Perhaps “Sarah” Nyberg (@srhbutts) thinks I’m stupid. Or perhaps Ms. Nygberg has been fooling people for so long now, Ms. Nyberg thinks that bogus little “victim” act will never fail. At any rate, after I was first suspended from Twitter for a five-month-old tweet about Ms. Nyberg, I had hoped that my response would caution Ms. Nyberg against further aggressions. Alas, as Benjamin Franklin said, experience keeps a dear school but fools will learn in no other. Some genuinely frightening people have tried to shut me up in the past, and have learned that I am not easily frightened. In fact, some of those people are in federal custody now because this is not a game that Homey D. Clown plays.

It appears Ms. Nyberg is leveraging friendships with Twitter support personnel in order to delete any mention of Ms. Nyberg’s male past and male name. You will call Ms. Nyberg “Sarah” on Twitter or else you will be shut down. The faux-female does not wish it known that he is faux, you see. And so it was that, after my first suspension on Friday, I was locked out of my account again Sunday. In order to log onto Twitter this morning, I had to delete two tweets:

This isn’t going to work, Sarah Nyberg. You are trying to evade the consequences of your own folly — using the pseudonym “Sarah Butts” while trying to shut down 8chan.net — and hope to conceal what was learned about you as a result of that blunder.

Just in case anyone has forgotten what we learned:

[“Sarah”] tried to shut down funding for the website 8chan.net, which had supported #GamerGate, by falsely accusing them of hosting child pornography. However, he/she failed to anticipate the reaction,i.e., that the people he/she had attacked would figure out who he/she actually was, connect the dots, and expose [“Sarah’s”] unsavory background. It appears that “Sarah” had been something of a nuisance in various online forums circa 2006/2007, allegedly engaging in discussions about pedophilia and sex with dogs.

One of these discussions was about lowering the age of consent to 12, and Sarah said someone who had “a positive, fulfilling, non-abusive sexual relationship with an adult as a child are more likely to realize such relationships are not inherently abusive, and be more likely to admit they’re attracted to kids.” Sarah said that while “most people aren’t ready at 12,” this is not “a valid reason to outlaw sex at said age.” Sarah asserted that “most people” don’t understand “childhood sexuality,” because it doesn’t involve “full-blown intercourse” and therefore it is “inherently less dangerous and virtually impossible to lead to pregnancy, etc.” Sarah said “childhood sex play” is “nothing harmful” and that “what’s harmful is society pretending children are asexual.”

Have any of Ms. Nyberg’s friends ever asked him/her to explain that? Perhaps it was just a moot hypothetical discussion. Or not.

If we look at the forum where that discussion took place, we find that it was inspired by news about a fringe political party in the Netherlands, (Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit, PNVD). Widely known as the “Pedo Party,” PNVD advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. It would appear Ms. Nyberg was enthusiastic about this idea, but perhaps I am misinterpreting his/her comments. The problem is that (a) it does not seem Ms. Nyberg has ever adequately clarified his/her views on the subject, but instead (b) is pretending to be a victim of harassment in order to (c) play a game of “Let’s Erase the Evidence” and also (d) depict anyone raising these questions as a hateful bully.

You may fool some people into believing your act, Nyberg, but you can’t fool everyone, and you sure as hell will never fool me.

"You think that would fool a Corleone?" pic.twitter.com/xS3IA9MMWi — Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) August 5, 2015

DARVO — Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender — it’s a rather well-documented tactic, and when I see people (a) with sexual idiosyncracies (b) allying themselves with a “social justice” movement and (c) claiming that people who tell the truth about them are “bullies,” my suspicion is (d) they’re just angry their shady hustle got busted and (e) they’re trying to exploit sympathy by (f) posing as a victim.

A Martyr for the Sacred Cause! This is a game I’ve seen “social justice” types play many times before, and Homey don’t play that, see?

Was there a case a mistaken identity? Are you . . .“Sarah” Nyberg, the same Sarah who wrote so enthusiastically about “childhood sexuality”? If so, were your statements about having “a positive, fulfilling, non-abusive sexual relationship with an adult as a child” based upon your own personal experience?

Simple questions, really. Why aren’t they being asked? Meanwhile, a Reddit commenter quotes the Twitter rule behind my suspension:

Personal information includes full names, locations, phone numbers, email addresses, etc. Things that aren’t linked together on social media count as personal information. For example, if someone’s name isn’t linked to their Twitter bio, it’s safe to assume that posting it would count as dox. If you’re uncertain of whether or not a post is as liability for including personal information, please message the mods.

This extends to posting links to pages which contain such information.

What this rule was presumably intended to do was to prevent “doxxing,” and I am anti-“doxxing,” but this rule is written so broadly that, if applied as written, I could change my Twitter identity to “Latonya Q. Robinson” with a photo of a black woman as my avatar and then demand Twitter punish anyone who mentioned that I am, in fact, a white man named Robert Stacy McCain. Ah, but you see, this rule is not applied consistently, and is being used by “social justice” activists to protect themselves from critical scrutiny. Favoritism has been alleged by supporters of #GamerGate who say that their enemies are unethically exploiting personal connections with Twitter personnel:

SushiLuLu (also known as Stephanie Greene) was forced to delete tweets critical of Randi Harper in order to have her Twitter account reactivated. Randi Harper has demonstrated her unusual control over Twitter support before, and it turns out that Randi Harper and Del Harvey, Vice President of Trust and Safety at Twitter, are connected.

She has . . . become vocal against anti-GamerGate personalities such as Randi Harper,proprietor of the GGAutoBlocker, which labels prominent GamerGate voices such as Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos as “shitlords” and their followers as “sheeple.” SushiLuLu even went so far as to write a three-part series solely on Randi Harper, focusing on the irony of someone who regularly flames her opponents (particularly Chris von Csefalvay, who did the statistical analysis on GamerGate) on Twitter having the gall to start the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

Unfortunately, on the night of March 17th, SushiLuLu found out that Randi Harper has powerful friends. . . .

It appears on the night on March 17th, SushiLulu’s account became locked, and when she attempted to deactivate it, she was told to delete five tweets which were negative toward Randi Harper. . . .

You can and should read the whole thing.

Every responsible and intelligent person familiar with Randi Harper regards her as a disgusting and arguably dangerous individual. So far as I can discover, nobody actually likes Randi Harper. By striking a posture of victimhood and attacking #GamerGate, however, she made herself useful to the “social justice” cause which needs self-declared victims of “bullying” and “harassment,” because this is the argument they use to silence their critics. Randi Harper resorted to totalitarian tactics to suppress #GamerGate supporters, creating a videogame industry blacklist that “branded some 10,425 Twitter accounts, including those of journalists, as harassment ‘offenders’ in a humiliatingly ill-conceived attempt to provide a ‘blocking tool’ to its members”:

The blocking tool, which has been widely mocked online for its lack of sophistication and “blanket ban” approach, was assembled by Randi Harper, a persistent online agitator. The tool prevents users from seeing not only the tweets of users Harper has decided are implicated in harassment, but also many accounts who simply follow those users, by blocking a list of thousands of users with the use of an automated “bot.” . . .

Randi Harper is a clumsy, hateful thug, and you can click here to see Twitter conversations between Sarah Nyberg (@srhbutts) and Randi Harper (@randileeharper). Bad causes attract bad people, and these two are part of a clique of bad people with no discernible talent who are using “social justice” politics in a dishonest attempt to shake down the video game industry. They are losing, because they deserve to lose, and they are desperately trying to silence #GamerGate supporters who have exposed them and their “social justice” allies as miserable frauds.

Starting to think campaign against online harassment is really meant to ensure "social justice" bullies can bully w/out anyone fighting back — Cathy Young (@CathyYoung63) August 4, 2015

Reminder that "social justice" is always either (a) totalitarianism or (b) total bullshit. #GamerGate pic.twitter.com/P2WqhcPEWC — Sex Trouble (@SexTroubleBook) August 9, 2015



Well, let Harper and Nyberg run squawling to Del Harvey, whining about how mean Mister McCain told the truth about them. They are liars and creepy freaks who should never be trusted.

“God gave them up unto vile affections . . . God gave them over to a reprobate mind . . .”

— Romans 1:26-28 (KJV)

Beware of reprobate minds. Crazy people are dangerous.















Share this: Share

Twitter

Facebook



Reddit



Comments