Thursday, December 23, 2010

#MooreandMe Feminists Claim Scalp of Moe Tkacik

I saw this developing last night at the #MooreandMe thread. But I forgot about it until a little while ago, since the original essay had been yanked by the time I checked out the story. It turns out the Tkacik published an essay late last night at Washington City Paper. Entitled "Julian Assange, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo And The Swedish Approach To Sex Crimes," the piece identified by name the two women who filed rape charges against Assange. The entry didn't stay up very long, but there's a screencap here: "Should Names of Julian Assange Accusers Be Published?" Plus more background here, and at New York Observer, "Jezebel Alum Moe Tkacik Leaving Washington City Paper." And Fishbowl DC confirms Tkacik's departure as well as publishes the full essay here.

And be sure to read Tkacik's
essay in full. It's not just that she published the accusers' names (which are indeed universally available via Google), but that she challenged the entire rape-allegations narrative. It's a snarky, in-the-know kind of piece that obviously rolls off the keyboard of a skilled gossip writer. She royally disses the significance of Julian Assange, for one thing, but it's the dirt on the allegations that's killer. For example:
It turns out that once you get beyond the first nineteen layers of spin, suspicious timing and overall pointlessness, the Julian Assange rape case is an improbably interesting story, and one that’s also as potentially uplifting as a “rape story” could possibly be — but first I should establish that, at least the way the chain of events is laid out here, it doesn’t seem like either of his two accusers termed his misdeeds “rape” at first. Assange’s first accuser, who has been identified as Christian feminist _________, initially described it to multiple friends merely as the “worst sex ever”, and from all the available information it seems like that would have been the last word on it from her had Assange not waited around protesting and then procrastinating after the next girl he fucked a few days later, __________, asked him to get tested for STDs.

But instead, __________ — whose ex-boyfriend told police she had never had unprotected sex — panicked, first confiding in Wikileaks’ Stockholm bureau chief, who told police he responded by asking Assange to get tested, a request Assange allegedly refused. Eventually ______ tracked down ______, who was still letting Assange stay at her apartment (and who had in the meantime hosted a party for him there). It was only when the two women finally met and compared notes, a week after sex with ______ and four days after sex with ______, that they decided to go to the police.

Taken at face value, what happens next seems like a classic case of “Oh no that asshole didn’t pull (so to speak) the same bullshit on you too!!!! OMG that bastard is going to be sorry.” The “mysterious” ripping of a condom some guy very grudgingly agreed to use doubtless seems a lot more deliberate, and creepy, once you meet the girl on whom he pulled the same sort of shit three nights later. And it should; I used to date a guy who once volunteered to me that he had deliberately ripped condoms with a previous girlfriend. We weren’t using them at the time, because he had a smallish penis, which I imagine to be Julian Assange’s problem — that, and an inversely-proportioned ego — but the point is this is definitely something certain dudes do, and I can imagine it would be hugely alarming if you weren’t someone who’d ever had unprotected sex, especially if you suddenly found yourself having unprotected sex with someone who (like Assange) obviously did, especially especially if you were only half-conscious when it all went down, and especially even more upon meeting someone else whose experiences confirmed all your worst fears of the incident ...
I've replaced the accusers' names with underlined spaces, although I won't be surprised if some radical feminists --- like the atheist asshats --- contact my department anyway (these are bad people, remember?). That said, you can see that the issue's not just the naming of names, but the aggressive pushback against the rape allegations storyline. Frankly, this is the best thing I've read on this, and Tkacik makes Naomi Wolf look that much more credible. And I'll confess that some of my previous posts on this have been mostly ribbing the feminists for their rank hypocrisy and their ├╝ber epistemological closure. But these new developments powerfully confirm my basic thesis that progressive feminists are using the Assange rape case to erect an impenetrable wall of hardline ideological conformity (as if there wasn't one already). Defection from behind that wall is dangerous. And by now it's almost to the point that feminist apostates have more to worry about that potential rape victims themselves.

Seriously chilling.

Check Moe Tkacik's Twitter page for some idea, here, here, here, and here.

PREVIOUSLY:
* "Naomi Wolf vs. Jaclyn Friedman on Democracy Now!"

* "
Michael Moore Rehabilitated."

* "
Michael Moore Repudiates 'Hooey' Rape Comments During Rachel Maddow Show Trial — BUMPED AND UPDATED!"
RELATED: Huge update on developments at The Other McCain, "Nobody’s Fault But Mine."

5 comments:

Lara Emily Foley said...

Never ever will agree with you or very much like you but thank you for removing the names

Donald Douglas said...

@ Lara Emily Foley ...

The accusers' names are all around the web, and pictures as well. I omitted the names since I don't want workplace retaliation, which is the modus operandi of the progressive left.

Lara Emily Foley said...

Irrelevant, every time they are posted it's wrong, the first, 3rd, 100th, 1 millionth, equally as wrong.

A simple you're welcome would have sufficed.

Rev Dr E Buzz said...

"A simple you're welcome would have sufficed."

LOL

Anonymous said...

Laura, does the same rule apply to the alleged offender? After all, much of the ongoing discussion is after all closely related to a campaign which from the get go deliberately positioned themselves in the light of the Assange case, happily associating him with dreadful experiences of the past.

But i guess we all know the bottom-line here. As once (in)famously stated by the head of a national womens organisation (ROKS) "Men are animals", so how could anyone be at fault by treating them as such. Guilty until proven otherwise, is clearly the motto of today. At least when it comes to men. Filthy, stinking, men. A bunch of rapists. All of them. No exceptions. All there is are those who have yet to rape, those who have raped without knowing it, and those who have raped. By the way; the first group is perhaps more commonly known as virgins.

Ok, i admit. I'm obviously taking things to the extreme. But in times like these the extreme is needed to shed light on what is actually going. To make us take a step back and actually stop to think for a moment. To not just spew out crap, but to actually take things in. To reflect on their meaning and ones role in the common discourse.

To end; should the names be outed? Of course not, at least not in this context. Does the same apply to Assange, who has clearly suffered more damage than anyone (whether or not it can be justified ex-post is not relevant ex-ante). Well, from the looks of it, apparently not.

Oh well, as long as were 'talking about it'. Sigh.