Tag Archives: extremism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump, an advocate for free speech…?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scapegoating entire ethnic minorities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nuclear weapons not ruled out

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

Tarring all undocumented immigrants with the same brush

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reality is anything but.

The Political Football Culture: Scouring For Humanity

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

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

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

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

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

Counterculture or counterfeit?

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

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

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

Blurring the lines between facts and rhetoric

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

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

Trusting inflammatory outlets which change their tune for their own agendas

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

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

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

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

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

“Fighting the good fight”

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

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

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

Entertainment is more politically charged by the day

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

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

Factions denouncing propaganda while engaging in it

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

The SJW Cult – Recruiting Renfields

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is my working Friendship Contract:

Do you want to be my friend?

(YES) (NO) (*MAYBE) 

Please circle one.

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

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

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

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

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

Expectation #1: We Must Toughen Our Skin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Healing From Toxic Whiteness” – Social Justice And Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

SJWs, “Gaslighted” By Common Sense

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

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

This would be a summary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“This is a first world problem”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We all bleed the same color” 

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

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

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

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

“Pain is pain,” his friend agreed.

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

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

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

 “Don’t let it get to you”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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