They Doxx Tacos, Don’t They?

The grievance merchants on the American left — you know, the ones who have somehow obtained the power to mysteriously determine the difference between “free speech” and “hate speech” — rarely engage in rhetorical flourishes to justify their choices. Why should they? In a very real sense, wit and humor are almost exclusively the province of the underdog in any given situation. Think back to high school for a moment and ask yourself who the funny people were. Chances are that you won’t recall the captain of the football team or the homecoming queen among them. Rather, it was the locker-stuffed nerds and pipsqueaks who managed to dull the pain with a trenchant observation or tension-relieving joke.

Back when the Left was being stuffed into this country’s lockers, there was all sorts of great humor being written in the support of liberal causes. Today that’s not the case; we’ve exchanged the darkly funny and thoroughly subversive Smothers Brothers for the effete, hysterical, screeching John Oliver. Most progressive humor is a variant on “OMG LOOK AT THAT STUPID HICK.” Yet there is one particular sorta-witty phrase that I’ve recently heard in defense of various left-wing measures: “So what if (insert hivemind directive) isn’t real? What’s the worst that could happen? That we all (insert oversimplified result here) or something?” A frequent example is “So what if global warming isn’t real? What’s the worst that could happen? That we all have clean energy and lowered consumption and less impact to the environment or something?” This sounds very reasonable, of course, and it omits the fact that the “impact” of climate change regulations as a whole tends to be the shifting of economic, political, and military power from the Western World to China and India. Nobody argues against climate-change-related legislation because they hate stable weather and/or a reasonable crop yield. You might as well as “When did you stop beating your wife?”

Another variant: “What’s the worst thing that could happen if we got rid of hate speech and bigoted speech? That everybody would treat everybody else with dignity and respect?” This, too, sounds reasonable — but it conveniently overlooks that fact that one person’s “hate speech” is another person’s “free speech,” or “realtalk”, or even “gallows humor.” It also overlooks the fact that speech and power are directly correlated in any literate society. That’s why our British cousins will put people in jail for revving an Esprit V8 in the presence of immigrants but staunchly defend the right to advocate the violent death of all white men. It’s about power, not speech; my power to destroy your life for saying something that I don’t like while, at the same time, saying anything I want with utter impunity. And the more ridiculous that “anything” is, the more power I have. Never forget that Orwell’s O’Brien could float off the floor, if he wished it. When you make it public policy to jail one group of people for “hate speech” while encouraging it from others, you are effectively floating off the floor of reason.

They were both drunk, but only men can commit crimes.

This explains why we have so many centrist and right-of-center writers who depend on anonymity… and it explains why, as of two days ago, we are effectively short one of those fellows.


It is commonly believed that “The Last Psychiatrist” stopped writing after he was successfully “doxxed”. That’s a shame, because even if you absolutely disagreed with everything he wrote there’s a solid chance that he at least made you think about your own beliefs. It’s important to note, however, that TLP never came out and said that he’d been doxxed, nor has the person commonly identified as TLP ever made a public statement on the matter. For all we know, the “doxxing” was a complete whiff and TLP actually died of a heart attack or moved to Senegal or lost the password to his WordPress account.

Contrast that to the latest blog from one of my favorite writers, the semi-anonymous “Delicious Tacos”. On Sunday he announced that he had been doxxed and that he was going to lay low for a bit.

Someone tried to explain musical theater to me. He said the characters burst into song when dialogue can’t contain the emotion. I burst into crazy shit when banality can’t contain the emotion. Unlike musicals, my writing doesn’t make you want to puke. It’s not fake. Those words serve a purpose.

Unless you’re some authority figure reading this. Then it’s 100% fake.

It happens that this week a guy made a groveling apology to CNN, so they wouldn’t dox him. The indirect threat: we’ll show your Nazi shitposts to your boss. His apology made me sick. It was a lie. Mine was real. I don’t want my ridiculous hobby to fuck up other people’s livelihoods.

But then people read this stuff and feel less alone. Sorry it’s gone for now.

I’m sorry it’s gone as well — doubly so because “Tacos” was intimidated into taking it down rather than simply walking away or losing interest. What concerns me most is that his writing wasn’t even explicitly political. Although it might be absolutely repugnant to doxx and/or attack the fellow who wrote “The Flight 93 Election”, I can at least see the purpose behind doing so: you don’t want people to read his writing, get their own ideas, and subsequently do something insane like shoot up a school, vote for Trump, or accidentally trigger somebody in a McDonald’s line by using archaic hate phrases like “colored people,” “my wife”, or “hard work”.

Tacos was apolitical. Occasionally he would say something about Trump or Hillary but there was no concrete sense of political identity in his online character. Rather, he wrote dispatches from his life, field reports chock-full of underage prostitutes and needle sharing and abusive relationships and desperate longing. He was no sane person’s idea of a misogynist; if anything, his crime against womynhood was the eminently chargeable West-Coast-rapper offense of loving these hoes, of perpetually seeking the musk and dirt of emotional attachment in the clean-shaven antiseptic anonymous coupling you get off Tinder. He complained that women on the Internet were too fat, but he also criticized himself for not being fat, talked about how he starved himself into a “fine body” that continually screamed with gnawing hunger even as he punished it with an astounding amount of completely meaningless exercise. As a white man, he supposedly had “power” and “privilege”, but he also wrote about the humiliation of being lectured by a younger boss and then being forced to beg for work as a secretary. This wasn’t exactly Dick Cheney or Chuck Schumer, you know? He didn’t have “power” as we think of it in 2017.

He chased hundreds of women through the same predicable pattern, the same bar, the same duck pond, the same excuses for not using a condom, the same justifications for ejaculating prematurely. He did the same thing over and over while always expecting a different result, which is authentically tragic. And although he rarely failed to get laid, it did nothing for him. In the end, the women always won. They always walked away, always found somebody more successful or more powerful. “Whether you are loved or not,” he ruefully admitted, “is determined by the shape of your skull.” He could redeem his skull and his abs on the Tinder market for a steady stream of overweight twenty-something Chinese and Mexican girls but alas, poor Yorick! his skull didn’t carry enough value to find him somebody worth loving.

Why dox this guy? Why attack him? Sure, a feminist might want to eliminate the drivel written by people like Tucker Max, because that stuff probably encourages young men to treat women like disposable trash. I can also understand why a feminist might want to eliminate Chateau Heartiste; the explicit purpose of that site is to teach “betas” how to trick women into thinking they are “alphas” just long enough to get their panties off.

(Brief digression: Does anybody else find it fascinating that our society accepts and admires the multi-billion-dollar industries of makeup, exercise, clothing, and behavior coaching to help women “catch a better man” while at the same time labeling the work done by CH, Mystery, and the “pickup artists” as “rapey” and “creepy” and “misogynist”? What’s the difference between a woman wearing a push-up bra and a man learning how to be a “charming jerkboy”? Aren’t both of those strategies just attempts to “date up”? Should we all have to meet and judge each other for the first time while we are stark naked, shorn of everything from hair gel to W-2 statement? And if that’s the case, why aren’t nudist resorts more popular with young people?)

I don’t approve of the tactics used by the Anita Sarkeesians and AJ Daulerios of the world, but at least there’s the distant shadow of an end to justify the grittily repugnant character of their means. There is no reason, however, for women to complain or attack or “dox” Delicious Tacos. In fact, the complete lack of reason for feminists to attack the guy makes me think maybe they’re not the ones doing it. Maybe there’s some dude out there who is jealous because Tacos can score nineteen-year-old size-16 Chinese-American students and he can’t. That, too, is a West Coast rap crime: hating the player and not the game. It’s some super-white-knight typa dude, possibly, like all the punchable faces you see in tiny black-and-white pictures next to “white male ally woke opinion pieces”.

But isn’t it racist that the scale becomes blacker as the racism decreases?

“Seriously,” the reader replies, “are you that stupid, Jack? You tell us up front that this is all about power, then you pretend to not understand that fact!” Guilty as charged. You’re right. The doxxing of Tacos isn’t about right or wrong, isn’t about misogyny or racism. It’s about power. More specifically, it’s about the power to own the narrative. If you read Jezebel or Cosmo or any of the million other “YO GO GIRL!” sites out there you will hear again and again that nothing truly satisfies the “woke” woman of THE_CURRENT_YEAR like engaging in casual sex with “ripped dudes” and then “ghosting”. Anonymous, meaningless sex with beautiful people: that is apparently a goal of modern feminism. And why shouldn’t it be? All of the real stuff like voting and property ownership and equal pay has already been achieved. Feminists in 2017 are like the guy who completes one of the “Grand Theft Auto” games with more or less a flawless victory — and then has nothing to do so he starts going back through the “side quests” out of boredom.

The writing of Delicious Tacos is “problematic” because it suggests that nobody is satisfied by these empowered, antiseptic couplings except for the data-mining firms that can more effectively market to you based on your Tinder selection data. There’s nothing in the man’s writing that is one-tenth as abusive, violent, or manipulative as any five random paragraphs taken from the “Fifty Shades” books. There’s just an endless, Sisyphean struggle against the sorrows of the modern sexual market. And here’s the worst part: to a significant percentage of his readers, the man’s lifestyle is enviable. Because we’re now in the 80/20 world of dating. Los Angeles, and every other metro area in America, truly is Surf City, only there are five girls for every one of the “right” boy and the online porno-gaming-peak-TV-orgasmatron for everybody else.

It’s doubleplusungoodthink. It has to go. It doesn’t sell products and it doesn’t advance the monoculture. Time to shut Mr. Tacos, and everybody else like him, down for good. I mean, what’s the worst that could happen if we destroyed the lives of every male writer in America? We wouldn’t have to read any more of that stupid, racist Cheever or Melville or Shakespeare or Chaucer or Delicious Tacos? How could you be against that? Think about your job, your house, and your kids before you answer that question in public, alright?

64 Replies to “They Doxx Tacos, Don’t They?”

  1. -Nate-Nate

    ” archaic hate phrases like “colored people,” “my wife”, or “hard work”. ”

    ? What about ‘ Back Folks ?’ .

    I bet I’m in the soup now .

    ? What the hell is “woke” anyway ? .

    -Nate

    Reply
  2. Dirty Dingus McGee

    Nate ask’s; ? What the hell is “woke” anyway ?

    For me, it’s what I do just before I get out of bed. But I’m old, so have no idea WTF it means these days.

    Reply
  3. viper32cm

    Every time I read something like this, especially the commentaries on the current state of dating and sex, I’m struck with the sickening feeling that Huxley called it eighty-five years ago with a shocking degree of accuracy.

    Reply
    • Jim Goad

      Yeah, this.
      Interesting post by Jack. IF you GAF about internet squabbles, rather than just shitposting.
      All this crap is narcissistic trash; blogs, trolling, SJW crusades, based Dickman, etc. Being narcissistic can be great, just ask Donald or Big Truck.
      That racism scale. Where did that come from?

      Reply
      • -Nate-Nate

        I still have no clue (as if it’s not obvious) and my crappy (but FREE!) monitor is too fuzzy to read what the chart says .

        -Nate

        Reply
  4. Deadweight

    #MAGA

    Trump is Making America Great Again! Rabble, Rabble!

    Jack & his little, tiny brother Mark do more bitching & moaning about these
    alt-right pussies (open or incognito, plausible denial types) complaining of being suppressed, oppressed -melting snowflakes that they are- than all the lefties and antifas combined.

    Waaah! Waaaaah!

    Where’s Bark/Mark’s and Jack’s anti-antifa hero and protectorate, the genius known as based Stickman, when Jack and Mark/Bark’s vaginal tears need him most!

    Quick, someone flash the Based Stickman Signal, so he can apply salve and balm to Mark/Bark’s and Jack’s vaginal wounds!

    Reply
      • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

        DW complains that all we do on this blog is whine… then links to a blog where the author sobs over the prospect of kids being mind raped by the creation museum.

        Reply
        • Bark M

          I think he also failed to read the article. The bill specifically states “Amend KRS 158.183 to permit students to voluntarily express religious or political viewpoints in school assignments free from discrimination.” Nowhere does the bill state that teachers may teach Creationism as a substitute for Evolution. In fact, further amendments to the bill in the Senate state that students may ONLY express their opinions as long as they are not infringing on the rights of other students.

          In other words, it gives Christian kids the same rights that Muslims kids have. Seems fair.

          Reply
      • Max Hoffman

        You useless fucking worm. You contribute nothing to the discourse, you’ve never inspired anyone to think more about anything. All criticism and personal attacks bringing nothing to the table. Shut the fuck up you parasite of a human.

        Reply
    • Jim Goad

      I want an alt-right shield like stockman. What logo should I put on it? I know, 4 big letters: BTSR.
      But should I wear a pussy-hat or a spartan helmet?

      Reply
  5. hank chinaski

    And so the lead changes again in the horse race between Orwell’s and Huxley’s versions of the future.

    As for DT, he did post pictures of himself on his Twitter feed. Apologies, I’m victim blaming. If memory serves, the original ‘Roissy’ had his picture posted by a jilted paramour.

    So at what point will we be commenting at RG behind a VPN, Tor, and ‘a dozen proxies’?

    Reply
    • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

      I assume that some day I’ll be taken off a respirator early because I wrote this blog. It’s already cost me a fair amount of work. Oh well.

      Reply
      • Dirty Dingus McGee

        Large/largish men with long hair and beards (not “neckbeards” and man buns), have a strike against them in the first place.

        I persevere by using the mind over matter approach;

        Those that mind, don’t matter. Those that matter, don’t mind.

        Reply
  6. James

    Because: Women select for status; men select for appearance. The women who made the social rules decided that faking appearance is fine, but faking status is not. “Looks don’t matter–it’s who you are on the inside that counts!”–for definitions of “on the inside” that include how much money you make.

    Reply
    • Bark M

      A female friend of mine recently left her husband. When she notified him of her decision to leave, he didn’t say, “Please don’t go, I love you.” No, he said, “If you leave me, you’ll lose this beautiful house and your car.”

      Not surprisingly, she left.

      Reply
      • Brawnychicken

        Except….she probably kept the car and the house. Or at least figured she would-so what the heck.

        Reply
          • Don Curton

            The one exception that proves the rule.

            Just saying, we’ve all seen it many times the other way around.

          • Brawnychicken

            That is truly amazing. We’ve all seen the opposite. And not just in the case of well off couples either. Guys who get divorced, earn less than or equal to their wife, and still get taken to the cleaners.

          • jz78817

            I don’t know that many people, but of the ones who have been through a divorce none have been the stereotypical “guy gets taken to the cleaners.” One had no kids involved and he successfully made the case he didn’t owe her shit, another has custody of the kids, and a third was on the hook for child support but in that case the money was properly being spent on the kids’ needs.

            I suspect the “I’m taking half yo’ shit” thing only tends to occur amongst the more moneyed set.

    • James

      What I mean is: if you don’t care about some attribute, then it’s natural to think that other people caring about it is somehow unfair–and it’s only fair to subvert unfairness by faking that attribute.

      This is why wearing a push-up bra is OK, but a beta acting like an alpha isn’t–from one point of view. And it’s also why the other point of view is what it is. It’s natural to find it unfair for people to fake the attributes you care about, and conversely.

      Reply
  7. everybodyhatesscott

    Tacos might not be political but he’s not doing what he’s supposed to do so he has to be brought down a peg. It’d be nice if he could survive on his writing and not have to worry about any of this crap.

    I don’t know if I have more contempt for the doxxers or the HR departments who actually say to people “someone brought to our attention something you’re doing in your personal life and we don’t like it” Seriously? Fuck off.

    Reply
      • Bojangles, M.

        Filed under: No Shit.

        Not defending the public release of private information (or blackmail with the threat of same,) as that’s just cowardly snitching, but if I run a business or HR dept. and discover my employee is actually a tremendous prick (yes, determined subjectively and ad hoc) as soon as they’re off the clock, particularly if they’re willing to use their real identity when doing so, I generally can’t find reason to give quarter.

        If both this strawman I’ve just created and his boss like posting anti-Semitic memes to Twitter and having crude, petty slapfights on local news websites at a 4th-grade written verbal skill level, he’s probably in the clear. Personally I’ll think it’s pitiful if I know about it and won’t buy anything from that business, but unless there’s some incitement or threat of violence it is what it is. However if he has a Jewish boss and all those based Pepes and (((Soros))) Photoshops or whatever don’t go over well, I don’t see a legitimate obligation to keep him around.

        Reply
        • Jeff Madson

          Bojangles, you just confirmed the reason why HR departments care,
          “Personally I’ll think it’s pitiful if I know about it and won’t buy anything from that business,”
          If an employee does something on his personal time that affects the income coming into my business, I care.

          Reply
          • hank chinaski

            The 41.3% I referred were the group perceived negatively by having no (open) social media presence, in which case they are viewed as luddites or else employers prefer the low hanging fruit of Faceborg, LinkedIn or Twitter pages.

  8. The Punisher

    Takeaway:

    Jack loves and admires an admitted pedophile who engages in publication of rape fantasy, and Bark probably (!) would have employer issues should said employer become aware of much that he has written in the past.

    Doxxing seems to be, at least in some instances, a reasonable means of discovering the real life identities of fairly detestable individuals attempting to anonymize their disgusting beliefs behind the “anonymity” of the internet.

    Reply
    • Bark M

      I assure you, my employer reads my posts daily. In fact, we have a strict social
      media policy that I have to adhere to. You wouldn’t be my first doxxer, nor would you be my last.

      Reply
  9. Tyler

    Speaking for most of the actual HR departments out there… If your employers can afford to have a human being monitor your off-the-clock activities, I salute their profit margins. I mean, Jesus. Don’t divulge private information or openly promote criminal activity and you’re okay in my book. You may be confusing “HR” with “asshole boss”.

    Reply
    • Bojangles, M.

      If your job isn’t posting things on the internet, I don’t think many reasonable employers would “monitor your off-the-clock activites” per se, but if one is concerned about being hired in the future, maybe don’t create a permanent, comprehensive log of antisocial behavior. Frankly, it isn’t that hard to not be an asshole, or at least it shouldn’t be.

      And yes I know, standards of acceptability vary widely; I’m here commenting on a website I like to read which has apparently cost one of its authors tangible work, but I don’t think there’s any simple or polite answer at the intersection of social tolerances and the unhindered ability to project one’s opinions to the world.

      Reply
    • Felis Concolor

      You haven’t read the book.

      You need to read this book.

      https://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought-ebook/dp/B014GMBUR4

      Judging from your statement, the HR departments you’ve experienced haven’t yet been converged. If that ever happens, the witch hunts, blizzard of lies and expulsions will quickly transform the company into an innefective, virtue-signalling mess.

      “. . . If your employers can afford to have a human being monitor your off-the-clock activities . . .”

      Trust me when I say the SJWs don’t need to be paid anything beyond their normal wages to perform their blog-scanning, phrase-interpreting, keyword-logging, blacklisting activities; they live for this and can’t function in any other mode.

      https://youtu.be/SwYd5cRlROE

      Reply
  10. Ryan

    For those of us who were in High School or College in the mid-00s, all we had back then was Tucker Max and Neil Strauss (as far as books go). I don’t know in today’s climate if either book would get picked up by anyone, let alone become NYT Bestsellers.

    I have to question the chilling effect doxxing will have on writers in the manosphere (I hate this term), or otherwise. In comparison, DT’s work is relatively benign. When I saw his tweets on monday, it definitely struck a nerve. I will never be able to wrap my head around a group of people who march in the name of civil rights, but attempt to stifle the 1st (or 2nd, for that matter) Amendment rights of others at any opportunity.

    It’s a sad day when talented writers need to hide behind pseudonyms for fear of being doxxed, and others receive acclaim for pushing out absolute drivel like this for $20 per article:

    http://jezebel.com/sexual-intensity-like-nothing-else-a-chat-with-a-woman-1686112361

    Reply
    • Deadweight

      This has nothing to do with 1st Amendment right to free speech.

      People can say whatever they want in real life or on the interwebz (with exceedingly few exceptions, i.e. terrorist threats, i.e. publishing someone’s medical records without consent, etc.).

      There are corresponding consequences, however, commensurate with the right to exercise free speech.

      Sometimes, these consequences manifest themselves in terms of adverse employment consequences, being identified as a disgusting racist piece of shit by the community writ large, or having to deal with legal consequences such as claims of slander or libel, etc.

      People liked delicioustacos are only intimidated by the thought of being “doxxed” because they published their vile, genuine thoughts on women, sexual relations, and other such things for years, assuming that they had unlimited freedom to do so while being anonymous in real life, hence, shielding them from the real world consequences of their thoughts and words forever.

      However, when it they realize that their cloak and dagger routine is blown, they run and hide like little weasels.

      Reply
      • Ryan

        I disagree with your belief that this “has nothing to do with 1st Amendment right to free speech.” While your statement may be correct in an academic sense, you conveniently overlook the fact that doxxing has a history of being used to silence people with “unfavorable” opinions.

        Here are three recent examples:

        * In 2016, an Assistant Professor at Merrimack College, Melissa Zimdars, was reportedly doxxed for posting a list of “Fake News” sites, including Breitbart and Infowars.

        * In 2015, Minneapolis City Councilwoman Alondra Cano doxxed people who questioned her involvement in #BLM, posting their personal information on the internet.

        * In 2011, a group of > 40 LAPD officers were doxxed by Anonymous for their alleged involvement in shutting down Occupy LA.

        Personally, I found the Jezebel story linked above to be a “vile” account of one’s “sexual relations.” While the incestous relationship with her father certainly has no correlation to her skills in the workplace, is it safe to assume that upon learning of her “history,” a potential employer may have formed some opinions about this person? Does this woman above deserve to be shielded “from the real world consequences” of sharing her sexual encounters with the internet? If someone hypothetically doxxed that woman, how would that be any different from DT receiving his “comeuppance” for posting his own life experiences?

        Reply
        • DeadWeight

          Using ” vagina” as a perjorative term to impeach someone’s masculinity is not that big of a deal.

          Many women (and men) call others a “dick” to indicate that they think the referenced-person is mean or aggressive.

          The C word is the big no-no, arguably (open question, but I err on the side that it’s repulsive) given it’s origins and literal street-meaning, which has a meaning far removed and different than that of the anatomically-derived “vagina.”

          Reply
          • Bark M

            Send me your clients’ email addresses, and I’ll write them to see if they agree—or would you weasel away from such a conversation?

          • DeadWeight

            C’mon, I’d never use any such language, regardless as to my own rules in private life (the one where I do liberally swear, and tend to be extremely non-politically correct, believe it or not), in the workplace or in the presence of coworkers or clients.

            As it happens, however, I do have limits, even in private life, and don’t use the C word, as that’s a genuinely disgusting pejorative.

            And by the way, your implication above, that I’d somehow attempt to doxx you, is ridiculous and a really cheap shot.

            People are entitled to their own political and personal views on all manner of things, and anyone who’d try to extract revenge upon someone who they disagree with by threatening their livelihood/job/employment-relations is a genuine dick of a person (this is even more emphatically the case whereby said person has kids to feed).

            I’d never do such a thing barring the theoretical case whereby someone is literally advocating pedophilia, or truly and effectively inciting people to commit acts of actual violence against others, or actively engaging in the trade of sex-trafficking, or things similarly reprehensible (it would have to be an abhorrent, morally repugnant activity, and not expression of opinion, no matter how vehemently I disagreed with that opinion, that would prompt me to get personally involved in such a matter).

            That was a low blow and I resent it.

          • Bark M

            What on Earth are you talking about? I didn’t imply that you would doxx me.

            But, on that subject, I’m a public figure using my own name. If you want to know where I work, just look it up on the internet. Everything I’ve ever posted on the internet, all 400+ articles, has my name attached to it. When I worked at Autotrader, I had several people—including co-workers and some of the fine folks at Orlando Kia West—send copies of things I’d written to my boss (who read my blog daily) and Human Resources. They said, “Eh, we kinda wish you wouldn’t, but we can’t reprimand you for it.”

            My current employer hired me, in part, BECAUSE of my writing, and points to my automotive writing as part of my expertise when working with clients—we just closed a $300k social media campaign, thanks to the dealer being a follower of mine on social media.

            As such, no, I’m not terribly worried about doxxing, but I still find it to be reprehensible. Our dearly departed commenter, VoGo, gave me shit about using a pseudonym once, at which point I replied to him using his first name. I did a massive amount of research to discover this—I read his email address that he used to register on this site. I have no interest in going even that far with people in internet battles at this point.

          • Deadweight

            Any further replies will have to wait.

            I’m excitedly off to a meeting tangentially involving the Lockheed Martin F35 fighter program.

            If there was ever an example of a true crime, en masse, against American Taxpayers, this would be it.

            If anyone is bored or curious about galactically large government clusters*cks of programs and nearly incomprehensible levels of stupidity and wasteful government spending, do even a bare modicum of research on the F35 program.

            Prepare to be angered.

          • Will

            The C word is the language of Chaucer and Shakespeare; plus it definitely has the effect you want. People should not limit themselves with that word, especially when a woman deserves to be called that. It has much less effect on guys sadly.

      • everybodyhatesscott

        People liked delicioustacos are only intimidated by the thought of being “doxxed” because they published their vile, genuine thoughts on women, sexual relations, and other such things for years, assuming that they had unlimited freedom to do so while being anonymous in real life, hence, shielding them from the real world consequences of their thoughts and words forever.

        If you think people should lose their jobs because they’re assholes on the internet, I’ve got some really bad news for you.

        Reply
  11. Jeffrey Zekas

    Perfectly stated, Jack. I always think that if Monty Python appeared nowadays, they would immediately be attacked and Doxed. Certainly, they could not sing their hilarious song “I Like Chinese” nor could they make their skit about witches (from the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail) without becoming social outcasts.

    Reply
  12. Athos

    These guys got ratted and fucked in the a$$ because they are poor. Plain and simple.

    If they happened to have the levels of fuck you money the guys of other places I read have, the ending of the story would be very very different.

    PS: TLP IS still a brilliant read.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *