Tag: SJW

A second front in the OSS invasion

ESR warns that SJWs aren’t merely using weaponized codes of conduct to try to take over open source software projects these days.

I received a disturbing warning today from a source I trust. The short version is: if you are any kind of open-source leader or senior figure who is male, do not be alone with any female, ever, at a technical conference. Try to avoid even being alone, ever, because there is a chance that a “women in tech” advocacy group is going to try to collect your scalp.

IRC conversation, portions redacted to protect my informant, follows.

15:17:58 XXXXXXXXXXXX | I’m super careful about honey traps.  For a while, that’s how the Ada Initiative was trying to pre-generate outrage and collect scalps.                            
15:18:12          esr | REALLY?                                   
15:18:22          esr | That’s perverse.                          
15:18:42 XXXXXXXXXXXX | Yeah, because the upshot is, I no longer can afford to mentor women who are already in tech.
15:18:54          esr | Right.                                    
15:19:01 XXXXXXXXXXXX | I can and do mentor ones who are not in it, but are interested and able           
15:19:21 XXXXXXXXXXXX | but once one is already in…  nope
15:20:08 XXXXXXXXXXXX | The MO was to get alone with the target, and then immediately after cry “attempted sexual assault”.
15:23:27          esr | When the backlash comes it’s going to be vicious.  And women who were not part of this bullshit will suffer for it.
15:23:41 XXXXXXXXXXXX | I can only hope.                           
15:25:21          esr | Ah. On the “Pour encourager les autres” principle?  I hadn’t thought of that. Still damned unfortunate, though.
15:26:40 XXXXXXXXXXXX | Linus is never alone at any conference. This is not because he lets fame go to his head and likes having a posse around.     
15:26:54 XXXXXXXXXXXX | They have made multiple runs at him.      
15:27:29          esr | Implied warning noted.                     
15:27:34            * | XXXXXXXXXXXX nods

Interesting to see that technologists are having to adopt the same policy as Billy Graham and other Christian pastors; SJWs not only always lie, but apparently they always resort to the same tactical set as well. It’s also interesting to note that women connected to the Ada Initiative are known to have been engaging in these tactics for some time now.

In any event, you’ve been warned. I find it a little ironic that there is any concern whatsoever for the hypothesized effect on “women who were not part of this bullshit” because that’s simply not important. If they want to work in tech, they can still do so, they simply won’t have the benefit of the expected hand-holding.

At any rate, it should be apparent to even the most dubious moderate that SJWs in tech are a serious problem and they need to be rooted out.

Peak SJW

I think David French is perhaps a little optimistic here, but it is interesting to see National Review lining up against SJWs and political correctness in light of its relatively recent purgings of various contributors for their thought crimes. Perhaps the pendulum actually is swinging back:

While it’s always dangerous to predict when any particular cultural trend peaks, I’m pegging October 31, 2015, as peak PC. When universities actually post flow charts to keep your Halloween
party from being offensive, humorlessness is redefined. When students
are so fragile that the very thought of ethnic-themed Halloween costumes
leads to much-mocked YouTube “guides,” then political correctness is
losing its punch:

If you disagree — if you think that political correctness is gaining
momentum — then consider a few facts. First, the top two candidates in
the Republican race for president of the United States attained their
front-runner status by willfully, gleefully defying political
correctness at every turn. Ben Carson shot to the top of the polls when
he did the unthinkable — told the truth about guns, about Islam, about
resistance to mass shooters, and about abortion — without flinching.
It’s old news by now that Donald Trump’s supporters love him for his
anti-PC stands.

Personally, I would like to think that the tide began to turn with the publication of SJWs Always Lie, which was published just two months before the date French pegs. But whether it has or not, it is very clear that a long march through the institutions of the West to clean them of SJW intellectual corruption is required and it is not going to be quick or easy.

And speaking of not being easy, while it’s always nice to see one’s book become a category bestseller, the fact that The Return of the Great Depression, published in 2009, is presently the #1 bestseller in the following category, is not exactly cause for celebration.

  •      #1 in Books > Business & Money > Economics > Unemployment

Mailvox: Keeping out SJWs

An email from a member of the Ilk who not only grasps the key concepts, but is putting them into practice in her HR department:

We [are a sizable] company.  I consider myself part of the “Ilk” and have been following your discussion of SJW’s for several years, including reading SJW’s Always Lie. As a result, we have become more proactive during the interview process for new employees, trying to discover if they harbor or are amenable to SJW ideas.

I thought an example of a recent interview would be of value to others in business as a model for modifying their hiring process.

Like many applicants, today’s had recently left a job.  We have always asked, “Why did you leave your last job?”, listened to the various responses, like: “the company downsized”, “change in management”, etc.  However, other common responses now require further questioning.  Responses such as, “I didn’t get along with my boss”, “I had an issue with a company policy”, or other answers that indicate some level of dissatisfaction with the previous employer require more in depth questioning.

When asked why they left the last company, one applicant said, “I just didn’t like some parts of the environment and am looking for a better place to work.”  Years ago, that innocent-sounding response would not have drawn any attention.  Not any more.

The manager immediately picked up on the “problem with previous employer” tone underlying the answer.  So, further questioning was required.

Manager: “Really.  What was part of the environment you didn’t like?”

Applicant: “Some of the employee interaction just wasn’t for me.  It wasn’t professional enough.”

Manager: “That makes sense.  I wouldn’t like that either.  What was an example of unprofessional behavior?”

Applicant: “It was really just the way one of the manager’s treated some of the people.”

Manager: “Oh.  That can be frustrating.  What did the manager do?”

Applicant: “He treated some of the people in the call center unprofessionally.”

Manager: “Ok, but what do you mean by treating them unprofessionally?”

Applicant: “Well, he acted inappropriately around them.”

Manager: “When you say “inappropriately”, what do you mean?”

Applicant: “Well, we all thought it was harassment.”

Manager: “What kind of harassment, like yelling at people?”

Applicant: “No. Some of it was sexual harassment.”

Manager: “Oh no.  That’s not good at all.  So, you just left and didn’t do anything about that kind of harassment?”

Applicant: “No.  I spoke to lots of the other phone reps and we all agreed it was harassment.”

Manager: “So, after you spoke to the other reps, did you file a complaint?”

Applicant: “We tried.”

Manager: “So, when that didn’t work, did you file a lawsuit or do anything?”

Applicant: “That’s what we ended up having to do.  It was just that bad.”

Everything past this point was just the formalities of ending the interview without making the applicant feel like they were just arbitrarily eliminated from consideration.

The point I’m trying to share is the amount of effort, time and question asking skills it took to finally dig down to the real issue.  Most small and medium businesses are not used to “digging” during their interviews.  I know, having been guilty myself and many other business owners I know admit they do not “dig”.  If the person looks good, i.e. like they can do the job, they get hired.  That mindset used to work, but in today’s PC environment is too dangerous to the business’ survival, so it must be changed.

When a person finally admits to being the instigator of some type of action against the company and involving other employees in their “dissatisfaction”, then that seems to be a good example of an SJW.

I can hear the “moderates” saying something like, “But maybe they were sexually harassed.  It’s not fair to disqualify them when they were the victim of harassment.  They weren’t the problem.”  Conceptually, I agree.  However, the distinction seems to be the involvement of others or engaging in activities to “punish” the perceived offender; these are SJW characteristics.  A conservative person would simply have left the job if the environment was that uncomfortable.

So, hopefully this is of some value to others as they learn to keep SJW’s out, but I also hope you’ll comment on how you see the interview process being better utilized to screen SJW’s.  Also, how do you respond to the “moderate” mindset described above when it comes to hiring people?

I think questions such as “have you ever lodged a complaint against your superior” or “have you ever been party to a lawsuit against your employer” (prohibited by Federal law) should probably be added to the standard interview repertoire. A better approach would involve asking “have you ever been the victim of harassment”, as the average SJW is going to assume you are on her side and be eager to tell you all about how everyone from her kindergarten teacher to her previous boss treated her shabbily.

After which you smile, thank her for her time, and circular file the application. Unless, of course, you’re looking to be hit by complaints of one sort or another within weeks of her first day. SJWs Always Lie.

It burns! It burns!

SJWs are very, very unhappy about the fact that people are being exposed to SJWs ALWAYS LIE:

KINDLE: CLEAN YOUR SEARCH ALGORITHMS
ByNome D. Gerron October 29, 2015
0 of 1 people found this review helpful

this is a scree of vindictiveness and self promotion. Somehow, probably in a manner akin to the almost success in awarding himself a people’s s/f trophy, this time waster appears in too many (and too many completely unrelated) categories of kindle recommendations. for example, just today, this book was pimped to me three times: in Moro history, in adaptionics and in economics. Motivated by apparent personal animosity, this book is gaming kindle.

There is is. Third law of SJW: SJWs Always Project.

It is interesting, though. We know for a fact that there are SJWs inside Amazon; it is another asymmetric battlefield where the rules are interpreted against us. But perhaps it is not quite as entirely enemy-controlled ground as we assumed.

But since this fake review is an open attempt at gaming Amazon, you know what to do.

Exposing the true face of SJW

Rosarior beats back and exposes an SJW entryist attempting to impose a Code of Conduct on the Awesome-Django project:

great project!! I have one observation and a suggestion. I noticed you have rejected some pull requests to add some good django libraries and that the people submitting those pull requests are POCs (People of Colour). As a suggestion I recommend adopting the Contributor Code of Conduct (http://contributor-covenant.org) to ensure everybody’s contributions are accepted regarless of their sex, sexual orientation, skin color, religion, height, place of origin, etc, etc, etc. As a white straight male and lead of this trending repository, your adoption of this Code of Conduct will send a loud and clear message that inclusion is a primary objective of the Django community and of the software development community in general. D.

A few things about this. First, the name is generic. Second, this comment is literally the SJW’s first “contribution to the project. Third, while the SJW uses the correct terminology, he offers no evidence whatsoever for his claims. Fourth, his claim that the people whose pull requests were rejected are People of Colour are likely false considering that he doesn’t know that the individual he is addressing is Hispanic, not white.

Fortunately, rosarior recognizes the nature of the stealth attack. While he politely addresses the nominal suggestions, he makes it clear that this project is not a soft target and shuts down the SJW’s line of entry

The pull request was rejected not the person. Of the people who did not had their patches accepted at least one submitted another pull request and was accepted or are contributors in my other repositories, disproving your basic premise.

There is no need for a code of conduct, there hasn’t been a conduct related incident with the repository and nothing about a contributor comes into play when rejecting or accepting a patch (as proved above). An explanation is provided when a patch is rejected, and some have been left open to re-asses in a future time.

I’m not white and please don’t make any other assumptions about me, they hold no relevance to the matter at hand.

I already work on several projects that hold inclusion as one of their primary goals.

I’m closing this issue based on the explanations given.

The wording allows just a little more wiggle room than is ideal, but it is a strong and effective response, particularly the implicit statement that “inclusion” is not a primary goal of this particular project. Perhaps due to the wiggle room, the SJW tries again.

You seem to have taken personal issue with well the issue 🙂 I opened
this issue not to attack you or your decisions,but to help improve a
part of the project in which it seemed lacking. Most projects on Github
have adopted the Contributor Covenant or a variant of it. It is a
very straight forward document that protects all parties,I don’t
understand your negative attitude towards that philosophy. You may not
be “white” [ in your profile picture you sure seem white 🙂 ] but you
are not a woman or a trans-gendered person so you can’t possibly
understand what they go through (harassment,exclusion,threats) and why a
code of conduct is necessary. Even the Django Software Foundation has
adopted one to protect it’s future,for me it’s very obvious Django
related projects would naturally follow suite and adopt the same if not
similar Code of Conducts. I urge you to reconsider for the good and
future of this project 🙂 Thank you

Now the rhetorical gloves come off. The SJW tries to play on rosarior’s insecurities and emotions, then throws out an appeal to the herd animal instinct before issuing an implicit threat. The code of conduct is now declared “necessary” in order to protect the future of the project, which is twice mentioned in a threatening manner. Notice that the SJW doesn’t even address the fact that his original claimed concerns were addressed, thereby negating any need for the requested code, he simply moves the goalposts and moves on to more high-pressure rhetorical tactics. This is why dialectical arguments are totally useless; the SJWs simply ignore the effective ones.

1- You opened an issue to raise concern about the relationship of a contributor’s race and the rejection of their patches.
2- Only I can accept or reject patches in this repository.
You made it clear who this was about.
Apart from this issue, we’ve had no conduct problems, so no need for a code of conduct.
I’m very certain of my race: I’m Latino, Puertorican, a Mestizo from a
Castiza mother and a Mulato father. There are many more races than just
black and white (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation).
Yes, I’m not a woman or a transgendered individual and I don’t intend
to even try to understand what they have to put up with, never said
that. But you assume women and transgendered individual are the only
targets of harassment, exclusion and threats.

English is not my first language and I hope I’m mistaken but your last line “I urge you to reconsider for the good and future of this project 🙂 ” sounded like a threat, please clarify.

This response could be described as overly long and dialectical; rhetoric has ZERO informational content so responding to the feigned issues serves no purpose unless one is doing it to expose pseudo-dialectic on behalf of any onlookers. However, expecting a programmer to not respond in a systematic manner to the issues raised is rather like expecting sight hounds not to chase running rabbits, so it’s harmless. What is particularly important, however, is the way rosarior calls out the SJW for his implicit threats and requests clarification; in doing so he causes the SJW to unmask completely and show his fangs.

I really have no idea why you are responding the way you are! Really!! Code of Conducts are not JUST about conduct,they cover all the spectrum of behaviours expected from civilized human beings that are more and more absend in the software industry. You are evading the topic at hand and I can only wonder why,why deny equal opportunity for all to join and contribute to your project Roberto?

That you have not “seen” harassment doesn’t mean it is not happening all around us. And turning a blind eye makes it worst. I was not threaning you,but your reaction is a projection of your feelings and now I feel threated by you. Reading the links you posted I only have one thing to say to you:reevaluate your actions,you are becoming a toxic individual who is harming the Python and Django communities and haven’t even realized it yet. You are a member of the Django Software Foundation and are supposed to be setting the example. I will be forwarding the content of this issue to the Chair to evaluate your continued presence in the DSF. best regards.

It’s all there. Threats, point-and-shriek, playing the victim, false accusations, and the inevitable appeal to the amenable authority. In the interest of Social Justice Convergence, the SJW demonstrates that he will try to destroy the project rather than permit it to continue if it cannot be captured and forcibly submitted to the SJW Narrative. Rosarior’s response was the best one I have seen in technology yet, as he not only defeated the assault, but exposed the SJW for what he is in the process.

This is not a joke. These people are genuinely dangerous and will destroy everything they touch. Resist them. Expose them. Seek them out in your own organizations, hunt them down and root them out. SJW delenda est.

It’s time to go on the offensive. If your group or organization has a Code of Conduct, start the campaign to get rid of it now. There is a reason the SJWs are so intent on imposing them everywhere; that is how they intend to institute their thought policing.

And since you know the SJWs are going to be coming after him, show the man he’s got support behind him. If you’re on Twitter, follow the man.


“Those who can code do, those who can’t write code of conducts.”
– Roberto Rosario

Free delivery worldwide

“The most dangerous book in America”, SJWs Always Lie, is now available at BookDepository.

In case you’re still on the fence about reading it, it is also reviewed at Kairos:

The book was originally conceived as a polemic, but the end result is
more like a field guide to navigating the SJW-riddled minefields of
Western academia, business, and media. Vox shares accounts of people who
lost their employment and reputations to social justice witch hunts,
walks the reader through a step by step analysis of the SJW attack
sequence, and offers actionable advice for what to do when you come
under fire for alleged violations of ever-shifting social justice
doctrine.

In reading SJWAL, it fascinated me how much SJWs’ elitist, polarizing, and unaccountable attitudes resemble those of a cult.
This observation is consistent with the fact that all malignant
ideologies now threatening Western civilization are Christian heresies
to some degree.

Heresy isn’t simply untruth. It’s a truth unhinged from other balancing
truths and exaggerated out of proportion. Pelagianism was the
overemphasis on human will to the exclusion of grace. Arianism focused
on Christ’s divine Sonship to the point of denying His divinity.
Similarly, the SJW cult absolutizes social justice while rejecting the
immutable nature from which human rights are derived.

The mental state required to embrace such a self-contradictory worldview
is responsible for Vox’s First Law of SJWs and the title of his book.
Because they believe that adopting an irrational ideology makes them
morally superior to everyone else, SJWs have no qualms about lying to
advance their goals. This includes smearing, libeling, and falsely accusing others.

SJWAL‘s most valuable public service has been sounding a wake-up
call to ordinary people whose well-meant misconception that SJWs could
be reasoned or compromised with allowed their witch hunts to gain so
much traction.

Meanwhile, having been roundly trounced on the rhetorical front, SJWs are trying to think of what they can call us. Presumably besides “racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, bigot hater”.

This is not a theoretical matter

MD emails to tell of SJWs getting a friend coming under media assault for a Halloween costume:

SJWAL hit close to home today as a family friend was FIRED from his teaching position after posting a picture at a party in a harmless Kanye get-up. His wife being a ‘Kim with a bootay’ tag-a-long.

All hell broke loose when the pic was posted and he quickly lost his job and issued sort of an apology. From your material I believe this was still a wrong move.

Now, the media leads with the title of “Teacher apologizes for wearing blackface” instead of “Teacher fired for dressing as Kanye”

You’ve taught me to see through the rhetoric and never give them a tiny opportunity to redirect the narrative. He was apparently an amazing teacher and benefactor to all his students, who were mostly inner city. It’s blown to huge proportion now and experts are stating that he shouldn’t have been fired but “re-educated” on the issue of blackface.

What would be your tactics in handling this situation now that he’s dug himself into a little larger hole? Amazing to see your book come to life.

I don’t know if it is true that the teacher lost his job – that seems unlikely given the teachers unions have made it all but impossible to actually fire a teacher for anything short of serial killing students – but the apology was absolutely the wrong move.

As I explained in SJWAL, the apology has been taken for a confession and is now being used to prosecute and further humiliate him. The correct thing to do would have been to inform the school that Halloween costumes often involve dressing up like celebrities and it would be racist to refuse to dress up like a black man. Then he should have arranged to have a picture taken in the classroom, dressed up like Kanye West and surrounded by his smiling black students.

Remember, always fight rhetoric with rhetoric. An apology is a form of dialectic, and we all know that the only thing replying to rhetoric with dialectic produces is more rhetoric.

Remember: never apologize.

And don’t even think about resorting to the stupid “I have never seen color in my life” bullshit that features in the guy’s craven, futile, “please don’t hit me” apology. If you’re not completely retarded, you see “color”. Even the literally color-blind see color in this regard. All that sort of statement amounts to is publicly declaring that you are not only a brainwashed coward, but there are five lights too.

As far as what he should do now, all I can say is: stop digging. Stop apologizing. Stop cringing and cowering. He chose his course out of fear and it has already metastasized in the media. Now he has to let the chosen scenario play out. If nothing else, he will serve as yet another cautionary tale demonstrating the foolishness of apologizing to SJWs.

The disorder of the counterfeit virtues

Edward Feser explains how substituting social justice ideals for the cardinal virtues necessarily disorders both SJW minds and society:

Let’s consider the fate of the cardinal virtues in a modern democratic society.  The words “wisdom,” “courage,” “moderation,” and “justice” are certainly not absent in such societies.  To some extent the content of the traditional virtues is even respected — democratic citizens will approve of the courage they read about in military history or see portrayed in movies like Saving Private Ryan, will commend moderation where overindulgence might affect bodily health, and so forth.

But much more prominent than the cardinal virtues — and to a large extent coloring the conception democratic man has of the content of the cardinal virtues — are certain other character traits, such as open-mindedness, empathy, tolerance, and fairness.  The list will be familiar, since the language of these “virtues” permeates contemporary pop culture and politics, and it can be said to constitute a kind of counterpoint to the traditional cardinal virtues.  And in each case the counter-virtue entails a turn of just the sort one might expect given Plato’s analysis of democracy — from the objective to the subjective, from a focus on the way things actually are to a focus on the way one believes or desires them to be.

Hence wisdom, as a Plato or Aquinas conceives of it, is outward-oriented, involving a grasp of objective truth in the speculative and practical spheres.  Open-mindedness, by contrast, is oriented inwardly, toward the subjective, concerned not with objective reality itself so much as with a willingness to consider alternative views about objective reality.

Courage has to do with the will to do what one ought to do in the face of danger or difficulty.  The courageous man will do his duty even though he is afraid or feels uncomfortable or put upon, and we praise him precisely for ignoring these subjective feelings.  Empathy, by contrast, involves precisely a focus on such feelings — indeed, even to the point of sympathizing with the one who has failed to be courageous.  Courage says: “Yes, it was difficult; but you should have done it anyway.”  Empathy says: “I understand why you didn’t do it; it was so difficult!”

Similarly, moderation tells us that we sometimes need to refrain from indulging our appetites, in some cases even when we have an extremely powerful desire to indulge them.  Tolerance, by contrast, refuses to condemn such indulgence.  Toleration works in tandem with empathy, as moderation works together with courage.  Just as courage is reason’s ally in keeping the appetites at bay — it reminds us that it is weak and shameful to indulge when reason says we shouldn’t — so too is empathy the ally of the appetitive part of the soul in its war with reason, giving it permission to indulge and to ignore what unkind, unfeeling reason is saying.  Courage and moderation command: “You’re a human being!  Don’t act like animal!”  Empathy and toleration respond: “We understand, go ahead, you’re just an animal anyway!” 

Finally, whereas justice requires us to conform our desires to the order of things, fairness commands the order of things to conform itself to our desires.  Justice says: “John is richer than you are and Paul has more authority.  But that is as it should be, since John worked harder and Paul is wiser.”  Fairness says: “John is richer than you are and Paul has more authority.  That’s not fair!”  Justice treats equals equally and unequals unequally.  Fairness treats everyone equally; or rather, it treats everyone the way the one shouting “Unfairness!” thinks they should be treated.

Now, all of that makes the counter-virtues in question sound pretty bad — or it should make them sound bad, anyway — but I hasten to add that none of this entails that there is nothing of value in open-mindedness, empathy, tolerance, and fairness.  Far from it.  The objective truth at which wisdom aims is not all built into us and it is not all obvious; it needs to be acquired through hard work.  Open-mindedness facilitates that.  Realistically inculcating the virtues, including courage, requires an understanding of actual human circumstances, including human weaknesses.  That requires empathy.  The road to virtue is, given human weakness, inevitably paved with repeated failures to live up to it.  Tolerance of these failures (albeit not approval of them) is, accordingly, no less necessary to the realistic inculcation of virtue than empathy is.  And some inequalities really are rightly decried as unfair insofar as they arise from injustice.  (John might be richer than you because he is more hard-working.  But it might instead be because he is a thief or a fraudster or someone who knows how to game the system.)

So, there can be real value in open-mindedness, empathy, tolerance, and fairness, and a wise man will acknowledge this.  But it is crucial to see that their value is instrumental.  They are of secondary value, of significance precisely insofar as they facilitate the acquisition of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.  A soul which strives primarily to acquire those traditional cardinal virtues, even while acknowledging the value within limits of open-mindedness, empathy, tolerance, and fairness in the process of acquiring them, is rightly ordered.  But a soul which primarily values open-mindedness, empathy, tolerance, and fairness, and either rejects the traditional cardinal virtues or relegates them to second place, is disordered.

Dr. Feser is more measured than I am. I believe we can confidently declare Equality, Diversity, and Tolerance to be evil, because we can judge them by their fruits. And their fruits are nightmarish and societally destructive.

Sexually twisted freaks

It’s not your imagination. There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with SJWs:

When she arrived at the house on Memorial Day in 2011, Anna didn’t know what D.J. planned to do. His brother, Wesley, was working in the garden, so she went straight inside to speak with D.J. and his mother, P. They chatted for a while at the dining table about D.J.’s plans for school and for getting his own apartment. Then there was a lull in the conversation after Wesley came back in, and Anna took hold of D.J.’s hand. ‘‘We have something to tell you,’’ they announced at last. ‘‘We’re in love.’’

‘‘What do you mean, in love?’’ P. asked, the color draining from her face.

To Wesley, she looked pale and weak, like ‘‘Caesar when he found out that Brutus betrayed him.’’ He felt sick to his stomach. What made them so uncomfortable was not that Anna was 41 and D.J. was 30, or that Anna is white and D.J. is black, or even that Anna was married with two children while D.J. had never dated anyone. What made them so upset — what led to all the arguing that followed, and the criminal trial and million-­dollar civil suit — was the fact that Anna can speak and D.J. can’t; that she was a tenured professor of ethics at Rutgers University in Newark and D.J. has been declared by the state to have the mental capacity of a toddler.

My favorite part is when she makes up how she “valiantly resisted” the speechless retard’s persistent seduction attempts. So brave. Thank you for this.

This was her mitzvah and her tikkun olam. She was helping to repair the world.

Any time you hear someone tell you they are occupied with “healing the world”, you know you’re dealing with a psychopath with a twisted mind.

Turnabout is fair play

German daily documents anti-migrant hate speech on Facebook

Germany’s top-selling Bild daily Tuesday documented racist vitriol against migrants posted by Facebook users in a double-page newspaper spread, as pressure grows on the social network to eliminate hate speech.

A day after thousands of anti-Muslim PEGIDA protesters and anti-fascist counter-demonstrators rallied in the eastern city of Dresden, Bild published dozens of anti-migrant rants under the headline “The Pillory of Shame”.

Facebook “agitators” posted xenophobic and threatening comments, which Bild urged the prosecutor general to investigate.

Tensions have grown as Germany has opened its doors to an unprecedented wave of people fleeing war and misery, with arrivals expected to reach one million this year, an influx that has seen Chancellor Angela Merkel’s poll ratings slip.

As Germany has seen increasingly angry street protests, attacks on asylum shelters and a knife attack against a pro-refugee politician last Saturday, lawmakers have warned that inflammatory speech can spur violence.

Turnabout being fair play and all, it seems to me that the German nationalists should keep track of all the anti-nationalist’s identities and document all their statements and actions against the German people too.

Just in case they might happen to come in handy one day, you know?

So go ahead, SJWs and anti-nationalists, by all means, post that “I hate my nation, invaders welcome” rant. No doubt it will prove useful to someone one day.