Quite a lot has changed since we last spoke with Candace Owens, the founder and project leader of Social Autopsy. She’s gotten railroaded by both New York Magazine and The Washington Post. David Futrelle of We Hunted the Mammoth has written several hit pieces on her with even more promised. Her world has been turned upside down in more ways than one, but still she keeps on going. There’s definitely a lot to admire about that.

One thing I was struck by is her trusting nature. She seems to have honestly had no idea that there are all these warring factions and disreputable people out there who think nothing of ruining someone’s life if they get in the way or threaten to ruin their well-crafted narrative. She’s still doing events in the “real” world, having joined other women on stage just the other day in Connecticut to talk about overcoming adversity. Well, she’s certainly been getting another hefty dose of that recently. At least she’s got experience in coming out on the other side.

The theme of our talk last night was mostly about how journalists have not only let her down, but how they’ve let down their entire profession and indeed, the entire country. We touched on many things though, and also talked about what the future holds for both Ms. Owens and Social Autopsy. I asked her what role she thought race played in the attacks against her. We talked about online anonymity in general and what her views were on that. Randi Harper and her tweet to Zoe Quinn came up, she discussed Jesse Singal and Caitlyn Dewey in more detail, and I let her discuss what she thought about GamerGate now that she had a chance to interact with some of it’s participants. It was yet another detailed conversation where she got to talk at length about all the issues without a biased hack trying to shape the story.

I think this was a worthy second outing for us and in my opinion, this interview is a perfect companion piece to the first one. I think it elucidates her thoughts even further and lets you see her shining personality in even greater depth. Do I agree with every syllable she uttered? No. Can I safely say that she’s genuine and has always been above board in all our dealings? Yes, I most certainly can. I make no bones about it, I think she’s a good person and I really enjoy talking to her. I hope you guys get just as big a kick out of it as I did.

Maybe we’ll get the chance to catch up with her again here in a few weeks, if not sooner.


  1. David Futrelle is a scum bag. They definitely needs to be stronger libel laws against slander from big media companies.

    1. Futrelle hasn’t even talked to Candace, and he’s talking about her as if he knows her goals, motivations, and experiences. For someone who claims to be a feminist, he has no problem with being a white man talking for and over a black woman.

      As for Dewey and Signal, it’s evident that they never intended to to behave like ethical journalists by acting objectively and letting her present her side of the story without influencing the reader for or against her. Instead, they presented a false front, fully intending to smear Candace and get their hands on her list of VCs. Singal never even told her that he’s in close contact with Quinn, nor did he disclose that in his article.

      1. Footrub is typical of many “feminists” I’ve seen. Just a guess here but I’ll bet he has a keen interest in gold star lesbians which is the reason for the margina act.

    2. There definitely needs to be stronger libel laws against slander from big media companies

      Just FYI, that’s probably pretty much impossible in the US without either an amendment to the US Constitution or a defamation case that makes it all the way up to SCOTUS.

      On top of the 1st am., relevant case law includes Schenk v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) which establishes that the 1st am. can be curbed where in the public interest, Hustler v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) which establishes that “actual malice” is a requisite component in cases involving “public persons” (though exactly what constitutes a “public person” is not explicitly defined) and Obsidian Finance v. Cox, D. Ore (2011) which establishes that bloggers have the same 1st am. protections and privileges in respect of sources etc as the “conventional”, accredited press.

      Libel in the US has a very high bar indeed.

      1. Future god emperor president Trump has come out openly, hard and direct against the corrupt state of journalism. And he has mentioned how much blatant lies and misinformation can have negative effects.

        If I had to guess, he will do something to put back some sense into the profession.

        1. Tongue-in-cheek aside, there is nothing that the POTUS (or congress, probably) can do about it.

          Like I said, it would require a new amendment (requiring coöperation of 2/3rds of states, not gonna happen) or a SCOTUS decision that established another exception to the 1st am.

      2. You are right about that. Something still needs to be done. Enough is enough with deceptive and lying media like the New York Magazine and Washington Post. They know they can get away with libel.

        1. It’d be far easier to expose these liars for the scumbags they are. NYM and WaPo trade on their historically reputable name, and they probably still do a lot of decent journalism in the main. But they’ve got some bad apples that’ll rot the barrel if they’re not careful.

          What Owens is doing (quite effectively) is exposing the rot. That’s a good thing, of course, and I’m 100% behind her in that respect. It says a lot about the power the SJW mindset has when it requires an “intersectionally oppressed” individual (viz. black woman) to reveal the hypocrisy in that mindset, and it says a lot about the resilience and imperviousness of that mindset to deny it even then.

          It’d also be easier to regulate publications as they used to be only a few decades ago. Bring back the FCC Fairness Doctrine abolished by Reagan. Of course, you don’t need a licence to publish on the Internet, and I don’t want to see that ever happen either.

          Here in the UK, a few years ago there was the phone hacking scandal kicked off by one of Murdoch’s rags. It revealed a great deal of rot within British journalism (though by no means all of it). Sooner or later, something similar is going to happen in the US and maybe we’re seeing the beginnings of it. Owens could take this a very long way if she had the energy to (and she probably does).

          SJWs flourish because of the prevailing social climate, and that can be changed. It did over gay rights, and it will wise up to SJW BS soon enough. (And lest you think it was feminism that accomplished gay rights, modern feminists love to take credit for it, but they haven’t accomplished any of their other goals by way of smashing the patriarchy or laws designed around intersectionality etc. Society would have come around to the rights of gays with or without feminism.)

          All they’ve got is ever more extreme crazy: anti-SJWs just have to have moderate, constructive criticism to be seen to be reasonable.

      3. And as someone in Quebec I have the opposite problem. Canadian libel laws are so stiff I have to go to the US for 1A in order to avoid SLAPPS.

  2. I’m still no fan of her Kickstarter, but Candace Owens herself has consistently come across as reasonable, genuine, and honest. She’s given GG a fair shake, and that’s all we ever asked for.

    Thanks for helping to get her voice out there, Ralph.

    1. WRT her hazing in (social) media, absolutely. She seems honest, well-intentioned and quite forthcoming with evidence.

      On the other hand, I still think her platform is a terrible idea and so far I’ve only seen her deflect legitimate criticism onto Zoozoo and her goon squad. So far she’s done very little to substantively address ppl’s concerns with the platform.

  3. Do reasonable people still defend Quinn/Harper/Wu? Sarkeesian I can understand to a degree because she has a corner on the “professional” image and has a product to hock, but the other three are legit Twitter trolls who don’t have any kind of substance outside of that.

    1. I completely agree. Sarkeesian does indeed have a well manicured image, she’s managed her public image very well.

  4. Does the Washington Post have an ombudsman? Might be worth it for Candace to contact them and report the shenanigans going on over there. Hell, contact any journalistic association that WP is a member of and spread the story. It’s high fucking time accountability was re-introduced to the world of journalism. If they won’t listen to valid criticism about themselves, perhaps other will listen to it.

  5. Another great interview, Ralph, and it confirms in my mind that Owens is a good person promoting a terrible idea without realising the harm it could do.

    I still think Owens is being somewhat naïve to believe that there would be no harassment absent anonymity — especially in light of what Harper, Quinn, Singal, Dewey and Futrelle have done openly in their legal names. I don’t think she appreciates that without anonymity, livelihoods of some would be under grave threat.

    I also think that the fact that nobody she spoke to had heard the word ‘dox’ before indicates that those organisations don’t have sufficiently broad expertise in the matter of Internet harassment, not that it’s not a problem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.