Let's say that the organization was run by a man.
Not a man with a lifetime experience with women, but rather a sophomore at the university barely 20 years old.
This young man, who has not even finished the physical maturation of his brain, much less gained enough life experience to have dealt with graduation, a career, a mortgage, a marriage, children, managing age, dealing with death... this young man presumes that he is qualified to tell young women his own age about femininity.
Anomalies aside, this smells like B.S. right? And yet this is happening at University of Oregon, only it is a Men's Center, run by a young sophomore woman. I rather suspect that she is not a genius based on the boilerplate intersectional garbage she uncritically spouts.
* * *
Let's suppose that there is a group that feels offended by what it perceives are suggestions that it is anything but a exemplary, moral, and preferable to the alternative groups. It is a highly sensitive group, and finds even complimentary statements to be veiled attacks against it. Sometimes, those attacks are so subtle that the attacker does not even realize they are attacking.
Microaggression
a subtle but offensive comment or action directed at a minority or other nondominant group that is often unintentional or unconsciously reinforces a stereotype
Such preternatural sensitivity, even to the point of injury under such microaggressions, might fairly be called fragile by definition.
Fragile
easily broken, shattered, or damaged; delicate; brittle; frail.
The concept of microaggressions, (a term invented in the growing heyday of 1970's relativism) fails to recognize the foundation of it's own meaning in the word aggression, in missing that there is a practice which requires agency and intent.
Aggression
the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general
It becomes very convenient to state that a guilty party is guilty whether they know it or not, and whether they want to be or not. It is, I daresay, a particularly oppressive kind of verbal judo. Unless those of us who actually are inclined to think with facts and reason rather than anemic feelings choose not to be submitted. We can instead call B.S. on those who change the meanings of words sloppily (or mendaciously) and call the notion of microaggressions a fragile idea by another of it's listed definitions:
Fragile
lacking in substance or force; flimsy.
Unfortunately, that is not what is happening HERE. I notice how language is subverted ever so like the pigs in Animal Farm were doing. Librarians in the story are concerned about the fragile feelings of non-Christians who might take offense at saying "Merry Christmas" as a general positive sentiment, and yet it is the Christians who are labeled fragile if they balk at being told not to express their holiday sentiments. Why do the ones that suffer so from microaggressions not get labeled as fragile? Because fragile is a term connotative of weakness. It is in fact a very Orwellian verbal assault meant to weaken an opponent. Truth is not relevant, just perception, and making those you mean to oppress look weak, or stupid, or insane, or evil gives you oppressive power.
* * *
Let's suppose that an interested and curious physics student comes to class wanting to learn the math and science that make rockets reach the stars. What they are told they will be doing for their first project is learning how to "decolonize physics". How in any sane imagining, will anyone ever launch a rocket to put satellites in space that let us see the universe or put human feet on the moon? That kind of inane thinking would at best throttle successful physics in the cradle or else get people killed.
...but... SOCIAL JUSTICE! must come to pollute even physics. If one thing should be clear to any human being no matter what sex, race, or color, it is that while modern science is not always right, nor always completely right, it is better than the alternatives, and... by the way... it is ENTIRELY unconcerned with anyone's agenda. It does not privilege anything but the laws of motion, gravity, etc. It does not give a damn if you are white, black, man, woman, or confused... a far enough drop will still kill you and gravity won't care in the slightest.
* * *
HERE is the most naked example of intersectionalism and it's real agenda that I have seen yet. The ugly face beneath the victim's mask.
The spokesperson (who knows what invented pronoun this individual wants to impose on the rest of us) states the purpose of a magazine at University of Texas San Antonio: “for a very long time, black and brown people, especially those who are queer, have been told that they don’t have a space. That they don’t have a voice or a say. With this we would like to create a space.”
The magazine's name? No Whites Allowed. Of course it can't be considered racist. Especially if your education was such a shoddy leftist education that you don't actually know what words mean... like racist or racism.
Racism
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
It gets wackier. She (I guess the spokesperson "identifies" with some invented flavor of female) goes on to assert: “inclusion is not inherently good, and exclusion is not inherently bad.”
Now THAT sounds like the reveal at the end of Animal Farm. Remember? "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". Here is a statement justifying the very behavior that leftists have been so vociferously condemning for decades. The demand for inclusion as a virtue in order to force normative acceptance of every perverse idea and behavior that the left can imagine. Once in and holding society hostage, they need not hide the agenda so carefully. All that matters is consolidation of power.
And even that is not the end. Another student, when questioned about why this was not a hateful and racist magazine, countered: “equality is just more cishet [cisgender heterosexual] white supremacist patriarchy trying to write the narrative.”
Where to begin? Are we not to value or strive for equality under the law or in valuing human persons? I know that leftist fascists and leftist communists have been ignoring that for a century, but she has not given me any reason to prefer that bloody path. Furthermore, the queer people of color (QPOC) who are making this racist ragsheet are in fact making a statement about and to themselves, while excluding a broad swath of humanity that includes anyone who is 1) white, 2) cisgender (another made up piece of nonsense so perhaps we can ignore that one), 3) heterosexuals which covers over 7 billion human beings, and of course 4) "the patriarchy" which by default includes the males of the species that think that men out to sacrifice themselves to the greater cause of society rather than live as selfish wild beasts that say, go and rape and pillage because they have nothing better to do. So we are to discount equality and most of the human race to favor the interests of these QPOC people as they draft a magazine that expresses... oh... their narrative?... Sounds kind of supremacist to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment