Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

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?'

Robby Soave | 8.4.2016 3:10 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | Newscom
(Newscom)
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.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

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

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

Campus Free Speech
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (191)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

    Sex appeal is what Jezebel needs right now.

    1. Florida Hipster   9 years ago

      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. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

        She looks like a poor man's Brittany Murphy.

        I just looked her up. You're right.

      2. Bill Dalasio   9 years ago

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

        1. Florida Hipster   9 years ago

          It can be both.

      3. Citizen X   9 years ago

        So... pretty much entirely decomposed?

        1. Florida Hipster   9 years ago

          That's what I am saying, yes sir.

    2. Ted S.   9 years ago

      Sexy, or not? You decide.

      1. Florida Hipster   9 years ago

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

    3. Entropy Drehmaschine Void   9 years ago

      Sex appeal is what Jezebel needs right now.

      ... and people in Hell want icewater ...

  2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

    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. KLafayette   9 years ago

      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. C. Anacreon   9 years ago

        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. PapayaSF   9 years ago

          "Shrinkage!"

        2. Citizen X   9 years ago

          You've... uh, really thought about this, haven't you. A lot.

          1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

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

        3. KLafayette   9 years ago

          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. Eeyore   9 years ago

            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. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

        I'll share a little secret with you: Women have filthy minds too

        Do you like me:

        [ ] Yes
        [ ] No
        [ ] Maybe

      3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

        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. KLafayette   9 years ago

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

          1. Azathoth!!   9 years ago

            octopus or squid?

            asking for sheer prurient interest.....................

          2. Half-Virtue, Half-Vice   9 years ago

            Go on.

          3. Entropy Drehmaschine Void   9 years ago

            Who says there are no Libertarian women?

          4. Suicidy   9 years ago

            Like "The Fisherman's Daughter 2: The Rententacling"?

        2. HazelMeade   9 years ago

          That's when you pull out your Kink.com collection.

          1. KLafayette   9 years ago

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

  3. Fist of Etiquette   9 years ago

    There's power in victimhood.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

      If by "victimhood" you mean "third" then no, there's no power in it.

      1. Fist of Etiquette   9 years ago

        Links Posts Matter, not All Posts Matter.

    2. darius404   9 years ago

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

  4. $park? is totally a Swifty   9 years ago

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

    1. A Cynic's Guide to Zen   9 years ago

      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. $park? is totally a Swifty   9 years ago

        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. Microaggressor   9 years ago

          If it saves just one Clinton...

        2. A Cynic's Guide to Zen   9 years ago

          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. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

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

  5. A Cynic's Guide to Zen   9 years ago

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

  6. Clint Eastwoodchipper   9 years ago

    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. $park? is totally a Swifty   9 years ago

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

      1. Florida Hipster   9 years ago

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

        1. Clint Eastwoodchipper   9 years ago

          This guy/gal gets it.

      2. MarkLastname   9 years ago

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

    2. DesigNate   9 years ago

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

      1. Clint Eastwoodchipper   9 years ago

        Good point.

      2. Bobarian (Would Chip Her)   9 years ago

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

        1. Suicidy   9 years ago

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

        2. BYODB   9 years ago

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

  7. Square = Circle   9 years ago

    Shorter Easton-Ellis:

    "Why don't people complain about me being un-PC anymore?"

  8. Florida Hipster   9 years ago

    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. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

      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. Florida Hipster   9 years ago

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

        1. Lesser Evil, Jr.   9 years ago

          +1 elephantine

        2. Suicidy   9 years ago

          Sort of. My underwear is bigger on the inside/

      2. gimmeasammich   9 years ago

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

    2. Bobarian (Would Chip Her)   9 years ago

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

      Body of Evidence -- Uli Edel dir.

    3. Entropy Drehmaschine Void   9 years ago

      I heard Willem DaFoe was from Florida.

      Coincidence, Mr. Hipster???

  9. ant1sthenes   9 years ago

    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. Microaggressor   9 years ago

      Gary Busey?

    2. $park? is totally a Swifty   9 years ago

      Robocop?

    3. DesigNate   9 years ago

      Hitler? It's Hitler right?

    4. DEATFBIRSECIA   9 years ago

      Rod Blagojevich?

    5. Citizen X   9 years ago

      Tony?

      1. Rockabilly   9 years ago

        He's crying...

    6. Libertarian   9 years ago

      Nine out of ten Americans?

    7. Marcus Aurelius   9 years ago

      Ke$ha?

    8. Ted S.   9 years ago

      Robby Soave?

    9. HazelMeade   9 years ago

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

  10. Hyperion   9 years ago

    "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. Microaggressor   9 years ago

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

    2. A Cynic's Guide to Zen   9 years ago

      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. GamerFromJump   9 years ago

        There can be legit reasons for it.

  11. Hyperion   9 years ago

    you sniveling little weak-ass narcissists

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

    1. Square = Circle   9 years ago

      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. Hyperion   9 years ago

        You've crushed my hopes and dreams.

        1. Square = Circle   9 years ago

          Then my job here is done. He's like Orson Scott Card, but for "serious" fiction.

          1. Hyperion   9 years ago

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

            1. Square = Circle   9 years ago

              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. Hyperion   9 years ago

                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. Square = Circle   9 years ago

                  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. Agent Cooper   9 years ago

              but I liked the movie.

              Oh hell no.

              1. Square = Circle   9 years ago

                Yeah - haven't seen the movie, but heard it was shite.

          2. Dennis, Constitutional Peasant   9 years ago

            A warmongering mormon communist?

            1. Square = Circle   9 years ago

              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. Dennis, Constitutional Peasant   9 years ago

        Show us on the doll where Bret Easton Ellis touched you

        1. C. Anacreon   9 years ago

          (points somewhere less than zero)

          1. Lesser Evil, Jr.   9 years ago

            (points somewhere less than zero)

            These masturbation euphemisms are getting pretty negative.

        2. Square = Circle   9 years ago

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

          1. Dennis, Constitutional Peasant   9 years ago

            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. Square = Circle   9 years ago

              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. Galt1138   9 years ago

                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. joe the lion   9 years ago

                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. Dennis, Constitutional Peasant   9 years ago

                "" 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. Doctor Whom   9 years ago

        two OK novels

        I'm not sure I would go that far.

  12. swillfredo pareto   9 years ago

    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. A Cynic's Guide to Zen   9 years ago

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

      1. Hyperion   9 years ago

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

        1. Hyperion   9 years ago

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

    2. Hyperion   9 years ago

      +1 cosmotarian take down.

    3. KLafayette   9 years ago

      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. Agent Cooper   9 years ago

      I almost think Reason is trolling at this point.

  13. John   9 years ago

    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. A Cynic's Guide to Zen   9 years ago

      What kind of scum?

      Criminal? Villainous? de Terra?

    2. $park? is totally a Swifty   9 years ago

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

      1. John   9 years ago

        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. $park? is totally a Swifty   9 years ago

          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. Dennis, Constitutional Peasant   9 years ago

            as per below, robby didn't even capture the full quote where Ellis was talking about the nature of "censorship"

            1. $park? is totally a Swifty   9 years ago

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

              1. Dennis, Constitutional Peasant   9 years ago

                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. $park? is totally a Swifty   9 years ago

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

                  1. Dennis, Constitutional Peasant   9 years ago

                    Someone was critical of something on the internet? FUCK ME

          2. DesigNate   9 years ago

            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. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

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

      1. Dennis, Constitutional Peasant   9 years ago

        yep. its built in.

        1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   9 years ago

          Fuck these murderous nutbags...
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .

          But moderate Islam is ok!

  14. Dennis, Constitutional Peasant   9 years ago

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

  15. waffles   9 years ago

    "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. Dennis, Constitutional Peasant   9 years ago

    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. Dennis, Constitutional Peasant   9 years ago

    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. Hyperion   9 years ago

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

  18. Enjoy Every Sandwich   9 years ago

    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. geo1113   9 years ago

      Social Justice Fuckheads.

      1. tarran   9 years ago

        Please! They're social justice cry-bullies!

        1. Hyperion   9 years ago

          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. JayU   9 years ago

            Third-wave reich?

        2. Suicidy   9 years ago

          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. grrizzly   9 years ago

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

      1. nrob   9 years ago

        Other than ethnicity is there a difference?

    3. Bill Dalasio   9 years ago

      Personally, I'm inclined toward Social Justice Cadres.

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

    4. Brian   9 years ago

      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. Dennis, Constitutional Peasant   9 years ago

        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. ant1sthenes   9 years ago

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

      1. Eman   9 years ago

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

        1. mtrueman   9 years ago

          "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. Eman   9 years ago

            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. mtrueman   9 years ago

              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. MarkLastname   9 years ago

      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. Suicidy   9 years ago

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

  19. Enjoy Every Sandwich   9 years ago

    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. bacon-magic   9 years ago

    Robbo, good article, here is your earnings.

    1. Dennis, Constitutional Peasant   9 years ago

      UGH. COMMODIFICATION OF FEMALE FORM. SO NOT WOKE.

    2. Bobarian (Would Chip Her)   9 years ago

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

  21. The Late P Brooks   9 years ago

    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. Dennis, Constitutional Peasant   9 years ago

      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. Eman   9 years ago

        And Patrick puts a rat in a girls vagina!

      2. Dr. Jonathan Crane   9 years ago

        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. TheSaw   9 years ago

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

    2. Doctor Whom   9 years ago

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

      1. Hyperion   9 years ago

        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. Lee Genes   9 years ago

      -1 Jami Gertz

    4. Ted S.   9 years ago

      I blogged about the movie as "The Lost Weekend meets screwball comedy". It's hilariously awful.

    5. Robby Soave   9 years ago

      I've never read anything by him, but I really liked "The Rules of Attraction" movie. More than most people did, anyway.

      1. KDN   9 years ago

        You and me both.

    6. Brett L   9 years ago

      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. R C Dean   9 years ago

    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. Vermeer Coodwhipper   9 years ago

    +1 Lampooned!

  24. The Late P Brooks   9 years ago

    a piece where someone was clearly writing honestly

    There's your trouble.

  25. The Late P Brooks   9 years ago

    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. Zero Sum Game   9 years ago

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

  27. Tman   9 years ago

    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. PapayaSF   9 years ago

    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. mtrueman   9 years ago

      "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. PapayaSF   9 years ago

        True, that's another.

      2. MarkLastname   9 years ago

        "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. EscherEnigma   9 years ago

      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. MP   9 years ago

    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. mtrueman   9 years ago

      "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. Remnant Psyche   9 years ago

        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. mtrueman   9 years ago

          " 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. MarkLastname   9 years ago

            '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. mtrueman   9 years ago

              "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. mtrueman   9 years ago

              "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. Galt1138   9 years ago

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

  30. The Late P Brooks   9 years ago

    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. Suthenboy   9 years ago

    "...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. Eman   9 years ago

      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. Eman   9 years ago

      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. Trigger Warning   9 years ago

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

    1. mtrueman   9 years ago

      Try the wine.

      1. Remnant Psyche   9 years ago

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

        1. mtrueman   9 years ago

          "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. MarkLastname   9 years ago

            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. Entropy Drehmaschine Void   9 years ago

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

    ALLOWED???

    Fuck you, Jezzie.

    1. Remnant Psyche   9 years ago

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

      1. nrob   9 years ago

        It really answers Bret's rhetorical question nicely.

  34. MelissaWilliams   9 years ago

    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. IceTrey   9 years ago

    Jezebel here's some talk about her music, IT SUCKS!

  36. nrob   9 years ago

    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. BhtBurnham   9 years ago

    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. hpw85100   9 years ago

    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. EscherEnigma   9 years ago

    "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 log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

California Enacts Sweeping Exemption to Development-Killing Environmental Law

Christian Britschgi | 7.1.2025 1:10 PM

Senate Votes 99–1 To Remove AI Moratorium from 'Big, Beautiful Bill' 

Jack Nicastro | 7.1.2025 12:27 PM

Why the 'Current Policy' Baseline Is a Massive Gimmick That Effectively Kills the Filibuster

Eric Boehm | 7.1.2025 12:00 PM

New Jersey Towns Face Setback in Lawsuit Against State's Affordable Housing Mandate

Tosin Akintola | 7.1.2025 11:45 AM

Why the NFLPA Kept Damning Collusion Evidence From Its Own Players

Jason Russell | 7.1.2025 11:25 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!