The Ideological Bubble of the
#MeToo Movement
Part 2 of 3:
The Liberal Media, Boycotts,
Defamation & Comebacks
Part 1 of 3: The Standard of Evidence & Statute of Limitations
Part 2 of 3: The Liberal Media, Boycotts, Defamation & Comebacks
Part 3 of 3: The Feminist Victim Mentality, Consent & Power Dynamics
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 22, 2018
Image copyright belongs to Getty Images/Johannes Spahn/EyeEm
The #MeToo movement was created in 2017 by liberal media outlets alleging sexual misconduct by men in positions of power. Today in 2018 it has transformed liberal media outlets, especially alternative ones (Vice, Huffington Post, and Buzzfeed) into subjective activist journalists. While subjective activist journalism definitely has a role to play in the future of media, if left unchecked, it can lead to ideological stories without fact checking. Such is the case of Sabrina Erdely.
In 2014, Erdely wrote an ideological piece for Rolling Stone magazine about a woman who claimed she was gang raped by a University of Virginia fraternity. [1] The entire country was in an uproar. The fraternity was vilified by all. Students across the country demanded full scale investigations of old cases at their universities. But in reality, the story was fake news. It was a false allegation that fell apart under simple fact checking. Rolling Stone retracted the story and paid $1.65 million to the fraternity. [1]
When the story first hit, people were outraged to the point of wanting to kill people in the fraternity. But all of that genuine passion was based on fake news spread by liberal media outlets. That is the power of ideology. While many liberals think that conservatives are lost in their ideologies, they fail to recognize that they are just as lost in their ideologies as everyone else. That is the gift/curse of consciousness. We can believe whatever we want to believe regardless of the facts so blindly that we're willing to die for them.
And this is where religious extremists have a point. While many religious moderates see extremists as a significant problem, extremists see them as disingenuous. If you're not willing to argue or die for your ideologies, then what’s the point of living? To procreate? To life a life of luxury? To just survive?
Like most people I abhor extremism for any ideology. I'm not a religious person nor am I an atheist or agnostic. But I understand why extremists choose such a path. You may think that they're lost in a sea of junk ideologies. But I can guarantee they feel their actions are more genuine than all of the moderates or unbelievers. That is the power of ideology.
And just so you know, the Nazis displayed such blind ideology from the rise of eugenics created by Western-European scientists. No group is clean. All ideological groups have baggage. Whether it's Christians, Catholics, atheists, Muslims, Western-European scientists, new age believers, scientologists, Silicon Valley...every group has baggage. Not understanding that baggage can lead to more extremism and new ideologies on steroids.
My apologies for getting off topic. Where were we? Ah yes, the #MeToo movement blinded by their ideology to take down all men in positions of power over the slightest transgression.
Another case that was blinded by ideology occurred in Canada, the Jian Ghomeshi scandal. All liberal media outlets in Canada and liberal ones across the world spread Ghomeshi's sexual misconduct allegations for months. Media outlets crossed the line of reporting and descended into subjective activist journalism.
I have to protect the women because no one else will protect them.
Everyone hunkered down and enjoyed hating Ghomeshi. And it's an interesting phenomenon within itself. To actually enjoy hating a person/group, even if that hatred is based on fake news or false allegations. It's fascinating.
When Ghomeshi was found not guilty of most charges and signed a peace bond for the last charge, [2] instead of looking within and reflecting on their errors, liberal media outlets lashed out at the justice system.
It's a broken system. There's no justice for women.
And sadly, liberal media outlets are continuing with that false hatred. In 2018 they shamed him and the New York Review of Books because of a first person essay by Ghomeshi. [3] [4] [5]
It was an honest piece filled with his frustrations of his future, suicide, death threats, and regrets of how he treated women in the past (like all men have been doing). But the #MeToo movement and his accusers didn't look too kindly on it. They claimed that he was given a free pass.
The content wasn't challenged enough. They didn't take the victims side into account.
Sorry, but Ghomeshi gets a pass because the accusers lost in court when Ghomeshi was acquitted of criminal charges. That's it. Feminists, the accusers, and the #MeToo movement don't have a right to destroy someone's future career after they were acquitted of criminal charges.
Obviously, the accusers could have pushed a civil lawsuit with the low standard of evidence of more likely than not. But they didn't. Why not? Aside from the stress and financial drain, they would most likely lose. Their credibility was blown apart in the criminal trial. It wouldn't have fared any better in a civil trial.
You can "believe the women" all you want. But if the accuser is acquitted, it’s a done deal. Wipe the tears away and move on. Blind ideology vs. the justice system.
But that's not enough for feminists and liberal media outlets. No, they just see an accuser who got away and wants to make a comeback. Ghomeshi was acquitted in 2016. It's now late 2018. Two years in obscurity is not enough for the #MeToo movement. No, they want blood. And if they can't get it, they'll do everything they can to damage the future career of their alleged abusers.
As a conspiracy theorist, I know of conspiracy theorists that go over the edge. It's not pretty by any means. But liberal media outlets and the feminist movement have now gone over the edge with the #MeToo movement. Women and men in the #MeToo movement are completely lost in their extreme ideologies. What were once good intentions is now a machine filled with hatred towards all men in positions of power, with liberal bots salivating at every allegation they find/create.
The editor (Ian Buruma) who approved the Ghomeshi essay was a seasoned editor. But that meant nothing to the executives at the New York Review of Books and the Columbia University Press who pressured him to resign due to a potential advertising boycott. [6] And that's how feminists, liberal media outlets and the #MeToo movement move forward. If they can't win in court, they push it into the domain of boycotting cultural/societal institutions that support any of the men.
To be fair, it's understandable. Many seasoned journalists know that the claims won't hold up in court so they have to destroy the credibility of the accused men in the public domain (print and online journalism). Hence the liberal boycott of people, brands, and entire platforms if they help the supposed accused men make money. That's a significant escalation from reporting sexual misconduct and pushing the justice system to take action.
Like the Ghomeshi case, many liberals, feminists, liberal media outlets and the #MeToo movement believe that Aziz Ansari, Louis CK, and Kevin Spacey should never be allowed to have careers in the future. I don't support that blacklisting for the simple reason that none of them have any criminal charges pending, let alone convictions.
Personally, I don't support any public shaming or boycotts against an alleged accused man. The minimum threshold would be criminal charges. But even that isn't enough. Charges have been made against alleged abusers and then dropped or like Ghomeshi, they've been tried in court and the case fell apart. Until a person is convicted (criminally), then I'll support a public shaming of a person and stripping them of all their accolades (relative to their crimes of course).
And this reaction is new for me. Prior to the #MeToo movement, I would have supported public shaming right after the allegations hit the online press. Those days are gone. While Democrats expect major wins in the 2018 midterm election due to the #MeToo movement, I would urge caution. The collective anger of women is quite strong, but why do you think patriarchy has survived for thousands of years?
Even with liberals in power in the past and today, patriarchy is still thriving. Why do think that's the case? Because men are if nothing, resilient. We dig in our heels and move into trench warfare. Social warfare, emotional warfare, political warfare...it doesn't matter. Anything that women throw at men will result in long nights devising ways to crush women, socially, politically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. And this is known to all men who have an ounce of common sense and decent observation skills.
Even though I'm glad I was born male and would never want to be a woman, at the current level of development, men are truly the scum of the Earth. I still HOPE for a better future for men, but I'll be honest, I can't see it. And I'm not talking about my own generation. I'm talking about future generations that I will never be part of. Based on my observations of humanity at the current level of development, (with many unknown variables influencing humanity), I don't see men moving past our cage of patriarchy and sexism...ever.
My apologies if such words cause a cold shiver down your spine. You can take some comfort in the fact that my writing scares me just as much. As all journalists know, the pen is quite capable of toppling governments and creating entire movements, for good or for evil.
But that's a bit too heavy. Let's cool down a bit.
In regards to civil lawsuits for any issue, I don't support public shaming. Why not? Because the standard for evidence is garbage. More likely than not? If you think that's a good standard for justice you're cracked in the head. The preponderance of the evidence is a garbage standard that should be tossed in the bin to compliment all of the dead retail stores. To our beloved Sears executives, don't let the door hit your ass on the way into bankruptcy. Good riddance to your high prices.
To the New York Reviews of Books, you can go f*ck yourselves. To the people who pressured the New York Reviews of Books, you can go f*ck yourselves as well. To the people who believe in public shaming without due process, you can definitely go f*ck yourselves.
Just to be clear, I still hope that I won't have to say this for Weinstein's accusers.
It's odd that we enjoy being angry at someone/something and look forward to actions that justify our feelings. The gift and curse of consciousness.
The Weinstein case is the first and most significant case for the MeToo movement. But as of October 22, 2018, the case against Weinstein is starting to crumble. [7] If the entire case crumbles I will most likely have very little respect for the MeToo movement. Yes, sexism is very real and problematic throughout the world, but feminism, the victim mentality, and the #MeToo movement are not the answers.
While the #MeToo movement has done some great work in exposing sexual misconduct, the question of what standard of evidence is being used is still debatable. While many employers/directors are firing such employees (which is their right), doing so under a weak standard of evidence (he said vs. she said or more likely than not) is highly problematic.
While liberal media outlets tout the victory of Bill Cosby's conviction in 2018, that's a rare win for the #MeToo movement. Of all the hundreds of women alleging Cosby’s sexual misconduct, he was only convicted for actions toward one woman (Andrea Constand). Why? Mainly because he settled a past civil lawsuit against her. That was the record of guilt that led to his downfall (aside from the jury who were undoubtedly influenced by the MeToo movement).
But in reality, most of the high profile allegations are just a narrative, a he said vs. she said story. While they may be true, it's impossible to be sure. Hence, the civil lawsuit process of the preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). Basically, it's a guess leaning to one side. But that's not an objective rational system of justice. That's ideological justice.
Aside from Harvey Weinstein, most high profile men accused of sexual misconduct have NOT been charged criminally. As of October 22, 2018, that includes Kevin Spacey, Steven Seagal, Les Moonves, Jeff Fager, Jeffrey Tabor, Roy Price, Matt Lauer, Bill O’Reilly, Roger Ailes, Bryan Singer, Brett Ratner and more.
Why not? Because most of these allegations wouldn't hold any water in the criminal court system. And liberal media outlets know this. This is why they shout the allegations in public hoping to sway the public and damage the credibility of the accused. That's not a rational objective and fair media. That's media outlets on steroids, using clickbait/yellow journalism to fill the gap of traditional advertising revenue.
And liberal media outlets, desperate for funding in the cannibal world of media in 2018 are weaponizing allegations to the maximum extent with their yellow sensationalist journalism. Media executives know what sells subscriptions. And sexual scandals definitely sell subscriptions. Sensational media reporting is just another characteristic of the #MeToo movement.
If WikiLeaks timed their release of documents to inflict the maximum damage against Hilary Clinton, then liberal media outlets/liberal women are timing the release of allegations to inflict the maximum amount of damage on the accused days or weeks before a crucial vote/election:
Clarence Thomas (US) – failed to do any significant damage
Donald Trump (US) – failed to do any significant damage
Brett Kavanaugh (US) – failed to do any significant damage
Roy Moore (US) – successful in doing significant damage
Contrary to what you may think, there are no criminal charges for sexual misconduct against any of these people as of October 22, 2018. But feminists, liberal media outlets, and the #MeToo movement want you to believe that they’re guilty without due process. That's ideological reporting.
But the civil lawsuits.
Yes, there are civil lawsuits for some of the above men, and that's the issue. Under the toughest standard of evidence, the allegations are not strong enough for criminal charges. But under a lower standard (the preponderance of the evidence) it's workable. That should give you a clue that this isn't about facts. It's about standards of evidence, beliefs, and public perception.
It's unfair and unethical to demonize a person when the standard of beyond reasonable doubt failed to convict them. But that won't stop feminists, liberal media outlets and the #MeToo movement.
Oddly enough, the defamation suit against President Trump filed by Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford) was thrown out by the courts. [8] Sadly, trump can't help but rub salt into the wound by calling her a horseface. [8] While I support most of Trump's policies, his character is horrid and shameful. For the love of god just let Mike Pence run for election in 2020 and get 8 years in office.
And speaking of defamation lawsuits, one of the few options left for men who feel wrongly accused is to file civil lawsuits against their accuser and/or media outlet. Men from Canada, the US, India and Austria are filing defamation lawsuits against their accusers/media outlets. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
Liberal activist Chelsea Handler even called Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas a sexual predator. [15] That's how crazy liberals have become today. They'll believe any allegation, no matter how farfetched, no matter how little evidence exists because devotion to the #MeToo cult means a blind acceptance of all allegations. They believe that the Supreme Court no longer has any credibility because it has Thomas and Kavanaugh on it. That's how cracked in the mind liberals, feminists, and the #MeToo movement is.
And just so you know, calling a Supreme Court justice a sexual predator is grounds for defamation.
I know how it looks to the public. Defamation lawsuits are not pretty pictures. But there's very little recourse for men. The allegations are based on he said vs. she said in the media. Taking it to the level of a civil lawsuit creates a standard for evidence (even if it's a weak standard). Hence, I understand why men feel they need to file defamation lawsuits.
But the MeToo movement will tolerate no dissention in the ranks. Their desire to believe the women only obscures the justice system. It's still unbelievable that 2400 law professors opposed Kavanaugh's confirmation. [16] And these are lawyers. They understand (or should understand) standards of evidence in a court of law. But when it's liberals vs. conservatives or Democrats vs. Republicans, ideology has a way of swaying one’s core beliefs.
Liberal activists even try to blackmail Senator Susan Collins into voting against Kavanaugh's confirmation. [17] To be fair to liberals, the Koch brothers do the same thing for Republican senators in office.
But the way feminists, liberal media outlets, and the #MeToo movement demonized Kavanaugh for 30 year old allegations that would fail to meet the low standard for civil cases...is powerfully disturbing. It's because of the Kavanaugh and Ghomeshi demonization that I've lost a good deal of respect for the #MeToo movement.
And it's not just me. Conservative men and women in the US noticed the vitriol level of demonization against Kavanaugh. It remains to be seen how much of an impact that will have in the 2018 US midterm elections. Personally, I think it will give Republicans a strong push in keeping one or both houses. I could be wrong of course. Who knows, Americans may wake up to socialism if progressives (formerly neo-liberals) get their way.
Another interesting case is that of Cenk Uygur, the progressive/socialist activist and the founder of the Young Turks podcast. In the early 2000s he wrote blogs claiming that women were "genetically flawed" and viewed women as sexual objects to be used and discarded. [18]
Uygur claims this was during his "conservative years." Sorry, but those blogs are exactly the way liberal men talk about women in the past and present. And Uygur acts as if he was a child back in the day. He was in his 30s when writing those blog posts. But major liberal media outlets turn a blind eye by not reporting on it.
It's a non-story. No need to look further. Move along.
And that's one method of shaping the story. By not looking deeper for liberals who see women as nothing more than sex objects, but crucifying conservative men that criticize feminism and the #MeToo movement. That’s not objective reporting. That's ideological reporting.
Like all ideological groups there are many in them that can't debate an issue when challenged. They can only debate it in an echo chamber where they won't be challenged. And this is what the #MeToo movement has become today, an echo chamber for women to air their grievances against the patriarchy.
At first, the #MeToo movement asked men for their input because their silence was defeaning.
We need men to speak up and be part of the debate.
But when these men did speak up, they paid homage to the movement but many were critical of it. The #MeToo movement and feminists didn't like that.
Men need to stay silent and listen to women.
Again, that goes back to the unchallenged theory. The arguments don't hold water when strongly challenged. And when a feminist is backed into the wall by male criticism, she does what most feminists do. They claim that men are attacking them, demonize the man, and try to destroy his character through boycotts because he apparently hates women. This is what the echo chamber has become without men criticizing the #MeToo movement. While many non-feminist women criticize the movement, the #MeToo movement pretends that such people are brainwashed by male patriarchy.
There are many ways that liberal media outlets shape the conversation around allegations against men in power. Some media outlets used the title "doctor Dr." for Christine Ford. But she's not a medical doctor. She’s a researcher. Putting the term "Dr." before her name was intentional. It was designed to give her claims more validity in the eyes of the global public. And that’s disingenuous.
But that's a small issue. A larger one is the comparison to the case of Hollywood director James Gunn. In Gunn's case he writes multiple tweets 8-9 years ago supporting pedophilia. [19] Liberal media outlets give him a pass. They phrase the issue as "decades old" tweets, as if Gunn wasn't an adult 8-9 years ago. But for Kavanaugh's case, 30 year old claims apparently have merit and require a complete investigation. Though the two cases are different, the way it's framed by liberal media outlets is quite interesting.
Liberal media outlets claim that society has conditioned men and women to do/act like XYZ. Yes and no. Yes, the conditioning always exists, but no because a person is the final judge of what does and doesn't go into their mind. If they choose to accept the current conditioning, that's a choice being made. Some may choose to accept the current conditioning without question, while others may question it.
Though the end result (enacting the dominant conditioning) may be the same. The act of questioning vs. not questioning the conditioning makes the two actions completely different. The separate ideologies/reasons why changes the situation despite the end result looking the same.
For those who wish to reform/revolutionize the world should understand the reasons why various groups do what they do. Not understanding the reasons will most likely end in failure, or worse, create an even worse system than what we have today. And yes, you may think that things are bad in Western-European countries today. But it can get so much worse if people are not careful with their ideological intentions and actions.
References:
[1] Gorman, Steve. Rolling Stone to pay Virginia fraternity $1.65 million in defamation suit, Reuters. June 13, 2017.
[2] Fraser, Laura. Jian Ghomeshi trial: Former CBC radio host signs peace bond, Crown drops sex assault charge. CBC News. May 11, 2016.
[3] Ghomeshi, Jian. Reflections from a Hashtag. New York Review of Books. September 14, 2018.
[4] Jian Ghomeshi's essay in The New York Review of Books draws fire. Canadian Press. September 14, 2018.
[5] New York Review of Books admits to 'failures' with Jian Ghomeshi essay. Canadian Press. September 25, 2018.
[6] Friedersdorf, Conor. The Journalistic Implications of Ian Buruma's Resignation. Atlantic. September 25, 2018.
[7] Detective allegedly urged Weinstein accuser to delete material from phone. Associated Press. October 17, 2018.
[8] Walters, Joanna. Trump calls Stormy Daniels 'Horseface' and threatens more legal action. Guardian. October 16, 2018.
[9] Traar, Christina, #MeToo setback: Austrian politician convicted of libel for accusing man of sexual harassment on Facebook. USA Today. October 13, 2018.
[10] CTV serves statement of defence to Patrick Brown in defamation lawsuit. Canadian Press. July 7, 2018.
[11] Former CTV reporter suing broadcaster, alleged attacker for $1M. CBC News. September 21, 2018.
[12] Safi, Michael. Former IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri to stand trial on sexual harassment charges. Gaurdian. September 15, 2018.
[13] MJ Akbar: India minister sues #MeToo accuser. BBC News. October 15, 2018.
[14] Astor, Maggie. Roy Moore Sues 4 Women, Claiming Defamation and Conspiracy. New York Times. April 30, 2018.
[15] Flood, Brian. Chelsea Handler says Clarence Thomas is 'sexual predator,' mocks GOP. Fox News. September 20, 2018.
[16] Svrluga, Susan. 'Unfathomable': More than 2,400 law professors sign letter opposing Kavanaugh's confirmation. Washington Post. October 4, 2018.
[17] Gajanan, Mahita. Activists Raise Over $1 Million to Pressure Sen. Susan Collins to Oppose Brett Kavanaugh. Time. September 12, 2018.
[18] Levine, Jon. 'Young Turks' Founder Cenk Uygur Apologizes for 'Ugly,' 'Insensitive' Old Blog Posts (Exclusive). Wrap. December 21, 2017.
[19] Bishop, Bryan. Writer-director James Gunn fired from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 over offensive tweets. Verge. July 20, 2018.