DISCLAIMER 1: What follows is a mixture of speculation and satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the article itself (go & eat your heart out Chu-boy).
DISCLAIMER 2: I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent #GamerGate. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll Status. For those who stayed, behold;January 2015, late night, a young woman is at home with her husband, her 2 children and the children’s grandmother. 4 criminals break in, they subdue the adults at knife point, then rape the mother 4 times while her children were present.
If the first thing that came to your mind was that the rape victim was a “stupid liar,” most likelyyour name is Arthur Chu. See, the problem with Arthur Chu, is that despite the police reports, the witnesses, the police investigation, the rape kit, the arrests, the charges, the resulting sentenced criminals and the charity organizedby Mercedes Carrera, Arthur Chu’s first impulse was to ignore the evidence then selectively remove his empathy then the humanity of this specific female victim. He even managed to remove his feminist mantra of “listen & believe women” and just label the charity as “stupid” as the above tweet indicates.
What do feminists themselves call that imaginary concept? The one based on that low budget fringe documentary? You know…the one when men actively promote, ignore or indirectly support rape? Oh yes! They call it“rape culture.” So, Arthur Chu, who swears up and down to defend all women who suffer even the slightest form of abuse (real, imaginary or fabricated) managed to create & join his own rape culture. Yes, Arthur Chu is, by his own feminist definition, a toxic male that supports his own brand of rape culture by rejecting authentic victims of rape like Cytherea.
Few times in life can you witness this form of spectacular hypocrisy. Just think about it, when he refused to acknowledge, then blamed Cytherea for her own rape, Arthur Chu managed to behave exactly like the “toxic men” promote “rape culture.”
Congratulations Arthur Chu for ignoring Cytherea’s rape & creating then joining your own brand of “rape culture”.
You Narcissistic Retribution Coward.
This level of sheer, unalloyed, spectacular hypocrisy can only be offered by the kind of delusional people who live under the same Marxist-radical-left ideological roof and its inescapable haze. These people are selectively proactive neophytes who do not lack intelligence but consistently choose to stifle it with the intense haze of Marxist opium coming from their burned cult-like leftist ideology which gradually and inexorably transforms them into the kind of dense, hypocritical paradox Arthur Chu’s imitation of existence represents. Despite his potential intellect, Arthur lives in a constant illusion of free will because his ability to reason is too selective and compartmentalized by the “virtue” of his own delusional undeclared religion: feminism.
But again, weren’t all women supposed to be “equal”? What hard-left hazy delusional rules did Arthur Chu follow to come to the conclusion Cytherea was not worthy of any compassion? Judging by his behavior, he hypothetically may have followed a set of convoluted conditions & caveats such as the following
Complex “Arthur Chu’s laws”
1) The term “all women” does not always mean the entirety of all women
2) It sometimes means some very “specific” women
3) Choosing specific women and excluding some is NOT at all a form of discrimination
4) People like Arthur Chu may or may not reserve the right to ignore all rules in this irregular deformed brand of morality based on orders from above
Confusing isn’t it? Again, their brand of morals is quite convoluted so let’s just try to reduce their bizarre and metastasized morals to just one simplified
Simplified “Arthur Chu’s Law”
You HAVE TO “Listen & Believe all women” UNLESS it is “dirty” “indecent” women.
Is that it? That is how SJWs like Arthur Chu arbitrarily make those absolute “moral” decisions? At first sight, it is very odd how feminists make those exceptions with victims of rape but after a while it makes sense how said feminists cherry-pick who does and who does not deserve compassion. You know why? Sex is a currency & according to feminists, it should be “priceless” but when “indecent women” put an affordable price to it, it makes feminists feel either cheap or overpriced thus they should be “censored” to keep prices artificially “priceless.”
See, the reality is far less elegant than what feminists would like it to look like simply because religion has been doing the same with “indecent” vs “decent” women for centuries. It is called rebranding of religion with a coat of bright feminist pink on top; it is the blatant lie of the “absolute truth” of the feminist religion. Fortunately, If you are a female feminist, you automatically belong to their undeclared religion and you get to reap the benefits of becoming a celebrated victim (because we all know that by just being born a woman you are a default victim, even if born wealthy, right?) not only that but also you get extra benefits because you actively worship the right kind of god; women.
Furthermore, If you are a feminist and you experience rape, that is their feminist religious equivalent of the crucifixion. Every time a feminist is raped (Rolling Stone hoax or not), she is to be paraded like a crucified martyr that will never heal and will therefore be considered a perpetual (profitable) victim, thus feminists manage to keep a fresh, steady supply of automatically-declared cute-looking martyrs in order to get more and more tithing. I mean, “donations” (you have to give them props for being so crafty, with that many rapey-crucifixons being paraded around they do their marketing way better than the Christians who only have the same old, tired & boring one) but guess what? When you ask feminists point blank why they ignore victims of rape like Cytherea what do you get?
Why? Put yourself in their shoes, publicly saying women like Cytherea are “indecent” or “sinful” would be bad for business because their tax-exempt undeclared religion would have to be less illogical, or even worse; it would have to be honest, so, as a feminist, what you would “logically” do is to either avoid the question altogether by repeating verbatim talking points such as “not all feminists are like that!” or even start yapping senselessly “it is for equality!” then claim people are “misogynist-meanies” for not agreeing with you online/in real life (which is sort of humorous when feminists just blurt those out after a long pause during debates with@Nero on YouTube or Twitter). But leaving aside the glaring contradiction that feminists make when they declare some women “less equal,” what do hypocritical immaculate feminist princesses do when they can’t win by throwing a tantrum? Simple, they send you a fat mindless drone…for equality.
Let’s just focus on the shining overweight, social media-based white knight by the name Arthur Chu. This fat drone belongs to a neo-class of SJW white knight who, will not only slay the “dragon” but will also slay any “filthy” maidens the immaculate feminists princesses above order him to. Let’s remember, the original classic white knight in fairy tales was supposed to just slay the dragon & save the maiden and/or die trying. Period (well, besides shagging the thankful princess)
But the neo-SJW white knights variety? Oh, those ones are usually fat and/or un-fuckable mindless males in white social media armor who will slay whatever the right kind of feminist maidens dictate, problem is, to those feminist maidens anything they dislike looks like a “dragon”, for example:
Most forms of humor? They are “offensive dragons”
Your free speech? It’s a “dragon”
Intellectual diversity? Also a “dragon”
To feminists ANYTHING can be considered a “dragon” to be slain by those little neo-SJW white knights that act more like drones (and most are so Chu-butt-ugly that get to shag mostly zero immaculate princesses). The reality is that Arthur Chu knows deep down may know or at least suspect he is no hero, he is no “noble white knight”. If anything, deep down, he knows he is an impulsive, overweight unattractive man with an intense sense of guilt who is, routinely outsmarted, cajoled and used by others. Rather than a white knight in shining armor, Chu is more of a chromed mindless steam roller with terminator delusions of grandeur at best. He is just an object for feminists to use and despite the blatant contradictions he my notice in the orders he receives, Arthur won’t question any of them. He is is just a mindless drone imbued with the illusion of feminist free will.
How else could we explain the sudden complete removal of his sworn servitude to women, to social causes and even worse, denying someone else’s rape? Makes no sense. Unless, we remove Arthur Chu’s sentience and we see him as a blunt object of retribution only leads us into a far worse implication; as previously stated he will not question orders because he consistently & willingly refuses to use his very high intellect, (the one that allowed him to win Jeopardy several times).
Well, to be entirely honest, winning in Jeopardy is not a certificate of intelligence and rather what it means is that in Arthur Chu’s case, as noted before, his intelligence is very narrow & ornamental, like a roomba robot capable of very specific tasks such a sweeping the floors of a game show but other than that, Arthur Chu’s purported intelligence does not apply to his actions which are mostly led by a deformed, misplaced sense of justice fueled by intense guilt for his past. As odd as it sounds, his sweeping-Jeopardy narrow intellect is, ostensibly, useless for authentic boundless reasoning, as much as you could not ask a roomba robot to learn how to have empathy towards victims of home invasion, assault and rape. It is just to narrow to be human.
See, the insult upon the injury to Arthur Chu’s imaginary intelligence is quite surprising, even for a very public feminist like him, he made the mistake of not only very publicly opposing those who defended a woman that was raped but he also contradicted himself and committed a series of feminists capital sins such as blaming the victim as well as not believing them by default (as the feminist doctrine states via Cult leaders like Anita Sarkeesian; he failed to “always believe the victim”). But why are drones like him so easy to control? Truth is, just like other public male feminists, Arthur Chu is ashamed of his own biological existence as a male and is driven by possibly, intense shame for his past which makes him carry a cross that looks more like a “rapey” letter R.
Why? Because when it comes to “worthy” decent women (AKA feminists) he is more than eager to express intense guilt for the sins of “toxic masculinity” and rape itself. He went as far as writing an article where he expresses intense remorse to the point of even appearing on CNN to publicly call himself a coward for being a “passive onlooker” to acts related to rape. It truly sounded as if he was apologizing for being an accomplice to rape. But it also gave the impression he did not want to fully confess to it (more on that on part 3 of this article). Was Arthur Chu trying to atone for his own past sins by apologizing on national TV? Does he secretly donate money from his Jeopardy prizes to battered/raped women shelters, perhaps the way a sinner goes to church and tithes copiously? Did he rape someone in the past? Because of all these blatant acts of hypocrisy, I have zero empathy for Arthur Chu.
Granted, as a Troll, I voluntarily remove all of my empathy towards hypocrites like Arthur Chu. He is not a child anymore, and neither am I. Therefore, I welcome everyone to remove their sympathy towards me as well. Nobody is above the rules. Nobody is off the menu. But in my humble Troll opinion, what matters here is to expose the contradictions of a public hypocrite such as Chu, because he often claims the public moral high ground yet makes convenient exceptions when it comes to victims like Cytherea despite all the evidence. Therefore, I would like to issue a very public challenge to Arthur Chu, here is my open letter/public challenge to him,
Dear Arthur Chu,
Given to the fact you very publicly refused to acknowledge Cytherea’s rape despite all the legal evidence (thus behaving in a way feminism would label as “supporting rape culture”) I took the liberty to gather the necessary public records regarding the arrest and sentencing of Cytherea’s rapists; Qumaire Rainey; Edward London; Latoine Morris & Casey Franks. (attached)
I hereby would like to publicly challenge you to provide credible, indisputable evidence showing the attached court records are in any way shape or form legally false. Allow me to remind you, should you decide to do so, you would also have to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the now near-implausible innocence of the already sentenced criminals: Qumaire Rainey; Edward London; Latoine Morris & Casey Franks. Which would further imply you would be withholding evidence to the innocence of 4 young black teenagers. Furthermore, such actions would imply you not only support rape culture but also the oppression of otherwise innocent black people.
Please be advised to provide extraordinary evidence should you impulsively make extraordinary claims (as you often do) because you would be liable for perjury and/or libel. Also, be reminded your participation in game shows are ornamental & have no real value in the real world, neither legally nor academically.
You are being publicly challenged, I would suggest you avoid being a coward, do so at least once in your life.
Or what? You like to lose publicly?