I’ve managed to get myself into two separate internet controversies this past week. In a very thoughtful post at Role/Reboot, Clarisse Thorn responds to the one that didn’t involve the Good Men Project. Here’s On Change and Accountability.
Excerpt:
Have you thought about these questions in your own life? I don’t mean abstractly, as an intellectual exercise. Concretely, and with intention. What would you do if, tomorrow, you found out that your best friend was a rapist? Your lover? What would you do if your sibling came to you to confess a terrible crime? To request absolution? To request accountability?
These questions are not just applicable to an individual like Hugo. They’re applicable to all of us, in all kinds of situations. And I think it’s wise for us to give them some thought before they come up … because in the heat of the moment, we can be overwhelmed by questions we could have thought our way around if we addressed them beforehand.
Do you believe people can change? And if you do believe it, then how would you help someone change?
I’m very grateful for Clarisse, and am sorry that she (and Jill Filipovic of Feministe) have endured so much calumny on my behalf this week.
Meanwhile,some folks think I’m the Ginsu Knife Set of Wrongness in Human Form. Some people’s answer to Clarisse’s first and penultimate questions is a clear and simple “no.”
I haven’t read the Role/reboot thing, but I have perforce had to examine my own thoughts on such tangles as you describe. 40 years or so back, some people did some really unconscionable things to me at home and at school also. I moved away from the town with the bad school, but did not break off with the relatives when I grew up, although one year I came very close to doing so. I have never made contact with the bad people from the school, and hope I never do. But over 40 years, the relatives have wised up a huge amount and are sorry for what they did. (The relatives did some good things for me at the same time they abused me; the people at school did me no good at all.) It took a while and a lot of uncomfortable talks with the latter, and might not be 100% complete, but things are definitely better, even though I am the one person in the family who doesn’t hug/touch [people, that is; dogs and cats can walk all over me.]
Add that I am someone who comes from a tradition/heritage that does not call for forgiveness of harms by those who bloody well ought to know better, that is, the spiritual underpinning is not that of the standard religions. And I am not a big people person, more into things and ideas.
My point, so far, is that if I see someone clean up their act, I can start cutting them some slack–maybe; if I ever caught them doing the same vile things to another helpless person, who knows what’d happen. But I’m not about to start making nice with anyone I remember solely as a source of pain.
So I think yes, some people can change–up to a point, but some of their victims may be damaged beyond repair and can be excused for not wanting to have anything to do with the however-much-changed offender. I continue to hang out here, and am uncomfortable with the way a lot of people have piled on you justlkethat, but it’s not my place to say whether all the things you did can ever be forgiven by the people you did them too. Or even whether all the good you do now will ever outbalance them, for those people.
I don’t know what I would do if I found that someone close to me did something really bad. It might depend on what they did next, that is, if they were ready and able to make up for it and keep it from happening again, but it might also depend on the state of my own mind.
Let’s hope that some folks here put some real thought into this instead of either glossing-over or pile-ons, because there’s a lot of tangly situations out there just like it.
I just wanted to say thank you. I’ve wrestled with a lot this year, and your writings have helped. I know recent controversies must have been a burden. In the interest of balancing that, I thought I would leave this brief thank you.
Some folks? Yeah, it’s so cute, those angry women and their funny one-liners.
Speaking of honesty and accountability, do you really think it’s appropriate to leave this as is without making some reference to, “Oh, and by the way, they called me that because I tried to murder my girlfriend.” You know people aren’t going to click through. You know that the core of all of this outrage won’t even be visible to most of the people reading this. Way to bury the lede.
So I guess piny is not satisfied dominating the comment section at Feministe about this issue. I’m really, really looking forward to reading hundreds of comments from piny basically restating the same thing over and over and over again
I’d love to hear any single response from you or Hugo to a damn thing I said, but I’ve been around this blog long enough to know that that won’t happen.
I know! My God, taking attempted murder seriously while Schwyzer tries to wave it off.
Your decision to highlight and link to a post making a pithy (and easily dismissed) observation in order to explain away the “controversy” speaks of a kind of glibness that does you no credit, nor does Clarisse’s tortured explanation of how she knows you’ve changed because you’ve helped her career.
I am interested in the moral calculus that makes it a good thing–and not a bad thing–for a reformed predator to not only continue to surround himself with his prey, but to actually enrich himself as a self-professed expert on their status as prey.
Hey, at least he doesn’t date younger women! That would be bad!
People can change. I haven’t always done my best in life, sometimes I’ve done my worst, sometimes it was even because I thought it was the only option at the time. Anyone who hasn’t morally compromised themself in the most grevious way imaginable can thank luck, fate, or the big guy in the sky that they were dealt a hand in life that’s, thus far, allowed them to maintain such a lofty position.
You act like trying to kill somebody like a dog is something that unlucky people face. Yeah. No.
Hugo, if you have addressed in the past the question how it is a legitimate component of recovery, atonement, redemption, or whatever, from your past history of abusive and criminal acts against young women for you to continue to surround yourself with young women and place yourself in a position of authority in relation to them and teach them about feminism, could you respond with some links? If not, how about addressing it now?
Meanwhile,some folks think I’m the Ginsu Knife Set of Wrongness in Human Form. Some people’s answer to Clarisse’s first and penultimate questions is a clear and simple “no.”
Hugo, I am utterly aghast at all this — at the attempted murder of someone who came to you for help, and at your continued placing yourself in the center of the story here. And to say, as you do in the quoted material above, that anyone who doesn’t give you the benefit of the doubt has not thought about the presence of good and evil in themselves or those they love?
I find that profoundly insulting, a transparent refusal to accept the full consequences of your evil, unpunished act, and might I say stereotypically consistent with the Narcissistic Personality Disorder on which you’ve written.
Your defenders allege that there, but for the grace of whatever, we go. But we’re not talking here about killing someone through negligience or accident, or through finding ourselves in a situation where deadly force is necessary in self-defense.
We are talking about a methodical attempt to kill someone that was foiled by others’ intervention, and it doesn’t matter one bit that you were impaired, nor that your intended victim would merely, to you, have been collateral damage in your attempt to kill yourself.
You are deriding us for failing to forgive you when none of us, excepting your victim and her family, are even entitled to forgive you.
And yes, nor are we entitled to condemn you. We are not judge and jury, and if we were all we’d have to go on is your word, which if pressed I would now have to say is not reliable.
But we are entitled to protect ourselves from people.
As you know, I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt over the last three years. You have offered kindnesses to me that for both our sakes I will continue to assume were sincere. And it is in the spirit of that human connection between us, out of my responsibility for you as a fellow man, that I tell you, here and publicly, that you need to atone for that act.
And apologizing in your head while living a good life, telling self-centered stories about how you victimized this person without her consent, and placing yourself into a position as a spokesMAN, front and center in the marches and on the podium, for a movement ostensibly intended to protect people like her from people like you? Atonement that is not. Behavior like that proves that you have nowhere near atoned, because atonement would bring humility.
What proper atonement would be it’s not for me to say, but personally I think Matthew 6:5 might provide a useful blueprint for you.
I respect you as a human being, Hugo, having known people significantly worse than you. But there’s no way I can continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Does dedicating what seems to be a large portion of his life to speaking out and defending women not count as a kind of atonement? I don’t know.
And what is humility? Perhaps Hugo’s writings come across as self-centered, and if so, how would he, in practice, express humility? I’m just curious.
I wish you and Hugo both a good New Year
Speaking out and defending women? And ensuring that he makes a profit off it, in addition to whatever ego boost he gets? That doesn’t include his preying on his students and the way he sucks up to MRAs while slapping down feminists in the name of ‘civility’
If he wanted to help women instead of himself he could go around and back women up instead of toot his own horn. The Good Men Project is a good point. He did one piece there where the title was pure MRA-fueled victim-blaming, MRA-pandering misogyny. Better to have no allies than allies like that.
But he does it from the same creepy paternalistic superiority stance that drove him to almost murder a women! He may have changed focus to something less physically damaging, but he still lives his life in a way that allows him to dictate to women what their lives should/shouldn’t be like.
Just FYI, I’m under strong direction from friends and allies to use this time simply to listen.
Anything I write now will be emotion-driven, and will likely be counter-productive. I want to take in what’s being said, to figure out how to respond in the best way. And I want to do that not on my own, but with the wise counsel of those whom I trust. On their advice, I’m taking some time away from the Internet and not reading the threads or comments at various sites.
Happy New Year to all.
Hopefully you will still read and reflect on this when you’re ready.
First of all, I do want to say that I like and support you. I will continue to read your work and I have found some of it very valuable.
The work that you do, including what you were trying to do when you wrote the piece about the attempted murder, is something that I greatly value. I think it’s extremely important to hear those inside stories from people who have committed those acts, so we can understand why and how it happened, and begin to figure out how to prevent it and how to address it afterwards.
A lot of people automatically distrust anyone who comes forward, admitting to having committed violence against women. That’s fair for any individual if that’s what they need to do, but I think we, as a community, need to do better at being open and listening to former perpetrators’ stories. It is a struggle to decide just what accountability means and entails in these situations, but my personal feeling is that we, as feminists, are sometimes too quick to dismiss rather than entertaining the possibility that someone is really committed to change.
That said, there were elements of your post from last year that I found extremely problematic and disturbing. First, you said “I attempted a serious crime that miraculously caused no lasting harm.”
I nearly had a heart attack when you wrote that. You *did* commit a serious crime. Attempted murder is, on its own, a very serious crime. But more than that, I am still absolutely speechless that you would say it caused no lasting harm. As a survivor of violence, it infuriates me that anyone would say that such a profound act of violence committed by a trusted person didn’t cause lasting harm. I guarantee that the woman you did that to was forever altered, and still has to deal with the consequences of your crime on a daily basis (even if she’s living a stable and even generally happy life now).
More generally, it upsets me that the whole piece was framed as a near-miss of sorts, when for her I’m sure it was one of the (if not THE) worst things that ever happened to her. It wasn’t a near miss, it was a huge trauma that forever altered her life.
I experienced rape and abuse at the hands of several different men from when I was 17 until I was 22 (I’m now 24). I felt that you were an ally, and I still want to feel that way, but now I feel that you don’t actually understand what a destructive, soul-murdering crime violence against women is. If you don’t understand how profound the impact of what you did is, how can you be a true ally?
I hope you just weren’t thinking, or had a failure in communication, or needed your words pointed out to you. Because I want to be able to move past this, but this is something that I just find so disturbing.
To address the end of this post, in no way do I think you’re the Ginsu Knives Set of Wrongness. I love most of your work and keep up with it more than I do with almost any other blogger. But I do have a lot of concerns about this, and yet my answer to Clarisse’s first question is still yes.
I find it so upsetting that you’d present such a false dichotomy. Do you have any idea what it’s like to have to start dealing with people who raped and abused you starting when you are 17, and to continue to have to deal with more and more trusted friends who have raped and abused myself or my close female friends throughout my late teens and early 20s? I have been confronting questions of forgiveness and accountability for many years even though I’m young, even though many of the people around me were too cowardly to do the same. To imply that because I might be deeply upset by some of your actions, I have not confronted these questions in my own life is deeply offensive.
This got very long, so thank you if you read it. I’m very much looking forward to what you have to say in January, because I am very hopeful that you will rise to the occasion and show us that you are committed to listening to the feminist community even when it’s very difficult. Good luck, and I truly hope that you are able to confront these issues and emerge an even stronger and wiser person.
“Anything I write now will be emotion-driven, and will likely be counter-productive to making me look good and more rational than everyone else. I want to take in what’s being said, to figure out how to respond in the best way to make me look like the bigger person, yet again, and protect the Hugo Schwyzer Brand TM.”
There, fixed that up for ya.
Why so unwilling to respond emotionally Hugo? Afraid some more damning shit will out? Isn’t that what penance and your apparent need for redemption require? Honest responses, and not clever statements that you’ve had time to think about and craft in order to best represent the best you possible…?
A lot of feminists and commenters, both here and at Feministe, are responding directly, honestly, emotionally – without having to “take time off” to cool down and respond rationally. And you know what? What they’re saying MAKES SENSE, not despite but BECAUSE of it.
Why are you unable to do the same? Why, Hugo Schwyzer TM?
A lot of interesting responses here. They make some good points and raise a lot of relevant questions.
But I think a lot of people need to remember that doing what Hugo did and then trying to learn and move on, it doesn’t actually make him a saint. He’s still human. His responses aren’t going to be perfect, his behaviour, his wording, his thoughts…none of it is going to soothe it all over. It’s going to be flawed. He’s human and he’s still, to this day, learning. So a lot of the responses could do with being a little less angry, bearing this in mind.
As for my own response to Hugo, I discovered your writing pretty recently, and the full story of what you did even more recently. Is it a bad thing that I wasn’t all that shocked? Is it an even worse thing that I took remorse, and acceptance of your own wrongs, at face value as a good thing? People everywhere do things of equal and worse evil, some of them have even been done to me. A lot of those people aren’t going to apologise or move on or even face up to what they’ve done, let alone write about it publicly and face the wrath of the faceless internet.
I forgive. People deserve second, and maybe third, fourth chances. I might not agree with everything you say, but as long as you keep writing and trying to make a difference for the better, you’re doing alright in my books. Is that a bit too simplistic? I hope not.
“And what is humility? Perhaps Hugo’s writings come across as self-centered, and if so, how would he, in practice, express humility? I’m just curious.”
He would stop placing himself at the center of attention of, and in a position of authority and power over, groups of young women, and he would stop exploiting his status as an “expert feminist” to aggrandize himself publicly and make money.
Really, Deepika?
The vast majority of us will respond defensively when criticized, even if the criticisms are dead on. How is it not a good thing for someone to take the time to truly absorb criticism and fully listen without defensiveness before responding?
As a feminist, I fully support a man who has been the subject of such heavy criticism sitting down and being quiet for awhile, giving women a chance to fully say what we need to say. Don’t feminists often wish that men would do this more?
Lucille,
“So a lot of the responses could do with being a little less angry, bearing this in mind.”
A tone argument? I think that people are entitled to be angry.
Yes. To all of this. I wish I had been more thoughtful with my comment to the exploding thread on Feministe. I created the opposite response to what I intended.
Lesson learned…hopefully.
“I created the opposite response to what I intended.”
andrew pari, did you – at any point – intend to actually read and understand that thread, and see WHY so MANY women were voicing SO MANY concerns about hugo schwyzer? did those concerns mean anything to you? or was it just about “damage control” or “soothing ruffled feathers” for you?
right. and now i’m done hogging this thread…
i appreciate your polite and thoughtful response marciella. however, i am not convinced.
“The vast majority of us will respond defensively when criticized, even if the criticisms are dead on.”
hugo schwyzer is in a position of responsibility and leadership that the vast majority of us are not. and especially as a man with a pretty sordid past placing himself BAM in the middle of, as comradde physioproffe says, his “prey”, it behooves him to take extra care when concerns are voiced about his words/actions by women, by feminists, by bloody anyone. no matter how “trivial” they may seem to him. so yes, while responding defensively is normal, it is a luxury that he may have to let go of, that he SHOULD have let go of by now.
“How is it not a good thing for someone to take the time to truly absorb criticism and fully listen without defensiveness before responding?”
i agree with you that it is a good thing. but that is not what Hugo Schwyzer did (refer to ginsu set of knives remark above, a remarks both glib and exaggerative btw, a style that is apparently characteristic of HS, and from what i’ve been able to tell reading his last few posts, an accurate assessment).
this is his initial reaction to the concerns feminists voiced about him placing himself at the center, and as a leader, within feminism in so many ways, in light of new information about his criminal, misogynist actions in the past and the lack of any material, concrete repercussions for him. this and referring to those concerns and criticisms as “calumny” (i.e. slander, or an attempt at ruining his reputation).
note that his initial reaction was not getting defensive and then taking time off to think about WHY, it was to hand-wave off concerns and criticisms. until they became too loud and too serious to ignore. then he got “defensive” – as you say. although i’m not convinced that he is feeling defensive even now.
putting the concerns and needs of women first is something that comes far more easily to women, especially to feminists, than to most men. and if Hugo Schwyzer is unable to do that, to the extent that he needs to biff off and take a holiday to “rationally” think about how to do that, then he needs to also think about why he is bang in the middle of a movement that is all about putting women first.
p.s. i don’t need hugo schwyzer to “give me a chance” to say what i need to say. i need other women, and other feminists, to do that.
Last I checked, atonement didn’t come with a blog and a paycheck.
Somehow, I’m thinking the woman you tried to murder and her family wouldn’t find atonement with a paycheck too impressive either.
Ok. I’ve gone back and read and searched and googled.
What this boils down to is
1) you don’t even have a goddamn degree in Gender Studies, but you think you’re fucking qualified to teach it to women.
2) You’ve admitted if the dials on your homicidal radio are tuned just right, you’re capable of cold blooded murder.
I sent your post about the attempted killing of your girlfriend to a friend, who happens to be a homicide detective. His take? You shouldn’t be near any woman, any time, ever. You’ve said you’re a killer, and it would be wise to believe you. He’s also of the mind your local PD should be made aware, because that’s info they tend to be interested in. Gives them a wider pool to investigate when women disappear.
I was in love once with a very emotionally troubled man…I sacrificed 7 years of my life (starting in my teens) to try to keep him happy…looking back, I think I was just enabling him (he used me like a drug, like a sex addict….and I was his fix)…he got more abusive and raving mad as the years passed (which coincided with my attaining college degree and then my entrance into pre-professional school…he was very threatened by my academic achievements and my growing independence)…..I used to think that by staying with him he would get better…I was only his enabler…by staying with him he could use me as his excuse for not focusing on getting his own pre-professional degree….after I finally gained the courage to leave him and survived a terrible fight, I broke free….and then felt years of guilt about how I must have destroyed him….he was fine….after I left, he did get his pre-professional degree and then became very successful in his area of specialty….I think what I am trying to say is that: you can only help people by doing what is best for you….you lead and they will follow….people will model your good behavior….I couldn’t help him if I pitied him….that assumes that he was inferior or defective in some way….
Thank you for writing your column, Hugo….you are really brave for touching on these difficult subjects….it has really made me think…and I think the best thing that I have done for troubled people in my life was to set boundaries and cut them off or limit my exposure to them (they were like emotional vampires sucking the lifeblood out of me….)
I just want to agree with something you wrote the other day: “All of this behavior reflects two things: men’s genuine fear of being challenged and confronted, and the persistence of the stereotype of feminists as being aggressive, wrathful, “man-bashers.”
It’s fine for people to continue to read your writing and for you to keep writing, imo. But it’s also fine for people to say “hell no”.
We’re all imperfect. And, we have to accept that the bad things we do have lasting consequences. People are entitled to set their own boundaries around you and your writing / work. People are entitled to be outraged by the way you’ve acted towards students and your attempted murder.
Yes, you can change. I bet you have. But, again, there are lasting consequences.
I’ve seen a lot of self-pity in your posts about this and a lot of what looks to me like calls for cheerleaders to come and drown out the opposing voices. I think that it’s great you have now stepped back and are going to think about this more.
Hugo,
After reading maybe hundreds of comments, it seems what many people really want is punishment. They don’t care what you say or do, they need you to suffer (go to jail, lose your job, etc) in order to even consider tolerating your views. They see you as a privilaged white man not as an individual. Engaging in any discussion with these people is futile as their mind is set (no amount of contrition will suffice). Stepping away and not responding is the best action.
As to the issue of whether someone can change. Change is an action driven word. If someone has sworn they are a changed man and demonstrates that every day in how he conducts his life than by definition he is a changed man.
tg,
So you think the offender gets to dictate the terms of his own atonement, regardless of how his victim, or the public at large, might feel. Interesting.
I am put in mind of John List, a devout family man who made much the decision Hugo once tried to make: he needed to protect his family from the evils and horrors of life, while their opinions on the matter were not consulted. Where Hugo failed, List succeeded, murdering all four of his children and his wife. He then sent the usual self-serving apology/justification in a letter to his pastor, and vanished without trace for several decades. He took on a new identity, a new wife, a new career, and led what by all accounts was a stable, gentle, law-abiding, church-going life. Until he was eventually caught via a cold-case tip on America’s Most Wanted, and sentenced to life in prison.
You see, here’s the thing. List, regardless of how he had “reformed,” still committed an appalling crime, and in order for our society and culture to work, we have decided that crimes require justice and retribution, with (when possible) an eye towards rehabilitation. Simply letting a criminal go free to live his life while pinky-swearing never to do it again is not considered adequate.
Except, of course, by people like you. You might protest that your reaction to List’s crimes would not be nearly so morally insouciant as it is towards Hugo’s. You’d probably declare that of course List should have ended up facing the music.
And towards that end, I say you’re a moral hypocrite. There are precisely two differences between the two situations: List succeeded where Hugo only attempted, and List never became a charismatic and popular blogger and online personality. If it isn’t true that List’s “changed” life allowed him to be exempt for punishment for his deeds, why does Hugo’s allow that for his own less severe, but no less criminal, deeds?
One thing about List. List didn’t try and kill himself along with his victims. Another difference. List also didn’t discuss his crimes.
He didn’t discuss this in that List didn’t tell people when he was on the run what he’d done.
John List was also not on any drugs when this happened.
This isn’t to argue that Schwyzer is clean of what happened, or that he shouldn’t be approached with relative caution, but I wouldn’t compare the situation to List.
I was only suggesting the situation was comparable in the way that List committed his crimes, and then went on never to re-offend. This may, superficially, have meant that he’d “changed” from his murderous ways, but that still doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have to face the music for what he did do. Hugo’s defenders are basically saying, “Look, he doesn’t do that sort of thing any more!” and somehow we are under some obligation to consider this acceptable penance.
I never meant to suggest that Hugo’s actions were alike in every detail to List’s.
This may, superficially, have meant that he’d “changed” from his murderous ways, but that still doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have to face the music for what he did do.
Some people read the story and saw crime, and read white male privilege into this. I read it and saw mental illness.
Above, someone posted that in their opinion, Schwyzer might have narcissistic personality disorder. But people with NDP don’t really self-harm or try and commit suicide. (They drive other people crazy.) Borderline personality disorder fits better. Had a friend who suffered from it, and to be honest, I could see her involved in a similar situation. In fact, I could see her doing something like this to me in the right circumstances. She had trouble distinguishing between herself and other people at times….
And yes, Schwyzer has to take resonsibility for what he did, but I think we disagree on exactly what that was, and how he should do this.
(Aside: One funny thing about List. He ended up in a situation quite similar to the one he’d been in before the murders. He ended up losing his business. He got kicked out of Sunday school for being too strict. He had a bad relationship with his second wife…. List didn’t change. And with the right stressors, he would have probably ended up repeating his crimes. Change is a lot harder than just switching your identity.)
A few points
-Atonement is between the victim and the offender. What the victim wants to do is of course entirely up to them. Nobody can tell them what they should do.
- Further, everyone is free not to listen or care for what Hugo has to say. The problem is that instead of looking at a blog post featuring Hugo and taking a second to ignore it, they expand energy into demands that any ideas/arguments originating from him be blocked. This is no longer about judging Hugo’s character but rather an attempt to prevent other people from engaging with Hugo on certain topics.
- The problem with the List comparison is that List did not come clean about his crime and became a fugitive. Like any just legal system, the authorities in Hugo’s case assessed all the dimensions (e.g., issue of drug abuse, mental health and victim not willing to press charges) and rightly concluded that without the cooperation of the victim and suspects state of mind, no case could be brought. You may not like it, but that’s the justice system working. Demanding punishment after this is something else entirely.
- Demanding punishment when our justice works (
These commenters’ legalese is way off. They’re comparing a man with intent but no weapon and no dead body to somebody who ACTUALLY killed his wife and kids. If I’m filled with murderous thoughts at my trainwreck of a girlfriend, I pick up a gun that may or may not be loaded, point it at her head, nothing happens, and I run out saying “I’m sorry, I’m sorry”, does that give the townsfolk the right to get all Joe McCarthy in my workplace, start tapping my phonelines, tell me to stop talking to ‘vulnerable people’, quit putting them at risk, etc. etc.? I think not. I’ve done worse. I’ve flung cutlery at annoying people and watched it stick in the wall behind them. THAT act carried a much higher likelihood that the person I aimed at would die than the receiver of Hugo’s stoned stove trick. Nobody would have heard of Bei Bei Shuai if her poison had only made her fart!
BIG BUT…
This story keeps coming up. I saved my own “emotion-driven” response, hoping it would go away, and I could be reasonable. Nope. There is nothing reasonable about the kind of manipulative display you’re selling here. Unlike others that become heartwarming after years of retelling, this story makes you look like a creep, Hugo. I’m tempted to rant some more about the age-old Scarlet Letter ritual that cost me everything and tell you to quit your frikkin whining, because so many of us have it so much worse than you do. You’re profiting from this shit and you’re making me sick with your Rich White Guy posturing. You remind me of Asshole Rose and Charlie Sheen and Dipshit Baldwin and every other obscenely rich dopefiend who thinks the people should pay to watch him jerk off. And innocent people like me get accused of drug crimes we never committed, chased out of our homes and forced to live LIKE FUCKING ANIMALS while you beg and plead for sympathy. Fuck. You. And fuck the Bourgeois 12-Step Redemption Narrative you rode in on! THAT’s what’s killing us. The fucking ideological opium, the Incubus Purging rituals.
I have to take my own advice now. As I’ve told so many haters&trolls–we’re free to find another blog if the one we’re on sux so much. I just lost all respect for you, Hugo. I’m so outta here.
So long and thanx for all the fish. And get some professional help with your guilt, if there was ever one iota of sincerity to your boohoo I’m a killer story. Blogland is not a psychiatrist’s office. If you don’t want to be accused of being a narcissistic jerk-off-for-profit, then air your nastiest dirty laundry in front of people who are trained to help you deal with it.