Monthly Archives: May 2016

Stranger Shaming – The Next Level Of Social Degradation

Recently brought to public attention by the internet phenomenon known as Gamer Gate, doxxing (quite popular among SJWs in general) is seen by many as vile, unnecessary and the product of  inflated egos. Sending posses, either virtual or in real life, to harass people and many times get them fired, is fanatical in the eyes of anyone with a shred of respect for freedom of thought. Or for freedom as a concept, why not.

The only thing that can be said about engaging with these types is precisely that; engaging – one’s choice to interact with them, the risk taken while knowing (or suspecting) their rapaciousness.

The same cannot be said about the people who are randomly targeted simply for existing, without having initiated any contact with those who point the finger of scorn at them. Note: I am not referring to activists and people who make their opinions public in general, attracting debates and rebuttals. Those are ideological in nature and needn’t become too personal (or personal at all). And in case someone might accuse me of doing the same with PF, I must stress any observations I’ve made were not meant as a personal attack; these people form an ideological group seeking to proselitise.

This grotesque caricature of  Police Academy 4, “Citizens on patrol”, is very worrying indeed.

Stranger shaming refers to the public targeting of someone’s life choices or habits, flagged by a feature the “hunter” is looking for in a crowd or on social media. It usually consists of being photographed, paparazzi-style, and displayed on dedicated websites for all to see, along with poisonous comments – just for being in the bastard’s line of sight at the wrong time. The target, implicitly, does not seek out this attention and is often not aware of what is happening, until they find their image (and perhaps even some details) online.

Apparently, this trend was started by the famous “anti man-spreading” campaigners, who freely took photos of blokes sitting on trains or buses, minding their own business, in order to prove that their claim was legitimate. The revenge came in the form of a Facebook page showing women who eat on the tube, in unflattering images and with even more unflattering comments. This was a pointless thing to do for two reasons.

First, it picked on random – as in innocent – people, not on the ones who had engaged in the man-spreading ridiculousness (perhaps that would’ve been classed as stalking). Those who put the page together had no consideration for that fact and for doing the exact same thing those women had done, without even affecting them. Through that, they were indeed being sexist, taking their revenge on women in general. Secondly, there was a pointless backlash to that as well – a day of ostentatious eating on the tube, organised by some women. There’s nothing to suggest a connection between the people being stranger-shamed in any of these phases of the conflict; each group lashed out, in turn, at complete strangers, thus propagating this phenomenon.

As far as I see it, there are three possible explanations for it.

Infantile behaviour. Those who invented the gadgets we use daily gave a great gift to the world. But cameras, akin to other items such as guns and weed, can be dangerous when left in the hands of every idiot. Stranger-shaming can be perceived as flipping the bird to a certain category, though the implications can be more serious, depending on the trait one picks on. Infantile individuals, who laugh at banalities, such as someone’s fly being open by mistake or someone tripping in the street, think just about anything is worth pointing out. They think it’s tongue-in-cheek and does not cause real harm.Surprising funny blunders out there can be great if no one is harmed – take for example. But when you make it personal, specifically targeting an individual and pointing the finger, that is needlessly hurtful.

The disappearance of the concept of privacy. Unlike those who laugh at small accidents, but not maliciously, gawking types (some of them pathological gossips) seem to think they are entitled to see and judge the lives of others through a magnifying glass. I’ve no doubt some do it to escape their own frustrations or conceal their true inclinations (holier-than-thou types often harbour deeply repressed aspects). In their quest to prove their superiority, they cannibalise any available target by virtue signalling. “It’s none of my business” does not reside in their vocabulary. It is no surprise therefore that they approach every new ability to snoop and immortalise trivialities as a good thing.

Social engineering at its best. An intelligent, decent person is rightfully worried when the general acrimony gets to the level of people being ready to attack anyone around them, albeit not physically, just for a mild disapproval. When ordinary citizens become data gatherers, informants on others, for little to no reason. This is the hallmark of totalitarian regimes, of having to look over your shoulder constantly to check who is watching and listening. It’s no wonder that social anxiety is growing and some people are simply unwilling to leave their homes except for strict necessity, while being bombarded with images of others being publicly embarrassed. This truly looks like a technique to make people fear each other and the places they live in or travel to.

Needless to say, not all self-labelled humorous material is for humour’s sake. Stranger shaming can involve anything from poor manners, whether accidental or habitual, to personal life choices, which are nobody’s business. These range from wearing leather, using too much electricity, not reusing reusable items and anything like that, to the way you bring your kids up (gender-designed toys only, no TV, certain restrictions or permission others do not agree with). Here’s where social media comes in. Those who are so quick to share details regarding their private lives should be aware of these vultures seeking to put others on “disgrace lists” for not fitting into their hallucinogenic-tinted utopias.

More and more, we are seeing a push towards standardisation in every aspect of life, where diversity, though so trumpeted nowadays, becomes intolerable. In their own heads, people run themselves through the mincer of public opinion before they dare to open their mouths. Just anything can cause outrage to some closeted fanatic, who becomes flushed with anger at the slightest “trigger”.

We might see a push-back from the slowly cooked communal frog, or we might not. Some of us are more hopeful than others.

I will edit sometime to add relevant examples.

The Cultural Appropriation Of Food -Idiocy Beyond Belief

Again, the rationale found on that website almost leaves me speechless. Some people must have very little to worry about in life.

In case you were at ease thinking you could dodge the PC squad, having checked all your privileges and self-flagellated just enough to placate them, guess again – you could also be guilty of oppressing ethnic minorities through what you eat.

Cultural appropriation is when members of a dominant culture adopt parts of another culture from people that they’ve also systematically oppressed. (…)

With food, it isn’t just eating food from someone else’s culture. It might not be appropriation if you’re White and you love eating dumplings and hand pulled noodles. Enjoying food from another culture is perfectly fine.

But, food is appropriated when people from the dominant culture – in the case of the US, white folks – start to fetishize or commercialize it, and when they hoard access to that particular food.

In other words, it’s fine to enjoy it now and then, just don’t enjoy it too much, sell it or try to popularise it if you can. Even if by selling and making it popular you are employing members of the culture you are supposedly oppressing (let’s be serious; major restaurants selling foreign food tend to employ people who are experts at making it). If you’re a white restaurant owner, that is a no-no. Forget the fact that you’re creating jobs.

By buying and consuming the food, it is implied that the average customer, who is probably just curious (also a sin without paying due reverence to the culture, as you will later read) also takes part in the ongoing oppression of that community – and is therefore guilty of supporting colonisation.

When a dominant culture reduces another community to its cuisine, subsumes histories and stories into menu items – when people think culture can seemingly be understood with a bite of food, that’s where it gets problematic.

Who even does that?

Who claims to understand a culture just by liking a foreign dish? That’s the first I’ve heard of it – because it’s insane. Perhaps the author is confusing people’s lack of information, which can be just the same with or without liking said dish, with claiming expert status, which I doubt anyone in their right mind would do.

Here are some dining behaviors that are culturally appropriative when it comes to food.

So this is linked to consumption directly, not even to the unethical sourcing of ingredients (which is a just cause for boycotting) or commercialisation.

Usually, we re talking about Thai, Vietnamese, Indian, Ethiopian, and Mexican food –places where food is cooked by the brownest people. (…)While food from Western Europe is still connected to ethnic roots, ethnic food has become reserved only for ethnicities that are perceived as exotic and foreign to White folks.

No; that’s just her interpretation of it. It is a generic term with a generic meaning. And even if this appraisal was accurate, what would be morally wrong, in the mind of a rational person, with wanting to try exotic foods? Human beings are naturally curious; they enjoy new experiences.

While food can connect people together and also serve as a way to learn about cultures other than our own, what happens is that food becomes the only identifier for certain places. (…) Entire regions become deduced* to menu options and ingredients without any thought to the many different communities in these places. There’s a loss of complexity and cultures end up getting homogenized.

*That must be a typo; she must have meant reduced.

No; that’s what happens in egocentric countries where ignorance is viewed as normal, like (awkward cough) the USA. It can can affect all races, ethnic minorities and creeds. You don’t normally see other tourists in talking excessively about the one thing they know about the country they’re visiting – as that shows they don’t know much at all. Of course, that is also a stereotype and can have little meaning nowadays, in the age of information. Again, that’s still not a reason to avoid foreign dishes.

They end up getting homogenised in that person’s head. Is that really such a problem for the rest of the world? Does if affect anyone outside of it, aside from (maybe) hearing ignorant comments from time to time? And if that person never went near foreign dishes, would they be less ignorant? 

In seeking “authentic” food, we’re hoping for a truly immersive experience into another culture. The food experience, whether in a restaurant in someone’s home city or as part of a trip somewhere else, comes to represent a larger experience with that culture and community.

Says who? Wanting authentic food is just that – wanting it to taste genuinely as it is supposed to and not be poorly cooked, in order to leave you with the wrong impression. Who mandates that it’s more than having a meal and people are seeking “immersive” experiences when they visit a restaurant? How immersive could they be, realistically?

Unlike what progressives think, not everyone overanalyses every bastard triviality, every bastard second of the day.

In addition to this, she mentions visits somewhere else – which means that not even when investing in a visit to a foreign country are you allowed to seek and enjoy authentic food in good conscience. Never mind that you saved up for the trip and do get to interact with the culture somewhat. You’re still meant to feel guilty about this.

And here’s why:

The impacts of historical and ongoing colonization are devastating to many cultures, and many “authentic” “ethnic” cuisines are connected to histories of colonization.

Translation – don’t you dare eat something without researching its history (of the recipe, that is, as hopefully anything in there is fresh enough not to have a very long history). And if you do research it and revere it enough to dare eating it, make sure you pray over it first. If somehow you are brave enough to cook it yourself, make sure you add some guilt as a final touch. You know – for things you didn’t do.

If you love a dish and think it’s delicious, great! If you’re searching for a place that serves a particular dish, also great! However, seeking “authenticity” fetishizes the sustenance of another culture. The idea of the “authentic” food experience is separated from reality. It also freezes a culture in a particular place in time.

Let me attempt to understand this.

If members of your (dominant) culture should not be allowed to prepare and commercialise it, because that would be immoral, your only moral resort would be to buy it from members of the culture it originates from. Which would make it authentic. However, seeking authenticity is a form of fetishism. This makes no sense. I mean, it makes even less sense than the rest of the article.

Context matters. For example, asking if I’ve found any hand-pulled noodle joints that I like in the area is different than asking if I know authentic hand-pulled noodle joints. The difference is that what you’re seeking is one person and one place to represent an entire culture for you.

Again, complete nonsense. It’s only logical to assume that in the second situation they’re also asking you about a place nearby, in order to go there, not about a place from overseas. There is no difference, aside from introducing the word “authentic” into the question and unwittingly triggering you (to be labelled cultural fetishists undeservedly).

There is no one right way to eat something and no one perfect dish to eat. People from different cultures all have their own food preferences, too – the unique ways their families make something or the way they prepare their own meal. It’d be like me asking, “Hey, what’s the most authentic way to eat a hamburger?”

That applies to your home, absolutely. However, in public, things are not that simple. There are different types of implements for a variety of foods and, as snobbish as that is, in certain places, ignorance means you automatically make an ass of yourself, to the amusement of everyone around you. You can’t really watch people eating, as that would also make you a weirdo. The friend who asks you how to eat something almost definitely just wants to avoid being embarrassed, and perhaps embarrassing you by association as well.

Don’t constantly treat your friend of color as your food tour guide. We’re happy eating our cultural foods with you, but that’s not what our entire friendship should be about.

And who even suggests that if you’re often asked such questions – because you presumably know better than other people in your group – you are some token food tour guide…? Honestly, those who are so suspicious and so jumpy about everything  others say… well, they are lucky if they manage to have friends in the first place. Most people would run like hell at the fist sign of sanctimoniousness.

When people think they’re being adventurous for trying food from another culture, it’s the same thing as treating that food as bizarre or weird.

Well, maybe it is.The 100 year egg is mentioned at the beginning of this article. Most people in the west would not even take a chance with an egg that was slightly out of date and many people cook it thoroughly in order to avoid getting Salmonella. The smell of rotten eggs makes most westerners want to vomit. The centenary egg, besides being incredibly disgusting to think of, must pose a health hazard to people who are not used to it (though I’m not sure even Salmonella could live inside that thing for a hundred years). It looks like something fished out of a bin after rotting there for a fortnight. Very hot chilies are another example, some of them being painful to eat. It would not be strange to read somewhere “I had two Bhut Jolokias today and survived.”

What I noticed about progressives in general is that they just want to drain the fun out of each human experience. Down to the last drop. They seek to shame people for everything they enjoy, almost worse than mainstream religions.

The person outside of the culture becomes the person with “insider” knowledge about this exotic, other culture. The theme of “Westerner as cultural connoisseur is rooted in imperialist ideas about discovering another culture and then making oneself the main character in the exchange. “I was transformed by my trip to [fill in the blank].”

In other words,this is a diluted form of imperialism. You’re not allowed to be the main character in a story about you eating strange food – it is immoral to describe a personal experience as a personal experience. And again, the author has this bizarre idea that whoever does it automatically assumes they’re an expert on said culture.

When food gets disconnected from the communities and places its from, people can easily start forgetting and ignoring historical and ongoing oppression faced by those communities. America has corporatized “Middle Eastern food” like hummus and falafel, and some people might live by halal food carts, but not understand or address the ongoing Islamophobia in the US.

Good grief. Now food is politicised as well. Soon there will be nothing – and I mean nothing – that won’t require analysing through the feminist lens.

Eating food from another culture in isolation from that culture’s history and also current issues mean that we’re just borrowing the pieces that are enjoyable – palatable and easily digestible.

One should absolutely learn everything about a culture before they dare order a take-away. Which would make them fairly knowledgeable, to think of it – the very thing the author of the piece resents. According to her, one should not claim to have inside knowledge just because they’ve tried a dish – but at the same time, should not try it before becoming thoroughly accustomed to that culture. Which one is it? Perhaps both? Perhaps trying to find out as much as possible but feigning ignorance? What a shamed, cornered and self-conscious individual one would have to be to fret over all these non-issues.

(…) However, it’s critical for us to reflect on how we perceive the cultures that we’re consuming and think about the relationships between food, people, and power.

Colonization and gentrification are directly related to the appropriation of food. We also need to begin educating ourselves on issues and event that impact the communities that we’re drawing our meals from.

Yes, that is the first thing on the agenda for people who have a lot of work to do and grab a bite on the run.

The second paragraph almost sounds as if by borrowing recipes and ordering from foreign eating venues you’re literally stealing off of someone’s table.

What a strange preoccupation and what a strange article.

The Progressive Art Of Fucking Up Valid Points

Have you come across people who express a perfectly good point, to then ruin it with ludicrous arguments? For a while, this article gave me hope in terms of finding decent rationales on that (disturbingly absurd) platform. It is based on the concept of vegan campaigns being inconsiderate to the suffering of human beings, prioritising animals over them.

The article mentions a case of  police brutality against a man from an ethnic minority (in the US), who intended to perform a ritual involving a seal, in a public place. I’ll take their word for it as the video has been deleted, but unfortunately sounds very plausible. Apparently, there was nothing violent about it; however, hysterical onlookers called the police, afraid that harm would come to the animal, and the police, without reason, evidence or provocation, had beaten the man to the point of breaking some of his bones. As this was happening, the ones who had called – whose sole excuse would be mental illness – filmed the event, which had reduced one woman to sobs, not out of guilt regarding the severe abuse an innocent man had suffered because of her paranoia, but from the emotional “trauma” she had suffered by fearing that the seal would be hurt. This case is indeed disgusting and deserves all the public attention it can get, to exemplify how things have gone way too far for some animal lovers.

However, here’s where the approach screws up.

It’s not okay to use the protection of animals as a validation for the perpetuation of state violence on marginalized bodies or the continued colonization of cultural heritages we’re struggling to sustain.  

Being able to empathize and fear for a seal and not for the Native man being beaten, or the Black man being shot, is a symptom of white supremacy and colonization.  

This has nothing to do with minority status. It has everything to do with some people valuing animals more than humans – of any race, ethnicity, culture etc. If the unfortunate victim of communal hysteria, stupidity and baboon-like behaviour had been white, there would’ve been no difference at all in terms of the injustice. That person was innocent, wrongfully suspected, wrongfully accused and brutalised without provocation. These are the aspects which matter, ethnicity being the last on the list.

Those who take an extremist vegan stance, at times threatening or downright harming their fellow humans, are dangerous to everyone – not only to minorities and their traditions. Some would gladly put a gun to your head in order to force you to adopt veganism. Their fanaticism does not discriminate, if your brain is more evolved than that of a primate. You would not stop them if racism, classism & Co suddenly became history.

PETA disregards hurricane victims for being POC

Television hosts cry over Cecil the lion being shot, but no tears are shed for all of the Black and Brown folks being murdered and experiencing violence every day. PETA sends rescuers to save animals during Hurricane Katrina, but offers no assistance to the thousands of people (mostly people of color) who are stranded.

Whereas it is not mentioned specifically that this was their reason, the article insists on race, as if that made a difference where victims of a catastrophe are involved. Don’t get me wrong; PETA turns my stomach. Not only do they come up with vile, nightmarish adds which could safely be employed for the most gruesome horror films – they actually euthanise over 97% of the animals entrusted to them, whether they are ill or not. All evidence considered, I have no trouble calling some of them deeply deranged. If you follow the second link, there is an article regarding their mind-boggling attempts to resolve the situation between Israel and Palestine by… promoting veganism on a mural visible to both communities.

And, of course, the even more disturbing story of them rescuing animals and not people who needed assistance, besides spraying “animal killer” on the walls of homes where dead animals were found – because the owners had (perhaps) thought of the children and themselves first. For more details, you can read direct and detailed stories here.

PETA is one sick organisation. And not because of racism. They seem to hate the human race entirely.

The vegan lifestyle is classist

Although this is entirely true and vegans simply don’t realise that not everyone can afford their fancily manufactured foods, the following just had to be added:

This might be due to any combination of factors, ranging from food deserts to increased mainstream (read: White) use of foods like quinoa or soy, thus driving demand and therefore prices sky-high.

(I clicked on that link, there’s the material for another blog post – now I feel like a vulture, but this is just too good. Or too crazy; take your pick.)

I agree that vegans completely ignore those who can’t afford a diverse diet based on 100% non-animal products.Perhaps reiterating the fact that people of all skin colours and origins can be poor or extremely poor is redundant. Again, this has nothing to do with racism and the oppression of racial minorities.

Vegan campaigns against farming are “trans-exclusionary”

As the article puts it, attempting to draw feminists into veganism  by claiming that farming is based on the exploitation of the female reproductive system is in itself oppressive. To those women who were not born as such, that is. Because, it seems, including certain categories in discussions they have nothing to do with is mandatory nowadays. You might wonder what trans people have to do with egg-laying chickens and piglets. Or why – or if – they would want to be a part of that discussion at all.

Of course, the broader question would be what human females have to do with pigs and cows and hens, in general.

On the whole, this article is just one example of radical groups cannibalising each other.

The Character Rating App

Straight out of a dystopian hell hole. Forget the fact that the name is evocative of a perv in a granny suit, looking under the doors of public toilet stalls, to see knickers around people’s ankles. This is far more sinister.

For some, the narcissistic-type social media of reporting when you’re changing your socks  wasn’t enough.Your credit rating just wasn’t enough either; things had to get personal.

Welcome to the wonderful world of “Peeple”, an app where your integrity can be rated by just anybody to be publicly displayed, (initially, without your consent), showing your trustworthiness to whoever might want to “check your character”. Welcome to the world of just anybody being able to set up a public profile in your name, using validating information such as an old phone number, without you being able to remove your information afterwards (as they will own it all).

This analysis details how the so-called safety measures are laughable and anyone could end up being denigrated by those they bother in the most minute of ways. Access to the information on the app is fragmented (including access to the reviews others post about you).

It’s basically like being on trial without having committed a crime – only not going before the jury once, but perpetually, and seeing the case for or against you being made as time passes.

Imagine the gold mine this would be for virtue-signaling SJWs and vengeance-crazed “survivors” who think presumed psychopaths (identified by them) should be outed somewhere on the internet.

Thankfully, from the reviews I’ve seen so far, not everyone is high on psychotropics these days. The public reaction is dismal, as it should be, and the creators of this app are busy dodging rotten fruit on social media; aside from a few suspicious five star reviews, the majority are one star, or, as some like to put it, no star at all.

Although they have made changes following the tsunami of negative reviews, people continue to hate it because of the mere concept and risks.

“Cat Calling” – Give Me A Fucking Break (A Crime Now)

PTSD develops after an incident that involves physical harm or the threat of physical harm. Therefore, experiencing street harassment on a regular basis has a similar effect on marginalized people as combat does for soldiers. This is partly why street harassment isn’t “just a compliment,” but is, in fact, a very big deal.


On the ever-expanding  list of atrocities suffered by western women, along with other types of compliments , we find the audacity some men have of approaching them in public and alluding to their attractiveness. What an awful, disgraceful thing to do.

Granted that some people’s manners need improving and this type of unwanted attention can be bothersome, if expressed in a demeaning way. But at the most, if no actual danger exists, it will result in a short inconvenience, easily forgotten two minutes later.

It’s only human nature. We all participate in this game of (sometimes) awkward interaction. It’s not even serious.

At times it can actually be a playful experience. Years ago, when I was 18 , I was “cat called” by sailors.  I was alone, very early in the morning, on a river beach, before a very narrow point of the Danube. They passed me by on a barge and waved, and by gestures, called me on board. The water was so narrow I honestly could have swum my way to them.Which might have been interesting had I not run the risk of getting back on shore in a different country. But still I waved back quite endearingly and enjoyed the whole – totally harmless – experience. I was a virgin, with no plans of having sex with anyone, but still enjoyed the thought of male attention. Does that make me a whore? Does that make them wannabe rapists?

Eyeballs don’t rape or “oppress”.

And calling a two second interaction “harassment” is plain stupid.

The funny thing is that I’m sure many of the women complaining about being targeted by these vicious men would complain just as much (and probably do as well) when men ignore them constantly. Also, it’s worth mentioning the obvious hypocrisy of seeing themselves as victims while others are enslaved, sold off, abused and killed in different parts of the world.


An advance which is not wanted is categorised as a crime now in Nottingham, UK.

Call me a “conspiracy theorist” but this seems like an attempt to drive men and women apart (yet another one, that is). Soon enough, men in those parts will start being afraid of approaching women altogether.

Really sick and if it becomes generalised it will turn into a real problem.

I hope it’s OK to embed this video here.


And I also hope it’ OK to embed this one, as a response to this whole nonsense, based on the fact that the establishment, pushed by power-crazed, frustrated feminists, cannot regulate the interaction between men and women, which has been left to us by NATURE.


Courtship can take so many forms, some funnier and more eccentric than others.

And regarding women who are approached and not willing to respond, they are free to say no or ignore the issue altogether. The only thing that a normal woman would come out of this with would be flattery.

Somehow I get the feeling this is not necessarily brought on by the women who are likely to receive these advances, but by the ones who aren’t (and I’ll stop at this to avoid being nasty).

To conclude, I post another music video, this time from my own culture, based on the same narrative as the one above (also hoping it’s OK to embed). This narrative is a universal one. How about Mariachi singing under your balcony? Uwnanted attention? Must be illegal.If even wolf-whistling is a crime, what might this be construed as? Harassment? Half-rape?


An Article Justifying “Disruptive Protesting”

Here is a link to an article justifying what is referred to as “direct action”, as opposed to coherent dialogue. It is certainly interesting, after having watched many such “protests”(silently deploring the regression of human communication to howls and shrieks), to read an actual articulation of what goes on in these people’s minds when the chanting fever takes over.

As the author describes it, the drive is rooted in visceral rage and a sense of disenfranchisement, which puts people into a permanent fight mode.

A group of all-Black activists did a Valentine’s Day action in the town of Walnut Creek, a predominantly white and upper-class neighborhood with a history of white supremacist politics and ralliesWe took over local businesses to call out the names of Black people who had been murdered by the police. We demanded an end to complacency. We spent no longer than five minutes in each restaurants surrounded by white folks who refused to look at us – some plugging their ears, others calling out slurs, others mumbling that we “deserve to be shot.” None of us carried guns, none of us threatened anyone (aside from our presence as Black), and no one was harmed. That being said, the action was not “peaceful” because it wasn’t intended to be. A few days later, amidst allegations that we “bullied and harassed” people, a former peer (and aspiring police officer) sent me a long message expressing his outrage at what we had done. (…)I responded that, any time a group of Black people go anywhere to do any thing, we are automatically assumed violent or suspect. 

So in this case, the action consisted of going to a known hostile zone, where the response (even to a reasonable request, which was clearly not the case) would most likely have been negative. Going there with an entitled attitude, unabashedly not meaning to be peaceful, catching people by surprise and disrupting their day. I have a few questions, rhetorical, of course:

  • Were those business owners responsible for the killings?
  • Were the people seated at the tables responsible?
  • Is it reasonable to expect apologies for crimes you had nothing to do with, from people who didn’t commit them?
  • How would this person respond if someone barged into his business or home unannounced, with a hostile attitude?
  • Would he not feel intimidated if a group of aggressive people targeted him for any reason at all?
  • What was this supposed to accomplish in the first place?
  • What response did they realistically expect and what response would have been ideal?

You don’t need to carry guns in order to make people feel threatened, whether they are racist assholes or not. Decent people would have felt threatened as well. You can’t complain about the automatic assumption of violence right after admitting your protest was not meant to be peaceful. You can’t have it both ways.

We are not allowed to take up space, and once we do – even if it is to beg that people see us as human and stop killing us – we are infringing upon the privilege and ignorance of those who who wish to remain blissfully unsympathetic.

The people seated at the tables or running those eating venues were not killing anybody or denying anybody’s humanity. They were going about their daily business. And racist or not, anyone would react poorly to such an undeserved accusation.

Most of us shutting down city council meetings, or interrupting President Obamas press conferences, or blocking traffic to end incarceration and deportations, know what both the cost and benefits are.

I’d like to read more about the benefits and achievements of walking in on other people’s events – events which they took the time and money to organise -and diverting attention from what those gathered there were actually interested in. Why don’t they organise their own events and leave it at that? Events which don’t involve bullying and cornering others.

The days of going up to someone with a gun and nicely asking them to sop murdering our people are over. There is nothing “peaceful”about the murders of Black and Brown people – and asking folks to “remain calm and civilize” is nothing but a justification for that violence.

The answer is, therefore, indiscriminately targeting and holding responsible any person who is not Black or Brown, anywhere, with aggressive accusations of endorsing murder, and thinking this will actually solve something.

But most of the angry people I come face-to-face with are not upset about police brutality, mass incarceration, or the Charleston Massacre. They are upset that they cannot take their normal route to work or get their caramel macchiatos on time. In other words, they are being confronted with a reality they want to ignore.

In other words, they are confronted with your aggression, directed at them, without having done anything to you or anyone else. After all, why would normal, innocent people deserve to go about their day without being shamed for supposedly not caring about the problems of others? Why wouldn’t they just wallow in all the tragedy of this world (someone is being killed somewhere this very second, probably), even if there is nothing they can do about it?

If not doing anything wrong doesn’t entitle people to be left alone, why not go further and hijack weddings and funerals, like the Westboro Baptist Church?

These are folks that, when inconvenienced, not only make the extent of their frustration clear – they may also be violent and oppressive in their doing so. They have no other perspective than what their individual needs are in that moment.

What about you? Do you care at all about the chaos you are causing for no discernible purpose; do you care about the people you are disturbing, about their troubles and reason to be where they are, about their right to live their lives, to work, to speak etc?

There is a collapse of empathy in the people who spit at, yell at, and physically threaten people who are literally fighting for our right to live.

The only violence, verbal and physical, that is shown in recordings of such protests, comes from protesters themselves. If I may just mention a talk Ben Shapiro gave this year at a university, having to be escorted in through the back door, while a crowd was blocking the entrance, preventing participants from going inside and actually beating them up. Unable to stop the event, they set off the fire alarm

To condemn protestors (who destroy shit or not) as violent not only shows a lack of connection to their agony; it also shows me that folks don’t understand what violence is or isnt.

May I point out that when someone near you is smashing up anything in their immediate proximity, with blind rage, there is nothing – nothing – guaranteeing you wont be next, simply for being there? May I also point out this has repeatedly happened? Is it OK to just smash things out of anger? If one person doing so might be understandable, can anyone see how fifty or a hundred joining in is dangerous and destructive? Aren’t we supposed to be better than animals? I can’t believe this isn’t obvious to everyone.

As for what is or isn’t violence, please click on the link in the quote; you will be amazed by the sheer idiocy. Apparently, looting isn’t violence as it’s experienced by inanimate objects, not human beings. As if those objects were placed there by mother nature and not by some bewildered fucker who sees his property destroyed or stolen just because it was in the way of angry people. What kind of bar does this set for the intelligence of those who engage in looting or rioting? How can it be excusable to smash up someone’s car just for being parked in the wrong place at the wrong time? Human beings might not be physically harmed by this (unless they harm themselves after their livelihood is ruined), but human beings will have to foot the bill for this “righteous indignation”. Someone will have to clean up their mess in the morning.

This is fucking unbelievable.

Violence has been used to colonize, enslave, sexualize, and destroy communities of color and other oppressed people for centuries. Asking a people who have long been the targets of violence to “calm down and be peaceful” is oppressive and silencing.

And in the name of what empires and slave traders have done, we have to break into a T-shirt store, smash a hot dog stand and a Chinese takeaway to pieces. And if we’re strong enough, a few street signs too. A troubled teen with carnage fantasies might’ve been the victim of violence as well, perhaps all his life. But when he takes a rifle to school, asking him not to shoot innocent people in the name of his stifled suffering is not asking too much.

You cannot simply harm anyone and break anything you come across because you form part of an oppressed minority. Innocent people deserve all the protection and consideration imposed by common sense.


Feminists, Always Celebrating The Unthinkable

Today’s feminists have a special gift for finding the sublime in what most other people consider grotesque.

Before delving into this likeness of a surreal dream, let’s agree on one thing: there is such a thing as objective reality. If we as human beings are to share the space our planet provides, it makes sense for us all to at least recognise the laws which govern our environment and biological existence – this way we can harm ourselves and each other less. Whilst good and evil are disputed as valid notions, there are aspects pertaining to human existence which are invariably negative, such as injuries, illnesses, physical suffering and death (although it sometimes puts an end to suffering, death is never the ideal outcome).

Re-framing a negative event in order to move on is nothing unusual or detrimental, if it remains at an individual level – for instance, many draw strength from the thought that trauma fortifies them and gives them more wisdom. Each person copes in their specific manner; the mind is truly amazing in finding resources to ensure our survival.

Nonetheless, what we are witnessing nowadays is an obsession with turning whatever is emotionally distressing (tragic, painful, shameful etc) into the unfortunate object of a street celebration. Those behind such initiatives seem unable to simply accept that bad things happen, sometimes they can’t be fixed and the only sane thing to do is carry on regardless. Their need to feel better about being embarrassed or blamed is so great that they embark on crusades to demonstrate the harmlessness or even positive aspects of what they experienced, even when there clearly aren’t any.

At the other end of the stick, there is the celebration of  aspects which completely contradict feminist principles (and human decency), for a purely political purpose.

Sexually transmitted diseases

For some people, being STD-positive has a double meaning.

Recently, there was an internet campaign aiming to “remove the stigma” of women having an STD. The motto was “shout your status”, apparently seeking to raise awareness about living with these conditions – with a positive spin.The logical question is why would people feel the need to justify having contracted an STD before the world, as if anyone could actually tell aside from sexual encounters (provided that the symptoms are visible – otherwise, not even then, though obviously, disclosing is a moral obligation). Assuming we’re not discussing Debbie Does Dallas, this is a very intimate problem. People can (and I’m sure many do) go through life without anyone unnecessarily finding out.Where is the stigma if nobody knows except people you can trust (if you trust them enough to sleep with them, presumably you trust them to keep a secret)?

The answer seems to be that they’re bothered by the yearly health-oriented campaigns for promoting safe sex by describing the symptoms and complications of STD’s. They walk by posters and panels urging young people to be cautious in order to avoid infection; the messages offend them. So instead of living with the mild inconvenience of brushing against these campaigns and guarding their secret with dignity, what they choose to do is to proudly “shout their status”.

By doing so, they implicitly encourage people to worry less about protection, by claiming that these diseases are not as bad as society makes them out to be, which can only result in more infections. I assume that matters less to them as long as they don’t get to see those bothersome posters. Imagine if someone who got lung cancer from smoking wanted to ban prevention campaigns because they made him/ her uncomfortable.


Pro-life or pro-choice, most people* agree on one thing: an abortion is not a positive experience. In the best case scenario, in terms of perception, it is the less destructive option; an extreme solution to an extreme situation, resulting in long lasting physical and psychological trauma. I dare say to sane people it’s never, ever, something to rejoice or take pride in. *I had written everyone, stupidly generalising, as that has been the discussion for many years, but had to correct after reading the article below.

Campaigns such as “Shout your abortion” not only seek to normalise this as a simple part of life, but have moved on to the next level – that of describing feelings of gratitude, perhaps even joy, after that event. Which is, of course, their own personal issue; I’m not in any way arguing that it was not genuine or that them feeling guilty or not feeling guilty would’ve affected anyone else. But selling this varnished, trivialised image of a radical act a woman can never undo, is irresponsible and nauseating.There are young women who grew up with this type of propaganda (though in a tamer form), had abortions and then became very depressed, for basically going against their own nature, after being told there would be no regrets and they’d simply get over it. I had a look at the Twitter page (which is enough to give anyone headaches as only half of the characters in the posts are actual letters) and found a group promoting clothing which depicts this procedure as something positive, for instance by adjoining the word “abortion” with love hearts (translation, I love abortion); if you don’t agree it translates I love murder, it does translate, the very least, I love death.

They are not fighting for any “rights”; what they want is popular acclaim – and of course, to support the abortion and body part trafficking franchise Planned Parenthood. Even after the recent scandal, some people unbelievably defend PP, akin to the beasts of Animal Farm, who believed the hospital had just borrowed a van from the horse butcher and was using it as an ambulance. In a similar fashion, these people reject the evidence their own eyes have seen and reframe it to fit their narrative.

This has gone too far. At this point it honestly makes me want to vomit. It has nothing to do with people who are disadvantaged and torn by the feeling that they have to make a crucial decision. This is pure flaunting and propagandising; possibly the ugliest tentacle of the feminist octopus to date.

Purposeful attempts to repel men

Perhaps in a desperate attempt to justify or sugarcoat their own loneliness, some feminists encourage women, especially young and impressionable ones, to neglect their appearance as a statement of independence and liberation.

Don’t get me wrong – I  feel sorry for those who place such an emphasis on their bodies they become obsessed, perfectionist and miserable; I think it’s absolutely stupid. But the other extreme, of taking pride in growing one’s armpit hair and dyeing it blue, “free-bleeding” in public and throwing away femininity altogether, is just as bad, if not worse. At least those who are very concerned with their image have a higher chance of finding a partner or succeeding in general.

I’m afraid the reverse has absolutely no positives to it. None.

Of course this is a personal issue and no one is accountable before society for how they look or act. If they are happy enough and have a fulfilling life; if their partner is happy enough as well, who the hell cares. However, as heterosexual women (I have no idea how lesbians see this), deciding to go completely “butch” is not a good idea.

What concerns me (and others) is that feminists are brainwashing developing generations into thinking there is no advantage in traditional femininity, which is a lie, as attraction as men experience it is biological to begin with; it needn’t stay that way, of course, but that is generally the starting point. Deciding to renounce it only reduces their interest and reduces the chances of bonding romantically with them. And that is coming from someone who usually abhors stereotypes and swears like a docker (not for effect but out of habit).

Again, there’s nothing odd about wearing typically male clothes if they suit you and that is your preference; women can still be feminine in a boiler suit. Just don’t do it as a statement and tailor a matching “in your face” attitude in order to “prove something”, or worse, appearing to want to spite men (but secretly wanting to get their attention), as that is not appealing to them in the slightest. Presuming you don’t aspire to grow old saying good night to a dozen cats (sorry for stereotyping).


As proud carriers of the progressive virus flag, feminists emphasise the imperiousness of showing respect to diverse cultures and religions (Christianity excluded, of course). Traditionally, they have been affiliated with atheism, due to its facilitation of some feminist points of view, which contradict religiously-inspired conservatism (such as the rejection of the family unit and gender roles, utilitarian killing etc). Nowadays, however, they rally in support of Islam, which is, paradoxically, the most oppressive major religion on the planet and particularly oppressive to women.

One could argue that the support the radical faction of the Muslim community receives from feminists is declarative and expressed from a safe distance; however, representatives of the two ideologies do mingle sometimes, as shown in this article, which describes a conference organised (partially) by feminists, inviting jihadists who supported stoning women for adultery.

There is no point listing the crimes of this religion against girls and women, as the internet is replete with information. One would naturally think such an alliance worthy of some dark comedy; it is also reminiscent of Orwell’s dystopia, where oxymorons were as common as daylight.

In a nutshell, feminism seems to be celebrating the ugly and dark part of life – death, disease, rejection, loneliness, genuine oppression.

Again, as with SJW’s in general, this is darker even than modern day Satanism.


The Cult Of The Sanitary Bin

Initially, the title was a spontaneous “for fuck’s sake”, changed only to avoid click-baiting.

Remember that sitcom, Married With Children, in the 90’s, when the mere concept of MRAs as a reaction to feminism was a funny exaggeration? If I recall correctly, there was an episode subjecting viewers to feminist poetry, in which a woman recited an ode to her ovaries. Today, such obsessions are not an eccentricity, but journalism and social activism.

This is the link to a surreal article describing how the vacuous “period-positivity movement” (yes, there is such a thing)  reinforces the “myth” that menstruation pertains only to women. Apparently, this is oppressive and offensive to trans men (men with a functioning uterus), as well as non-binary people, aka special confused snowflakes with no real indication of even being serious.

For most people, maintaining their bodies is not something they spend hours a day thinking about; yes, everyone is aware of what bathrooms are for, but few come out of there talking about it. Recently, a group of feminists decided that whatever is not publicly discussed must be an oppressive tabu worth exposing, even if their tabu is a banal hygiene issue not worth anybody’s time or interest.

The article reads  like a parody yet was apparently written in earnest. Some people really must have nothing better to do than dream up these potty analyses around bodily fluids, glorifying, if anything, their animal nature – the most basic aspect of the human condition.I wonder what will happen when they discover that their bodies walk upright, that they have two feet and two hands they can use for a great number of things aside from typing and scratching their back orifice (watch out for the discovery of that one as well, and the celebration of everything associated).

With no further ado, here are some quotes from one of the best pieces of unintended comedy to arise from that lot so far. Comedy is the only thing you can use this for, honestly.

As a society, it’s absolutely imperative that we work towards destigmatizing menstruation. …The period-positive movement is incredibly important.

Right. Imperative. Incredibly important. It should be among our main concerns to be able to talk about that in public without making anyone feel uncomfortable. We have run out of social and economical problems and now have to make them up.

The period-positive movement aims to do that through discussion and education…It usually aims to get people to see menstruation as normal, and even beautiful.

Not everything that is normal is beautiful. Scatology aside, there are many unpleasant, unsightly aspects to the human body. And generally, people do not consider soiling themselves to be beautiful in any circumstance.

Often, menstruation is equated with femininity and womanhood.


When we’re taught sex education and biology in school, we are told that menstruation is something that cis women – and only cis women – experience. Menstruation is portrayed as a “woman’s issue” in the most cissexist way possible.

I trust you will never hear the made-up word “cis” in a biology class, which by the way, does not refer to one’s anatomy but to one’s perception regarding their gender. Science and pseudo-science should not cross paths. Not even in the hall, by mistake. The fact that people who were born with functioning female genitalia are the only ones to experience it is just that – an undeniable fact.

Unfortunately, period-positive people often make the mistake of being cissexist too, especially when efforts to destigmatize periods often frame menstruating as “celebrating womanhood” and “embracing femininity.” This might sound inviting to the ordinary, menstruating, healthy cisgender woman, but it’s actually incredibly exclusionary. 

How thoughtless of “cis” women to confiscate this joyous monthly celebration for themselves, wanting a monopoly on cramps and moodiness and all else, and wanting to deny others the privilege of celebrating with them. You make it sound like it’s actually a privilege.

The problem with equating menstruation with womanhood is that it conflates biology with gender, which marginalizes trans and non-binary people.

Marginalises, how exactly? Again, are we talking about a festival here? A right, a privilege, a party? What exactly are they excluded from that they would otherwise find beneficial or important? If they are excluded from the public recognition of what their sanitary bin contains, allow me to argue they’re not missing out on that much.

May I ask why a so-called trans man, still (inconveniently) the owner of a functioning uterus, would want to be included in aspects of the female biology, as opposed to – call me naive – hide them in order to pretend to be an actual man, to the best possible extent? Regarding non-binary people and their fucked up pronoun demands, they tend to be unreasonable and offended by any type of inclusion.

This idea also implies that trans women who don’t menstruate aren’t “real” women, which is really transmisogynistic. This means that it’s specifically oppressive towards trans women… It also negates the experiences of people who don’t menstruate for other reasons – for example, because they’ve had a hysterectomy.

Yes, I’m sure trans women would absolutely love to be able to do that, as it’s such a delightful experience. Just as I’m sure women who have had a hysterectomy actually miss that part of their lives. I’m sure they want public acknowledgement of the fact that they no longer bleed from their vaginas; they must think about it all the time.

Even as a cisgender woman, it bothers me because it feels so gender-essentialist: Reducing womanhood to biology is inherently misogynistic because we are so much more than our bodies.

Then why is it that feminists seem to focus so much on the female body and every last cell it produces, instead of expanding on more significant issues? On second thought, no one would want you lot to even try to comprehend, let alone offer solutions to complicated issues, if you’re still stuck at the potty level of understanding your own nature.

It’s imperative that our period-positivity includes trans and non-binary people. Trans and non-binary people are marginalized enough. They should not, in any way, be further marginalized by our activist movements….Trans and non-binary people should feel safe discussing any period-related issues openly….They shouldn’t have their identity invalidated by whether or not they menstruate.

I have a rhetorical question: isn’t it a bit presumptuous to say that if they are marginalised in general, they would benefit from/ be thankful for their inclusion into just any kind of crap, such as the glorification of bathroom stains? Plus, you are simply assuming they don’t feel safe discussing that  and desperately need your activism. Regarding trans women, why are you assuming that? If their identity is often not invalidated by having a penis, will it be by lacking this wonderful ability?

If we need to speak about those who menstruate, instead of referring to “women and girls,” we can simply refer to “people” or “people who menstruate.”

She actually uses this as a personal identifier further into the article. Go on and put that on your CV as well, and make sure that on your next job interview you describe yourself as a “person who menstruates”.

There are numerous period-positive articles that imply (or straight-up say) that avoiding interacting with your menstrual blood is anti-feminist. There’s an assumption that people only ever dislike menstruating because they’re consciously ashamed of their periods.

First of all, what does that interaction consist of (I’m almost afraid to ask)? And why in the world should feminism invade people’s minds to the point of dictating how they clean themselves? Since when is wiping your ass a political act? What kind of uncanny cult is this? Wait – are you saying people have a duty, as a political statement, to like menstruating? Now I’ve heard everything.

But this idea ignores the experiences a great deal of people, and ends up perpetuating ableism….I want to be a part of the period-positive movement, but I don’t want to be shamed for hating my period sometimes… Many other people are in the same boat as me. They want to be a part of the movement, but they feel excluded by the pressure to be 100% cheery about menstruation all of the time.

So we’ve moved from squeamish hypocrites shaming women for discussing periods, to feminists shaming women – pardon me, *people who menstruate*- for hating them. As you put it, they have to choose between one type of shaming and another. There’s no getting around it altogether.

Let’s pause for a second and recap – here is someone describing  how she aspires to be part, wholeheartedly, of a movement celebrating menstruation. The veneration of bathroom stains is an aspiration now, worthy of internal struggles in order to rise to the moral purity required. There is actual pressure to be cheery about it all the time. How exactly does that manifest? Who are these women accountable to for how they feel about their biological waste? Are they actually questioned by the leaders of the movement? Try to imagine that type of interrogation and shaming – if it actually is a thing.

Ending the stigma around menstruation shouldn’t involve shaming those who are upset or triggered by menstruating. We can – and should – destigmatize menstruation without pretending that periods are always fantastic for everybody. 

Menstruation can be lovely and awesome for many people – and that’s wonderful! But we’re not truly being inclusive unless we acknowledge the pain and discomfort that many others feel around periods.

Always fantastic for everybody? Lovely and awesome? What were you smoking? And what planet is this again?

Discussing menstruation should include discussing all the parts of menstruation that are awful. This includes having frank, open discussions about health issues that affect menstruation….Once again, people with these issues shouldn’t be made to feel ashamed for not enjoying their periods…. 

OK, so enjoying your period is definitely mandated by this movement. Not only discussing it openly and removing the stigma, but actually enjoying it. These people are not joking.  Regardless, how magnanimous of them, to give dispensation to those who suffer from physical ailments during this time. They are pardoned – for health reasons only -from the normal shaming of not paying tribute to the holy tampon with all their devotion.

The awesome Kiran Ghandi, who famously ran the London Marathon while free-bleeding earlier this year, did so to raise awareness of the fact that many low-income people can’t access menstrual products and to break the stigma around menstruating.

That must be why some people engage in free-peeing on the bus around here; they must be doing it to raise awareness about the lack of public toilets in the city. What an awesome thing to do. Unless you sit on it, of course.

But we need to be doing more. Way more.

On you go, Sisters of the Sanitary Bin. Spread your pad wings and take over the world.

As someone who menstruates, I love and need the period-positive movement…But there are plenty of people who the movement leaves out – and they need the movement, too!… If we’re aiming for real change and destigmatization, we need to make sure our period-positivity is as accessible and inclusive as possible. We need to think deeply about who our period-positivity is for, and if it’s not for everyone who menstruates, we need to change that immediately.

I think anyone with the ability to think deeply would not embark on such an adventure. And I think you’re way off line when claiming to speak for all those who are affected by this inconvenience  and don’t feel the need to talk about it, assuming they need your movement to tell them how to wipe their behinds.


Demisexuality: Just When You Thought They’d Run Out Of Imagination

Always keen to put a new label on perfectly natural aspects  of being human, progressives have come up with a term for those who associate sex with an emotional connection, feeling attracted to others only after getting to know them.

It’s almost like arguing that the inclination towards mindless sex is the norm and involving one’s intellect or emotions places a person within a sexual minority. In fact, they seem to be arguing that by always involving the brain it is not pure attraction, but a half-assed one. And yes, I am aware that this theory refers to instincts only and not to any resulting behaviour.

Regardless, placing a watermark on perfectly understandable variations in human instincts is absurd; it is yet another strain of the identity politics fever spreading through the west faster than the plague.

First of all, men and women experience attraction differently, men being more visually-oriented and more quickly aroused. While admitting some people might only experience it at a physical level,  attraction generally involves a variety of factors for both sexes, such as the vibe a person emits, which is directly linked with their personality. Picturing oneself in a sexual situation naturally entails perceiving the possibility of a connection, of a positive and pleasant interaction. It’s difficult to picture that with someone who is incredibly smug, for instance.

Just as attraction decreases for intellectual or emotional reasons in some people (let’s take the response to a great looking guy with a lovely swastika tattoo), in others it increases as they bond with their friends or partners. There is nothing strange about that. The attempt to quantify something so vague as the way people respond to each other, given the complex nature of every individual’s life, is a pointless one.

Having cleared that aspect, other progressive concepts pop out of the woodwork  to confront dissenters, namely the allies of the demisexual community and their activism.

Can someone explain to me why being slightly different than others – again, a very normal expression of diversity to date – requires resources, allies, support and activism? Where exactly is the problem in these individuals’ lives? How are they being oppressed, as to require others to stand up for them in an organised manner?

“Coming out as demisexual” sounds incredibly ridiculous. While coming out as gay or bisexual makes sense before your family sees you kissing Bob instead of Jenny, what in the world is the point of explaining the ins and outs of your arousal to your relatives and friends? Whose business is it except your own how soon into the relationship you get a hard on in your partner’s company? The next thing you know, you’ll feel inclined to describe your favourite positions at the dinner table. You might even feel morally obligated, as to not deprive others of the needful education you can impart, and yourself of the imperious need to express every facet of your personality.

“Children usually figure out who they’re attracted to at an early age, even if they don’t want to act on it just yet, and children as young as 10 may have crushes and experience sexual attraction.If a child is not too young to adopt heterosexual as a label, then they’re not too young to adopt demisexual.” (same source)

Can I just say this is absolutely fucked up? First of all, people don’t adopt heterosexual as a label; most only come across it when finding out about other categories. Secondly, this “demisexual” label would presumably come as a result of someone analysing how they have felt for years; you can’t possibly expect a child to have enough experience to embrace that. The mere fact that attraction involves bonding implies they have had such bonds in the past and have reacted in the same manner; that certainly does not apply to children. In most cases I trust the teenager identifying as such may be a late developer, excessively shy, inhibited by the opposite sex etc. None of that is weird and needs to be permanent.

“Also note that asexuality is recognized as valid in the DSM-V, the latest edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic tool.” (same source)

Recognised as valid in the DSM…? And that’s a good thing? “Valid” is a positive word. “Disorder” isn’t.

Speaking of legitimacy. Apparently, this is how the term was first created. By a member of an asexuality-based forum, in 2006, to be made popular in 2008 by another forum member, both referring to their personal experiences. Ever since, it has apparently remained in the community. Hence there really is no science behind it. None at all.

“Demisexuals are not actively persecuted on the same level as gays and lesbians…”

You cannot talk about the persecution of a group which was recently invented/ perpetuated by lobbyists in need of something to do. There is no such thing as a legitimate group, formed and oppressed based on how soon or they want to have sex with their partners. Who knows or cares about that part of an individual’s life? Even if the label had some real basis, these people would not be publicly identifiable, in order to claim any kind of oppression.

The only way for others to EVER know one identifies as demisexual is for them to advertise it themselves. Again, letting others know about being gay or lesbian has the purpose of being able to display affection in public, possibly get married etc. It is important for others to accept that, in the context of it being in their faces constantly. Whereas the existence and frequency of one’s sex acts will not, therefore making the announcement redundant.

The only certainty is that the trend of creating new labels won’t stop anytime soon, by the looks of it.

Later Edit

It makes sense to continue this post with the rebuttal of a video posted by someone who, without identifying as demisexual, argues for the legitimacy of the term, as well as the unkindness of those who dispute it, out of some presumed reactionary stubbornness.

If I may, I’ll respond to some direct quotes from the video:

What I hear when people talk like this is that they want to limit other people’s ability to communicate (…)

This claim suggests that by disputing it, some want to (or can) actively stop interested parties from using  it, discussing it as much as they please among themselves and putting out whatever  information they deem correct about it. However, expressing a negative opinion is nowhere near wanting to censor the initial one. The person in question might have said  that this terminology should not be officially adopted, akin to the truckloads of other Tumblr-isms. Moreover, it seems it is the creator of the video who wishes to silence skeptics by presenting their skepticism as direct aggression.

What I hear instead is the skewed impression SJWs have regarding their ability to communicate freely. It seems it is common for them to think that when their theories or claims are met with invalidation, they are effectively being silenced. Therefore, the only way for them to serenely carry out their activism is for everyone to agree (or at least not vocally disagree) with their stance.

No matter how little is has anything to do with them, certain types of people see or hear a word they don’t understand, like “demisexual”, immediately squawk about its uselessness and somehow spin over to screaming “you’re not oppressed” and “you think you’re a special snowflake.”

Issuing such an accusation entails understanding, at least partially, what proponents of this label mean by it. One cannot claim the approach comes out of nowhere; equally, one cannot claim, unless they are disingenuous, that there isn’t a full blown epidemic of artificial labels in the name of which youngsters claim to be oppressed beyond their level of endurance. It’s mostly hysterical millennials latching on to these labels, pronouns and demands for special treatment.

When you say demisexual people don’t need a word because they’re not oppressed, you’re suggesting the only reason to name an experience is to claim special rights.

Again, it is disingenuous to argue that there is no precedent motivating that assertion. It’s not just any type of experience, but the claim to have identified yet another sexual orientation, besides those which it actually makes sense to differentiate. Unfortunately, once established and vocal, sexual minorities tend to be very aggressive in terms of lobbying.

When you’re saying that demisexual people are using a label because they wanna seem special, you’re suggesting that their orientation is about you and about getting attention from you.(…) Very self-centred of you, isn’t it?

I’d love to hear about their need to involve the community at large into their business in the first place, if neither privilege (special rights) seeking nor attention seeking is involved. Their orientation certainly is not about me/ us/ people who do not identify as such; however, the public dialogue involves both sides. And obviously, they initiated this dialogue. There are many groups out there based on a shared trait, which don’t feel the need to “educate” the entire world about their private habits.

So why would you invent a muddy motive to take away the legitimacy of their desire to connect? And if it so eats at your guts that they might get attention for it, why don’t you stop giving it to them?

Why do people bother to engage in such discussions instead of living their lives peacefully? This is frequent SJW rhetoric, which sounds reasonable enough, except it ignores reality and the precedent set many times before.

Live and let live does not work with groups which attain sexual minority status. That’s why they engage in activism in the first place. I’m not saying everyone identifying as one category or another is bent on becoming obnoxious and vindictive – however, we have seen organisations demanding that people or companies be punished for invalidating attitudes. And we have seen them succeed, ruining businesses and careers.

Even if you ignore the whole conversation, if you don’t get in anybody’s way, sooner or later they are likely to get in your way regardless. That’s how some places ended up with laws imposing draconian fines for “misgendering” a trans person or generally offending a thin-skinned one. Which is annoying enough when genuine minorities are involved – imagine being persecuted on behalf of an imaginary one.

Here is the definition of sexual orientation; it refers specifically to the sex of the people one is attracted to, not to any side issues such as special circumstances, behaviour, romanticism, attachment etc.



one’s natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality. (source)

Again – why would this group, with the modest expectation of being left alone, need activism and allies? The word “ally” is used to describe a sympathetic person advocating the cause of a certain minority; why would advocacy be needed if there was no intention of going down the same path as other groups have before? Moreover, there is talk of “demisexual pride” and its symbols. Again, this is a comparison to gay pride, which has an aspect of rebellion to it, as gay people did face persecution in the west and still do in other parts of the world, where all these made up orientations are not a thing and probably won’t be anytime soon. As for demisexuality, in the context of no past, present or foreseeable persecution, I don’t see the need for all that.

If it’s normal, it can still have a name to describe that specific experience.

If it’s normal, then it is also very frequent, therefore the discussion will attract many people to the group.This activism entails proselitising  to draw in naive, inexperienced teens, Tumblr types, who tend to collect these labels the way my generation collected sports figurines. When their nature will no longer conform to the self-imposed stereotype, they will become confused.

The people adopting this label as a result of proselytism will sabotage themselves by “coming out as demisexuals” to prospective partners. Which is like holding up a sign saying I’m not attracted to you; I might be in a few months or a few years, if I really, really like you. 

There’s a big difference between abstinence by choice and telling someone straight out that you’re not attracted to them.Guess how many will stick around, if they’re not part of some weird sect, or “on the spectrum” themselves. Which is only bound to make these people feel marginalised.



Chanting – An Expression Of Brainwashing

Very strange footage is emerging from western university campuses lately – among the most unsettling, there are a few recordings of students gathering and chanting or shouting slogans repeatedly, as if they were trying to enter some kind of motivational trance, perhaps in preparation for a social justice war.

Creepy as fuck.

Honestly, just watch it, it’s just 3 and a half minutes long.

It is our duty to fight!

It is our duty to win!

We have nothing to lose but our chains! (copyright Karl Marx)

We must love and protect each other!

It’s like something out of Split Image.

The need to mindlessly repeat things in a group setting remains a mystery, as does the impression these people have, that the whole scene inspires solemnity as opposed to ridiculousness. When seeing that, many would (rightfully) think of tightly controlled organisations such as cults, seeking to reduce their members to automatons, devoid of a unique voice or any originality. Their minds must just go blank.

It is evocative of zombies who do not possess a will of their own, but can be set in motion all at once; if one starts sloganeering, the rest follow. It is common for them to do that as a reaction to comments which bother them. It seems to be a mechanism of defence their minds employ against dangerous ideas; perhaps the group leaders get them going when they hear a speaker say something which might ring a bell, getting the mental “gear” out like throwing a cross in front of a vampire.

On a side note, if you’ve ever been around turkeys, you know they do the same; when you whistle they all make their specific noise at the same time.