"A significant error," and "humiliating”, responded Michelle Goldberg’s peers of

violable Nazi accusations she'd fabricated. But we’ll get to that. As a kid, I read a book
entitled “Men on Rape”; of the convicted rapists interviewed, they stated the best
defense from being targeted for rape was to “not be an easy target.” As such, I must be
a hard target to Michelle Goldberg. The first words from her mouth were an
unfounded, prejudiced, gaslighting false dilemma "question"; a rhetorical “false
dilemma” allegation, deceptively composed, designed to be without retort or recourse:
only absolute blame. Her pattern and practice of a long, documented history of
violations of journalistic integrity challenged by Left, Right, and Center media outlets
are a matter of fact. Goldberg acts like a self-obsessed abuser, weaponizing her Opinion
Editorial freelance position to avoid responsibility leveraged as immunity
superpowers of 1984 style judge, jury, executioner: fully consciously, versus anyone
unaligned, alike when she charged Ann Romney as a Nazi for being labeled with a
“Crown of Motherhood”.
To a reasonable person, “Nazi” means forcible, usually violent, fealty as idealogue,
radical, Holy War zealot to chosen cause; no way Goldberg's acts fit such, since she's a
repeat accuser in seeking acolytes for a Nazi hunt. Let’s see if her journalistic standards
fit basic ethics of a 101 student, or close fitting the troll Ryan Long’s video “Interview
with a Nazi (Big Questions)”. (It’s worth a google). Let’s investigate, Dear Watson.
So: “Dear reader, as a Nazi, how would you respond to this question, or are you only a
Nazi behind closed doors?”
That is supposedly a journalistic interview question she deploys with glee,
accompanied by scarcely disguised threats of direct extortion-level distribution to her
mark's friends, family, et al. She wields her precrime judgement against you as duress
to extort your commentary; then specifically states she’ll pervert it as invalidated by
your original sin incompetence. See the Precrime? Doublespeak? Newspeak? Goldberg,
residing in 1984, believes this to be fair journalism; alike her violable and conscious
miscontexting of Vanessa Grigoriadis's publication about campus rape. Goldberg was
forced into a retraction of her false claims and purposeful miscontexting, evading
contextual data from RAIN, issuing a narcissistic, evasive anti-apology. Reasonable
minds see clearly Goldberg’s abuse and deceit. (Forcible?)
Alike rapists and abusers, Michelle Goldberg is gleeful in immoral means-to-an-end
acts, such as when she openly incited violence among young impressionable people on
campus quote to “do your part and spit at [pro-lifers]. Kick them in the head." A Giant
of Fairness, Equality, and Non-Violence. (Violent?)
“Sympathy for Justine Sacco” she entitled her defense for Tweet “Going to Africa. Hope
I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding! I’m white” which Goldberg reductively sympathized as
"...a very bad joke about racism." Oops, sorry, 1.26 Billion Africans, she giggles.
(Apologist?)
Wikipedia shows “In 2014, Goldberg was criticized by Jos Truitt in the Columbia
Journalism Review for one-sided coverage in a piece she wrote about transgenderism,
using discredited work of Dr. Raymond Blanchard's fabricated "autogynephilia". In that
CJR article, Goldberg was accused of violating journalism ethics of inaccuracy in work,
not verifying information, eluding context via addressed by her mark Serano's
provisioning and referencing works discrediting Goldberg's foundational basis against
Trans, while also stereotyping via the “transgender’ism’” verbiage.” (Reductive?)
Defending Goldberg would require her own word salad, namely: “...a kidney and five
years of ...life”, from her response for disparaging with full knowledge, biased, and
evasively miscontexting Grigoriadis's book, 3 years of unprecedented research a
reviewer noted as “...commitment to meticulously telling the stories of individuals
impacted by sexual violence on campus”. (Unconscionable?)
In hypocrisy, Goldberg consciously criticizes patterns of harassment and abusive
behavior such as referenced by her in the 2015 WaPo piece
https://dc.uwm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2288&context=etd​ "Many prominent
feminist writers in the piece mention that dealing with harassment day in and day out
does take a toll on their mental and emotional well being.” Yet Goldberg is blind to her
own violations of the same, referenced exhaustively in just this truncated text; she is a
maiden of justice, truth, and the American? way. (See: Sarcasm).
Or another instance of blind hypocrisy, when calling out others (a practice she vilifies
except when consciously enacting the same abuse) without evidence but with
impunity, her remarks referenced here by a peer “The most alarming trend, to me, is
how the relationship between online feminist theorizing and social capital allows for
“calling out” to become a kind of currency. As flawed as that Michelle Goldberg piece is,
this is something she picks up on. …it’s the kind of popularity/social currency
dimensions of that practice. It becomes posturing, showing off, narcissistic and/or
cliquey…”. Simplicity shows Goldberg uses the calling out constantly as a social
currency for her means-to-an-end ideology; Goldberg, a white female elitist class
(above $100k/yr) disparages a same demographic person for their bestseller success,
after her own sympathizing with "bad jokes about racism" she chirps “It's mordantly
hilarious that, at a time when so many people are reading books on anti-racism, the
bestselling one is by a white corporate consultant.” A 12 Dec 2019 tweet begging
someone sue for defamation, likely during her own fabrication of a hit piece. Or when
she denigrates online harassment yet has subjected so many to it with detestable,
insincere apology for harassment of Mrs. Romney as “This whole thing is turning into a
round robin of fuckups." Yet journalist peers referred to her verified violable actions as
"a significant error," and "humiliating." Idealogue, Radical, Holy War Zealot?
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/taking-cyber-civil-rights-seriously/
https://blog.theharvardadvocate.com/blog/post/2014-4-27-trial-heroines-part-1/
Goldberg reasonably appears, as such, a provenly immoral character, rabidly chasing
self-manufactured boogeymen in a delusional pattern and practice of despicable,
violable behavior, in direct conflict with written ethics of profession; and to reasonable
minds, a cancerous entity to be steered far from. No one escapes Goldberg’s pattern of
harm, in a challenge to you to validate her actions ends’ having any justification for the
means cruelly employed to achieve her one obvious consistency in a long-standing
biowaste of her perverse abuse narrative: herself, Michelle “Round Robin of Fuckups”
Goldberg.