Jordan Peterson has called bull on the left’s claims that SJW media maven Cathy Newman has been a victim of “threats” and“alt-right” bullying.
In his first video appearance since totally owning Newman in a must-watch Channel 4 studio discussion on feminism, free speech and social justice, Peterson expressed regret at having given any credence to the threat claims.
“Define threats,” Peterson says, when asked whether he believes if these “threats” ever actually existed.
Because there is no evidence that these “threats” were credible, Peterson now wishes he had never tacitly endorsed their existence when he asked his Twitter followers to “back off” from being rude to Newman.
His critics just exploited this by using it as proof that threats had indeed been made.
This is the story of Magicgate. Yes, another scandal, but one that for a change doesn’t involve any actual rape or sexual harassment… only game players who like pretending to be witches and wizards.
Like Gamergate, it concerns ordinary people who just want to be left alone to enjoy their hobby.
Ranged against these ingenus is an orcish horde of bullying, preening, self-righteous Social Justice Warriors who believe that everything — even an innocent collectible card game like Magic: The Gathering — should be played and policed according to their viciously intolerant politically correct rulebook.
Even if, like me, you’re not among the 20 million people who play Magic: The Gathering, what I hope you’ll appreciate is that this is a story that should concern us all.
By the end, I hope, you’ll feel as angered as I am by this ugly, scary power grab by the regressive left. And I hope you’ll want to join me in making your voice heard by hitting the people responsible where it hurts most: in their bank balance.
That means the companies which own and profit by Magic: the Gathering. That means you, Hasbro toys. And you, Wizards of the Coast.
I want you to realize that playing games is not a left-wing thing or a right-wing thing but an everybody thing.
I want you to realize that it is not the business of games manufacturers to discriminate against or punish players for their political opinions.
I want you to realize that your miserable sordid scheme to bully everyone who plays your games into sharing your SJW values is not remotely liberal but authoritarian and fascistic.
I also want you to realize that we have got your number: you try to claim the moral high ground, yet your entire business model is based on the kind of predator capitalism I’m sure you’d be the first to condemn if you weren’t getting so rich off of it.
You have a captive market of often vulnerable, socially maladjusted young men for whom your game is their social life, their passion, almost their entire world. And you exploit their addiction mercilessly with regular releases of new card sets, sold in packages costing around $100, which they can’t afford not to buy and trade because it will limit their gameplay. OK, fair enough, that’s how capitalism works, more or less. Except you’re a monopoly provider, so you’re abusing your monopolistic power — which for most leftists, and indeed most conservatives is a big no-no. Plus, I understand from Magic: The Gathering players that your product quality is getting worse and worse, with poorly printed artwork, damaged cards inside new packs, or ones that warp shortly after opening. So it really does show some chutzpah, I must say, to rip off your customers and treat them like shit — then to insist that, “Oh, by the way, we reserve the right to tell you scumbags how you must think as well…”
Like Gamergate, Magicgate is a classic example of what Andrew Breitbart meant when he used to say that “politics is downstream from culture.” Sure Trump is doing great work, fighting the good fight in the White House. But ultimately whether our civilization thrives or withers depends not so much on what happens in DC or Westminster or Brussels or the United Nations as it does on what happens in the broader culture of our ordinary, daily existence.
“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak,” Sun Tzu, The Art Of War.
One of the big mistakes Trump’s critics make is to assume he is very stupid. Hence the liberal media’s delight in his Pershing tweet in the aftermath of the Barcelona massacre.
They think it shows the president to be an historically illiterate and gullible fool because – or so they claim – he is repeating a debunked myth that General Pershing used bullets dipped in pig blood when fighting Muslim terrorists in the Philippines.
If you didn’t know the details, you might imagine he’d done something serious.
Nope. Here’s what happened:
Gascoigne was speaking at a venue in Wolverhampton, as part of his An Evening With Gazza tour, where audiences around Britain are paying upwards of £30 a head to hear anecdotes about Gazza’s days as a footballing legend.
At some point in the evening, Gazza made an ill-advised quip at the expense of a black bouncer standing in a darkened part of the auditorium. Gazza joked that he couldn’t see whether or not the security guard was enjoying himself because the venue was poorly lit.
Yes, you probably had to be there. It’s not the funniest joke ever told. But nor is it the kind of remark you’d ever imagine getting anyone hauled up before the courts. It’s just laddish banter of the kind you’ll often find when boozed up blokes are gathered together. There’s certainly no malice in it and in the old days – before the era of licensed victimhood and professional offence-taking – that security guard would perfectly well have understood this, in much the same way any white person would have done in the Seventies or Eighties had they been singled out as the butt of a joke by, say, Richard Pryor or Eddie Murphy.
I originally reported that the bouncer had complained to the police – but it turns out I maligned the poor fellow. It wasn’t the black bouncer who complained but one of those grisly SJWs – often known as Offendotrons, usually white – whose speciality is to patronise ethnic minorities by taking offence on their behalf. This Offendotron reported to the police and the police, in accordance with the wishes of the rampantly politically correct Crown Prosecution Service, decide to make an example of Gazza.
Well I’m not so sure about that. My fear is that this kind of case, far from healing racial divisions in Britain is likely to exacerbate them by fostering a climate of mutual resentment and bitterness and a sense that “Britain is no longer a free country any more.” Which indeed it isn’t. In Britain – taking our cue from the identity politics victimhood culture of the US – our minority grievance industry has now become so powerful that you cannot even make a mildly tasteless joke without being dragged before the courts and treated like a criminal.
And it won’t be long – you can be sure – before jokes perceived as offensive to women result in similar court cases.
Perhaps you’re as irritated as I am by the story of the Border Morris dancers who, as from next year, will be banned from performing in traditional “blackface” at one of Britain’s biggest folk festivals because of pressure from an obscure local campaign group called FRESh.
Even FRESh have admitted that the “blackface” tradition – dating back to the 16th century – has nothing to do with racism. But, damn it, they’re Social Justice Warriors, so they’re not about to let facts get in the way of a nice bit of kill-joy bansturbation.
Jonathan Hyams, secretary for equality group FRESH said: ‘From Fresh’s perspective, it is good news.
‘We entirely understand the argument from Morris dancing communities that this is something that goes back to tradition.
‘Our understanding is that it comes from traditional disguise when for different reasons Morris dancers were subject to persecution if they were dancing or protesting against different things.
‘However, there are other ways of celebrating this other than blacking up, which has very strong connotations of racism.’
Who is exactly is this grisly twonk? And how the hell did we come to value England’s culture and history and traditions so lightly that we’re prepared to scrap them at the merest sniff of a complaint from some cry-bully professional offence-taker?
Have a look for yourself at the activists who campaigned for this ban. FRESh (it stands – ugh! – for Fairness, Respect, Equality Shropshire) has a tiny membership, all of whom, you can fairly safely bet, are the kind of tofu-eating libtards you’d cross the road to avoid or chop your arm off rather than get stuck next to at dinner.
Kevin Roberts, the top ad agency boss suspended from his job as chairman of Saatchi earlier this week for failing to show sufficient enthusiasm for promoting “gender equality” has now quit and apologised.
This was totally the wrong move (as I’ll explain in a moment) but I totally get why he chose to jump.
Which remotely self-respecting achiever would wish to prostitute his talents at a company which valued political correctness more highly than the bottom line?
Which alpha male could endure having to answer to blow-dried ponces like Maurice Levy, the smoothy-chops, silver fox French surrender monkey from Publicis Groupe who cravenly threw Roberts to the wolves rather than standing by his talent?
Which reasonable human being could possibly stomach having to work in a business so pullulating with grisly feminist harridans and emasculated Social Justice Warriors that merely telling the truth about the very obvious differences between men and women has become a sackable offence?
Just to recap, let’s remind ourselves what Kevin Roberts did to get himself into trouble.
At the weekend, he was invited by Business Insider to agree that there was a gender diversity problem within the advertising industry.
It cited the following evidence:
All of the six major advertising agency holding company CEOs are men. A survey conducted by The 3% Conference in 2014 found women make up 46.4% of the advertising industry, yet only 11.5% of creative directors within ad agencies are female.
But Roberts refused to play the game.
Women, he argued, mostly don’t want the top jobs men covet not because there’s a glass ceiling or because there’s institutional sexism but simply because women tend to have different priorities.
Roberts – clearly a forthright character who doesn’t believe in career-safe platitudes – said:
“So we are trying to impose our antiquated shit on them, and they are going: ‘Actually guys, you’re missing the point, you don’t understand: I’m way happier than you.’ Their ambition is not a vertical ambition, it’s this intrinsic, circular ambition to be happy. So they say: ‘We are not judging ourselves by those standards that you idiotic dinosaur-like men judge yourself by’. I don’t think [the lack of women in leadership roles] is a problem. I’m just not worried about it because they are very happy, they’re very successful, and doing great work. I can’t talk about sexual discrimination because we’ve never had that problem, thank goodness.”
What’s obvious from that statement is that Roberts is bending over backwards not to sound chauvinistic. He isn’t celebrating male machismo, aggression and overweening ambition: rather he is claiming to be embarrassed by it. Hence the phrases “antiquated shit” and “idiotic dinosaur-like men.” Women, he is suggesting, are actually a lot more sensible and better balanced than men.
But still, it isn’t enough to let him off the hook.
Using tactics straight out of the SJW playbook, the (female) journalist relays Roberts’s unexceptionable observation to a feminist campaigner called Cindy Gallop, whose speciality appears to be whining on social media about sexism in the workplace.
Gallop – refusing to accept the outrageous calumny that not all the female species want to behave like blokeish thugs and blow stuff up – provides the requisite rent-a-quote.
“The best response to that is to throw it open to the industry, and ask the women and men of the ad industry, all around the world, to tweet at @krconnect to let him know whether they think I’m ‘making it all up’.”
If you’ve read Vox Day’s SJWs Always Lie you’ll know this is a classic technique of the regressive left.
It wasn’t me who said this (though I kind of wish I had). It was the world’s most famous female impersonator Barry Humphries, better known as Dame Edna Everage, speaking his mind – as usual – in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.
The reason I wish I’d said it has nothing to do with any desire to offend transgender people. It does, however, have EVERYTHING to do with my desire to offend the vast and terrifying industry which has sprung up to take offence on transgendered people’s behalf.
I note by way of example that fully one quarter of the Telegraph’s news piece covering the story is devoted to quotes from various virtue-signalling parties – a brace of Conservative MPs; the gay campaign group Stonewall; something called Trans Media Watch; the BBC – distancing themselves from Humphries’ (pictured right) remarks.
What are we: children? Can we really no longer be trusted to make up our own minds on an issue without being nudged into correctness by the morality police?
This is what most of us find so irritating about the whole transgender phenomenon: the way an infinitesimally tiny minority issue has been hijacked by the forces of Social Justice and is used as a stick to bully us into pretending to give a shit about something we’d prefer not to think about.
Why should I ever have to spend even a millisecond of my life thinking about Bruce Jenner’s genitalia – or absence thereof? No more do I want to dwell on the fate of a 70s celebrity athlete’s sweaty testes than I do about the surgical procedure required to remove a candiru fish from your urethra or the precise make up of Kim Kardashian’s enormous butt cheeks or the mating habits of giant banana slugs or the digestive processes of a bird eating spider.
And I say this without prejudice to Bruce or indeed to transexuals generally. I’m sure they’re all lovely brave people with great stories to tell but I don’t want to hear them – ever – a) because I’m squeamish and b) because I’ve only got so much space in my head for thoughts and worries about the great problems facing the world and not one of these, unfortunately, includes whether or not transexuals feel sufficiently accepted by society or whether they deserve the title Woman of the Year or how amazingly courageous they are. In the unlikely event I ever meet one, I shall of course be courteous and kind: not because I’ve been ordered to be so by the Transgender Rights Stasi but because that’s how people generally do behave to one another in the civilised world.
Daytime TV presenter Judy Finnigan has been forced to apologise after claiming on ITV’s debate programme Loose Women that an act of rape committed by a footballer was “not violent” and “didn’t cause any bodily harm” to his victim who “had far much to drink.” Why?
I don’t mean “Why did some viewers feel sufficiently moved to vent their half-baked insights on Twitter?” That one’s a given: we live in a culture of licensed offence-taking.
Rather what I mean is: “Why was Judy Finnigan compelled to surrender to the social media Social Justice Warrior bully mob?”
“RAPE IS RAPE, JUDY. Moron,” observed one Twitter user, employing the popular “‘Shut up!’ she explained” technique beloved by social media campaigners.
No it isn’t. And this was the point – however clumsily – that Judy Finnigan was trying to make: as befits the role of a panellist in what is supposed to be a free and open debate programme in which strong, contentious opinions are expressed.
If all “rape” were the same, judges’ jobs would be a lot easier. All they’d have to do once the crime had been established to the satisfaction of the court would be to hand out the one-size-fits-all, standard rape sentence.
Does anyone – even the most rabid, #waronwomen crusader – think that such a state of affairs would be just or appropriate?
Well I’d hope not. There’s a world of difference between being raped at knifepoint by a stranger on a beach – as once happened to a beloved relative of mine – and, say, a messy student fumbling that went badly awry after the girl decided the next day once she recovered from her hangover and read an article by Lena Dunham that at no stage in the procedings had she announced her full consent, then signed it in triplicate in unicorn blood.