Tag Archives: hysteria

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.

“It IS All Men”: Misandry With The Masks Off

In case you were against stigmatising an entire category of people due to the actions of some (which is the foundation of what feminists abhor, such as racism, xenophobia, religious discrimination – unless it’s against Christians  – etc), rest assured it is legitimate when it comes to one category – men.

Not a big deal or a massive generalisation; after all, men only amount to half of the people on this planet. It’s only fair to assume that regardless of their culture, upbringing, level of intelligence, genetic tendencies and personal values, deep down they all pose the same level of threat.

We know what you mean by “not all men” – because on a basic level, we agree with you.

But the socialization of men is such that even a good man – a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviors are normalized through patriarchy.

And as such, we know that even the men that we love, never mind random men who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous. Surely, all people have that potential. But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defense mechanism.

“These behaviours are normalised through patriarchy…”

Like, you know, rape, assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence – which are all illegal in the west, as opposed to other parts of the world, but never mind. It’s not like by passing laws against violence the patriarchy is trying to make these behaviours seem abnormal and is discouraging them, as opposed to normalising them.

“In a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors…” 

No mental health issues here… none whatsoever. And needless to say, none can result from teaching young people where nature has positioned them through birth – into one category or another. No persecution of innocent people will arise from this black and white thinking, by assuming there is no middle ground and whoever doesn’t automatically side with leftist radicals is by default an “oppressor”, even if they mind their own business and don’t bother anybody’s life. You are with or against the revolution, comrades.

So when you enter a space – any space – as a man, you carry with yourself the threat of harm.

Again, no mental issues, nothing to see here. It’s perfectly normal for a group of women to feel threatened in the presence of any man, ranging from their family members to strangers encountered in a public place. All men, at all times, have the potential to harm them, by default. The men they sleep with, as they share a bed. The men they grow up with (who are by nature usually very protective of their sisters, as are fathers of daughters, in civilised countries anyway, unless a rotten character is involved). The men they give birth to and raise.

At this point, one should differentiate between potential and likelihood. A car has the potential to get you killed, but you still get behind the wheel. What feminists are doing is pushing potential towards likelihood where men are concerned, which is why they feel they must take action.

Make no mistake: When you use the phrase “not all men” – or otherwise buy into the myth of it – you’re giving yourself and others a pass to continue performing the socially sanctioned violence of “masculinity” without consequence, whether or not that’s your intention.

The link is to an article in which – no kidding – the author blames even Islamic terrorism not on religion but on masculinity.

This makes me boil, perhaps because without intending to, in an alternative news report, I came across very disturbing material today, about a rise in public floggings in Indonesia, including of women, for “crimes” such as standing too close to men or being in a room with a man they were not married or related to, which might lead to adultery, just like these feminists say a man’s presence might lead to violence. All I see is paranoia and fanaticism, to the point of insanity, in both cases.

It made me sick in more ways than one. But what is relevant to this article is that in those countries men and women think this is normal. Women gather by the dozen to watch their fellow “sisters” being tortured in public and being put in the hospital, not a trace of empathy on their faces or outcry that this is in fact unnatural and abnormal, an utter abomination. They have been desensitised to cruelty.

This is a cultural issue, not one related to sexism. Brainwashing can make men and women capable of the worst kind of violence. Those who perform FGM, by the way, are traditionally female.

I remember Thomas Sheridan making a video on this subject – that even though not all people identifying with a sick religion are extremist and capable of committing acts of violence, many will passively – or even gladly – stand by and watch. Never mind the power-drunk system and its enforcers – to see a crowd stand by and watch that with no reaction is shocking. It’s medieval.

They live in an absolutely sick culture.

Here’s the truth: Most of the time, when we generalize and use the word men, what we’re actually referring to is the effects of patriarchy. What we’re actually intending to communicate when we say “men are horrible,” for instance, is “the ways in which men are socialized under patriarchy, as well as how that benefits them and disadvantages everyone else, sometimes in violent ways, is horrible.”

But that’s kind of a mouthful, isn’t it? So we use men as a linguistic shortcut to express that.

Forgetting for a second about all of the above, so that I don’t actually vomit when comparing these grievances to actual oppression (because the sight of that is still fresh in my mind), am I reading this correctly?

If I am, let me put it this way. If I think the effects of feminism are horrible, I am therefore free to go up to any feminist, indiscriminately, and say “you’re horrible” to their face, without them having to take it personally. Because what I’m trying to communicate by calling a human being horrible is that I disagree with their politics and impact on society. And apparently, that makes it OK to insult them.

The thing about privilege is that it’s often invisible from the inside. It’s hard to see the scale and scope of a system designed to benefit you when it’s as all-encompassing as patriarchy. And that might lead you to buy into the idea of “not all men.”

What if it was “female privilege”? Would feminists be able to see that from the inside, if this applied to human nature in general? If “privilege” was comparable to sin and sometimes went unacknowledged by the one sinning?

Privilege is not invisible from the inside. People in the western world know they are privileged compared to others who were born in less fortunate circumstances and are subjected to trauma daily, through wars, extreme poverty or religious oppression and violence, either directly or by witnessing it. Wealthy people are also aware they are privileged compared to others who are less fortunate.

These are logical observations anyone can make, not the result of some Freudian analysis or some revelation. They only involve a minimum of intelligence and realism, which most people have. It is impossible to be genuinely privileged and not aware of one’s advantages in life.

To those on the outside, however, the margins are painfully visible. That’s why men who really want to aid in leveling the playing field have a responsibility to listen to people who can see the things they can’t.

Again, assuming complete idiocy on the part of these men, some of whom have propelled our species forward through their intelligence.

Religious fanatics do the same, claiming to see the evil and the sin others cannot even understand or recognise in themselves. What all these fanatics (feminists included) want is for everyone to hand over their mental faculties, their very perception of reality, to their brainwashing.

When gender minorities tell you that you’re harming them, listen. Listen even when you don’t understand. Listen especially when you don’t understand.

People can listen and understand, open-mindedly, to the other side of the debate. But they can still choose to disagree in the end. That’s what leftists don’t get.

Picture this: A well-meaning man offers a woman a compliment at a bar. He has no sinister motive, and he is – after all – in an appropriate setting for flirting.

When the woman rebuffs him for whatever reason (she’s in a relationship, she’s not into men, she’s just not interested), the man feels snubbed – because he was polite and respectful, but not rewarded for it. (…)

Such a man isn’t an outright abuser. But his learned entitlement makes him potentially unsafe for women to be around. And it’s hard to see that sense of entitlement from the inside, let alone question it or start to break it down.

The man in question might be disappointed for a minute, if he’s not the stalker or general weirdo type. And I imagine that happens all the time in that sort of environment.

But rest assured that a lot of men do not expect (and in some cases want) all women to be available to just everyone. Do you think men would by default jump right into intimacy with someone who was married or in a relationship? Unless they were into cheating, would they expect their own prospective wives and girlfriends to behave like that at a bar? Would they think women should naturally be like that? Would fathers expect their daughters to reward any complimenting man because it should be female nature according to patriarchy?

To use one of feminists’ favourite expressions, men do not exist in a vacuum.

They don’t just have wives, girlfriends or fuck buddies, or whatever you call them. Their approach to the female nature is complex and complicated. They have mothers, sisters, daughters and granddaughters as well.

And “patriarchy” plus “male entitlement” aside, they would not expect all women, especially the aforementioned, to cave in to just any creature sporting a dick, due to a compliment in a bar.

As such, when we generalize and say, “Men feel entitled to our bodies,” this man would be wrong if he said, “Not all men are like that – I’m not.” He just doesn’t connect the bitterness of rejection with the broader sense of entitlement he’s learned and internalized. Furthermore, he may not realize how this sense of entitlement is symptomatic of a larger patriarchal culture in which men are taught that they’re owed romantic and sexual interest from women.

Logic, dear logic, where are you. The same point as above.

And here’s a quote about “mansplaining”:

Here’s the thing about opinions, though: They’re actually not all equally valid or worth sharing, no matter what you were taught in grade school. You’re actually not automatically entitled to share your opinion; in fact, your opinion might be pointless or even harmful in some conversations.

Isn’t that equality. Surely there are times when opinions should be reconsidered, such as the time when someone knows they have insufficient information and said opinions might be superficial. But harmful? Let’s be serious for a minute.

Propagandising a superficial opinion might be harmful. Expressing it in a certain circle, or even less, to one person – definitely not.

This well-meaning man thinks he’s contributing to a discussion, which he feels entitled to do, because he has a right to his opinion. He doesn’t see the pattern of being talked over, belittled, or dismissed that his female friend daily, to which he’s just contributed.

Which basically means do not contradict a woman even if you know she is wrong. And there I was thinking conversations were meant to lead to intellectual progress for all involved, and not some masturbatory gratification of being listened to. I’m now starting to understand why these people are routinely called regressives.

 

Fair enough, no one tried to contradict Elena Ceausecu when she spoke. Though she was obviously a half-wit and deranged in all sorts of ways. But still, she had gained the privilege of being able to speak uninterrupted and unchallenged.

According to feminists, all women should have that right, regardless of the bullshit they might be spouting.

To a gender minority, there’s very little difference between the impact of inadvertent and intentional harm. A man who makes you feel unsafe by accident is as harmful to you as one who does it on purpose.

Women are not a gender minority. They represent half of the population of this planet. I can’t believe I even have to write this.

So no matter how well-intentioned you are, you’re not off the hook when you hurt people. And because of everything we’ve discussed above, you are likely (yes, all men) to hurt and violate. And you need to be willing to take responsibility for that.

Apparently, you need to take responsibility for someone else’s feelings, which you never meant to cause. Any hysterical harpy can jump out of the woodwork and drag you into her imagined drama for a simple comment.

My best response to that consists of two words: Hugh Mungus.

The deplorable scene which unfolded when a shrieking SJW accused an innocent man of sexual harassment over a joke proves just how far this subjectivity can go. No harm had been done to her and yet she went as far as trying to press charges because she felt offended. No, people’s feelings are not absolutes. There’s this little thing called reality, one that we all share and need to acknowledge, otherwise we will have to indulge all the Caesars and Napoleons of the world as well.

Being a “safe” man – hell, being a feminist man – is more than just believing yourself to be and collecting accolades from others about the minimal work that you’re doing not to be an asshole.

Doing the work means really doing the work – getting your hands dirty (and potentially having an existential crisis in the process).

Boy, you’re not asking for much, are you?

The average feminist must be imagining that men would be so desperate to be accepted by her crowd, as if there were no women left in the world, that they would humiliate themselves to the back of beyond in order to be considered “safer”.

Because here’s the truth: Even when it’s not conscious, male entitlement is a choice – a choice to be uncritical, a choice to continue to passively benefit. And attempting to fight that entitlement is also a choice ­– one that has to be both conscious and ongoing. You’ve got to choose it every day, in every instance.

That’s the first I’ve ever heard of an unconscious choice. Because there is no such thing. A choice entails analysis, weighing different options, using one’s judgement, making a decision.

Hint: You are “like that” – especially if you’re not actively fighting patriarchy. And claiming that you’re “not like that” doesn’t negate patriarchy – it enforces it.

Right. Just like denying that you’re a racist makes you more of a racist than if you actually admitted to being one. That’s the type of reasoning we seem to be employing nowadays.

Fighting learned male entitlement means assuming the burden of vigilance – watching not just yourself, but other men. It means being open to having your motives questioned, even when they’re pure. It means knowing you’re not always as pure as you think.

It means assessing the harm you’re capable of causing, and then being proactive in mitigating it.

Most of all, it’s a conscious decision to view every individual’s humanity as something exactly as valuable and inviolable as your own.

Let me get this straight. His humanity is valuable and inviolable, after you’ve called him a threat to all women for possessing a penis, denied him the right to assess his own judgement and personality and told him you’ll police his head for mental impurities 24/7? What’s “inviolable” about that?

And it means doing it every single moment of your life. Point blank, period.

Again, not asking for much. Just complete control over his mind, every single moment of his life.

We don’t want to fear or distrust men. We don’t want to have to perform risk assessments on every man that we meet. Trust us – it’s a miserable life! We’d gladly abandon this work if it wasn’t absolutely necessary to our survival.

And since they will not feel safe until every last man adopts this way of thinking, which will never ever happen, this is basically a declaration of perpetual misery.

To recap, what these men would gain by selling their souls and dignity to feminism would be the company of permanently miserable women who will always see them as a threat, regardless of their intentions, words or actions.

Totally worth it, right?

International Hysteria Over US Elections

Every few years, the world starts boiling with hypotheses on the direction the US will take after the mascot in the White House is replaced. And unless you live in a remote part of the world, where the mainstream western media is unavailable or ignored, you’re bound to hear all about the presidential campaigns.

It’s basically like watching the X Factor with a bit more vitriol. Everything but the candidates’ underpants becomes of public interest and steals the stage from actual current events.

After the awaited elections, when the spell of the marketing campaign wears off and nothing changes for the better, Americans, just as every other nation, end up in disillusion, placing bets on the newest hope on the horizon. After all this time and a massive (though not sufficient) political awakening across the planet, people still partake, intellectually and emotionally, in this cheap spectacle, though so many know that the reins of power lie somewhere else.

Time and time again, people get drawn into politics, ending up in fits of anger against complete strangers on the other side of the globe. All this energy goes towards corporate mouthpieces who will never give a toss about them, their families, their businesses or their way of life.

They spend their time lauding the candidate of their choice to the point of nausea and demonising the other side; the gratuitous ass-kissing must be incredibly funny for candidates themselves, if they ever spare a minute to inquire about it.

It’s particulalry funny to see people who claim to be politically aware (into the alternative movement, libertarianism etc) praising Donald Trump to the high heavens, as some sort of Jesus figure, their only salvation in the face of religiously motivated terrorism and political correctness. You’d think they were a few feet above all that. The opposition, on the other hand, sees this individual as the incarnation of Satan, who will undoubtedly destroy their country and as a consequence their lives.

There are violent clashes at political manifestations; people being beaten and even killed. Crowds holding signs with two strangers’ photographs on them, cheering and shouting with religious fervour. Pardon my frankness but this is nothing short of a cult of personality, in the so-called heart of civilised democracy.

I’ve seen people agitating against Trump in my country of origin, back in Eastern Europe, where fuck knows why, completely ordinary folks are encouraged by the media to become hysterical about another country’s elections. They are avidly consuming this spectacle they will never be involved in, or very likely, be affected by.

All in all, the spectacle will culminate in the grad day of “long live the new president”, followed by a short while of anxious hope versus unjustified panic. Then calm, then apathy, then disappointment, then back to square one.

Nothing new.

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.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sexism Again. The Horror.

Trying to decide whether this is a good laugh or an insufferable migraine, one thing comes to mind: today’s feminists would rather date the horsemen of the Apocalypse before going near any normal, nature-driven man. In fact, they would probably date the horses instead.

Twelve signs that your date is sexist (read misogynistic, as the article only covers men’s “crimes”). This seems to be the perfect recipe for women to remain alone for the rest of their lives, never thinking that when everything seems problematic, it might be them who have the actual problem.

Online dating has made this task a bit easier. OKCupid questions like, “Do you think women have the obligation to keep their legs shaved?” are designed to weed out misogynists.

You’re also going to weed out rational people, who avoid those who make a point out of drawing negative attntion by doing things which do not benefit them whatsoever (such as not shaving their legs). The sheer act of doing something pointless or detrimental just as a big middle finger to the world shows a hostile personality, in a perpetual need of defying everyone around them. If this defiance consisted of an intellectual endeavour, it would likely be praiseworthy; however, feminists do not see beyond the basest levels of human existence.

But sometimes, even if your profile screams out “I AM AN INTERSECTIONAL QUEER FEMINIST WHO ABHORS THE GENDER BINARY,” you may still find yourself on a date with someone whose actions don’t reflect this philosophy.

Not fucking likely. I trust not even those who are desperate for a one night stand would go near someone who has severe identity issues. They might just end up with a bunny boiler.

While this problem disproportionately affects women who date men, since more women than men are feminists, it’s definitely applicable to people of all genders and sexual orientations.

Can someone explain to me how a gay person could be sexist towards their date, when only dating people of their own sex?

If you notice any of these signs on a date, I would advise you to reconsider your next date with the person exhibiting them.

As you will see below, not only are most of these reasons ludicrous in terms of causing offence, but the thought that one should instantaneously give up on the other person if they come across any of them shows just how petty – and hopeless – feminists can be.

They act surprised when you defy stereotypes

A guy I was dating once asked me how I pictured my wedding when I was little. When I told him I had given literally no thought to tablecloths, centerpieces, or bridesmaid dresses, he responded, “Really? I thought girls dreamed about that stuff.” It became clear to me that he had a different idea of what being a girl meant than I did. (…) Assumptions of any sort prevent people from getting to know who you actually are.

Talk about a storm in a tea cup. Anyone who thinks such innocent remarks are enough to ring alarm bells can be sure to remain alone – until they quit that attitude, that is.

They praise women or insult men based on stereotypes

It may seem nice for a guy to say that he respects women because of their moral superiority, but as the Dalai Lama’s recent comments demonstrated, benevolent sexism (the kind behind claims like “the female biologically [has] more potential to show affection”) can be linked to less benevolent statements.

And if a man believes that men, on the other hand, are aggressive or unable to control their sexual urges, there’s a good chance he considers himself in that category and views that behavior as excusable.

In other words, if they utter the bullshit they imagine a feminist might like to hear, self-flagellating because they consider that to be the new norm (encouraged by our female-worshipping culture), not only they are insulting you but they are also likely to embody the negative characteristics feminists keep attributing to them. By condemning these behaviours in others, apparently, men are actually endorsing or even embracing them.

Most men are pieces of shit! says the feminist. Especially if they deny it! Wait a minute, here’s one who agrees in order to get on my right side. It must all be true then! He must be a piece of shit. Who knew that I was right all along!

Unbelievable.

Un-fucking-believable that this can be the product of a human mind capable of stringing two sentences together.

They compliment you by contrasting you with other women

Compliments like, “You’re not like most girls” or “You’re not the typical girl” aren’t really compliments. There’s a slight chance that it could just mean you’re a character and they’ve never met anyone like you. But if they view being unlike most girls as a compliment, they probably don’t have a high opinion of most girls.

Let’s recap: they insult you if they don’t appreciate the fact that you defy stereotypes. However, they also insult you if they specifically appreciate you for it. Which is it again?

How can it be anything other than a compliment for someone to say you’re on the same wavelength as them, more than anyone they’ve ever met? Isn’t this how couples are formed in the first place? Is he also dating the rest of the world’s female population at the same time, or is he dating you? Are you actually interested in the guy or in promoting feminism? From a subsequent point, it becomes very clear.

I once met a guy on OKCupid who went on a rant on our second date about how women on the site weren’t responding to his messages.

This was “unjust,” he said.

I was particularly shocked because I, too, get frustrated by a lack of responses to my OKCupid messages. But I had never even thought to turn that frustration back on the people who decided not to message me with their own free will. (…) Someone who feels it is “unjust” for women to say “no” to them may not respect when you say “no” to something they want.

There’s something about common courtesy feminists just don’t seem to get. The women were not saying “no”; they simply weren’t responding. Forget the stupidity of dating sites in general – it’s a matter of effortless politeness to let someone know exactly where they stand so they can stop wasting their time. How long does it take?

It’s the same with job applications from companies which don’t take the a minute to at least send an automated message to applicants that there is no chance of them getting the job. Someone can end up waiting for weeks on a response (which may not come at all).

They buy into pickup artistry

Secondly, they usually subscribe to stereotypes that men are sexually predatory and women are prey to be caught.

Though I fully agree that these men are shallow and full of themselves, it’s not necessarily a sexist attitude. It doesn’t mean they view  all women in such ways, but they do view certain types, which they try to take advantage of. If they approach you like that, they must think you are one of those types (generally stupid, too easy ot too drunk to care). However, if you’re over fifteen and not into Fifty Shades of Grey, you’re most likely not in danger of falling for bullshit which can be spotted from miles away.

They undercut your statements about sexism with rebuttals about how hard men have it

Men do have it hard in some ways, but that doesn’t undercut the fact that women are systematically viewed as inferior and the “other” in our society. There is room to talk about the challenges faced by each gender without making it a competition. Anyone who responds to your lived experiences of sexism without compassion lacks, well, compassion.

Speaking of competitions: these points could in all earnest compete for the title of the most contradictorily argumented idea. The runner up and the rest would only lose by a close margin.

The second phrase contradicts the first one. Therefore, women by default have it harder, yet the whole debate is not a competition of who is more oppressed nowadays. Regarding the lived experiences of sexism, if they are enything like what this article lists, compassion is the last response they would ever generate (more like perplexity).

They deny that sexism even exists

A lot of people still love to debate proven facts, like that one in three to five women are sexually assaulted in college and that women who work full-time make 77 percent of what men make.(…) If someone denies that women experience sexism or views conversations about sexism as intellectual challenges that present the opportunity to play the devil’s advocate, their ability to empathize (or, as the Dalai Lama would say, “potential to show affection”) is probably not great.

Empathy has nothing to do with discussing numbers. Systemic sexism can be proved or rebutted with cold hard facts.And demolished it has been by so many outspoken critics so far, in the clearest, most logical of manners. Calling a long disproven fact a “proven fact” makes feminists either wilfully ignorant or duplicitous.

Also, the next time you speak to the Dalai Lama, mind and ask him how he feels about feminists calling him sexist.

They complain about political correctness

Complaining about political correctness is putting your right to hurt someone’s feelings above their feelings. Someone who sees political correctness as an affront to their freedom of speech is likely to care more about their ability to make rape jokes than your comfort and unlikely to listen when you’re uncomfortable.

Perhaps the people doing so are not ignorant of history and the monstrous systems censorship produces, in the name of “righteousness” or more recently, “feelings”. If someone caring more about jokes than your feelings is immoral, those who care more about their feelings than other people’s livelihoods or physical freedom are certainly not capable of compassion. They are cruel, capricious and narcissistic, willing to ruin lives because they feel offended.

They say something racist, homophobic or otherwise bigoted

Someone who is not interested in examining their privilege and figuring out how they can be more sensitive to perspectives other than their own is not likely to be a champion for women’s rights.

Otherwise bigoted could mean anything the author / evaluator of the hopeless candidate wants it to mean. And not being interested in examining your priviege is not the same as gratuitously expressing disdain for one category or another based on inherent traits.

The more important question remains whether you’re looking for a romantic partner or a political ally to expand your echo chamber. If the latter is true, why not tell them from the very beginning, instead of playing detective with this person’s mind? Another issue is that the author simply assumes that every woman is looking for a male feminist.

The other points refer to men who are rude, obnoxious or pushy – I doubt however that if it’s in their nature to be so, they would only display that in the company of women.

The end is sublime though.

Sometimes you’ve got to kiss a few sexist frogs before you find a feminist prince, but they’re out there.

The feminist prince must encapsulate the following: he must be neutered, he should be on strong psychotropics which inhibit his ability to reason and must be very, very desperate (desperate enough to sit through hours of dreary conversations to get some action in bed). Otherwise, try someone with a fetish for taming impossible women. Other combinations are unlikely to ever work.

New article on Psychopath Free: “What if they’re not a sociopath?”

This post is in response to this new PF article, based on the idea that healing from a hurtful relationship is all that matters, combined with dealing with your own demons – which would normally be true, except for the situations detailed below. Here is the conclusion of the article:

The question “What if they’re not really a sociopath?” loses all of its significance when we come to love ourselves regardless of the answer.

To start with, the article conveys a warm, fluffy and appeasing feeling, detailing doubts which might arise and nuancing an individual’s response to a failed relationship – an introspection which would undoubtedly be positive … were the website not called Psychopath Free, claiming to teach people how to identify  and deal with monsters. Not people who at one point in time displayed toxic behaviours. Soulless, irredeemable monsters.

It matters when you have publicly labelled said person a sociopath

This label is far from a private matter, at one’s discretion to keep or discard, when it was turned into a public accusation, ranging from a circle of friends to the presumed sociopath’s own family. Where exactly does the hipsterism fit in once you’ve damaged that person’s life?

Of course, one might argue that they’ve also damaged yours in ways which are difficult to repair. But still, does that absolve someone of the wrongdoing of tarnishing another’s reputation?

When you broke up with a significant other specifically because you applied this label

Which I’m sure has been the case on PF time and time again – confused people coming across the “life-saving” information which raises their adrenaline, feeling self-righteous beyond the shadow of doubt and making crucial decisions based on it.

The sheer thought that a loved one is impossible to deal with by default has been breaking marriages and relationships apart. At times, had it not been for this black and white thinking, many people would’ve surely reconsidered.

While I believe that education about narcissism and sociopathy are essential to healing and sanity restoration (especially in the early stages as we break the chemical bond and learn to go No Contact), I think there is something very powerful about eventually releasing this duality.

That’s just it – they are essential to those who are genuinely involved with these types, not to the rest, who might think they are in a moment of desolation, to later brood over their assessment and find it impulsive and inaccurate. People can heal from heartache without resorting to this demonisation, which is anything but sanity when untrue.

He is basically saying that this “education”, as well as going no contact, is essential even to those who later question their judgement. In the vein of act now, think later.

With the risk of emphasising this for the hundredth time: even when a lot of heartache was involved, on one or both sides, it doesn’t mean one has to give up on the relationship, as if this were the only beneficial route. Assuming that ending it was for the best regardless, even if the label is later questioned, and that reading about disordered people was just a prop towards the “liberating” break-up even when said person was not necessarily disordered, is absolutely ridiculous.

When you claim to be an expert on sociopathy and coach others on the subject

Basing your entire expertise on your experience, “educating” others with fanatical dedication, influencing their lives (sometimes irreversibly) and suddenly turning around to say that it doesn’t really matter if your judgement was correct regarding said experience just doesn’t fly.

It is basically stating that your cut-in-stone perspective on human interaction just might be based on a murky, questionable situation, in which you just might’ve been wrong. In this case, the smallest of doubts matters a great deal. Because you might’ve – just might’ve – fed lorry loads of horse manure to all the people who regarded your approach as the absolute truth.

One of the most common questions asked during recovery is: “Was he/she really a sociopath?” Survivors ask this question over and over again, because for most of us, the alternative is the sociopath’s reality: “You are crazy, jealous, sensitive, paranoid, unattractive, unwanted.” And so we oscillate back and forth between these two realities: bad other, or bad self.

This binary excludes the middle ground – actual rationality and sanity, which admits the possibility of both individuals being wrong at the same time, to various degrees. One for saying hurtful things and the second  for taking them as the absolute reality of the other’s thinking, prompting them to label the other as a merciless sociopath.

There is no need for this radicalism, as if one were completely incapable of analysing matters beyond “I was right” versus “this person was right”.

This is not a healthy way to look at life and people who tend to think in black and white should not be teaching others how to handle their problems.

 

The post is followed by quite a few which are glorifying an empath’s ability to love, regardless of their presumed sociopath’s behaviour. I know this will sound cruel on my part, but in this context it seems like a self-gratifying exercise which does not address the real question – what if the people they labelled as such were not actually sociopaths?

This article not only implies but states it is beyond the issue for anyone “recovering” from a hurtful relationship. Is it really though? Is loving yourself enough to obliterate any damage you might’ve done to someone and any afterthoughts about what might’ve been in the absence of this label? And is loving yourself enough to give you confidence to keep “spreading the word” about disordered people, even in the absence of certainty that you have even met one? And regardless of the damage you might do to others who believe you know what you’re preaching?

The answer is logical.

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.

Mandatory Verbal Consent – What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

In recent history, there have been a few widely circulated yet non-existent threats to western societies. Weapons of mass destruction was one of them. The “rape culture” called out by third wave feminists is only the latest one – although effortlessly demolished numerous times, statistic by statistic, through its sheer use, this fabrication persists, used in their rhetoric as  proven fact.

To combat this “crisis” (not to be mistaken with the assault on western women by people from radically different cultures), feminists propose broadening the definition of rape, as well as the obligation for people to obtain verbal consent from those they sleep with (not a Christian Grey style contract as well, I hope).

This makes no sense. To begin with, if there is a rape allegation denied by the person who is accused, there will still be one person’s word against the other’s. Either one can lie about having given or received verbal consent. It brings no revealing evidence whatsoever, unless, of course, it is recorded somewhere – which would mean little unless the act was actually videotaped, because someone can still give consent one minute and withdraw it the next. Or claim to have done so/ not have done so.

consent2

According to some feminists, even instances classed by default as consensual sex are actually rape. Leaving aside genuine concepts such as marital or statutory rape, these feminists measure the nature of the act by how “joyful and excited” those involved are, arguing that it shouldn’t take actual resistance for it to be considered non-consensual. Which is bat shit crazy, of course.

consent 1

Constantly worrying about picking up cues which are not even expressed can only make people insecure for no reason.There is no such thing as unintentional rape, or one the rapist doesn’t understand is happening. It’s an absurd concept.

 

In the convoluted minds of these feminists, instead of enjoying their time with women, men should constantly worry about the possibility that they’re actually raping them.

It’s time to rediscover the true meaning of consensual sex.

Consensual sex is when:

  • Both parties agree to have sex (ideally verbally but at least physically)
  • Both parties show excitement and willingness to have sex.

How to know it’s consensual:

  • Look for visual clues – Does the other person seem excited or happy? Are they smiling? Or do they seem scared or unsure?
  • Check body language – Is the other person seem to be in a positive mood or have high-energy? Or do they seem tense and uncomfortable?
  • See if they’re engaged in the sexual act – Is the other person proactively kissing or touching you? Or are they still and only move if you ask them to?

And lastly and most importantly,…

  • Just ASK and watch for if the answer is said with fear or joy. If it’s a “yes” said in a small or fearful voice, wait before progressing and find out what’s going on. It may be shyness or it may be fear – don’t you want to find out which one it is?

 

This article presumes there is some confusion in people’s minds regarding what consensual sex is and it should be a purpose in itself and not the natural state of things; the default interaction.

There is no need to go into details such as how shy a person seems at first or how much they end up liking it. What they clearly want is for men to become obsessed with the idea that they are exploiting women.

consent3

This concept of one-sided exploitation is made clearer by another article on the same website, regarding sex after consuming alcohol. This is actually hilarious through the sheer ridiculousness when trying to picture in real life:

The best rule is that if you or a partner have been drinking, make sure to check in regularly about any sex that you’re having.

Ask things like:

Do you still want to do this?

Imagine being right in the middle of it, and the partner suddenly asking that, for no apparent reason. I don’t suppose that happens to many people.

Is this okay?

I guess if it weren’t, the other person would just say so. Or, they would immediately assume you’re about to do something uncanny and they just haven’t noticed.

Do you need a break?

If that’s not objectification on the part of whoever wrote this, I don’t know what is. So this woman is some poor fragile object in danger of overuse, or some beast of burden being tired out. I know it’s sometimes called “riding”, but she’s not actually a horse.

Are you having fun?

As in rate me on a scale of one to ten…? Honestly…? Who asks that?

What do you want to do next?

And here comes a detailed description, I presume, straight out of a porn magazine, of what she “wants to do next”. The author may have listed this as a way to check for coherence.

 

consent4

 

The way these guidelines are formulated indicates the man and woman involved are having two separate experiences, totally disconnected at a mental and emotional level. Which is a really sad way to see things.

Furthermore, the article about alcohol consumption gives some indications which to me read like a cold, calculated guide to use someone’s body with enough legal precautions:

Ask yourself a few key questions like:

  • How much has the person drank since you last checked in?
  • Have they ever indicated that they wanted to have sex with you when sober?

Remember, though, that even if a person has said yes to sex when sober, and continues to say yes to sex after drinking, it’s still important to confirm this and to do regular check-ins to make sure that they’re still capable of consenting as more alcohol is consumed.

So imagine this guy, as the woman is enjoying his company, calculating her alcohol intake in order to make sure he’s safe enough. If anything, that has a predatory air to it, even with an emphasis on consent. Life isn’t like that; people bond and have a good time together; things evolve naturally.

Whereas rape is the aberration, not the norm, defining the norm with a clear focus on aberrations is nothing new to the SJW camp.