Tag Archives: bullying

Animal Rights Fanatics Seem To Be Sociopathic

(I know I’m using very strong language here but I’m fed up with this trend of getting thousands of coffee break activists to harass a stranger – in this case, half a million of them, including celebrities with a large platform, whom I lost all respect for after they chose to participate in this mass bullying. This type of targeting, virtually overnight, can very well lead some people to suicide.)

At the moment, the US is in uproar about an incident involving a gorilla being shot at a zoo, after a child fell into its enclosure and was dragged by it through the water, being in extreme danger the whole time. Regardless of the intentions said gorilla had, it was a very strong, unpredictable animal, capable of killing or seriously injuring the child. The zoo’s management explained very logically and people with a long expertise in the behaviour of these animals backed up the decision that had to be made instantly. A sad decision, but unavoidable.

As expected, fanatics worked themselves into a frenzy and have now started a petition for the child’s family to be investigated, out of feigned concern for his safety at home. They want the state to get involved and hold the parents accountable. For what it’s worth, it was an accident, FFS – no one can determine a single aspect of that child’s life based on that. He sneaked away and fell. It is very clear to anyone with two functioning neurons that this lot is not concerned with the child’s life – and wasn’t to begin with. They want revenge in the form of human suffering.

The unadulterated pieces of scum behind this petition will not rest until they  damage lives; they want their witch hunt, their pound of flesh to place on the altar of a dead animal. You see, instead of the barbarism of sacrificing animals to God, as in Biblical times, we, the progressive lot, are now idolising carcasses and sacrificing people to them. We dedicate memorials and art pieces to creatures which would literally urinate on them (that would be incredibly funny to watch).

The sanctimoniousness, the hysteria is only in these people’s heads; it’s self-congratulatory and nothing more.

The number of people signing this, some of them probably without much thought, in order to align themselves with the latest trend on social media, is indeed alarming. The text you can see there was much briefer originally and has now been edited in order to pretend they are not encouraging the hoards to harass that family – although said harassment did take place, at the prompting of these idiots. Such hypocrisy is vomit inducing; they are taking legal precautions now, whilst to start with they encouraged a mob outrage.

I read the petition as they first wrote it, and it can still be seen below the diluted, half-assed disclaimer that it only seeks to help – including the parents, to make sure they have access to resources and support in their family life. Its only – unveiled – goal initially was revenge and it was going for them like a bulldog in attack mode. That cannot be taken back, whatever sweetened variation of it they present now. It’s ludicrous to claim good intentions towards people you caused to be harassed and threatened with murder.

I’m not saying the gorilla’s death is not regrettable – but FFS, have some common sense. Who are they doing all this for? Is the gorilla watching from gorilla heaven? Is there any point? How well did they know this animal, as to be heartbroken by its death?

This is solely a manifestation of some people’s festering hatred of their own species, of their hysteria and desire to persecute others. It is reminiscent of medieval or political trials, where little logic or compassion was employed and the only standard to judge others by was the fanatical dedication to a cause, be it religion, fascism or communism.

 

Far from disliking animals and from rejecting the hypothesis that they are spiritual in some form, I can’t help noticing the current trend of animal worship and loathing of humans, common not only to “save the planet from us” fanatics but to people from all walks of life. Somehow, instead of rejecting the system we live under, they have started rejecting human nature altogether, although they know that they themselves are not monsters. Over the last few years this type of rhetoric has become very tiresome, if not worrying.

There is an actual debate whether human lives matter more than animal lives.

Here’s my take on some of the memes encountered out there.

Animals don’t lie. Because they can’t talk. Honesty is not something you value very much in your fellow humans, let’s face it.

Animals don’t disappoint you. Except sometimes, when they behave so much like animals (aggressively) that you have to neuter them or put them down mercifully, for not adapting to the rigours of human society.

Animals don’t tear your heart to bits. They might tear off smaller parts though, depending on their strength and their mood that moment. After all, they are unpredictable, as well as we claim to understand them. Certain dog breeds are famous for attacking their owners out of the blue, after spending a few happy years inside their homes.

Animals understand you better than humans. They listen to you. No, fuckwit. They just stand there and gawk at you because you’ve probably locked the door, despite the fact that they can’t bear your winging voice. They have a vested interest in remaining there; they depend on you for sustenance. And more than likely, they can’t twig 90% of what you’re saying anyway.

The animals these fuckwits (I’m only referring to those who claim animals should be prioritised over people) enjoy the company of so much have been domesticated by their fellow humans for hundreds or thousands of years. That is how they warmed up to humans in the first place and imitate human behaviour to some extent.

Try finding that connection with feral animals in the jungle, untouched by morally corrupt human hands. Good luck.

Even the animals which are uncommonly held as pets (reptiles, spiders etc) are also in the homes of these fuckwits because they’ve been studied by humans and declared safe to have around. You wouldn’t just grab one from the wild and put it next to your pillow.

The very fact that the fuckwits can have pets is a result of others having tried it before, repeatedly, since the beginnings of civilisation. So give me a break. Please.

May I also add that the fuckwits proliferate on how awful and stupid people are on their laptops or phones, which humans invented, from the comfort of their homes, which humans built.

Later edit

Some of the few articles calling this internet mob justice phenomenon for what it is are heavily trolled – they simply could not settle for less; every dissenting voice has to be stifled.

It turns out they flooded the mother’s workplace with threats and demands and might stage a protest outside. They want her out of work as well. And all this, remember – because they are so worried about the welfare of her child.

There is no end in sight to this just now (except to this so-called civilised society which is anything but). People have become cannibals. Or some, I should say.

Yet another edit

Thankfully, common sense prevailed and the petitioning hobbyist who started the witch hunt did not get her pound of flesh.

Those who carried out the investigation had more brains and decency than the frothing hordes and no human lives or jobs were lost.

The hordes had to pack the popcorn and go home; there was no hanging to watch.

 

 

Stranger Shaming – The Next Level Of Social Degradation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will edit sometime to add relevant examples.

The Cult Of The Sanitary Bin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Often, menstruation is equated with femininity and womanhood.

“Often?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But we need to be doing more. Way more.

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

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

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

 

Quotas In Art – The New Insanity

Recently, uproar was caused by the fact that a TV series killed off a lesbian character , followed by another sudden fictitious demise, as the article mentions. Apparently, enough people can find the time and energy to consider the importance of a TV character dying to make this international news, at least on the internet.

Words fail me. For a few good reasons.

  1. When art is governed by the politics of the day, in any way, shape or form, it becomes political propaganda.

There was a time when the distinction between art and propaganda was very clear, at least to nations which had suffered the plague of socialism, of nauseating state-lauding works, including common entertainment, all peppered with the day’s indoctrination. Part of the youth now, especially in countries where art has been free of boundaries for decades or centuries, seems unable to see the direction the west is taking. There are sky-scraping road signs reading “do.not.go.this.way”.

 

This means creativity is completely strangled by PC standards: certain social categories have to be cast as heroes and other categories as villains; a certain narrative must be adhered to; certain feelings have to be stirred up in readers.

It all started with minority quotas in education and employment, going to ridiculous lengths and ensuring the highest level of awkwardness, as well as decreased efficiency, as selection should be based on aptitudes or merits and not on irrelevant criteria such as race or sex.

But trying to enforce actual quotas and politically correct narratives  in the fictional sphere, so the world of pink unicorns is complete with a fantasy land, beats the imagination of any reasonable person.

Art is the last bastion of freedom a community has; it’s inseparable from the concept of expressing ideas without any constraint. Trying to stifle and subjugate creative minds, to direct their pathos into the “desired direction” ends up dehumanising the whole of society, when the last of what was meant to be pure and genuine, transcendental, is suddenly controlled.Who in the world is comfortable with the idea of controlling art in a supposedly free country? This is what the Nazis did. This is the hallmark of totalitarian regimes; as soon as they seize power they start burning anything they deem subversive or unpleasant.

Obviously, this is only a television series and anyone who is aware of the nature of television knows it is not meant to get people thinking, or is not innocent entertainment  in the slightest. However, I suspect this is only the beginning. How long will it be before writers are challenged by fuming crowds regarding the characters they choose and the fate those characters have?

2. Isn’t art supposed to/ at least allowed to mimic real life?

In real life, anyone can die, and minority status does not grant immortality. One vocal protester I believe said  “the LGBT community deserves better”. Again, as if there were some obligation of moral restitution everyone outside the LGBT community shared, some burden of conscience, making anything connected to that community – even fictional characters – untouchable.

 

3. Maybe, just maybe, we’re spending so much time in front of screens that we’re starting to take fiction too seriously.

Breaking away from reality has become a pastime in itself; it shows how bleak reality has become at times, I guess.The whole saga surrounding “gamers” shows just how deep into public life this escapism has reached; gaming is the new football, basically. It surprises me to a great degree.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not against video games or any other entertaining activity of this type; after all, reading and writing fiction (especially writing) are forms of stepping into a different world. Any writer can tell you that they’re not making characters up; they’re simply introducing them to other people. 🙂 But I’m surely not expecting another person to take my characters as seriously as I take them and have the same level of emotional attachment. Of course, when it comes to video games the escape is extremely limited in terms of possibilities; it’s robotic and totally artificial, eliminating imagination from the process.

Getting emotional to the point of protest when a character is killed in a TV series (for practical reasons) seems like too much, especially considering the calculations behind television productions in general.

4. Art is not a bespoke product (unless there is an agreement with the artist beforehand). I know money is involved in the equation… But still.

Of course, I seem to be contradicting myself, as I see TV productions as motivated by anything else but the love of creation. Yet, as mentioned above, I fear for the day that this will be applied to books as well.

Back in the day, there used to be quiet fan fiction to alter the unpleasant ending of a book, for one’s eyes only. There was no chance of actually being able to communicate to whoever had written it (produced a show/ fill in the blank) that you were unhappy with the turn of events and wanted them changed. That was unheard of. In a very good way, I dare think.

Now, it seems the public is treating whatever it views with an acute sense of entitlement, as they would treat a pack of bubblegum or a can of soda.

Does this make me happy? Does this offend me? Does this trigger me? Is this the perfect product I expected? No? Then by all means, I will complain!

It’s fair enough applying that to consumables, but please, leave anything that involves originality and creativity out of it. Especially when you tyrannically decree that the choice someone makes regarding a character is immoral. It is no longer a matter of “I didn’t like it”, it’s a matter of “you screwed up; we deserve better”.

I’ll tell you what you deserve. You deserve nothing. Someone who has such a mutilated understanding of the creative act that they think they can bully others into submission is incredibly arrogant. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it/ read it.

Rant over!

 

SJW Rhetoric -Noises From The Bush

Not necessarily human noises. We wouldn’t want to  risk discriminating against any terriers, seals or turkeys, just in case the audience is more diverse.

On a more serious note than feminist theatre, demonstrating can involve a series of elements; however, during SJW manifestations, impromptu or well organised, one often comes across the following:

  • Shrieking;
  • Booing;
  • Other loud inarticulate noises designed to prevent a speaker from actually speaking;
  • Shouting threats or swearing loudly to disrupt an event;
  • Asking other speakers to shut up, repeatedly;
  • Throwing things at people;
  • Taking things from people, especially placards, and smashing them to pieces;
  • Threatening to remove people from their midst by force;
  • Assaulting people;
  • Chanting mindlessly, to cover up someone else’s voice;
  • Smearing themselves with paint;
  • Stripping and being obscene.

A few common facial expressions and attitudes you can find in a crowd of hyped-up social justice warriors:

 

SJW facial expressions-page-0

 

The best description of these individuals and their sad political fate was given by Yuri Bezmenov in the 80’s, this being just one amazingly accurate fragment. Basically, they are used as amplifiers for the current forms of misanthropy, swapping one type of bigotry for another, in order to destabilise a country. Once  they have served their purpose, that inebriating power/ attention will be pulled from under their feet. The hegemony of their mindlessness will be short lived, even though now it seems they can mould the world with impunity.

The expression “regressive left”, I suppose, Is based on the fact that once dialogue is suppressed in a society, no innovation can occur, thus no progress, causing a phase of stagnation, inevitably followed by regression. This can be noticed as the ultimate fate of any communist country – the initial enthusiasm of “egalitarianism”  is replaced by a bleak existence in lead-coloured cities, in deprivation, frustration and constant fear.

However, one can also (quite often) notice the lack of an eloquent discourse on their part. Unless screeching and booing to the point of inducing migraines is a good way to get a point across.

Take this famous video for instance, of Milo Yiannopoulos  patiently attempting to give a talk at Rutgers University, being interrupted dozens of times, with a large segment of the allocated time spent listening to the ear-piercing noises made by some participants (instead of, let’s say, engaging him in a dialogue, as intended). At some point, a couple of women stood up and coloured their faces with red paint, a feminist gesture, the paint symbolising menstrual blood (which defines women to the extent that any bodily fluid defines men). The whole scene was evocative of a tribal quarrel in some remote part of Papua New Guinea. It seems some leftists aren’t content with mediaeval blasphemy-type laws and witch hunts – they want to drag us right back into the bush.

For a demonstration of how actual conversations with them tend to go, here is an example  and a second one; YouTube is full of these recordings. Of course, it can be argued that these are small samples from a very wide community of like-minded idealists and are not representative; however, those who have interacted with them on multiple occasions know the score. It makes sense for them to not be able to provide logical arguments for illogical points of view; mocking and bullying is all they have left.

The surprising aspect – besides the lack of productivity of said methods – is that these people can actually read and write. One would think that any ideas put forward by their opponents can be combated very efficiently through a compelling analysis.

 

 

Silver Spoon Nastiness

Pointless nastiness towards strangers is otherworldly for most people whose heads are properly screwed on. Whilst within relationships of some sort one might engage in it to settle scores, with no ax to grind it’s quite bizarre.

To give an example (which sounds like  a caricature but is real), years ago, when I was part of the cleaning team servicing the headquarters of an oil company, I had a very odd – almost amusing – experience with a social ladder climber; one of their executives. This woman, from her cosy position, high salary and what not, would take the time to complain almost daily, seeking to get us (minimum wage workers) into as much shit as possible. She would take note of every imperfection and even set traps for us to make mistakes. In one of their boardrooms, she drew attention to the fact that from a different angle, with the sunlight hitting the table differently, she could (barely) notice a stain on it. Another time – it amazes me she never damaged her spine – she contorted her back to look under the urn, which was attached to the wall, to notice a few minuscule coffee stains. This nasty piece of work didn’t even feel ridiculous being the only one in the building to constantly moan. This went on for months. She probably still does it now, if she still works there.

It didn’t matter to her that she could get someone fired over her petty grievances. Some financially secure people have that particularity of not understanding the effects of their actions on the lives of others. It’s me, me, me, all the way.

Snob-page-0

A simple look at the monotonous landscape of today’s most famous social justice warriors shows they generally have an economically privileged background. Not privileged in every sense, obviously – the best privilege in the world is having someone explain to you, as you grow up, how the world really works, so you don’t end up thinking you’re saving it by cross-dressing.  In fact, I’ve noticed a few other similarities:

  • They are mostly women;
  • They are mostly young;
  • They are attendants or former attendants of posh schools and universities, preferably with degrees in gender studies;
  • They suffer from some mutation of Marxism.

The typical modus operandi  of these packs groups  is going after someone’s reputation for a controversial statement, as inconsequential as it may be, preferably by descending en masse on their workplace – preferably online, as they don’t have to leave their comfort zone and everything remains impersonal enough; they can feel like victorious knights without ever leaving their armchairs. A lot of them  don’t even use their own words, but only “like” or “support” such actions. I click, therefore I am.

Listing the cases of them damaging careers (without remorse) would amount to an archive as thick as an old phone book. They target anyone, from students  with a different view to people who have taken unprecedented steps in science. Their callousness, accurately described on this blog with plenty despicable details, can hardly be associated with modern day principles and implicitly with human rights. It’s a tribunal held inside an asylum; it’s anti-bullying activists bullying people until they crack. The fact that they don’t realise the paradox means their intelligence is below sea level.

The luxury of mainly operating with abstractions in one’s everyday life means said everyday life is not too challenging in its basic aspects; one can become disconnected with reality in the raw form others experience it – particularly with online activism, which allows people to harm others from a distance, based on ideological disputes. If they were to consider the practical implications of their actions (people going on welfare, not finding new jobs, not making their mortgages and having to give up their homes, their families’ level of comfort decreasing overnight, their mental health declining etc) they might be more empathetic – or some might, anyway.

Yet being mind slaves to abstract concepts and labels, they seem all too detached, or at least confused. Here you can read an article about how acceptable it is to reveal people’s identities online as a bullying tactic, written for a feminist readership, presumably. It excuses doxxing… as an equitable answer to the horrible act of being doxxed. Or threatened (even when the threat is hardly plausible, as previous examples demonstrate). A few comments are somewhat out of this world in terms of not grasping the concept of a person’s life being severely affected by another’s ego and “principles”.

Compared to their ways, even Satanism is superior in terms of morality. No, seriously.

“11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.”

Unlike satanists, who at least employ some prudence, these people go straight for the jugular; they move to the ”destroy” phase straight away. Even blatant, shameless lying is employed as a tactic to stand up for morality, for instance by falsely claiming copyright violations to get completely original videos taken down by YouTube because of political views.

When even the church of Satan shows more kindness to other human beings than social justice warriors, you know something is seriously wrong.

Reductionism, Applied To Human Beings

Reductionism is “the practice of simplifying a complex idea, issue, condition, or the like,especially to the point of minimizing, obscuring, or distorting it.” (Source)

This post is a bid to analyse a few of the reasons why people needlessly preserve their contempt for each other over long periods of time (even years or decades). It also seeks to explain why some develop this contempt in the first place.

Akin to ideas, people can end up being reduced (only in someone else’s perception) to the one aspect which has stood out the most about them, in a subjective manner.

A good example is “I hate/ dislike/ avoid this person because of something they said.” This basically reduces an individual to a few words uttered at one point in time (probably triggering to those who take offence).
A few useful questions when trying to reevaluate one’s attitude towards such antipathies:

• -How long ago was this? Is it possible for them to have changed their mind?
• -Were they intoxicated or going through a difficult time (not thinking clearly)?
• -Were they perhaps joking?
• -Were they saying it out of ignorance and might change their minds if exposed to more information?
• -Were they saying it due to a creed which influences their general view of the world?
• -Do they seem decent in general, aside from this one objectionable remark? How would I get on with this person if they hadn’t said this?
• -Is this something they only said once or is it definitely their opinion?
• -Is it really something I can never, ever get over?

Unfortunately, the very popular SJW trend seems to be based on reductionism, urging or coercing people through emotional blackmail to embrace limited views about others in order to side with the “virtuous”. Not only do they want those who disagree with them disapproved of and ostracised over an opinion; they want them bankrupted “in the name of diversity”.

To reiterate the fact that conflicting views are not the end of the world, there are a few more points to consider.

1. Peer pressure

People feel pressured today to issue an opinion regarding matters they are not familiar enough with. On social media, you just might be persecuting some poor fucker for a “like” button they clicked on or a few random words written in order to not seem uninformed, compared to their many peers, some of them equally ignorant yet claiming they are passionate about their chosen subject. Everyone seems to be involved in a campaign nowadays – or more – compared to a few years ago, when activism was reserved for those who could bother their asses with it, scorned by cynics, who were comfortable enough to just live their lives.

Everything is different now. One is made to feel guilty for not taking a stand, for not signing and sharing petitions, as if they were more than a handy database for authoritarian types (who are in power or might be) to use down the line, amounting to comprehensive lists of dissenters’ names. Whilst communist states had to use informants to compile such lists, people now sign their names and hand them over willingly.

To some it sounds better to class themselves as activists for so-and-so, especially when siding with trendy causes. Perhaps the do it as an investment – if something is achieved with all the noise, they can proudly say they were part of the movement. If not, they can move on to the next cause and hope for the best.

2. Exploitation by the media

Quoting people out of context is a technique of choice for those who simply want to agitate; random bite-size quotes in general, when adjoined, seem to paint a larger picture, which is not necessarily accurate.

How many of us have laughed at compilations of random people in the street being caught off guard with a question and recorded for the world to marvel at their level of stupidity? Whilst I admit some seemed a bit uninterested in history or current affairs, their failure is momentary and very limited. One knows nothing about them aside from the fact that they didn’t answer something correctly, were tricked into signing a false (ridiculous) petition etc. Is the consecration of a silly moment in order to demonstrate the general stupidity of a nation/ group really fair? To me it obviously isn’t.

Also, it might be conditioning us to reduce others to the smallest stupid things they might say. A memory fail, lack of paying attention, genuinely not knowing etc – these are not crimes. General ridicule is not warranted. One is not doing the world a service by ”exposing” the amount of knowledge or interest in important issues; instead, they’re likely to stigmatise the people they record and cause real trouble in their lives through this shaming.

Also, the media often peppers a biased report with a few opinions given by ordinary people in the street, carefully selected, of course. They think they can convince a whole country to adopt a “majority opinion” based on the words of four or five people and a poll which may or may not be true (no one can ever verify the accuracy of polls; trusting them is basically blind faith). There must be some well-studied technique behind the success of such reports, some boxes it ticks in people’s minds in order to persuade them.

3. Discrimination and labels

Prejudice breeds prejudice, unless someone puts an end to this chain by simply saying they’re willing to accept a different view.

All types of genuine discrimination are based on reducing a category of people to sketchy stereotypes, ignoring the individuality of everyone comprising it; the infinity of possibilities within each person.

The same applies to self-identified but not homogeneous categories based on political preference, religion, ideology in general, and by extrapolation, to any number of people with a common trait. Assumptions are automatically made about them, according to random experiences one has had with a few of them, even very few.

Whatever a person adheres to in life, they are more than a label and should be treated as such. However, in our days of interacting quickly with as many people as possible, labels have become the way we relate to each other, as it’s difficult to get to know everyone we communicate with.

To conclude, it’s useful noting that people are more than:

• -Something they once did (extreme deeds such cold-blooded murder excluded);
• -Something they once said (whatever it was);
• -Their degree or lack thereof;
• -What they do for a living;
• -The amount of information they possess (which can always change);
• -How they see the world at the moment or how they have in the past;
• -Any crisis they went through or are going through (breakdowns, addictions, suicide attempts, jail time etc.);
• -Any successes or failures they’ve had;
• -Their social circle, past or present; how popular they are;
• -Their health, physical and mental, past or present;
• -Their financial situation and assets;

Etc. The list is a very long one, I’m sure.

 

Learning To Tell The Difference

Much of the acrimony in society today – and always – has to do with the oversimplification of political debates, turning many who would otherwise mind their own lives into rabid enemies, needlessly clashing, verbally and sometimes even physically, as a ripple generated by ideas people in high places have thrown at them. As expected, those in charge, who orchestrate this violent division, remain untouched by its effects.

   This post, which is the first of many of the same type, is based on the mass inability to tell the difference between those who draft up hate speech legislation and those the legislation claims to protect/ speak for.

The ridiculous level of offence taking we currently face (on issues such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation  and identity politics in general) seems deliberately organised in order to create strong conflicts within society (who benefits and why is subject to anyone’s speculation). One is egged on to choose sides between the left and the right, the right defending free speech and objectivity, while the left claims to seek the protection of those who appear vulnerable – which is a valid point, as vulnerability does exist; however, many compellingly argue that leftist campaigns are themselves the reason why extremism is oozing into the mainstream.

In multicultural societies, people might  adapt to each other naturally to a greater degree if it weren’t for the constant hyping of their racial and cultural differences; this hyping had been a staple of the far right until recently, when the left took over, to do a much better job due to their wider platform and influence. I sincerely believe most people would not give a shit about race if society at large just stopped bringing it up every two seconds, inventing a new micro-aggression per week.

Instead of giving everyone a voice, the left stifles the opinions of those who do not want to be defended or represented through censorship; these voices are seldom heard, facing bullying and threats on a frequent basis. There’s nothing political zealots (and cults) hate more than one of their own who does not sing in tune with the rest of the choir. Thus we end up with an awkward way of relating to each other, always wary of causing offence, and these people are caught in the middle, disagreeing with the agenda yet being treated as if they were themselves part of it. They are treated as hypersensitive, entitled barrels of gunpowder waiting to be lit up any second, just because others started political agendas in their name.

And of course, hard-line nationalists and race puritans are milking this with both hands, making more proselytes by the day, failing to see that we are being manipulated into hating each other. It works like this. First, the left picks a ridiculous trifle to make a fuss over, such as a common term which might be suggestive in terms of race, gender etc. Then the far right reacts with outrage, winning more people over, as they are shocked and tired of the carry on.Then the minority in question starts responding to the far right, with the backing of the media. Then society at large starts debating this initial hot air and becomes divided, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy for the left, concluding that “the issue does matter”.

Undoubtedly, this conflict does not unfold without individual victims.

First, this fist-in-the mouth attitude the left has, of provoking them and not letting them respond, will infuriate some to the point of turning them into hooligans. They will make victims out of innocent people, targeting them randomly with violence at bus stops, on back alleys and wherever convenient, based on easily identifiable traits such as skin colour, dress style, foreign language or accent. Disenfranchised and aggravated by their peer group rhetoric, they will get angrier with every perceived micro-aggression and at some point see themselves against a homogeneous group of adversaries, attacking them blindly, regardless of their age, behaviour or vulnerability. These Katie Hopkins types boosted by testosterone and physical strength, once over that line of humaneness, are capable of anything.

Secondly but just as tragically, innocent people will be persecuted with fines, jail time or character assassination for a few words, either explicit or ambiguous, which will reverberate over their families, affecting many lives, all sacrificed on the altar of the left’s “tolerant” world view. The fact that some don’t understand how unreasonable that is- not to mention typical of totalitarian systems – is truly frightening. The same people who congregate in their hundreds of thousands to support campaigns for the liberation of political dissidents in non-democratic countries will gladly  see someone rot in jail in their hometowns, for uttering half a sentence.

Thirdly, and very alarmingly, organised neo-Nazis are seeing their ranks inflate across Europe, like smelly water rising in a drain; at some point it will flood the streets and the whole place will stink. Unlike hooligans the community dislikes, shouting abuse on the bus on the way back from the pub, these people write manifestos and organise demonstrations to prove their popular support. Whilst a decade ago they were inches short of a joke in most countries, it’s impossible to ignore them nowadays; there are so many groups with an expanding platform. Unfortunately, most people feel the need to run towards a group for protection and representation; when infuriated with the left, instead of abandoning the political scene altogether, they flee straight into the arms of these characters.

In any mass conflict, in today’s world anyway, opposing sides do not evolve organically, being nudged and prodded and thrown red herrings until they end up taking their anger against their peers – other confused and manipulated people.

 

 

Vegan Bullying Intoxication

In recent years, there has been an explosion of aggressive vegan propaganda, particularly on YouTube, where self-proclaimed diet gurus or we-can-save-the-planet types raise veganism to the level of a new religion. Some are so militant you might want to show kindness to the next Jehovah’s Witness knocking on your door, by comparison. Even while alluding you might go to hell, at least they don’t plan on putting a gun to your head, like this lovely woman here.

A strange phenomenon of our time, it seems the general understanding of hate speech is only designed to protect minorities. When the majority is targeted (meat eaters or omnivores in this case), even advocating mass murder is permitted. Though in some countries such innovators might be placed on anti-psychotics.

Besides straightforward preaching, what a lot of them do is upload purposely misleading videos with anti-vegan titles, to draw the attention of those who disagree with them. If you type search terms such as ”vegans are crazy”, ”vegans are annoying”, ”I’m sick of vegans”, ”anti-veganism”, ”I hate vegans” etc., the top results, if not the entire first page, will be more of their crap disguised as critique. As soon as you click on a video they will mock that opening statement (the title) and move on to praising their lifestyle choice. You will most likely find the word ”vegan” in the name of the channel, which is revealing enough to avoid clicking on it.

Either that or it will be intended satire all the way through (only intended as it is humourless) , sounding very much like this. Once you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all.

Therefore, if your search terms are positive or neutral, you get pages upon pages of their propaganda. If you type in negative terms, more of the same. It’s like they’re trying to push genuine critique so far down the list of results one  will give up trying to find it after clicking on 50 variations of the one mentioned above.

Also, it seems that when they congregate they manifest the same toxicity towards each other as a number of other SJW-type groups do. This blog, written by someone who has chosen to replace the ”vegan” label with ”herbivore” in order to break  all association with said community, details the demanding and judgemental attitude of self-righteous snobs putting down those among them they deemed ”not vegan enough”.

When one starts reading about today’s most popular movements, especially among young people, matters always seem to lead to cult-like dynamics hidden behind well-marketed fanaticism, where reasonable people are cast out as not worthy.

 

 

 

 

 

“Fat Acceptance” – A Detailed, Impartial Analysis

For many, picking sides in this debate needs no hesitation, particularly when finding factual arguments against the concept of body positivity (and there are quite a few, where health is concerned). When looking deeper into the issue however, matters are complicated, as proponents have different attitudes and aspirations, from benign to utterly toxic.

  1. People who have experienced bullying and simply want it to stop

Although generally seen as reality distortion, this movement has become a refuge for those who seek acknowledgement for the very real suffering they have been put through pointlessly, sometimes for decades.

Their argument is in fact very logical – namely that people have no claims of entitlement to how others look, except for sexual situations, which involve (on average), for each person, one to a few individuals on this entire planet. Hence there is no reason to analyse every person we come across in terms of sexual desirability, since no sexual encounter is possible or likely. Many disagree, saying the analysis is a built-in mechanism; however, the point of voicing one’s conclusions abut the desirability of people they will never actually sleep with is lost to me. Especially voicing it to the world and to those they target.

There should be boundaries established by decency, but unfortunately, we live in times when boundaries are increasingly unclear.  The world is a fiercely competitive place; since any aspect can be used as a means to stand out – including the size and shape of one’s genitalia – no part of a human being, physical or not, is excluded from appraisal.

It is true that society at large does not understand the difference between body shaming and other types of bullying. By instilling the idea that one is reprehensible to look at/ be in the presence of, the person is made to feel they will never be accepted by others in any situation, causing them to become very isolated and depressed. Whereas other defects, perceived or real, can be hidden  with a bit of effort, there is no way to hide one’s size in a real life situation, hence a person feels targeted whenever they step outside their home, sometimes inside it as well. Also, this is not an issue one can fix from one day to the next, so there is no immediate relief in sight from the shame of being bullied; in fact there is no guarantee the bullying will ever stop.

Bullying also demonstrates the cruelty of the human jungle, as one’s chances in the world are reduced to the quick”eye test”, the failure of which obliterates any true qualities one might have. You can be intelligent, caring, well read, emotionally available 24/7 and have so much to give, yet if you don’t pass the one second ”eye test”, no one will even attempt to know you better. Whilst this type of judgement is rooted, especially for men, in the way their brains are wired and is a fact of life, it also seems very unfair.

The question I believe every bullied individual asks himself/ herself is why. Why can’t they peacefully go about their daily business, perform their role in society, have goals and dreams and not bother anyone, receiving the same respect from others. It seems reasonable enough, right? I will detail the answer to this question below, when describing the mentality of the bully, as I perceive it, and the reasons why campaigns such as ”fat acceptance” will never work.

2. Empathetic progressives in general

Many of them are sincerely well-meaning, while their intentions are merely to reduce the discord with regards to physical appearance (and not to enforce an ideology). Supporters of this campaign include therapists who have heard the stories of so many bullied patients they are aware of the harm done by everyday remarks to those who already feel down.

3. Ostracised people turned toxic

Moving on from harmless individuals who simply want to live without being insulted by strangers, one notices those who start making moral judgements  regarding the weight-related decisions of others. Just browsing the web I came across opinions criticising those who make a point of losing weight or helping their children do so.

You can see toxicity creep in as soon as envy of others’ physical condition reels its ugly head, along with disapproval of those who want to improve theirs. This is obvious in cases involving feminists protesting the use of models in ads and campaigns of all sorts. While they see themselves as brave and revolutionary, to the rest of the world it spreads a potent fragrance of sour grapes. Quite clearly the fact that other women are attractive in the commonly accepted (biologically driven) sense bothers them; it interferes with their body positivity.

This shows that a certain category of people are only peaceful as long as they remain ”the underdog”. The moment they secure some influence on society, they start a battle with anyone who disagrees, going from ”I want a kind world where people live and let live” to ”if everyone thought the way I do the world would be a better place”.

Whereas benign supporters of the campaign just want the same respect as all other human beings, these types deem themselves morally superior and are passive-aggressive during debates, identifying with their appearance to the point of turning its promotion into a crusade. For this purpose they will dump ingenuity, adopting manipulation and fact distortion, especially in terms of health issues, in order to make a point.

Others write they are triggered when their peers lose weight and are commanded for it. The moment one resents the fact that a peer is succeeding towards a goal and becoming healthier, turning the focus inward, something is amiss – it shows this person perceives reality as revolving around them and their feelings, disregarding everyone else. Unfortunately, this is quite common nowadays, especially for young people.

4. Social Justice Warriors (mainly feminists)

Bullies are all about dictating, shaming and cornering, until complete acquiescence is is achieved. This lot, although subjected to bullying due to their weight, have become bullies in their own right.

To start with, ardent promoters of this movement demand to be considered attractive by a large number of people, as if anyone could mentally program their attraction to others. Their intention is not to be left alone, but rather to draw attention and praise, often by being lewd and expecting applause. I do not understand why presumed promoters of dignity would pose nude, if their purpose was to stop the objectification of women’s bodies.

In truth, they have no problem with objectification, but with the fact that other women’s bodies are being admired whilst theirs are not.

Those who advocate real dignity have a worthy cause. After all, every woman, regardless of her looks, is someone’s daughter, someone’s wife, someone’s mother, being turned by our culture into cheap masturbation material found in public toilets beside the bog roll; a consumption good for all to use. And the same goes for men; their objectification and imposition of the metrosexual image is a very sad phenomenon.

One of the biggest clues you’re dealing with a toxic attitude from a ”social justice” campaigner is their hatred of dissenters within the category they are advocating for. Although they claim to respect and support all members of said category, the minute someone disagrees with their approach they become a pariah, the bond of brotherhood/ sisterhood/ common experience suddenly ending. There is nothing they hate more than the odd voice not singing in tune and disrupting the choir.

Here is a relevant example from someone who participated in such a community. The militant, cult-like behaviours sound very familiar:

 

It’s strange how so many advocacy groups for oppressed people end up behaving like Nazis, wanting to control and censor others until no view but theirs is heard in their midst. They call for a collective identity and a collective mind, as scary as that sounds.

 

Regardless, when pondering the arguments on the other side of the debate, a few misconceptions come up quite often; here’s my attempt to address a few of them, hopefully in a funny enough way.

  1. Social acceptance based on your image enhancement equals happiness. 

There is a terrible idea out there, reinforced by popular culture, that all you have to do to be happy in a social environment is mould yourself to the exact specifications of the insensitive fuckers who are aggressive to you on a daily basis. Once you manage, you will forget their words and everything will be rosy in your world of pink unicorns.

Except it won’t.

People assume that a demeaned person automatically integrates – mind and heart – into the social environment they’ve been rejected from once the object of the demeaning disappears, namely their defect.  Once you’ve been targeted, especially for long periods of time, trust is very shaky; you are always aware that they can turn on you at any time. You know that when you step even slightly out of line they will notice and react. They might not know who you are anymore (they might apply different labels than in the past), but you know full well who they are and how they really think.

Motivation which actually works has to be rooted in something positive, such as one’s desire to be healthier or to have a certain image for their own enjoyment, and not seeking to pacify the hounds, who will – surprise, surprise – find something else to hate them for as soon as their image is no longer prime pecking material. That’s how the larger pack of vultures – also known as society – works.

There is no empowerment in conforming to the standards your bullies impose. Hence, pleasing the fuckers or impressing them – never mind aspiring to their respect or affection – is not likely to bring you happiness in itself.

Which is not to say that enhancing your image is not a powerful shield against their nastiness. But you do it out of self-preservation, in order to survive. It is not a matter of making your life excellent by appealing to others, but rather to keep them from making your life hell by reducing your vulnerability in front them. There is no Kumbaya at the end of this film.

Some might find these arguments contradictory; my point is that whilst it’s good to use your image as a shield, you should not be emotionally invested in what others think of you. You should not let them into your mind.

2. ”It’s easier to make excuses than to bust your ass at the gym…”

Whenever I hear people boast about ”working so hard”, as if expecting a medal, I start to giggle; it sounds almost infantile. The praise they expect for managing to look good – in terms of general usefulness – is just as unjustified as that of fat activists.

What you do with your body benefits you and (presumably) the person you engage with intimately. Unless of course you sell your image (or body) and more people suddenly become involved. It’s ridiculous to demand public acknowledgement for something that is not of public use, elevating yourself to an example others should follow. Others should not need excuses to not follow this example as they might not have the same goals in life.

I’m glad their self-esteem is well established and I’m happy for them, but cannot admire them in the same way I admire an astrophysicist, a gifted artist or a historian working very hard, giving their time to shed light  on what is less known about the past. I can’t compare the result of their work to someone’s butt cheeks. When I see the righteous indignation in their eyes about how hard they work, all I can do is smile, if not laugh. I’m sorry.

3. ” I’m giving you a kick up the ass for your own good!”

Anyone who is emotionally invested in your  well-being, physicians included, would not refer to the advice they give you as a ”kick up the ass”; even harsh realities are expressed in non-hurtful ways.

Those who claim their mockery has the best intentions are either of low emotional intelligence (unaware of how humans react to their attitude) or deceitful. For many, I have noticed, the fierce attitude towards people they claim disgust them is meant to create an obvious opposition, highlighting their own qualities.

Think of it this way – if all risky behaviour was worthy of the same vehement criticism, they would go for those who are into extreme sports, unsafe sex, hard drugs etc. But some deliberately pick those whose defects are at the opposite end of their best valued qualities, such as physical appearance. Which is often connected to how ”hard they work” to achieve those looks and potentially a felling of frustration for their effort not being appreciated enough.

4. Everyone agrees facades are more important than what’s behind them.

Of course, we associate one’s ability to maintain a good image with intelligence and tact, overlooking known defects manifested in private and admiring someone for carrying themselves around in a dignified manner. However, good observers with a capacity to analyse human behaviour are well aware there is an infinity of possibilities within each individual and thus are not necessarily fooled by appearances. Older people in particular have seen many instances of impeccable facades crumbling to dust or hidden gems being discovered.

Hence, although they might pay lip service to currently held views in order to avoid attracting negative attention, the way people handle their lives and relationships is a whole other world than what the media portrays. Most families nowadays include or closely relate to people with an addiction, people who have been to prison, people who take recreational drugs, people with a very visible physical defect, disability or major illness and so forth. And when faced with stereotypes labelling thousands or millions with the same behavioural patterns, most have stories to tell which disprove their validity.

I can go as far as saying it’s very common to know individuals who are excellently seen in their communities and are a handful at home, or ostracised folks who are actually very decent, trustworthy and easygoing. They are not exceptions by far.

 

Unfortunately, many use those around them in order to feel better by comparison, which in turn creates acrimony. The irony is that by doing so they feed the culture of competition which brings them all unneeded misery and frustration, feeling the urge to exaggerate a quality in order to compensate for defects, often putting others down in this process. If they stopped the comparisons and constant one-upmanship, they could direct their energy to more positive endeavours.