Category Archives: Victimhood Culture

“Out Of The Fog” – Another Toxic Recovery Forum

After losing interest in the subject for a long time, I finally had a close look at another internet community based on personality disorders, a disciple of which I’ve seen trying to poison strangers online (for a couple of years and ongoing), perhaps out of reflex, with the idea that they are being emotionally abused by their partners or family members. When the response given to anyone succinctly posting a relationship dilemma is by default along those lines, something is awry.

Not having spent more than a few hours looking it up and reading through it, I do know what comes out of there, when one is immersed in this line of thought.

The difference between offering an opinion and proselytising is in nuance, in the ability to evaluate every situation on its own merits. When someone reacts like a person with a hammer, to whom everything looks like a nail, things are clear.

The forum is differently structured than PF and covers more than romantic relationships or marriages, which PF focused on. It doesn’t overtly demonise people with personality disorders, but claims to offer coping strategies instead (a misleading appearance, as detailed below). At a peek there is no mention of evil, demonic beings set on destroying their targets etc. However, a review of the book with the same name mentions black and white thinking, splitting humans into two categories: “the PDs” (personality disordered) and the “nons” (non-disordered) . And the acronym PD appears often on the site. Hence they don’t even have to pretend they are knowledgeable enough to identify a specific disorder.

To their credit, they declined to create a subsection for teens, seeing the problems that might pose (while PF targeted them directly in a marketing effort).

However, at a closer look, one can see a person is likely to be labelled disordered, or at least be suspected as such, for just any reason. And any reason is no stretch.

There is a subsection about friends, neighbours, acquaintances and coworkers, where I reckon most of the baffling stuff is, from what I’ve seen so far. At least in a close relationship one has a reason to over-analyse.

As an example, a member ended up thinking her roommate might be disordered because the latter asked her to hold her stuff at a bar, “as if she were a coat rack”. Because apparently, disordered people are known to be selfish and since this one momentary gesture of debatable rudeness bothered her, the roommate is likely to have a real issue, regardless of the lack of other indications. A thread was opened about this gesture and no moderator stepped in to even issue an opinion regarding how accurate this might be. Which is proof that anything goes. Perhaps this is a random exaggeration; however; there don’t seem to be any guidelines helping people differentiate between what is likely real and what is likely imaginary.

All this has nothing to do with a presumed expertise in personality disorders, but with people airing their day-to-day grievances and sometimes ending up sticking labels on others.

The specific language is present as well (abbreviations understood only by those who activate in these circles, such as NC, LC, VLC, PD, JADE etc). More interestingly, I found the abbreviation FOO (family of origin) in a few places, previously encountered in Stefan Molyneux’s cult lingo, as in “family of origin”. He is the “patent holder” of the term de-FOO, as in disassociating with one’s family of origin (and often friends who don’t share Molyneux’s political ideology, when it comes to his followers).

Very interestingly, there is this remark on a page listing “what not to do” when confronted with disordered behaviours:

Amateur Diagnosis – An Amateur Diagnosis is when a non-qualified individual confronts someone whom they suspect suffers from a personality-disorder and shares this belief with them, usually in the hope that this revelation will help to improve the relationship or the situation.

Excuse my French, but doesn’t that cover doing so behind the person’s back, based on unprofessional information, and sharing that with strangers? I’ve come across diagnosing people by proxy (the boyfriend’s ex-wife, because he claimed so, lacking any diagnosis per se, or the member actually knowing the person referred to as disordered).

What is ethical about the fact that there is no difference of approach between members who do have a diagnosis for someone and those who simply suspect someone of having a disorder, as if it were all the same?

More food for thought about this site not being what it appears to at first. The comments on the first site mention a few of these forums (recognisable with a bit of prior knowledge).

The Aftermath of the Psycho/ Narc Hunt Obsession

As predicted, amateur online content claiming to offer insight into psychopaths and narcissists has been multiplying for a few years.

Obviously, there are content creators out there who have done intense research on the matter and have analysed it from any angle, including the problem of false identification (off-the-cuff diagnosis based on superficiality). However, they share the platform with a sea of dross.

A few years ago, such content was relatively rare. Now a large array of blogs and YouTube channels predicate inside knowledge into the “minds of the disordered”. On a mere glance, the vast majority seem founded by individuals with  no qualification in this field or in depth study of the issue. I dare assume that many were started as a result of a sour break-up or childhood-related resentment.

Though the term “psychopath” is sometimes used, “narcissist” is far more prevalent. Perhaps because it has been a lay term before becoming clinical and appears more relatable.

A few quotes picked up just through a quick search on YouTube:

  • How to spot a narcissist in five minutes/ on the first date. Pardon my doubts yet I think that unless someone is extremely disturbed it’s very difficult to tell, and most people do manage to make a good impression on a first date, if for no other reason than their conscious effort to do so. Such guidelines would be better worded as “how to ruin a first date by constantly checking for signs of narcissism”.
  • Is the narcissist watching you right now (the narcissist may be stalking you in any number of ways). So you’ve successfully distanced yourself from this person and all you need now is a dose of paranoia regarding what they might be doing. Very healthy indeed (excellent for triggering people who have been stalked in the past, by the way).
  • 121 things narcissists say while gaslighting (collected from a support group of people believing to have been targeted; most are extremely common in arguments; one of these things is “whatever”). This is on a large channel, by the way. Predictably, the first comment is “OMG I’ve been told 90% of these”. Absolutely unrelated, unscientific crap.
  • How to torture a narcissist. Better yet, why try?
  • 6 strong signs you have narcissistic abuse syndrome. This is directed at women and invites them to imagine that if they have certain emotional problems that is a strong indicator of their partner being a narcissist (no mention of the possibility of preexisting problems at all, or them being caused by other factors). The first two are “feeling alone” and “not feeling good enough”, which are par for the course with abandonment and anxiety issues and not necessarily caused by others in real time.

Moreover, this “support” has seeped into neutral environments. After watching someone seek out confused people to “help” on a forum, where they would pop up to  ask for relationship advice (being told each time they were being abused, regardless of the details), I did a quick Google search with specific keywords, to try to see how prevalent this is.

Doubtlessly, some who soak up this material, with a clear self-gratifying intention, try to sway unsuspecting strangers into thinking they are in a hopeless situation or even in danger. They actively search the internet for psychological fodder in other people’s temporary problems. And unlike content creators, who often have a financial interest, they gain nothing but the satisfaction of having potentially “saved” others from “Cluster B types”, regardless of how little they know about them.

Hence, some disciples of sites such as Psychopath Free, Out of the Fog & Co now try to influence people outside of those environments, who are merely looking to vent online or obtain objective advice (which is an illusion as most respondents simply project their own life experience). Disorders were not even an issue in discussions I’ve witnessed until said faithful disciples brought them up.

If sifting through broadly-themed forums was too time-consuming and lacked efficiency, I did have a look on other platforms. On Quora, for instance, there are many threads enquiring about the new general obsession with narcissism.

It’s definitely a mass phenomenon, not reserved for platforms one only ends up on when specifically seeking answers. Many reputable publications have covered the lists of behaviours and red flags, though to their credit, they tend to seek out professionals when putting out articles.

 

 

 

 

The Men’s Rights Movement: A Misguided Octopus

In the vein of other political octopodes, this movement started with the apparently benign quest of countering toxic feminism, yet quickly developed into its “other side of the coin”, joining members not through calm and rationality, or hope for a better world, but anger, frustration, residual disappointment, entitlement, cultural claims of superiority, “regressivism” and in some cases, pathological hatred.

It is thus fair to claim that this movement, just like feminism, plays an active part in a manufactured tribal war of the sexes, as opposed to simply countering the extreme views it claims formented it in the first place.

If we engage in a rather grotesque exercise of imagination, we can compare both these movements with the human centipede envisaged in the creepy film bearing the same name. Once the tribal bond is established, the head of the centipede merely engages in an act of bowel relief, the contents of which pass through everyone attached. Such is the case with toxic ideas. I am attached, therefore I receive and pass on the message, without processing (digesting) it first.

The octopus analogy refers to the many subdivisions of this movement, each emphasising a different issue. On the whole, the MRM pushes forth the following ideas:

  • Western societies favour girls and women over boys and men, in terms of declaring them superior in nature;
  • Education is geared towards the needs and formation of females;
  • Women have legal advantages over men in terms of conceiving and raising children;
  • The job market favours women;
  • Women often make false claims of victimisation by men, especially when sexual misconduct is involved;
  • Feminism seeks to infiltrate Marxist ideas into western states;
  • Women have become undesirable to men through fashion fads and their lack of interest in pleasing men through their image or behaviour;
  • Women are deluded in thinking they can fill positions only men can;
  • Women are generally labile, hysterical and untrustworthy;
  • Women have unwarranted and delusional demands of men;
  • Women use their sexual prowess in order to prey on men;
  • Women seek to demean and demonise men;
  • Marriage is a prison;
  • Masculinity as a concept is under threat.

Needless to say, as in the case of feminism regarding all men with suspicion, there is only a thin line between making these assertions about some women and ending up making them about all women, not to mention male feminists (“betas” or “castrati” as they are sometimes referred to, the latter referencing eunuchs).

What is so disengaging about feminists today is precisely the generalisation and acrimony; the intention to dominate. Sadly, the same is present in the men’s rights movement.

It seems that neither side is actually looking for a better understanding and a harmony-conducive compromise through open discussions, but plain and simple dominance. This is achieved through righteous anger, demonisation, derision and solipsism.

The blind fighting the blind, so to speak.

Perhaps no advocate of this movement is better known than Paul Elam. To see the drive behind this individual one only needs to read a few of his “best quotes”:

Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

There is nothing left to interpretation or fit for whitewashing. Fortunately, such declarations might see Mr Elam permanently excused from jury duty, yet the encouragement given to others, to do the same, is very poisonous.

Below I will expand on two offshoots of this movement, on a gradient of harmful prejudices and intentions.

MGTOW 

Along the way, the men’s rights movement developed a radical branch known as MGTOW, short for Men Going Their Own Way. This particular group, though not disavowing sexual interactions with women, for short-lived practical purposes only, does swear them off in the sense of commitment and forming families, as apparently, all women are ravenous, manipulative parasites who can exploit men more than ever before due to our current culture of female empowerment.

It’s safe to say personal experience along those lines is a prerequisite for men who adopt this radical declaration. Both in being disappointed and looking for a justification for disappointments caused (that does, indeed, happen).

For a taste  of the group’s attitude (rather reminiscent of bile), here is a collection of fine quotes.

Incel

Although the term itself is gender-neutral, Incel, as in “involuntarily celibate”, is mostly circulated in online discussions between young men who find it difficult to find a female partner. It is often associated with the men’s rights movement and at some point spawned a radical offshoot known as Truecel, which in turn, spawned Elliot Rodger.

In other words, this group is a glorified case of blue balls, pardon the frankness.

They tend to focus on the superficiality of women and their preference for overtly alpha males (the MGTOW type perhaps), arguing women have materialistic and self-gratifying selection criteria when it comes to male partners, and some, such as Rodger, argue the female sex is animal-like in pursuing assholes.

They blend in with the rest of the select MRM gathering through their awful views on women; the only difference is their lack of dignity about it. Whilst the MGTOW crowd tries to display some type of spine, even if the result is members’ own loneliness and nothing more, Incel types declare their desire for vaginas (artificial ones will do, some claim). An infamous Truecel member even came forth with the proposition that it’s the government’s responsibility to provide men with sex, as some kind of social program.

For a taste of this group’s attitude (with a tinge of sour grapes), here is a collection of their intellectual produce. 

Identity politics are not limited to the left. To counteract the plethora of labels and categories the left has consecrated in popular jargon, the right is slowly building a system of its own.

Those who are willing to share their lives with women provided women always obey them.Those who hate women to the point of wanting little or nothing to do with them. Those who hate women but demand sex of them.

And on it goes; it seems all these attitudes, temporary as they may be for each individual, are identities and chosen paths in life now.

 

Tight Ships Do Sink – New PF Screenshots

Through the kindness of someone who has emailed screenshots of a recent internal debacle at PF, former members who still return to this blog can see the their practices questioned and discussed, and of course justified (quite poorly, I might add).

It appears that a number of long-term members are openly challenging the team’s treatment of them, the response being that they have formed a mutinous clique and there can be no other clique than the one in charge. The sycophancy of some, who accept this authority of PF over their life decisions, is fairly disturbing.

The dispute involved a long term member, admonished for the apparently inexcusable crime of having invited her ex to a conversation… last year. And having maintained a business-related channel for him to contact her, which obviously is related to her livelihood. Arguably, a normal group of friends would not attempt to get this person to overdramatise the presumed danger she has put herself in by simply contacting said ex, let alone chastise her for it. That’s not what emotional support is about. But then again, this is no normal group of friends, but Fahrenheit 451 with a twist of sour lemons.

On the PF mother ship, one is no longer allowed to be human. Being human is a sign of imperfection; a transgression of ideological purity. They cannot see how their attitude of excluding people for normal human interaction with “undesirables” renders them as bigoted as fundamentalist Mormons, who mandate that remaining with a partner/ spouse is an absolute, regardless of other factors. It comes from a need to control what others do, to regulate the details of other people’s lives.

When someone is truly empathetic, they listen. They take your life experience into account and seek to learn from it just as you might learn from them. Throwing the book at people on a constant basis is reserved for preachers and hypocritical moralists; it indicates distance and superficiality, not friendship.

 

PFnew1  PFnew2    PFnew3 PFnew4   PFnew5 PFnew6   PFnew7 PFnew8

 

“She received an email and came here to get help and reinforcement to not respond, which was the right thing to do. After several days of pages and feedback form other members, it appeared she was going to ignore the hoover. What happened next though is she popped up in here a couple of weeks later with this dramatic, attention-grabbing thread written in ALL CAPS, as if it were breaking news, bragging about 1000% validation for doing everything she was told NOT to do. (…)

But the arrogance and false bravado with which she bragged about it and took offence with certain members and administrators who didn’t “congratulate” her for her supposed “closure” and breaking NC was a big part of the issue. It was only when she received some feedback from seasoned veterans that she didn’t want to hear, that she wanted her thread taken down. But then she started another thread, thanking members for their support in this thread and passive-aggressively complaining about the members who did not express unwavering support. That thread was taken down.” (Smitten Kitten)

Quick recap here, in more realistic terms. The member sought their advice but did not follow it, as, lo and behold, it was, ultimately, her life. Her choice turned out to work better for her than theirs. Instead of being happy that she was in a better place, they were outraged that she dared to break the community rules. Because in the end, it was all about them, not her, though they wouldn’t benefit or suffer whatsoever as a result of her choice. Them or anyone else on this planet. It was such a terrible affront that they never stopped to contemplate that she was, in fact, feeling better about her situation. You’d think they were trying to dissuade this woman from joining ISIS.

If you read through this admin’s entire account of matters, it’s rather bemusing.

“Honestly I am sick of PF becoming a place where the admins are accused of wrongdoing for reacting in an adult way to non-adult situations.” (Peace)

I recall the numerous cases, on this blog alone (not to mention other platforms), of members banned out of the blue, without an explanation, even after requesting one. An adult would at least dignify a supposed friend of a few years with a quick response. Is that so emotionally straining? What about the way they treated Thomas Sheridan, with a hysterical and vicious smear campaign? Is that an adult way to do things?

“While folks may say or do things out of pain, that doesn’t erase the hurtful effects that those words & actions have on their recipients. Yes, we are all human. That doesn’t make it okay to blame a website or friend for one’s internal discomfort.” (Peace)

How about applying not blaming a friend for one’s internal discomfort when thinking of those “hurtful effects” then? Do some people have more of a right to be hurt by others and act on it? How is it so unbearable to be questioned that you have to exclude this person from the communal entourage, cutting them off from everyone else?

“People here declare abuse or judgement or censorship because they aren’t validated 100% for everything they do.” (Peace)

When you react with such effervescence to common actions they take, and declare them potentially unfit for your group of straight-thinkers, excuse people for taking offence. I’d say a mirror is required here. It’s them who don’t validate you through what they choose to do with their lives in the end, and you find that unacceptable. You find them unworthy of speaking to unless they adhere to your exact guidance. Because you couldn’t possibly find valuable insight in someone else’s experience. You’re way above learning about life.

“That’s not how growth works.” (Peace)

Perpetually failing to address concerns or criticism, by blocking people and running away, is not how growth works either. You might as well cover your ears and start humming. Unless of course, you think in your case growth is no longer required, because you’ve already achieved the status of an all-knowing being.

“PF is not an echo chamber to validate and say “yes you’re right” to everyone all the time.” (Peace)

That’s exactly what it is, only in reverse. Admins and mods have an imperious need to be validated by other people living their lives by each letter in their program. If you fail to comply, you are of no use to them anymore.

“If anyone else would like to leave, they are welcome to do so. Please just contact us privately, instead of these dramatic public exits.” (Peace)

Quite a leap from seeing members off, or even their fellow admins and mods, with a rotten tomato fair-well party, accusing them of being disordered. I assume those were not dramatic exists.

“I 1000% agree with what you all have written here and especially in connection with what I have recently been astonished and confused by in witnessing in connection to the arrogance with regard to PF where some members feel that its theirs and theirs alone so, it might be perceived as “anything goes”. The statement of, “US against the admins” reminded me of a line from Lord of the Flies. REALLY????” (Phoenix)

I don’t know about entitlement to speak your mind on a forum of so-called unconditional friends – I’d worry more about the entitlement of someone else’s life being yours to manage, and the idea that not following your directives and contradicting your perspective is offensive. This person realised she didn’t have to do what they dictated. That she could choose for herself and surprisingly, it could have better results.

“On reflection, and simply put, a moment of strait talking and the resultant shock, can save years of unnecessary emotional abuse after taking a step back and properly “digesting” and evaluating. In my view, PF has always been about “the greater good, for the greater number”, never the reverse.” (Phoenix)

Explain to me how this is different than a fundamentalist religious group. Preemptive saving of the congregation. Do not speak to this person even once because he’ll end up convincing you to go back and you will suffer for years. Do not look at that Playboy as you will end up having orgies and getting HIV. These people don’t know where they themselves will be in five years’ time, let alone someone else.

The crux of the matter is their quest is not to help individuals – otherwise they would at least take a moment to be happy for them when their lives improve. Individuals don’t matter; the cult mentality does.

“We thought closing registrations would help calm things down and make it easier to keep the peace without an influx of new trolls, but of course that doesn’t solve the problem of existing trolls who are already here.” (Smitten Kitten)

She is referring to someone who had been there for years, not a “troll”. Regardless of how well you think these people know you, trusting they would never class you as such, surprise.

“Instead, there seems to be some new kind of arrogance that’s developed in some of the membership, where they act like they’re part of an exclusive club now and they act like that gives them the right to complain about us whenever they feel like it.” (Smitten Kitten)

Pure lese-majeste, which is French for an affront to royalty, or authority, by association. Subversion, no less.

Perhaps said members are connecting privately and starting to realise what really goes on. There should be little doubt with regards to what admins think they’re running there. It has nothing to do with friendship or even consideration towards others, let alone helping vulnerable people, and everything to do with control and self-aggrandisement.

 

Internet Cult Posing As A Philosophy Group

People who have recently been exposed to Freedomain Radio podcasts and videos probably accessed them for an in-depth analysis of current events, as the material seems quite popular with the sceptic “community”, as well as the alt-right (the two seeming to fuse nowadays on social media).

Unbeknownst to new listeners, this group is a proper cult aimed at reaching young people at the age of individuation; it used to convince them to separate from their families by cutting all contact, a practice known as “defooing”, which has its dedicated website for members, defoo.org, reminiscent of Scientology or the Exclusive Brethren. Although apparently the advocacy for this has stopped (perhaps for legal reasons) the consequences remain.

The young people lured through discussions about politics, ethics, dogmas and so forth were encouraged to analyse their entire lives in ways which would lead them to think their families were morally corrupt and sabotaging them psychologically, at an age of being prone to rebelling naturally, which exacerbated the effect. They were encouraged to move out of their homes, which led to homelessness in various cases and at least one suicide, leaving behind dumbfounded families who only understood what had happened when discovering their children’s interest in Freedomain Radio.

From the start, members were told it was their duty to “get out there” and “become active” in order to help create a better world, and that occasional support such as the odd donation or product purchase was not enough for them to consider themselves “part of the conversation”.

As former members recounted, the group went way beyond what abuse recovery forums do, as it encouraged them to publicly berate the families trying to bring them back, even reading out private letters and emails for the world to hear, which reaches a deeply disturbing level of arrogance. Instead of the promised liberation, young people found themselves increasingly depersonalised, at least two describing a loss of interest for anything outside of group discussions.

Ad-hoc psychoanalysis was used by the leader to mimic a deep bond and understanding; it was also employed towards “recovering repressed memories”, in order to further antagonise them against their parents or even siblings and friends. They even used to provide those who wished to leave their families with a standard “goodbye letter”, in case they felt they could not formulate their own. Moreover, some of the most dedicated members ended up living together after “defooing”.

The group remains very popular today, continuing to attract those who consider themselves anti-system. Akin to any cult, they reject what their former peers have brought to light and berate them for being “weak enough to return to their morally corrupt families”.

There is plenty material on YouTube and dedicated sites, consisting of testimonies from former members and their loved ones, as well as the input of cult experts, confirming the nature of these dynamics.

 

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

Later edit, in light of the possibility of this post being associated with right-wing propaganda.

Reflecting on the issue, it’s understandable that someone’s (even unwilling) lack of information regarding discrimination of any kind may be frustrating. However, each individual comes into a discussion with only their knowledge and life experience; it should not be presumed that they are 100% aware of all aspects being discussed.

It should also not be presumed that they are at fault for this lack of in-depth knowledge; we all come from different backgrounds and only experience bits of reality in our limited time.Taking an interest in matters which don’t affect a person directly is an exercise in openness, not an affront. If a quest for open communication is met with acrimony (i.e. “you should already know all this”), nothing good comes out of that.

Needless to say, the concept of “privilege”, while containing some truth, is highly debatable and should not be thrown around as a label, towards individuals it might not apply to (as it is nowadays).

 

Whenever too many questions are asked regarding someone’s claim of being oppressed, this seems to be a retort of choice. Of course these questions might have perfectly valid answers. However, enter the new attitude.

I paraphrase: “It is brazen for someone of privilege, such as yourself, to demand explanations from us 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 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 when that 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 by default because people like them have oppressed people like you in the past (or are still doing it). 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 in real time and you respond with “Google it“, apparently.

Reducing someone’s identity and personality to a group they form part of (often through no fault of their own) is a conversation stopper.

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. Keep in mind that the individual you are speaking to might share no other traits with them but immutable ones (race, ethnicity, background etc), and should not be associated with them at a simple glance.

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

If your stance is that it’s a major, common problem and should be addressed, it’s not surprising that they would take an interest, and it makes no sense to be offended by that.

Secondly, here’s another article from the same website (the gift that keeps on giving in terms of feminist propaganda). 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 usually 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.

The person referred to is obviously from a different background since they don’t share the same experience. Asking might just be their attempt to get to know you or what you have experienced. A cold refusal based on the fact that they should’ve “educated themselves” is not conducive to efficient communication, let alone warmth (which is presumed in a relationship).

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, pardon the acidity, turn this person into an emotional bidet and a parrot of one’s attitudes, at all times. That doesn’t work if they truly seek to understand you and share their honest observations regarding a situation you are describing. Your interpretation is not right by default; everyone is fallible.

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 an attractive trait (or easy to live with).

Feelings are not absolutes. They 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.

A partner can acknowledge your feelings and at the same time offer a different interpretation to the situation you are referring to, at least to provide some nuance. Their awareness that you’d automatically take offence to that and your opinion must be considered valid at all times keeps them from communicating openly (and that can’t be a good thing).

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 are really clutching at straws, causing needless negativity in your life, which is when any good friend and especially your partner will tell you that your attitude is detrimental. They do not have to put up with it, especially when you single-handedly admit to the potential 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 analyse and discuss their feelings rationally, with their nuances, limitations and traps. It is not unfair to ask that of them, especially if these conversations are very common.

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 addressed, especially through legal reforms, you have no choice. Seeking solutions involves rationality and objectivity, as in their absence tyrannical, 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 complaining requires emotional labour, but for someone to put up with that on a constant basis, without being able to ask you for details (to actually understand you) doesn’t.

Again – prior knowledge of one’s experience should not be presumed. Demanding unquestioning support from someone on an issue, without the availability to communicate at length why that is necessary, is more likely to alienate them.

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.

Whereas I share their opinion of Donald Trump, buffoonery and vandalism are not efficient ways to make a statement.

 

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!

New Evidence Of Disturbing Extremism On Psychopath Free

(Sorry about the size of the images; I simply copied the text on each one.)

It seems the assumption that behind closed doors PF would become even more deranged in terms of its treatment of members (and cult-ish behaviour in general) was spot on.

Someone who still has access to their account was kind enough to take screen shots and send them; they reveal what seems to be a complete lack of sanity.

First off, as seen below, a member wishing to leave and have their account deleted is immediately labelled an impostor and a narcissist/ sociopath/ psychopath, for merely stating they didn’t need the forum anymore.

pf1pf2

pf1-0

pf1-1

pf2-0

pf2-1

pf2-2

Seriously, what kind of group outright accuses you of being the worst kind of person imaginable, just for saying you want to leave them? What kind of “sense” does that make? It’s obvious that these people are a joke, as a community anyway, and that they always have been.

If that is their methodology in recognising personality disorders, one that they were very keen on peddling to schools and psychology practices, allow me to assume they wouldn’t have been taken seriously.

Such is their conviction of unchallenged expertise that they aspired to spread it all over the world, only a few months ago.

And if you want to see something even sicker, look no further.

According to a group of devout PF members, a woman can be labelled a “narcissistic mother” for dying one day after her daughter, apparently, to … get attention. The posts below refer to the sad recent passing of Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds, both of natural causes, though it is quite clear that Debbie Reynolds’ death was accelerated by her daughter’s, which is not uncommon within families.

The high calibre humanists and sensitive snowflakes on PF somehow ended up seeing a grief-stricken mother as a “narc” who wanted to “steal her daughter’s moment of fame” by none other than dying.

pf3-0

pf3

pf3-2

 

 

I’m not sure further comments are even needed…

A big thank you to the member who sent this, as it is a very revealing “inside glimpse”. And though posting these screen shots here might be perceived as intrusive, we can’t forget that these people are playing with the personal details and even sanity of those they have lured.

Later edit: PF banning members for… liking another author, possibly seen as “competition”

Melanie Tonia Evans, also referred to as MTE for short (on their forum anyway) is an author exploring roughly the same topics as they do, from a personal perspective, apparently introducing too many nuances for their liking, versus the black and white view of human interaction they propose. Although her motivation is at least partially financial – which appears to be par for the course in this field – it seems extreme for PF to take such a strong stance that she can’t even be mentioned. After all, what are they selling, if not made-up solutions to the problems of those in need?

The following quotes are from a thread about her (sorry for posting them so late after they were sent), after having previously referred to one of her books as a resource, in 2011.

 

image4 (1)-0

image4-1

 

 

image4 (1)-2

 

image5-1

 

image6-1

 

image7-1

Three of these posts stand out in my opinion – one claiming not to need other resources but PF, another mandating that members stick to the resources listed on the site and of course, the admin’s power trip display in the end, while banning someone suspected of trolling (I presume) for linking to MTE.

Also notice the language, the venom and contemplate being on the wrong side of PF staff, ever, even through a misunderstanding. Then contemplate having given them your most intimate details beforehand.

 

Feminists, Confused About… Women

It’s fair to say anyone claiming expertise in a field and simultaneously failing to properly define its most basic concepts would fail to be taken seriously.

The feminist movement, for a change, whilst apparently working towards advancing women’s rights, is permanently confused by this seemingly volatile notion of being female.

In fact, many have such an unclear understanding of the term “woman” that they choose to avoid it altogether, using expressions such as “people with vaginas”, “people who menstruate” and “pregnant people”, in situations which only apply to women, which leads to very awkward phrasing.

What is more, it seems identity politics should have an impact on society’s view on women to the extent of denying or ignoring their number on this planet. Yes, apparently, even census is offensive now.

“Five reasons why we need to stop saying that women are half of the world’s population” . I suspect, to some, this incentive might be a response to people pointing out that women, who are lumped in with various groups in the oppression Olympics, cannot be classed as a minority or a marginalised community, since that is utterly ridiculous. The reasons given here, however, are quite different.

I don’t see this “women are half the world” thing as being intersectional, nor do I see it as being correct.

And perhaps most importantly, I don’t see it as a step in the right direction: It marginalizes other people in a heck of a lot of ways, trying to uplift women at the expense of others – specifically people of marginalized gender and sex.

Not cool.

The day when statistics are supposed to be cool instead of accurate is the day O’Brien tells Winston how many fingers to see, though Winston is not blind.

Perhaps everyone should see what they want to see, in terms of objective reality. For instance, if your landlord wants to see another zero added to your rent, though the agreement specifies otherwise, or your doctor wants to see three inches instead of seven in the gaping cut in your arm, so that there would be less to stitch up, that would be completely fine. Who needs counts and measurements after all?

It would be every politician’s dream on this planet to convince the masses that numbers don’t matter. Unemployment, war massacres casualties, people living below the poverty line, you name it.

It didn’t occur to me until I began my gender transition, living now as a genderqueer trans guy, that the phrase started to rub me the wrong way – because it erased transgender people like me, for starters.

Every category has its own statistics and is free use them to make a point, as long as they are factual and not made up.

If we want to make a case for women’s equality around the world, we need to do it in a way that doesn’t erase or harm people of other genders and identities.

Aside from straight white men, I presume, as in every discussion about inequality there has to be a “privileged” group interested in maintaining it. A group which equality is sought with.

It’s time we did away with this talking point once and for all. Because as you’ll see, it’s not doing women – or anyone else, for that matter – any favors. Here are five things to consider the next time you’re thinking of spouting off the “women are half the world” argument.

Of course; not only is it justified to decide what others should and should not talk about, but it is completely justifiable for neutral facts to be censored through peer pressure.

Let’s be real: This phrase isn’t logically correct. When we’re saying that women are half the world, what we’re actually saying is that roughly half the world is assigned female at birth.

We aren’t talking about gender (and therefore, women) at all. We’re talking about sex, and assuming that everyone assigned female at birth must identify as a woman.

This is totally cisnormative – reinforcing the assumption that being cisgender is the default, and centering the experiences of cisgender people, effectively erasing transgender people – and makes this phrase really problematic.

Sure, let’s be so real that we deny the implications of associating the word “woman” with the correct anatomy; it’s not that boys and girls/ men and women have different needs in terms of, let’s say, medical assistance, to begin with. In a medical facility, like it or not, you will be treated as your sex, not your self-appointed gender. Let’s burden the medical system with terms such as pregnant men or women with testicular cancer. Let’s also burden the legal system with notions such as men who are vaginally raped or a biological mother claiming the legal status of the baby’s father, and vice-versa. Because it’s totally not unusual for your sperm-producing mother to impregnate your uterus-possessing father. That must just happen every day, everywhere, as to warrant a generalised policy.

Completely disregarding these differences leads to this dangerous type of situation, when a trans-female MMA fighter, possessing male physical abilities, was allowed to fight actual females. Anyone seeing an average looking guy punching and kicking a woman in the street would be outraged; however, in this context, one has to pretend there is a difference in terms of the major discrepancy of force.

Why are cisgender women the only women that count in this statistic?

They are not. All women are given the same type of assistance and opportunities since they are born (varying from country to country of course, and in some countries those are minimal; it also varies according to class). But a woman remains a woman regardless. One cannot say those who later identify as a different gender are being discriminated against since birth and are thus oppressed by their “gender assignment”. Their decision to transition has nothing to do with the medical system; or with the system in general; it is theirs and theirs alone.

And while trans women may not be a huge percentage of the population, your movement is not for women if it doesn’t explicitly and intentionally include all women.

What is a woman though, if we were to compile progressive standards into a brand new definition? Well, it would have to sound like this.

A woman is a person born female or male, cisgender or transgender, displaying female or male characteristics, holding this status permanently or temporarily, according to self-identification.

And the same could be said for men. Who are these people representing then?

Let’s see here. Women are half the world. So men must make up the other half of the world. That’s 100%. So presumably, this includes everyone! Right?

No, it really doesn’t.

Biologically and legally, in most regards except fancy terminology, YES.

Let me put it this way: you will not be drafted even if you cut your hair short and call yourself a man, if you are not one. And you will not be contacted for a prostate exam when the appropriate age comes, if you are a female “identifying as gender fluid”, or for a breast exam, if you “identify as androgynous” when you’re actually a guy.

Likewise, if you are, let’s say, “trigender”, you will not be given three different legal names to switch between on a whim – because you’re actually just one person.

Anytime we normalize a phrase that says there are only two genders, we’re erasing anyone and everyone who identifies differently.

People can call themselves what they like, but when it comes to practical implications, the environment they live in must be considered, as well as  their well-being. For instance, I can call myself a driver, but that won’t make the police treat me as one if I don’t have a licence. I could identify as elderly (yes, there is something called… trans-age, or something like that), but that won’t make me eligible for a pension. As a matter of fact, I can even identify as a dog and wear one of those fake tails, like the Otherkin, but that won’t mean I’ll be put into a van and taken to the kennel if I’m seen wandering the streets by myself.

Honestly, when I identified as a cisgender woman, I didn’t notice these issues, and the phrase felt empowering – it felt radical to claim our collective power as women!

There is no we and no collective power. If there were, human rights abuses against women in backward countries would not exist.

This mentality – that we are born female or male and there’s no in-between – is actually the source of a great deal of oppression and pain for intersex people.

Is it really, or could it be they are aware they were simply born with a biological abnormality, which says nothing about them as people and the lives they can have?

The reality is that biological sex also exists on a spectrum

No, it doesn’t. An abnormality does in no way define the norm; that is like saying that because some people are born without an arm or a leg, the number of limbs is also on a spectrum.

I really despise the underlying message of “women are half the population” because it implicitly communicates to me that because my community isn’t as large, the fight for transgender rights is somehow less of a priority or less significant.

Typical SJW infighting, jealousy and resentment, which shows that the notion of “oppression Olympics” is not at all exaggerated.

And finally, the cherry on the cake.

Here’s the thing: It’s important that when we build our movements, we create language that reflects our values. And if you take anything away from this article, it’s that we must be intentional about our words – because our words mean something.

We can do better than a lousy 50/50 percentage that lacks nuance. We can do better than a so-called “statistic” that erases people of marginalized gender and sex.

Here’s an idea, taken straight from a former communist regime. Not only did they ignore statistics; they used to make them up and present them to the population as real.

Because those made-up statistics reflected their values.

They wanted to live in a prosperous country, so they would simply call it that, even though the population was almost starving. They aimed for a certain agricultural production every season, so when the results did not match, they would simply change the numbers, which would make everyone feel better (well, except for the starving people, but hey, that was another matter).

So remember, kids: reality is in the eye of… well, anyone really.

 

 

 

 

Social Justice: How To Brainwash Your Kids Into Insurgency

Hush little baby, don’t you cry,
Just throw a rock at a passer-by;
Take that Batman hat off your head,
Here’s a balaclava to wear instead;
And when you’re bored with that toy gun,
Momma’s gonna buy you a real one;
A few Molotovs are always tops,
You can just fling them back at cops,
And if your great plans happen to fail,
A Swiss knife to dig yourself out of jail.

 

No, this commentary is not based on a documentary about Chairman Mao’s young supporters or the Leninist period. It is based on enthusiastic advice given to parents of white children by people who live in a democratic, developed country, namely the USA, in our current year.

Forget the “racially unaware uncle” at the Thanksgiving table (though fears of this particular type have generated so much material over the last few days, with feminists handing out emotional methods of coping with opinionated relatives). Move straight to your children; after all, indoctrinating them about “privilege” and “oppression” will be so much easier.

You can start by enthusiastically presenting violent, quasi-terrorist groups as role models.

That advice involves, among other things, listing Black Lives Matter as an inspirational movement, which can be a great source of education for them. Yes, the people who lute and vandalise their own cities, calling for the death of police officers (even while provided security by them in real-time) and carrying out racially motivated assaults on random strangers. Apparently, these are the people youth should admire and actively support. Or even emulate, as I understand it.

And remember: if your child is not interested in this type of activism, just insist some more. It’s not like this would ever be classed as indoctrination and setting them up to join the ranks of rioters, before they can properly tie their shoelaces.

It’s not like that’s what ISIS types do to their young generations, drumming ideological justifications for indiscriminate violence against strangers into their heads since they start understanding spoken language.

Even if conversations don’t go quite as you planned, make sure to keep talking to your kids.

They may not understand everything right now, but as they get older, they will slowly get it.

Also, you can convince your children that their president is a monster and the responsibility is theirs to change the country in the future.

In this article titled “How to talk to your kids about Donald Trump’s win“, the author envisages a grim picture of frightened, disenfranchised children with no hope for tomorrow.

And that’s the thing: Kids will be sad. And scared. And confused. And rightly so. (…)We can let them share their fears, and soothe them, but we also need to understand that this should not be theirs alone to carry. They should not have to bear the burden of this day as adults do.

Aside from the fact that this is dramatically presented as a natural disaster or war situation, one can’t help but wonder why those kids would be so scared in the first place; surely they didn’t wake up like that the morning after the election.

If this fear is real, it must have come after a long time of incessant fear-mongering from the adults around them, presenting this neutral situation (a change in political leadership), which kids otherwise might not have cared about at all, as the end of the world.

Of course, then come the words of encouragement and comfort. Not consisting of, let’s say, reassurance that life is very unlikely to change substantially and it will follow its course. Although mentions of that possibility are made, the author writes this below:

We can explain that we will continue to write and create. We will continue to advocate for what we believe in. We will march and protest and rally.

We can tell them we know that so much of what we are up against is systemic, and that we’re not going to be able to just usher in a hopeful new way of being unless we proactively tear down these systems we’re up against. (…)

And once we do this, then we can begin to rebuild.

Nothing to see here; just the planning of a socialist revolution in which kids are invited to partake, at least psychologically. Comforting indeed! Oh wait…

We can liberate our children with our vision for the next generation. “I wanted it to be my generation,” we can tell them. “But now, I can work towards making sure it is yours who makes this change.”

This of course does not take into account the possibility that said generation could have a completely different vision for the future. I don’t suppose that idea can ever penetrate a progressive skull – that once they are able to think for themselves, their kids might actually not share that political persuasion. They’re already working towards making sure that never happens.

This is a dark, dark time. But we need to hold our children close. We need to let them be children. We need to empower them. And we need to take a deep breath, regroup, and show them with our actions that we are continuing the crucial activism work that has never been more important than it is right now.

It’s almost as if kids had these expectations of activism, as opposed to the adults around them. As if they couldn’t just be left alone to enjoy life.

So there you have it. Off with the baseball cap, kid; on with the balaclava. You were born a revolutionary.