Feel My Pain, Now Do As I Say

From the video:

The term “microaggression” might be appropriately applied in many spheres. How about to the manner in which women put one another down with seemingly nice comments, such as “That extra weight looks really good on you”? And if you’re looking for one of the most disabling of microaggressions, the use of the term “privilege” to describe the positions earned by brilliant and hard-working white men is a fantastic example of the ultimate put-down.
But the term is never used to describe what two white women might say to one another, or what women say about men. It’s only used to describe aggression by the so-called “privileged” against the so-called “oppressed.” So a t-shirt that says “make me a sandwich” is a “misogynistic microaggression,” whereas a feminist professor’s use of the phrase “toxic masculinity” in her lectures is not. Personally, I’d rather deal with a joke t-shirt than a theory supported by my professor and accepted by elite society generally that says my sex has a genetic disposition to violence and domination.
This is the ultimate hypocrisy of “microaggression.” It claims to be about preventing subtle sexual, racial and other forms of discrimination, but the insistence that only certain groups of people can be affected exposes it for the blatant power play that it is.

There’s more of course.

Even though her name’s Janice !

The nail that stands up is hammered down.

The idea seems both racist and sexist in its formation.
No, it doesn’t withstand much scrutiny. Which is presumably why even questioning the premise of “microaggressions” is itself now deemed a “microaggression.” But despite these shortcomings, the terms “privilege” and “microaggression” are the latest rhetorical tools of the passive-aggressive. By which I mean, people who are instinctively dishonest.

Microaggression exists, it’s a staple of classroom bullying for example. But it’s a feature that it is deniable and ambiguous. Taking the moral high ground, appeals to authority is part of the trap, where it exists, and just plain dumb where it doesn’t.

That. :¬D
Well, it’s one thing to have a discussion in which you’re being aggressed openly – at least you know what you’re dealing with and others may see what’s happening. But these attempts to induce pretentious guilt – and to dominate someone by making them dishonest, unrealistic, self-hating and absurd – are no less ill-intended and, if successful, more damaging. And if the victim is on campus, this passive-aggression is often institutionalised and carries the weight of consensus and authority. Despite the pious drag, it’s a kind of psychological malevolence.

A professor’s attempt to check her “white privilege” goes horribly wrong. Naturally, a purge ensues.

That.
Well, if you take the rhetoric and behaviour of “social justice” enthusiasts at face value and assume that their motives are as pious and benign as they claim, there’s typically a dissonance. The blather seems question-begging and logically inconsistent, often wildly so, and at odds with their preferred tactics and behaviour, and is therefore quite baffling. But if you entertain the possibility of less edifying motives, it starts to make a perverse kind of sense. Again, “diversity” guru Jane Elliott is a textbook example. If you wanted to exalt yourself while exerting power over other people, because you enjoy it, “social justice” blather would be a pretty good cover.

I noticed all the Jane Elliot videos are gone.

JF is great, a lion in kitten clothing.