Tag Archives: groupthink

The Anti-SJW Movement, Degenerating Into Alt-Right Rhetoric

The last two years have seen an explosion of justified rebutting of third wave feminism and identity politics, after seeing them embraced by young people in particular as a result of far left influences on their education.

What started as grassroots defiance against language policing and exaggerated victimisation gradually morphed into vacuous entertainment, to later develop a rather dangerous side-effect: desensitisation to the threat posed by right wing divisiveness, by focusing solely on the division caused by the left. Naturally, desensitisation slowly turned into acceptance and then sheer enthusiasm, as right-wing ideas saw the perfect momentum during the US presidential elections and have continued to reel in more enthusiasts for “change” ever since.

The preoccupation to be anti-left has taken such proportions that the anti-SJW movement has become a self-contradicting one, equating its initial fight for freedom of speech with a return to conservatism, which is equally fixated in its rigours as cultural Marxism and attracts the same amount of blind, fanatical devotion.

Suddenly, these former defenders of free speech saw an opportunity for leftists to be vilified beyond redemption and rejoiced, perhaps as some sort of vindication. Suddenly, those who had argued so compellingly for diversity of opinion became fixated on shutting up the left altogether, towards a “bright future” of conservative conformity.

Which proves once again that virtue and pacifism are apparels of the underdog, to be shed when said underdog reaches a position of power or at least has the illusion of being able to socially annihilate its opposition.

That is why solidarity with a group or movement should be questioned by the sympathetic individual every step of the way, lest it might degenerate into something completely different from what was initially intended.

Needless to say, many social justice warriors are easy targets. Whereas it makes sense to call out (with trumpets blaring) the abhorrent practice of destroying people’s livelihoods for perceived thought crimes, it also makes sense not to use disoriented teens as hate targets in anti-SJW videos.

In that sense I think it is a stretch for grown people to berate (down to nullification) 15 or 16-year-olds who post content on the internet without realising they are not mature enough to understand what they are propagating. For many of them this will undoubtedly be a phase in self-discovery and it seems unfair to conflate them with the genuinely dangerous individuals brainwashing them. The ugly side of this movement consists of running these kids through the mincer just to produce more of the same conveyor belt “look at these cretins”, self-indulgent type of entertainment.

While blowing social media duels out of proportion, people’s attention is being diverted from the reality of what a shift towards the right will really bring, much of which is cause for great concern.

In conclusion, this might have started out with the right intentions yet has become another mental trap, keeping many from seeing the broader picture and shifting the focus from important issues onto inconsequential minutiae.

 

Disgusting Cult-like Training: “I Am A Racist”

For anyone who still doubts there is actual brainwashing going on by the “progressive” left – have a look at this. It’s a step-by-step guide on how to realise you are a racist, as it appears that if you’re “privileged” enough to be born white, you are one by default.

It involves repeating mantras inside your head until you finally crack and label yourself as such, even if you’d never thought you were one your entire life. Repeat to yourself enough that you are guilty and you will eventually end up believing it.

First, there is the prepping.

So cut yourself some slack if you have internalized racist ideas. It doesn’t mean you are bad; it means you watched Peter Pan as a kid (or the thousands of other biased films and television shows). It means you were likely raised by folks who too fled racism.

Then repeat the following:

“I can internalize racist beliefs and still be a good person.”

“I can internalize racist beliefs and still be a good person.”

“I can internalize racist beliefs and still be a good person.”

And that statement can be true, as long as you complete this next step.

Notice at first the article seems to address those who knowingly have internalised racist ideas; however, the next step, titled “unearth your racism and challenge it”, proves it also addresses those who have never associated themselves with this notion. So basically this is for everyone.

Most of our racial biases go unnoticed. There’s even a name for them: Implicit biases, which can be defined as the “thoughts about people you didn’t know you had.”

Remember that smog? It means our bodies are full of polluted thoughts. Even mine. Even yours.

But you are never going to unearth these biases until you finally pick up the shovel. In other words, it takes work – deliberate and sustained effort.

You must actively bring your implicit biases to the surface. (There’s even a test for them here!) You must actively challenge the stereotypes you have internalized (which generally don’t hold up). You must actively learn about microaggressions and cultural appropriation so that you aren’t perpetrating them.

Do the work, and you won’t be able to help but repeat the inevitable:

“I am racist.”

“I am racist.”

“I am racist.”

To start with, I do not believe in the concept of a self-deprecating genuine racist; it’s a contradictory notion. Not only are these people full of themselves enough to believe they are genetically superior to millions or billions of others; they are also angry and have destructive aspirations. This article clearly does not address them.

Also, I do not believe in the concept of a racist who doesn’t identify himself/herself as such. You cannot hold extreme views and not be aware of it; it’s nonsensical.

This is a brainwashing endeavour seeking to convince everyone that if they look hard enough, they will find the bigot within, repent and be saved, much like sin is treated by religions by examining one’s every thought and feeling.

Like religious leaders, they claim to be inside your head, to know you better than you know yourself, seeking to bring you on the right path.

The point is: Racism is bigger than one person; it’s not about you.

At the same time – and I don’t think this is stressed enough – individuals make up systems.

White individuals can become cashiers who make the checkout line an unpleasant experience for shoppers of Color. White individuals can become teachers who don’t recognize the brilliance of their students of Color. White individuals will invariably make up many hiring committees, holding the keys that open the doors to upward mobility.

Thus, it’s crucial to analyze how the individual interacts with and connects to the institution.

All of this is redundant considering the fact that the addressee in this case is not even aware of having racial biases, thus having to fish for them in the abyss of their subconscious mind – never mind being an overt racist likely to cause trouble to others in the form of hiring discrimination or “unpleasant experiences”, whatever that means.

If it’s not about me, then leave me the fuck alone, why don’t you. Except it is aimed at every single individual who can be manipulated into thinking they are guilty of something they never took part in.

Of course, there is a reason to all this besides causing needless mortification.

Dismantling these systems will require action. Awareness and education are certainly part of the process but, alone, they are not enough.

Once this imaginary guilt is established, the fun part comes – enrollment in their social justice activism, to wash away the sin that was never committed. They want to inflate their numbers by pulling at the heartstrings of gullible strangers to help them “change the world”. Just like a good old-fashioned cult.

Racial injustice infects pretty much every facet of our world.

This fact can be overwhelming, but it also makes it relatively easy to find a struggle to join. Maybe it’s at your workplace, in your child’s school, in front of your computer, or on the streets during rush hour. 

There is no shortage of ways to act. In fact, in a search engine of your choice, type the words “White people fight racism” and you will find endless articles with ideas (many of which are compiled here).

It’s quite something when the people behind a movement (an intended Marxist revolution in this case) manage to convince the masses to join them not on the basis of hope and positivity but to redeem themselves as human beings.

Celebrities’ Opinions – Why They Can Shove Them

p1aon5lm9l1j8nan1htags6go34

Right up their most marketable body part.

It is often said that opinions are like assholes – everybody’s got one. And they are more than entitled to it, as well as expressing it in every way they see fit. The problem arises when some people, from an arrogance brought on by their popularity, come to believe that their opinions – often derived from insufficient knowledge – are axioms and start proselytising to those who admire them.

In this post I’m not referring to those with actual expertise in their fields, whose conclusions are well studied and carry more weight than simple opinions thrown around in society.

I am referring specifically to shallow entertainers who use their platforms in the attempt to create social changes (sometimes radical ones), based on nothing more than their likeability.

It is no secret that political campaigns today (in fact, since the days of Edward Bernays) are nothing more than marketing and centre on how appealing, how likeable politicians can be made to appear. Their agendas and promises are intermingled with aspects of human interest such as their dancing, singing, praying or apparent moments of spontaneity (well rehearsed in advance, of course). If ever there was an informative Hollywood production, it’s definitely Wag The Dog.

In this exercise and through exposure by the media, among film stars and singers, politicians are (even subconsciously) regarded as entertainers – and the reverse is true as well: through the size of their platforms, entertainers have become social reformers, even when they show no depth or life experience.

I’m in no way saying that someone who becomes famous for a talent cannot be brilliant at discussing very important issues. But the reality today is that many celebrities are the mouthpieces of those who finance them and seem to form an ideological clique in order to remain favoured. The leftist, Marxist bias is plain to see in the film and music industry, which are tools of indoctrination.

And often, the victims of this indoctrination are young, regarding these people as  sources of knowledge and virtue (I know this is a platitude yet it’s reality, judging by the thousands/ hundreds of thousands/ millions of youngsters who follow them on social media, intoxicating themselves with their every word). They mobilise so many in pointless campaigns, petition signing and can even influence votes (which may or may not matter, but still, it’s a sad phenomenon to be persuaded by those who have such little contact with real life anymore).

They have replaced the priesthood of olden days, which used to mediate between heads of state and the populace, urging “commoners” to support whatever decision was made by the ruling class. Our society has replaced theism with celebrity worship, thinking one must know better if they pose in bikinis or kick a ball around for a living.

With the aid of social media, anything that comes out of a celebrity’s orifice can become international news within 15 minutes, as if it actually mattered. Some even have their own “cults”, so to speak, with fanclubs choosing nicknames for fans and “battling” each other in Facebook and Twitter wars. Barbz, Selenators, Lovatics… It’s like something out of Babylon 5.

Besides aiding politicians to appear more human through photo opportunities, they weigh in on the day’s hottest topics and shape debates by the sheer numbers they influence. The recent case of Harambe the gorilla, (which took the limelight away from much more important issues such as massacres abroad) was very unsettling in terms of watching these very rich, well protected individuals direct a witch hunt against those who were accidentally involved in the situation. They did so from their comfortable luxury homes, presumably surrounded by security, as their targets, a simple working family, had nowhere to hide from death threats and half a million hysterical people calling for their lynching. Which is, of course, disgusting.

While they engage in mental masturbation over their principles, tweeting beside a 300$ champagne bottle, they are able – and likely – to encourage, if not cause actual violence. Perhaps those who have the ability to incite hate mobs instantaneously might want to think twice before posting messages regarding who should be killed or jailed in certain situations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back To Communism: You Stand Convicted

p1aoa2nmff5g8i3ufes1e481hsu4

Although the article I will quote only refers to a base and obviously manufactured artistic level, which is pop music, I strongly suspect this is to become the future of our entire western culture – a ceaseless, petty hunt for those who fail to “promote diversity” to the degree imposed by social justice activists.

To start with, there are 20.5 K shares at the moment – of this. “5 Ways Taylor Swift Exemplifies White Feminism – And Why That’s A Problem”.

There are countless issues with the dumbed-down excuse for art that popular music is today – however, this isn’t one of them. And if it were, these would definitely not be pertinent arguments to prove it. Even clutching at straws is euphemistic.

All accusations could be thrown aside with a simple observation – that pop stars are simply figureheads for the industry to mould and manipulate; I don’t suspect them of any contribution to the ideas behind their music or videos.

But to indulge this – here are the five reasons:

  1. Showing hip-hop dancers (among other types of dancers as I understand) performing better than the protagonist.
  2. Describing dating violence as positive or normal – I agree, but where is the racism?
  3. A video where no minorities are present.
  4. She seems to have no Black friends.
  5. A video which includes African landscapes, without referring to oppression and colonisation.

To start with, let me point one thing out about regressive leftists (social justice warriors): their aim is to follow Anita Sarkeesian’s (by now legendary) words to the letter: “Everything is racist, everything is sexist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out.”

The author of the piece admits she is a fan of the celebrity she is attacking. This is a very interesting phenomenon from a psychological point of view, where SJWs are concerned. Somehow, the author feels the need to rip into someone she likes, dissecting their work bit by bit, for the sake of intersectional feminism, simultaneously admitting to enjoying the music even after said dissection is over.

This alone is very weird and creates the impression of a destructive mindset, fixated on demolishing everything, including the objects of its own attachment if needed. In its extreme form, fanaticism pushes people to absurd actions such murdering their own family members in the name of their religion.

A few relevant quotes (and sideways-fucking in terms of insanity)  can be seen below.

Okay. I admit it: At first glance, I couldn’t see anything vehemently, inherently anti-feminist about this video. And even in preparation for writing this article, I rewatched it, scrutinizing it for something obviously racist, homophobic, or ableist. But nothing jumps out at me in particular.

So I’ll take this space to state the obvious: Every love interest that Taylor has ever had — to my knowledge, both in real life and in her videos — has been a straight, cis, able-bodied, fit, middle-to-upper class, white dude.

As this proves, she was bent on critcising the video even before finding fault with it. After deciding to come after this particular singer, the author made a list, off the top of her head, of the videos she would tear into. After still not being able to find any fault, even at closer scrutiny, she still left it in place, confessing to simply “filling a space” with ad hominem since no real arguments could come out of her false point. It’s this ingenuity of confessing to their own practice that will hopefully bring social justice warriors down.

This is what they do. First they label, then they strive to back that up.

Regarding the second paragraph, it’s me who strives to find the words to qualify this level of entitlement. I can only reiterate the obvious: that “intersectionality” demands your very life and soul – your work, your art and even your intimacy – to be placed on its altar. They bring that up so naturally in conversations that it becomes plain creepy, like staring into the manic eyes of a deeply disturbed individual.

And while it’s in Taylor’s right to be attracted to and date whomever suits her fancy, her ivory tower fantasy worlds aren’t doing much to push back against systemic oppression — which, like, is what feminists are supposed to do.

With this in mind, we should simply assume that every music video and every artistic creation (proper or manufactured) should mandatorily involve all the above-mentioned categories. It also means that the purpose of decent art and entertainment in general should by default be to “push back against systemic oppression”. In other words, it should all be political propaganda.

Anyone who calls themselves a feminist after learning about the movement from, of all people,Lena Dunham, is not to be trusted. I mean, she actually had to be called out for not includingany women of color in a TV show based in New York City. And I think she passed that same oversight to Tay, because I’m really not sure Taylor has any friends of color.

And if you watch the “Bad Blood” music video — which is supposed to be a miniature action movie about girl gangs — the evidence is clear.

Sure, Taylor includes both Selena Gomez and Zendaya in the video, as well as other women of color, but here’s the problem: Selena, admittedly one of Taylor’s best friends, herself has been known to perpetuate White Feminism via cultural appropriation. And while Zendaya consistently says on-point, feminist things, I’m not buying the notion that her relationship with Taylor is really that close. Their relationship feels a little, well, “this is my black friend” to me. (…)

The problem is how the video highlights one of Taylor Swift’s biggest problems as a feminist IRL: She constantly surrounds herself with beautiful, thin, rich, famous, white women.

And personally, I don’t trust fellow white people when their only friends are other white people.

And has anyone else noticed that the more Taylor gets called out for her White Feminism, the more people of color are popping up as guests on her tour?

That’s not friendship. That’s not authenticity. That’s not intersectionality. That’s PR.

Allow me to attempt a recap of what this woman is accused of.

First, her love interests are always white. Secondly, she includes women of different backgrounds in her videos, but either they are accused of “white feminism” themselves or they seem to be her “token friends”. Thirdly, she is suspected of not having genuine friends of colour. And as a last point, whenever she invites people of colour as guests, she must be doing it for PR (not in any way because they might be famous singers simply sharing the stage with her).

It never ends, does it? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Everything must be about race. And just how objectifying is that to the people around this singer, who are appraised like poodles based on their melanin, backgrounds, reputation and closeness to her?Who’s doing the objectification here?

Taylor’s latest video takes place on a 1950s-era movie set on desert plains in what is judged, based on the wildlife, to be an unnamed, overgeneralized “African” country – without a single person of color to be seen.

That is to say, the biggest problem with “Wildest Dreams” is that it isn’t. It isn’t a wild dream. It’s a direct representation of historical accuracy: the colonization of Africa, through the eyes of the colonizer.

And if you don’t think that — of all things — colonization is racist, then I fear that you’re suffering from White Feminism, too.

I watched it just to see if it had anything to do with colonisation. It doesn’t. It’s just a video based on the attraction between two actors who are playing a couple in a film. That’s it. The film could have been set anywhere else and the story would have remained the same. You have to hand it to pop video creators when they manage to do anything slightly different than clubs, boobs and ass shaking, to complement the corny music. But that’s all there is to it. Attributing deeper meaning and a geopolitical perspective to the simple narrative of a woman fancying her colleague is like throwing a ball upwards, hoping it lands on the Moon.

The mere thought that this cheap form of entertainment is supposed to hold the weight of the world on its shoulders is, of course, ridiculous. Like the entire creed social justice warriors live by.

 

“Whitesplaining” – Face Palm!

In this evermore divisive progressive tsunami, which seems bent on pitting ordinary people against each other for no logical reason, a new term has emerged from the depths of the cognitive abyss: “whitesplaining”. This would refer to a white person discussing racism with a person of colour in order to find alternative explanations for an instance which the latter perceived as racist; apparently, they have no right under the sun to do so.

It’s not like as human beings we are all equal, should feel free to speak and exchange opinions on any matter. It’s not like a person can ever overreact when it comes to what others mean to say and might – just might – be wrong about a particular situation.

But while these well-meaning reasons for correcting me feel true, it’s also true that you can act on subconscious, implicit biases leading you to dismiss what I have to say because I’m Black.

In an age when it’s so popular to be an amateur psychoanalyst, we often see people dismissing others – all the while admitting their arguments make some sense – on the basis of suspecting a subconscious bias. Which is something anyone can engage in, as it requires no proof; it requires nothing but the absolute wish of the amateur psychoanalyst to impose their view at all cost.

For many people, it’s tempting to speak up when you encounter a fact you believe is wrong. Correcting someone seems pretty straight forward – so does it really relate to racism?

In certain cases, it does. And if you’re a white person talking with a person of color about racism, it’s best to keep this possibility in mind.

Because of white supremacy, many white people – especially white men, who are alsoinfluenced by patriarchy – have been conditioned to speak over other people and dominate spaces.

This is followed by a few more paragraphs which have nothing whatsoever to do with the heading, which is about facts and contradicting others when the facts they present are wrong (to one’s knowledge anyway). Facts are empirical, objective, obtained from trustworthy sources; stating them is in no way connected to the lengthy whine about how white people “think they are entitled to talk over others”.

Presenting a fact which contradicts the narrative of the person you’re speaking to has nothing to do with their race or any other characteristics.

There’s nothing wrong with clearing up information if you come across something you believe is incorrect. But approach the situation with some humility. Ask questions to figure out why there’s a difference between what I’m saying and what you believe is true.

You might find that your information is wrong, that I interpret it differently, or that we’re on the same page, but I use different language rooted in my experience. And you’ll probably learn something new.

“That I interpret it differently” is not an argument against any proven fact.

So it’s not up to you to decide what I should be offended by. Save your whitesplanation if you want to explain why I’m overreacting to a well-meaning compliment (which isn’t a complimentat all) by cringing at “you’re pretty for a Black girl.”

After I’ve dealt with microaggressions on a daily basis for so long, it’s just cruel to expect me to minimize my feelings about racism.

First of all, several paragraphs list this one imaginary “compliment”, you’re pretty for a Black girl, as an argument (and I’ve seen it elsewhere on the site). Please explain to me how this manner of approaching a person would even germinate in the mind of someone who doesn’t suffer from severe mental retardation.The only type of person likely to think that way (but not stupid enough to say it to a woman he’s attracted to) would be a genuine racist. And a genuine racist is not likely to approach you in the first place.Anyone with a brain can see that is not a compliment. Hence listing it as an example of dodgy compliments you receive and throwing the rest in with it is intellectually dishonest.

Like so many whitesplainers, you believe what you say is important because you have logic on your side. Objectivity is an understandable goal, but think about what it means to believe you’re the only one who can bring “reason” into the conversation.

The truth is that you’re just as biased as anyone else – your perspective is influenced by your own experiences and position of privilege. That also gives you a biased point of view on what “objectivity” means.

What position of privilege? Would you say the same to a homeless person or one that has lived in poverty all their life, just because of skin colour? How racist is that?

There is no possible bias regarding what objectivity means. Bias and objectivity are antithetical notions. Here’s a definition:

“judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices”

For instance, have you ever felt the need to point out that a person of color was “generalizing” white people when they talked about racism?

Of course. Only when reading bullshit articles from bullshiters on bullshit websites; such an interaction has not presented itself in real life yet (perhaps because most people’s heads are not so full of bullshit). The logical reason one would raise the issue is that such a generalisation is indeed racist.

Except there’s actually a problem with rushing to say that “not all white people” are part of the problem of white supremacy.  If I focused on reassuring every white person that they’re not personally responsible, then nobody would get the chance to examine how they might contribute (..)

Therefore they are a problem, all down to the last one, and all just might contribute to a system of thought which is actually marginal in western societies. Not racist at all, huh?

OK; I’m done quoting as I just don’t have the patience or stomach for this stuff.

My two cents on this issue: when people empathise with others who have been subjected to real racism, it’s not because of the race of the latter; it’s because we’re all human an can all put ourselves in the shoes of someone who has suffered as a result of discrimination. Solidarity is meant to create unity, not more division. 

The reason people engage you in a debate is because they presume your intelligence; your rational capability; your ability to discern one situation from another – as opposed to presuming you would think or feel in a certain way because of your race.

The only thing this type of rhetoric achieves is turning potential racists into full-blown ones, as well as scaring off people who are inclined to feel insecure about relating to those of  a different ethnicity, race or background, for fear of stepping on a landmnine of oversensitivity. 

No good comes out of this. None whatsoever.

Microagressions: “Intention Is Irrelevant”

Remember the days when even proper bad behaviour could be excused by simply saying one meant no offence? Well, those days are long buried under the rubble of what used to be rational thinking. Hunting on barren ground for victimless crimes has turned into a hobby for some people.

Microaggressions are a great example of that.

According to this article, brought to you by the fountain of wisdom that is intersectional feminism, intention is completely irrelevant when microaggressions are perceived.

It’s important for us to remember that just because a perpetrator of racism is clueless (or in denial) about the impact of their words doesn’t mean that their actions were any less violent or that the impact of that violence is changed.

Which basically means that anything anyone perceives as an insult or a threat must be real. For instance, if I suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and thought the devil lived in my freezer, the sheer emotional impact would be enough to give validity to the whole situation. It also means that whoever stands accused of such perceived crimes is guilty by default; there is no chance in hell the “victim” might be overreacting.

Furthermore, we learn why an unwitting “perpetrator of racism” must be dealt with promptly:

Whatever the reason, it amounts to letting racism off the hook. When we allow these small incidences to keep happening, we are allowing racism, in general, to remain a part of our culture. (…) If we only focus on intention, we continue to center and prioritize the perpetrator. And let’s face it: The perpetrator is always a more privileged person who is used to getting their opinions and feelings validated.

Hence, if you are accused – and by default guilty – of a microaggression, you might as well start a fund for the Ku Klux Klan; you are responsible for the propagation of racist attitudes in your community (and in general). Here’s how a couple of tactless words can make a public enemy out of you, from one moment to the next. In any such circumstances, regardless of their particularities, you must be wrong, since you are a privileged piece of shit anyway.

But if ever we hope to truly put an end to racism (or any other injustice for that matter), we, as people who encounter so much marginalization, must also validate our own feelings and opinions. We re-center our attention to our needs and experiences by focusing on impact, not intent.

Which would give a free pass to every whiny, narcissistic, self-obsessed prick to tax others on their words at any given time. As mentioned above, an individual’s perspective might be distorted by psychological or emotional problems; perching them on a throne from where they can condemn others with impunity, based on their feelings alone, is not the brightest idea. Since the word “perpetrator” is used several times in the article to refer to people who are ingenuous of any wrongdoing, I reserve the right to refer to such accusers as hysterical narcs.

Moving on to the three types of microaggressions, detailed below.

Microassaults, the most conscious and intentional form of microaggressions,  best resemble what we are accustomed to thinking of as “old-fashioned” racism.

Some common examples are using racial epithets (or abusive, derogatory language or names), displaying confederate flags or swastikas, mocking another language, telling racist jokes, and serving White customers first.

Mocking another language? As in putting on a fake accent or imitating someone for a laugh? Will ten-year-olds be subject to this accusation as well? About serving white customers first – I’d be really amazed if the author could point to even one such situation in recent decades, in first world countries. And yet, it’s listed here as if it were a frequent occurrence.

Microinsults communicate rudeness and insensitivity towards someone based on their racial identity or heritage. These acts take away a person’s dignity or sense of self-worth, but they do so indirectly. Some microinsults can seem like compliments to the person saying them. (…)

And even more examples (because racism is so frustratingly relentless) are a White person crossing to the other side of the street at the approach of a Black or Latino man, or a storeowner carefully watching or following a customer of color.

I’d say that is a lot more insulting than someone mocking your language, but that’s just me. The question is whether it actually happens, how often it happens and if the people perceiving this might be misinterpreting the situation (how in the world can you tell why a complete stranger crosses the road?).

Microinvalidations exclude or negate the experiences, feelings, and experiential reality of a POC.

A common microinvalidation is the notion of “color blindness” or the assertion that we now live in “post-racial” times. It is also invalidating to downplay occurrences of racism, or to tell a POC, “Stop being so sensitive” or “Not everything’s about race!”

These phrases, perhaps meant to smooth over the perpetrators discomfort of the situation, completely dismiss the racialized experiences of POC.

Hence, reason is now equated with the invalidation of another person’s experience. There is no way under the blue sky that this person might be exaggerating; it’s unconscionable. To quote the PF chief admin, “your feelings are absolutes”.

As POC, we are often silenced or stunned by microaggressions. But just as there are positive ways to deal with stress, there are empowering ways to address microaggressions.

Never mind that the author and afferent clique not only have every opportunity to express their views, but actually enjoy a large platform and others bend over backwards to avoid tripping their wires.

Had enough? No?

Here’s another article on how to be moderate in using the “right pronouns” for people who demand them, as they are even offended by the uncomfortable feeling of having to make a big deal about you using them. The point of it is to not expect a positive reaction (as if someone necessarily did when engaging in this futility, as opposed to merely trying to avoid the anger of the person in need of special words). At the same time, don’t you dare not use them!

Some people make a big deal about gender pronouns – and it’s true that it’s important to get them right! But once you know how it actually feels for someone when you get their pronouns right, you’ll realize there’s no one “right” way to respond. Check it out.

So briefly, if they feel you’re making a big deal (in terms of deserving recognition) out of their utterly uncomfortable demand to mutilate your language with word such as “ze”, they are also entitled to be offended or at least put off by that.

Just make sure you’re not trying too hard to be an “ally”. As there truly is no right way to do it.

“Decolonial Love” – Politicising Your Hormones

If you’re one of those people who worry about discriminating against others by exhaling carbon dioxide, with the aid of intersectional feminism you can reach a whole new level of devotion: you can now fight oppression by politicising your romantic relationships.

All you have to do is rewire your brain in order to only experience attraction towards individuals in social categories classed as underprivileged. Sounds easy, right…? Forget the fact that this has no discernible purpose under the Sun – your only goal in life should be the application of feminist principles in every little thing you do, say or even experience internally (while reassuring yourself that feminism is not actually a cult).

If you need to alter your brain chemistry and subconscious mind in order to manipulate your attraction criteria, so be it. Your hormones are supremacist.

During his speech, Diaz introduced the concept of decolonial love with an “apocalyptic proclamation”: “We’re never gonna get anywhere as long as our economies of attraction continue to resemble more or less the economies of attraction of white supremacy.”

In other words, if we cannot change the thinking around who and how we love, as a society, we’ll stay stuck in the ideology of colonialism.

Making our love decolonial is a necessary step to a completely decolonial self, because if we don’t let go of our privileges and closely examine how the forces of oppression play out in our love lives, we are powering the existing injustices of the world.

And the existing forces of oppression for decolonial lovers to fight are numerous: patriarchy, heterosexism, skinny worship, classism, ableism, and what Diaz aptly calls “pigmentation politics.”

In other words, by feeling sexually, emotionally, intellectually attracted to people who are considered privileged – white, heterosexual, “cisgender” etc – we are contributing to the perpetuation of injustice against other categories. As if somehow the community – or the world at large – owned each one of  us down to the bone marrow, holding us accountable for decisions regarding our personal happiness, which have no impact on others. You can’t get more fanatically socialist than that.

These people must live and breath oppression theories every second of their day; they are so high on their own fumes they don’t realise how much these fantasies of micromanaging each individual are straying from human nature.

In former communist countries, each citizen was expected to be completely subjugated to the ideology of the party; to be immersed in it and energised by it. No intrinsic value was to be held in higher regard and no other loyalty was to be prioritised – not even to family members. As such, even small choices made daily were filtered through what the party wanted from an ideal citizen. The same mentality is shared by this so-called social justice crowd.

Your personal happiness means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Hail the matriarchy; everything for the cause! Your entire life should be a shining example of a devoted, practicing feminist – and nothing else.

Some people think it means reserving our love and respect only for people of color (POC) or queer (LGBTQIA+) folks — or especially queer folks of color. That is not the case, as only loving any group of people can fall into exotification or fethishization.

All throughout, the author remains concerned only with the object of the debate, namely those who are more worthy of love than others – never with those she is asking to rewire their hormonal drive in some weird bid to exclude the “privileged” from their desires, which is extremely racist, by the way. What is this supposed to achieve, again? Who would this help and how? The “especially” points out that there is a rank of desirability based on how many oppression badges someone can collect. And the warning follows closely – love them very much, but not too much, as too much would also be insulting.

Since the LGBT community is mentioned, may I ask how a gay person only loving gay people is guilty of exotification or fetishisation? I imagine she would not demand that straight folks reserve their romantic interest for queer folks or vice-versa. So this fetishisation caper doesn’t make any sense between categories which do not interact on a romantic level.

It appears that a significant swathe of the addressees of this moralising piece must be the ones singled out as less lovable – white, heterosexual, “cis” people.

The concept of love as decolonial is not opposed to loving someone deemed desirable by society (in other words, an individual who is able-bodied, conventionally attractive, wealthy financially and socially, and/or comes from a first world country).

The issue is when we are only attracted to those kinds of people and not open to making a romantic or emotional connection with others.

Can I also ask why are anyone’s preferences an issue stretching farther than their private lives ? Whose business is it exactly? Where a person comes from matters for very logical reasons, in terms of the culture they were brought up in. There could be major discrepancies based on that.

I can’t believe I even have to say this, but people don’t actively choose whom they are attracted to. It’s an instinct. What they do with that is a whole different matter – yet that does not alter their initial drive and intrinsic selection criteria.

Just as no one actively chooses to be gay or straight. In fact, LGBT activism is based on the idea of following one’s natural inclinations in terms of attraction, while resisting societal pressures to live conventionally. Whether or not they see themselves as revolutionaries defying the status quo, these lefties are still trying to pressure others regarding a very personal matter. There are trying to set moral norms in an area which needs no intervention or regulation.

Anyhow, the disclaimer was a blatant lie, as you can read below.

The first step to addressing the colonial mindset is awareness. Awareness is key to retraining our reflexes and stopping habits in their tracks.

When I first came to the US, I had a crush on every blond-haired, blue-eyed boy in my class. In my way of thinking, those were the characteristics of a good person. Clearly, I had been exposed to some white supremacy in my early years in China. But when I realized what was at work that magnetized me — and many others — to whiteness, I was no longer so helplessly attracted to those traits.

While questioning what we take for granted can be hard work, it is made exponentially easier if we have practice.

Therefore, this whole movement is not concerned with the inclusion of certain categories but the explicit exclusion of others. Or rather, the exclusion of a specific one, I should say.

Due to this presentation, an individual who “likes Asian women” may think of that as a “preference,” when in reality, it’s a learned form of prejudice that’s based on fetishizing an entire group of people. The same can be said if you rule out an entire race as unattractive or unsuitable. In both cases,it is the stereotype that is deciding, not you.

Excuse me…? What was it you were saying about white people and making a conscious, successful effort to stop being attracted to them, because of colonialism? Isn’t that ruling out a race as unsuitable? Isn’t that letting the stereotype decide? Incredible double-think.

For example: If we are less emotionally invested in our partners, we may end up with the upper hand in the relationship while the other person feels powerless.

There are ways to de-escalate the commitment level without making the other person feel disrespected or powerless. If you communicate your level of commitment clearly, and the other person is still willing to engage in a relationship based on that knowledge, then neither person is taken advantage of.

Treating romantic relationships as pure power dynamics is par for the course with feminism, which rejects the idea of actual love. That’s why, even though “investing emotionally” was involved, the author shies away from the word “love” and uses less intense ones which make the situation seem less personal.

Even in equally committed relationships, it is good to check in about how empowered and respected you feel by your partner and vice versa.

Why not, check in regularly, to verify both parties are still satisfied with the arrangement. Fill out an “equal partner” satisfaction form every month and rate the empowerment you are experiencing.

Engage your decolonial muscles. Build them up. Because we want it to be a fair fight between the reflexes we have inherited and the ones we have chosen for ourselves.

Again – to what avail would this “fight” take place, if not the complete submission to SJW principles, against one’s own natural inclinations?

For the time being, it seems producing these grand ideas vigorously engages people’s decolonial muscles.

Gossip: Small Talk For Small Minds

Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people. —Socrates

gossips

 

After all these years of the same old hobby, it’s a wonder they don’t suffer from professional gossip laryngitis. Every afternoon without fail, when the weather is good enough, they gather on the same bench, monitoring who goes in and out of the tenement, who they’re with, what they’re doing. On occasion, they slightly tilt their heads, as if they feared a lip reader perched up on a tree branch nearby. You hear the sarcasm in their tone, even when they manage to keep it down. The mockery, the arrogance, the righteous indignation. Oh, what a shame! What an outrage! What an embarrassment! It’s when the noise dims that you know they moved on to what  even they understand they should not be discussing; at least not in public.

They don’t read, except maybe the odd prayer book and the religious calendar, to check if they’re allowed to wash, if they should lent or do anything special. Their tired eyes are so sharp they can spot a stain on a coat from twenty metres away. The hearing, that the always moan is worsening, miraculously betters when strange noises are picked up from other people’s flats. They have all the stereotypes nailed down.  All except their own, of course.

Gossip is something society perpetuates even when generally irritated by it. Even those who hate it feed the rabid monster.

This becomes apparent  on every  “side-dish” Daily Bile Bait Mail article, laden with pics taken seconds apart, of celebrities trying to enjoy a day out at the beach. The comment section seems to scream quit this already, you superficial pricks working for this exasperating rag. They don’t understand that the marketing ploy is not based on the righteousness or meaningfulness of those “stories”, but on the number of clicks the publication manages to attract, no matter how. By bothering to sign up and comment, these people are participating, indignation and all, to the success of said rag and its paparazzi vultures.

 

What the rest of us need to understand about gossips it’s that their habit is never about others, but only about themselves. If they want to find you a flaw, they will – and if not, they will make one up. To give just a few examples, here’s what can come out of the mouths of the very same people, based on your circumstances.

Looks

If you don’t care much about your physical aspect, you must’ve given up on yourself or you must be a waster. If your clothes are modest, you must be too poor to afford decent ones. If you look spotless every day, you must be a narcissistic, attention-seeking whore who neglects other duties while spending too much time in front of the mirror. You probably spend too much on yourself as well.

Money

If you’re unemployed, you are basically a deadbeat and potentially hopeless. If you have a high paying job but don’t work many hours, or otherwise they don’t think your work is stranuous enough, you probably don’t deserve all the money you’re getting. If your other half works and you don’t, you’re basically lazy and are being kept by them. If you work and your other half doesn’t, you’re an idiot for sharing your wages.

Marriage

If they think you do too much for your spouse, you’re an idiot. If they think you don’t do enough, they count the days until you’re (presumably) dumped. If you divorce your spouse, unless they do something terrible (in which case you’re an idiot for having married them in the first place), you’re probably selfish and promiscuous. If you stay with your spouse despite frequent problems such as arguments, you’re also hopeless idiot. And if your spouse treats you wonderfully, to the point of making them jealous, they must have someone else on the side, because you’re nothing too special.

Parenting

If you’re too permissive in their eyes, your kids are miniature monsters running a mock doing whatever they like and will grow up to be no good. If you’re strict, you’re probably selfish and impatient and don’t love them enough. If you don’t work, you’re giving them a bad example by lacking ambition in life. If you work long hours, you’re not spending enough time with them. If you had them out of wedlock, you must be promiscuous. If you decide not to have any, there’s something wrong with you.

Socialising 

If you tell these people too much about yourself, you’re a loose mouth, which they associate with shamelessness. If you tell them too little or nothing at all, then you have something to hide. Either way, they’ll doubt everything that comes out of your mouth and find a way to twist it to fit their narrative.

You can’t win with them. People who strive all their lives to maintain a spotless facade don’t realise that no matter what they do, they will never achieve that. A spotless facade is even more fun for them to demolish than an easy target, who doesn’t make an effort to fend them off.

 

 

8 Pearls Of Wisdom From “Everyday Feminism”

If ever there was a parody of SJW mentalities, this website would be the perfect example. Prepare for a trip to Wonderland, down the rabbit hole of delusion.

  1. Hugging Granny may lead to molestation later in life

Apparently, a child who doesn’t automatically reach out to hug someone (perhaps out of shyness) should not be encouraged to be affectionate.This may result in them internalising the concept of submitting to being touched.  Their body, their choice. Surreal.

2. Being rational is overrated and unnecessary

It turns out demanding rationalism from social justice activists is completely unwarranted. Although discussing the use of  the brain is definitely ableist when referring to people who don’t possess one, we must still acknowledge its importance throughout history. After all, human brains have produced marvelous things, such as laptops and the internet, which SJWs dutifully use on a daily basis.

3. Biological sex is non-binary by default (in humans)

Welcome to a world where not only exceptions are the rule but there are no longer rules in nature. It seems chromosome annomalies suffered by a very smal percentage of the population are just normal variations, unlike being born with, let’s say, four hands. The creator of the video claims most people are unaware of these variatons (and their own) because they simply “don’t have their chromosomes examined” more often. Good one.

4. Law enforcement and the judiciary should be abolished

There is a film called “The Purge”, which indulges in a detailed picture of what would happen in that situation – the limitless theft, rape, murder one would expect in a jungle somewhere. I doubt further explanations are necessary to anyone who is not high on some hallucinogenic, besides being severly mentally impaired.Granted that the prison system is unfair and reforming it is not a bad idea – however, dismissing the fact that some humans pose a danger to others and some even torture and murder for fun, is well, about as ridiculous as discourse can get.

It seems the prison system and police force are a concoction of the … what was it again? Cisheteropatriarchy. Translation, the world.

5. Working out results in thin privilege

Because it’s not like socialists to say one should not have the right to fully enjoy something they’ve worked for.

We’re desperately drawn to the idea that an underdog can win with a little effort. (…)

The thing about privilege – whether it’s circumstantial or gained – is that it’s unfair. It’s inequitable. It’s an injustice. Because regardless of how you come by your privilege, it can only exist based on the oppression of others. (…) And therefore, if you believe that you “deserve” your privilege (perhaps because you “worked for” it), then you also inherently believe that others “deserve” to be oppressed.

Here’s a progressive opposed to… well, what most people understand as progress. And it’s plain to see that instead of developing our own qualities, we should envy what others have and call it “privilege”. Women wilfully opress other women though the sheer size of their knickers. It can’t get more cringey than that. This type of attitude shows that the body positivity movement is not based on empowerment through acceptance, but on actual resentment of others. There’s nothing positive about envying other people’s attractiveness. It’s petty.

6.“Gendered language” is offensive

Here’s a creativity exercise – can you spot the problematic words we use on a daily basis? If not, let me give you a hand by pointing them out and replacing them with the PC terms, as shown by this article and many others of this type.

Last night I attended a baby shower with a few ladies; the baby’s mother is a close friend of mine from highschool. She is joyful about expecting a baby girl, and so is the father. I also went to their wedding last year. The bride and groom were quite nervous but elated at the same time.

Last night I attended a baby shower with a few female-presenting people; parent one is a close friend of mine from highschool. They are joyful about expecting a biologically female baby whose gender is not yet known, and so is parent two. I also went to their wedding last year. Partner one and partner two were quite nervous, but elated at the same time.

I remember Christian publications warning years ago that it would come to this. And I remember many people laughing it of as silly or paranoid.

7.Complimenting trans people on their appearance is offensive

But I’m finally going to just say it: The Validation Response is the act of cis people – even the best, most well-meaning ones – subconsciously exercising their power as cis people. (…)

But let’s say you’re a super awesome ally. (Yay you!) Let’s say you comment on their looks only in a healthy, respectable way. That’s still not enough. Now you must follow up with something else about them. (…)

If you can’t do these things, then please keep quiet.

On the other hand, in some parts of the world, failing to give that validation may result in a hefty fine. But finally, if this doesn’t stop, keeping quiet might just be the solution, which will most likely be interpreted as  exclusion. When society at large becomes angry and fed up with this prima donna caper, it will affect even those who are innocent of it. Keep teaching people to require more ceremony than royalty and they will be the only ones losing out. Make others uncomfortable enough and you will achieve the pariah status  for your entire group, faster than you can say “pre-op”.

8. Appropriating hairstyles, clothing styles and prints from other cultures

In recet years, Halloween has become a scandal, as some people wear costumes which stereotype other ethnicities, though one might think it is not to be taken more seriously than a witch or Batman costume. In everyday life, some are scrutinising each other for culturally suggestive aspects and call them out on not being “racially entitled” to wear dreadlocks or certain types of clothes.

What does this look like when someone thinks the art is cool, but not the people with whom it originates?

And who says that? How can you determine by bumping into someone on the street that they are guilty of disrespcting the culture they borrowed a trivial aspect from?

A little empathy might be helpful here. Imagine you’re a part of a community that has been stigmatized (…) Then suddenly one thing you do, eat, or wear gets taken up and celebrated by a community with a hell of a lot more money, visibility and power than you but gives negative twenty fucks about you, your culture, or its value.

More importantly, why would I give “negative twenty fucks” about what they wear or eat? Why would that be any of my business? They’re not stealing it off me, FFS. They simply go into shops, see something they like and buy it. What’s the big deal?

If you’re appropriating a cultural thing literally because your friends are doing it or it was on an episode of Girls . . .  You. Need. To. Check. Yourself.

If you spend your time staring at people’s clothes and the content of their plates … You. Need. To. Check. Yourself. Into. A. Mental. Hospital.

 

The source of inspiration is unending, as that community is a bottomless pit.