Monthly Archives: February 2017

Trump: The Grotesque Lie Sold To Apolitical Anti-PC People

This post is directed at whomever might recognise they’ve been, even for a short while, pulled into a pretty grim farce, while having a different perspective in mind to start with.

It was easy for decent people who pay little attention to politics to end up cheering for change, while sick and tired of being labelled as bigots for posting jokes on social media, Islamic extremism being ignored and their culture turning into a nihilistic, degrading mess by feminists and a new generation of Marxists.

In terms of public debate, opponents of “progressiveness” were more rational, more articulate, more humorous, more sensible. They seemed to engage in critical thinking, as opposed to the left’s constant regurgitation of cliches and demands for censorship. But were they right in the end, or were they basing their rhetoric on cherry-picked information, ignoring the elephant in the room?

Being optimistic about the future is a survival issue. I get it. Fighting the left and its thought-crime-based system is also a survival issue. But how long can someone ignore or downplay what is happening, while focusing on social media wars?

Torture and civilian massacres abroad, proposed as “security measures”

When watching well-crafted pro-Trump material on social media, you will notice 95% of it revolves around what is being said about Trump, as opposed to what Trump actually says. The man himself is rarely featured for more than a few seconds at a time, and that makes perfect sense: they have to avoid including “gems” such as those linked to above.

Trump’s views on dealing with suspects of terrorism is so inhuman it horrified even many republicans. “Torture works very well.” “You have to take out their families.”

Arguably, civilians are killed abroad on a regular basis. What lacks is the actual consent of the population, who has been for years told military operations attempt to avoid or reduce “casualties” as much as possible. What lacks is the complete perversion of public sentiment, the surrender to the darkest cynicism, in order to truly dehumanise others in the eyes of an entire nation, said nation dehumanising itself in the process. There is no lower level to stoop to, individually and collectively, than indifference towards (or joy at the thought of) massacres and torture.

Why are these issues never approached by Trump’s so called moderate, apolitical supporters? This is not a partisan issue; it’s a human issue. Is this the way to “make the west great again”? Are torture and massacres western values to “rescue” perhaps? Are they perhaps worth overlooking, while cheering on the rest of the agenda?

Trump, an advocate for free speech…?

A large wave of support for this person came from those who felt the left was encroaching upon their freedom of speech, given the censorship on social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Trump was suddenly seen as the underdog, the rational voice the left is trying to stomp on. In this sense it was easy for commentators to rout for him in droves, to collide with him for being censored. It was presumed on a mass scale that anything negative said about him was a lie, motivated by partisanship.

To clarify his approach to the press, you need to look no further than the development of his Aberdeen Golf Course a few years ago. He has used proven lies and bullying in order to cover up his abject treatment of local residents, whose homes he wanted removed as he deemed them unsightly for rich golfers to look at from his posh hotel. These were farmers and fishermen who had lived in the area for generations. Decent, honest working people. Aside from disregarding all those who tried to stop him from destroying a protected area of nature conservation, he made life very difficult for residents, on occasion cutting their access to utilities and refusing to repair the damage. He described them as pigs and urged authorities to remove them from the landscape his guests would want to gaze upon.

When an independent journalist documented this case as it unfolded, in all its ugliness, Trump’s representatives had him arrested for merely speaking to the people he was bullying. “I want real journalists”, he claimed while being handed an honorary degree from an Aberdeen university, despite protests from former faculty.

He uses force and intimidation to suppress any dissenting voice to his plans. He encourages violence at his rallies when dissenters show up, even if they are peaceful.

Anyone thinking he is an advocate for freedom of speech does not have enough information or has not thought this through. But as seen in that documentary, the man is an authoritarian and lies through his teeth; the truth is inconsequential to him. Other people’s rights, as a matter of fact, are inconsequential to him and he is willing to tarnish those who stand in his way.

Scapegoating entire ethnic minorities

As opponents of the radical left, we are probably too desensitised to this issue after years of progressives claiming a default victim status based on race, ethnicity, sex or sexual orientation.

So desensitised we might fail to grasp the implications of a president declaring anyone of a certain ethnic background as a potential threat, regardless of the individual in question. This became apparent when Trump’s immigration ban was enforced and there were reports of children and elderly people being detained at airports; some were put in handcuffs for hours on end.

Is guilty until proven innocent and the label of potential terror threat stuck to the forehead of just anybody from a minority group ever a good way to go?

This is no exaggeration; from one day to the next these people are made to feel unsafe and unwanted, prone to being targeted with false accusations, questioned on their private lives and basically treated like scum. The left is not hysterical on this one.

Why wouldn’t the average racist in the street target them with verbal abuse or even violence, when the president himself is declaring before the entire nation that every one of them should be regarded with suspicion? It’s an endorsement; a free pass to do so, at least when it comes to harassment.

It needs to be pointed out that while rightfully claiming certain regimes are oppressive and promote extremism, one has to accept there are many in those countries fleeing persecution: dissidents, apostates, gays and women who wouldn’t submit to the life imposed upon them. Blocking all immigration from those countries means blocking them as well from escaping to freedom (arguably, the US is not the only place they could go to but has been an option so far). Conflating extremists with the people fleeing from them is not a rational approach.

And I must point out the hypocrisy of those who are campaigning against Islam in general, constantly deploring its victims in the Middle East or in western Muslim communities, and simultaneously arguing those victims should be banned from entering a safe western country. I’m not talking about masses of un-vetted people but individuals targeted for dissenting.

Where would all the apostates who took refuge in the west be if all gates had been closed to them, as Trump supporters argue always should have been the case? Six feet under or having their bodies on display hanging from cranes. Vetting is one thing – indiscriminate banning is another.

Nuclear weapons not ruled out

So much for “Clinton was the only/ the major warmonger”. Trump is just as unhinged.

Tarring all undocumented immigrants with the same brush

It is safe to say that the grey areas on this issue are wearing thinner by the day, conflating hard-working economic migrants with rapists, murderers, paedos and drug dealers, as if they all deserved the same treatment.

Needless to say this experiment of mass deportation of undocumented workers has been tried before. One example is the state of Georgia, where in 2012 massive raids saw farm workers removed from the US, leaving farm produce to rot in the fields as locals were not interested in doing this type of work.

Meanwhile, when faced with this threat to members of their communities, entire cities and numerous places of worship are taking a stand, providing shelter and assistance to those who are simply there for a better life and not for a life of crime. These places are referred to as sanctuaries and are a method of peaceful resistance.

Again, this is not a partisan issue, it is a human issue and anyone should be able to see that.

I must say the way the right-leaning alternative media is scorning these sanctuaries is vomit-inducing. They are not meant to protect dangerous criminals but ordinary workers who risk separation from their families. Different faiths are coming together and opening their doors to those who need immediate protection. What would anyone even expect people of faith to do, if they take themselves seriously? How do Trump-supporting Christians feel about this, I wonder? Is the cognitive dissonance headache-inducing yet?

There is so much more to say and there will be as this has barely started.

The main point is sceptics have been sold a false image, a false promise, and it is coming at great cost to others. The left and right have no claims of superiority over each other.

We have been intoxicated by propaganda pushers with images of hysterical SJWs and pussy hats, to the point of equating them with “Trump’s opposition”. No reasonable opposing arguments, presented in a reasonable way, were analysed. It was black or white, right or left, authoritarianism or freedom.

The reality is anything but.

The Political Football Culture: Scouring For Humanity

Far from claiming any of us, simple absorbers of media (however opinionated), can make an actual difference through how we position ourselves on the political spectrum or outside of it, this post deals with issues of conscience in an increasingly polarised world.

While it’s a known fact neither the left nor the right promote unity, political fury in the west is perhaps stronger now than it has been for many years. Are we, as human beings, in danger of being degraded by the baseness of the political spectacle? At which point does the media’s intoxication affect us intrinsically?

Headlines are being made out of social media posts and small comments, as those in office debate each other in the style of pimps outside a brothel; the left and right have become experts at turning bits of flotsam into the pillars of their positions, scooping up the dregs from each barrel to further inebriate their audiences.

Even the neutral can gradually be pulled in one direction, on a cause-by-cause basis, by the so-called alternative media, slowly climbing onto a bandwagon.

The total abandonment to a wave of energy generated by propaganda now resembles football stadium dynamics. While on a football stadium this temporary abandonment can be cathartic and harmless, in real life it can cause people to truly dehumanise others, in manners formerly deemed left behind in history books.

Counterculture or counterfeit?

Since our teenage years, attempts are made to co-opt us into a solid set of beliefs and principles, often feeling the need to make a choice between conforming to the moment’s education and “rebelling”. The other day I heard from various sources that conservatism would be the new counterculture; right-leaning people see it as an optimistic perspective after being pummeled by the left for so long. The realisation came that this cut and dry left/right duality is portrayed as an unavoidable cycle to maintain in the future, as if no alternative were possible.

How authentic is any culture formed as a diametral response to another, each grabbing hold of society until reaching an extreme; why want to replace it with its polar opposite instead of reaching a unifying compromise? Are leftists and right-wingers really different species expected to keep fighting for domination in perpetuity? Is the right expected to behave any differently than the left does now when climbing its way to power again?

Perhaps this is what we are meant to believe in order to remain at each other’s throats.

Blurring the lines between facts and rhetoric

Media outlets, including alternative ones, have mastered the art of invalidating a point of view just because it is strongly held by the ideological opposition, regardless of whether or not it might make sense at least partially. Nit-picking on marginal issues, diversion and placing an event within a one-sided context can be made to look like factual reporting. Factual reporting presents both sides of an issue. When the versions you hear from opposing outlets portray events in such an antithetic way you’d think they came from different planets, prepare to wonder whether subtle or gross manipulation is involved, potentially on both sides, no matter how much you tend to agree with one.

Today more than ever, one is nudged to censor their critical thinking as an issue of loyalty, when often agreeing with the stances of a peer group. When suddenly disagreeing, mobbing may occur. Proof of this loyalty can be requested at any time since discussions occur between larger groups and more publicly than ever before. The pressure to pick a side can be substantial.

Trusting inflammatory outlets which change their tune for their own agendas

Choosing a trustworthy news source is not easy, as so many are skilled in gripping people’s interest, often done today by claiming to have inside information on issues most of us cannot obtain information on directly.

It wasn’t long ago (a few years, roughly) that InfoWars and the likes were spreading theories regarding false flag terrorist attacks, impending martial law and the use of artificially generated fear in order for states to draconically control the masses. Apparently, terrorism was a manufactured excuse to create “police states”. There was a FEMA camp hysteria and descriptions of vans coming for millions of people in the middle of the night and “disappearing” them, never to be heard from again. Police brutality was constantly deplored, as well as increasing police presence and militarisation.

Fast forward to present day and this tune is being blared in reverse, with the same amount of gravity and confidence. Now, according to the same people, terrorism is actually caused by religious fanatics and no longer a ploy to “take people’s freedoms away”. In fact, they constantly promote a president who wants fewer restrictions on how the police can act, who wants more security forces on the streets supervising and raiding. And what takes the cake, who wants a massive “deportation force” to… snatch millions of people from their homes, day or night, intern them and have them “disappeared”. The system they made people dread for years is taking shape now and they are cheering it on, as it will affect only one part of the population and not the one embracing their rhetoric.

All throughout, they have been claiming to operate based on the same principles. Is there any intellectual honesty in this? Has there ever been? In the mean time, fortunately, nobody in the west has died for lack of a water filter.

How does the outlet with the largest amount of paranoia regarding the political system suddenly read like state-sponsored propaganda, with 8 out of 10 daily articles fiercely supporting anything Donald Trump does or says, down to writing one article per critical tweet? At what point does this become nauseating and transparent?

“Fighting the good fight”

Although discussing politics has always been uneasy to an extent (hence the “no politics or religion at the dinner table” suggestion), there used to be some decency, some restraint in this before social media provided immediate access to verbal matches with “detractors”. Nowadays, comment sections on any subject become septic tanks of bile, some of it undoubtedly a release of personal tension.

One can easily end up berating a stranger, to then berate the stranger’s mother, ancestors and dog, in only one paragraph, the benefits of which elude rational thinking. How much of this is even real; how much of it is social engineering and paid agitation?

People prone to politically motivated savagery need no more than a few slogans barked or sung with the right intonation in order to start chanting along and raise their fists in the air, as if contaminated by a tribal virus. Some then take to the streets, smash up streets and beat up random strangers. For others, it takes more subtlety. It takes refined language, astute humour, intricate rationalisation. Which is fine and dandy until a barrier is crossed and whatever category has angered them, at least at that moment, ceases to be human.

Entertainment is more politically charged by the day

Even this form of escapism, which has always been manipulative yet in an insidious manner, is now blatant in its pushing of social messages, being not artful but artificial.

Besides the standards imposed by progressives (quotas, trigger warnings, forbidden humour etc), we find ourselves being told what to think and how to vote by wealthy singers and actors (which is infantilising), and even shamed in this sense. Art for the sake of it has become rather rare. Somehow it all pulls people back into the mindset of having the obligation to stand and propagandise for one cause or another.

Factions denouncing propaganda while engaging in it

Propaganda, as most people know by now, seeks to attract individuals into groupthink, and one technique used is finding a symbol for a cause (a person or event) to imprint into collective memory as representative of a broader issue. Which is not wrong in and of itself as long as it doesn’t push for the blurring of other aspects related to the same matter.

What I find rather disgusting, when the media approaches an event, let’s say regarding victimisation or wrongdoing, is that it’s usually highlighted by one side and minimised by the other, regardless of what the reality is, as both are in defence of groups, not individuals. The actual story is lost in an endless spin; people caught up in a certain situation become pawns in political debates. When exposure actually damages the person presumably helped and the media perseveres, it’s a case of exploitation; when they milk it dry, the person is left to deal with the consequences (often involving harassment) of being the poster hero or victim of the day .

More queasily, each side accuses the other of jubilation when having a victim to push forward; in other words, one side has every right to feel outrage and sympathy, but the other doesn’t. Ordinary people become lost in narratives, to often face undeserved public scorn, based on the side supporting them, in a dog-eat-dog fashion, as armies of ideologues feel the need to tear them down in order to reinforce their views. The truth could be anywhere and is no longer relevant as long as enough points are bing scored.

 

Regardless of how the media makes it look, there is always the option of remaining moderate and approaching any coverage with cautiousness, refusing to label oneself and be spurred on by propaganda, even when a peer group reinforces it enthusiastically. It’s important to remember that no movement is safe from being corrupted and taken over for an entirely different agenda.

And no matter how trustworthy, charismatic and convincing our sources are, they too are fallible and could be surfing a wave to an unknown destination.

There comes a point, when soaking up biased coverage to reinforce a point of view, one needs to take a step back and think deeper. No matter how much it might seem appropriate to reach generalising conclusions regarding groups of people, their accuracy should always be questioned, as that attitude is likely meant to serve someone else’s purpose.

When It’s Time To Jump Off A Political Bandwagon

There is a classic anecdote intended to halt someone from taking a likely wrong path. The shorter version is “if you knew there was just a tiny bit of dog excrement in your food, would you still eat it?”

This can apply perfectly to embracing an ideology, political doctrine, religion or getting behind anything enjoying massive popular support.

It’s rather difficult, when the stakes are purported to be very high internationally, not to be mentally drawn, to some extent,  into a political struggle from overseas (unless you isolate yourself from any type of media). And realistically, many people who see themselves as apolitical (independent thinkers) have seen the pros of the US administration change in terms of loosening the grip of cultural Marxism, potentially with international ripples.

The left’s arguments and demonstrations have often been inept; incoherent; it was difficult to take them seriously when becoming hysterical about “pussy remarks” and parading as giant vulvae (with their heads as the urethrae I suppose).

As enthusiasm rose, the right-leaning alternative media started producing more and more pro-Trump material, which after the election has become 99,99% uncritical on very popular channels. By now it basically sounds like political propaganda, although most likely it is produced in earnest, as part of an ideological fight against the radical left.

Is uncritical enthusiasm ever a good omen? Probably not.

Among Hollywood’s snobbery, frequent violence from the left and theatrical demonstrations against “sexism”, one issue was overlooked by supportive channels: the reality of what is in store for that country’s roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants, many of whom have been there for years and have built their lives and families there. Whilst routing for an end to the PC culture, it was easy for any outsider to believe deportation would be focused on violent criminals, such as murderers, rapists or drug dealers – reality proves very different.

The cold fact is that a “deportation force” will be organised to hunt all these people down; I needn’t say what that is reminiscent of, to avoid sounding like a leftist. They will target everyone, in their homes, in the street, at their workplace. They will show up at the door, handcuff people in front of their kids, drive them away and all contact will be cut, just like that. No consideration to that person’s present eligibility to stay will be given.

And spokespersons for said administration refer to this as a fair and humane method, even though the reality of it is brutal and often makes no sense in terms of what the state would gain.

Someone can even prove to have built a business, employed others, supported a large family for years , paid taxes and still be thrown out with nothing but the clothes on their back and no right to any of their possessions, or even a chance to see their family before being flown back to a country they had left decades before, prone to homelessness and despair. That is worse treatment than serial killers get. And when the breadwinner of the family is thrown out, with no consideration for those left behind, that family likely ends up on welfare. What sense does this even make? Who benefits from this?

These people are part of their society, of their communities. And they will just disappear, one by one, overnight. Seriously, what does this sound like?

Nobody seems immune to the snare of a promised political change and as time goes by, polarisation becomes more evident, even if the starting point was a neutral one. This change has generated a massive wave of hope, as a middle-finger shown to the leftist establishment. Yet it will come with needless destruction of lives, on a mass scale.

And while this is happening, the right-leaning alternative media will most likely look the other way and sneer at SJW meltdowns over inconsequential matters. And will most likely keep arguing that the Trump administration is the way to the future, an example to follow.

Eerily enough, mass deportation has seldom been discussed during the campaign and is seldom discussed now. The focus for many alternative channels with a large following seems to be defending Trump’s image at all cost, down to minutiae such as what is tweeted about him. Strengthening the border is often described as blocking new immigration, not throwing out all those who already live there and have for years, decades even. That wouldn’t be too palatable for the average reader or listener, who can instead easily be led to think, through this communal omission, that nothing unreasonable is involved.

If there’s nothing concrete anyone outside the US can do about it, perhaps no longer applauding it would be a good option. Perhaps being honest about it would be a start.

There is some lucidity fortunately and I can only hope it spreads.

 

 

Support For Overnight Deportation: The Ugly Side Of Conservatism

Although the laws affecting undocumented immigrants in the US today were certainly not put in place by Donald Trump, there seems to be a rising tide of calls for anyone with a shoddy immigration status to be thrown out as a matter of principle, conflating them with those who pose a proven security risk. One does not need to be American in order to have an opinion on how this mass exultation sounds; many gleefully envisage an indiscriminate purge, regardless of personal circumstances.

Civilisation quickly degenerates when people are desensitised to needless brutality – whether it is that of Sharia law, ignored by the left, or that of harmless individuals being snatched from their homes and thrown over the fence overnight (leaving them and their families in shock), ignored – and increasingly applauded- by the right.

While admitting it’s at the discretion of an institution to reach a decision, one can simultaneously admit such an act can be downright grotesque.

With the risk of using leftist rhetoric, one cannot say that the public reaction of indifference or delight is not a clear case of dehumanising the other.

By now, contradicting leftists on everything has become so much of a habit even intellectuals can react in Pavlovian fashion to their every stance, even when their approach, for once, can be given credit as humane and rational.

It’s disheartening to see how skeptical or conservative commentators – who are overall more profound nowadays than those on the left – suddenly lose that analytical quality, invoking bureaucracy as a moral absolute, to downplay the impact of cruel actions. Their habit of craftily bringing nuances to light, of analysing every case in-depth, switches to “oh well, it’s the law”, disregarding the human factor altogether.

The fact that some people living in the West in our current year do not have a visceral reaction to this is not a good omen.

Lines are being blurred here; the many shades of grey are being overlooked.

The recently deported Mexican woman who’d been told for years she would most likely be allowed to stay has become a target of ridicule and incrimination as a pawn in a political match. One has to wonder whether a person with a poor grasp of English would understand all the implications of using false information in order to obtain employment. Leaving aside this ill-advised move, she is no murderer, rapist, thug or drug dealer. Her situation is that of many who sought to escape poverty. A person intending to have an actual life of crime would have demonstrated that in two decades. The amount of bile thrown at this woman, who became the target years of frustration were projected on (frustration she did not personally cause) is quite something.

Moreover, crime includes a bureaucratic and a moral component; however the presence of one does not imply that of the other.

Labelling someone a criminal for immigrating out of desperation, without using violence (as it was used for instance in Calais) is a stretch, though the term technically applies.

 

One cannot help but notice how easy it is to refer to the law as immutable when on one end of the political spectrum, while ignoring and breaking other laws put in place by an administration of a different persuasion.

Right-wingers have been unfairly demonised as fascists for years; laws have been put in place to limit their freedom of speech and religion. It’s easy to denounce these laws as unjust, which implies that they are not mandated by some heavenly moral authority and can indeed inflict needless damage. People convicted over Facebook and Twitter posts (victimless “crimes”) are technically criminals as well.

Hence, when discussing other people’s suffering as a result of bureaucratic conundrums, ignoring their general situation, right-wingers are not being objective, as they claim, but subjective. They are choosing which laws to hold as moral absolutes and which laws to disregard altogether.

That is not to say that I believe in borderless utopias – however, some clemency is possible and humane on a case by case basis, instead of petty head-hunting and swift expulsions of people who have already built their lives in a country for decades.

Right-wingers often claim to use their brains as opposed to leftists, who tend to use their feelings in any situation.

Perhaps these should not be mutually exclusive, as the future looks bleak if an uncompromising choice has to be made.

 

Forget politics. We are all human and should try to remain an such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“It’s not my job to educate you about my oppression!”

Whenever too many logical questions are asked regarding someone’s standing in the Oppression Olympics (too many for comfort apparently), this seems to be a retort of choice.

I paraphrase. “It is brazen and downright oppressive for someone of privilege, such as yourself, to demand explanations from us, the oppressed, regarding the harm we keep claiming you are causing us. It is not our job to educate you. Regardless, we reserve the right to assume you fully know what you are accused of and why, and treat you accordingly.”

This type of reasoning fails to take a very important issue into account.

When one is accused of something (in this case holding privilege over others), it is their accuser’s responsibility to present any evidence regarding said situation (wrongdoing would be an inappropriate term as this is supposed to be a passive, unacknowledged form of aggression). Otherwise, the accused cannot be held morally responsible for not taking the time to verify that which they are accused of, especially when oblivious to the possibility of such allegations before they were made.

In everyday speech and everyday situations, this would translate as follows:

“You know what you’ve done, so you’d better make amends!”

“No, I actually don’t. What have I done, exactly?”

“It’s not my job to tell you. It’s your job to figure it out. And if you don’t, I’ll call you every name under the Sun and tell everyone what an asshole you are.”

“I honestly don’t know what this is about. All I know is you’re pissed off.”

“Then you haven’t been paying attention, which makes you even more guilty.”

“Of what ??”

“Oh, so now, after you’ve wronged me and won’t even admit it, you expect me to waste my time explaining it to you? The nerve! Would I be upset if it wasn’t your fault? Think about it! If I’m upset, it means you’ve done something!”

In an everyday interpersonal conversation, that attitude would not only be counterproductive but in fact manipulative (if not psychologically abusive, if sustained); it is somewhat reminiscent of the one women are often portrayed to have in domestic arguments.

Here’s a stereotypical post on the subject (though I have read quite a few).

Do you know what I love? People who say “It’s your job to educate me.” Because of the work I do, and because of the fact that I’m basically an intersectionality salad, people are constantly telling me that it’s my job to educate them.

I had this realization the other day: Jobs are paid. I don’t remember filling out a W-2.

Does this job come with benefits? Because I could really use some dental and some optical. How long is our lunch break? Do y’all do direct deposit?

That’s all fine and dandy when said education refers to sharing certain knowledge in a neutral way, in a neutral field. However, accusing people left, right and centre of  -isms and -phobias without an explanation does not qualify.

It is so demeaning and dehumanizing to explain to people of privilege why people like them have historically and currently oppressed people like me.

That’s not where it ends though, is it? You’re extrapolating to make it look like they are oppressing you because people like them have oppressed people like you in the past. Which is a whole different take on it, as everyone (I assume) has some knowledge of history and would not dispute that. Which is when they ask how exactly they are oppressing you and you respond with “Google it“, apparently.

Feeling like you’re entitled to firsthand accounts about the abuse that I’ve experienced as a minority in this country reeks privilege.

Feeling like one is owed an explanation as to why they are arbitrarily placed in the same category as aforementioned abusers is only natural.

Have you ever had somebody demand that you educate them about a personal struggle that you experience?

No, I haven’t, perhaps because I did not put out material, publicly, about how an enormous mass of people oppressed me day in and day out by simply existing in my proximity. When you make such claims, perhaps you should expect this type of queries asking you to back them up.

Secondly, here’s another article from the same website (the gift that keeps on giving in terms of feminist propaganda, as there is so much of it and so diverse looking elsewhere is needless). It’s titled “Is it your responsibility to educate a person you’re dating on race and racism?”

No matter what, a partner shouldn’t rely on just you to always play the role of a social justice educator. You’re not on call to unpack systemic oppression for another person.

You shouldn’t have to educate your partner on issues of social justice all the time, especially as they pertain to your own lived experience. Giving love and support shouldn’t require “evidence” on why someone needs it.

When it comes to race, dating, and intimacy, I’m learning that it’s less about education and more about openness when it comes to listening and believing. Social justice is a collective process – and that should also apply to dating and partnerships.

In this instance, the “education” caper unabashedly translates into motivating why you keep attacking this person and others, while demanding they shut up and listen at all times. By the way, bringing politics into one’s bedroom is usually detrimental.

It’s not someone’s responsibility to be an on-demand resource or be forced to speak on behalf of “their” people.

Except when they bitch about it and feel entitled to refer to others as bigots. They are free to do that as many times a day as they like and for whatever reason, not necessarily authentic.

It’s not always so much about educating one’s partner, but on how to communicate ways that person can be more affirming even if they don’t intellectually or experientially understand something.

In other words, turn this person into an emotional bidet and a parrot of one’s attitudes, at all times.

Sure, all of these moments could be complete accidents – or they could be moments where implicit racism and sexism show up. (…) Sometimes he’ll wonder why I’m so frustrated.

This might be true – the other person wasn’t maliciously intending to do harm. However, that doesn’t change the reality that my feelings are hurt and that I’m expressing those hurt feelings to my partner.

In other words, the author plainly admits to taking offence in situations others normally wouldn’t, which has a few descriptions of its own: nitpicking, pettiness, childishness, hypersensitivity, a victim complex, immaturity, a propensity for whining gratuitously etc. This is not a socially attractive trait. At all. Yet somehow, a group of people claims the right to make things illogically difficult on the rest, on the basis of feelings.

Feelings are also behind stalkers’ obsessions, murders triggered by fits of jealousy or paranoid people attacking those they feel are attacking them. None of this is justifiable, especially when it causes great harm. Perpetually claiming discrimination by playing the race or gender card is no different.

But if I were just to share a story about how someone cut in front of me in line or cut me off while driving, there might be no reason to explain the specifics of why I’m frustrated.

Reckless driving can and does result in serious injuries or death, which is a real possibility in the real world, not just your head. It’s not exaggerated for someone to say they escaped death narrowly when put in danger on the road. It cannot be compared to “microaggressions”, which have no consequence whatsoever and are unintended.

We look to our partners to believe in us and affirm our experiences rather than making us doubt our observations as real.

Unless you start to go off the bend, which is when any good friend and especially your partner will tell you that your attitude is poisonous. They do not have to put up with it, especially when you single-handedly admit to the irrelevance of your grievances.

What often happens when my partner wants an explanation of oppression is that I just splutter back all of my feelings. For me, this isn’t just about having a conversation – I have personal stakes in the outcome of the conversation. (…) But rationality is often evoked as a silencing tactic and has made me feel that he was detached from my experiences. My emotions – my anger and frustration over issues of racism – are rational.

Someone who is articulate can discuss feelings rationally, with their nuances, limitations and traps. It is not unfair to ask that of them, especially since they spout them out constantly, which affects those around them.

Oppression isn’t rational, at least not to me, so how could I ever explain it in rational terms?

If you want it to be criminalised, you have no choice. The justice system has a “thingy” for rationality and objectivity, as in their absence tyrannical, absurd, inquisitorial practices can be instated.

Even as these conversations come from a space of love, nurturing, and accountability, “calling in can be difficult and also requires emotional labor.

The hypocrisy is monumental here.

Hence, explaining why you’re constantly bitching requires emotional labour, but for someone to put up with said bitching doesn’t.

Needless to say, tearing this rhetoric apart is a bottomless pit, as one never runs out of material. The crux of the matter is that a handful of attitudes transpire in any such piece: hypocrisy, entitlement, a lack of logic and a high level of immaturity.

P*ssy Hat Protest (Satire)

This satire was inspired by the SJW protests around Donald Trump’s inauguration, where many protesters showed up with “pussy hats” and giant vagina costumes. Besides engaging in frivolous rhetoric, some carried out acts of pointless destruction of public and private property alike.

 

Come join me, fellow sisters, in a majestic screech

The seals of the Antarctic could never hope to reach!

We’ll drown out all their hatred and stomp any adherent;

Just like the Wooly Mammoth, we’re slow but perseverant!

 

Do not be shy to handle my polyester tw*t;

You can’t get hepatitis or herpes from a hat!

Though some do say it gives them, if I may be so blunt,

A never-ending licence to label me a c*nt!

 

Last week I was a victor, I marched from dusk ‘till dawn,

I trampled the begonias on some cis white male’s lawn,

And after manly pummels, which left my muscles sore,

In Herculean struggles – his trash bin is no more!

 

I ran back in full glory after this brave foray,

Though covered in cat faeces and three-day-old soufflé;

This proves beyond suspicion, and please spare no applause,

That I’d decline no effort to further our cause!

 

We broke a good few windows, they cursed at us with pathos

And called for paramedics and cops to please sedate us;

I thrive in cis despair and in patriarchal dread!

We are the revolution, comrades! Full steam ahead!

 

We’ll show these cunts what love is, for unity we aim,

Our chants, group hugs and dances put any cult to shame!

Their faces are so pasty – but with a punch or two,

We’ll make them into rainbows, with shades of red and blue!