Beyond the Pale and Way Past Infuriating…

Posted: October 30, 2009 in Assholes, Pornography, WTF???

In this thread, which is a long one, the absolutely disgusting has occurred.  SheHasNoName has asserted that porn has caused as many deaths amid women as occurred in the Holocaust.

That’s right.  She is saying porn is responsible things on par with the death of roughly 5.9 million Jews, 2-3 million Soviet P.O.W’s, 1.5 million Romani, 2 million Slavs, 250,000 disabled people, 15,000 homosexuals, and other assorted “impure” peoples.

I asked her to prove this.  Which of course she cannot because it is a flat out no holds barred lie that she used for anti porn dramatic effect figuring that no one would call out the pure vileness of her statement.  Guess what, she was wrong.  And aside from James, that whole lot over there is either letting this slide or supporting her.  Her come back is that proving such things would betray the confidentiality of these (apparently) MILLIONS AND MILLION of women.  And then fucking Laurelin chimes in and basically tut-tuts me for wanting proof of such an utterly wrong accusation. 

This lends me to think these people are not only anti-porn, but anti Jew, anti Soviet POW, anti-Romani, anti-Slav,ableist, homophobic, and anti realizing what a fucking moronic and horrible statement that is.

I do not care how down with the cause or ignorant of history people are.  If you are going to compare pornographers to fucking Nazi’s who killed millions of people you better fucking be able to prove it.  Godwin or no Godwin, that is some seriously fucked up inflammatory shit, and I say that not so much as a woman who is not anti porn, but as one who is Jewish, Slavic, a student of History, and who has relatives still living who know just how horrible the Holocaust was. 

Where is the fucking infamous empathy now? 

And statements like these totally call into question any and every other thing SheHasNoName says in my book.  In fact, they launch her right into disgusting meatsack lying asshole territory for me. 


  1. ginmar says:

    Okay, you know what you can compare to the Holocaust? The Holocaust. This type of shit infuriates me.

    I remember on the Ms. Boards that I stumbled over something that really pissed me off. Domestic violence was always about the free will of the abuser—unless they joined the military, at which point the military was to blame, because we all know the military brainwashes people. So many of them there were anti-war and anti-military that they put aside their usual standards to take a swipe at the military whenever they thought they could. That’s what’s going on here.

  2. Dw3t-Hthr says:

    This is my speechless, jawdropped, what-the-holy… face.

    Because holy shit.

    Buh. Buh buh buh.

    Totally reads anti-Semitic to me too. And I’m not a Jew. (I’m a quarter Pole, though.)

  3. TrinityVA says:

    what the holy…

    i’m not surprised. fucking infuriated, but not surprised.

  4. Rachel S. says:

    Everyone knows about the Holocaust because 12 million people, give or take, were slaughtered during it. So, in theory, if 12 million women were slaughtered by the porn industry, I’m pretty sure more people than radical feminists would know about it. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would still be denying it, but everyone would know.

  5. Um, yeah. I’m a Slav, one grandma (barely) survived the Nazi occupation. Other grandma lost her brother in the war, and her sister died due to lack of available medicine during wartime. Jewish great uncle lost his mother in Babii Yar and was miraculously spared.

    Not amused.

    • Ren says:


      FOR REAL. My grandfather who was in the soviet military and was a POW would have some SERIOUS shit to say about this…as would his wife, whose family DIED at the hands of the nazi’s in camps….

      Rage. Serious rage.

  6. Ernest Greene says:

    Simply the most repellent lie yet from those who tell repellent lies the way most folks talk about the weather. SheWhoHasNoShame hides behind the scrim of “protecting” victimized women, whose names she knows and whose numbers therefore cannot logically even approach the alaughter committed by the Nazis, when in fact she clearly has no proof at all of a patently false and profoundly offensive claim.

    Where did all those millions of bodies go? Why has no one else picked up on this massacre of historic proportioins? How does this pathetic little twerp come to be aware of a crime of such proportions that has never been disclosed by anyone else? I’m not going to waste one more minute poking holes in a claim that preposterous. It’s sickening that it was allowed to be posted at all, and that others have lined up to defend this holocaust denier, which by attempting to equate tiny numbers of individual crimes (even if said crimes were actually committed, of which she provides not a shred of evidence) to the worst genocide in history is exactly what she makes of herself, is equally vomit-inducing.

    As Oscar Wilde once observed, “unlike any other liquid medium in which some point of neutral bouyancy is eventually reached, in the sea of depravity, the greater the depth, the easier the sinking.”

    I have read some of the most horrible, disgusting trash ever put up online at Nine Deuce’s, but her refusal to confront this horrific lie casts her down into a new level of perfidy unmatched by her worst behavior to date. This is the lowest of the low, and that the fanatical fools who chimed in to “support” this evil fabrication makes them all party to it, every one.

    My utter revulsion at this gigantic and horrible lie has nothing to do with my work as a pornographer, as a sex worker, as an opponent of radical feminism or anything else. It grows entirely out of the fact that I am a Jew, and as such, though not observant, I will say here and now that no imprecatory prayer for justice could adequately express the rage and sorrow with which this whole exchange fills me.

    No place in hell is hot enough or deep enough for those who invoke history’s worst crime to elevate their own grievances in stature.

    I never believed anything WhatTheFuckIsHerName said from when she first appeared at a convenient moment, and the uncritical support she receives for her fucking lies reduces everyone in whose midst she hides to the same level of grotesquery.

    So now, not for the first time, I find myself, a Jew, compared to Nazis by someone who has no idea, and doesn’t care, how deeply false, wrong and disgusting such an accusation truly is, and is surrounded by others who think she’s being unfairly attacked for saying such a thing.

    In this context, I can’t think of what attack would be considered unfair when leveled at someone who trivializes The Holocaust to score a point in a silly blog war.

    As a Jew whose ancestors died at the hands of such fanatics, and who has had friends killed by their latter-day imitators for the crime of being an outspoken Jewish anti-Nazi, I find these … upright bipeds … utterly loathesome.

    I cannot and will not subject myself to the abuse that would await me there, but others should not tolerate this. ND needs to hear from those who find Holocaust Denial in the name of radical feminism an affront. She needs to hear it not just from us, but from her own.

    If she does not, there exists no shred of human decency among any of them

  7. TrinityVA says:

    Where did all those millions of bodies go? Why has no one else picked up on this massacre of historic proportioins? How does this pathetic little twerp come to be aware of a crime of such proportions that has never been disclosed by anyone else?

    I can’t say anything anywhere near as coherent or interesting as what you just said, Ernest, so I’ll just say: this.

    • Ernest Greene says:

      Thanks. Actually, I was so angry I was less concise than I meant to be. Bottom line, not even Lubben’s outfit makes such accusations. Mad as they are, they know there is some limit to what even a total fool can be made to believe, so they steer clear of claims involving the deaths of millions.

      Murderous dictatorships from Nazi Germany to Stalinist Russia to Pol Pot’s Cambodia have attempted to cover up mass atrocities using all the means at the disposal of a totalitarian state and failed.

      Yet somehow the porn industry has managed to make millions of women vanish without a trace … after filming them and releasing incontrovertible evidence of their involvement in porn … and no one outside of the fifteen radfems who post on each other’s blogs has noticed this remarkable phenomenon without historical precedent.

      My, aren’t we clever to have fooled everyone else on earth?

      MSM routinely sensationalize every crime committed by anyone ever remotely associated with sex commerce. How could Fox News have missed such a story?

  8. Hey…if you are bound to believe that porn is the absolute evil and the source of all pain and suffering for all women everywhere, even those who never use or even see porn, then why not carry your obsession to its logical conclusion and make porn worse than the Holocaust?? And the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the bubonic plague pandemic. Combined.

    I mean, if you hate porn that much that it becomes worse than gassing humans in ovens, you are seriously lost.

    Nice crowd you venture with, Nine Deuce. And yet, male dommes and pro-sex porn defenders are too much for you to allow to darken your blogs???



    • Eli says:

      It makes sense on some level of crazy; if one starts from the premise that porn is the root of all that is evil, then obviously the Holocaust was caused by porn, and no further proof is needed.

      On the other hand, the radfems shot Andy Warhol and beat up lesbians with crowbars – so what does that make them, Stalin?

  9. And also…how nice to see Laurelin defend SheHasNoName against attempts to call her out on her claim that she knows women personally who have been killed or committed suicide as a direct result of them making porn (as if drugs, depression, crime, and family abuse was all just a fiendish plot of Larry Flynt and Bob Guccione and Hugh Hefner to take over the world one rape at a time.

    And of course, it takes Delphyne to reset the old Stormcloud “choke on your own blood” libel and accuse ND of giving Ren a free platform to “bash” radfems…..because radfems are so delicate and unable to handle opposition speech on their own.

    Orly Taitz would have a field day in that crowd.


  10. machina says:

    Has there even been 12 million female porn performers? It just seems such an absurd thing to say.

  11. Ernest Greene says:

    So when she finally does choke up the name of an organization that supposedly supports her claim regarding all those millions of deaths in poin, it turns out to be Shelley Lubben’s scam operation The Pink Cross Foundation. Now there’s a reliable source, a right-wing religious fanatic who opposes every other prinicple to which “leftist” radical feminism adheres. Reproductive choice? Who cares? Gay rights? So what? Lubben is against porn and therefore, like Donna Hughes, her other slimy political associations don’t matter. Sex-work hatred has become the single litmus test for radical feminism.

    I can think of some ohter movements that apply single-issue litmus tests, and none of them would make a good fit with ND’s grandiose liberationist agenda. But nevermind, such comparisons are all straw men and red herrings. There is no overlap between radical feminism and the relgious right.

    I’ll have a lot less trouble proving my point to the contrary than any of them will have proving that millions of women have secretely been murdered by the porn industry.

    When I next meet up with the comedy team of Dines and Jensen, as I surely will sooner or later, I’ll have to ask them what they think about this kind of propaganda. Is it that far removed from the idiocies of TPoP? If there is a difference, perhaps they’ll be good enough to explain it to me.

    Meantime, those who think that Shelley Lubben is credible concerning the sex industry should really give her site a read and think over carefully how many things she has to say they find believable regarding other issues.

    Guilty in one, guilty in all, says the law of this land. Once a witness has been established as a liar in any particular of testimony, all testimony from that witness is to be regarded as unreliable.

    Just when I think ND and her pals can find no lower place, they descend to some nadir of utter dishonesty.

    If there are any living leftists remaining in this country, they must cast out this Fifth Column of neo-cons from their midst. Until they do, they embrace the same lies and suffer the same fate – universal and contemptuous distrust for everything they think, say and do.

    • Lucy says:

      Even using the numbers that Pink Cross provides doesn’t back up her claim. Assuming my comment doesn’t get approved by ND, I did the math and even allowing for 10 times as many deaths as PC claims, it would take over 19 000 years to get to where SheWhoHasNoName claims we already are.

      To be honest, I really hate it when people do make hyperbolic claims like this. It only hurts everyone. In this case, it insults those who died and those who survived, their families, Jews, Poles, (now former) Soviets, Romani, Slavs, the disabled, queer people, and those who know history. It also hurts the people who do oppose porn because they suddenly appear to be anti-Semitic and heartless in addition to being disregarded by those who will generalise an outrageous lie by one anti-porn person to all anti-porn people. It hurts those who aren’t anti-porn because suddenly they have to deal with what is obviously a lie, but nonetheless needs to be shot down (since none of the anti-porn people are doing it). Tragically, it degrades those whose deaths SheWhoHasNoClaim refers to because they’ll most likely be forgotten once the lie is exposed (I do believe that people working in porn have committed suicide or died from drugs because of being in porn; of course, the same can be said of university students). Oh, I suppose it does help those who are heartless and enjoy dwama for the sake of dwama.

  12. FW says:

    Hrmmm. Clearly the problem is that she doesn’t get to the public library these days. Otherwise she would have been able to research the Holocaust and she would have also noticed the dozens of internet-connected computers that people are able to use for free. I posted many a craigslist ad using the library when I didn’t have a computer. And I even had to walk to get there.

  13. rachel cervantes says:

    Time tends to dim the horror, memories fade, and words lose meaning. II was born ten years after the Holocaust. One of the guests at my wedding had numbers tattooed on her arm.

    The Holocaust was a crime against humanity of unspeakable proportions. Porn? Yeah, I think it has had a hand in increasing the numbers of women victimized. But I agree, it cheapens the memory of those women, children, and men slaughtered more brutally than cattle to compare ANYTHING to the Holocaust.

    We seem to be forgetting how horrific the Holocaust was.

    P.S., I love Laurelin like my own daughter. Just laying my allegiances on the line. Passionately committed, deeply caring people sometimes err, just like the rest of us, you know?

    • Roy Kay says:

      I know very few passionately committed people who don’t claim to be deeply caring. They often deeply care about mutually exclusive things. Are all their errors so trivial? Once someone is aroused to passion by false claims of genocide, what is to stop them from taking the actions that we would naturally expect from from say, the ZZW or Bielski brothers.

      • rachel cervantes says:

        Just to clarify my stance: Although the exact quote was “people” in this context it referred to one specific person. Your statement “taking the actions that we would naturally expect from from say, the ZZW or Bielski brothers” does NOT apply to this specific person.

        My comment mentions Laurelin since she was specifically named in this thread. I felt a need to partially address that. In fact, I was trying to put the focus on her to rest. It does a disservice to the original point to make this about her. I will not defend specific statements made by her; she’s more than capable of doing that herself. She is also responsible for statements she makes. I’ve never known her to weasel out. She owns her words. But please know that I am hyper-sensitive to generalized statements that may seem obliquely cast aspersions on her character.

        I’m not saying you are doing that because you are speaking in general terms. I might even be able to agree with some of that. But….Mama Bear here, just saying.

        • Iamcuriousblue says:

          Considering the sheer VENOM Laurelin dishes out, venom which both I and other people I respect have been on the receiving end of at various times, I really think this appeal to consideration for poor Laurelin’s fee-fees is a bit out of line. In my book, somebody damn well better be take what they dish out, or they best stop dishing it out.

          If you’re really interested in de-escalating a tense situation involving her, your efforts are best directed toward friendly council cooling her down, not trying to convince people who are on the receiving end of that aggression about what a great person she is and that her venom comes from “passion” and “commitment”.

  14. I have some figures that put this into perspective.

    In the USA, around 750,000 people have been murdered since 1960. Of these, roughly three quarters were men, so that’s about 190,000 women murdered in the USA in fifty years. Total.

    SheWhoHasNoName also blames some deaths from suicide, and some from drug overdoses, on porn, so let’s add those to the mix.

    I couldn’t find detailed statistics on suicides gong back to 1960 the way I could for murder stats, but I did discover that the highest rate was 30,000 one year. Around the world, only China has more women suicides than men; in some countries, women only make 20-25% of the suicide death tally. So if we take that upper limit of 30,000 for the number of deaths by suicide per year, and 50% as the upper limit for the proportion of suicides who are women, then we get 30,000 * 50 = 1.5M. 1.5M * 50% = 750,000.

    We can do a similar calculation with drug overdoses (and ignore for the moment that the overdoses we’re interested in may already be covered by the “suicide” statistics…) Apparently, deaths by drug overdose (including both deliberate and accidental) have increased dramatically in the past 10 years in the USA. An estimate for the upper limit over the past 50 years is around 23,000 per year. Over that same time, women have always been much more likely than men to die of a drug overdose – in 1966 it was 75%, in 2005 it was 66%. Taking 75% as our upper limit for percentage of drug OD deaths were women, we can calculate an upper limit for women killed by drug OD in 50 years as 23,000 * 50 = 1.15M; 1.15M * 75% = 862,500.

    So the total number of women killed in the USA since 1960 by murderers, by suicide, or by drugs has an upper limit of around 1.8 million.

    A reminder of how horrific the Holocaust really was. Taking the upper limits for the whole US population, the total from drugs + murder + suicide is 3.4 million over 50 years.

    The Nazis in the 12 years they held power killed more than three -and-a-half times as many people as have been killed in the USA by drugs, murder and suicide combined, in the last fifty years. And it’s probably closer to 5 or 6 times that number, because of the margin of error in those upper limits.

  15. TrinityVA says:

    We seem to be forgetting how horrific the Holocaust was.


    P.S., I love Laurelin like my own daughter. Just laying my allegiances on the line. Passionately committed, deeply caring people sometimes err, just like the rest of us, you know?

    And for whatever it may or may not be worth to you, considering I really don’t like Laurelin from the little one sees of her true personality/self on the Internet:

    Sometimes when we truly love someone like a daughter — I mean really and truly consider someone kin of our souls — the right thing to do is tell that daughter when she has gone beyond the pale. I don’t know whether, on this issue, she’d listen even to her soul-mom with open ears, but I do hope you’ve mentioned to her that this is not on.

    • rachel cervantes says:

      I understand that you are angered ,but I really don’t mean to open up a discussion on Laurelin’s virtues/vices. Also, she’s perfectly able to defend herself. I only mention it so it is clear where I stand, no false pretenses or illusions.

      And I thank you for taking the time to share you feelings with me (I say that seriously, not sarcastically) but whether or not we’ve discussed this I must keep between us.

      Again, I feel a need to make clear where I stand. And I do object to Holocaust comparisons.

  16. TrinityVA says:

    I understand that you are angered ,but I really don’t mean to open up a discussion on Laurelin’s virtues/vices.

    Neither did I, which is why I said that although much of her behavior bothers me profoundly, I have no idea what she’s really like as a person. Online interactions are notorious for only showing you one side of a person, especially when those online interactions are one particular argument repeated over and over again.

    And I thank you for taking the time to share you feelings with me (I say that seriously, not sarcastically) but whether or not we’ve discussed this I must keep between us.

    Of course. I was saying that I hope people who she respects do remind her that there’s something really wrong with that comparison, not that I want to know the details of whether or how they’ve done so.

    • rachel cervantes says:

      “I have no idea what she’s really like as a person. ” Thank you. I wasn’t sure if I understood this correctly or not.

      Online interactions are the pits, at times. I suspect that some of the bloggers I’ve met online and despise most I might like quite well in person. I have to admit, there are some I’ve taken such a visceral dislike to online I’m not willing to find out.

      Laurelin herself made a comment on my blog this morning regarding such comparisons. I’ll continue to let her speak for herself.

      • TrinityVA says:

        Online interactions are the pits, at times. I suspect that some of the bloggers I’ve met online and despise most I might like quite well in person. I have to admit, there are some I’ve taken such a visceral dislike to online I’m not willing to find out.

        Yes, exactly. There are a few people in those threads I’m not sure I could ever be objective enough to find out more about, despite that I might well find that what upsets me so much is only one facet of them.

        Though I will say that one of the bloggers I absolutely most despised, I changed my mind about. Sometimes something happens and shocks you into realizing just how little of an Internet enemy you’ve truly seen.

  17. Ernest Greene says:

    Rachel Cervantes,

    Here is your friend’s half-hearted and duplicitous defense:

    “or the record- I would not make Holocaust comparisons myself. But I do think the way that the survivor on the thread was treated by the pro-industry people was vile, as she was not belittling the suffering of the Holocaust, but speaking out of the deepest grief and pain.”

    Here is the claim that started the exchange:

    “No, they have only killed that many through the suicide and overdoses that come out of being abused in the sex industry.”

    Here is Ren’s demand for proof:

    “That many? I think not. Unless, of course, you can prove otherwise.”

    The individual making the hideous accusation then retreats behind a number of defenses when rightly challenged for Holocaust denial:

    She can’t name the victims because it would profane their memory.

    If these victims existed in numbers small enough for her to even know their names, the comparison to The Holocaust would still be shameful, but this is clearly a lie.

    She admits she has no proof because she’s not an expert, but the proof exists in the hands of organizations that monitor such things. But even though she can’t provide us with any evidence from those groups, she continues to insist that what she claims is true, and that no one would believe her even if she did provide the so-called evidence to support this preposterous lie.

    Finally, she gives up a couple of organizations that have the proof she admits she does not have, all three of which are associated with a group of right-wing religious hucksters who make their livings bashing not only porn, but also abortion rights and gay sexuality.

    These organizations, bad as they are, make many exaggerated claims about the harms of pornography, but NONE on any web site or in any public statement, compares those harms to The Holocaust. They’re not quite that stupid.

    And for challenging this, Laurlelin accuses those demanding evidence to support such
    a foul-ball slam of being big meanies who trash porn’s “victims” to justify her “support” for this Holocaust Denier. SheWhoHasNoName gets a free pass for telling a ghastly lie that profoundly offends not sex industry workers, who Laurlelin wants to blame for this whole exchange, but Jews and anyone else with a sense of history.

    No one on that thread responded to anything else this person said, or any claims she made about hte porn industry (which were lies to a one, including, I’m willing to wager, her descriptions of her own experiences there, which I think are products of her warped imagination and have no qualms about saying so given the absolute, demonstrable falsity of everything else she says), only to her disgusting comparison to The Holocaust.

    Yet the woman who introduced this lie in the first place cannot be challenged and must be supported without questioning because she claims to have been a victim of porn. She can say anything she wants, no matter how heinous or false, but must be defended for her victimhood.

    Roman Polanski is an actual victim of The Holocaust, you know, the real one committed by actual Naxis in which millions died horrible deaths and which has been amply and conclusively proven to have taken place, right down to such details as Polanski’s individual status as a victim.

    So would Laurelin come forward to defend Polanski against the harsh criticism many of us have leveled at him for his subsequent acts because he’s an actual victim of one of history’s greatest crimes?

    I doubt she would, and that is one thing for which I don’t fault her, possibly the only place where we might even agree. Polanski is a victim, but that excuses nothing. Those who insist that he be held accountable for his own actions are aware of his suffering, but they are not wrong to insist on that accoutability anyway, and no one attacks us in so doing because we happen to be involved in sex work.

    No, we only get trashed en masse because of what we do when we challenge the right of a self-identified porn victim to use that victimhood to justify her Holocaust denial. See, we’re worse than actual Nazis so anything anyone who cllaims to be victimized by any of us is automatically in the right and cannot be “examined” by anyone from our side of the fence because of who she is and who we are, irrespective of the facts and of her own actions.

    Laurelin’s weak defense – an alleged victim (no proof provided there either, BTW) was attacked by “pro industry people” and needed defending, regardless of who said what- makes her a party to that person’s Holocaust denial, which she claims was not Holocaust denial but rather, what?, a rhetorical flourish.

    Interestingly, when ND demanded that Ren prove she’d suffered directly from radfem attacks and Ren provided that proof, Laurelin’s voice was among the loudest demanding that Ren be silenced, and ND cravenly complied.

    Rachel Cervantes, this is Ren’s blog and if she cares to let you come here and defend the odious behavior of your dear friend and her pack of jackals, that is Ren’s call, but no morning-after clarification can change the fact that a morally bankrupt comparison of porn to Nazi atrocities is allowed to stand on ND’s blog, along with the comments defending her, and no intervention from ND herself, against this vast, cruel, off-hand categorization of people who, even if you despise what they do, cannot be accurately tarred as Nazis by anyone even remotely familar with the realites of either porn or Nazism.

    We are to assume, from Laurlin’s comments after the fact, that either she believes this comparison was in bounds, which she half-heartedly admits may not be true, or that we should all shut up about it because the person who made it also claims to have been a victim of porn.

    Your friend has no respect for the truth, or for the humanity of the millions slaughtered by Hitler’s adoring followers. Her mad fixation on sex work blinds her to the reality that is profaned in this argument.

    And despite this, she will no doubt carry on with lies and slanders of her own, as she has lied and slandered in the past in countless comments I’ve read, morally imperious as ever after having given cover to a Holocaust Denier.

    As a Jew, not a pornographer, I find this beneath contempt and you coming over here to try and spin that reality suggests you have your own problems with it.

    I suggest you take those problems up with your friend directly, and not expect anyone here to accept your weak apologia for her inexcusable behavior. It doesn’t make any difference at all to me that you think she’s a swell person off-line, or that her mother loves her for that matter. What she said is what’s at issue here.

    And for that, despite her attempts to make it all our fault, Laurelin alone is responsible, just as the liar who bore false witness in the first place, regardless of her history, is responsible for having done so.

    Morning-after attempts here to color that darkest of sins with some coat of virtue-by- victimhood are as reprehensible as Roman Polanski’s.

    Rachel, you admit that there are some bloggers to whom, based on what they say, you have taken such a visceral dislike you don’t care to find out what they might be like in the real world.

    I think it could be safely said that Laurelin falls into that same category for many here, and I’m sure the reverse is equally true. Anger hardly does justice to the indignation those of us who have family, and in my case actual friends, lost to murdering Nazis feel when we’re attacked for calling out a Denier.

    Over here you make it clear, and in all fairness on your own blog as well, that you object to Holocaust comparisons.

    That objection is already shared by those here. Make it count by telling it to someone who clearly doesn’t understand that the objection applies in all circumstances regardless of the person making the comparison.

    Otherwise, everything you say about this whole thing rings entirely hollow.

    Yea, it’s true, you’ve just been lectued on morality by a Jew pornographer (a coinage very popular among real Nazis back in the day, BTW).

    And I will say as much to anyone, regardless of their other convictions, who comes around making excuses for those who make excuses for those who engage in such despicable conduct.

  18. rachel cervantes says:

    Making specific accusations is something Laurelin can address of she so chooses. Vague insinuations such are previous I object to.

    Oh, and….forgive my syntax and grammar, but

    אתה לא יהודי בלבד, אתה יודע.

  19. Random Observer says:

    My own take on Laurelin, based on having read her comments toward other people and many of her blog posts – I find her to be an exceedingly narrow-minded, self-righteous, self-pitying, belligerent ideologue, quick to pick fights and shout down discussion. (The \”self-righteous\” part she acknowledges and is actually proud of.) Along with Delphyne, I think she\’s one of the more odious members of what has been referred to as the \”UK radefem brigade\”. Personally, I don\’t think highly of people like this in any ideology (self-righteous vegans, Christians, socialists, libertarians, etc are no better) and fact that they\’re \”committed\” and \”passionate\” hardly excuses this. In fact, self-righteousness and zealotry are simply the shadow side of commitment and moral passion, and Laurelin seems to me to be clearly a person who has entirely caved into this dark side. I\’m not going to make many of the same odious comparisons that Ren\’s post here is critiquing, but I will say its a *damn* good thing Laurelin or Delphyne aren\’t individuals with political power. Such types when they have power are inevitably persecutorial and wield their power abusively. Perhaps the best I can say about Laurelin and her ilk is that their open hostility and extremism only make it less likely that their kind will ever have political power.

  20. rachel cervantes says:

    You know, Ernest, you are well-spoken, passionate, and really quite interesting. I have a number of online friends (some of whom have become IRL friends) with whom I disagree. Ren is one, by the way. She’s earned my respect and liking.

    I’m hoping you and I can attack ideas and arguments and avoid personal attacks. I am so tired of personal attacks in blogland. It wears me down and is so unnecessary. I am well aware my post does not sit well with you. I’m ok with that, but here’s my offer: Let’s try to find our common ground so we can disagree and maintain mutual respect and civility? I’m not saying this well, and I’m hoping you will overlook that.

    Interesting point: One person who I first encountered when she called me an MRA and we got into a heated exchange with is now someone I’m extremely fond of.

    This is kind of an olive branch. I’ll understand if you choose not to take it.

  21. Ernest Greene says:

    Rachel Cervantes,

    Look, obviously you’re decent person and your presence here suggests an open mind. I’ve yet to read an unkind word from you about anyone. If I felt otherwise, I wouldn’t have bothered to respond to your comment personally, as I generally don’t engage others from you camp by name any more than they do me. As they routinely deny my humanity and accuse me directly of the worst crimes imaginable, and some among them have called for my death either indivdually or by category, I feel no obligation to show them any greater decency than they show me. This will never change. I will not be accused of rape and murder and have it cavalierly suggested that, if no one can be found to kill me, I should do it myself and give any quarter whatsoever to those who initiated a senseless and bitter conflict with a man of whom they know nothing at all, and of whose profession they believe and continue to spread every kind of malicious falsehood. They hate me and I return the sentiment. They wish to destroy me and everyone I care for and everything we do. I hate them for that. I see no difference between them and the neo-Nazis in Denver who had me on their hit list right below the friend of mine they murdered in his driveway, other than a lack of resolve needed to act on their bigotry. Someday I still expect some fool among them, or as I’ve often said before, some stupid man attempting to impress them, may erase even that distinction. I have also made clear what my intentions will be should that moment of decision every arise.

    I’ve been mightily tested in moral conflicts with potentially deadly consequences and made hard choices, starting with my decision to actively resist the draft at the age of eighteen. I’ve made similar choices since I became a pornographer, such as standing in front of a roomful of potential employers in 1993 and warning them that if they did not take immediate measures to address the scourge of AIDS the blood of innocents would be on their hands and the world would hold them accountable for it. I pad the price for these choices, a much higher price than any who sit at computers all day slagging me from the safety of their ivory towers. For them I have a contempt far deeper than any they can ever hold for me. Mine is based on having done the things they claim to do but have not and been reviled for things I haven’t done in a way they never will be.

    That lies at the core of my rancor toward them. They’re liars and cowards who attempt to bully and threaten me at every opportunity. I don’t care anything about their motives. I judge them by what they say and do and if they would extend me the same courtesy, not as a member of a class they detest but rather as the individual I am, I would be far more accepting of whatever they decided about me, regardless of how unflattering it might be.

    But to be lumped into the same category as Nazis – no, that is beyond forgiving and I will never back down an inch in the face of such an accusation. Some among them have said the same things of my wife, calling her a kapo. Like me, she’s also Jewish with family who either fled or perished in The Holocaust. The meanness of spirit betrayed by hurling such carefully calculated invective at the most sensitive aspects of another human being’s nature leaves absolutely no room for civil debate of any kind. Call me a Nazi and the conversation is over.

    You did no such thing. I have no quarrel with you. But for as long as you keep the company of those who have done the things listed above, and defend them or offer them the space to defend themselves for these things, we can never be anything but opponents.

    However, there can be, as you suggest, civility between opponents and, if this were allowed, little as some on your side believe it, I would be more than happy to discuss anything with them in a civil manner. I am already quite willing to do so with you, as I am doing now. I think you’ve said what you have to say very well, and I appreciate the sentiment behind it. I hope you understand that this is a matter of life and death for me and that I cannot be casual about it, but I can be reasonable when given the opportunity. Those who do not call me a pimp, a rapist, a torturer, a murderer or a Nazi will find me a vigorous debater but a clean one if that’s the way they conduct their part of the discussion.

    Unfortunately, sometimes we must choose among our friends in a bitter conflict by their choice of allies. For as long as you choose people like Laurelin as friends, you and I will never be, and I suspect that’s no great loss to you, although I’m saddened by it, as I do have many close friends with whom I deeply disagree over political matters of all sorts but whose tactics do not require a purely tactical response.

    For all the smack thrown at liberal men, the truth is that liberal men, like myself, have been determined and consistent allies in the fight for women’s rights and remain so, despite years of ugly attacks, in person and from a distance, by feminists who consider it their right and duty to inflict their rage on all men who tolerate such noxious behavior. I have been and remain a staunch supporter of reproductive choice, equal economic and political opportunity and a comprehensive social safety net to improve the quality of women’s lives everywhere. I am unalterably opposed to violence against women and any who condone it in any form, which I do not feel my work does or I would not engage in it. I do not waver in these convictions, though I could surely rationalize doing so on the basis of what’s been said to and about me, because I believe them to be right.

    My loathing for radical feminism has nothing to do with protecting my so-called male privilege, which I surrendered when I declassed myself by choosing to be a sex worker who supports other sex workers, and nothing to do with any threat it poses to my ability to earn a living, a thing I could do equally well if porn vanished from the world tomorrow. It is entirely a product of reading their philosophy, to which I have devoted much time and attention, and observing their behavior from entirely too close a distance.

    Based on that observation, there is no hope of friendship at all between anyone in their camp and me. But the enmity need not be as bitter and individual as most of them seem intent on making it.

    So, in response to your olive branch, I say shalom aleichem. I appreciate the effort. I ask only that you consider what responsibility you may have in making the same effort among your own.

  22. rachel cervantes says:

    Ah, Ernest, might I suggest you google “Dreamy5” and radical feminism? No, I”ll save you the trouble.

    I am Dreamy5. Please read this thread and then may we re-open this conversation?

    • rachel cervantes says:

      And if I may presume, please read to the end?

      • Ernest Greene says:


        I think I get your point here, although the thoroughly unpleasant experience of slogging through the same tired, ugly, hateful screetching from the ususal suspects revealed nothing I hadn’t heard before.

        You did your best to confront some loon-bats and got chewed up for it. Nothing unpredictable about that. They used the same arguments on you they use on us. Challenge a single word of the prevailing dogma and you can expect to be alternately clubbed with Dworkonite rhetoric and subjected to vicious, mean-spirited personal attacks.

        So nu?

        They’re your friends, not mine. I don’t hold you responsible for what they say, or for trying to persuade them to think in some other way, as thinking is clearly not what fanatics do. You push the button and they puke on you.

        The thing for which I do hold you responsible is your continued support, however tempered by your own more reasonable views, for those to whom reason is a mere impedibment to hate speech.

        What you did on that thread – and now I’m going to make an offensive analogy and anyone who is offended by it, well, too bad – was take your hood off at a Klan rally and suggest that maybe we all ought to re-think this lynching thing.

        Maybe what really needs to be re-thought is what a straying liberal humanist is doing at a Klan rally to begin with. A loud, clear denunciation of this hateful ideology is the moral imperative, followed by a clean break with it and with everyone who adheres to it, and subsequent public opposition to it in any forum to which you contribute your opinions on related subjects, as you do here.

        There is no middle ground. There is no compromise. This group of women considers every man, born or unborn, even their own sons, to be rapists, wannabe rapists or rapists in the making, and when one of them actually speaks the truth, often denied in more public venues, that they believe all sex with men is rape, others rush forward to defend her position with hardly a whimper of protest from anyone there.

        The prevailing sentiment on that thread is hostile separatism, mixed with some pitiful outbursts of threatened rebellion, as if these mice would survive an hour in the kind of confrontation between genders they seem to think would be such a cool, liberating experience for all women.

        By all means, let them separate themselves. Let them find another planet on which to live, preferably one very far away, where no men exist and where they can reproduce parthenogentically, destroying all male fetuses, in order to be free once and for all of the threat posed by the vile penis. If space travel is too prohibitve, perhaps a bleak, wind-swept island somewhere south of Tierra del Fuego would be sufficiently remote for them to feel safe from the ever-present threat of patriarchal violnece. Let them pool their T-shirt money and the taxpayer funds they get from public grants to pursue their “research” and subsidize their graduate studies and start packing today. I’ll happily kick in a few bucks of my own toward that objective. They don’t care to live in a society with me, and I don’t care to live in a society with them. On that, we agree.

        But for as long as you continue to identify with the radical feminist cause, you open yourself to all charges leveled at them, in the same way that for as long as I identify as a pornographer, I open myself to the charge of being no better than Max Hardcore. Is this fair? Hardly. In either case. But this is not a war our side started, despite the other side’s claim to the contrary (a claim made by war-mongers for as long as human memory) and it must now be fought sans quartier because that is how they have defined the struggle. It is binary, zero-sum, us and them. There is nothing in between but barbed wire and land mines.

        Would I be quick to denounce a pornographer who I felt had behaved in a reprehensible manner? The record on that is pretty clear. But if I rejected the basic premise that making pornography is not an evil thing, I wouldn’t bother to single out this one or that one. I would quit what I do and oppose the whole process from that day forward.

        But one of the key differences in the two camps is that our side tolerated criticism, even listents to it and at times makes changes because of it, while theirs regards any dissent as treason and turns on the individual who dared utter it in the most savage language they can conjure, and conjuring savage language seems to be about the only thing for which they demonstrate the slightest capability.

        Our side would not force you to choose between agreeing with every single thing we said and did or getting the fuck out, but their side rather clearly and at great length makes it clear that anyone who wishes to keep their company in good standing must do precisely that.

        I’m not quite as dismissive of your efforts as Anthony is, and I do commend you for at least making an attempt to reason with those who reject reason as an element of their belief system, but I also see the effort as entirely futile.

        If you want to do something useful in this regard, take it back to your own blog and start the process always demanded of us – “examining” what these people advocate and smashing it to bits when you realize that it is utterly beyond redemption.

        You cannot, as an old friend of mine once said, run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds.

        You must choose a side here or your contribution to the debae will simply cancel itself out by making you an ally to neither.

        When I get back, I’d love to show you a few things they’ve said about me personally and why I don’t feel the slightest compunction in drawing a clear line between us and them and making it clear that I will never accept the possibility of any personal relationship spanning the gulf between any of them and me. Others will do as they wish, but for me, it’s as simple as the Klan hood thing. The minute I took off that hood among them, the rope would go over the limb.

        And I should be tolerant toward them for what reason again?

        • rachel cervantes says:

          I’ve been pondering “ally to neither.” That may actually be true. I am “ally” to what I see as the right thing rather than a given side. I can, however, separate one’s politics from the person. I have and love friends who run the gamut from pro-porn sex workers to radfems to marxists to right wing conservative Christian Republicans.

          The politics that I see as wrong I clearly denounce. The person? Well, to quote my Bible-bearing friends, hate the sin, love the sinner. I do not condone wrongs done. you not love anyone with whom you are ideologically at odds with?

          • James says:

            Ideology is just shorthand for “how you perceive the world”. Unless you:

            A) Love no one.


            B) Have a mind-clone.

            It is inevitable that you love someone who you are ideologically at odds with.

          • Ernest Greene says:

            I have personal friends all along a broad spectrum of political beliefs, including friends with whom I simply can’t discuss politics at all, and am content to leave it that way to preserve the friendship.

            However, I do judge those I know by the things they say and do, and that is where sentiment ends and hard ethical choices become necessary.

            I do not love those whose politics, or whose personal preferences, lead them to behavior I find despicable. There is a limit to what can be overlooked because someone is nice to me, or as I said earlier, because that person’s mother loves them.

            • rachel cervantes says:

              But, Ernest…I’m not asking you to overlook it. I would not presume to meddle to that extent. It was important for me to make my feelings clear because I need to be upfront.

        • Ernest Greene says:

          As this thread has wandered so far off-track that I don’t think there’s much need overly concern ourselves with derailing it just a bit further, there was something interesting I noticed in the link to which you sent me (I’m planning on picking up some Compazine for the nausea it induced, thank you very much).

          For all the willingness of the WW and her pals to crucify you for daring to suggest that any man might exist anywhere in any form other than as some stripe of rapist, they’re sure quick to provide cover for the few men they lionize as allies when said men do, in fact, turn out to be rapists and/or other types of exploiters of women.

          The thread to which you sent me starts out with a denunciatum leveled at non-rad-fem bloggers who called out “feminist ally” Kyle Payne when it was discovered that he was, in fact, a convicted rapist. Why, WW demands to know, would anyone from our side focus attention on this criminal’s actions other than to distract the gullible from recognition of the indisputable fact that all men are rapists in one state of being or another, and that those of us engage in or supportive toward sex work participate in or enable rape every minute of every day? She doesn’t mention Ren by name, but as it was Ren who sounded the alarm about Payne most piercingly, it’s pretty clear who Witchy was talking about. Ren’s motive couldn’t possibly be anything less devious than using Payne as a roundabout excuse to attack the supposed hypocrisy of radical feminism.

          What’s really rather funny in a sick way about this is that, by seizing this particular opportunity to launch a back-handed attack on Ren for doing what any decent person would presented with the information about Payne – try to protect others from being victimized by him – WW demonstrates a kind of hypocrisy of which neither Ren nor anyone else accused her or anyone else in any way. She helps Payne cover his ass by shifting the blame for his crimes on to the generalized misogyny of all men, the patriarchy, and other usual suspects. That Payne as an individual committed his crime as an individual somehow gets lost in all the back-and-forth that follows. How convenient – for Kyle Payne.

          And this is not the only place where radfems closed ranks to blur the focus on Payne’s crime. In fact, I got dragged into such an attempt over at 92’s:

          March 29, 2009 at 2:47 pm
          I don’t think you’re wrong to publicise Kyle Payne. It’s just as other people are saying, he’s the “acceptable” male abuser of women to condemn, which leaves the obvious others free to continue their activities. I don’t see any of the sex pozzies getting their knickers in a twist about the guy who had clearly groomed his girlfriend into sexual torture. He’s as obvious as Kyle Payne yet nobody wanted to talk about him – they just hid behind the “she consented” excuse.
          And the sex pozzies hang around with a whole lot of other scumbags and creeps and ignore their misogyny and abuse of women.
          Why aren’t we talking about IACB or Anthony Kennerson or Voice? How about Ernest Greene the scumbag pornographer? They are cut from the same cloth as Kyle Payne – seeing women as objects to use in a sadistic and perverted manner. If they can claim so-called consent though they haven’t committed any crime so we’re supposed to STFU about it and ignore what they are doing to women.

          And further down the thread:

          March 29, 2009 at 5:16 pm
          “Why aren’t we talking about IACB or Anthony Kennerson or Voice? How about Ernest Greene the scumbag pornographer?”
          I’m all for condemning those misogynistic shitbags too. Anyone wants to make some anti-IACB or Kennerson or Voice or E.G. posts, I’m totally down and supportive.

          March 29, 2009 at 9:28 pm
          It appears there’s a few of us. 😀

          I’m sure you get my point. Let’s just see if we can shit-can the awkward political problem posed by Kyle Payne, one of ours, and create a new one for the opposition by making this all about that scumbag pornographer Ernest Greene?

          All of this is pretty recondite for those who don’t follow the ongoing spitting match between radfems and sex workers (and it is between radfems and sex workers, not between radfems and pimps/traffickers/pornographers no matter how radfems try to spin it), but it has wider implications that should not be ignored.

          Remember Elliot Spitzer, the “crusading” former governor of New York who was lavishly praised by anti-sex-work feminists for his hard-line stance against prostitution, his prosecutions of madams (made, in part, by busting sex workers and forcing them to testify against their employers or face prosecution themselves as co-conspirators to pimping and pandering) and his support for draconian anti-sex-trafficking laws that further endangered sex workers, even though his high-profile call-girl-ring busts had failed to turn up any trafficked women?

          If so, you may also remember how he left office – resigning in disgrace after the revelation that, no better than a crooked vice cop shaking down streetwalkers for back-alley BJs, he had been a patron of the very stratum of escort services he burnished his political luster by busting. Seems that he was also down in the records of the agency he worked through as a rough trick with “possibly dangerous” inclinations.

          Imagine my surprise to see the ex-gov, who had spent a bare year or so in political Siberia for his transgressions, turning up on cable news channels as a “commentator,” being treated respectfully by the very anchors who had reported his actions as a bent prosecutor such a short time ago. Not since Henry Kissinger has a disgraced political figure been so quickly rehabilitated.

          And whom does he have to thank for his remarkable resurrection? Melissa Farley, the “prostitution researcher” who signed the oath required by the Bush administration to report no findings supportive of decriminalization of sex work in any form before accepting federal funds to finance her “work” surveying the effects of legal prostitution in Nevada. Farley, who is a tireless opponent of anything that might be helpful to sex workers in any way and was instrumental in defeating Prop K, which would have decriminalized prostitution in San Francisco, came flapping out of her bat cave to defend Spitzer on the op-ed page of The NYT by framing his crimes in the context of “the greater harms of the prostitution industry.” She also tapped such liberal NYT columnists as Bob Herbert and Nicholas Kristof to echo her line, using direct quotes from her, inflating the scandal of one crooked politicians rotten behavior into a generalized indictment of the sex industry and the men who, being mere men with no control over their own sexual conduct, fall prey to its toxic allure only because it’s there and would not do such things if sex commerce could be stamped out as it rightly should be.

          Somehow, the fact that Spitzer was busting hookers by day fucking them by night got lost in the much larger and conveniently less specific uproar over the evils of prostitution, next to which the evils of corrupt and cruel politicians were as nothing.

          Spitzer got a wrist-slap from the law, had to move back from Albany and has now reappeared on our TV screens with a big smile on his face. No wonder he’s smiling. Thanks to the back and filling provided by his long-time allies in the anti-sex-commerce feminist political world, his deeds are no longer regarded as his responsibility, but rather that of the despicable industry of which he was, at least in part, a victim.

          That’s what Farley and her gang did. They made Elliot Spitzer into a victim of prostitution instead of a detestable, hypocritical opportunist. And that’s what Witchy and her gang have done with Kyle Payne, made him into just another male rapist who came in for more than his fair share of abuse just because he had pretended to be on their side and their opponents were using him to smear them.

          Let’s just change the subject as fast as we can and make the actions of these men all about the vile industry for which their preferred targets, such as myself, are truly responsible. We’re the ones creating all that rape out there, as distinct from the rapists themselves, who are merely typical men until we come along and switch them into rape-mode by triggering their natural sense of entitlement.

          Personally, I think Spitzer should have served some jail time and spent his life thereafter ashamed to show his face in public. Likewise Kyle Payne. And that’s the least of my proposals for how rapists should be treated in a society that dares to call itself civilized.

          I would think people like Farley and Witchy would agree on this, but I guess it all depends on who is doing the raping. How much easier it is to blame a stranger with no role in the act at all than to face the possibility that, for all their ranting on the subject, radical feminists couldn’t recognize a rapist staring them in the face. Simply saying that any man staring them in the face is, by default, a probably racist, is so much more comforting, for them and, most especially, for the actual rapists in our collective midst.

          Been wanting to take this one on for a long time. Thanks, Rachel, for giving me the opportunity.

          • Hahahahahahaaaaaa!!!!! That reset of Kyle Payne was a good one, Ernest…didn’t even know that we on the “Shitbag Male Sex Poxxie Caucus (I guess that means you, IACB, and moi) were so…well, popular with these folk.

            I mean, I do remember posting right about that time over at the SmackChron a piece calling out Kyle Payne as nothing more than an asshat and a rapist who is using radical feminist language to cover his ass and same himself from accountablilty for his crimes. But I guess that was just a ruse to get into Ren’s panties, or set up other women for our mass rape and torture, right, Del and Faith??

            I’m guessing that if Kyle Payne had gone full-on Richard Leader and adopted in full the GenderBorg ideology, Faith and Delphyne and the crowd would have been all over him like Shelley Lubben over a born-again “ex-slut” porn starlet; forgiving him for his sin of being a man and having a penis that gets erect merely because he pimps their philosophy to the letter and dot. Of course, the rest of us who do no harm to women, but manage to oppose and criticize the house ideology, will be continually bashed as “rapists” and “shitbags” even if we never so much as touch a woman the wrong way.

            That’s exactly how lunatic ideologues roll, and it’s a perfect description of why I treat these fools the way I do…with the proper mix of ridicule, snark, and revulsion.

            BTW…on your points about Elliot Spitzer: a lot of the forgiveness in which many were willing to bestow on him following his fall from grace was based on the notion that he was “set up” by right-wing officials for being such a “crime-fighting” law official; he was in the middle of some serious investigations of major Wall Street firms over their use of “derivatives” and other such financial chicanery, even as he was also doing his Mark Sanford impressions. There was even a hope that Spitzer would use his own personal “experience” to call for loosening of the laws against sex work….but I guess that his basic law enforcement instincts and Melissa Fairley got in the way.

            Other than that caveat…with you 100%.


          • belledame222 says:

            …wow. somehow I’d missed that Farley came running to the defense of Spitzer. Doesn’t surprise me though. Guh.

        • hexy says:

          I’m just going to say this simply: It does damage to your argument (with which I agree) that Holocaust comparisons are always, always inappropriate when you then compare people who aren’t committing horrendous acts against POC to Klansmen.

          • Ernest Greene says:

            Point taken. I don’t think the comparisons are directly equivalent for a number of reasons, but I’ll stipulate the charge of answering one bad metaphor with another.

  23. rachel cervantes says:

    Ren, I apologize for hijacking your thread. I didn’t realize til just now that I was doing that.

  24. James says:

    Hello Ren! Long time, no read.

    Yes, this incident was something of an eye-opener. There’s often stuff which is a little…outlandish…in those ND comment sections, but when you are belittling the Holocuast then things have gone too far.

    As I’ve said on that thread, if you refrain from making quantitative claims, you can complain about people demanding quantified evidence. If you make a comparative to something which we do have a huge amount of quantified data on, you can’t then claim that you’re being oppressed by a foul modernist conspiracy if people ask you to back your shit up. You gave away that right when you started using statistics.

    Laurelin (who I’m forbidden to speak to, meaning it would be nice if she stopped replying to my comments…) seems to be suggesting that feminists are under no obligation to demonstrate claims which they’ve made, & anyone who enters a debate with the expectation that they do is part of the Patriarchal clique which roams the internet trying to crush anti-porn women (I’m still waiting for my cheque from M. Hardcore, personally). What really grates about that approach is the sheer self-righteousness of it. How dare people suggest that you should require evidence to support a claim?

    I think that it’s this kind of approach to logic which keeps that strain of feminism from getting anywhere. It makes for amazing blogfodder, but nothing which will ever appeal beyond its own rarefied circle.

  25. So, let me get this straight, Rachel….you want to defend Laurelin as a good girl who has passionate viewpoints who does not deserve the “trashing” that she apparently gets here….

    But as a means of saying that you are not like her and those other “passionate” radfems, you link to a blog by one of the more extreme GenderBorgian antiporn radfems, promoting the belief that men should be denied the right to keep and raise children; which features known people who have even promoted the idea that all men should be KILLED merely for having erect penises and liking to see women engage in mutual consensual sex.

    One of the main….shall we say, advocates, happens to have said openly that transgendered persons should not even be allowed in women’s restrooms because the mere fact of them being transgendered makes them suspectable to raping women. (luckynkl)

    Another one openly advocates that any woman who even relates with a man is not a true feminist, and that only “women-identified” women should represent the true feminism. (Mary Sunshine)

    And I need not even get started with Stormy and her obsession with birds and bees and blackmail.

    Yet you say that because you caught hell from all them for suggesting that men just might be more than slightly human and are capable of treating women with respect, we should trust your defending Laurelin as “like a daughter” when she screeches pretty much the same vile slander against not only men who like porn, but men who engage in sex with women consensually???

    With all due respect, Rachel…should we give you a cookie for that???

    Sorry, but caring and loving people are still capable of saying horrendous things and doing horrendous acts…and just as it is important to hold Kyle Payne accountable for his actions while he hides behind an antiporn, pro-feminist patina (which was the original point behind Witchy-Woo’s post to begin with before the GenderBorg crowd swooped in and transformed it into “Smack the Sex Pozzies #4,298”), it is equally important to hold those who call themselves “radical feminists” accountable for THEIR actions and words when they slander and lie about women doing porn and the men and women who enjoy watching them.

    I’m sure that Laruelin (and Nine Deuce, and Delphyne, and Mary Sunshine, and even Luckynkl) is a very passionate and caring human being who is only moitivated by love of her fellow women. That doesn’t change the fact that she openly defended someone who basically libeled women in porn as the equivalent of Nazi enablers…on top of all the other lies and slanders that have been thrown constantly.

    Pardon my anger, but as someone who has been a constant target of the GenderBorg for being a pro-sex, pro-porn male (and a feminist supporter and a Leftist male), and as someone who has seem pro-porn and pro-sex women and men verbally assaulted and slandered constantly by these people, you might understand where I’m coming from.

    Other than that, we can agree to disagree and respect each other’s opinions.


  26. rachel cervantes says:

    OK, I need to make a few things clear. My intent was never to defend Laurelin. She can do that herself. Please reread what I’ve said and you will see that I have noted several times that I will not fight her battles for her.

    What I DID do was state my feelings for her. The ONLY reason I did this was to be upfront about where I stand in terms of MY feelings for her. I honestly — HONESTLY — don’t care what most of you think. about Laurelin. Forgive my bluntness, but I doubt she is upset that you dislike her. She is an adult and doesn’t need me to mommy her (even thought I love her like a daughter). However, I live by a set of ethics. Those ethics demand that I be very frank about my allegiances. Would you really want someone coming in here who loved an enemy of yours and keep that secret? I wouldn’t. I would want to know where people stood. I am extending that courtesy to you.

    My comment about passionately committed people was not to apologize for her. It was more an explanation for ME as to how she got caught up in the Holocaust comparison. In retrospect, I see how it could have been mistaken for an excuse. It’s not. Unfortunately, I verbalized my own thought processes regarding understanding the incident. That I apologize for.

    Now, what really pisses me off, forgive my “French,” is that you have identified me as a radfem. I am not now, nor have I ever been identified as a radfem. To lump me with those radfems whom you quote galls me. At the time of that thread, I naively thought all feminists could/should/would be able to find common ground and discuss topics that matter to all women (all men, in fact) in a civil, rational manner. So, I may have been at a Klan meeting but I never wore a sheet and I came in hopes of introducing some sanity prior to the next lynching.

    For a while I did aggressively denounce the radfem fanaticism on my blog. I deleted most posts though because I’m tired. I do get tired of fighting.

    Oh, and while I love Wtichy also, I hate her politics. She knows this and hates mine, as well. (Yup, I’m a touch annoyed and I will cop to saying that out of pique. I’ll probably regret it.

    Now, speaking of lynchings…..this “necktie” y’all have “loaned” me is a touch snug…….

  27. rachel cervantes says:

    What kind of cookie? I like peanut butter cookies.

  28. TrinityVA says:

    Okay, everyone piling on Laurelin? You all know I completely cannot stand (what I’ve seen of) her (online.) What I’ve seen has been manipulative, nasty, cruel, and obnoxious. I am not at all surprised that people would be leery of someone defending her, and based on some of the things she’s said I can totally understand wanting to take someone who defends her to task. Hell, I did so myself upthread.

    But this has devolved into attacking Rachel as some sort of stand-in for attacking her. I… don’t think that’s warranted.

    I’ve been wrong before when people have called for civility, and even been played for a complete fool while someone played nice with me in one place and slagged off my friends horrifically somewhere else when I didn’t know this was even going on.

    I could be wrong. But I do not think Rachel is the enemy here. I think those of us who have grievances against Laurelin — and the list is long and the grivances, in my opinion, entirely warranted — should post about it on our own blogs and leave someone who happens to be her friend, whether for good reasons or for bad, alone.

  29. OK…so since I was the one who has been dropping the largest nuke, I will be the one to ratchet down the volume a bit.

    Rachel, I sincerely apologize; it was NOT my intention to put you in with the rest of the GenderBorg crew who I WAS cracking on (and I stand behind every single word of my verbiage against them directly); I do recognize that you did seperate yourself from their lunacy.

    My only point was that people like me who have been the target of folks like Laurelin and WhoHasNoName and Stormcloud have every right to be angry when they resort to such hyperbole as comparing porn to the Holocaust. Upon afterthough, I now regret aiming the bulk of my fire at you personally.

    Forgive me for my misdirected focus, and for using Ren’s bandwidth for my misfire.


  30. rachel cervantes says:

    Wow. I mean…wow!

    Trinity and James, thank you for your kind words.

    Anthony, I”m frankly speechless. I mean…most of my supposed “allies” (the radfems — all feminists are allies, I thought) never once showed that sort of generosity and kindness. I’m deeply impressed.

    And…what kind of cookie?

    Seriously, thank you.

    • James says:

      Basic priorities: there are so many idiots on the ‘net it makes no sense to attack people for things they don’t believe. There’s someone out there who actually does hold the views you’d rather your target did. If you want to feel self-righteous while you rant at someone then find a genuine moron-bigot, it really isn’t that hard. & it’s certainly a good deal more dignified than hollering furiously at someone who isn’t one on the basis that you wish they were so you could be a bit more self-righteous in your critique.

      How does white chocolate chip sound?

    • TrinityVA says:


      You’re welcome. I can be as factional as anyone in these particular ideology wars and I have no intention of apologizing for that (not that you said I should.) But I’d much rather save my rant-ergy for someone who proves herself to be on the actual other side than someone who professes to be neutral. 🙂

      If you’re handing out cookies: chocolate chip, please. No nuts.

      *offers you a brownie baked yesterday*

      • rachel cervantes says:

        White chocolate chip? Isn’t white chocolate a crime against nature?

        Brownie, please!

        Ok, I’ve always thought that if we close ourselves off to all who disagree we lose the chance to broaden our horizons, as it were. I’m grateful to those who point out errors in my logic. I’m a hard sell, but if I’m convinced I’ve erred, I do and will change my attitudes. If we attack (and I’m speaking in general here, including myself, rather than making accusations) we lose.

        Besides, when we do attack, those salvos delivered with civility are far more withering than all out rants. (Speaking generally here, remember.)

    • belledame222 says:

      While I’m not as invested in this as others here-I’m sort of extricating myself from the “pick a side” Eternal Battle, mostly because there are so many other Eternal Battles and I’ve gotten a bit cynical about my own predilection for Dwama (which is not to say that Dwama is never related to anything that matters, just, you know…there is also Dwama); I’ll just pipe up here and suggest that this?

      “I mean…most of my supposed “allies” (the radfems — all feminists are allies, I thought) never once showed that sort of generosity and kindness.”

      …is I think at least part of Ernest’s point.

      I mean, well, it’s none of my business, I guess, but personally? I guess I reserve my own “love like a daughter” for people who’re more mm demonstrative in their reciprocation. And always find it a tad bewildering when I see people going to the mat for people who don’t seem (at least from anything I can see, which admittedly I am sure is not the whole story) to return the favor.

      again, no skin off me either way, really; I loathe ww and that lot unreservedly but i’m perfectly happy to just forget about their existence these days. just my 2 cents, long as I’m here.

  31. Rachel..thanks for the kind words.

    Chocolate chip is my favorite, especially with plain M&Ms. 🙂


  32. rachel cervantes says:

    Back to the original point of the thread….making comparisons to the Holocaust disrespects the victims of the Holocaust and cheapens the cause being championed. Few events can parallel the horror of the Holocaust. Children were slaughtered in as much cold-blood as anyone else.

    PETA lost my support when they compared the treatment of pigs to the Holocaust. Completely and forever.

    I’ve been wondering if any events since then rival the horror of the Holocaust. Did Sadam Hussein’s extermination of the Kurds rival it on a smaller scale? Pol Pot? Maybe (on a smaller scale). The truth is, I don’t want to find out. I’d rather ostrich. It’s cowardly of me, perhaps, but the Holocaust was that horrific to me.

    • James says:

      I recall reading a Holocaust survivor who wrote into The Times when a column compared vegetarians to the Nazis (albeit highly flippantly & somewhat tongue in cheek). He said that his time in Aushwitz had caused him to become a vegetarian, effectively because dehumanization only works when only the human is considered worthwhile. He argued succinctly but very eloquently that once you start drawing lines within sentient life you’re committing an error. To say that one must be human in order to deserve life is to establish a dangerous category & make the justification of killing people a simple matter of filing. A meat-eater is by no means as bad as a national socialist, (although there was some overlap) but they are just as reliant upon bigoted logic to justify their behaviour.

      • James says:

        It’s also worthwhile bearing in mind that PETA are attention whores in only the way that a committed bunch of activists can be. Literally nothing matters to them more than generating column inches, least of all taste.

        I suppose that that’s reprehensible, but it also means they’re hardly going to be stopped by people defiantly…Giving them exactly what they want. It amazes me that the same old crowd get suckered into working themselves up time & time again, not realising that they’re puppets dancing upon a string. It’s such a faded ruse!

    • Ernest Greene says:

      I just hatdthis dicussion on another blog, ironically in the politics section of one devoted to BDSM .

      Elie Weisel argues that comparisons to The Holocaust of any kind (and Weisel has campaigned against genocide all over the world) can never be accurate, because they deny what he calls its “specificity.” There have been other huge crimes in history, but the creation of hell on earth by the Nazis was, as Weisel describes it, an ahsitorical outbreak of evil.

      It’s not really a matter of scale, which was part of the rumble I got into over there in kinkland when someone kept insisting that Stalin killed more people than Hitler. It’s more a matter of intent. The Nazis’ worship of evil, thinly disguised by their wacked-out ideology, defies our ability to process it in historical terms. It certainly had historical roots, as Daniel Goldhagen points out in Hitler’s Williing Executioners. Eliminationist anti-semitism had been around a long time before Mein Kampf.

      But the bizarre enthusiasm and inventiveness with which an advanced, civilized nation that had given us great works of culture, art and science over the centuries embraced it, and the rapid descent into unspeakable barabarism that resulted, defy explanation in any historical context.

      That is the real offense of flinging The Holocaust about as an object of comparison. As Ren says, only Nazis were Nazis. Bad as many others have been and still are, I think we can be grateful for that.

      • rachel cervantes says:

        On this, we agree.

        The “brain-drain” as a result of the Third Reich was amazing. The US alone got people that include not only Einstein, but in psychology alone include Lewin, Wertheimer, Koffka, Kohler, and Horney.

      • James says:

        I was reading an article on Goldhagen just earlier tonight:

        I don’t think that you’re right about it being beyond historical explanation. As far as I’m aware the First World War demonstrated quite thoroughly that those who get to use the fruits of the Enlightenment aren’t always the ones who agree with it’s principles. There was always an intellectual clique, & then the other sections of German society. In the 1930s the latter won out.

        Turns out, anti-semites in control of the state machinery can kill a lot of gypsies, gays, Jews & communists. It isn’t particularly inexplicable as far as I can tell. All it required was the will to segregate them by force, & a hard-core cadre willing to gas them in batches of hundreds at a time once that was over.

        As for comparing it to other things, well so far I’ve paraphrased a letter from a Holocaust survivor who did just that in the aforementioned way. I’m just doing my best to convey his testimony.

        • Ernest Greene says:


          I suggest you read Goldhagen’s chlling description of the mad, party-like atmosphere that prevailed in the camps before buying into an simplistic explanation of what went on there.

          It’s the “willing” part rather than the “able” part that defies easy understanding.

          • James says:

            Genocides are a good deal more common than you appear to imagine.

            • Ernest Greene says:

              You must have missed my last post.

              Genocides are common throughout history and anthropological evidence seems to suggest they predate it.

              I did my best to explain to you why The Holocaust is unique among genocidesl. Clearly, I didn’t get anywhere with that and I’m not going to invest in doing so any further.

              Read Goldhagen’s book. Seriously.

              Then come back, if you want, and tell me that what he describes is something more common than I appear to imagine.

              This isn’t about frequency or scale or anything that can be numerically quantified. Maybe that’s why you’re having such a hard time wrapping your head around it.

              • James says:

                No, you just seem to be waggling around the word “evil”, as if other genocides are somehow less so on any level other than the quantitative.

                I find it rather curious.

                • Ernest Greene says:

                  All genocides are evil, but they are not all the same.

                  There are aspects of The Holocaust that distinguish it from other genocides, and quantity is not the issue.

                  If you can’t see the qualitative difference, it’s not my job to educateyou and I really can’t be bothered to try.

                  I do not waggle around the word “evil.” I recognize that evil comes in differentforms.

                  If you don’t care to make those distinctions, that’s your business.

                  Done on this.

  33. Ernest Greene says:

    “So, I may have been at a Klan meeting but I never wore a sheet …”

    Yet another great line I might need to borrow someday, though I certainly hope not. I’m sure you’ll understand if that ever becomes necessary.

    And, though others may disagree, really Rachel, I hardly think you’ve gotten the rope here.

    I have no distance from these issues at which I can stand back and be unemotional. I think that’s not hard to understand. There is both personal and family history that makes objectivity, always illusive, simply uattainable in this kind of situation. I suspect that even some of my friends here forget that I am not observing this conflict. I am in the middle of it every day. Every day, I get to read some new horrible thing about myself, people I love, things I do. I get to deal with the realities of a very imperfect enterprise in which I play a particularly demanding role, and at the same time try to explain and defend that enterprise from those who seem to devote their every waking morment to trying to destroy it.

    But I have done what I could to make the best peace between us, and I will make one more offer. If your mind is not utterly made up on the matter of pornography, I will always answer a question about the realities of it as I have known them when asked in good faith. I will answer that question honestly, even if the answer doesn’t support my position and isn’t flattering to those with whom I associate. I will not hesitate to disavow those in my world who I think have behaved reprehensibly. I think Trinity in particular can testify to this.

    So I make this offer. Ask me what you like and you’ll get a straight answer. It may not be as tasty as a cookie, but it will be much harder to come by on a subject about which there is much passion and little knowledge.

    Again, my ability to be friends with the friends of those who hate me is not without limits, but across that divide, I still believe communication is possible.

  34. rachel cervantes says:

    Ernest you have been more than fair and civil with me. I have no quarrel with you. In fact, I’m rather impressed with your reasonable approach. You are clearly passionate about the topic and yet you did not launch into vile attacks. Ok, so at the moment, I have a fair amount of respect for you.

    Pornography, I don’t like it. I think it shows a view of women’s sexuality that is unreal and exploits women. Admittedly, some of my attitudes are colored by personal preferences. If a man ejaculated on my face I might be tempted to erm….bite, hard. But that’s me, and I’ve heard other women say they like it. (I suspect they’re nuts, but then again….working for the open mind here.) Also, I think there is enough research on the shaping of men’s attitudes to warrant a close look at porn and its effect. Plus, enough women involved in porn have described their own exploitation to cause concern.
    HOWEVER, I’m willing to listen to other positions. I’m just going to be very, very hard to convince. So… I’m going to have to think about what questions I want to ask. The first one that comes to mind regards the existence of women-centered “porn?” Ah, but, that is a mutually exclusive term. You see, *I* define “porn” as that which degrades, dehumanizes or otherwise belittles women (or men, for that matter). I dislike that which strips women (or men) of their humanity and turns them into vulvas, mouths, or penises with legs.
    So, maybe we need to start with defining the term.

    And, since I hesitate to hijack Ren’s thread and blog further, may I respectfully request we move this to my blog (or yours)?

    • Ernest Greene says:


      My objective is not to convince, but rather to inform. Much of what people think they know about pornography is based on misinformation or disinformation. I have no interest in changing anyone’s convictions, only in providing them with some counter to the vast body of ignorance that surrounds the whole subject. I don’t expect you to change your views one bit, but I do think, from what you’ve said before, that you would prefer to ground your opinions in reality rather than perception, and I live very close to the reality every day. That can produce a kind of blindness as well, for which account must be taken, but unsourced claims by outsiders have created an impression unrecognizable to those of us who have long and direct experience in this world.

      Our enemies claim that they’re the ones who have been silenced, but what I know is that our voices, the voices of those who make pornography, who shape it and are shaped by it, are heard the least. The arguments over it are carried on by self-styled “experts” over our heads while we desperately shout for attention above the racket.

      Here is where I can be found:

      You might want to read a few of my comments there before we head into this discussion, because I may have already addressed some of your concerns, and you may also find some new ones that you want to see addressed.

      I don’t think your blog is a good place for this, as I don’t care to be made a pinata by some of your friends, but I think you’ll find that reasonable discussion is pretty safe in our space.

      I’ll lead out by telling you that I think your definition is entirely subjective and has no basis in fact. We can start there, and I’ll go directly to open a thread so that we can continue, though other matters may intervene, as there are always issues that need immediate attention, but I’ll do my best to keep up with the conversation as time allows.

      Dinner needs to come first and it may be tomorrow before I get back on this, as I have another thread that needs my attention in a parallel universe.

      If I may, I’ll start with your first question, minus the judgmental preface. If we’re to converse on this, rather than bicker, starting out be telling me that you define what I make with pride and care in entirely negative terms is likely to result in me asking you more questions than you ask me.

      But we’ll see what’s possible. We always have the option of walking away.

      • rachel cervantes says:

        Actually, I’d prefer it not on my blog. I’m not anxious to mediate the firestorm. I’m old, I’m tired, I don’t need it.

        And, if I may be so bold…you’re still assuming things about me that may not (or may) be true. Let’s find out, ok? I’ll pop over. But I will say up front that if I feel attacked, I’ll not hesitate to walk away, as you put it. So, if I disappear it’s not because I’m disinterested or closed-minded. It’s because I just don’t have the energy. I’ve had enough shit heaped on me in blogland to make me skittish.

        • Ernest Greene says:

          Fair enough. I think that we both share a lot of bad experiences with this kind of thing and don’t care to repeat them.

          • Ernest Greene says:

            Oh yes … my first question to you:

            What is it that you think I assume about you?

            • rachel cervantes says:

              ‘If we’re to converse on this, rather than bicker, ”

              That suggests several preconceptions since I’ve not done that in our exchanges so far. Am I wrong?

              • Ernest Greene says:

                Yes and no. I don’t believe we have bickered, but there has been much bickering around the whole issue of pornography and I was addressing a general tendency for such discussions to degenerate into bickering when anyone starts out from a strong opinion, negative or positive, that has to be proved or disproved.

                I’m interested in sharing information, rather than arguing about the right and wrong of the thing.

                It might or might not surprise you or anyone else to know that, other than its broad right to exist, the only strongly held opinions I have regarding porn concern the way it’s made and the way in which it’s regarded by others.

                As for porn itself, I’d say it depends on the individual example.

                In short, I assume nothing about your views on this topic, other than that they are informed by a strongly-held negative opinion at the outset, and that could make for debate rather than discussion. I don’t want to go down that road.

                If you continue to feel exactly as you do about porn after we’ve had this exchange, it won’t trouble me at all. But it would trouble me if you formulated your view strictly on the basis of observations made by those who had no direct knowlege of the industry and how it works, and/or those unremittingly hostile to it, including those who had fleeting contact with it, found it not to their liking and have since made their camp among its enemies, finding that environment more credulous and less demanding.

                It seems you may have made an assumption about me as well. I wasn’t suggesting anything about our particular conversation thus far.

                However, I have chosen, and will change this if you prefer, to pose your question in its original form, complete with your stated opinion, so as not to open the door to misrepresentation.

                We are starting from opposing views and our readers over there deserve to know that.

    • “Also, I think there is enough research on the shaping of men’s attitudes to warrant a close look at porn and its effect.”

      Really? Because I’ve read quite a bit on the social science of porn effects studies, and its quite clear that there is no clear consensus that porn shapes men’s attitudes negatively at all. Neil Malmuth, who’s done quite a bit of work and meta-analysis in this area, fully admits there is no unambiguous effect of porn consumption independent of the viewers larger set of attitudes toward violence, sexuality, sexism, etc.

      Such studies are also often grossly misrepresented. Example: Dolf Zillman’s studies from back in the 1980s, studies I still see quoted by anti-porn feminists. What they don’t mention – Zillman was an arch-conservative who’s scored respondents negative attitudes toward the institution of marriage or positive attitudes toward gay rights as indicators of “callousness toward women”. I have seen anti-porn feminists cite Zillman’s studies to this day, yet I have never seen *one* anti-porn feminist take any note of what Zillman actually meant by “callousness toward women”.

      I could fully discuss and/or debate the social science and pornography and what it actually means until the cows come home, but in my experience, people who throw around such statistics are rarely interested in meaningful discussion about the issue. They tend to use statistics (from studies they typically haven’t even so much as glanced over in the original) as a way of beating opponents over the head, and typically respond by shutting down discussion when their “facts” are called into question.

      Another issue I have with the whole mentality behind the charge of porn “shaping men’s attitudes” negatively. This seems to presuppose a view where men are not seen so much as adult human beings, but rather potentially dangerous impressionable children or dogs, who need to be kept away from dangerous images that might upset our tiny minds and make us turn vicious. Needless to say, a view of men as fully human points to a different set of assumptions.

      • rachel cervantes says:

        Curious, you and I have tangled on this very question in the past. I don’t think there is much more you and I can say on the topic beyond what has been said.

        • Well, if I have time, I respond anytime I see the issue of porn and social effects studies brought up. I think its the weakest point in the whole anti-porn critique. Even if I’m unlikely to change the mind of the person quoting such stats, other people read these conversations too, and I don’t think such assertions should go unchallenged.

    • Roy Kay says:

      >*I* define “porn” as that which degrades, dehumanizes or otherwise belittles women (or men, for that matter).

      That pretty much defines the vast majority of cultural and political speech. Almost all advocacy demonizes the opposition and casts it as a likely conspiracy against the advocated group – sometimes truthfully! You could pretty much blow out the entirety of RadFem speech and publication, if you insisted on NOT degrading, dehumanizing and belittling men and a great number of women. That’s not a specific knock on RadFems of course. Ask something so mainstream as the Democrats and Republicans what they think of each other and you will find the same.

      But that’s most of the point of politics “the organization of hatreds”. That way almost invariably lies victory. It will never end. Porn at least has the good grace to divert people from violence to lust. In that way, it’s a positive influence on society.

  35. Ren says:

    Wow, I am so damn glad to see this got back round to civilized, with cookies and everything.

    Phwew. Cause I like Ernest and Rachel and AK and Trinity and all.

  36. rootietoot says:

    Ok, I’ve been gone and refuse to read 96 comments, so I’ll only comment on the post. When people compare ANYTHING to the Holocaust my dander gets up, then when they do it with no legitimate basis I get seriously pissed. She’s wrong, she lost any credibility, and can go suck eggs. so there

  37. “There are aspects of The Holocaust that distinguish it from other genocides, and quantity is not the issue.”

    True enough. Then again, I think there are other historical genocides that stand out for their own forms of evil. The Cambodian Genocide being a prime example, and along with the Nazi Holocaust, is among the most depressing indictments of just how low human nature can degenerate.

  38. Ernest Greene says:

    Comparing crimes against humanity is a pointless exercise. All are unique and uniquely awful. To those who don’t see the point about the specificity of The Holocaust, I’ve already found that the point isn’t worth arguing.

  39. rachel cervantes says:

    Well, I tried. No harm, no foul, I suppose. But at least I tried.

  40. Ernest Greene says:

    Me too.

  41. If anybody subscribed to this thread is interested in the latest cattiness du jour on offer from feminist “big bloggers” toward deluded porn chicks, have a look:

    Amanda Marcotte:
    Kate Harding:

  42. Xena says:

    Big time WTF?!

    Not even 400 years of Witch Trials–including 15th through 18th century persecutions of Jews and Muslims–come close to the slaughter that happened during the Holocaust. MAYBE if you count the Reformation AND all the wars in Europe during that time. There were DEFINITELY (without including the Witch Trials) that many–or more, perhaps a great deal more–victims of Imperialist massacres from the 16th through the 19th centuries. But THOSE are the only massacres that even touch the Holocaust numbers/ideology. And they happened over a span of centuries, not years.

    In terms of HORRIFFICALLY FUCKED ideologically, AND approaching Holocaust numbers, Rwanda/Congo. Even still, we’re talking about 16 years of genocide, not 6. Of course when you compare the methods of slaughter… nevermind. It’s just too awful, even for an anthro student.

    I get the impression from all of this that SheWhoHasNoClaim is very young and/or very gullible. She obviously knows shit about history.

    Iamcuriousblue, don’t even get me started on Amanda Marcotte. THE PRIVILEGE!! To be SO FUCKING pampered that she could indulge in this kind of blatant slut shaming for pay AND GET AWAY WITH IT!!

    Anyhoodle, I’m getting off this post before I give myself a freaking aneurysm. This stuff’s old news anyway. Plenty more–and worse–is going on in the here and now, I’m sure.

  43. Xena says:

    Oops. Paragraph 2 should read “Imperialist massacres of First Nations/indigenous populations…”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s