Sunday, September 24, 2006

Freedom of speech, except on Tuesdays.


From Canada's Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck™, we learn that academic freedom of speech is a fundamental principle of the wankersphere. Unless it happens at night, or you're the player on the dealer's right. Or it involves left-wing speech.

Especially that last part.

OOPSIE
: Apparently, some of Canada's wankers might be a bit behind the times. That's what happens when you change your principles on a weekly basis.

BY THE WAY, if you have time to kill and don't mind wading knee-deep in right-wing stupidity, spend some time perusing the comments at that article of Kate's, where an entire community of wankers whines on and on and, God help us all, tediously on about "freedom of speech" and similar crap.

And once you've established, beyond any doubt, the principle they think is at stake here, feel free to read Illka Kokkarinen's blog itself, where Kokkarinen lets all the air out of that pretentious, victim-oriented, whiny balloon in one fell swoop:

Based on the torrent of email I have received since yesterday, plus the comments to my earlier post, I feel that I really must clarify something important here, before really signing off completely.

I am doing this completely in my free will to become a much better person than I used to be. No entity whatsoever has threatened me with any kind of consequences for blogging. This is not any kind of violation of my rights or free speech. In particular, if any of you want to start email or other campaigns about this, or in some other way publically accuse people and organizations for having treated me wrong, please don't. I seriously mean this.

Well, holy crap. So much for that "freedom of speech" bullshit over which Kate and her worker bees were getting their nutsacks in a knot. But here's the best part:

I made cheap and cruel potshots to mock people who had done nothing to me, being no better than some little boy who pulls wings off a fly. And that is just inexcusable, even if the other stuff had been the greatest thing since sliced bread, which it certainly wasn't. Occasionally I wanted to snark at somebody whose mere existence had somehow offended me even though they were nothing but words on the screen or enemies inside my head, and it's not like it's that hard to find aspects that are silly or mockable with pretty much anything. The worst things that I did were to thoughtlessly mock some group for no other reason but just to pinch at some particular person in that group...

... I have decided that simply don't want to be that asshole anymore.

That flatulent sound you hear is the entire Canadian right-wing wanker community deciding they really don't want that guy as their poster child anymore. Time to find another utterly bogus cause, methinks.

P.S. Note to Catholics -- that's an apology. Just so you can recognize one if you ever run across it.

3 comments:

The Seer said...

This is what he said:

"I would challenge anybody to show me a post of mine that is anti-woman, as opposed to merely anti-feminist." (August 30, 2006, 5:45 p.m.)

This is what Ilkka Kokkarinen said:

"There should be some central planning mechanism that would allocate each woman a bunch of needy men to satisfy each week. I think that this would be only fair: if feminists think that they are entitled to 50% of wealth created by productive men that these men would selfishly want to keep to themselves, then those men should be correspondingly entitled to 50% of sex that the feminists are able to provide to men but selfishly choose not to."

He said that in a blog last April. (Got it from a Google cache.) Someone, he explained September 20, 2006, ran it down and sent a copy of the it to the Women's Center at Ryerson University, where he works, teaching school.

What you saw on his post today is (a) the wages of sin, and (b) his attempt to retain his position.

You can argue all you want back and forth about censorship and freedom of speech, but what it comes down to is that women were scorned.

And yes, it is an apology.

Ti-Guy said...

This is not any kind of violation of my rights or free speech. In particular, if any of you want to start email or other campaigns about this, or in some other way publically accuse people and organizations for having treated me wrong, please don't. I seriously mean this.

I wonder if this even registered with KKKate? If she caused him any work hassles, he could sue her.

I know I would.

Meaghan Walker-Williams said...

I confess that I just read kKKates name and then scrolled down to read the quote.

And I thought for a brief few moments.. "Holy smokes.. Kate's gotten a therapist, She's in counselling. She's developed some self-awareness. Good for her. That's great"

But then I realized it wasn't quoting her.