Monthly Archive: April 2016

Camilla

920 0117

Somebody’s story about her experience with Zoe Quinn aka Chelsea Van Valkenburg

more on the racist who harrased a black business woman calling her the n-word.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152274323855882&set=a.412206445881.199341.597085881&type=1

 

Alright, story time. I’ve been basically silent on this issue, I am not sure my contributions are relevant, and I have feared being ostracized and ridiculed. I can accept the latter, but I really hate to waste people’s time.

In 2007 I lived in New Hampshire, and was working as a photographer with a number of soft core “alt” erotica / porn sites. I traveled frequently to work with models affiliated with the websites I was affiliated with. A model working under the name Locke Valentine – this is the woman currently known as Zoe Quinn – modeled for two websites I was affiliated with – she as a model, I as a photographer. One of those websites is still in business, the other – unfortunately the one we communicated via – is no more.

Locke / Zoe was living in Albany, NY at the time. We expressed a desire to collaborate, and set a date for three photoshoots.

In fall of 2007 (according to my EXIF data 10/25/2007) I packed up my equipment and drove the 220 miles to Albany, for a weekend of work with Zoe.

By time I arrived in Albany, Zoe had cancelled one of the three shoots we had planned. She lived in a tiny apartment with her boyfriend / spouse / lover (I did not ask personal questions) and her roommate. I had been assured I could over night with them, and that they had room to accommodate a guest, and room to shoot in. They had neither. We ended up doing an impromptu shoot in the extremely crowded apartment, in the middle of the night, to try to save the shoot. I was not proud of it, but I knew with a bit of editing, it had potential.

While we tried to plan a shoot for the next day Zoe, and Co. chatted with me. She claimed to have stabbed a man – attempted rapist – in the face, who had grabbed her. She relayed to me no less than three other accounts of alleged violent assault. I will not share the details here, I feel that would be fundamentally indecent. I was alarmed at this, and I admit, by the time she made the claim that she stabbed a man in the face with a knife* and ran away, I was skeptical as well. Two claims involved alleged workplace incidents, and were her prime explanation for why she could not hold a job. I was mildly disconcerted, because true or false, these stories have good cause to make one uneasy. She also claimed to have reported nothing to police, or management at her work.

That was not all we discussed, we talked about modeling, the websites, and erotica/porn in general. It was what we both did for a living, and candid conversation on the subject was not unusual.

The next day I had to drive everyone to the location of our shoot, which was her roommate’s place of employment. An arcade. This is the location where the photo shown here was taken. I was irritated that after driving 220 miles, and having to carry all my equipment to a shoot, I was also deliberately given the false impression that Zoe, and Co. would have their own transport. I was also irritated that Zoe could provide neither her own wardrobe for the shoot – it is normal for the model to use her personal items in these sorts of shoots – nor her own food while on site. Keep in mind, we both are paid by a site, once the photos are sold, everything I spent came out of my own pocket. Otherwise the shoot was unremarkable, it went far better than the one the night before, and we all had a basically good time.

We tried for some more photos that afternoon in a forested area Zoe directed me to, but we had neither enough light, or privacy to shoot anything substantial or of value.

I returned home, spent countless hours editing hundreds of photos. It was a terrible experience, but so be it.

When I was ready to send the photos off to Deviant Nation – the site we worked for – I wrote to her to let her know. It was only a few days, a week at most, since I had left Albany, but I ALWAYS get a model’s final approval before I send photos off. As far as I know I am the only photographer working in that specific industry who had that strict policy.

Zoe informed me that her roommate, who had been involved in the shoots, either by being in the apartment, or smuggling us in to her place of work turned out to be a, ” mentally unbalanced cunt,” (her words not mine) among other things, and that it was unacceptable to use ANY of the photos we had taken that weekend. I was pretty upset about this, and sent her several messages asking if perhaps I could talk to the roommate, have her sign a waiver, or something, despite the fact that neither Zoe, nor I, had any legal obligation to ask the roommate’s permission for ANYTHING. Zoe insisted that she was a crazy, evil bitch, and refused to provide me with any sort of contact information.

Finally, weeks later, a handful of other models I had worked with on the site messaged me to inform me that Zoe had written them and told them that I forced her to look at, “mutilated vagina,” pictures, which she said, had horrified her, and she had basically sent me away then and there. The models she told this to knew me, and thankfully came to me with these nonsense claims. We had in fact discussed cosmetic surgery, while talking about modeling, and she had looked up Before/After Breast Implant images. The conversation moved on to Labiaplasty, and we looked at a few of those images as well. So, there is an inch of truth, in the really awful lie she told about me. There was never any force involved, and she was the one controlling the computer the whole time. This took place in her home, on her computer, with her boyfriend and roommate both in the room.

I decided it wasn’t worth the fight. I was eventually contacted by the roommate, who told me a very different story to the one Zoe had, and I let the issue drop.

I was never paid for the images, because I respected her wishes and never published them. I still have the images in archive on my computer, because I archive everything. I was never reimbursed for the gas, wardrobe, or food I purchased on the trip. To someone starting their career, that was quite a dig to my wallet.

7 years later, Zoe is still BY FAR the worst client I have ever had.

What does this story have to do with GamerGate? When I realized Locke was Zoe, I was disgusted to see she was still playing the same games. Stealing, cheating, lying and claiming to be victimized by anyone and everyone. Maybe she did stab some guy in the face, and maybe in the first week at every new job she had, some guy tried to extort sex from her. Maybe that doesn’t establish an MO on her part. But I know, I did nothing wrong to that woman, and I did not deserve to be lied about. I did not deserve to have my time and my money wasted, and even now, I wonder if opening my mouth about this means she will think of some new horse shit to spread about me to try to ruin my career. And that does seem to be her modus operandi.

If this were a courtroom, I would call myself some sort of character witness, and I’ll let you all make of this what you will. Share it if you feel like it, I couldn’t keep my mouth shut and watch her try to stomp out all the fires she has started by shitting on any more people’s careers.

‪#‎gamergate‬ ‪#‎zoequinn‬

*Edit
Upon reading though archived emails, I discovered I can confirm and prove that she claimed to have killed the man she stabbed. (screenshot of email, irrelevant details redacted. https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/…/10714582_101522745870…)
EDIT (02/28/2016):
This post seems to be getting popular again. Shortly after I wrote this several people asked for *more* evidence. So I made another post containing links to Zoe’s posts on an archive of the website we both worked for:
https://web.archive.org/…//www.deviantnation.com/girls/Locke
Second post is available here:
https://www.facebook.com/mallorie.nasrallah/posts/10152278695440882

Target’s stock down 5%, Brand damaged by Pubic rebuking transgender bathroom rules

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/29/targetstockreputationdropoverbathroom3738191/

 

Target’s stock price and its favorability among shoppers are crashing as the public rebukes the retail giant for ignoring their vigorous protest against mixed-sex changing rooms and bathrooms.

The company’s stock was two cents shy of $84 on August 19, when it revealed it would not allow shoppers to use single-sex bathrooms or changing rooms. Instead, all rooms were opened up to anyone claiming to be of either sex. As of 4.00 p.m. Friday, the stock had dropped almost $4.50, down to $79.50.

That’s a huge loss of 5 percent in stock value, costing shareholders roughly $2.5 billion in company value.

In between those two dates, more than one million people had signed a boycott petitionsponsored by the American Family Association. Public opinion also shifted strongly in favor of single-sex bathrooms.

The damage to Target’s favorability is also being tracked by YouGov’s BrandIndex service.

By April 27, “The percentage of consumers who would consider buying items at Target the next time they want to go shopping at a department store dropped from 42% to 38% over the past two weeks,” YouGov reported April 29. That’s a 10 percent drop, likely fueled by social-media conversations via Facebook and various news sites.

Worse, YouGov showed that Target was hit by a 40 percent drop — from roughly 19 percent down to 11 percent — when consumers were indirectly asked if they planned to buy at Target. “When you are in the market next to purchase items in this particular category, from which of the following brands would you consider purchasing?” YouGov asked.

YouGov also reported customers were hearing bad news about the company. When asked, “If you’ve heard anything about the brand in the last two weeks, through advertising, news or word of mouth, was it positive or negative?” the positive “Buzz” score of 19 fell down to 11.

The score fell by 10 points among men but 12 points among women, YouGov reported.

Under Target’s new policy, transgender people are free to use either male or female bathrooms, even though many male and female customers, and parents of young kids, object to the open door policy. 

Despite the widespread opposition, disputes at Target stores will be rare because transgenders comprise only about o.03 percent of the population. That’s only about one in every 2,400 people, according to a study of the 2010 census data.

But the company’s determination to push the unpopular transgender policy, over the objections of parents and people worried about harassment, is turning the dispute into a fight over the company’s disregard for its middle class customers. In fact, advocates of the policy say it will help Target gain more liberal upper income customers. 

Behind the scenes, however, advocates for the anti-consumer policy are fighting back against the public. For example, YouGov is now refusing to comment on the study that shows damage to Target. “YouGov BrandIndex is no longer commenting on this research. I’m sorry we can’t accommodate you at this time,” YouGov told Breitbart News.

However, prior reporting on Target by YouGov shows the pro-transgender policy has pushed the company’s reputation to near-record lows.

In 2013, the failure of Target to protect the privacy of its consumers’ financial records caused a 45-point drop in the company’s news-driven “Buzz” score. “Target’s Buzz score for the week leading up to the data breach announcement was 26. One day later, it was -9, representing a drop of 35 points. Today, the Buzz score is -19, making the drop now 45 points. Since June 2007, the lowest Buzz score Target has ever received was around positive 10,” YoGov reported in 2013.

But the April 29 Buzz score was 11, just before the boycott  was signed by the millionth customer.

Also, the damage is being done even though the nation’s establishment media outlets are largely ignoring the huge consumer rejection of Target’s pro-transgender rule.

The public’s rebuke of the company has been almost ignored by the Washington Post andABC, while the limited coverage at the New York Times, NBC and CBS have been favorable to Target.

The feminist ‘Conservative’ Party of Canada? No thanks.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/the_feminist_conservative_party_of_canada_no_thanks.html

 

After the federal election loss last October, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Stephen Harper, stepped down.  Following years of ranting against those feasting uselessly at the public trough, he now sits as a back-bench member of parliament on the public dole, not even saying a word and apparently justhiding in his office most of the time.

Just ignore the obvious hypocrisy.  Perhaps it is well past due for Mr. Harper to go work in the private sector of the supposedly fabulous economy he left the rest of us?

Into Mr. Harper’s shoes came the interim leader of the party, Rona Ambrose.  As interim leader, she is forbidden by the party’s constitution from seeking the permanent leadership position that will be voted on next year.  A “draft Rona” movement has been started in attempt to change the party rule preventing her candidacy.

This leads to the rather sparse polling data on whom conservatives in Canada want to see as their next federal leader.  In general, Peter MacKay and Kevin O’Leary top the polls in the range of 20% or so – give or take several percentage points either way – and there is even some minor nostalgia for Mr. Harper leading the pack at 28% in one recent poll.

But a new poll out yesterday shows that if Ms. Ambrose were allowed to run, she would lead the race at 26% – ahead of Messrs. O’Leary and MacKay, but hardly a ringing endorsement when you have been interim leader for six months and three quarters of the base doesn’t want to see you handed the permanent position if the needed rule change went through.

The party has been drifting apart internally for some time, and Ms. Ambrose’s interim leadership only adds to the wedge.  She is a self-professed libertarian, although apparently a “libertarian who supports a strong role for government” (whatever that means), and while the two groups have some overlap, libertarians are not conservatives or vice versa, and conservatarians are so amorphous as to be incomprehensible to pin down on any ideological platforms – otherwise known as near-zero policy predictivity, which translates into little voter appeal, since the public doesn’t know how you are likely to approach each decision if elected.

Ms. Ambrose also has an undergraduate degree in “women’s and gender studies” from the University of Victoria.  This is unfortunate.  I had the misfortune of also attending this university, but in a science department, and it is a radical hotbed of nuttery, especially in those identity politics departments such as women’s and gender studies.  While one often makes a forgivable mistake on which degree one pursues when first arriving at college, there is no excuse for the one one leaves with.  Why not get an intellectually rigorous and useful degree instead?  How can anyone intelligent possibly sit through four years of the nonsense that goes on in “women’s and gender studies”?

Canadian conservatism simply does not need this divisive viewpoint leading the party.  Before all the misandrists in and around the new party leadership scream misogyny, this has nothing to do with gender, but everything to do with getting the party and the country focused exclusively on gender-neutral goals such as prosperity.  And if you can’t see a gender-blind path forward that views “women’s and gender studies” as part of the problem, not the solution, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Ms. Ambrose has engaged directly in this gender-baiting game, such as when – during a discussion over the Liberal Party’s national child care plan, she toldLiberal M.P. Ken Dryden that “[w]orking women want to make their own choices.  We don’t need old white guys telling us what to do.”  Inexcusable racist and sexist nonsense, that comment was.  Would young white guys have been different?  How about visible minority men?  Never mind that child care is far more complex than just an issue for women in the 21st century; some might have crazy views that both men and women should have a say on child care.

There were more constructive and intelligent ways of critiquing the deeply flawed Liberal plan without spouting what was spouted.

Sadly, such comments are neither unique to Ms. Ambrose nor a thing of the past.  Michelle Rempel, the Conservative Party’s official opposition critic for immigration, refugees, and citizenship under Ms. Ambrose, and that of#SecureBedroomSelfie infamy, recently penned an op-ed in a national newspaper accusing John McCallum, the immigration, refugees, and citizenship minister in the Liberal Party – of sexism for his comment to her in the House of Commons that “[w]e’re into sunny ways.  I would suggest to my colleague to look a little more cheerful.”

I’m no fan of McCallum, whose misguided refugee and immigration policies are turning Canada into Syria North, but it is pure gibberish to call that sexism.

And liberals aren’t the only ones bearing the brunt of the “you’re a sexist pig” shout-down strategy by those in and around the party’s leadership whenever they hear some criticism.  For those watching carefully online over the past couple years, this tactic has been used against fellow conservatives as well.  Tsk, tsk…perhaps that was sexist, too.

Times are difficult in Canada.  The economy is sputtering – nay, it is now apparently going backwards.  Average families are suffering greatly.  Good, talented people are trying to get a foothold in society, and failing.  Justin Trudeau is attempting to import the Middle East into the country to ensure a permanent electoral majority, while our citizens are getting their heads hacked off overseas by the same Islamists.

The Conservative Party of Canada is at a crossroads.  True conservatives are ready to split for good, and some notable ones already have – often going over temporarily (at least) to the Liberal Party, of all places, or sitting in the no man’s land between, which shows just how toxic the Conservative Party’s new identity politics games(wo)manship and other problems have become.

No libertarians.  No feminists.  Just gender-blind conservatives, please, woman or man.  Ignore that recommendation, and you will be staring at Liberal Party majority governments for as far as the eye can see.

 

 

 

Feminism Is a Synonym for ‘Shut Up’

Feminism Is a Synonym for ‘Shut Up’

 

A major goal of feminism is to silence opposition. Because their ideology cannot withstand informed and articulate criticism, feminists therefore requires a dishonest vocabulary of jargon that functions to disqualify and discredit their opponents. A man expressing disagreement with a feminist will invariably be accused of “sexism” or “misogyny,” and if he persists in his criticism, he will be accused of “harassment.” What these terms actually mean — other than as pejorative labels, deployed to smear the movement’s enemies — is seldom examined. It is quite often the case that men who ostensibly support feminism engage in abusive behavior toward women (e.g., Jian Ghomeshi), whereas men who oppose the movement are branded “misogynists” for no other reason than their willingness to state their criticism honestly and openly.

 

more at the above link

U of W cheerleaders discriminate in favor of attractive women

 

 

http://newsmachete.com/?news=1633

 

The University of Washington has been caught red-handed trying to recruit cheerleaders who are slim and physically attractive:

After a social media firestorm, the University of Washington cheerleading squad took down a poster with “do’s and don’ts” of how people should look for their upcoming tryouts.
Twitter and Facebook users called out the squad, saying the poster encourages body shaming and prioritizes appearance over ability with “body do’s” like being “physically fit” with an “athletic physique.” They also ask that potential cheerleaders wear just a sports bra and mid-rise black shorts, while telling them not to wear any tops “that cover the midriff” or high-waisted shorts.

In a statement, the University of Washington athletic department said they instructed the squad to take down the poster after realizing that it could beseen as offensive.

If recruiting cheerleaders for attractiveness is now a crime, what about models for advertisements? Don’t they discriminate against ugly people too? What about actresses? Same thing.

There is no right in the constitution to be protected from discrimination because of uglyness. There are some obvious fields where attractiveness is desirable. I’m sure U of W is going to keep recruiting pretty women for their cheerleading team, only now they’re going to be less open about it.

By the way, when do you think we will see our first transgendered cheerleader? I’m sure it will be soon.