• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Store
  • Videos
  • Breaking News
  • Articles
  • Contact

ET Williams

The Doctor of Common Sense

Blog

12/05/2017 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

GTFO! White Men Are Protected Class on Facebook????

Feminazis lost one. Shocking.

Women had accounts banned from Facebook for responding to male trolls with sentences like ‘men are trash,’ in part because the company classifies white men as a protected group.

When comic Marcia Belsky sarcastically replied “men are scum” to a friend’s Facebook post back in October, she never anticipated being banned from the platform for 30 days.

That was exactly what happened.

Belsky was shocked at the severity of the punishment considering her relatively innocuous comment, and immediately spoke to her fellow female friends about the ordeal. They could relate.

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, countless women have taken to Facebook to express their frustration and disappointment with men and have been promptly shut down or silenced, banned from the platform for periods ranging from one to seven days.

Women have posted things as bland as “men ain’t shit,” “all men are ugly,” and even “all men are allegedly ugly” and had their posts removed. They’ve been locked out of their accounts for suggesting that, since “all men are ugly,” country music star Blake Shelton “winning the sexiest man isn’t a triumph.”

“I personally posted men are scum in November and I received a seven-day ban. It’s still ongoing. Two days and 23 hours left,” said comedian Alison Klemp.

Kayla Avery, a comedian in Boston, said she’s been banned close to 10 times by Facebook and is serving out the end of her third 30-day ban.

One of the first times she got banned was when her page was flooded with male trolls calling her derogatory and sexist terms. Avery posted “men continue to be the worst” she said, because she said she “felt helpless to stop their hate.”

“There was one guy who was threatening to find my house and beat me up,” she said. “I got banned before I could even successfully report it.”

In late November, after the issue was raised in a private Facebook group of nearly 500 female comedians, women pledged to post some variation of “men are scum” to Facebook on Nov. 24 in order to stage a protest. Nearly every women who carried out the pledge was banned.

“It wasn’t the best protest because it clearly didn’t work,” said Klemp. Avery said she is still suffering the consequences after posting “men are trash” on that day.

On Nov. 28 a Twitter thread by comedian Rae Sanni documenting her experience of being banned by Facebook went viral and countless other women began to share their stories.

The problem has become so widespread that Avery even created a website to document these women’s tales. The site, FacebookJailed.com, shares women’s experiences of being punished by Facebook for making benign comments about men or standing up to trolls, sometimes juxtaposed with Facebook’s inaction against men who have hurled insults or racial slurs back.

“Comedian and writer Rae Sanni has been targeted by nazi trolls who hurled dozens of threatening and violent messages and comments at her for days,” a recent post reads. “Rae Sanni was banned by Facebook while her abusers are free to say sh*t like this without being in violation of community standards.”

The post features screenshots provided by Sanni where Facebook does not deem comments calling her the N-word hate speech.

 When reached for comment a Facebook spokesperson said that the company is working hard to remedy any issues related to harassment on the platform and stipulated that all posts that violate community standards are removed.

When asked why a statement such as “men are scum” would violate community standards, a Facebook spokesperson said that the statement was an attack and hate speech toward a protected group and so it would rightfully be taken down.

As ProPublica revealed in an investigation in June, white men are listed as a protected group by the platform.

A Facebook spokesperson clarified that this is because all genders, races, and religions are all protected characteristics under Facebook’s current policy. However, it’s clear that even with 7,000 Facebook content moderators, things slip through the cracks.

Female comedians have speculated that it’s internalized misogyny on the behalf of Facebook’s content moderation team that leads to punishment such as banning to be doled out unequally. Several have tried posting “women are scum,” had their friends report the posts, and subsequently suffered zero consequences.

While this explanation is tidy, it’s almost certainly false. Facebook employees receive extensive training around specific issues and their work is regularly reviewed to account for any personal biases.

But the system is far from perfect.

One issue with the way Facebook moderators currently review posts is that many “problematic” posts are viewed individually, without context because of privacy concerns. Facebook moderators also aren’t able to view personal or demographic information about the original poster. This means that they sometimes don’t know whether a piece of content was posted by a black queer woman or a white straight male.

It also means the moderators don’t know whether the poster has a history of spreading messages related to white supremacy, or has participated in targeted harassment campaigns against specific groups before.

With hate speech in particular, the person writing the post is just as relevant as what is being said. The fact that Facebook’s moderators aren’t always given this information means that sometimes benign statements can be misinterpreted, and vice versa.

Context also matters. One reason female comics often seem to run afoul of Facebook’s guidelines is that the company’s content moderators fail to recognize the humor in their posts. Popular tropes such as “ban men” are interpreted literally under Facebook’s current set of community standards, and women suffer the consequences for attempting to express themselves.

In the past, ironic misandry has been a popular way for women to deal with living in a world where they’re exposed to frequent abuse at the hands of powerful men. Yet, if a woman takes to Facebook to vent about how she “wants to imprison men and milk them for their male tears,” she could quickly lose access to her account.

Trolls know this. “The ironic thing about Literal Nazis is that they have weaponized taking things literally,” BuzzFeed writer Katie Notopoulos wrote recently.

Feigning outrage at statements that were clearly not written to be interpreted that way has become a favored tactic of the alt-right, Gamergate, and movements known for their coordinated harassment efforts. When moderators can’t make this distinction they punish innocent parties and embolden trolls.

 “There was one guy who was threatening to find my house and beat me up. I got banned before I could even successfully report it.”
— Kayla Avery

Meanwhile, outright false and defamatory information—like Pizzagate communities accusing private citizens of pedophilia because of their political beliefs—still thrive on the service.

Facebook’s spokesperson stressed that it was working on a fix to this and the company plans to look at ways to eventually apply its policies in a more granular way. In the future it hopes to take into account the history of oppression with different genders and ethnicities, etc. when reviewing posts, but stressed that Facebook is a global platform.

 In the meantime, two women who are both not in the comedy world but have had their content flagged or removed said the bans have made them feel much less comfortable posting on Facebook about sensitive topics like the #MeToo movement.

Avery said that posting on Facebook, no matter what issue, can feel like walking across a minefield.

“I get cold feet to post stuff, especially if I try to share something that’s going on that I want to bring attention to. because I feel like I’m going to get in trouble somehow,” she said. “Sharing anything is nerve racking. It’s like, ‘What’s ok? What’s not ok? What’s going to cross the line this time?’ It makes me feel crazy, like Facebook is gaslighting us.”

Heather Fink, also a female comedian, said the problem has also begun to spread to Instagram. She has had several posts there removed where she said she was simply talking about her Facebook ban and now no longer trusts the platform to ensure her voice is heard.

The #MeToo movement has been perpetuated via social media thanks to the open nature of most platforms and the ability for women to speak out publicly in their own words. If Facebook’s community guidelines are being enforced irregularly, whether intentional or not, women say it stifles their ability to speak truth to power and share their stories.

 “Facebook is absolutely silencing women.”
— Heather Fink

“Social media is how we communicate. Preventing women from expressing themselves like this is an intimidation tactic,” said Meredith, a social-media strategist who has had several of her friends banned.

“This feels like a deliberate and systematic act—and whether it was or it wasn’t, it needs to be addressed publicly by Facebook and Instagram, especially as we’ve seen plenty of examples of true, dangerous hate speech remaining on these platforms even after being reported.”

Avery said Facebook’s banning policy itself ties into the #MeToo movement.

“How else can we have a genuine reaction to what’s going on?” Avery said. “Facebook is absolutely silencing women.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/women-are-getting-banned-from-facebook-for-calling-men-scum

Filed Under: Anti-White, Crazy Stories, Feminism, Funny, Racism Tagged With: #Metoo, Alison Klemp, anti-white, Blake Shelton, facebook, Facebook Is Banning Women for Calling Men ‘Scum’, facebook jail, GTFO! White Men Are Protected Class on Facebook????, ironic misandry, Kayla Avery, Protected Group

12/05/2017 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

College Newspaper Writer Called White DNA ‘An Abomination’

College Paper Fires Writer Who Called White DNA ‘An Abomination’

A college paper fired a writer who called the DNA of white people “an abomination,” according to a Monday report.

Texas State University student journalist Rudy Martinez said that “white death will mean liberation for all” in the November column and The University Star fired him after previously retracting and apologizing for the column, reported The College Fix.

“The author of this column has jeopardized the atmosphere of inclusivity at this university and will no longer be published in The University Star,” read a correction from the paper’s editorial board.

Along with constructive criticism, the editorial board said that the paper has received death threats and “hate mail,” as well as threats to defund The University Star.

Conservative students at Texas State have started a petition to defund the publication; it has over 1,500 signatures at the time of publication.

“Ontologically speaking, white death will mean liberation for all,” said Martinez in his now-retracted column. “Accept this death as the first step toward defining yourself as something other than the oppressor. Until then, remember this: I hate you because you shouldn’t exist. You are both the dominant apparatus on the planet and the void in which all other cultures, upon meeting you, die.”

“The column’s central theme was abhorrent and is contrary to the core values of inclusion and unity that our Bobcat students, faculty, and staff hold dear,” said Denise M. Trauth, president of Texas State.

The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to Martinez for comment, but received none in time for press.

College Paper Fires Writer Who Called White DNA ‘An Abomination’

Filed Under: Anti-White, Racism Tagged With: anti-white, College Newspaper Writer Called White DNA 'An Abomination', College Paper Fires Writer Who Called White DNA ‘An Abomination’, Denise M. Trauth, Department of Education, hate, Racism, Rudy Martinez, Texas, Texas State University, The College Fix, The University Star

12/05/2017 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

What is the FBI Hiding? GOP To Create Contempt Resolution for FBI and DOJ Officials

Too much corruption damit!

GOP preps contempt resolution for top FBI, DOJ officials after missed Monday deadline

The House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday will begin writing a resolution holding top FBI officials in contempt of Congress after the agency missed a Monday deadline to turn over key evidence the committee has been seeking for months.

“We are moving forward with the contempt resolution,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told the Washington Examiner Tuesday morning. He added that the panel is still negotiating with FBI and Justice Department officials to get the requested documents.

Nunes has accused the FBI and Department of Justice of a “months-long pattern … of stonewalling and obstructing this committee’s oversight work.”

Those accusations boiled over during the weekend, after stories were leaked to the New York Times and Washington Post saying that FBI agent Peter Strzok, a key investigator in the Trump-Russian probe, was removed from the Russia probe after exchanging text messages critical of Trump to another FBI agent he was involved with romantically. Republicans had been seeking information about why he was removed, but were never told anything by FBI or Justice Department directly.

Nunes had also been seeking information about the FBI and Justice Department’s use of the Steele dossier, which contains damning but unverified information about President Trump.

But the Strzok leak was the last straw, and Nunes announced Saturday he has ordered committee staff to begin drafting a contempt of Congress citation for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and for FBI Director Christopher Wray unless they complied with the panels’ requests for information by the close of business on Monday.

After the story broke, Nunes said, the FBI and Justice Department agreed to make some of the witnesses available, but are still withholding many documents and other evidence the Intelligence panel is seeking, an aide said.

Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said the department has given the panel hundreds of pages of classified documents and multiple briefings, and has now allowed Strzok and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to meet with the panel.

While committee aides will start writing the contempt resolution Tuesday, Nunes has not set a date for the panel to consider the contempt charges.

If approved by the committee, the resolutions of contempt would be sent to the House floor for consideration, but only if Speaker Paul Ryan chooses to bring them up. One GOP source said Ryan supports the contempt resolution.

Contempt of Congress resolutions approved by the House are referred to the the Justice Department, but they are relatively rare.

The House voted in 2012 to hold then U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for withholding documents sought by the House Oversight Committee on the DOJ’s “Fast and Furious” operation that resulted in thousands of U.S. guns ending up in the hands of Mexican drug dealers.

These resolutions also are not always effective. For example, the Justice Department elected not to prosecute Holder over the contempt charge.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-preps-contempt-resolution-for-top-fbi-doj-officials-after-missed-monday-deadline/article/2642550

Filed Under: Congress, Corruption, DOJ, Drain The Swamp!, FBI, FBI Corruption, Federal Government, Government Corruption, Republicans Tagged With: Andrew McCabe, Christopher Wray, Congress News, Devin Nunes, DOJ officials after missed Monday deadline, fbi, GOP preps contempt resolution for top FBI, House Intelligence Committee, Justice Department, Rod Rosenstein, Susan Ferrechio

12/05/2017 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Supreme Court Hears Gay Wedding Cake Case

No one can change the Word of God.

Washington (CNN) The Supreme Court will take up one of the most momentous cases of the term on Tuesday as it considers arguments from a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex couple’s marriage because he believes that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman.

The case pits the religious liberty claims of Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop, against the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who say Phillips’ actions amount to discrimination.
Some spectators and place holders began waiting in line last Friday to secure one of the rare seats open to the public in the majestic court room.
LGBT rights advocates fear that if the Supreme Court ultimately sides with Phillips, it will diminish its landmark opinion from two years ago that cleared the way for same-sex marriage nationwide. Both sides agree that a ruling in favor of Phillips would also open the door to claims from others who engage in professional services — florists, for example — to claim that their religious liberty exempts them from public accommodation laws applicable to other businesses.
It was back in 1993 that Phillips opened the bakery, knowing at the outset that there would be certain cakes he would decline to make in order to abide by his religious beliefs. “I didn’t want to use my artistic talents to create something that went against my Christian faith,” he said in an interview, noting that he has also declined to make cakes to celebrate Halloween.
Flash forward to 2012, when same-sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado, but two men walked into the bakery.
“The conversation was fairly short,” Philips remembered. “I went over and greeted them. We sat down at the desk where I had my wedding books open.”
The men told Phillips they wanted a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state. Phillips said he knew right away that he couldn’t create the product they were looking for without violating his faith.
“The Bible says, ‘In the beginning there was male and female,'” Phillips said. He offered to make any other baked goods for the men.
“At which point they both stormed out and left,” he said.
People line up to hear religious liberty case
The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in their favor, citing a state anti-discrimination law. Phillips took his case to the Colorado Court of Appeals, arguing that requiring him to provide a wedding cake for the couple violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. The court held that the state anti-discrimination law was neutral and generally applicable and did not compel Masterpiece to “support or endorse any particular religious view.” It simply prohibited Phillips from discriminating against potential customers on account of their sexual orientation.
Phillips then took his case to the Supreme Court and the justices agreed to take it up after mulling it for several weeks.
In court papers, Kristen K. Waggoner, a lawyer from the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom who is representing Phillips, argued that the First Amendment guarantees him the right to decline to make wedding cakes that celebrate marriages that are in conflict with his religious beliefs. She said that Phillips is protected by two parts of the First Amendment: its protections of religious exercise and free speech. While she argued that the free exercise clause forbids the commission from targeting Phillips “and like-minded believers for punishment,” she reserved the bulk of her brief for the free speech clause, perhaps targeting potential swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has at times shown an expansive view of free speech.
Waggoner argued that a person viewing one of Phillips’ custom wedding cakes — his “artistic expression” — would “understand that it celebrates and expresses support for the couple’s marriage.” She said the Supreme Court’s compelled speech doctrine “forbids the commission from demanding that artists design custom expression that conveys ideas they deem objectionable.”
In the interview, Phillips said, “I feel I’m being compelled to create artwork for an event — an inherently religious event — that goes against my faith, and I’m being compelled to do so under penalty of jail time and fines.”
Not surprisingly, Mullins and Craig see the case through an entirely different lens: discrimination.
“This case is about more than us, and it’s not about cakes,” Mullins said in an interview. “It’s about the right of gay people to receive equal service.”
“This isn’t about artistic expression,” said Craig. “I don’t feel like we asked for a piece of art, or for him to make a statement, we simply asked him for a cake, and he denied that to us simply because of who we are.”
The couple is being represented in court by the American Civil Liberties Union.
“In essence, the bakery seeks a constitutional right to hang a sign in its shop window proclaiming, ‘Wedding Cakes for Heterosexuals Only,'” the ACLU’s David D. Cole wrote in court briefs.
Cole said that whether a cake is an artistic expression is not at issue. “The question, rather, is whether the Constitution grants businesses open to the public the right to violate laws against discrimination in the commercial marketplace if the business happens to sell an artistic product.” The answer, Cole contends, is “no.”
Supreme Court set to take up LGBT rights and religious liberty
Twenty other states and the District of Columbia likewise expressly prohibit places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The Trump administration sides with Phillips in the case, arguing that it falls “within the small set of applications of content-neutral laws that merit heightened scrutiny” from the courts. “A custom wedding cake is not an ordinary baked good; its function is more communicative and artistic than utilitarian,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued. “Accordingly, the government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write.”
But the government lawyers did draw a line when it comes to race, arguing that laws targeting race-based discrimination may survive heightened First Amendment scrutiny in part because racial bias “is a familiar and recurring evil that poses unique historical, constitutional and institutional concerns.”
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/supreme-court-masterpiece-cakeshop/index.html

Filed Under: Breaking News, Christians, Christians Under Attack, Civil Rights, Free Speech, Gay Mafia, homosexuality, Lawsuits, Legal Issues, LGBTQ, Supreme Court Tagged With: ACLU, Alliance Defending Freedom, Charlie Craig, Christian faith, Colorado, Colorado Civil Rights Commission, David D. Cole, David Mullins, first amendment, Free Exercise Clause, gay marriage, Jack Phillips, Kristen K. Waggoner, LGBTQ, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Hears Gay Wedding Cake Case, Supreme Court hears same-sex marriage cake case

12/04/2017 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Daily News With The Doctor Of Common Sense: Check Out The Show

Exposing Stupidity Daily

 

  • James Mattis Says ‘The Enemy Is Collapsing’ Faster Than Media Predicted
  • Crazy Maxine Waters Thinks Trump Involved In ‘Collusion, Obstruction Of Justice, And Money Laundering

  • Groups demand University of Chicago pay slavery reparations

  • Countries With The Most Modern Slaves Today

  • Homicides, violent crime surging in St. Louis County

  • White House Lawyer Ty Cobb Says Bob Mueller Investigation Should Be Over by January

 

 

 

Listen To The Link Below:

Daily News With The Doctor Of Common Sense

Filed Under: Black Crime, Black Lives Matter, Bob Mueller, Common Sense Nation, Corruption, Donald Trump, Drain The Swamp!, Fake News, FBI Corruption, Government Corruption, Homicides, Hypocrites, ISIS, Islam, The Doctor Of Common Sense Tagged With: Black Crime, Black Lives Matter, Bob Mueller, Common Sense Nation, Corruption, Homicides, ISIS, Islam, Modern Slaves, St. Louis Crime, The Doctor Of Common Sense

12/04/2017 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Joy Behar Humiliated On The View With Fake News Breaking Story

Shut up Joyce Beeyatch

Epic Humiliation: Joy Behar Giddily Read ABC Brian Ross Fake News Russian Collusion Report

ABC’s The View co-host Joy Behar interrupted live broadcast on Friday to joyfully deliver the breaking news that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had been charged and pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and will “testify that, as a candidate, Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians.” Behar, however, jubilantly read the same inaccurate report that now-suspended ABC investigative reporter Brian Ross delivered.

“Michael Flynn promised full cooperation to the [Robert] Mueller team,” Behar read from a note card to the audience, “and is prepared to testify that, as a candidate, Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians.”

“Yay. Wow! He goes to jail! He goes to jail! He goes to jail! Lock him up!” Bear shouted as the audience and her fellow co-hosts laughed and cheered in applause. “This is the antithesis of election night, On election night, I had to wear a veil, I was in mourning. So this is like the antithesis of that hideous night, and that is why I am happy.”

Behar’s on-air gloating and glee was, in fact, a reaction to Ross’ false reporting.

In an appearance Friday on ABC’s World News, Ross issued a “clarification,” noting that it was not “candidate Trump,” but “President-elect Trump” that instructed Flynn to contact Russia.

The false report went viral on ABC’s Twitter account, according to CNN: “A tweet published by ABC News containing Ross’ initial report had been retweeted more than 25,000 times and embedded in various news stories online before it was deleted. ABC posted a “clarification” on Twitter around 8 p.m.”

The stock market dropped nearly 400 points within mere minutes of Ross’ false report:

Indeed, ABC News issued a correction and suspended Ross for four weeks without pay for his massive mistake.

Behar, unaware of Ross’ colossal journalistic error, said the Flynn news would lead to President Trump’s “resignation.”

“I remember Richard Nixon, and Richard Nixon stepped down, and so should Donald Trump,” Behar said. “It’s a happy day, come on. If he is going to be taken down for what he did and this country can start to heal, and parties can work together like Meghan wants it to, then that is a happy day.”

“It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas, and it’s beginning to look a lot like collusion,” The View guest and CNN analyst Ana Navarro said.

You can watch Behar and her View co-hosts’ reaction in the YouTube clip below, as it appears that ABC has scrubbed the original clip from its YouTube page.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/12/02/epic-humiliation-joy-behar-giddily-read-abc-brian-ross-fake-news-russian-collusion-report/

Filed Under: Entertainers and Celebrities, Fake News, Russian Investigation Tagged With: ABC News, Ana Navarro, Brian Ross, Donald Trump, Epic Humiliation: Joy Behar Giddily Read ABC Brian Ross Fake News Russian Collusion Report, Joy Behar, Michael Flynn, Robert Mueller

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 172
  • Go to page 173
  • Go to page 174
  • Go to page 175
  • Go to page 176
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 336
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Articles

  • It Is Supposed To Be America First Stop Foreigners From Holding Office
  • What Really Happened To Seth Rich And Is It Connected To Hillary Emails And Fake Russian Collusion?
  • Will “Big Tish” Leticia James Go To Prison For Mortgage Fraud?
  • Women Hit With A Bowling Ball

Donate To Free Speech

Footer


Copyright © 2025 · Workstation Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in