Yesterday, I was busy collecting salt from the KingOfSpaghetti. We did a stream on it in the afternoon, and due to me being a idiot sometimes, I forgot to plug it here. It will be linked below this paragraph, in case you’d like to watch it.

But that’s not what I came here to talk to you about this Saturday morning. Instead, I came to make fun of the joke known as the United Nations. In case you hadn’t heard about this story, here’s Master Milo giving you a short breakdown:

In a report released yesterday, entitled “Cyber Violence Against Women And Girls: A Global Wake-up Call,” UN Women, the group behind last year’s risible “He for She” campaign, called on governments to use their “licensing prerogative” to ensure that “telecoms and search engines” are only “allowed to connect with the public” if they “supervise content and its dissemination.”

In other words, if search engines and ISPs don’t comply with a list of the UN’s censorship demands, the UN wants national governments to cut off their access to the public.

So, what sort of content does the UN want to censor? ISIS recruitment videos, perhaps, which lure women into lives of rape and servitude? Live-streamed executions from Syria? Revenge porn or snuff videos? There’s no shortage of dangerous and potentially traumatising content on the web, after all, much of it disproportionately affecting women.

Alas not. The UN is hung up on “cyber violence against women,” a Kafkaesque term that is apparently shorthand for “women being criticised on the internet.” At least, that’s how at least two attendees at the launch of the UN report, published by the United Nations Broadband Commission, explained it yesterday.

Guess who was leading the charge on all this, by the way? That’s right, it was our old friends Anita the Fraud and Blowey Zoe:BroadbandCommissionReportLaunch_September2015_RLB_4011_400x267

Not only that, they even cited Jack Thompson in their anti-gamer bullshit. That’s right, they repeated the same old violent video games cause real-life violence trope. What did Polygon do when it was two bad dye-jobs peddling this propaganda instead of an old white dude? Did they tear into them like they did ol’ Uncle Jack? Of course not. They lapped that shit up like KingOfSpaghetti did yesterday:

Both Quinn and Sarkeesian were among those called on to speak about their involvement with the UN Women’s coalition that was formed to reduce instances of gendered cyber violence. Each spoke of the systemic nature of the problem, while touching upon their personal experiences as a target of online harassment.
As one of the most prominent figures embroiled in GamerGate, a loosely organized crusade to rid of the video game world of progressive voices, Quinn mentioned having “sat for two weeks in a chatroom silently recording them plotting how they would [drive her to kill herself]” during the period in which her online antagonizers were most virulent…
She defined this as not just the violence that the group has formed to combat, but also the “day-to-day grind of ‘You’re a liar,’ ‘You suck’ … making all of these hate videos on a regular basis to attack us and the mobs that come from those hate videos.”
So, when it’s two rainbow-haired bimbos pushing the same propaganda, it’s all good. They didn’t even try to challenge the report at all. It’s like a readout from some state-owned media in a fucking dictatorship. Not only that, they refuse to let readers comment on this garbage fire. I guess we can’t have anyone criticize Queen Anita and Princess Zoe! That would be #cyberviolence, shitlords.
TIME summed it up quite well, although I think they were trying to be on the side of these con-artists. At least they were somewhat even-handed, though. That’s a lot more than we can say for Pravda Polygon:1vWUeYQ
Do these stupid fuckers even think about what they’re saying? Read this quote. It’s #FullMcIntosh thinking personified:
“Dead is dead,” says Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, Under-Secretary-General of the U.N. and Executive Director of U.N. Women. “Whether you are dead because your partner shot you or beat you up, or you killed yourself because you couldn’t bear cyber-bullying, or you were exposed to many of the sites that lead people to suicide pacts— bottom line, we lose a life.”

Let me say this real quick: the only thing that qualifies as violence, is actual violence. The shit the SJWs are pushing is an affront to real victims of real violence. Of course, they’re either too stupid to realize that, or too invested in scrounging up some more shekels. But the truth is still the truth, no matter how many times these charlatans say otherwise. Thankfully, Twitter blew this shit out of the water yesterday:

I think I’ve said almost all I can say this morning, plus I want to go watch this movie. But I’ll just finish with a few thoughts. How pathetic has the Western world become when this is taking up time at the United Nations? For that matter, how bad has the UN itself become? It’s not lke they were ever that great in the first place, but this is the height of comedy. Well, strike that. It would be funny, if these losers weren’t actually trying to use shoddy reports like the one they presented the other day as a justification for censoring the internet.  Don’t let it happen. Redouble your efforts to spread the word about travesties like this. Things are getting very serious, and we can’t afford to slack off. The SJWs certainly aren’t.

PS: Nora found this old academic paper on “cyber violence.” It’s the oldest mention I’ve seen of it so far. It was written by this woman:


Here’s how she described the batshit term:

I define cyber violence as online behavior that constitutes or leads to assault against the well-being (physical, psychological, emotional) of an individual or group. What distinguishes cyber violence from traditional off-line forms of violence is that in the former case, some significant portion of the behavior takes place online, although it might then carry over into offline contexts. Cyber violence thus may, but need not, have a physical component, and much of the harm caused by cyber violence—as indeed by offline violence—is psychological and/or emotional (which is not to say less real or destructive). Finally, cyber violence may be targeted at individuals or groups, the latter being more characteristic targets of cyber violence than of offline, physical violence, due to the ease with which a single perpetrator can gather information about and make contact with large numbers of people on the Internet. This is another aspect of online violence that can cause it to have widespread effects.