Is John Scalzi a malignant narcissist?

As if being a self-confessed rapist who associates with men accused of sexually battering women wasn’t enough of an indication, reading Michael Trust’s fascinating work on malignant narcissists tends to indicate that there is something seriously off about John Scalzi. Consider these various points from the book:

Competitive/Relative Inferiority

Narcissists are weirdly competitive and strangely envious over seemingly insignificant details, from how the salary they earn compares to other’s, to the respectability of the shampoo they use, compared to the shampoos that others use. It is a shielding mechanism, designed to protect their ego, and their amygdala, from confronting their own insecurity.

You can sometimes spot this trait in a narcissist, by how they will try to verbally downplay their competitiveness in realms where they can’t compete, as a way of creating a false reality where they don’t care about their competitive inferiority. If your narcissist, out of the blue says, “Other people are obsessed with how much money they earn, but I really don’t care about things like that,” then you know they were just obsessing over exactly that subject. They are trying to establish a verbalized reality where their not caring, will allow their brain to relax over their abject failure in that regard.

McRapey on weightlifting (or practically any other subject, for that matter. To take all his various protestations about not caring at face value, you’d have to assume he was a Stoic of an emotional flatness to put the Romans to shame.)

Last week, as part of my general “try to lose weight and get a little healthier because you’re middle-aged now and you don’t want to die” thing, I started going to the local YMCA to use its weight room and indoor track, with my daughter as my workout partner. She’s been on the powerlifting team at her school for the last three years, so she’s knowledgeable about the weights in a way I am not, and is thus a good person with whom to work out. At the end of our first session, I tweeted the following:

    Let it be known that my daughter can lift more than I do. Because she’s on her school’s weightlifting team, and also because she’s awesome.

    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) June 30, 2014

This naturally aroused the derision of the hooting pack of status-anxious dudebros who let me live rent-free in their brains, prompting a predictable slew of tweets and blog posts about how this is further proof of my girly-man status, hardly a man at all, dude do you even lift, and so on.  I am delighted in all the ways that they are the best, and also, better than me.


Diminution of Stature/Humiliation

The narcissist needs to feel as if they have power, so as to pacify their insecure amygdala. It is only when everyone around them reflexively supplicates, that the narcissist can let their amygdala relax. For this reason, narcissists often build a perception of themselves as superiors, and they demand that others treat them this way. 

McRapey on running for SFWA President for the fourth time 

I have decided to step forward once more (last, last very last time I swear)
as a candidate for President, a position to which I was first elected
in 2010. I had originally intended to step down at the end of this term,
but on reflection decided there were still some things I wanted to
accomplish in the role, and it made sense to try them over the course of
an additional year. Whether I get that year will be up to SFWA members,
of course; they may be tired of me and my management style. In which
case I hope they elect someone else, rather than, say, stabbing me
Caesar-style at the Nebula Awards. Please, SFWA members: No stabbing.
That’s pointy and hurts.

Insist on Arguable Untruths

Narcissists who do this will insist on an untruth, especially one which would impede the attainment of a goal important to the group, and then they will refuse to acknowledge the falsity of the untruth. I fully believe narcissists who practice this technique do it knowingly. They know that what they are asserting is false, they enjoy seeing you upset over the fact that they are so unable to accept logic, and they refuse to give in purposely, to watch you grow increasingly agitated and frustrated. To these narcissists, truth is immaterial, the group’s goals are meaningless, and your upset emotional state is blissfully amusing. As a result they have one goal – to see your frustrated.

McRapey on the lack of women writing hard science fiction

I have a degree in philosophy from the University of Chicago
(specializing in the philosophy of language), and therefore have ample
training in rhetoric, so I doubt that rhetorical deficiencies on this
end are the issue. I read your column Vox, and I grasped your
obvious rhetorical device. It doesn’t impress me. As continually stated,
your rhetorical device is obviously bad: Poorly stated, poorly
supported, and rheorically incoherent. To restate: Your thesis is wrong
and you lack the rhetorical skills to present your thesis in a coherent
fashion. Your latter-day attempt to brush off your sexist and ignorant
statement as sarcasm is baldly transparent as backtracking; even if it
were true, it shows that your use of such devices is appallingly clumsy.
Again one wonders how you got your columnist gig, or, alternately, if
anyone bothers to edit you, as you so clearly need.

Being a Central Information Hub

Two things narcissists try to do to irritate is to invade privacy, and control and guide the flow of all information. This is probably due to some deep perception that their entire self-worth is defined by the group’s beliefs and perceptions (ie, it’s acceptance of their false reality), combined with an assumption (erroneously assuming that everyone else thinks like them), that everyone else’s self-worth is as well. Thus, to a narcissist, control the information flow, and you control everyone’s self-assessments of their own self-worth. To the narcissist, that information is pure power over not just everyone, but in the narcissist’s mind, the very (false) reality that everyone inhabits.

1. McRapey on all controversial subjects of the last 10 years

Comments off on this

2. McRapey on all people who might disagree with him


You are blocked from following @scalzi and viewing @scalzi’s Tweets.
  
Out-grouping

When interacting socially, narcissists are snakes in the grass. One of their major objectives when dealing with those they dislike is to alienate their targets from any social group to which they belong. They do this because they themselves require social validation to support the false reality that they construct to shield their amygdala from stimulation. As long as the group accepts the narcissist and their false reality, the narcissist can cling to the belief that they are somehow normal, or even superior. It is this social validation which serves as a crucial psychological crutch, shielding them from the pain that would result from an honest self-assessment of what they are. Projecting this psychology on others, the narcissist will assume that group-affiliation is just as vitally important to you. As a result, they will seek to disrupt your group affiliations as a way to both, try to disrupt the group-validation of the false reality they assume you have, and preserve this vital psychological crutch for themselves.


McRapey on August 14, 2013, after I announced my expulsion from SFWA


For No Particular Reason At All, This Song Seems Strangely Appropriate Today…. On an entirely unrelated note, today I renewed my SFWA membership. Seems I forgot to do it earlier. Oh, well, an easily corrected oversight, and it was. 


Privacy Invasion

The narcissist will intrude into their private spaces, and then feign ignorance of why they should care that he is there.

McRapey

Ask McRapey about this one. He knows what he did. This was the bizarre behavior that made it evident Scalzi’s behavior isn’t merely that of a normal self-centered individual, but more akin to that of the malignant narcissists described in the book. One would do well to keep these things in mind before one too quickly accept McRapey’s retroactive claims concerning his “satirical” practices at face value.

I’d add one more red flag in addition to those mentioned in the book. It’s what I would call a “probing” style of communication. Everything is two steps forward and one step back; if resistance is met, then it’s all only a joke, ha ha ha, and the individual retreats. If not, the breakthrough is quickly reinforced and a new narrative is established. It’s basically a deceptive tactic used to control the narrative while concealing the narcissist’s objectives. The joke about not wanting to be stabbed at the Nebula Awards is a good example of that; what is the point of the joke in the first place given that it’s not even remotely funny. It is to keep things lighthearted and distract from the fact that the narcissist is dead serious about seeking what he perceives to be power again.

How to Deal with Narcissists is a remarkable book. And it’s astonishing how well it describes the behavior of certain trolls known to infest these parts, as well as explain the reasons for that behavior. My completely unprofessional opinion is that John Scalzi is not a full-blown malignant narcissist, but merely has some observable tendencies in that regard and is rather less psychologically normal than most of his fans and his critics would tend to believe. These tendencies are most clearly seen in his habitual dishonesty and complete inability to admit the truth even when caught out publicly in a lie.


She won’t ride with her

The only place my Australian fan’s famous dialogue took place was in her head:

Confession time. In my Facebook status, I editorialised. She wasn’t sitting next to me. She was a bit away, towards the other end of the carriage. Like most people she had been looking at her phone, then slowly started to unpin her scarf. Tears sprang to my eyes and I was struck by feelings of anger, sadness and bitterness. It was in this mindset that I punched the first status update into my phone, hoping my friends would take a moment to think about the victims of the siege who were not in the cafe.

I spent the rest of the journey staring—rudely—at the back of her uncovered head. I wanted to talk to her, but had no idea what to say. Anything that came to mind seemed tokenistic and patronising. She might not even be Muslim or she could have just been warm! Besides, I was in the “quiet carriage” where even conversation is banned.

By sheer fluke, we got off at the same station, and some part of me decided saying something would be a good thing. Rather than quiz her about her choice of clothing, I thought if I simply offered to walk her to her destination, it might help.
It’s hard to describe the moment when humans, and complete strangers, have a conversation with no words. I wanted to tell her I was sorry for so many things—for overstepping the mark, for making assumptions about a complete stranger and for belonging to a culture where racism was part of her everyday experience.

But none of those words came out, and our near silent encounter was over in a moment.

Another day, another media fraud perpetrated by SJWs eager to believe the word of a mentally unstable woman.


Pity the poor troll

Poor Andrew Marston is sad that his trolling has rendered him unable to post things by people he likes, for fear that they’ll be treated the way he treats others.

I actually thought about linking to a video of Emma singing and playing
guitar. Don’t get me wrong, this has little to do with the elections, in
fact, I actually considered posting it the day after the election, but
then I found out Larry Correia and his poo-flingers are searching for
and conjecturing upon my posts elsewhere on the internet, and since
linking to a video of Emma by Emma could put us in a situation where
Correia or Vox could do a lot of damage, I am not linking to it.

Of course, there are a lot of things we could do. For one, we could let them know about how Andrew publicly bragged about posting pornography on the site of two underage girls:

If you had to confess to the most evil thing you have ever done, what would it be?

Yamamanama–I bet April Gaede knows the answer to that one… heh, heh… Oh yeah, Prussian Blue is on SomethingAwful. Lynx and Lamb’s diary was hacked or something, because it was overloaded with porn. Gay porn. Gay porn involving old people. Gay porn involving old white people. In response, April Gaede only allowed one character (!?) in the guestbook. In response to that, people made 42 posts with one character each.

Yamamanama–Child porn? Yeah, OK. I actually posted some examples of the stuff I spammed Micetrap Records with in that thread about Who Is White? 

He also goes by the name of yama the space fish. The guy is a certified nut case who posts porn all over the internet. I saw a few examples of his work on some WP sights before the mods had a chance to pull it off. He is one sick bastard. He posted a picture of children having sex on one sight,and another one of two elderly men having gay sex on another one. Then after they were removed he tried to say they were just pictures of a chineese girl in a bathing suit.

Andrew quite clearly doesn’t understand how “irritating people who can afford to pay for private detectives” works. Or that “annoying people with high-level connections at various Internet technology companies” is probably not a good idea. Or that all of that is completely irrelevant when he’s already posted so many names on his own site…. Andrew doesn’t really seem to understand how the Internet works. Now here is the punchline:

Andrew Marston aka Beardsley McTurbanhead
The fact that Blogspot turns a blind eye to your many harassment campaigns is sickening.

I’m sure it’s a coincidence that comments on Silence Without have all
disappeared now that Steve Sailer, Vox Day, and Andrew Bolt have linked
to it.

You’re projecting there, Andrew. I’m not harassing anyone. One single link to a blog site in the news that specifically mentions me by name doesn’t qualify as harassment or trolling in anyone’s book. You, on the other hand, were known for harassing many people for years before you ever discovered this blog. Now, perhaps you have forgotten, but I am literally publishing the book on 4GW,  and as you should have learned from the example of McRapey, I may be slow to start, but once I get rolling, I never, ever stop.

Burning question: Who’s going to have a lot of explaining to do after I get off the phone with the police department? Child porn is not a joke to them.

A partial list of names: Alauda*, Arachnothera, Beardsley McTurbanhead, Chokley Carmichael,
Clamps*, Comrade Questions, Daphis, Daphnis*, Freddy Foreshadowing,
Luscinia*, Luscinia Hafez, Starshine, Sunlight, Will Le Fey*, Yama*,
Yamamanama*, Yama the Space Fish.


Heroine of the pre-anti-backlash

Steve Sailer points out that the woman who is heroically declaring her support for Muslims in the wake of Muslims kidnapping and murdering white Australians is, to put it mildly, a mentally unstable, attention-seeking loon:

Below is the Australian Broadcasting Company’s interview with The Megaphone’s designated heroine of the unfortunate events in Sydney today in which two victims of a Muslim immigrant terrorist died.

But even before the murders actually happened, the media was moving on to the real story: its fears of a backlash against Muslims, and the one brave woman, Melbourne writer Tessa Kum, who courageously tweeted her opposition to this theoretical but widely hoped for / denounced backlash. 

What is particularly amusing is that this “Melbourne writer” is not merely a mentally unstable, attention-seeking loon, but an SJW of the SFWA variety. And, as we all figured was inevitable eventually, she’s been one of the first of them to turn on John Scalzi and attack him for his unbearable whiteness, his privilege, and his undeniable racism:

I also didn’t expect to see the white publishing scene – let’s call a turd a turd – take on my Shovel of Oh You Are So Right Tessa and start digging graves with it.

Suddenly, you’re all promoting Tricia Sullivan’s new book.

Solidarity is for white women, hey.

There’s John Scalzi over there, making a point of featuring Tricia Sullivan’s work, and making an even larger point of deleting comments that ‘drag in online drama from elsewhere’. You know John Scalzi, right? You guys fucking love him. He’s generally a beacon for progressive reasonableness, a vocal ally, decent writer and I’ve seen him dance. People like him. He’s a great guy. I’ve noticed that you, white person, are really championing him for his overt stance against G***rgater. He’s a rich white cishet man in a western country, he has privilege coming out the wooza, it’s ace to see him going in to bat against the G***rgaters.

Because doxxing is bad!

But not all doxxing!

(“Not all men!”)

Doxxing is okay if done to a PoC.

This is the message John Scalzi sends when he promotes the work of Tricia Sullivan. He has significant platform and volume and he ticks all the privilege boxes. The reach and impact of this message should not be dismissed or underestimated. It is tacit approval of her actions, taking the position that she should not be reproached but instead supported.

This lack of intersectionality undermines all the otherwise good work he has done. How can I take “We Need Diverse Books” seriously – which I really fucking want to, and do – when there are white feminists such as John Scalzi providing implicit support to a white woman who has shown not a moment of regret for what she has done to a person of colour?

I can’t…. What makes this racist is the simple fact that you, white person, have not done this to your own.

Jim Frenkle, Vox Day, Harlan Ellis, Will Shetterly. For fuck’s sake, how many decades did you let Frenkle prey in the scene before some young uppity voice of dissent forced your hand? You let him sexually assault people. You fucking enabled him for years. But he’s gone! you cry. We got rid of him! Your hand was fucking forced. You wouldn’t have done a thing if one of his victims hadn’t stuck her neck out to ‘make a fuss’. He would still be employed in a position of power in this field if it was left to you, white person. But we got Vox Day out of SFWA! Holy shit, how many years did that take too? How many mouthy PoC’s publicly pushing their dissent did it take for you act? Years. Decades. Remember Elizabeth Moon and Wiscon? How long did you ‘consider all sides of the story’? How slow were you to act? How, when discussing the making and maintaining of safe spaces, ‘fair’ is it to give the voice of the privileged equal consideration as that of the oppressed?

Fucking hypocrites.

It would be tremendously amusing to be able to see this woman’s face when someone informs her that I am a Native American of part-Mexican descent. The fact is that the only writer ever purged from SFWA was a PoC. How racist is that?

And I laughed out loud at this: “[John Scalzi] has privilege coming out the wooza.” If nothing else, this should inspire some amusingly desperate tweets as McRapey hastens to abase himself in penance for his continuing to play life on the easiest difficulty setting. That should be everyone’s standard rebuttal to Scalzi from now on. “Shut up, John, you have privilege coming out the wooza.”

But to return to the primary subject, this is why no amount of Muslim-hugging and anti-backlash propaganda is going to stop the backlash and eventual Reconquista 2.0: Up to 20 students dead and 500 taken hostage as Taliban gunmen storm military-run school in Pakistan. Beslan, coming to a public school in your country soon.


UVA rape hoax gets even weirder

The hoaxette’s friends have come forward to explain that Rolling Stone did not cover their story accurately:

The college students described as friends of the alleged rape victim Jackie in an explosive Rolling Stone article revealed their identities to ABC News today, and said that some of the magazine’s story is false.

“The text was so divergent from what we said that evening,” said Alex Stock, who said he’s identified as “Andy” in the article.

The magazine article describes a violent, three-hour gang rape that left a University of Virginia student identified as Jackie bruised and bloody when she escaped a house on fraternity row, right near the university president’s office.

When her friends, identified by Rolling Stone as “Randall,” “Andy” and “Cindy,” arrived that night, the article says they urged Jackie to keep quiet to keep their social lives intact.

That is not the scene described by Jackie’s friends to ABC News. They said at the time they believed a “traumatic” sex assault had occurred. But the two males friends said they were told that night — Sept. 28, 2012 — that Jackie was forced to perform oral sex on five men while a sixth stood by.

But their story is just the tip of the iceberg; it’s becoming apparent that they don’t believe her anymore either. Mostly because she appears to have been MAKING UP the very fraternity guy she was pretending to be seeing the night of the “rape”. One of Dalrock’s commenters summarizes the apparent sequence of events:

1) Jackie falls in crush with Randall.
2) Randall LJBFs Jackie
3) Jackie doesn’t understand that “no means no”
4) Jackie invents an imaginary boyfriend “chem guy” , complete with fake photos and phone number
5) Jackie boasts with chem guy in front of Randall to make him jealous. She even gives “chem guy’s phone number” to Randall, Andy and Cindy and, impersonating chem guy, insinuates to Randall that she loves him.
6) Randall remains unimpressed.
7) Jackie goes to date with chem guy.
8) Few hours later Jackie gives Randall a “damsel in distress” call.
9) Randall arrives and she hysterically tells him that chem guy lured her into a gang rape of clinton-levinsky variety.
10) Instead of falling in love with her, Randall calls reinforcements: Andy and Cindy.
11) They try to console her and convince her to go to police, but she refuses.
12) After that night chem guy still sends texts to Randall singing praise to Jackie.
13) Randall still doesn’t want to fall in love with Jackie.
14) Jackie is heartbroken and gets depressed.
15) Jackie finds out campus anti-rape activists and activities. Here she get attention, she didn’t get from Randall.
16) In next two years Jackie gets obsessed with anti-rape activism. Her story of that night gets newer and newer juicy details.
17) Two years later, Rolling Stone femipropagandist Sabrina Rubin Ederly is combing campuses nationwide to find THE perfect person for “campus rape culture awareness poster girl”.

In other words, the Rolling Stone article was based on a gang rape that didn’t happen at a fraternity party that never took place, orchestrated by a college student who doesn’t exist.

Forget rape. This story is grounds for never believing a single word that comes out of a college girl’s mouth.


The media turns on the Dunham Horror

All right, granted, it’s Volokh and not some scion of the Post’s left-wing elite, but it’s still remarkable to see an institution of the liberal Left finally turn on the self-admitted child molester, Lena Dunham, due to her publisher belatedly admitting that her parts of her “memoir” are fictitious:

Appalling. The book wasn’t a novel; it was a memoir, offered to readers as such. The copyright page, which I suspect few people read, does say that “Some names and identifying details have been changed,” but it certainly doesn’t tell people which ones.

Indeed, early in the book, when she mentions a boyfriend of hers and labels him Jonah, she adds a footnote: “Name changed to protect the truly innocent.” Reasonable readers, it seems to me, reading the rest of the memoir, would assume that “Barry” — whose name wasn’t accompanied with any such footnote — was actually named Barry. Even if not all readers would so conclude, many would, and quite understandably so.

How could Dunham and Random House do this? How could an author and a publisher — again, of a self-described memoir, not a work of fiction — describe a supposed rape by a person, give a (relatively rare) first name and enough identifying details that readers could easily track the person down, and not even mention that “Barry” wasn’t this person’s real name?

Say even that Dunham had forgotten that there really was a prominent Oberlin conservative named Barry back then. Surely it was obviously possible that, if one makes up a first name, someone real, who matches the other easily Google-findable characteristics, might have that name. Given the gravity of the charge, how can one possibly rely on a statement on the copyright page as the only hint that this particular item in the memoir is inaccurate?

The most amusing part is the addendum: “Folks, I think Lena Dunham acted badly here — but some commenters’ view
that she’s ugly or too fat or what have you seems to me to have little
to do with the merits of the matter.”

Actually, it has almost everything to do with them. Let’s face it, if the Dunham Horror wasn’t a creature being aggressively pushed on America by the media because she is fat, ugly, Jewish, and of the ideological Left, no one would have paid any attention to her rape fantasies in the first place. She is what a small, but influential group within the media wanted Americans to take for “the voice of her generation”.

And America collectively said: “yeah, not so much.”


No one raped the Dunham Horror

As I expected, the feminists’ favorite self-admitted child molester is found to have been lying about being raped in college:

After a month-long investigation that included more than a dozen interviews, a trip to the Oberlin campus, and hours spent poring through the Oberlin College archives, her description of the campus remains the only detail Breitbart News was able to verify in Dunham’s story of being raped by a campus Republican named Barry….

To be sure we weren’t overlooking anything, Breitbart News then took the added step of visiting the Oberlin campus in Ohio during the very cold week just before Thanksgiving. Here we interviewed a number of Oberlin staffers and students. Most were pleasant and helpful. Some less so. One adamantly refused access to documents and told us outright that it didn’t matter if Dunham was telling the truth.

In the end Breitbart News could not find a Republican named Barry who attended Oberlin during Dunham’s time there who came anywhere close to matching her description of him. In fact, we could not find anyone who remembered any Oberlin Republican who matched Dunham’s colorful description.

Under scrutiny, Dunham’s rape story didn’t just fall apart, it evaporated into pixie dust and blew away.

Women may not always lie about rape, but female celebrities do. Of course, they lie about everything. One thing you always have to keep in mind about celebrities both male and female: they are fame whores. The moment they see anyone getting attention for anything, be it rape, adopting an African, or alien abduction, you can be certain that they’re going to start crying about how it happened to them too.

I expect Dunham is lying by omission by significantly playing down the extent to which she molested her now-lesbian younger sister too.


Is this a satire too?

I invite the reader to compare the difference in the amount of effort McRapey has put in over the years in repeatedly denouncing me for what he imagines to be my White Supremacy, Dudebroism, Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, and general Dipshittery with his observed reluctance to similarly denounce his friend Jian Gomeshi, upon whose Canadian radio show he appeared to discuss my imaginary crimes:

The Toronto Police Sex Crimes Unit was rather less reticent:

On Friday, October 31, 2014, Toronto Police Service Sex Crimes started an investigation into several allegations of sexual assault. On Wednesday, November 26, 2014, Jian Ghomeshi, 47, of Toronto, surrendered to police. He was charged with:

1) four counts of Sexual Assault

2) Overcome Resistance – Choking

He is scheduled to appear in court early this afternoon. We will notify the media of the court location well in advance of the appearance. 

Now, John Scalzi is a self-admitted rapist (“I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women
without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually.”
) so perhaps that might explain his reluctance to repeatedly and vociferously denounce an actual sex assailant. Again. One can observe that the list of sex criminals with whom he is known to be associated has grown rapidly in the last year:

  • Samuel Delany, SFWA Grand Master
  • Marion Zimmer Bradley, SFWA
  • Ed Kramer, SFWA
  • Jian Gomeshi

There will almost surely be more in the months and years to come. My money would be on a Jim Hines-related scandal, as he not only looks creepy, but has a passion for rape-counseling that strikes me as suspiciously akin to the single, forty-something Assistant Scoutmaster who loves nothing more than to take young boys camping. Perhaps it is merely a case of infelicitous physiognomy, but you have to admit, Hines looks like Central Casting’s idea of a sexual offender. (Seriously, McCreepy, you absolutely need a new PR shot. About the only thing that would make it more damning would be books by Nabokov, Breen, and MZB on the bookshelf behind you.)  Nor can one excuse McRapey on the grounds of “guilt by association” because guilt by association with me is something to which he has repeatedly appealed in attempting to tar Larry Correia and others.

So, is this “satire” again or simply sweet irony?


Dumber than McRapey

This is an impressively daft move by The Dunham Horror. I’m genuinely amazed that her lawyers were willing to do it, given how incompetent it makes them look.

On Saturday, HBO’s Lena Dunham sent a “cease and desist” letter to TruthRevolt demanding that we remove an article we posted last Wednesday on sections of her book, Not That Kind of Girl. The letter threatened legal action if we did not both remove that article, as well as print a note, the suggested language of which read as follows:

    We recently published a story stating that Ms. Dunham engaged in sexual conduct with her sister.  The story was false, and we deeply regret having printed it.  We apologize to Ms. Dunham, her sister, and their parents, for this false story.

We refuse. We refuse to withdraw our story or apologize for running it, because quoting a woman’s book does not constitute a “false” story, even if she is a prominent actress and left-wing activist. Lena Dunham may not like our interpretation of her book, but unfortunately for her and her attorneys, she wrote that book – and the First Amendment covers a good deal of material she may not like.

In particular, the letter from Ms. Dunham’s lawyers labeled as “false and defamatory” our claims that she “experiment[ed] sexually with her younger sister Grace,” “experimented with her six-year younger sister’s vagina,” and “use[d] her little sister at times essentially as a sexual outlet.” In her desire to curb First Amendment freedoms, Dunham’s attorneys threatened legal action seeking “millions of dollars; punitive damages which can be a multiple of up to ten times actual damages; and injunctive relief.”

We assume that both Ms. Dunham and her attorneys are capable of reading Ms. Dunham’s book, which contains the following direct excerpts….

I can imagine that Ben Shapiro, who I seem to recall has a JD, would be licking his chops at getting the chance to depose this narcissistic abomination. Say what you will about him, at least John “I’m a rapist” Scalzi had the cognitive capacity to grasp that you can’t successfully sue anyone for simply repeating SOMETHING THAT YOU WROTE YOURSELF. It would appear that The Dunham Horror is not only more disgusting than anyone imagined, she’s dumber as well.

Go back to the sea, Lena. It’s time to realize your destiny and wade into the waves.

Seriously. It’s time. Go. Back. To. The. Sea.


Is Lena Dunham eligible for the SFWA?

It appears she’ll fit right in with the SJWs, pedophiles, and child molesters there:

If there is such a thing as actually abusing a child through
excessive generosity and overindulgence, then Lena Dunham’s parents are
child abusers. Her father, Carroll Dunham, is a painter noted for his
primitive brand of highbrow pornography, his canvases anchored by puffy
neon-pink labia; her photographer mother filled the family home with
nude pictures of herself, “legs spread defiantly.” Self-styled radicals from old money, they were not the sort of people inclined to enforce even the most lax of boundaries. And they were, in their daughter’s telling, enablers of some very disturbing behavior that would be considered child abuse in many jurisdictions — Lena Dunham’s sexual abuse, specifically, of her younger sister, Grace, the sort of thing that gets children taken away from non-millionaire families without Andover pedigrees and Manhattanite social connections. Dunham writes of casually masturbating while in bed next to her younger sister, of bribing her with “three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds . . . anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.” At one point, when her sister is a toddler, Lena Dunham pries open her vagina — “my curiosity got the best of me,” she offers, as though that were an explanation. “This was within the spectrum of things I did.”

YERGGHH! I’ve always thought Dunham looked like a Daughter of Innsmouth straight out of Lovecraft. It turns out that she’s even uglier and more freakish on the inside than her appalling exterior would suggest. She’s not the voice of her generation, she’s not a voice of a generation, by her own account she is an incestuous child molester.