Tag Archives: political correctness

Writers Under Scrutiny By The PC Brigade

Trigger warning: life on planet Earth

As the ever-growing demand for trigger/content warnings in a variety of environments is facing a vehement backlash, especially on the internet, social justice activists exert themselves to make the rest of society capitulate. In this effort they use what they know best – guilt and manipulation. In this article, dissenters are varnished with a mixture of laziness, insensitivity and self-assuredness originating from being (what else?) privileged.

Many people talk about the inconvenience of content warnings. As a writer, I’m calling bullshit on that.

Even if writing an additional sentence at the beginning of my article were difficult (which it’s not), it will never compare to the inconvenience of a serious panic attack, a flashback, or a dissociative episode that a survivor might have if they encounter a trigger in my work.

Inconvenience is not the issue here. Caving in would mean acquiescing to the idea that avoiding the real world is beneficial to anybody, including survivors of trauma.

Avoidance will not make the triggers disappear from the affected person’s mind or cause less damage while living in constant fear of them. The only way to get rid of unresolved emotional problems is to deal with them – and that only depends on the individual. As accommodating as everyone else tries to be (down to walking on eggshells), it is ultimately in the hands of the person who has suffered and is suffering to seek treatment, counselling or other ways to return to functionality. A hundred trigger warnings per written piece or media production cannot restore their peace.

When people oppose content warnings – treating them as though they are frivolous requests coming from oversensitive people – they completely undermine the seriousness of conditions like PTSD.

Not only are they frivolous but they are utterly unrealistic. These people will be forced by the sheer nature of their existence to deal with events happening in real time in their close proximity. Not all of these events will be easy to manage emotionally. There is no trauma-free life; it’s unheard of. If they indeed have a serious problem, their only logical recourse is to treat it. There is no trigger warning before the death of a loved one, an earthquake or a terrorist attack. Everything is unexpected nowadays.

You don’t need to tell a survivor that “the real world” is hard, because they already know that. They’re already living in it, trying to survive and trying to heal. And your refusal to include content warnings takes already difficult circumstances and makes them even harder.

Aside from those who dedicate their time to “social justice” activism, most of the demands come from very young people – especially students. Whereas they may well have lived through hardship and abuse, most have no experience of what it’s like to ensure their literal survival – meaning becoming employed, securing a home, raising a family etc. These come with a vast array of problems and compromises of their own.

If a young person schooled in this manner does not waltz straight into an executive position at a well-standing company, and instead goes to their first job making entitled demands, that might result in more serious consequences than the lack of a trigger warning. Young people need to understand that.

On a side note, I get the strange sensation that some of those who demand warnings and safe spaces are only preoccupied with what they personally find negatively impacting and not necessarily the shocking reality shared by everyone else. I get the feeling that some could tranquilly have a piece of toast while watching the news about hundreds dying due to a catastrophe, whilst freaking out over reading words that a bully threw at them fifteen years ago in front of the school gate.

When you act like content warnings are just a silly request, what you’re really saying is that mental illness and the people who are surviving with it every day are just “silly.”

That is not the point at all. You’re trying to protect them from their own minds, and that is impossible. No external help is good enough for such a task, unless it comes from someone who specialises in helping those in such situations.

There is no established guideline of what can be triggering as that depends on every individual. A person might be triggered by a chestnut tree, if their father hung himself from it. Others might be triggered by a pot of water if they were scalded in the past. Car accident survivors might be triggered by cars. Etc ad infinitum. Words are just representations of the realities that will keep surrounding them, whether they see something in their homes, in the street or on the news.

I recognize that I won’t make every single person happy with my writing. There will always be individuals who are a bit disgruntled. But I also recognize that when a community calls on me to make my content better, I should tune in and see if there’s a way that I can do it.

There is no community when it comes to thinking, which is what makes people embrace or reject a literary creation. There are only individual minds, choosing some ideas over others. Pardon the vocabulary but intellectuals are not meant to be the bitches of any political faction, group or “community”, caving to pressure or intimidation. In that case they cease to be intellectuals and become political pundits. The left is well acquainted with this phenomenon.

If you don’t care about the impact that your work has on the community that you are serving –whether it’s with your articles or your films or a lesson you give in your classroom – what exactly is the point of what you’re doing?

Here’s where I have an even bigger problem. Whereas mandatory education is up for debate as many things slip in there that parents find inappropriate, higher education is something people choose of their own accord. It’s fair enough to leave if you feel you cannot handle the material you are studying, but do not expect to get the same results as everyone around you while refusing to make the intellectual effort assigned to you. If you find yourself in the wrong university, you can always use the exit and never return. Demanding that the university seeking to train you lowers its standards to adapt to your needs specifically is indeed absurd.

These same people have no issue with gender studies material being shoved down the throats of students who reject it. They have no problem with forced diversity courses, the pushing of Marxism and so forth, in unrelated fields where students had no idea it would be included.

“How to write diverse characters (and why it’s not about being PC)”

The article linked above describes a whole new trend – that of “advising” writers on how to be sensitive to cultural issues. Let me note that I think it’s great for a writer to spend a lot of time ensuring that the context they describe is factual and relatable. However, I also know that sometimes locations are chosen arbitrarily (I can give one example which became symbolic of a region and that is Dracula, whose location on the world map was chosen after the book was actually written).

The complexity of a character matters far more than any other trait such as nationality or race. Since this world contains an infinity of possibilities regarding someone’s personality, which is fluid anyway, I’d argue there’s no impossible scenario solely judging by shallow traits such as skin colour or background.

Information is one click away these days and one can easily check potential factual errors. However, seeking endorsement regarding how a character is allowed to feel or talk in order to avoid offending a certain group is not only unproductive in terms of free thinking but also reminiscent of very sad times, when art was subject to political approval.

Mostly the work I do is mundane, I help authors flesh out characters, I point out when their attempts at AAVE are wrong, and occasionally I have to tell them that the thing they wrote is a hot mess. That last conversation is awkward, fraught with a lot of emotions and generally not something I enjoy at all.

My question is whether those authors are trying to write books or develop custom-made products they can sell in large numbers. Because as far as I know and speaking to other writers as well, they wouldn’t generally need anyone’s help to “flesh out characters”. Somehow this process sounds very unnatural for a creative mind.

This post is about the idea that not wanting bigoted tropes to be replicated in fiction is about political correctness, censorship, or some unfathomable agenda.

Like most people possessing a brain, I deeply dislike the mass use of tropes, for instance in Hollywood films, where they annoyingly abound. However, I do see danger in setting limits when it comes to literature – for instance dictating how a character cannot possibly be portrayed, due to above-mentioned traits which say little (if anything) about them. Here’s where we get to the point – warnings and interdictions, to be more specific.

You want to write a character with a different race, sexual orientation, religion, gender ID than yours? Okay. But before you set that character loose into the world, do some basic research. Do some basic work in understanding what obstacles that community faces, what narratives are most offensive to them? Are you replicating tropes that are used to dehumanize and erase members of that community?

The intent here is clearly not to be factually accurate but to avoid offending a minority of some sort. Offensive narratives can also be rooted in reality or be partially represented when any group is involved.

What is at stake here is not the truthfulness or plausibility of someone’s work but its social justice value.

It’s easy to justify shoddy writing by proclaiming it is art. Well, okay your art is your art. Your art can also be offensive, your art can be harmful, your art can be wrong as wrong can be. You have a right to create it, you don’t have a right to never see it challenged. You don’t have a right to never have your biases questioned, or to never be told that you fucked up.

I’m really interested in finding out who is the supreme authority proclaiming that an author “fucked up” in that sense (though some say that about Hitler, but he was a special case). To be clear, art has been and continues to be challenged since times immemorial. I haven’t heard of anyone’s aspirations to change that. However, the incisive tone of this article suggests that some biased writings should never see the light of day, by merely declaring them harmful. 

So if I write a trans character and someone from that community tells me I fucked up? I need to shut up, listen, and do my best to make amends. This is part and parcel of being a writer.

No, it’s part and parcel of being a product developer and trying not to piss off the right market.

I’m not saying objections should not be taken into account if superficiality might be involved; however, prostrating oneself before a single complainer and making all demanded “amends” right away seems a bit much.

No two individuals are the same and no one can claim to speak for an entire category, particularly a large one, based on race or ethnicity. I understand being corrected when making factual errors; however, when describing a person’s feelings or behaviour, nothing is impossible.

And here’s the thing, there’s a million and one resources on how to not to be harmful. You can use TVTropes.org for a quick and dirty check of your character design so that you know when your bare bones character is problematic. You can ask someone you know in that community.

You can ask them whether the character is plausible or whether they would like to read such a story? To SJWs, I believe it makes no difference, as a single I find that offensive is the equivalent of a stop sign. If every writer were to do that and stop at the first objection, allow me to assume the whole process would come to an end. Worldwide.

Though if you don’t know anyone from that community, you’re not part of that community, and you’re unwilling to connect with that community? You probably shouldn’t be writing that character. Because not only are you not adding to diversity by creating a poor representation of someone else’s community, chances are excellent that your own internalized biases are about to be splattered all over the page.

What this person is saying, basically, is that no outsider is morally allowed to portray a member of a “community”, or minority, in a negative way, regardless of the negative aspects in question, which might have absolutely nothing to do with that status. And better yet, they should just avoid writing about people who are different than them, in any possible way.

I’m sorry – is a writer’s job on this planet adding to diversity or creating captivating stories? Or is there no demarcation anymore between who is a social justice activist and who isn’t?

Writers have the power to create brand new worlds, so we should always stop and ask ourselves why we are so hung on replicating everything wrong in the old one?

No one says writers should stick to reality, but likewise, no one should say that they mustn’t replicate any uncomfortable part of it.

Writing about utopias for social engineering purposes reminds me of the communist mentality.

Yes, you have a the power to create, the power to sway your readers in one direction or another, but if you’re going to embrace that power fully, then you need to do so responsibly.

In other words, if you merely seek to entertain through your work, without considering other implications, that is by default morally wrong. Instead, you should see yourself as a tool in the greater plan of social reconstruction and behave as such.

This type of thinking stems from the same “illumination” which brought forth the idea that anyone’s private conversations, jokes, thoughts or even unmanifested subconscious biases should be put through the social justice grinder.

When they are done with you, nothing will have remained intact but what they have given you to parrot, like the docile little robot that you are.

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!


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.

Back To Communism: You Stand Convicted


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.

More Identity Brain Mash

A short while ago, influential forces in western societies have given us the latest “discovery” in terms of human nature – that a person’s gender has nothing to with their biological sex. This unfounded,  not researched  and unproven view was grabbed by the left with both hands (and even hands it does not possess; such was the desperation) and flung at the world through social activism, as fact.

However, the demolition of the mind does not stop there (by the looks of it, there is no end in sight, until there’s nothing left but a memory of how people used to function and find balance).

Gender identity is separate from gender expression

I understand where some people have trouble: “If you express yourself in this way,” they wonder, “then doesn’t that imply that that is how you identify?”

Sorry for having to explain basic logic, but the mere concept of expressing yourself means projecting an aspect of yourself to the outside world. By doing so, you know exactly how you will be perceived, and it’s only logical for others to believe that you want to be perceived in this manner.

People claiming to be of a different gender than the one indicated by their biological sex often complain of being misgendered. In spite of their efforts to adapt their outer characteristics to the gender they want to be perceived as – one would think.

However, being trans and wanting to be recognised as the opposite sex while preserving all traits of your natural one is deliberately misleading. Wanting to be called a man, to be seen as a man, while being and appearing female in every way is just absurd.

Why would your appearance be called gender expression in the first place, if it has little or nothing to do with the gender you have chosen?

The expression masculine-of-centre is used.

Before even delving into the knot of ideas it must stand for, the very notion begs the question – what is masculine even supposed to represent anymore, if sex is not linked to gender and gender is not linked to gender expression? How can we use and define words such as male, female, masculine and feminine, after completely tearing them down? This should be fun (enough to throw down a pint in one breath to relieve the headache).

So here’s the definition:

Masculine of center (MOC) is a term, coined by B. Cole of the Brown Boi Project, that recognizes the breadth and depth of identity for lesbian/queer/ womyn who tilt toward the masculine side of the gender scale and includes a wide range of identities such as butch, stud, aggressive/AG, dom, macha, tomboi, trans-masculine etc.

So in lay terms, this refers to butch lesbians. For more recent inventions, you can find a broad list here of all “genders” and types of sexual attraction.

Here’s one definition which sums up the spirit of the entire list:

Having a gender characterized by autonomy and inner conviction regarding a sense of self that is entirely independent of male/masculine, feminine/femininity, or anything which derives from the two while still being neither without gender nor of a neutral gender. Rhymes with antique (mav-reek).

The question remains – what in the world is masculinity or femininity as a point of reference, in a system of thought which deems it obsolete to be male or female?

As you might expect, that’s not all the “word salad” being served up.

From this article  you can learn that your “romantic” orientation is separate from your sexual one. And in case you didn’t know what a romantic orientation is, here is some enlightenment so you can get to know yourself better:

By “romantic attraction,” I mean a deep desire to have a committed, romantic relationship with someone, and by “sexual attraction,” I mean a desire to have sexual contact with someone.

Pardon my confusion but I was under the impression that the two go together; otherwise we’d call said bond a friendship or platonic love, which has already been coined, so to speak. The desire for physical intimacy in a couple is implied; it’s just what happens.

Although there is one instance when these two “orientations” are invariably separated, and that is  when bestiality is involved. I needn’t explain why, but I do remember a funny line from Father Ted: “We want to stay out of that whole idea of being in love with the horse”.

Cross orientation, also known as “mixed orientation,” is a term given to describe a situation where someone experiences romantic attraction to a different gender group to who they’re sexually attracted to.

An example of someone with a cross-orientation is a woman who is homosexual, but heteroromantic. She would feel sexually attracted to other women, but she’d only experience romantic attraction to people of another gender.

When you start referring to groups in situations which involve individuals, it’s proof that socialism has soaked your brain to the unfortunate degree of  placing everyone into inexistent categories and sticking inexistent labels on them.

This is a personal matter people experience differently and I sincerely doubt every situation of this type has to turn into a pattern  and a lifestyle, to warrant such generalisations.

Someone might also be heterosexual and biromantic, homosexual and panromantic, homoromantic and heterosexual, and so on. For some people, their romantic and sexual orientations might change every day, which means they’re sexually and/or romantically fluid. The possibilities are endless.

You know, I’ve never heard someone say they’re straight today but might be gay tomorrow, or vice-versa. If anything, it goes against what LGBT activism argues, which is that sexual orientation is something you’re born with, influenced by genetic predispositions. This attitude makes it look like a choice one can change on a whim, from one day to the next, like a pair of socks. Sure, there are types who would fuck anything with a pulse, but I trust they are in the absolute minority.

For cross-oriented people, that’s naturally a problem. Sometimes we’re unable to be sexually attracted to someone because of their gender, even if we’re romantically attracted to them – and vice versa.

It’s just a matter of recognising how these two combine and manifest in real life. We can theorise and philosophise all we want; the reality is chemistry plays a big part in how people get together. And if a person decides to form a couple with someone they’re not really attracted to, that is a conscious decision regarding that particular individual, not a “romantic orientation”; as if anyone purposely sought out relationships devoid of physical attraction.

Even those who aren’t cross-oriented might have face a similar issue. For example, a heterosexual woman might find herself sexually attracted to a certain man, without being romantically attracted to him.
Which probably happens on a daily basis to a lot of people, based on instinct alone and not  binding in any way; one does not even have to acknowledge such impulses for more than a split second, let alone ruminate as if they posed an actual problem.

Heteronormative thinking invisibilizes cross-orientation. It tells us that we don’t exist, which is an issue that many queer people face in general.

Because of this, we might have to deal with many incorrect assumptions and expectations. This can lead to us dealing with a number of difficult situations, including:

  • Being expected to enter a romantic relationship with a sexual partner who you’re not romantically attracted to.
  • A romantic partner feeling inadequate because you’re not sexually attracted to them.
  • People assuming that you’re in a sexual relationship with your romantic partner.
  • Being unable to find cross-oriented people represented in the media.

Ultimately, learning about the complexity of attraction will help us challenge these assumptions and affirm the feelings and experiences of cross-oriented people. And it’s really important that we do – because it feels awful to be surrounded by heteronormative thinking when you’re cross-oriented.

Why do I get the feeling some of these people are perpetually alone and split the atom in order to feel better about that?

Partners ultimately not being suitable for each other is an issue which I’m sure predates civilisation; so is one-sided love or one-sided attraction. A “romantic partner” one does not engage with intimately and has no plans of doing so is not a romantic partner, but a friend. None of this is new under the sun; there’s no need to label it and start screeching about “not being represented in the media”.

How about some accountability FFS? Why enter into a relationship which you know is hopeless, if the would-be partner is attracted to you and you are not? Is it carved in stone that all the people you’ll end up sexually active with will be such disappointments on other levels that no other bonds will ever form? Isn’t this world big enough and enjoying enough freedom of movement for you to one day find a suitable partner, with whom all the pieces fit into the puzzle? Is this your way of saying you’ve given up on that prospect and expect those who connect with you intimately to settle for half-assed open relationships? And if so, why not just do that quietly, without feeling the need to blame it on society? Is not settling for such arrangements somehow discriminatory and the fault of heteronormativity?

Here are a few examples of different kinds of attraction:

Sensual attraction is a deep desire to touch someone, to hold them, hug them, and/or cuddle them. 

Aesthetic attraction is an appreciation for the way someone looks.

Platonic attraction is an attraction to someone that isn’t romantic. This often manifests as a desire to be friends.

 What the author defines as sensual attraction is merely an inherent human need, which is rooted in affection. You wouldn’t say you feel sensual attraction towards your children, though you feel the need to cuddle them.

The Merriam Webster definition of “romantic” is of, relating to, or involving love between two people. Hence, platonic attraction combined with sexual attraction. It’s a very simple concept, but somehow manages to elude these strange leftists who could more easily take apart a rocket than figure out how humans actually work.

Obsessed With Race

Being called a racist today is one of the most feared labels, as one can’t really defend themselves with anything but “I’m not” – aside from pathetically invoking their friends of different backgrounds as arguments, which most people I trust would stay away from. There are so many sources elaborating on this concept, taking it to the moon and back, clinging to anything they can come up with, no matter how ridiculous.

Intersectional feminism partly deals with racial oppression. Not necessarily apartheid or genocide in some countries (past or present), discrimination in the workforce or anything palpable; these are rarely mentioned. What is mentioned very often and plies on SJWs’ specialty – feelings – is the harm caused by offensive comments. Given the broad scope allowed by subjectivity, one can consider just about anything offensive.

Right now, the end to this likeness of a caterpillar infestation, which devours everything in its path, is not in sight yet.

Although the titles below are self-explanatory, reading  the articles can put you in a trance, as they defy the most basic logic. In this twisted maze, there is only one certainty – if you’re white, you are guilty of racism. Regardless of you denying it or not even believing it. After all, who the hell do you think you are, claiming to know what’s in your own head? Progressive rhetoric itself becomes tainted when coming out of your hypocritical mouth.

Here’s why refusing to see colour doesn’t actually mean you’re not racist (which is nonsensical, like saying here’s why being alive doesn’t actually mean you’re not dead).

Among the reasons given is that not seeing colour ignores someone’s cultural background and heritage, denying them their uniqueness – as if taking an interest in someone’s culture had anything to do with the melanin in their skin. As a side note, in similar articles you can read about how being too interested in someone’s culture fetishises and “exotifies” them. Perhaps if you figure out just the right amount of interest you can show (not too little, not too much) you might just escape the labelling.

Here’s what a “white saviour” is (and why it’s the opposite of helpful). It starts with “volunteering in African countries”. Apparently even that is disingenuous, to the comfortable middle-class feminist. I was under the impression that folks go there to do actual community work, like helping to develop infrastructure. Skimming through the projects on the very first website I clicked on, that seems to be accurate. It’s not a “feel good story”, as the article claims. Bricks and mortar are not made from feelings.

My logic is that volunteering has nothing to do with race and everything to do with wanting to help those who need it,  while risking one’s safety (in politically unstable countries) as well as being exposed to health hazards one’s body might not be able to cope with. Unbelievably, feminists think their endless diatribes are more useful than the actual building of safe water systems or hospitals.

“When white people say they’re progressives” – The perfect reply to fake allies . Translation, the perfect reply to people we think are fake allies. And that reply is a longer version of I think you’re full of shit. Which is fair enough – I personally believe self-labelled progressives are full of it. However, it is the racially-obsessed militant clique that creates these types’ need to keep proclaiming their “ally” status in the first place. Without this constant push, people would just be people; they wouldn’t divide the world into “allies” and the rest.

However, this one takes the crown. The feminist guide to non-racist flirting with women of colour .

It’s some of the most illogical, constipated nonsense I’ve ever laid eyes on. The imagined dialogue is so far out you can just tell the whole issue is made up for the sake of creating acrimony. Consider the situation of a guy meeting a woman he likes and flirting with her. If this guy really was racist, he wouldn’t do that in the first place. There; problem solved.

Instead, the author explains for about 20 paragraphs that as a white guy he is bound to have toxic attitudes and will doubtlessly behave like a jerk, even without meaning to, as the patriarchy has brainwashed him since birth. This poor, hapless individual does not stand a chance with a woman of colour without her precious hopscotch tutorial. It’s not like he just might treat all women the same way and doesn’t need any dating advice, because he is, you know, an adult.

So unless you’ve deliberately worked to unlearn what these oppressive systems have taught you, you’re probably working with some unconsciously hurtful ideas about how to approach a woman of color.

Dating advice however is a euphemism. This reads more like how to deactivate a human landmine.

  1. Don’t focus only on her race

I honestly doubt anyone would do that openly, even if secretly that is their preoccupation. It’s beyond stupid.

You probably hate to be “blamed” for the actions of your ancestors, but the truth is, white men throughout history have really fucked this one up for you.

So she’s judging this guy’s presumed attitude due the actions of his ancestors, from hundreds of years ago. I’m sorry; who was supposed to be the racist here…?

For instance, have you ever watched pornography featuring Black women? Don’t be embarrassed – I have, too. And sadly, it’s difficult as hell to find porn that doesn’t market and depict us with demeaning characterizations like “Jungle Booties” or “Ebony Whores.”

Perhaps white women doing porn are portrayed as saintly virgins…? If you’re looking for morality or something to uplift your spirit, pardon me but the last place you look is pornography. Everyone is debased there, with moral expectations out the window.

Okay, so all you know is that she’s a woman of color, but you’re not going to open with a line about her race. So what will you open with? Think about your goal here – are you relating to her or are you othering her? After all, if you’re trying to establish a connection, you’re not going to do that by essentially saying, “Hey, I noticed you’re Black.”

No, that’s not all he knows. He knows whether he finds her attractive, her approximate age, her behaviour in that context (how inhibited she might be, for instance if she dances or sits by herself, if she talks a lot, if she seems approachable or seems to have a bridge pillar up her backside etc).

The only reason the author assumes he’s obsessed with race is that she is obsessed with race herself – that’s how she analyses everything this guy might do or say through the lens of him being born white. In fact, race has turned into some kind of OCD at this point.

2. …But don’t act like you can’t see her race

This is where it gets from plain stupid and presumptuous to downright twisted.

Now before you go avoiding any mention of race at all, let me clarify. Focusing only on a woman of color’s race is a problem, but it’s okay to acknowledge that you are, in fact, aware that she’s a person of color. In fact, it’s a hell of a lot better than saying things like “I don’t see color.”

Should you also acknowledge the fact that she only has one head? And one mouth and only two eyes, positioned where eyes normally would be?

It’s cool to be treated like you’re special, but the idea that a woman is different simply because she’s Asian is not so great.

So is she different or isn’t she? I really don’t follow.

It essentially means that you’ve internalized what the mainstream media and other dominant institutions have told you – that white is the default identity, and anyone who’s not white is abnormal. So if you’re telling a woman that you don’t “see” her race, you’re implying that you only find her attractive because you see her as the default race, white, and noticing that she’s not white would be a bad thing.

So basically, “all people are equal” would turn into “I’m just pretending all people are white so I can like them better”. It’s the first time I’ve ever come across such an argument. This also implies that a white man should relate differently to women according to their race, as approaching them in the same manner would somehow mean he sees them as white. There’s a mindfuck to decipher.

Don’t treat her race like it’s something to be ashamed of, something she’d have to “overcome” in order to get your attention.

At this point she already has his attention (he is approaching her), and plus, I’d love to hear a chat-up in a pub which centres on a woman overcoming her race or ethnicity.

Be thoughtful about how you acknowledge a woman’s race – which means not saying any of these things: “What are you?” “I’ve heard Latinas are wild in bed.” “I may look white, but I’m a Black guy in my pants, if you know what I mean.”

Right. Because that’s exactly the type of thing you’d say to someone you just met. I wonder if the person who wrote this has ever been around people before. And that’s coming from the female version of Mr Bean – but still sane enough to notice one does not approach others in such manners.

Say you meet a South Asian woman. A common pitfall is asking “Where you from?” and not accepting an answer like “Arizona.”

Not accepting as in what? Thinking she’s lying? Right enough; immigration is so new around those parts; it’s not like the US is a nation of immigrants from all corners of the Earth.

There are better ways to learn someone’s background and allow her to share about her identity on her terms. One great way to do this is by following her lead. If you seem genuinely interested in getting to know her, there’s a good chance that her background will naturally come up in a way she’s comfortable with. For example, if you asked me where I’d like to travel, I’d probably tell you I’d go to my father’s home country of Trinidad and Tobago. Then you could ask any number of respectful questions about when he immigrated to the United States, and what my Trinidadian roots mean to me – without ever having to perpetuate xenophobic ideas about immigrants.

Why stop there with the indications? Why not write down the exact list of respectful questions, with intonation guides included? Is this for people with Asperger’s only? And God forbid you should ever bring anything up out of curiosity, before she is “ready” or “comfortable” to talk about her ethnic background. God forbid you should ever go near such a sacred subject as where she’s from; it would be like asking at what age she lost her virginity.

3. Don’t assume she’s interested in talking to you

Unfortunately, society encourages men to believe women are always sexually available to them. For example, romantic movies often show men interpreting a woman’s “no, thank you” as “try harder, and eventually you’ll get me.”

Of course the obvious question would be why would you assume; however,  subsequent paragraphs show the true nature of this point.

If she’s not interested, it’s not because she’s being “oversensitive.” It’s not even necessarily because she doesn’t find you attractive, or assumes you’re going to do something racist, or has any other impression of you being a “bad” person because you’re white. The real problem isn’t just you. It’s the fact that women have to deal with being objectified all the time, and for women of color, that often includes a combination of racism and sexism.

Every woman of color has developed her own boundaries throughout her lifetime to protect herself from the impact of this constant weight.

Sometimes that includes turning down a polite stranger who’s trying to flirt – no matter how respectful he is.

Boundaries are not a form of discrimination against you. They’re an essential part of self-preservation for people from marginalized communities. She’s developed them for the sake of survival.

In other words, women of colour are allowed to be plain racist and reject someone on the sheer basis of their skin. It’s not racism; it’s “self preservation”, even if that man has nothing but good intentions. The woman being chatted up is to be understood if she engages in the generalisation and dehumanisation of a prospective partner  – the exact behaviour the author urges the white man not to engage in, throughout the entire article. Furthermore:

If you’re frustrated with this, direct your anger to the systems of white supremacy and patriarchy that put this burden on women of color. Don’t get angry at us for doing what we have to do to maintain our personal comfort and safety.

Right. Unashamed – in fact, proudly proclaimed – double standards.What a huge pile of dung, for lack of a better comparison.

4. Don’t use the same lines as everyone else

Take, for example, the white men who say something along the lines of, “So, how do you feel about white guys?” …. He’s already demonstrated that he doesn’t see anything in me beyond my race, and he’s even categorizing himself as no different from a general idea of what “white guys” are like. To me, that communicates that he’s not promising any kind of experience that I haven’t been offered many times before.

OK – so it’s totally kosher for her to be obsessed with his race and with her own, but not all right if he’s preoccupied by the same dynamic. And what is “a general idea of what white guys are like?” This whole paragraph is so dismissive, generalising and racist.

Are you flirting with her because you find her “exotic” or because you truly appreciate her beauty? Will you treat her based on the way the rest of society tries to define her, or will you look beyond her appearance to connect with her as a person?

How can this paragraph closely follow the one pasted above? Am I going insane or is she accusing one side of the attitude she tolerates, if not encourages, in the other?

The key to everything including gauging if a woman of color is interested, knowing her boundaries, building a connection, and finding an original way to relate to her is all the same –listening.

Not as easy as it sounds, when dealing with the race-obsessed. If you listen to his kind of talk for half an hour, you just might need medication to keep your neurons from imploding.

So you’re not the only one who has some unpleasant lessons to unlearn. You’re committing to doing better, and that’s what’s going to make the difference.

You’re committing to doing better; what a lovely way to humiliate someone. Let’ s pat Bisquit on the head; surely he meant to use the litter box and surely he’ll do better in the future. We just need to educate him, kindly and generously. And aren’t we angelic to do so!

I already think you’re pretty cool for sticking with me through this guide to learn how to be respectful.

No shit! I need a cigarette.

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.


The False “Bad-ass Woman” Hollywood Pushes

Over the years, to feminists’ masturbatory joy and impacting on young minds, we have witnessed an unrealistic ideal films promote among women. Hollywood heroines have the right temper, moves and strength to get themselves out of any situation, no matter how perilous.  As usual, I tend to disagree.

Fighting men

For a woman who is not highly trained or a body builder, let me just say that attempting to fight an actual man is not an option with a happy ending.

As motivating as those highly choreographed films are, of fit women “kicking ass” left right and centre, surely you realise those are just politically correct fantasies and  not rooted in reality. Men are naturally stronger; so much stronger that even trying is idiotic. It might seem plausible while high on speed, but real life is very different. You should never engage in a physical fight lacking some kind of prop (mace, a blunt object, you name it). And obviously, only when this is absolutely justified.

I can even give an anecdotal example. A few years ago, I ended up in a situation of trying to help out one man who was in a very unfair situation, being attacked by four other men simultaneously. Not very pleasant and adrenaline-rising indeed (by the way, I was not high on anything, just plain sober, whilst they were all drunk, which is supposed to make them weaker, apparently). My only pathetic attempt was trying to remove one of the three guys pinning him down on the ground- though I tried with all my strength, the guy didn’t move an inch; he didn’t even budge. In fact, I’m confident I never moved one hair on his body. And I’m also confident that if he had retorted, he would’ve put my lights out for the night. The only way they stopped was by hearing a blaring siren approaching.

That’s not to say that I’m not ordinarily strong; in fact I have handled quite a few situations where many women would request help in terms of lifting and the likes, and have often taken some measly pride in it. However, when it came down to an actual physical confrontation, I could not even make that guy flinch.

The female killer

Naturally, women are designed for giving, nurturing and assisting life, even against their better judgement.

The core of femininity is now being sabotaged by those wishing to normalise the profile of the ruthless woman taking lives without thought or remorse. Such women exist, obviously, and just as obviously, they are deranged.

We have female politicians nowadays who endorse war and justify the killing and maiming of civilians. They are clearly psychopathic.

There are also women who voluntarily join wars of liberation – and that is completely understandable in those circumstances.

But the false stereotype Hollywood has been pushing,  of the female version of a trigger-happy alpha male on steroids,  is completely unrealistic.

Most women should be able to see that and not be drawn by that mirage of so-called empowerment.

Women are being hit, just like men, with poisonous, damaging stereotypes many will end up internalising as they grow up.

Let’s hope nature prevails in the end.