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 ask "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?