[For background, refer to the comment thread for this post from March 2016. More recently, see the comments appended to this post.]
Straight out of northeastern Australia: a crotchety, self-important old woman, who goes by the screen name "Musey," has finally published her tell-all memoir of what it was like to encounter the fat, obscene, woman-hating Kevin Kim... and survive. Still unable to understand why the obese, slobbering Kim might harbor animus toward her after she (1) acted with extreme rudeness toward the notorious half-Asian and (2) made racist implications about Koreans and their apparent obsession with plastic surgery, Musey nevertheless lets go with both barrels in this unapologetically vicious new memoir that will rip your quivering colon polyps out one by one!
Entertainment Weekly sat down with Musey for an exclusive interview.
EW: Musey, it's so good to finally meet you.
M: Glad to be here.
EW: So let's get right into this! For you, just who is Kevin Kim?
M: Quite possibly the most horrible person I've ever had the misfortune of running across. He obviously hates women. I think he's probably gay.
EW: Would that... be a bad thing?
M: No, but I— he— well... you know. Anyway, he's a despicable man.
EW: And why would that be?
M: He called me a cunt, of course!
EW: Really? Straight up—like that?
M: Just like that. He's no diplomat.
EW: Let's see. What Kim really wrote back in March was: "My blog is my foyer; when someone enters my foyer and acts rudely, they are treated accordingly. I tried to be as civil with you as I could in my reply, instead of calling you an ignorant cunt, which is what I was thinking at the time." So he didn't actually call you a cunt, now, did he? He also said "at the time," which implies he no longer thinks this way.
M: That's not how I read it. He called me a cunt, plain and simple.
EW: He basically said, "I thought you were a cunt at first," not "You're a cunt," now and always. These are two very different things.
M: The distinction is lost on me. All I can hear is that C-word rattling around in my head. He called me a cunt—period.
EW: He also implies that you started this by being rude to him. Do you have anything to say about that? Is there any truth to his accusation?
M: He lives in a fantasy world. He started this—him—by linking, on Twitter, to that awful piece by PJ O'Rourke—the one about how the Irish are basically stupid and useless. My father was Irish, you know. He went through hell, and O'Rourke was trampling on his heritage.
EW: Kim was at pains to point out that O'Rourke—of Irish heritage himself—was writing satire, that this wasn't serious at all. Did you not pick up on that?
M: How was I supposed to know that? If you read my reply to Mr. Kim, you know I said I'm not that bright.
EW: Yes. Indeed. And you felt no desire to retract your earlier remarks once you learned the O'Rourke piece was satire?
M: Are you kidding? When I'm caught out, my reflex is to double down, not to retract or apologize! What's the human ego for, if not for blustering stupidly even after you've been proven wrong? Look: Mr. Kim should never have linked to that terrible piece. And here's one thing you should know: the Irish do not laugh at themselves. They have no sense of humor whatsoever. I'm proud to be of Irish stock.
EW: Yes; I've heard that an Irishman will slit your throat for saying "potato."
M: Wait—is that a joke, or are you being serious?
EW: Musey, our readers would like to know: why did you so publicly declare you were leaving Malcolm Pollack's blog, then decide to come back? For that matter, what was your reason for continuing to attempt to post comments on Kevin Kim's blog, months after the initial incident, despite feeling—however mistakenly—that Kim had called you a cunt? On Kim's blog, too, you explicitly wrote, "I'm not coming back." Some people I've talked with think you just thrive on male abuse. And with the number of times you've declared yourself gone—and then come back—why should anyone take what you say seriously?
M: Well... people are complicated. I want to keep up the dialogue, maybe?
EW: Doesn't sound like much of a dialogue, to hear you tell it.
M: What do you mean?
EW: You keep repeating that he called you a cunt, and you can't be persuaded to see things otherwise. If that's your attitude, why try to keep talking with him? What possible purpose could it serve? If you despise him enough to attack him on Malcolm's blog when he hasn't attacked you there, why would you try to leave a comment on his own blog, BigHominid's Hairy Chasms, warning him that he's "being used by Henry"? Why warn someone about a danger if you hate that person? And didn't you, in one of those comments (we spoke with Kim directly), expose the private thoughts of another online personality who didn't want to be involved in this kerfuffle? What makes you so willing to violate people's privacy in pursuit of your vendetta against Kim?
M: As I said, people are complicated.
EW: Irrational and self-contradictory, you mean.
M: Are you asking questions or making statements? You really are a rude young lady.
EW: Just doing my job, ma'am. What about Kim's accusations of racism? Did you, in fact, imply that Koreans as a whole seem to gravitate toward plastic surgery, possibly because they want to look Western?
M: Of course not. I never said any such thing.
EW: Your quote from March reads: "I have some Korean friends. A close friend of mine has spent a large amount of money trying to look more Irish than Korean. I suppose it's a case of peat faces versus what you have. I hear that eye surgery is big in Korea? Why is that?" What does the phrase "what you have" mean? Is this an allusion to the term "pie faces," sometimes used in a racist way against East Asians? I ask because you use that very term elsewhere. And how about your more recent remarks, in which you refer to "third-world bathroom habits"? Is this another racist dig against Koreans, despite the fact that South Korea is a first-world country? Is your statement that you have some Korean friends similar to when some politically correct people say, "And by the way, some of my closest friends are black!"—a method often used by crypto-racists to establish their non-racist credentials?
M: I refuse to dignify any of that nonsense with a response.
EW: That tells me all I need to know. So can you tell us why you haven't let this go after so many months? Kim isn't responding to you, yet you continue to snipe at him and to gripe about him to whoever will listen. Why not just move on?
M: Because he can't get away with what he did! Don't you see that? And everyone needs to know just what a rotten beast he is! Filthy, childish, degenerate, disgusting. There is no way I'm letting that man—that animal—off the hook. Ever.
EW: How do you respond to Kim's imputation that you're a coward?
M: Oh, he said that? This I have to hear.
EW: He said, "...a woman so unable to fight her own battles that she has to involve others in them. She invoked her son, who was apparently displeased by the 'cunt' thing, and she's used the public space in Malcolm Pollack's comment threads to act like a six-year-old tattle-tale and rattle off my supposed sins to the world. She could be slugging it out with me, toe to toe, via email—not involving anyone else in her personal problems—but she probably doesn't want to have her IP address traced, and she draws courage from huddling with others who are sympathetic to her self-righteous cause. Is this not how a coward acts?"
M: You know what? I don't think I like how this interview's been going. This feels more like an interrogation. So thank you very much, but I'm leaving now.
[Gets up and leaves.]
EW [calling after]: Are you sure you're leaving now? How do I know you won't come back?
You want a war, Musey? Now you've got one.