Candace Owens’ Spiral Into [ableist slur]

Candace Owens, the face of Social Autopsy and now “Founder and CEO” of her blog Degree 180.com, is going through an incredible public meltdown as her quest to end online harassment burns out quickly.  Owens’ newest tactic in her repeated attempts at attention grabbing and virtue signaling is calling journalists who either won’t talk about her or say negative things about her and her projects names in posts at Degree 180.

The first shot fired was at Jesse Singal of New York Magazine, who didn’t exactly treat Ms. Owens or her Social Autopsy project too kindly.  Jesse still gave Candace Owens a voice, and crafted his story from available information and her comments.  Since the piece wasn’t 100% glowing and loving of Owens, she chose to label Singal as a “fraud” and accuse NY Magazine of “scamming” her into an interview.  It’s a bizarre set of allegations, but the crazy train doesn’t end with Owens’ hit job on Singal’s journalistic credentials or New York Magazine’s credibility.  The next stop is the Washington Post and Caitlin Dewey over a story that never ran.

It got really interesting on Owens’ Twitter feed when she began demanding her followers help her contact Dewey over some sort of issue.  I’ve been watching Owens attempt time and time again to get national news to cover her story.  It’s all one big attention grab, most likely for a book deal at some point in the future.  Owens has alluded she’s potentially building towards a film, stating she’s constantly recording everything that’s going on as she attempts to connect Randi Lee Harper and Zoe Quinn to GamerGate.  Then a post aired on Degree 180 accusing Dewey and the Washington Post of not running a story and attempting to smear Owens’ reputation.  By never talking about Candace Owens and Social Autopsy.

This refusal to talk about Owens at all led Candace to call Caitlin Dewey a “smug bitch,” “pompous,” “arrogant,” and saw Owens justify pleading with her Twitter followers to harass Caitlin Dewey as a means of enforcing her personal digital “insurance policy.”  She then goes on to smear the Washington Post, telling her readers they’ve “lost all credibility” at the hands of “a few bad reporters.”  I haven’t even gotten to the libel accusations yet.  That’s the next part of the unhinged rants and delusional fantasies Owens has to manufacture in order to stay relevant or get some kind of attention.  Let’s take a step back and discuss David Malitz, Dewey’s editor and attempted peacemaker.  After defending one of his writers, Owens had no choice but to attack him and say he’s a liar.

Malitz attempted, if Owens can still be believed (I’m having a hard time getting to that point), to contact her and discuss several exchanges between Caitlin Dewey and Candace Owens.  For his efforts Malitz got branded as a “liar,” a “corrupt journalist,” and branded the Post as “absolute shit.”  There’s honestly no level at this point to which Owens won’t sink, and the libel allegations are part of that.

The “open letter” to Caitlin Dewey is made on a site devoted to the “manosphere,” discusses people in glowing terms that Dewey apparently didn’t like, and accuses her of making up lies.  I’m not going to go into detail over the letter and the writer, as they’re not points of relevancy to this story.  What is relevant is Owens took this as a valid libel accusation and ran with it in her latest attempt to create a conspiracy theory out of nothing.  It was an opinion, but it confirmed Owens’ beliefs this entire debacle is a conspiracy theory, so she ran with it.  I wish this were the end of the screed but it’s not.  The next step is to involve Amazon and Jeff Bezos, since Bezos owns The Washington Post.

Owens begins by stating she’s not a conspiracy theorist.  Then she places a signature pattern interrupt by saying “but if I were.”  Remember this: when someone introduces “but” into a conversation it usually means the first part of the conversation isn’t true or a belief structure is invalid.

“But” in a conversation reverses the language structure.  

“But if I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d note (x) (y) and (z)” is the framing structure of Candace Owens’ attempt to link all her arguments together and justify her “expose'” of this massive scandal she calls “#JournalGate.”  She notes Bezos owns the post, and that Simon and Schuster is a company that plans on publishing Zoe Quinn’s upcoming book, and that the Post’s involvement means Amazon is involved with this massive conspiracy, and so many other incomprehensible lines continue in this realm it makes my head hurt.

I will keep an eye open if the saga of Candace Owens continues its lunacy into a new realm, but for now I can’t devote any extra eyes or energy to this matter.  Owens’ continued attempts at framing this narrative as “everyone who disagrees with me” turned into a nutty realm where “everyone who doesn’t talk about me now is a target,” and I don’t want to be a part of her attention grab any further.  As I bow out of this act for the time being, let’s take a look at the spiral and the ways Candace Owens decided to handle herself.

1. Someone launches a Kickstarter to stop online harassment and cyberbullying.

2. An alleged “victim” of cyberbullying reaches out to this person in an attempt to show her lists and name calling didn’t help.

3. The response is for this person to engage in a systematic campaign of cyberbullying and online harassment against her detractor.  When someone else jumps in to aid a friend, that person gets called names too.

4. After the Kickstarter fails, the only response is to declare a “conspiracy” between the individuals who said her project failed and their alleged “harassers.”

5. When people disagree with this person, or refuse to talk about her at all, she engages in more name calling and harassment.

I’ve written on incongruence in message and actions before.  It seems like people actually managed to spot Candace Owens’ incongruency up front and tell her the proposed “help” wasn’t good for anyone.  Her response was to engage further in the incongruency instead of fixing her message and “walk the talk.”  Now the entire venture has revealed Owens is just as much of a bully and harasser as those she decries.

It’s no wonder journalists or investors won’t take Candace Owens seriously when they spot her engaging in the same tactics she decries.