You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘bullying’ category.

On the disgusting Weinstein front, the DailyBeast and others report that 

The NYPD Is Ready to Arrest Harvey Weinstein. Will District Attorney Cy Vance Finally Agree to Let It?

“We will decline,” a Vance spokesman said when asked for comment.

According to police sources, the NYPD has been investigating five separate sexual assault allegations against Weinstein. One case is said to be particularly strong.

The NYPD does not name sex crime victims, but the victim in this instance has spoken for publication about the alleged assault.

In defending the decision not to prosecute, Chief Assistant DA Karen Friedman Agnifilo actually sought to blame the detectives, saying that before making the recording they should have first consulted with the “seasoned prosecutors” in her office.

“While the recording is horrifying to listen to, what emerged from the audio was insufficient to prove a crime under New York law, which requires prosecutors to establish criminal intent,” Agnifilo said.

A Weinstein victim is liable to be all the more leery of going to the Manhattan DA since the mogul retained defense attorney Ben Brafman, whose law partners include Marc Agnifilo. He is the husband of Karen Friedman Agnifilo, who is said to have recused herself from any further involvement in anything Weinstein.

Evans eventually agreed to meet with the DA’s office after the SVU detectives offered to accompany her and remain while she was interviewed. She is said to have been as convincing with the prosecutors and she had been with the detectives.


So is Vance in Weinstein’s pocket or is there really any legal issues? I’m betting on the former, but I don’t rule out the latter. And if NY law is what is preventing the Govt from putting him in jail, even though he is guilty, then obviously the law must be changed.

Why don’t people change it?


On the (I assume) bright side, the sale deal for the Weinstein Co has fallen through so beautifully it’s making me smile every time I think about it. When I first heard the news of the sale, I thought: how unfair. The man (supported by his  Weinstein Co cronies) abuse and humiliate countless women and then sell the company and walk away with millions.

But bankruptcy is hopefully not going to allow them to do that.

Fingers crossed.

And what about Miramax/Disney? It’s so sad that they seem to be untouchable, even though complicit.


Liberals are harmless and tolerant, right? People who are in favor of porn just want to live and let live, right?

Interesting article from guy who became psychologically and physically ill from porn addiction on the NYT. The most interesting part for me was reading about the death threats he received once he started a website to campaign against porn.

Need I mention that the overwhelming majority of people who are in favor of porn think homosexuality is normal? What trash of human beings.

Internet Porn Nearly Ruined His Life. Now He Wants to Help.


And we’re off with one more: What liberals think of Kim Davis! I was inspired to make this cartoon after seeing hundreds of tweets from liberals expressing their “sweet thoughts” about Kim Davis.

What liberals think of Kim Davis - Sept. 2015

What liberals think of Kim Davis – Sept. 2015

Mimicking several LGBs in the US, virulent GAYS in UK have targeted a Christian bakery for legal harassment using the pretext of a “gay marriage” cake (Telegraph)

A Christian bakery firm which refused to make a cake supporting gay marriage with a picture of the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie has been warned it will be taken to court unless it apologises and pays immediate compensation.

Ashers Baking Co, based in Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland, was told by a Government equalities agency that it was guilty of “unlawful religious, political and sexual orientation discrimination” for its stance on the Sesame Street-themed dessert.

To add insult to injury, the cake was to feature Ernie and Bernie from Sesame Street. Of course, these nasty pigs have to pervert even children’s characters, meant to be nice and sweet and wholesome. But I digress.

Every surly LGBT now wants to sue decent over a cake. It’s more than clear that these “sexual orientation discrimination”  laws are nothing but a legal harassment weapon that homosexuals want to persecute decent social conservatives with including to use the state to extort money from the victims. They are their little autos-da-fé.

Same analysis and criticism applies as in the cases that are happening in the US, such as the Elane Photography case, the bakery, etc. (The post linked to “Elane Photography case” discusses the main problems with such cases). [Added later:] I’ve just realized that the UK law prohibits discrimination based on “political opinion”. So in this respect, it’s quite different than the US laws, which are not based on refusing service due to such, but on the false concept of “sexual orientation.” At least the UK law is congruent with the persecution in the US – Christians here are being persecuted because of their religion (which is formally separate, but also traverses “political opinion”). The UK law is more honest about what kind of persecution it’s engaging in.

A War on Christians and Social Conservatives is what we get when society normalizes homosexuality – always – the two are incompatible. People with a homosexuality agenda are going to continue to bully decent conservatives in all spheres of society. Which is why we must tirelessly work to repeal these horrible “discrimination” laws. They are a weapon for injustice and to deny our most fundamental rights covered up by what is intentionally a deceptive label (anti-discrimination).

Given how much the UK has gone down in the LGBT sewer, I was therefore not surprised to read the following:

Amid widespread media attention and even questions in Parliament over the case of the cake, the Commission sought further legal advice to clarify its position.

In a 16-page letter, the Commission said it was “now clear” that the decision not to bake the Bert and Ernie cake was a breach of equality laws and that it must back down and compensate Mr Lee for his hurt feelings or face legal action.

Note the “his hurt feewings” – you couldn’t make this stuff up.

Simon Calvert, deputy director of the Christian Institute, which is supporting the firm, said: “It is simply baffling for a body supposedly working for equality to be threatening a Christian family with legal action, all because of a cake.

“The Equality Commission has taken four months to dream up new grounds on which to pursue the McArthur family, claiming that they’ve breached political discrimination laws.

If supporting same-sex marriage is a protected political opinion, so is supporting traditional marriage. Yet the Commission clearly favours one view over another and is prepared to litigate to prove it.

Is the Commission seriously saying that all business owners have to be willing to promote every political cause or campaign, no matter how much they disagree with it? Does a printer have no right to refuse to print posters for the BNP or Islamic State?

That is the obvious question to ask – and it’s the same fundamental question I asked in several of my posts (linked above).

But we all know that a country that normalizes homosexuality is a corrupt country. LGBTs, instead of going to treat their profoundly dysfunctional and perverted minds, are going to turn their hatred towards anyone who clearly sees that their psychologies are deformed and that having a homosexual problem is not what people were intended to have. And they are going to come after any decent and sane person with a club.



What shall we do with the  ‘Yes on 8′ donors? asks the gay mafia.

As if it was up to these people to decide the fate of decent social conservatives in society (whom they hate and want to persecute). As if socons were their property to do with as they pleased. As if they were a kangaroo court passing down a sentence, or a group of dictatorship thugs who doesn’t know yet where to ship a group of prisoners.

People who are pushing for a homosexual agenda have one goal and one goal only: to destroy the opposition. Now it’s just a matter of discussing the tactics to achieve their goal.

For a very nice article on Mozillagate, see Jim Parker’s “Should A Belief Cost You Your Job?

Very well reasoned and nicely explained. He writes, “While many Christian writers have decried the bullying that resulted in Eich’s “voluntary stepping down” at Mozilla, they have been met with opposing arguments from the other side that include hypothetical situations, which would supposedly result in Christians responding in the same fashion as Mozilla did with Eich. For example, what if the CEO of a prominent Christian organization was suddenly outted as being an atheist? ”

Then Jim asks three very important questions:

  • Does the privately held belief directly conflict with the foundational mission of the company / organization or does it merely appear to stand at odds with tertiary corporate beliefs?
  • Is there direct evidence that the privately held belief has been practiced within the organization to such an extent that laws governing the workplace have been broken?
  • Is the privately held belief strongly, continually, and abusively promoted to workers within the organization by the person or is it simply practiced and evangelized by the individual outside of the professional workplace setting?

After answering them, he concludes, “As you can probably guess, I believe the ousting of Mozilla’s Brendan Eich is both unjust and contradictory as there is little doubt that those behind his removal preach tolerance, anti-bigotry, free speech / expression, and unity and yet have acted in an intolerant, bigoted, anti-free speech / expression and divisive fashion. I’m not alone in my opinion as many non-Christians and secularists have said much the same. ”

The issue is we are in the midst of a culture war, and therefore liberals are not going to stop, listen to reason, and give a whit about ethics. It’s a war for dominance by thugs. Anyone who fell for the the line “homosexuals just want tolerance” and “LGBTs are just like us” is an idiot. Co-existence is not possible.

And if it’s not plain to see, the personal beliefs of all these homosexuality agenda employees interfered with their work and the very objective of the company they work for. Because, like a lynch mob, they ousted a great CEO. It was not the CEO who did anything bad to the company, it’s the people pushing for a homosexuality agenda that moved to destroy the leadership of the company and its mission. And in this case, the CEO embodied the company and its ideals like no one else, having founding it and dedicating himself to it with heart and soul.

First the came for the CEOs…

Exchange over at
Dianaiad•7 hours ago

I notice that people have stopped posting, commenting or reacting…I hope they haven’t stopped signing. This isn’t about gay marriage or lack of same. It’s about freedom of speech. It’s about…how if someone does anything to disparage gays, or anything else politically correct (and heaven help anybody who actually contributed money to some politically incorrect cause, no matter how long ago), it becomes a legal matter. It’s legal to fire someone for contributing a thousand bucks to a cause you don’t like, or belong to an organization you don’t agree with?

Wait….wait….didn’t we do this awhile back? Senator McCarthy or something, wasn’t it?

The first amendment was not written to protect the freedom to agree with you. It was written specifically to protect the freedom of those you don’t like. I, personally, don’t give a hoot what gays do; get married, don’t get married…just leave me and my beliefs out of it, thank you.

I have been using Firefox for years; I love it and prefer it to any other browser. Indeed, I have been as much a Firefox fan as any Apple fanatic is of his Mac…but I have switched to Chrome. It’s a pain in the patootie, but I switched. For me it is not about gay marriage. It’s about freedom to speak freely.

I would have done the same had Firefox fired him for contributing to a more politically correct organization.


JoeMyGodNYC Dianaiad•3 hours ago

It doesn’t appear that you understand the First Amendment, which protects citizens from censorship by the GOVERNMENT. Therefore the First Amendment is inapplicable in situations that do not involve any government agency or authority. The First Amendment, therefore, provides zero protection to citizens from their employers. Surely you know that you don’t not have the freedom to make disparaging speech about your employers or to hold advocate for issues that may embarrass the people who sign your paycheck. Employees ARE protected against employment discrimination on the basis of religion, gender, race, etc

Alessandra JoeMyGodNYC•an hour ago

Freedom of speech as a principle and as a right is applicable in every sphere of society, not only those which involve the government.
Something so simple that some people haven’t understood yet.


JoeMyGodNYC Alessandra•38 minutes ago

If by applicable you mean “bears the force of law” then you are simply wrong. If by applicable you mean “should be upheld voluntarily” then I disagree. The unfettered freedom to express political opinions or religious views in the civilian workplace would often result in abuses and discord, which is why almost all companies strongly limit such behavior. I daresay you would not allow campaigning for abortion rights by coworkers to go unchallenged nor would many employees enjoy proselytizing among the cubicles. (And let’s not even get into sexual harassment.) Absolute freedom of speech at the workplace is appealing idea in theory, but in practice would soon devolve into mayhem. That’s why there exists an entire industry that creates employee conduct handbooks.

Alessandra JoeMyGodNYC•5 minutes ago

I think you raise a valid point about how complicated freedom of speech is in practice, including in the workplace. Your solution to the “mayhem problem” is censorship (imposed by the organization or the people themselves). I think this only speaks to the failure of civilizing people however. If you cannot work together with other people unless you put a tape on their mouths, it clearly shows you can’t stand hearing other opinions and neither can they. Or that people don’t know how to speak civilly. While keeping mayhem in check is necessary for people to work together, censorship is a palliative solution to the fact that you have created human beings who are incapable of dialog and debate without descending into mayhem. In other words, all you have is a group of thugs who are being kept in chains.
While that may be a “corporation”, it’s not a civilized group of people. What we are seeing in Mozillagate is that some of the chains were taken off from the liberal jerks, thus the ensuing persecution of good people like Eich. It couldn’t have been otherwise.

[Slightly edited on Sept 2015]

So, what trash of a human being came to my blog last week?

A homosexual neo-Nazi (“JJ”) bent on displaying his trash of a mind in all its glory. And just when I was talking about Ernst Rohm, the brutal, repugnant and most powerful homosexual Nazi, whom Hitler simply adored, on theOtherMcCain blog. Rohm loved to call Jews similar terms as “spic,” did you know? And that’s when he wasn’t beating them to death. Yet the Holocaust museum has omitted such important historical and factual data about Rohm, because the narrative.

JJ started off by screeching: “Are you even a legal resident of this great county? You’re a spic. “

[“spic” see? Proof that people with a homosexual problem are just deformed in their minds. These are the people claiming to be oppressed, fighting for “civil rights” – make a note: civil rights for LGBTs is nothing more than a right to be a deformed sexual pig and a vile racist! ]

JJ said: “Gays are all over the U.S and we own the most powerful political politics in America. We are winning every court battle in this country and are the richest demographic in our society.”

[At least, JJ, this racist pig that is too deformed to establish a healthy relationship with a woman, got that right: the concept of a “sexual minority” category is a complete hoax. LGBTs do much, much more harm and violence in society than they ever experience any victimizing from others, especially from social conservatives. ]

JJ said: “We don’t play to get even, we play dirty and win. So you keep writing these long winded blogs NO ONE READS…”

[to JJ: NO ONEs like you, I guess!]

JJ said: “we gays are winning where it matters. In laws, in legislations and in courtrooms. We have had the fastest moving and triumphant social movement in history.”

[To JJ: You have a lot in common with the national socialists/Nazis in Germany, but still they were faster moving than your movement of homosexuality agenda thugs. But one thing is clear: you are going to go the same way your Nazi pals went: to hell – it’s just a matter of time.]

JJ said: “Don’t like it? well then go back to the third world hell hole you came out of. We need less spics here anyways.”

[Scratch the surface and the only thing you see underneath most LGBT people is a piece of trash of a human being, out to bully, sexually harass, and abuse anyone with impunity. That’s the “civil rights” they are truly after. It’s all a question of having the power to do so. The minute LGBTs get any power, they reveal their true grotesque nature. If they are not doing violence themselves, they are covering up for the ones who are, or they are attacking anyone who exposes the harm they perpetrate and the gay mafias they form everywhere.

This is why Ernst Rohm was Hitler’s most adored Nazi and almost dethroned Hitler himself. Nazi birds of a feather, flock together!



JJ, poster boy of how nice and wholesome LGBTs are, then concluded: “Hope all the stress we cause you makes you get cancer Alessandra :)”

Clearly, given that homosexual men excel in getting cancer, my bet is that JJ will get cancer long before any social conservative – because homosexual men have the very highest rates of anal cancer! In fact, 17 times more than heterosexual men. “Because it’s a just a normal variation of sexuality!” So normal that their cancer rates are completely abnormal and noxious. And that’s if JJ doesn’t die beforehand of AIDS and syphilis. You know, given what pigs they are, men who have sex with men lead the way in spreading these two grotesque STDs as well.

But just for being the nasty Neo-Nazi gay that he is, what we can only wish for is that JJ is hit in double with any evil thing he ever wishes for others.

JJ’s comment displays so well the kind of “peaceful co-existence” that “Jessica” Hall (another deranged LGBT who decided to leave his comments on my About page) said LGBTs want to have in society.

The “peaceful co-existence” of mentally diseased thugs.

What JJ doesn’t realize is that no matter how much money and virulence his ilk uses to lie about its own reality, and to attack and bully decent and wholesome people, society and history will catch up and they will be exposed for what they are. It is inevitable.

Lastly, I’ve been meaning to write a post on “illegals” but out of time right now. To come, along with a post on the unmitigated hypocrisy of Rod Dreher at TAC, who decries curtailing of freedom of speech on campuses, while practicing the very same thing on his blog.

blogsome 2010-07-24

From Huff:


Facebook protects many groups from hate speech. Here’s one they don’t offer protection to: Fat People. Check out these Facebook groups:

• beautiful girls, all over the world, except you. fat bitch.
• If sex is such good exercise, why are there fat sluts?
• You’re not “thick”, you’re a fat-ass in denial
• I don’t hate you ‘cause your fat, you’re fat because i hate you.
• “Do you ride Elephants in India?”…”No, do you ride fat people in America?”
• i hate fat/ugly people that try to act bitchy. like no, your fat.
• Friends don’t let friends bang fat bitches
• I would carry you to the moon and back…LOL jk, your fat and i’d die
• Being Fat and Ugly
• we all know a fat slag who thinks their fit
• You’re wearing a tight clothes and you’re fat….that’s not good.
• SHUT UP AND GET NAKED. LOL jk… your fat

Terrible grammar and lack of creativity aside, this cannot stand. When a user starts a Facebook group, they’re notified that:

groups that attack a specific person or group of people (e.g. racist, sexist, or other hate groups) will not be tolerated. Creating such a group will result in the immediate termination of your Facebook account.

The entire purpose of the above groups is to propagate hate speech against fat people, specifically women. Can you imagine similar slurs being cast on any other group? Yes, you can. That’s why Facebook is so rigorous in removing groups that attack federally protected minorities. That’s fantastic–except lots of minority groups that aren’t federally protected under the EEO laws, including gay or transgendered people, and Facebook appears to have silenced hate-groups against them. And it’s not because there isn’t a single person on Facebook who hates gay or transgender people enough to take two minutes to start a group. It’s more likely that every time a group of that nature pops up, it’s very rightfully flagged and removed.

Well, the fat-hate groups listed above have been flagged numerous times, and yet they remain. What’s worse, multiple women have had their pictures used without their permission in Facebook fat hate groups. Bloggers such as Fat Nurse, Definatalie, and Pretty in Plus all write of experiences with this.

Shannon Russell of and the creator of the Facebook group, “Facebook, Please Stop Permitting Fat Hatred“, who is currently pressuring Facebook to expand its definition of “hate speech,” says that his emails to the company about this matter have remained unanswered. He goes on to say, “The sole purpose of these groups is for brow-ridged mouthbreathers to collectively exercise their inferiority complexes at the expense of others. There’s no reason why Facebook should continue to allow hate speech directed at any group, let alone to defer their ethical rights and responsibilities to an outmoded federal mandate.”

If Facebook is in the business of deciding what constitutes hate speech, they must be evenhanded about it. The cruelty of such groups cannot go unchecked, and we must all remind Facebook of this until they’re gone. If you’re outraged and interested in doing more, join “Facebook, Please Stop Permitting Fat Hatred” and let Facebook know that this kind of imbecilic, vile hatred against any group is not okay.



Just remembered. This is kind of like the complete hypocrisy on the military’s discrimination of fat people (for all kinds of jobs, including sedentary) that none of those homosexuality zealots running around screaming about DADT, complain about.

And it will only get uglier, and a lot uglier, with the coming pile of Kagan turd.

Good-bye DOMA, DADT, and freedom of conscience and speech rights.


‘,’Very interesting – no concern for \”hate speech\” against fat people’,’0′,”,’publish’,’open’,’closed’,”,’very-interesting-no-concern-for-hate-speech-against-fat-people’,”,’ ‘,’2011-05-28 09:26:56′,’2011-05-28 09:26:56′,”,’0′,’’,’0′) ***46′,’1′,’2010-07-24 22:19:30′,’2010-07-24 22:19:30′,’

Overeating is a very complicated matter because people can overeat due to so many reasons. While it would be probably beneficial to use a bit of shame to try to impact a “normal” someone to eat in a more healthy way or take more care of their health, that isn’t always true.

Take, for example, a child or adolescent who is being abused and overeats  to soothe the pain, the stress, the rejection, etc. and becomes very fat. If you come and simply shame that child about their fatness without dealing with the main trauma causing them to overeat and be fat, you’re just emotionally assaulting the child, and you are effectively doing harm to them. That’s not what they need. Overeating to them is a coping mechanism and an *essential* one. You would need to help them develop more healthy eating habits through supportive actions.  Even a normal child who is just being brought up wrong about their diet could probably benefit more from positive reinforcement, guidelines and support, instead of the shaming and scolding.
So, it’s very important to understand the context of unhealthy eating and the emotional factors. Sure, when there isn’t anything more grave going on in the life of the person, shaming could be an alternative.


School administrators are scared of parents suing them and the school.
I know of an instance where a student struck a teacher and the administrator called the police. She was disciplined for allowing it get as far as a police report. She was told that such matters are settled in-house without any publicity. Her boss sent her home and found her another job where she could no longer harm the school system’s reputation over a student behaving violently towards a teacher. This caused problems later when a DD student was raped and the police were not called but the video of the rape got out onto the net. I suppose a dead body might be cause to call in the police but then again, it might embarrass the system so lets just bury the matter 6 feet under.

By: nyboomer on April 21, 2007 at 04:15pm

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: