Monthly Archives: September 2015

Generation Offended And Its Triggered Tyrants

When hearing the word tyrants, one thinks of people who are so callous no suffering would break through their cold stone hearts; one thinks of warmongers, executioners and mercenaries.

Today, a mutant type of tyranny threatens western civilisation, coming from those who are hard of hearing by their own choice, excluding unquestionable facts from political debates on the basis of not being able to  handle them emotionally.

Imagine a jury refusing to see or hear key evidence in a trial, claiming it is too disturbing, and reaching  a verdict while ignoring it. Imagine the day murder investigators are publicly accused of gathering evidence for some sick gratification, because they egotistically want to be proven right at all cost or because they like looking at it. Imagine even the basics of our reality being reduced to theoretical notions; subjected to surreal discussions on their validity.

And imagine us all taking it, shrugging, accepting the ever-changing status quo in a demented world, where everything but the law of gravity can be questioned at any time, at the whim of any group which manages to reach a position of power.

My generation has developed in full confidence of western states working according to well-thought systems and rules which simply make sense. Science, objectivity and  logic, as well as moral principles which have proven viable throughout the ages seemed guaranteed to us and our offspring. A fair justice system, freedom of thought, speech and faith, political pluralism, the freedom to study, to choose a profession, plus the protection of the family unit – to mention but a few of the conditions we took for granted. Humanity would never tear down what it has built, we thought.

Today, we have people who constantly hiss at the natural law, claiming gender is a social construct and has nothing to do with human anatomy. We have those who moon and raise their middle fingers when confronted with logic, because in their primitive mentality, he/ she who shouts the loudest gets to lead; only now they shake megaphones in people’s faces as opposed to spears.

Above all, we have so-called intellectuals proliferating in essays and books about defying nature in every possible way, because it feels right to them. They only operate with abstractions, never with palpable realities; one can show them undisputed facts and they will react with memes and slogans, convinced they are on the right path.

You ask them how women are still being oppressed in first world countries. They can’t give you any facts but they’re dead sure they are oppressed; the patriarchy is of course to blame. It must be so, if dozens of women with their breasts hanging loose are shouting about it in a public park, in broad daylight. If you conducted a lengthy interview with the average participant, they most likely wouldn’t be able to have a coherent conversation.

Labels today overshadow reality as we all experience it. They make fetuses or illegals out of human beings, who in other circumstances would be regarded as all the rest. The fact that they are not wanted even though they already exist or they don’t have the proper papers signed in the right places makes them less human; their deaths are not seen as avoidable, intentional destruction of human life.

I have always marveled at our ability – both individually and collectively – to ignore what’s in front of our own eyes in order to submit to an abstraction.

Today I came across this article. Compassion aside, the mind-fuckery is monstrous.

A few years ago, the pro-abortion lobby used arguments such as the mother’s inability to care for a child due to poverty, a young age etc; now they don’t even bother as society accepts one’s will as all that matters (even though feelings are likely temporary, while death is irreversible). Pro-life activists were scorned with accusations of basing their stance on emotions or religious beliefs and not on science or logic. Hence there was nothing left to do but confront advocates of one’s right over their body with the cold, hard reality of abortion by showing them images of its result. Images are irrefutable proof of what goes on in those clinics.

If a warmongering politician refused to look at photographs taken in war zones due to conflicts they started, there would be a media outcry; they would be accused of hypocrisy. Surely, some have been frank enough to say the “price had been worth it”. Abortion advocates can’t even do that. They cannot face the sight of what they support; regardless, they go on supporting it.

Hence when they claim a material reason is valid for an abortion, they accuse their critics of being emotional air heads with no sense of practicality, with unrealistic expectations – in other words, of basing their critique on feelings. When faced with genetics and with the reality of abortion, they attack with feelings, claiming the other side is cold-hearted for subjecting them to those images.

How can one possibly have a debate with people who refuse any evidence of the opposing viewpoint, simultaneously behaving as if they had the truth? How can the truth be established while rejecting the evidence as too disturbing to even consider? It makes no sense whatsoever. However, since SJW tactics are based solely on emotional manipulation, sense is not really a prerequisite.

The message is stop trying to save lives; you are offending people, which is apparently the ultimate crime. And what is frightening, some might not realise just how wrong that is.

Sorry for making the comparison again but it is appropriate – it reminds me of refugees in Greece, torn by war from their homes, sleeping in the street with next to nothing to their name, and middle-class tourists walking by in disgust because those poor people were visually polluting their holiday in the sun. This comparison might sound very cruel but one cannot equate a human life with another person’s feelings – a person who thinks they should be protected from the reality they are promoting.

If someone has been through trauma (and I’m not sure there is anyone on this planet who hasn’t) there are many aspects encountered in everyday existence which can trigger them, but obviously they cannot ask the rest of the world to adapt. In this context, the issue is a powerful tool of manipulation. Life is not  a rose garden; it never has been; the world is full of atrocities. Our sensitivities do not entitle us to turn our heads and pretend nothing is happening. Images are powerful; they are a wake up call more than anything else. They represent reality – not feelings, opinions or abstractions. Reality. And it should speak for itself.

The words ”dead fetus porn” are used.

Imagine, as I said in the beginning, that someone told the police they attended and documented crime scenes  because they like it. Or if they told reporters sent to disaster zones they were documenting the aftermath of a catastrophe for the same reason.

In the same way, Peter LaBarbera was accused during an interview of ”spreading gay porn” when documenting the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco, where minors are allowed to witness BDSM and sexual acts, as well as full nudity, without the authorities at least mandating adult only participation.

Although the abortion related presumption is far more gruesome, the method is largely the same – if you express outrage or expose an outrageous reality, you must be getting some sick gratification out of it or simply scoring points against the other side. This I believe to be a good example of projection. They use such rhetoric to divert attention from the reality you are exposing towards your presumed motivation.

Personally, if I saw a powerful video exposing a certain event, I wouldn’t care who recorded it; I would only care if it was genuine. If it was, the motivation of the person happening to catch it on film would not even come into question.

Pro-life activists are emotionally scarred by the pictures they share, as any normal individual would be. As people are when they share images of war victims, especially children. The way to stop it from happening is not to keep quiet and “stop showing those photos”.  I have more doubts about the emotional involvement of a person who uses a phrase such as “dead fetus porn”, or who thinks someone being offended is worse than someone else dying. Pro-life activists have saved lives and that is a fact.

The fear of offending is taking over. Universities, where naive individuals such as myself once thought the brightest minds developed unbridled,  are now dispersion grounds for the PC madness.

So to whoever got this far, I leave you (and myself) with this question: is it worse to feel helpless as an atom in a huge universe one cannot influence in the slightest, or to have an enormous sense of entitlement, thinking you can change the world to suit your exact needs, if need be by censoring others?

The “Fat Pride” Campaign – Why Both Sides Are Wrong

Lately, I’ve come across some material about a campaign begun in recent years, urging society to embrace the concept of being overweight, by eliminating the ideals of beauty and health our culture has always had – a culture which today some claim imposes impossible standards through the flawless image of celebrities . As far as I’m aware, it was started by feminists and only centres on women.

There are, as expected, two extremes to the issue. Social justice warriors claim it’s about time we moved beyond conventional beauty; upholding the perfectly proportionate body is offensive to overweight people (and that causing offence is of course a crime). In the UK, someone went as far as calling the police for a comment made on television by a female celebrity.

(Later edit:

At the time of writing this post, I had no idea who the celebrity in question was, which meant I was slightly better off in life. Of course, calling the police was ridiculous regardless.)

Their opponents, many of them male, argue that since attraction is a natural instinct, it is governed by immutable laws which should not be artificially redefined for the sake of political correctness. They argue this is a bid for encouraging a lack of discipline (though the words laziness and gluttony are used more often), that being overweight causes a multitude of health conditions which take resources from health care systems needlessly etc.

Each side has some valid points, and yet, both forget one important issue: the difference between the notions of PUBLIC and PRIVATE, in every sense that they apply to this situation.

So here are my observations, which I dare think make sense.

  1. The difference between harassment/ bullying and opinions

Whereas SJWs see the need for adding a human right to already existing ones, namely the right not to be offended by anything ever, publicly  expressing an idea such as the fact that being overweight is unhealthy or unsightly cannot be seen as harassment directed towards a particular individual.  If so, 95% (a rough estimate) of what people say on a daily basis would fall into that category, as it offends some group or another, and therefore offends the individuals in it.

That said, some health fanatics are just as irrational. I’ve come across confessions of a strange impetus some feel when they’re in a public place near a bigger person – to stare at them and the meals or drinks they order, especially if they’re underage, accompanied by parents. Someone should say something to these people, they should have ordered less, they should change their habits. Now that qualifies as bullying. Targeting random strangers in the street or in cafes with an unjustified sense of entitlement, tearing into them for private choices which don’t affect you,  doesn’t exactly shed a positive light on how healthy you are. That is anti-social behaviour at its best.

2.  Speaking of entitlement…

There’s probably no point repeating that SJWs by definition feel justified to want their ears protected against any criticism, which creates a weak and sickly society, full of people who constantly whine for privileges. But I’ll do it anyway.  If I were to draw a caricature of the typical SJW, it would be a student, possibly vegan, wearing a rainbow-coloured poncho and a pair of jackboots, pointing a loaded gun, spitting with ire, eyes bulging out of their head and their face distorted with rage, as they shout at the top of their voice: “LIIIIIIKE MEEEE…..!”

On the other side of the debate, there is a very different, equally disturbing sense of entitlement. In some hedonistic delusion, certain people think the world was created for their delight and those they deem unattractive visually pollute it. Because, of course, the rest of their surroundings are so delightful. There’s no point telling such characters they can only have a neighbourhood to their complete liking when they can afford to buy one and that they don’t own the streets they walk down. Staring at strangers, finger-pointing, mocking them in public is inexcusable regardless of the trait you dislike.

There is no logical reason one should care how a complete stranger looks. None at all. They can issue a non-requested opinion, preferably behind the person’s back, yet are not justified to feel that person owes them, anyone else or even themselves to look a certain way.

So why do people nowadays comment so ceaselessly, rudely and mercilessly about other people’s bodies, male or female? My best guess is the next point.

3. Overexposure 

It’s not the beauty of models, actresses and celebrities in general which causes other women to feel (and be) scrutinised at all times. It’s the culture of everyone being invited to explore the naked bodies of others down to their finest details; what was for thousands of years hidden from public view is suddenly on display now. And it’s not just in magazines or films one needs to be 18 to access; it’s everywhere. If you watch a documentary called “Sellebrity”, you’ll hear how rags such as gossip magazines pay famous women to put on weight and lose it over a period of weeks or months, for them to document every change. The money isn’t half bad, yet the public obsession with imperfections is being fueled. It leads to objectification and comments which in other times were reserved for very intimate gatherings (about the private parts of so&so) are now commonplace in  the street, for all to hear.

People suddenly stop differentiating between those who want their bodies scrutinised (who sell their image) and the ordinary person, who has not invited such analyses and should by all means be left alone.

If feminists really were against the use of women’s bodies to sell everything from cars to alcohol, they would advocate more modesty, which in turn would mean more protection for women in general. But what do they do instead? They call on big women to pose naked and flaunt their bodies in front of the crowds, engaging in the exact behaviour which contributed to their negative image.

4. Cognitive dissonance 

Having dealt with social anxiety for many years, I have utter respect for those who manage not to give a fuck about what others think of them. Also, I am in favour of seeing the human body as nothing more than a temporary vessel, therefore I don’t understand the obsession with spending half of this short life on Earth perfecting something which will ultimately be consumed by flames or maggots. But each to their own.

Anyhow, that is not the case here.

Those involved in this campaign cannot honestly claim they don’t care what others think while they are so desperately seeking general validation. This goes for SJWs in general. Personally, I don’t care how others look, who they sleep with, how many people they sleep with etc; it’s lobbying groups  who continually shove their private issues in everyone else’s face, looking for cheering and applause.

Self-acceptance it tacit; it’s only when you want others to acknowledge your conclusion about yourself that you take to the streets with a megaphone.

5. Let’s stop kidding ourselves.

It is an undesired physical trait. It doesn’t make anyone inferior or less capable, it doesn’t change who people are on the inside, yet no one can honestly tell me that if they had a choice between being fat and slim they would choose to be fat, because it’s all the same.

Most strangers only take a fleeting, superficial peek at us and go by what they see. Many overweight people I know approach others’ superficiality with humour; they don’t make an issue of pride versus oppression out of it. It’s unrealistic and if anything, it will only draw more antipathy form others.

Aesthetics and health were designed by nature in a manner recognisable to all through natural instincts; whilst we can in no way say the body is the most important aspect of a human being – as previously mentioned, it is, ultimately, devoured by flames or maggots – there is no denying that these are biological facts and not abstract social constructs. You can call an unhealthy person a hundred positive things which reflect their true qualities; what you can’t call them is healthy. And there’s no need to; it should be fine to admit no one is perfect.

On the other hand, those who bully overweight people or make sarcastic remarks in order to humiliate them should stop kidding themselves that they’re doing it because they care about their well-being. A well intended thought is never expressed in a deliberately hurtful way.

6. You address bullying by addressing bullying, not by reinterpreting the object of it.

Fat pride is not the answer to bullying. Neither is any other kind of pride of this sort.

Kids and young adults should be educated about what it means to be civilised, respectful to others, empathetic, not how wonderful it is to be overweight (any overweight person knows it’s anything but). They should be educated to not assume the causes of differences between people and to not be superficial, label, call names and so forth. In other words, to not bully.

I’ve always seen it as sheer idiocy to teach people to identify themselves with a single trait they have, be it race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc.  People are far more complex than that. Of course, asking them to identify with a physical defect, and a potentially temporary one, is much worse. They become stuck in this constrictive paradigm in which everything can be linked to that specific trait. People, youngsters in particular, are also bullied for reasons such as stuttering or wearing glasses, yet we don’t see anyone glorifying eye conditions or speech impediments.

By pushing notions such as “fat pride”, society at large only becomes more antisocial. We no longer only have people who bully a specific group; we have that group bullying everyone else; the opposition becomes radicalised and tensions increase.

7. Self-acceptance is beneficial; taking pride in every defect isn’t

It’s often pointed out by SJWs that people commit suicide because they are bullied over one trait or another; prior to that they become isolated and depressed. That is true and terrible. And it’s also true the media pushes an unrealistic ideal of perfection, which would be fine if remaining an ideal, yet is embraced by the masses as a mandate, especially among younger people.

Accepting oneself, as opposed to self loathing, is necessary for an individual to function, to be motivated; without the hope for a better tomorrow and the belief they can improve their lives, people become demoralised; they lose that motivation. Without any joy there is little point to life, some would say. But acceptance entails balance and realism, it entails knowing oneself and one’s possibilities. What these people are proposing is self deceit by calling black white and vice versa, and what is more, by rejoicing in aspects which are potentially detrimental to them.

If we go by previous experiences with SJW fads, overweight people who want to change their appearance or criticise the “fat acceptance” movement will probably be classed as self-hating by these radical feminists, and as a danger to those who want to embrace the movement.

8. Society understood backwards

At times I’ve heard fitness fanatics say that the tendency towards becoming bigger is not a societal problem, that it’s a hundred per cent the responsibility of each individual. It’s a no-brainer that their assessment is false. Compared to a few decades ago, life has turned on its rear end. Social isolation causes people to watch mindless entertainment and thus be sedentary; the market is laden with unhealthy foods which are constantly being advertised; people who work long hours are in no mood (and have no energy left) to exercise etc.

I’ve heard people say overweight kids should be taken from parents and that such families are irresponsible or uncaring for not being able to say “no” when youngsters throw a fit over the latest junk  advertised on TV. It is the most idiotic approach to always blame the impressionable consumer instead of the devious retailer and advertiser of such junk.

If the leadership of affected states really wanted to address this issue, they would clamp down on the toxic junk being labeled as food and the freedom to advertise it everywhere, particularly to children. But of course governments don’t want that since they are in bed with the corporations lining their bank accounts from the enormous sale of said junk. Hence they have no interest in the sales of unhealthy (even toxic) products declining.

Health Nazis expect them to allow the hypnotising and poisoning of the population and simultaneously punish individuals for falling into that trap. It’s obvious that people won’t perceive junk as threatening when they’re surrounded by ads and hear them constantly on TV, on the radio etc. They grow up that way; those products are part of their daily existence.

Western societies are sick as a whole, on so many levels. Life nowadays is quite demoralising; psychological and emotional health have declined, yet we expect to be disciplined enough to maintain our physical health.

9. My conclusion

In a normal world,  people wouldn’t require public validation for the way they look – they would not receive feedback without having asked for it and would certainly not demand endorsement from others.

It’s our culture of overexposure and objectification that needs changing.

We are gradually being trained to see people as no more than animals. There are naked bodies everywhere, of all shapes and ages and for any given purpose, from health documentaries to porn, and millions of strangers gawking behind television screens.

Call me a puritan – though I am not, by any standards – yet we have no respect or love for each other and each other’s privacy anymore. Many see slabs of meat when they look at another human being, as the success of the exhibition of plastinated bodies has proven. We have no love for our own dignity when we plaster our social media profiles with duck face selfies and skimpy outfits. And no, I am not Muslim or with the WBC.

Leaving health aside (as that is relevant to others such as one’s doctor or employer) and those who make a living from their image, a person’s appearance has no business being of interest to anyone else but themselves and the one they are intimately involved with. Unless one has a legion of demons inhabiting their body (which is of course a joke), that only makes two altogether.

My diary was once private. So was yours.

Disclaimer: This post does not refer to people who are distraught after suffering abuse and use the internet as a last source of comfort. It refers to the far more numerous who have incrementally been trained by our culture to bring every detail of their lives into the public arena, exposing small grievances as important and almost annihilating the notion of privacy, to their own detriment. It is, first of all, self-criticism, for having repeatedly fallen into that pattern, although the details themselves are fictitious.

Sometimes  I wrote in codes. Other times in foreign languages, unhindered by poor grammar or spelling. Most days my diary traveled with me, away from the prying eyes of parents or siblings; I was secretly proud of developing my individuality in ways no one could scrutinise,  judge or mock. The thought of a stranger entering that sacred space was unconscionable.

Most days I would write at my school desk, in the grass, against walls and on benches, with my diary on my knees. I would breath in the seasonal breeze, watch the world go by with the corner of my eye and ask myself: what should I do about this? What do I think today? How do I feel today? What are my values? Have I changed since this summer? Have I changed since last year? Think before you speak and think before you act  were ingrained, which made my world safer and my behaviour more dignified.

Today, I am Nickname Avatar.

I no longer know what I think and how I feel. I no longer know how to handle the smallest conflicts or decisions and how to relate to those in my immediate environment.

I let others vote on that.

So please, vote. Did my husband wrong me by making that unflattering comment? Should I forgive him? Should I tell him what I told all of you last night, while he was sleeping? Hurry up now; he’s taking me out to lunch; we’re having a very important conversation, the result of which I will of course make public while he’s in the restroom.

Sometimes I think they should legalise polygamy. We’ve lived in a polygamous arrangement for years. There are three pillows on the marital bed: one for him, one for me and another for Public Consensus, which goes to bed with us every night, and as you might imagine, it sleeps in the middle. It keeps asking for official recognition; and why wouldn’t it? It’s been part of my life all this time; I invited it.

My parents and grandparents, my aunts and uncles didn’t have perfect marriages. Perhaps because the mere concept is unrealistic, given that it’s human nature to clash in terms of opinions, plans and desires; no two human beings are ever the same. It’s human nature to argue, just as it’s human nature to get over it and move on. If this paragraph sounds naive, how is it that people today demand perfection, by making a mountain out of every cold look, every day of silence, every argument and every other slip-up past generations wouldn’t have bothered their minds with?

No, they didn’t have perfect lives, but at least they had dignity. Even while morose after prolonged arguments, if someone outside the family engaged in criticism or rumours, they would be firm. How dare you say that about my wife! I don’t believe a word of it! Who do you think you are…? What I witnessed would go both ways, as opposed to an abused person not speaking out for fear of repercussions. Personally, I think it’s a beautiful thing. They were aware life wouldn’t be a rose garden and that they’d have numerous clashes in the years to come, but when it came right down to it, they stood up for each other.

Dignity does not reside in proclaiming one’s emotional independence on the internet, shaming others by exposing shared intimacy and proclaiming one’s position of virtuous victim-hood. Not every mistake others make warrants such a response. If you’re active on a forum where people also discuss private matters, you often see members regretting having gone public with a transitory conflict. But it doesn’t keep them from doing it again, or anyone else for that matter.

We are so used to living life in the limelight, albeit an illusory one, down to exposing what we cook for supper on Facebook (though Facebook itself may cause supper to burn to a crisp in the oven, all forgotten). And every aspect of our lives, even said supper if not burnt to a crisp, is subjected to validation, criticism and advice.

Think about it: do we really need all the feedback? Why on God’s green Earth do people expose themselves down to the bone marrow and then complain about social anxiety and the constant fear of others judging them? It’s a paradox. 

The more you expose, the more reasons they have to pass judgement. Why think that on-line communities are somehow different from society in general? Because they proclaim to be so? You wouldn’t undress on a busy street corner, would you? Then why talk to a bunch of anonymous people about your favourite sexual positions? You wouldn’t bring a bottle of wine to work and expand on your worst childhood memories. Why do it on-line then?

A moment’s catharsis really isn’t worth the prospective gossip, mockery, unwanted feedback and criticism. People see the world through their own eyes; they are very likely to confuse your situation with theirs and push you towards a wrong decision.

Reserving a place for Public Consensus at the dinner table or in one’s bed will only cause distance between a person and those who supposedly trust them. Trust involves intimacy, discretion (or used to, to be more precise, as now these concepts are less real to people by the day).

Growing and learning together, supporting and defending each other against the adversities of the world leads to strong characters, to enduring relationships, as previous generations have proved. One has a different take on life when knowing at the end of the day there are people to always rely on, no matter what.

And what do we see today?

We see very lonely people, trying to figure out who they can trust, analysing others’ past transgressions down to small details. We see those who spend holidays with their cats, looking up disorders they can label their family members with for having ignored them or hurt them fifteen years before. And yes, in some situations that is logical, yet we can no longer deny this has become a trend, engulfing some who would otherwise live normal lives.

Paradoxically, in this age of befriending others so fast you can tell them anything about yourself within minutes, so many are utterly alone and aware of it.

Deep down, they know the on-line networks they have joined are volatile and that they won’t grow old still talking to their friends of conjuncture. On occasion, one finds a genuine friend, but that is a rare gem. It’s basically like going to a pub every night to meet strangers and share your stories with them, as all the lights at home are out.

In isolation, we fill our time with so-called entertainment, flicking through crime stories, detective series on gruesome murders, documentaries on how to spot liars, cheaters & Co, shocking psychopaths, depressing news or dramas full of pain and dysfunctional families. The end result of this flood, I suspect, is a raised level of paranoia.

How will western societies hold together if people become evermore isolated in real life? Our elders keep saying that if the family is dismembered, society as a whole will follow. I believe we are living through those times now – within the family unit, people have become intolerant and intolerable at the same time.

Cooperation is a strange notion nowadays; meeting people halfway; assuming our biological gender roles and taking on adult responsibilities in adulthood – all these common sense aspects have been overrun by the sense of entitlement our culture feeds day in and day out. You deserve more! You’re worth more! You’re a winner; don’t let losers drag you down! You’re the best; don’t settle for less!  Again, I’m not talking about people in abusive situations here; they obviously deserve better. One can climb onto the rooftop and shout they are empowered by cutting ties left and right, for the whole world to hear; deep down there will still be a stifled cry of emptiness or regret.

The fact remains that every time we metaphorically undress for all to see, the world chews us into small bits and spits us out again; our image of ourselves is altered. Many times the responses we get induce more anxiety than we already had.

We cringe when watching film depictions of ancient trials for private ”crimes” (such as adultery ), where people’s intimacy is humiliatingly discussed before a gawking, finger-pointing crowd – and yet subject ourselves and our loved ones to the modern equivalent on the internet, under the false blanket of anonymity. And very often, it turns into another hindrance in the way of reconciliation; a guilt-inducing, needless one. 

“Amazing information! I’m clearly dealing with a psycho…”

How many times have you read that, or even written it, while participating in discussions on a popular abuse recovery forum? The most compelling evidence in one’s eyes (that the person they suspect to be disordered actually is that way) is the plethora of similar experiences posted by others.

As a first disclaimer, I am referring to those who are in doubt, usually when no deliberate, serious acts of cruelty have taken place. Many stumble upon unprofessional information which is very articulate and convincing, yet deep down, intuition tells them they are wrong or that they need to reevaluate matters. 

Also, I’m not trying to minimise anyone’s feelings or experience; however, I have serious doubts every case on these large recovery forums involves a genuine psychopath or narcissist. In a vulnerable state, with clever persuasion, mistakes are easily made.

As a second disclaimer, this is only my opinion.

The following issues to consider can be liberating for someone still pondering whether that label is accurate.

1.The fact that members were mistreated in similar ways is not proof they were all mistreated by psychopaths. This is especially valid when it comes to what is deemed emotional abuse.

Not all people who engage in aggressive or abusive behavior are disordered; there are dozens of variables in analysing why a person might have behaved in a certain way. Even though you find yourself repeatedly thinking “mine did that all the time”, keep in mind similarities can occur with normal people as well. Lying, making unflattering comments, using sarcasm, making excuses, being selfish, being arrogant are things most of us are guilty of at some point in life.

2. The way one feels about another person is not necessarily provoked by the latter.

I believe few people have strong telepathic abilities; most need straightforward communication to understand how one is feeling; even then they can remain disconnected, especially if they are emotionally unavailable for some reason. Reciprocity is an illusion in many cases, unless there is proper communication. The lack of it (two people relating to each other through endless assumptions and signal interpretation) weakens bonds; it pulls people apart. Those who are shy, oversensitive, have anxiety issues etc. find it hard to express their feelings; they can experience great frustration with others. Also, one can feel anxious around a person without that person causing their anxiety or even being aware of it.

3. Aggressive or abusive behaviour often has more to do with the person engaging in it than the person they target. As opposed to the message people get on PF for instance, that a psycho is bent on destroying them. 

I dare assume at some point in life we’ve all been shouted at by angry people just because we were there. Also, some feel too safe at times and take others for granted, as a teenager does when acting up, knowing they won’t lose their family over it. I am in no way justifying abuse – I am merely saying not every case is the same and not every person is the same; hence there are many possible explanations for aggressiveness (blatant or passive) . “This individual is bent on destroying you” is the exception, not the rule.

4. Psychopaths lack empathy and remorse. Calling them offensive or big-headed is the understatement of the century.

For a sample of excellent candidates for that “title”, read the comments under any Daily Mail article dealing with poverty or immigration. You’ll find chilling fantasies of opening fire on refugee boats or rounding up the poor to sterilise them. You’ll find acrimonious anti-immigration rhetoric under pictures of dead children, which fail to move any of these types. People often wonder how in the world mass killings such as the Holocaust, the extermination of a large part of Cambodia’s population or the massacre in Rwanda happened. Some people simply don’t see others as human. That murderous instinct hasn’t gone away and never will, I suppose, though we lie to ourselves we have evolved as a species.

There are also public figures with a considerable platform, such as university professors, who advocate monstrosities; what jumps to mind is referred to as  “after birth abortion”, or the possibility for parents to change their mind about wanting an already born child. Peter Singer argues that in case of disability, they should have up to thirty days to decide if they want to keep it, as people refer to children nowadays. If not, the it would be mercifully put to sleep, I suppose. Then there is Eric Pianka, who has another type of utopia in mind – the ideal world population, he says, would be a tenth of the actual one; it is therefore necessary to get rid of the other 90%. Not to mention an individual I won’t even name, who proposed during a widely followed TV debate that abortion should be mandatory for thirty years. And he wasn’t just saying that for shock value.

Then you have the SJW bloodhounds who ruin – not an overstatement – people for disagreeing with them on issues of faith or family values. Under the guise of promoting marriage equality, they target, trick and break those who won’t give up their traditionalist views, making examples out of them to frighten others. They put hard-working families out of business; they gladly take old people’s savings as compensation for having been offended. The greater the misery and suffering they cause, including to children or helpless elderly people, the greater their satisfaction.

You contemplate such individuals and suddenly, the guy who keeps forgetting your birthdays, changes his plans too much, avoids house chores or annoys you with his quirks seems less of a psychopath by the second.

 5. And then there is the world. An unstable, often depressing world where the future is shaky if not bleak; where values regarding human interaction have long been turned upside-down, to let confusion reign free. Here is a short list of contradictions between what we grow up to expect from people and the factors moulding us all nowadays:

We expect sensitivity in a desensitised world, where human suffering has become entertainment;

We expect not to be sexually objectified in a world where porn and objectification can be seen around every corner, hence kids grow up thinking it’s a normal part of life;

We expect stability, perseverance, work ethics in an economically unstable climate, where one’s efforts can be fruitless, causing a lack of motivation;

We expect commitment, faithfulness, when all around us marriages are breaking, people publicly debate the validity of monogamy and the family as a unit seems to be falling apart;

We want constant respect in an angry world, where people lose their temper with innocent strangers, where they lash out at each other for the smallest trifles; men and women want respect from each other while under peer pressure they ridicule the opposite sex for a few cheap laughs;

We expect others to know us and know what we are feeling when so many of us barely know ourselves; life is often so depressing  we turn to therapy and medication to be able to function;

We expect maturity when all around us adults behave like children or teenagers in older bodies, in a hedonistic culture of endless fun and games;

We expect love in romantic relationships, when fewer people have a clear idea of what that is anymore and where it’s supposed to lead, courtesy of our blessed culture of infinite possibilities, leaving many so confused they no longer know what they want.

These are only a few of the reasons why people should think twice about equating selfishness, occasional nastiness and frustrating behavioural patterns with psychopathy. People are complicated. 

 

Psychopathy – The New Fad For Social Justice Warriors

Make no mistake – although they come bearing rainbows and think they are empathy incarnate, SJWs are no hippies – they are hippies with a thirst for blood; the flower in “flower power” has turned carnivorous.

Becoming one is quite simple.

First, pick a category which seems to suffer from a disadvantage (even a slight one) compared to another and refer to the issue as oppression. Go as far as you like. You can say women who walk around half-naked are oppressed by the men staring at them; that women are oppressed by man-spreading on the metro (this crowd managed to get a law against it passed somewhere in the US). Anything goes.

Then, “spread awareness”, which, when SJWs are involved, means blow something out of proportion, make it seem more common than it is; make people feel threatened or outraged by it. Of course, real oppression deserves awareness and solutions. Female genital mutilation is an example, as are forced marriages in some communities, especially within cults. Man-spreading on the bus simply isn’t.

Where possible, turn this into the next best thing to a religion. Feminism, alternative lifestyles, you fill in the blank. Get endorsement from vote-hungry politicians, get into schools, get into churches. Make it abhorrent for anyone to express common sense; socially decapitate any dissenters. They are siding with the enemy.

When dealing with genuine issues, where you’d think they finally get something right, SJWs see the world upside-down. Let’s take paedophilia, which is a real societal cancer. Instead of focusing on  wealthy and influential networks existing in the world today, occasionally exposed by the press, they would have us think all men are potential paedos; they target people photographing their own kids in bathing suits by the pool. Any man speaking to a child who is not his own is now a “potential paedo” according to some.

Next on the ”to-do” list, apparently, is psychopathy, for groups such as Psychopath Free.

https://www.psychopathfree.com/content.php?337-Call-to-Action-Spread-Psychopathy-Awareness-in-Your-Town

Like paedophilia, psychopathy is real; for a change, it affects us all, since our world is practically run by psychopaths. They carry out wars and genocides, they displace huge numbers of people across the planet, they impose censorship, brainwash the masses through the media and micromanage them on a daily basis. Lower level psychopaths also exist; some people are truly callous and have no remorse when trying to reach their goals. And yes, the media does glorify them nowadays.

BUT…

What sites like PF do is trivialise the problem and drag it into the sphere of bitter ex’s recalling the mistreatment of every average Joe, or recalling their childhood difficulties and calling 50% of their family members psychopaths and narcissists. Having seen way too much of this, I’m getting a clearer picture of the great deception in this tidal wave of diagnosing others with personality disorders.

As with many SJWs, some people who believe to have been victimised by a psychopath or narcissist ultimately start blaming every problem they’ve ever had on this modern Nosferatu.

They start with the emotional neglect during their early years, with not feeling cared for and understood by their parents. Of course emotional neglect is wrong and parents should be mindful of how they handle those important years, yet they are only human and such mistakes do not qualify them as disordered.

Looking for information on emotional abuse, I came across very sobering material put out by Dr Pete Gerlach on his site and in many YouTube videos; Dr Gerlach has been a family therapist for over three decades. His conclusions are well explained, non-hysterical and simply make sense, if one is able to have an honest look at themselves and their own lives.

http://sfhelp.org/gwc/guide1.htm

To put it briefly, he explains that most people carry psychological wounds they are not aware of, unwittingly caused by parents who in turn had been wounded as children. These wounds cause adults to behave in similar ways and continue the cycle, without meaning to. By examining their behaviour and practicing self-awareness (not “awareness” of how rotten other people are, while seeing themselves as victims), they can break the cycle and avoid wounding their own children. The other adults we come in contact with also carry these wounds and display difficult behaviour. His videos are not easy listening for those who see themselves as angels of light who are not prone to behavioural problems.

Demonising others and labelling them as psychopaths, while placing oneself on the other side of the fence, is hardly a solution. 

Times are very fertile for the PF campaign. Compared to a few years ago, the internet is now replete with material on abuse, which, while containing a substantial amount of truth, approaches it from the wrong angle, leading to this black-and-white view on human beings. It’s a call to pitchforks and SJW “awareness spreading”.

Sooner or later, if one takes this path, they will fall into awful exaggerations. Radical feminists think men are inherently domineering, disrespectful and want to enslave them. Those who militate for the celebration of alternative lifestyles see traditionalists as neo-Nazis who would hang them if they had the chance. In the same way, the PF crowd argues people with difficult or aggressive behaviour are set on destroying the ones they mistreat.

It’s all about finding an enemy and dedicating one’s energy to fighting them. What is also common among these radical groups is that they can never tolerate a more balanced view. Whilst they were genuinely traumatised at some point in their lives, they are equally deluded and dangerous now.

Through simple word of mouth, we saw PF hit #1 new release for Abuse, Personality Disorders, and Domestic Violence. Books get passed from clients to therapists, from patients to doctors, from defendants to lawyers, and suddenly awareness spreads like wildfire.

Spreading awareness, in this case, refers to actively encouraging people with no psychology or psychiatry background to freely diagnose others with Cluster B disorders, based on a shallow and subjective book, with no credentials, no depth or social responsibility behind it aside from one person’s hurt feelings.

Until now, this information was mainly accessed by those who were searching for it on-line. The oversimplification of the issue will become a weapon to many people with a vendetta against those who have wronged them.

Give it a few years and, if this tendency is not stopped by our inner voice of reason, “narc” or “psycho” will become a common schoolyard slur. There is an enormous difference between calling someone a bit of a jerk and labelling them with the most dangerous personality disorder there is, for the same type of behaviour.

In an insane world, sanity is the most precious thing we have. Please don’t put your minds and lucidity into the hands of these people.