After I saw the report of an alleged incident involving Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields and Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, which was met with general disbelief, I thought it would be interesting to compare this with the reactions to the recent assault on Lauren Southern, a reporter for The Rebel.

Why was one met with disbelief and the other one with support? The difference can be largely explained by the amount of corroborating evidence for both incidents. At this moment, it has been announced that there was an audio recording of the altercation between Fields and Lewandowsky but it has not been released publicly yet (EDITOR: A video has since been released, but the supposed assault looks mild, to say the least.). This is in contrast to Lauren Southern, where a video recording of the assault was released publicly mere hours after the event. In all logic, even with video evidence, there must still be skeptic people who doubt Ms. Southern’s account of the events. There has to be.

In case you’re not familiar with the story, Ms. Southern was assaulted in Vancouver, BC, Canada after attending an event downtown. She was debating some SJWs on the street outside the venue when at some point, a bottle of liquid was poured on her head. Ms. Southern revealed shortly after on Twitter that the liquid was in fact urine. She also announced that she would not pursue criminal prosecution.

Some people voiced their criticism with a bit of humor.

SJW language expands and evolves every day. Somebody who doesn’t believe there are only 2 genders is called “anti-binarist”.

Others implied that she was asking for it. But don’t ever say that about rape victims, that would be wrong! It’s only OK for assault victims with opinions you don’t like.

While some comments were just plain disturbing.

Most comments were just skeptical about the content of the bottle without denying the assault took place

To be fair, the only evidence that it was indeed urine is her own account of the events.

Let’s look at another thread of criticism.

I guess showing her account makes me a bully according to those standards, but Twitter is a public forum and she made a public statement.

Listen and believe. She’s a psychologist, which requires at least a master’s degree in Canada. Of course, the most reputable and trustworthy certified psychologists all have neon pink hair, not just psychology students that don’t yet have to appear professional while employed by a serious medical establishment.

Let’s see more of Pinky’s reasoning.

The self-identified neon-haired psychologist sounds like an expert at identifying human emotions but not at taking screenshots.

After being called out on it, she switched to a different stance.

When asked for proof of Lauren’s previous well-documented lies, she replied with the typical SJW answer of “Educate Yourself”, which usually means she has no proof. She then tried to shift the burden of proof back towards Lauren.

What happened to listen and believe?

These double standards with the burden of proof requirements seem motivated by a personal bias due to an opposing ideology. Wow, I could almost be a psychologist, but I’m lacking the neon pink hair.

Let’s see another appeal to self-authority as a student/expert.

BOOM, opposing opinion is clearly harassment and provocation. As seen in the video, Lauren was forcing the group surrounding her to listen and debate to her. By that definition, it’s OK to assault any street preacher for harassing opinions.

Nice double-standard again, she would be able to tell the difference but not Lauren.

Let’s see an individual comment that got some backlash aka reverse social justice.

Point of logic here: Criticizing a victim of a documented assault, whether the bottle contained water, soda, piss or gasoline, then receiving negative backlash afterwards doesn’t absolve anybody from the blame for their actions. The word “crybully” seems to be fitting in this case.

Strange to say but Literally Hitler makes more sense than SJWs.

Let’s have a look at another example that got a few responses.

SJW logic: If your initial statement is criticized, dig yourself in deeper. Notice that she changed avatar.


Just as a side-note.

Every single male has anger issues but I want to kick a woman in her teeth. Makes sense.

Let’s try to define hate speech.

Then came the backpedaling.

Maybe Pinky the Psychologist could tell us if it is a heartfelt apology or a cop out. Twas just a prank, brah.

Where Are They Now: Twitter Edition.

OK, next special snowflake, seen before but not directly pointed out.

She quickly went into damage-control mode.

Here is a fun fact, those traumatic events allowed them to find each other and form a support group. Lily followed Kel Caine.

That leads us to our next snowflake.

Nice to see that after redefining so many words, SJWs now redefine assault to fit their own criteria. At least the law student knew the definition of assault. Maybe they could educate each other.

So, an acceptable justification for Lauren’s assault according to her is that trans people die every day. Makes sense.

Some people were straight to the point.

Then there came the redefinition of transphobia to fit their needs.

You don’t like cats? TRANSPHOBE!

Which reminds me of a recent event involving a famous anthropomorphic blue hedgehog.

Moving on to the last snowflake.

Again with the redefinition of words, assault is just humiliation and is acceptable…so then is a slap in the face.

Maybe that’s all due to the current political climate of Canada. Here is a direct quote from Canadian PM Justin Trudeau on pink shirt day.

When the leader of a country is saying that words can physically hurt, that helps justify hurting them back physically.

For my final words, let’s just say that there are 10 types of people in the world, those who agree on gender binary and those who don’t.