralistic, but anyhow, its true that less violence is always good, it just doesn’t give you the opportunity to risk yourself for someone else, I.e. act heroically, so I find it a little obnoxious (and a lot disrespectful to people who did actually put their lives on the line for something) when they congratulate themselves for their own heroism.

            1. I was making a comment on another comment and misplaced it under yours. Sorry for the confusion. Whining draws attention to oneself, and can be a risky business at times. Whiners don’t sacrifice themselves, if anything they tend to survive. Whining works.

              “when they congratulate themselves for their own heroism.”

              If someone is congratulating themselves for their own heroism, then they are not really whining. Whining works by rousing pity in others. That’s not going to happen if you are blowing your own trumpet.

    6. Delusional Indignant Charlatans. DICs

      Seriously, we have to come up with an acronym that makes them DICs or DIKs. I’d also permit DYKs if I didn’t think they’d mistake the pronunciation for ‘dyke.’ DIQ also works but q words are hard to work with.

    7. Faggot dork pussies (aka Faggot Cookies) is even better.

  19. The 1st Amendment may not be the issue–today. But we’re dealing with people who believe that “hate speech” as they define it (said definition is not concrete and is subject to their emotional mood of the moment) is not protected by the 1st Amendment. So it wouldn’t do to dismiss them as a threat to free speech.

  20. Robbo, good article, here is your earnings.

    1. UGH. COMMODIFICATION OF FEMALE FORM. SO NOT WOKE.

    2. Fruit sushi… so bad you want to throw it away and eat the plate!

  21. All I know about Ellis is that Less Than Zero sucked so hard I vowed never to read another word with his name under it.

    1. American Psycho was actually pretty great. Just my opinion. I was pretty young when i read it. The opening chapter where Bateman lists all of his various skin-care products and his workout routine, etc…. is just great suff.. Its one of the best book-openings i’ve ever read, and showed an incredible insight into how “psychosis” can be translated for non-crazy people. You see through a crazy person’s eyes and you actually “get it”.

      Glamorama had a few laughs in it, and captured early-mid 1990s NYC in a way that i’ve not read in anything else, but it was clearly not on the same level.

      1. And Patrick puts a rat in a girls vagina!

      2. American Psycho is an incredible novel. Unlike other people here, I really enjoyed Less Than Zero as well. Ellis has enormous talent as a writer.

        1. Agreed. Guy is maybe the third or fourth most talented American fiction writer still living.

    2. Someone recommended it to me. I never listened to that person’s opinions on fiction again.

      1. As far as scifi is concerned, I think my favorite might be A Fire Upon the Deep. Vinge has a great imagination and writing style.

    3. -1 Jami Gertz

    4. I blogged about the movie as “The Lost Weekend meets screwball comedy”. It’s hilariously awful.

    5. I’ve never read anything by him, but I really liked “The Rules of Attraction” movie. More than most people did, anyway.

      1. You and me both.

    6. Eh. He and Chuck Palahnik are the same to me. Fierce talent capable of really amazing writing, spent writing about shit that I have no interest in reading. Like, I can look at the technique and appreciate it, and read the story and hate it. Additionally, if you read American Psycho and just interject any random @GSElevator conversation into Bateman’s conversations, you can see how well he captured the Wall Street set.

  22. Ferreira, the subject of the L.A. Weekly piece, appears nude, by choice, on the cover of her album.

    Whew. And here I was thinking there was somebody just out of frame pointing a gun at her. Maybe they were planning on a “If You Don’t Buy This Album, We’ll Kill This Woman” cover, but changed their minds.

  23. +1 Lampooned!

  24. a piece where someone was clearly writing honestly

    There’s your trouble.

  25. the so-called snowflake justice warriors are engaging in free expression as well.

    Or, as it is more commonly known, the Heckler’s Veto.

  26. If I had artistic skills, I’d produce the logo for SJW types: a snowflake made up of raw nerves.

  27. Jezebel:

    Ferreira is being victimized despite her choosing to expose herself! Misogyny! Sexism! The Patriarchy!

    Gawker:

    Here is naked Melania Trump and boy does she have some tits on her huh! I bet this means she violated her immigration status!

    Fuck these people sideways.

  28. Cripes, would people settle down about the word “censorship”? Words can have multiple meanings. One meaning of the word is indeed government-mandated suppression of speech. But it’s also a handy word for any organized attempt to suppress speech. Can anyone think of a better word?

    It’s absurd to nitpick the definition of censorship, while other politically-loaded terms are bloated beyond all rational sense and constantly used for thing that aren’t covered in their narrow and “correct” definitions: racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia.

    1. “other politically-loaded terms are bloated beyond all rational sense and constantly used for thing that aren’t covered in their narrow and “correct” definitions: racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia.”

      Fail. You didn’t mention assault rifles.

      1. True, that’s another.

      2. “retard” is yet another. Of course maybe when people use it incorrectly they’re just shortening the claim that their interlocutor’s neurological development was retarded by their mother’s heavy drinking during pregnancy.

    2. If your definition of “censorship” includes boycotts, then you’ve defined it into a morally-neutral term, which I would consider a grave mistake.

  29. I’ve listened to a number of B.E.E. podcasts. He has seething hatred for SJWs. It’s a pleasure to listen to. But he does tend to puss out by saying it’s an opinion. FFS, it’s not about fact vs. opinion. And some opinions can be offensive to some people. It’s the overwhelming need of SJW’s to purge society of opinions they find offensive, of which there are quite a few, that’s the problem.

    Stop being so fucking offended … that’s what the retort should be.

    B.E.E. also loves to point out that art should be judged on aesthetics, not ideology.

    FWIW his podcasts are only mildly interesting, because asks five minute long questions. But his rants are epic.

    1. “B.E.E. also loves to point out that art should be judged on aesthetics, not ideology.”

      It’s not the author’s job to tell the critics how to judge their work, and B.E.E. knows this. It strikes me as whining.

      1. It’s not whining, it’s rational.

        The author has no control over what any reader thinks of his work. But when a reviewer makes the “book review” about the author (or the reviewer himself) instead of the book… well, at that point, why read the book at all before “reviewing” it?

        Though I’m sure that bold, postmodernist take on book reviewing is already shitting up the filthy restroom that is academia. If it’s not, it’s coming soon.

        1. ” well, at that point, why read the book at all before “reviewing” it?”

          How else would you review a book you haven’t read? The reviewer answers to the market, just like the novelist. If he or she can pull off reviews of books they haven’t read and still satisfy their readers then more power to them. A novelist complaining about reviewers is a long standing whine. B.E.E. is not the first novelist to whine about his critics.

          “It’s not whining, it’s rational.”

          You think the two are mutually exclusive?

          “Though I’m sure that bold, postmodernist take on book reviewing is already shitting up the filthy restroom that is academia. If it’s not, it’s coming soon.’

          Coming soon? Why not whine a little more about the filthy restroom that is academia.

          1. ‘You think the two are mutually exclusive?”
            If not, then why do you bother to whine about whining? I’d say rational whining is a good thing, so why are you whining about it?

            1. “If not, then why do you bother to whine about whining?”

              I praise whining. It’s ‘ the filthy restroom that is academia’ that I’m complaining about.

            2. “If not, then why do you bother to whine about whining?”

              I praise whining. It’s ‘ the filthy restroom that is academia’ that I’m complaining about.

    2. re: Five minute questions, good point. Still, the rants make the podcast worth it. And, there’s always the fast forward button.

  30. And some opinions can be offensive to some people. It’s the overwhelming need of SJW’s to purge society of opinions they find offensive, of which there are quite a few, that’s the problem.

    As a great man of my acquaintance used to say, “If you can’t take a joke, stick it up your ass.”

  31. “…Lawrence had her phone hacked.”

    Heh. Bull. Shit.

    Who is stupid enough to think all of these celebrity phones are hacked by anyone other than the celebrity’s own publicity agent?

    1. I dunno yo. That huge leak last year would have required so many people being in on it a hack seems a little less unlikely.

    2. I dunno yo. That huge leak last year would have required so many people being in on it a hack seems a little less unlikely.

  32. Jezebel is a known hive of shrill cunts. Why bother?

      1. Plenty of whine to be had over at the Gawker properties!

        1. “Plenty of whine to be had over at the Gawker properties!”

          No need to leave this page. Here we get a double dose. Whining about whining.

          1. And now you’re whining about whining about whining. How meta.

            And btw, you’re smart to stay here. We’ve got wine aplenty. What they’ve got at Gawker has long since turned to vinegar.

  33. Today a boring man was allowed to publish a think piece about not-boring musician Sky Ferreira …

    ALLOWED???

    Fuck you, Jezzie.

    1. I assure you the writers at Jezebel aren’t fucked often.

      1. It really answers Bret’s rhetorical question nicely.

  34. i get Paid Over ?80 per hour working from home with 2 kids at house. I never thought I would be able to do it but my best friend earns over ?9185 a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.

    Heres what I’ve been doing,……… http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  35. Jezebel here’s some talk about her music, IT SUCKS!

  36. It is undermined however when one uses all vestiges of their power to shut up and out those they disagree with, and then do the exact same thing they damned the others for doing.

  37. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.Today40.com

  38. my best friend’s mom makes $74 an hour on the computer . She has been without work for five months but last month her payment was $19746 just working on the computer for a few hours. find more information …
    ?????????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  39. “Oh, little snowflakes, when did you all become grandmothers and society matrons, clutching your pearls in horror at someone who has an opinion about something, a way of expressing themselves that’s not the mirror image of yours, you sniveling little weak-ass narcissists?”
    I’m curious what contrast he sees between their behavior and his. They’re saying (whoever) shouldn’t have written that article because they don’t like his opinions. And then he says they shouldn’t have written their response because he doesn’t like their opinions.

    At what step in this chain is he morally superior?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.