Monthly Archives: September 2016

“Building A Consent Castle” – Parody-Like, Creepy Feminist Guide

This Metaphor for Consent Might Be Just the Thing You Need to Make It Click

Trying to decide what is creepiest about this comic is a bit difficult. The presumptuousness of humans needing help to understand how not to rape (that’s what I get from someone’s attempt to explain consent to me), the otherworldly ideas or the way the text is formulated.

It is evocative of a parody as it seems so derisory, infantilising and exaggerated all throughout you’d think its purpose was to generate an awkward laugh. Unfortunately, it seems this person just might be serious.

Gear up to build the Consent Castle! It’s an awesome metaphor for how to establish consent before and during intimacy – and how to change the negotiation terms as you build a relationship.

We hope this can give you and the people you share it with a solid foundation for fun, healthy, and mutually satisfying intimate relationships.

I was managing just fine until present day, thank you, like most people who are not psychos or severely mentally impaired as to not automatically discern when consent is present or not.

My partner and I give workshops on consent. We talk a lot about consent activities – things to think about and things you can talk about to establish consent before and during intimacy.

Again, our species seemed to be managing just fine without tutorials. There’s something called a brain which provides us with enough skills to decode the signals received from others; humans generally don’t need an instructions manual.

Then comes a list of boxes to tick:

  • Talking
  • Texts
  • E-mails
  • Checking in before
  • Checking in during
  • Checking in after
  • Touch
  • Body language
  • Sharing fantasies
  • Setting boundaries and limits
  • Safe words
  • Power dynamics
  • Drug and alcohol use
  • Emotional and mental state
  • Triggers

Obviously, it reads like a list of steps to complete a project, mechanically and meticulously. Which is the opposite of passion and spur-of the-moment decisions, often involved when two people become intimate. It might come in handy to non-humans wanting to live on Earth in disguise, after doing some studying. But not much else.

Social justice warriors don’t seem to get the difference between intimacy, largely based on instincts and intuition, and bureaucracy, which is all about ticking boxes on a piece of paper.This behaviour is highly unnatural. If anything, this objectifies others, as opposed to the natural way people behave.

Consent isn’t a checkbox. And it isn’t just a legal entity.

That’s funny enough after listing all mandatory aspects to be discussed.

You’ve met someone awesome and you decide to build a castle together/ plan some sexy times. You’ll probably talk about what you want and what you don’t want.

This is followed by a parallel between the so-called castle building and organising the “play date” – I choose this specific language as the whole thing, although addressing people who are over 18, infantilises them to the point of insult. There is no need to make such allegories when approaching an adult theme.

And, the author should have considered the implications of “probably” when listing imagined conversations which are off this planet in most cases, between people who have recently met and are trying to get to know each other (and are of course represented in the images as genderless so one can’t really tell what’s going on there).

    “I’d really love to give you a blow job.”

“I’m not really into getting oral, but I love giving it.”

I’m not sure what happens where the creator of this wonderful comic lives, but in a lot of places that would not be a starting conversation between people who barely know each other. Unless a lot of alcohol consumption was involved. And I mean a lot. And for most people, not even then. These things are rarely discussed in such a blunt manner but rather happen as matters evolve. Having this sort of conversation, especially in a public place, where strangers generally meet, would be very inappropriate, to say the least. I would not recommend trying to “earn” someone’s consent by outright offering them oral. However, this is not the creepiest suggestion by far.

      You might even draw up some diagrams…

“So, I was thinking about…”

“Ooooh! That looks neat!”

The text is on an image of an individual holding a piece of paper where they’d drawn what the act would look like, showing it to the other person, with arrows pointing to certain body parts.

Who does that? Who the hell does that? 

That’s like drawing a sketch of building a machine, indicating where every part should go.

It’s even weirder than showing someone porn or the Kama Sutra and asking them to imitate what they see. Actually giving someone personalised, illustrated instructions of what to do with you?

      And it’s a good idea to check in to see how it’s going.

“How does this feel? Is this okay?”

I don’t know why, as the questions are innocuous in and of themselves, I get a strange vibe when reading that correlated with consent. It indicates a certain power dynamic and is a bit suggestive of manipulation – perhaps an older person trying to talk a much younger person through a sex act they’d never experienced. It’s the whole idea of “checking in” to make sure one isn’t doing anything the other might perceive as wrong (maybe because it is wrong?), and is calculatedly asking questions to feel safe in that sense. Maybe I’m exaggerating but that’s the feeling I get.

        The point is, when you’re building something with someone, you           usually start out by being really careful.

Like offering them oral when you hardly know them.

The great thing about consent castles is that they are always works in progress. You may need to do some maintenance.

“I’ve been feeling really self-conscious about my body during sex lately.”

“OK. Can I help with those feelings?”

“I think… I think I’d like to try using a strap-on with you.”

“That might be fun! What does that look like for you?”

I’ll tell you what it looks like to me.

The article is clearly not written for heterosexuals, though apparently it addresses everyone, and seeks to convince that this is the way most people actually behave. The person wanting to use that type of thing is clearly not male, and heterosexual men (who are the majority by the way) generally do not enjoy being fucked up the ass with a toy by their girlfriends or wives.

In fact, on the website this is published on, it’s very difficult to find an author who is not part of a minority based on “gender” or sexual orientation. And yet they claim to understand the psyche of the average individual and proselytise about how things should be in everyone else’s lives. They clearly have little understanding of that.

After a quick reinforcement of why negotiating sex with someone is always necessary and positive, the finale is an image of a construction worker in lingerie holding yet another sketch of two people and some instructions on what to do.

“So gear up! Because this is going to be a lot of fun!”

Fucking creepy.

Utterly creepy.

This is what “education” is coming down to nowadays.

 

 

The SJW Cult – Recruiting Renfields

Before I comment on this article , which I am told to properly quote and will do, I must mention I think parts of it are ludic (definitely the part about requiring celebrity signatures). However, the inclusion of a small joke does not make the overall concept less disturbing.

Briefly, it lists a series of expectations under the guise of a “friendship contract” meant to define the exact terms of a “fully loving relationship”.

They are clearly meant to define a decent individual in today’s western societies – a radical SJW determined to overturn the system by any means.

To start with, one would see the dreaming up of such a contract as a sad, desperate result of friendlessness turning someone so egotistical they resort to believing they are alone because they are too special and thus must demand more from others. One would also see it as a loner shooting themselves in the foot, looking all the more ridiculous and spiteful. Yet coming from a popular (as I understand) social justice activist, there might be some cause for concern of this being taken seriously.

The author is telling others that in order to befriend a social justice activist like himself, people should not only behave like complete nutcases but actually become that way. Anything less is unacceptable. This cause demands your entire life, your mind and your soul.

I hope to see the day one of them comes up with an idea that is so far fetched literally no one supports it, and their own crowd starts howling this is too much; we want our fucking lives back.

And I don’t use the term nutcases lightly as I have a very broad acceptance of whatever people choose to believe in, unless they are actually harming others as a result (and by harming I don’t mean expressing a different opinion). However, it’s easy to identify some attempts to replace natural human interaction, such as friendship, with an artificial travesty designed for political purposes. 

And calling the recruitment of political activists friendship is particularly slimy.

I’ve written hundreds of letters of recommendations, given countless formal and informal references, provided education on social justice topics via my unpaid and severely undervalued labor. I have often played life coach to people with oozing amounts of privilege, subjecting myself to well-intentioned yet willful violence. 

Did all of this not count for something? Is this what friendship is? A relationship of faux empathy, niceties, and unchecked violence through unacknowledged privilege. Is that what it’s always been?

Quite obviously, the one turning friendship into a mercantile affair is the author and not those seeking effortless help (such as a letter of recommendation), those “taking advantage” of the “education” given by the author of his own volition, or the people he “played life coach to” (advised on personal matters I assume) despite his hidden contempt for them due to their supposed privilege (which can be as simple as a different skin pigmentation as far as SJWs are concerned).

Unchecked violence through unacknowledged privilege insinuates that those people were carrying out an act of violence by simply existing in the conditions life had provided them with. Which is a really disturbing perspective but explains the mentality of the “oppressed” of the day.

Folks feel betrayed by my growth and exertion of self, as they feel betrayed by my evolution. How dare I demand their unnecessary evolution as well? I can feel the tension in current relationships, as folk creatively tell me that they don’t want to learn about the plight of undocumented peoples, challenge the ableist language they use, or think critically on how they engage fat people from a place of deficit.

Folks feel annoyed and despaired by anyone who will not let them exhale, let alone speak, without “pointing out” that they are guilty of unspeakable crimes simply by not taking on social justice crusades every bastard second of the day. When their every other word is “problematic” and they end up in situations like the uneducated snob making threats against a taxi driver for having a Hawaiian dancer doll on his dashboard:

When you hear the arrogance and entitlement, not to mention self-righteousness oozing out of this type of twat, you just about give up on part of the young generation.

No one in their right mind can stand these people. Their inability to make friends is not a surprise in the slightest.

Apparently, it becomes too exhausting to hang out with me. Which is to say, I have to be better in your presence or I have to deal with guilt when you’re around. Why can’t things go back to normal? Which is to say, let’s thrive in the violence of status quo together – we’ve got each other, even if my heel is at your neck.

He expects to befriend people he considers guilty by default of their “heel being at his neck”. That’s a hell of a start right there.

As I embrace this new and in many ways unrecognizable being, I am motivated to explore the meaning of a healthy and loving friendship.

Can you imagine fighting for liberation with a squad – the folks that love you in your fullness, and you love them in theirs? What does that feel like? Look like?

It would look a lot like Jonestown, judging by what is written below, which is anything but loving or healthy, but rather an attempt to control and manipulate someone. A healthy friendship involves respect and boundaries. None of that can be found in this article.

I want this list of expectations to speak to the well-intentioned people in my life — the folk that mean well but often render themselves unhelpful. The price of friendship has gone up and the only acceptable payment is risk taking and radical love.

Good luck on that one. He must think he’s pretty fucking special (as all snowflakes do) and that applicants will be queuing at the door for the great honour. I know this might sound needlessly derisive and sharp-tongued, but the tone of the article is really annoying.

Here is my working Friendship Contract:

Do you want to be my friend?

(YES) (NO) (*MAYBE) 

Please circle one.

*Maybe will be coded as a “No.” I’m hot stuff. This should not be difficult.

If the answer is yes, there are just ten expectations.

Everyone loves a confident fellow; however, there is a definite line between confidence and laughable arrogance. But anyway. The silliness is the least important issue.

Though it’s useful to point out that many presentations made by these activists on serious subject infantilise the reader (I recall nursery-style cartoons accompanied by text which seemed to be written for very simple people).

This can be reworded as hi, I want to be your best buddy; how would you like to overthrow the state with me?

Expectation #1: We Must Toughen Our Skin

We must be able to use language such as: white supremacy, anti-blackness, transphobia, and marginalization in our day-to-day vocabulary without someone getting into their feelings. Heck, I just used three of the four words in a conversation with my bank teller.

Our language should not be deemed taboo or provocative in nature. Having conversations about justice, equity, this murderous system, and our collective liberation should be as frequent as police brutality and as normal as black folk clinging to the paradox of resiliency.

We must have these critical conversations in the open and move beyond the emotions that immobilize us. Our fragility cannot be prioritized. We must get to the actual work. 

In other words, we must pester unsuspecting, innocent people by constantly throwing their so-called privilege in their faces, until we sound like we’ve either smoked something dodgy, taken cocaine too early in the morning or might need psychiatric help.

I understand that religious groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses also practice door-to-door conversion attempts, but at least they are frank about their intentions and create a separate context for these attempts. And you are more than entitled to shut the door in their faces. Whereas forcing these conversations on people who have no choice but to deal with you as a customer, patient, co-worker etc (you name it) is incredibly inappropriate.

And asking someone to partake in this relentless activism is basically asking them to look like a nutter, day in and day out, risking isolation in the best case scenario (and potentially other consequences).

All I can think of is the twat hassling a taxi driver about a doll on his dashboard. This guy is asking others to be that contemptible twat.

“Healing From Toxic Whiteness” – Social Justice And Religion

You won’t be surprised to hear that besides toxic masculinity, sectionable intersectional feminists have come up with the concept of toxic whiteness. In fact, Everyday Feminism is holding a free workshop for those interested in healing from it. It might not involve the handling of live snakes, convulsions and speaking in tongues, but the message is the same – you were born a sinner, you must repent, convert and make amends in order to be saved from yourself.

Like original sin, toxic whiteness goes unnoticed without the sufferer presenting any symptoms; however, akin to chlamydia, that doesn’t mean that it’s not there. In fact, it largely affects those who’ve never suspected they have it – all white people who have not yet repented of their melanin privilege, that is.

And doing healing work in community and not alone makes a big difference. So having a separate anti-racist healing space for white people, led by a person of color who can hold them accountable, is important for white supremacy to be dismantled.

Much like manginas, self-flagellating white people who have not committed one racist act in their entire lives seem to be affected by some sort of masochism, acting as vaseline to help the Marxist bullshit funnel slide down their throats more easily.

What radical socialists want is an enormous mass of converts, regardless of the type of guilt they insidiously instill into their minds. The so-called privileged are not the enemy but a recruitment pool of gullible fools who cannot see beyond adopting a trendy facade, even if the end result is the opposite of what they claim to be supporting – division, segregation and the breeding of actual racism.

It’s difficult to ignore the cult-like nature of social justice activism, if only for the crazed, manic looks it imprints on some people’s faces.

Submit. Repent. We will teach you. Will will heal you. We will deliver you from evil and show you the right path. Fight the good fight with us.

I for one am opposed to the notion of anyone being racist without knowing it or in spite of constantly analysing their potential racism. It seems to me that the people going to that type of event are the last ones needing “reeducated” in that sense.

The whole thing is reminiscent of how Christians go through their every word and thought with a fine-tooth comb, in search of any trace of sin, despite knowing they had no foul intentions to begin with.

Some become fevered with the obsession of being able to participate in changing the world, when in fact they cannot even get passed their own daily trivialities, such as microaggressions or, where Christians are concerned, anything from having wanked the week before to having sworn at an asshole in traffic.

Social justice activism demands total submission and dedication, 24/7. 

People are advised to disassociate from their significant others for contrary views, Scientology-style.

When some of them realise the farce they allowed to take over their existence, it will be too late to undo the damage done to their personal lives, never mind their sanity.

 

 

 

Writers Under Scrutiny By The PC Brigade

Trigger warning: life on planet Earth

As the ever-growing demand for trigger/content warnings in a variety of environments is facing a vehement backlash, especially on the internet, social justice activists exert themselves to make the rest of society capitulate. In this effort they use what they know best – guilt and manipulation. In this article, dissenters are varnished with a mixture of laziness, insensitivity and self-assuredness originating from being (what else?) privileged.

Many people talk about the inconvenience of content warnings. As a writer, I’m calling bullshit on that.

Even if writing an additional sentence at the beginning of my article were difficult (which it’s not), it will never compare to the inconvenience of a serious panic attack, a flashback, or a dissociative episode that a survivor might have if they encounter a trigger in my work.

Inconvenience is not the issue here. Caving in would mean acquiescing to the idea that avoiding the real world is beneficial to anybody, including survivors of trauma.

Avoidance will not make the triggers disappear from the affected person’s mind or cause less damage while living in constant fear of them. The only way to get rid of unresolved emotional problems is to deal with them – and that only depends on the individual. As accommodating as everyone else tries to be (down to walking on eggshells), it is ultimately in the hands of the person who has suffered and is suffering to seek treatment, counselling or other ways to return to functionality. A hundred trigger warnings per written piece or media production cannot restore their peace.

When people oppose content warnings – treating them as though they are frivolous requests coming from oversensitive people – they completely undermine the seriousness of conditions like PTSD.

Not only are they frivolous but they are utterly unrealistic. These people will be forced by the sheer nature of their existence to deal with events happening in real time in their close proximity. Not all of these events will be easy to manage emotionally. There is no trauma-free life; it’s unheard of. If they indeed have a serious problem, their only logical recourse is to treat it. There is no trigger warning before the death of a loved one, an earthquake or a terrorist attack. Everything is unexpected nowadays.

You don’t need to tell a survivor that “the real world” is hard, because they already know that. They’re already living in it, trying to survive and trying to heal. And your refusal to include content warnings takes already difficult circumstances and makes them even harder.

Aside from those who dedicate their time to “social justice” activism, most of the demands come from very young people – especially students. Whereas they may well have lived through hardship and abuse, most have no experience of what it’s like to ensure their literal survival – meaning becoming employed, securing a home, raising a family etc. These come with a vast array of problems and compromises of their own.

If a young person schooled in this manner does not waltz straight into an executive position at a well-standing company, and instead goes to their first job making entitled demands, that might result in more serious consequences than the lack of a trigger warning. Young people need to understand that.

On a side note, I get the strange sensation that some of those who demand warnings and safe spaces are only preoccupied with what they personally find negatively impacting and not necessarily the shocking reality shared by everyone else. I get the feeling that some could tranquilly have a piece of toast while watching the news about hundreds dying due to a catastrophe, whilst freaking out over reading words that a bully threw at them fifteen years ago in front of the school gate.

When you act like content warnings are just a silly request, what you’re really saying is that mental illness and the people who are surviving with it every day are just “silly.”

That is not the point at all. You’re trying to protect them from their own minds, and that is impossible. No external help is good enough for such a task, unless it comes from someone who specialises in helping those in such situations.

There is no established guideline of what can be triggering as that depends on every individual. A person might be triggered by a chestnut tree, if their father hung himself from it. Others might be triggered by a pot of water if they were scalded in the past. Car accident survivors might be triggered by cars. Etc ad infinitum. Words are just representations of the realities that will keep surrounding them, whether they see something in their homes, in the street or on the news.

I recognize that I won’t make every single person happy with my writing. There will always be individuals who are a bit disgruntled. But I also recognize that when a community calls on me to make my content better, I should tune in and see if there’s a way that I can do it.

There is no community when it comes to thinking, which is what makes people embrace or reject a literary creation. There are only individual minds, choosing some ideas over others. Pardon the vocabulary but intellectuals are not meant to be the bitches of any political faction, group or “community”, caving to pressure or intimidation. In that case they cease to be intellectuals and become political pundits. The left is well acquainted with this phenomenon.

If you don’t care about the impact that your work has on the community that you are serving –whether it’s with your articles or your films or a lesson you give in your classroom – what exactly is the point of what you’re doing?

Here’s where I have an even bigger problem. Whereas mandatory education is up for debate as many things slip in there that parents find inappropriate, higher education is something people choose of their own accord. It’s fair enough to leave if you feel you cannot handle the material you are studying, but do not expect to get the same results as everyone around you while refusing to make the intellectual effort assigned to you. If you find yourself in the wrong university, you can always use the exit and never return. Demanding that the university seeking to train you lowers its standards to adapt to your needs specifically is indeed absurd.

These same people have no issue with gender studies material being shoved down the throats of students who reject it. They have no problem with forced diversity courses, the pushing of Marxism and so forth, in unrelated fields where students had no idea it would be included.

“How to write diverse characters (and why it’s not about being PC)”

The article linked above describes a whole new trend – that of “advising” writers on how to be sensitive to cultural issues. Let me note that I think it’s great for a writer to spend a lot of time ensuring that the context they describe is factual and relatable. However, I also know that sometimes locations are chosen arbitrarily (I can give one example which became symbolic of a region and that is Dracula, whose location on the world map was chosen after the book was actually written).

The complexity of a character matters far more than any other trait such as nationality or race. Since this world contains an infinity of possibilities regarding someone’s personality, which is fluid anyway, I’d argue there’s no impossible scenario solely judging by shallow traits such as skin colour or background.

Information is one click away these days and one can easily check potential factual errors. However, seeking endorsement regarding how a character is allowed to feel or talk in order to avoid offending a certain group is not only unproductive in terms of free thinking but also reminiscent of very sad times, when art was subject to political approval.

Mostly the work I do is mundane, I help authors flesh out characters, I point out when their attempts at AAVE are wrong, and occasionally I have to tell them that the thing they wrote is a hot mess. That last conversation is awkward, fraught with a lot of emotions and generally not something I enjoy at all.

My question is whether those authors are trying to write books or develop custom-made products they can sell in large numbers. Because as far as I know and speaking to other writers as well, they wouldn’t generally need anyone’s help to “flesh out characters”. Somehow this process sounds very unnatural for a creative mind.

This post is about the idea that not wanting bigoted tropes to be replicated in fiction is about political correctness, censorship, or some unfathomable agenda.

Like most people possessing a brain, I deeply dislike the mass use of tropes, for instance in Hollywood films, where they annoyingly abound. However, I do see danger in setting limits when it comes to literature – for instance dictating how a character cannot possibly be portrayed, due to above-mentioned traits which say little (if anything) about them. Here’s where we get to the point – warnings and interdictions, to be more specific.

You want to write a character with a different race, sexual orientation, religion, gender ID than yours? Okay. But before you set that character loose into the world, do some basic research. Do some basic work in understanding what obstacles that community faces, what narratives are most offensive to them? Are you replicating tropes that are used to dehumanize and erase members of that community?

The intent here is clearly not to be factually accurate but to avoid offending a minority of some sort. Offensive narratives can also be rooted in reality or be partially represented when any group is involved.

What is at stake here is not the truthfulness or plausibility of someone’s work but its social justice value.

It’s easy to justify shoddy writing by proclaiming it is art. Well, okay your art is your art. Your art can also be offensive, your art can be harmful, your art can be wrong as wrong can be. You have a right to create it, you don’t have a right to never see it challenged. You don’t have a right to never have your biases questioned, or to never be told that you fucked up.

I’m really interested in finding out who is the supreme authority proclaiming that an author “fucked up” in that sense (though some say that about Hitler, but he was a special case). To be clear, art has been and continues to be challenged since times immemorial. I haven’t heard of anyone’s aspirations to change that. However, the incisive tone of this article suggests that some biased writings should never see the light of day, by merely declaring them harmful. 

So if I write a trans character and someone from that community tells me I fucked up? I need to shut up, listen, and do my best to make amends. This is part and parcel of being a writer.

No, it’s part and parcel of being a product developer and trying not to piss off the right market.

I’m not saying objections should not be taken into account if superficiality might be involved; however, prostrating oneself before a single complainer and making all demanded “amends” right away seems a bit much.

No two individuals are the same and no one can claim to speak for an entire category, particularly a large one, based on race or ethnicity. I understand being corrected when making factual errors; however, when describing a person’s feelings or behaviour, nothing is impossible.

And here’s the thing, there’s a million and one resources on how to not to be harmful. You can use TVTropes.org for a quick and dirty check of your character design so that you know when your bare bones character is problematic. You can ask someone you know in that community.

You can ask them whether the character is plausible or whether they would like to read such a story? To SJWs, I believe it makes no difference, as a single I find that offensive is the equivalent of a stop sign. If every writer were to do that and stop at the first objection, allow me to assume the whole process would come to an end. Worldwide.

Though if you don’t know anyone from that community, you’re not part of that community, and you’re unwilling to connect with that community? You probably shouldn’t be writing that character. Because not only are you not adding to diversity by creating a poor representation of someone else’s community, chances are excellent that your own internalized biases are about to be splattered all over the page.

What this person is saying, basically, is that no outsider is morally allowed to portray a member of a “community”, or minority, in a negative way, regardless of the negative aspects in question, which might have absolutely nothing to do with that status. And better yet, they should just avoid writing about people who are different than them, in any possible way.

I’m sorry – is a writer’s job on this planet adding to diversity or creating captivating stories? Or is there no demarcation anymore between who is a social justice activist and who isn’t?

Writers have the power to create brand new worlds, so we should always stop and ask ourselves why we are so hung on replicating everything wrong in the old one?

No one says writers should stick to reality, but likewise, no one should say that they mustn’t replicate any uncomfortable part of it.

Writing about utopias for social engineering purposes reminds me of the communist mentality.

Yes, you have a the power to create, the power to sway your readers in one direction or another, but if you’re going to embrace that power fully, then you need to do so responsibly.

In other words, if you merely seek to entertain through your work, without considering other implications, that is by default morally wrong. Instead, you should see yourself as a tool in the greater plan of social reconstruction and behave as such.

This type of thinking stems from the same “illumination” which brought forth the idea that anyone’s private conversations, jokes, thoughts or even unmanifested subconscious biases should be put through the social justice grinder.

When they are done with you, nothing will have remained intact but what they have given you to parrot, like the docile little robot that you are.

SJWs, “Gaslighted” By Common Sense

Although 99.9% of articles written by (and for) social justice crusaders are off this planet, some manage to take reason into an even deeper black hole, never to be recovered again.

This is one of them. “Six unhelpful comments that gaslight people in conversations about social justice.” Leaving aside the nonsensical notion of unintentional gaslighting, which appears later in the article, the piece proves beyond doubt that SJWs are allergic to debate and to being questioned.

This would be a summary:

The result of this repeated questioning and doubting is that people start feeling like their observations of their oppression are wrong, they don’t have the right to talk about it, and it’s not real. (…)

Even if it feels like you’re just playing the devil’s advocate, providing food for thought, or helping people understand the other side, what seems like friendly debate to you can be deeply hurtful to someone else.

So, instead of invalidating someone’s experiences, thank them for teaching you. That can take a lot of mental and emotional energy.

And let them know you believe them. That’s something people who talk about their oppression unfortunately don’t hear enough.

That’s right. If anybody claims oppression, it must be real and your duty is to believe every word they say, in spite of any objection your brain matter or instincts might raise.

What seems like a friendly debate to you could just be a callous put-down and mockery, able to cause someone actual trauma. You’re so stupid you have no awareness of your own tone, vocabulary and manners; you can’t possibly determine the dynamics of this discussion with the judgement you use in your everyday life.

So you’d better shut up and thank them for teaching you, like the brainwashed little cultist that you are, because they are correct by default and whatever they say goes.

“This is a first world problem”

“How can you talk about microaggressions when girls in the Middle East are killed for trying to get an education?”

“Eating disorders are a first-world problem. Some people don’t even have food.”

This argument frequently comes up when people talk about issues faced by relatively privileged groups. It can have racist undertones, since the people with “real problems” are often from a different culture that the speaker doesn’t really understand.

There’s nothing racist about mentioning human rights abuses and the barbaric treatment some people face in other parts of the world. A different culture that the speaker doesn’t really understand can be subject to criticism regardless. I don’t need to “understand” why women are being stoned to death in order to know it’s horrific and undeserved. But for lack of better arguments, let’s just throw racism in to shut people up.

There is no logical comparison between eating disorders, which can cause serious health problems or even death, and are proper medical conditions, and the perceived microaggressions which twist a word or look or any minutia into a serious act of oppression.

Since we’re on this subject, here are a few relevant headlines from the same website, covering “issues” I’m sure would never occur to anyone with a real disadvantage in life (I’m not putting even more of their links here but you can find them by using the search bar):

  • “Why these toys need a body image make-over”
  • “Where are you from? How a seemingly innocent question is racist”
  • “5 ways to avoid sexism in your kid’s Halloween costumes”
  • “How to explore your gender when you’re a person who was assigned male at birth”

Adding to that numerous exposes of how you oppress others by eating foreign dishes without knowing the culture you’re “borrowing” from and so forth. These “problems” are not only demoted by tragedies from abroad but also by any other real issue anyone can come across.

It’s also dangerous because it implies that we should be grateful for being less oppressed than some people, rather than demand not to be oppressed at all.

No, it’s simply stating a fact. Prioritisation is a matter of mere logic. You don’t scream for medical attention for a scratch while someone next to you needs CPR. Whatever these middle class feminists claim to be enduring is not nearly as serious as facing beatings, maimings, executions or imprisonment for idiotic reasons. That is fact and mentioning it, whilst uncomfortable, is no less true.

As a woman, a person of color, or another member of an oppressed group, it’s easy to feel lucky when a man doesn’t rape you or a white person listens to you or anyone treats you like a human being.

This almost sounds like people of colour are being treated awfully in the western world, which is generally multicultural and has been for decades (if not centuries in some places) as to be grateful “when a white person listens to them”. It’s easy to feel lucky when a man doesn’t rape you? Do you expect every man to potentially do so, every day?

But as Susan B. Antony said, “Our [j]ob is not to make young women grateful. It is to make them ungrateful so they keep going. Gratitude never radicalized anybody.”

Pardon me again but since when is radicalisation anything to aspire to, as opposed to measured and rational thinking? What good has ever come out of extremism lately? Or ever?

Knowing that some people get third-degree burns doesn’t make first-degree burns hurt less. And bringing up more severe injuries is totally inappropriate when someone needs medical attention.

When is a crucial word here. Fortunately, no medical attention is needed by these activists – although some people might disagree! – but simply attention. Turning every displeasure into an injury to your psyche is not in itself healthy.

“We all bleed the same color” 

Feminism and other social justice movements are sometimes accused of being divisive, as if the divisions they’re calling attention to didn’t already exist. (…)

But here’s the thing: For a long time, people haven’t acknowledged that we’re all human and that commonalities between groups are stronger than the differences. And as a consequence, different groups of people have different experiences.

For a long time. Human history has indeed been long, filled with bloodshed and intolerance. But by and large, they do acknowledge that now – so why the hell sabotage that concept, so long fought for? Why emphasise the differences when at last there is a better way on the horizon? What makes SJWs better – or different – than the average skinhead, who is obsessed with these differences and cannot look past them?

Once, a man told me he understood what it was like to self-objectify because he often worried about how professional he looked. When I tried to explain that I was talking about something entirely different, he claimed that we’re all humans, so we should be able to understand one another’s emotions.

“Pain is pain,” his friend agreed.

But there are many different kinds of pain. And if it seems to you like a distinct form of pain someone else describes does not actually exist, maybe that’s because you’re too privileged to have experienced it.

The last paragraph is a fine example of projection. The man in question was not refusing to acknowledge the author’s experience but merely adding to the conversation by describing his own, albeit different. The author could not stand the focus being shifted or someone perceiving these internal struggles as similar.

I have a question – why insist on describing an experience or a feeling to someone you think is incapable of relating to it? It seems attempts to understand it by comparison are met with a door slammed in the face. It’s like saying you will never ever understand me, so just shut up and listen to me instead, just for the sake of it; any comments you make should be a direct recitation from my words; anything else is unacceptable.

 “Don’t let it get to you”

But even if we were all robots who could decide not to mind when others mistreated us, that wouldn’t change the fact that they were mistreating us. It would just make us really good at handling mistreatment.

Sorry to be the bringer of bad news when real (but not systemic) mistreatment is involved: you will never change an asshole. What you can do is get away from them and find a different environment. There is no way to escape nastiness completely, unless you live in self-imposed isolation. Assholes will be assholes and no amount of coercion to behave differently will have an impact on them (aside from making them covert and devious, which also makes them more dangerous). The only impact the PC brigade is having is on innocent people targeted for unintended trifles or differences of opinion, such as opposing this trend.

Political correctness is really just being a good person. By making it sound like some formal code of conduct, people demonize basic efforts to make others feel comfortable and included.

To members of a privileged group, expectations like using gender-inclusive language and avoiding ableist expressions can feel like arbitrary rules. But for the people personally affected by political incorrectness, this behavior makes a huge difference.

Sorry to be a bad person, but you’re not going to shove down my throat language which was literally invented yesterday to please groups of the same recent formation, of which some are merely trends. I’m not going to learn a whole dictionary of 300 gender identities, 20 preferred pronouns and 50 different types of sexual preferences. You’re not going to turn my entire life into a tireless, neurotic attempt to not offend anyone around me, which is impossible anyway.

Even if we don’t fully understand how certain ways of speaking or acting affect groups we don’t belong to, it takes very little out of us when we accommodate them, while it takes a lot out of them when we don’t.

To those who have lost their jobs or have been fined or imprisoned for not being PC, I believe this is a far more serious and dangerous matter than just “being nice”. And when something is demanded in such a radical, poisonous and intolerant way, you can be sure that most will either reject it or claim to embrace it out of fear, which will in turn cause seething hatred for the groups making these demands, whether they are at fault or simply being used by Marxist radicals. Either way, nothing good comes out of it. I doubt those people would rather be secretly hated or feared than hearing the “wrong pronouns” beings used when others refer to them.

Political correctness isn’t hurting anyone. Political incorrectness is. No brainer. Next.

Political correctness gets capable people fired, gets innocent people treated as criminals and puts society into a state of paranoia. No brain. Next.

But sometimes, we’re not trying to attract positivity into our lives. Social injustice isn’t about individual lives. And we won’t get rid of it by doing yoga or taking baths or doing whatever people suggest with this advice.

Being positive doesn’t help when there are issues that need addressing.

Nope. Being negative every second of your life, about everything you or others experience, is entirely healthy and realistic; so is the goal of not resting until you solve every problem on this planet, down to petty nastiness, real or imagined (irony intended).

Maybe the rest of society just doesn’t want to become this.

Maybe others do care about their own wellbeing, refuse to soak themselves in your constant negativity and aggressiveness.

It’s funny how SJWs (feminists in particular) always extrapolate their feelings to exemplify worldwide issues, and then claim their fight is not about individual lives but something far greater. When their grievances are related to very personal experiences and all of a sudden they are forms oppression many are suffering from daily.

We’re allowed to feel what we feel, and we shouldn’t have to hide or mute our feelings just to reward someone for meaning well.

You don’t have to reward anyone. But you can leave them the hell alone.

On that note, people who say these things don’t always intend to gaslight. They’re often just operating off a false idea of what the other person wants.

No rational person knows what social justice warriors actually want. One day they complain about racism, the next day they invent cultural appropriation to make sure groups become voluntarily segregated. One day they claim they are vulnerable, the next day they complain others are treating them as weak and thus disrespecting them. One day they want “allies”, the next day they turn on them for “benevolent” this-and-that, when they get the unnatural praises they had asked for.

There is no way to please them. End of story.