UPDATE 10/25/16: If you’ve come here after reading about a petition to cancel screenings of The Red Pill, I ask you to NOT sign any such petitions. It’s just free publicity for them. Read more of my thoughts on the matter here.
Dear Cassie Jaye,
Congratulations. You surpassed your Kickstarter fundraising goal yesterday, more than two weeks before the Kickstarter campaign was scheduled to come to a close. You’ve funded the postproduction work on your long-delayed documentary on Men’s Rights activists, and then some.
But I’m not sure that the person I should be congratulating is you. Last night Paul Elam of A Voice for Men – the central subject of your film – was doing his own victory lap online. And no wonder, because he seems to be the real victor here.
In a post on his site that managed to be giddy and vindictive at once, he offered his congratulations to you, then, well, to himself. “Even though the victory goes to Ms. Jaye,” he wrote, in an awkward attempt at modesty, “I have the need to offer up some thanks.”
And then he spelled out why he thinks your “victory” is really a victory for him.
For the past six years AVFM has had mud kicked in its face by a corrupt, left-wing media. Bottom feeders like Adam Serwer, Jeff Sharlet and Mariah Blake have performed endless unscrupulous acts, directly lying to their readers in order to attack AVFM, this movement and me personally.
Their work was not just to harm me, or to damage a website but to make sure if they could that the message we carry never found its way to the larger public. Their intent was and is to paint an indelible stain on all of us so hideous that we would never be taken seriously by enough people to matter.
They have failed, and I can now predict that they have failed miserably.
In other words, Paul Elam thinks he and his friends in what he ludicrously calls the “Men’s Human Rights Movement” have bought and paid for a feature-length advertisement for them.
And it’s not hard to see why Elam – and the other manospherians who’ve rallied around your film in recent days — think this. After all, they are the ones who have rescued your film from oblivion by pouring tens of thousands of dollars into your Kickstarter.
And all it took for you to unleash this torrent of money was an interview with one of the sleaziest figures in right-wing journalism, Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart.
In the interview, posted on Monday, you complained that “I won’t be getting support from feminists. They want a hit piece and I won’t do that.”
There was more than a little bit of irony in the fact that you were saying this to a man infamous for his many hit pieces on so-called “Social Justice Warriors.”
You also complained about an intern on your film who, you said, “had a lot of crying attacks and emotional experiences. She claimed everything I was showing her was triggering her.”
A young feminist “triggered” and crying. This is red meat to the Breitbart crowd, and I have to assume you knew this when you told Milo this story.
To an outside observer like me, this shameful pandering looks a lot like a Hail Mary play on your part. Having failed to convince most potential funders of the film that you would present anything close to an accurate picture of the Men’s Rights movement, you told Breitbart what its readers – and the broader manosphere – wanted to hear.
And it worked. Men’s Rights activists, self-professed “Red Pillers” and other assorted antifeminists rallied around your film, and the money started flowing.
On Reddit, the moderators of the Men’s Rights subreddit “stickied” an appeal to donate to your Kickstarter to the top of their front page, urging MRAs to open their wallets in order to show skeptics that “we can take part in some actual activism and not just post stuff in here.”
Even the regulars in the violently misogynistic Red Pill subreddit agreed to help bankroll your film.
And it wasn’t just Men’s Rights and “Red Pill” Redditors who organized support for your film. One right-wing Red Pill blogger, notorious for his harassment of ideological enemies, pledged to match donations up to $10,000, describing your documentary as “the Movie SJWs Do Not Want You to See.”
Meanwhile, on her blog, AVFM’s “social media director” Andrea Hardie (an internet bully better known under her pseudonyms Janet Bloomfield and “Judgy Bitch”) not only rallied her readers around your Kickstarter but also set up a gofundme of her own, raising money in hopes that it would buy Breitbart’s Yiannopoulos a producer credit in your film. (I hope that is out of the question, even if she raises more than the paltry amount she’s raised for this purpose so far.)
And then there was Elam himself, on Twitter, calling on his followers to, in his words, “Help fund #RedPillMovie because fuck feminists!”
https://twitter.com/AVoiceForMen/status/658700057311506432
Accepting money from these people would seem to be a pretty clear violation of the principles you set forth in your own Kickstarter video, in which you declared that
in order to keep this film non-partisan, and respectfully show all sides to this debate, we won’t accept funding from organizations that inevitably have biased agendas.
Instead, you have chosen to take money from people who see your film as a chance to say “fuck you” to feminists. You have chosen to take money from the actual subjects of your film.
You are making a film about Men’s Rights Activists, funded to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars by Men’s Rights Activists. You are making a film about A Voice for Men funded in part by A Voice for Men.
Does that not trouble you at all? It should. In your interview with Breitbart, you noted that “films that support one side and act as propaganda do better than those that try to have an honest look.”
You said this, presumably, to set yourself apart from such propagandists. Now you seem to have cast your lot in with them.
Which I suppose makes sense, since the clips of your film that you’ve posted online so far look a lot more like propaganda than they do like any sort of honest look at the Men’s Rights movement,
I felt uneasy about your project from the start, concerned that you had been pulled in by the soothing but misleading rhetoric that MRAs spout when they are trying to sound more respectable than they really are, rather than on what MRAs actually say and do when the cameras are off of them.
But I knew you had a good reputation as a filmmaker, and heard good things from several feminists who knew you better than I did. So I held my tongue and tried my best to give you the benefit of the doubt, even when you posted clips from your film that portrayed AVFMers as heroic underdogs rather than the misogynists and malicious harassers that they really are.
When I wrote you a little over a week ago with some of my concerns, you assured me in the phone call that followed that the clips you had posted were only part of the story, that you were well aware that the MRAs you had interviewed were on their best behavior when talking to you, and that the real story of the Men’s Rights movement is far less rosy-hued. Against my better judgement, I continued to hold on to some kind of hope that you would live up to your reputation in the end.
And now, frankly, I feel like I’ve been played.
Unfortunately, it looks like you have been played too, much more spectacularly than I have. I suspect you are doing far more damage to your reputation than you even know.
One thing I have learned in five years of watching, and writing about, and dealing with, the Men’s Rights movement, is that if Paul Elam is happy about something, that thing is almost certainly terrible.
I suspect, sadly, that you will ultimately learn this lesson yourself, the hard way.
PS: In our phone conversation, you suggested that if you were able to fund your film, you might be able to finally film the interview with me that we originally had planned to do, but which fell through due to financial and other practical obstacles during the original filming of The Red Pill. At this point, I am sorry to say, that is completely out of the question.
@ Alan
What if you’d annotated a Rumpole of the Bailey story? Insufficient proof? Darn. Guess you had to fork over the 120 quid.
@Alan and Rhuu
Yes! It is Rosalind Franklin’s photograph 51. I actually found a tattoo artist who did dot work so the whole thing is made of dots. It works really well for that image because the photo is grainy.
Also, today is my birthday!
Happy birthday, Dr EJ!
:O Happy birthday!
Happy birthday dr. ej!
*Pats self on the back for remembering one thing*
@ vicky p
Tried law reports, press cuttings and a photo of the card that gives us discounts on theatre tickets, but they insisted on something more official. 🙂 Apparently if I pay 200 quid I can have as many future certificates as I want; but I can’t really envisage any other circumstances where I’d need them. Certainly not another Masters for a while. It’ll take me years on this one and I think my brain’s already full.
@ dr ej
Happy Birthday!!!
http://studiokayama.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/dnabirthdayFI.jpg
(Oh, the picture’s spliced. How appropriate)
Happy Birthday Dr. ej!
dr. ej,
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!
?????????
@ vicky p
The Old Bailey is the most bombed building in London. But every time they clear up afterwards they always leave one bit of shrapnel stuck in the wall. I quite like that.
Also the statue of Lady Justice isn’t blindfolded. They claim that’s symbolic of something; but we’re pretty convinced it was a cock up.
It is an amazing building though. It was originally the Newgate Prison.
Oh and it has a mural of the 10 Commandments. But that’s not controversial here. It’s part of a general “law” theme. So they also have stuff like the signing of Magna Carta. And also climbing Everest (the mural was done in 1953 so I guess everyone was pretty excited about it)
Happy b-day ej.
Happy birthday Dr. ej!
Happy birthday Dr. ej, and many vocalising and dancing rodents! (conga rats ululations)
@Rhuu
John, are you trying to scandalise everyone with your profanity? You know… You know we’re on the internet, right? And we’ve all seen bad language before? Some of us might even (heavens to betsy!) have dropped an f-bomb once or twice?
So I’ve noticed!
Happy birthday dr ej!
@Alan – I like the idea of getting a bar code instead of a degree or certification. Then interviewers could just *boop* you with a scanner.
So, I was on my way to work when I saw this, so I couldn’t really address it then (I was on my phone, sorry!), but I do believe we were called a “coven of witches” by one of our two trolololols.
First of all: That’s not an insult. It’s a very poor attempt at a sexist epithet.
Second of all: It’s a poor attempt at a sexist epithet because some of us here actually do practice witchcraft, ya nubbin.
It ain’t an insult if it’s the damn truth. Well, it’s the truth for myself at least. And I think Bina and Troubelle also practice.
Speaking of witchcraft, I got the fortune yesterday of going to a local thrift store that’s called “Cause for Paws”, which is essentially a thrift store that benefits animals. Not only did they have three of the most adorable black kitties (one was named Camelot!) and two tortie cats and a rabbit named Rascal, but I got a brass chalice for my altar for two bucks! (And I got and watched Interview With the Vampire, becauseofcourseIdid.)
My next weekend project is going to be getting some polish and cleaning it up nicely for use.
My only regret is that I forgot my phone at home so I couldn’t get pictures of the darlings. I might convince my roommate to go again next week so I can take pictures.
Hi Brony,
You’re struggling with some very deep problems there! I’ve had a think and have some time to reply to you, so I’ll write up some stuff that will hopefully give you a hand.
My first course will be a crash course in set theory. My second post will be how set theory is a universal language from which all other languages can be derived. The purpose will be to give you a new perspective on your problem. Hopefully that will make it a little easier to confront.
A Crash Course in Set Notation
You’ll have to pardon me in this post, I’m gonna get a little mythic. Set theory contains what amounts to the creation story of science. When a mathematician starts waxing poetic about the sublime beauty of what they do, they’re typically talkin’ about something to do with set theory. It’s the foundation of mathematics, the wellspring from which all of creation flows. So, do settle in and get cozy, my ducks, and let me create a universe for you.
In the beginning all was chaos and void. There was nothing in reality. All that is and was did not exist. All was The Empty Set.
∅
The Empty Set. The nullspace. The kernel. The destroyer and creator, the benthic and lidless eye. We have a number of words to describe the Empty Set. It is typically written as above, but not always. It can also be written as
∅ = {}
See, there’s nothing actually magical about sets – they’re collections of things-that-exist. The Nullspace is just a set with nothing in it. (It’s very important to remember that the nullspace is not zero. They’re very different concepts.)
All was null and void. But the chaos, in its twisting, turned in upon itself and encircled itself, and in so doing a distinction could be made. One set could be created – a set that contains the Empty Set.
S{∅}
A set with the empty set inside of it. Now there are two entities in reality, ∅ and S{∅}. Or as they are known more generally, 0 and 1. False and true. Off and on. ∅ and S1.
This creative act continues, for now we have two entities, and we can now have a third set, S{∅, S{∅}}. S2. From this we can have three: S{∅, S{∅}, {∅, S{∅}}}; this is S3. Or, if you like, we’ve just created 0, 1, 2 and 3. This process continues without end, resulting in the infinite series we call N, the natural numbers.
Chaos, the Empty Set now it has an opposite: U, the Universal Set. All that is, all that was, all that can be conceived. The children of the Empty Set. We now have a universe of entities. And, just as the Empty Set is endlessly fecund, so too can the Universal Set produce endless children. We call them subsetsstrong>U, or sometimes elements if we aren’t being picky about what’s in a subset and are happy to think of it as an atomic entity. We write this as the following:
x ∈ A ⭢ x is an element of A
A’ ∈ A ⭢ A’ is a subset of A
These subsets are exactly what you’d think they would be – they’re part of the parent set, with one or more elements in A that are not present in subset A’.
With sets and subsets, we can now start talking about relationships. The sets – these infinitely arranged expressions of the nullspace – may be compared, contrasted, and aligned. The possible relationships between sets are:
∈ : Membership, existence, is-a-thing. Not equality, but related to it. Sort of related to the universal set.
¬ : Negation, non-existence, is-not-a-thing. Not related to negative numbers in any way. Sort of related to the nullspace.
∧ : Conjunction, Intersection, this-and-that. Not multiplication, but related to it.
∨ : Disjunction, Union, this-or-that. Not addition, but related to it.
⭢ : Inference, Therefore, Results-in. Not equals.
Every other relationship can be expressed in these four. (I should probably get corrected on that one, but that’s the basics at least.) Some example sentences of set notation:
In physics, a pair of virtual particles is created from nothing (I know this isn’t correct, I’m just eliding for clarity):
∅ ⭢ {e ∧ ¬e} | e = electron
A signal is transmitted by a neurotransmitter molecule into a synaptic vesicle:
{nt ∧ sv ∧ ¬sva } ⭢ {ntb ∧ sva} | nt = neurotransmitter; sv = synaptic vesicle; sva = activated synaptic vesicle; ntb = neurotransmitter bound to a synaptic vesicle
A set of 3 excitatory neurons and 1 inhibitory neuron, activating a middle neuron, that neuron acting on two output neurons:
{(i1 ∨ i2 ∨ i3) ∧ (¬i4)} ⭢ {nx} ⭢ {o1 ∧ o2}
I can keep going, though the sentences get much bigger and bulkier as you go up. However, as an example, you could describe the action of the Brodmann 25 area on the Pons in the production of noradrenaline (and the regulation of feelings of sadness or depression) in this notation, purely by describing the combinations of neuron action combinations. You could then extend it upwards (with the expected loss of clarity) and describe the way that emotions affect behaviour, the way visual or audible cues affect thought, or the nearness or distance of two entities, as a few tiny examples.
An important feature of this is that there are no atomic elements. We use them atomically – I described neurons as atoms in the above, after all. But they themselves are sets that can be pried apart, and with interacting components that can be described, all the way down to the nullspace that rests at the heart of it all. I find it very important to keep this in mind. Most errors emerge from treating something as atomic when its internal relationships are affecting the outcome you expect.
Of course, this is bulky and math’y, and not at all appropriate for actual language or argument. My work is, at its heart, translating natural language into a specialized form of set notation and back again. You’re trying to do the same thing in the field of cognition. Set theory isn’t going to give you the answers you’re looking for, but it might give you a foundation to make your search easier.
Next post (which may be awhile, I hope not!) I’ll talk about how set theory is the universal language – how English or any other language itself can be represented mathematically, and how those representations correlate to brain structures. I might dip into how hormones and neurons interact during that, we’ll see!
Apologies for the ramble, everyone!
Interview With the Vampire is one of my favorite guilty pleasures. Both the book and the movie. Guess why I got into it as a teenager?
That’s right. The number one enemy of the manosphere.
I had a crush on Brad Pitt!
@WWTH
And he would have lost in the general because it takes a lot of money to win a presidential election in the US. A lot. Which leads back to that excerpt I posted. Only someone privileged enough to not be affected by right wing policies would demand a candidate be so ideologically pure that they are guaranteed to lose within the system that is currently in place.
Polls have been showing Bernie to be the most popular politician in the US, according to the Guardian. Suffragettes in Britain didn’t get the vote for women by selling out to the highest bidder. Black rights activists in your country didn’t ask bankers to fund them. Society can be changed from the bottom up, and social media enables people without power to organise as never before. That does mean you’ve got to persuade people, which is greatly helped if you don’t call them names like fuckwit and asswaffle.
@John Devalle
The votes have shown that Clinton won by significant by both delegates and the people. Clinton won 55.2% of the vote and in raw numbers has more than 3 million more people on her side. This is not debatable.
Only you, only you and others like you. Not really sure why we have to be civil to people who have consistently sided against the rights of minorities when change inconveniences them.
I see John still hasn’t gotten the memo that nobody here cares about him and we’re much more interested in dr. ej’s birthday.
Happy birthday, ej!
eta: wait wait
You’re just flat-out wrong. Economic civil rights were definitely demanded because access to the financial system is fucking important. WTF are you on about, you ignorant dipshit?
@ Buttercup
Supposedly all those Masonic secret handshakes and signals originated back in medieval times as a way of proving qualifications. As you progressed through the ranks you’d be initiated with the next level of codes. Then you could pitch up at whatever cathedral was being built and demonstrate to the foreman that you were qualified to a particular level in your trade.
Although modern masonry is a relatively recent reconstruction, that does sound kinda plausible.
I’m also now thinking that “The Bar Code” would be a good title for a Dan Brown style rip-off about lawyers.
@Policy of Madness
Yay John Devalle is a Socially Liberal Financially Conservative Person. “Cares” about social issues but providing a means so people could avoid poverty and have a decent standard of living? Well *polishes bootstraps to a reflective shine
Shorter John: “My fee fees are hurt because I was called a fuckwit and an asswaffle.” ?
Not disputed Ooglyboggles.