Weaponised Victimhood
Or, Feel My Pain, Now Do As I Say.
This is not a grand battle against institutionalised injustice. This is an addiction to indignation.
Below the fold, a short film by Rob Montz on the vanities, hysteria and clown-shoe politics of campus protest culture:
Also on a not entirely unrelated note:
Seattle Artist Natasha Marin Launches “Reparations” Website
The way it works is pretty straightforward. A person of color makes a request, and a white person can elect to fulfill that request […] Alternatively, a white person can offer a service or good, and a person of color can choose to accept it […] So far, white people have successfully given people of color car rides, money, a trip for four poets to relieve some stress at the Hot House Spa, and advice on revamping a CV.
And these are people who think they should be running the country?
They had long ago condemned him as a racist – or worse still, condemned as a racist on the say-so of someone else
That’s what struck me, repeatedly, across a large chunk of the supposedly hip and nerdy media, not just the usual suspects. Buzzfeed claimed that Milo had “incited his followers to bombard Jones with racist and demeaning tweets.” Well, maybe that’s what you’d expect from Buzzfeed, or from Gawker or whatever. But the New York Times, a supposed paper of record, claimed that the “racist and sexist remarks” had been “rallied and directed by Mr Yiannopoulos,” which, so far as I can see, is simply a lie.
There’s been a glib repetition of these “incitement” claims, as if they were self-evident, as if no-one need check, by people who fancy themselves as clever and sophisticated, and who have fathomed who it is they ought to be seen disliking, but who don’t seem interested in establishing whether the things they assert are true. And so, again, whether or not one agrees with Milo on any given subject, and whether or not one finds that a little Milo goes an awfully long way, he seems to have provided a public service, by disclosing what fashionable opinion, and “social justice” in particular, very often entails.
[ Edited. ]
I find all this stuff about Milo disturbing, more so than usual. But I suppose nothing should surprise me anymore.
Seattle Artist Natasha Marin Launches “Reparations” Website
IOW, free s#it army takes advantage of gullible hipsters white guilt:
OK, rent or a Chakra cleanse, hard to pick whether no place to live of having a filthy Chakra is more oppressive. Let’s see, get the Chakra tidy, then get the flower essence for the support of being homeless because you used rent money to get a Chakra steam clean, buff, wax, and detail.
And now for something completely different:
Bronycon ! The grown men who love ‘My Little Pony’ aren’t who you think they are
Actually, yes, yes, they are.
Reading your last handful of comments we find these snippets of evident leftism:
…spewing racist misogynist hateful words in a targeted fashion in order to harass someone.
banning all of Milo’s followers en masse, all 388,000 of them,
Buzzfeed claimed that Milo had “incited his followers to bombard Jones with racist and demeaning tweets.”
…the New York Times, a supposed paper of record, claimed that the “racist and sexist remarks” had been “rallied and directed by Mr Yiannopoulos,”
All of this an infinitely more, I’m sure, qualifies for the lede: It’s all indignation addiction, a moral posturing common to the dysfunctionals noted already here.
And as bolded, it’s all without meaning, irrelavent noise, and lies.
The line between outing this crap as such and becoming codependent on its overwhelming and overwhelmingly psychotic narrative is fine enough to be a primary concern. I vote for never engaging it on its level, but it is nonetheless a thoroughly vile misfit among the normal human principles the rest of the world presumably needs to operate. Try not to feed it, is my advice. It’s hog-wrestling looking to book space and sell tickets.
David: But the New York Times, a supposed paper of record, claimed that the “racist and sexist remarks” had been “rallied and directed by Mr Yiannopoulos,” which, so far as I can see, is simply a lie.
I must say I am slightly touched by the vestigial trust you put in the journalistic integrity of the supposed (and self-proclaimed) paper of record. Those of us who live in this increasingly tenuous republic that is the USofA have long since ceased viewing the New York Times as anything other than the party organ of the left. This is, after all, the newspaper that already in the 1930s made itself the apologist for the Soviet Union when it published Walter Duranty’s Stalinist propaganda justifying the collectivization of agriculture that resulted in the mass starvation of the Ukrainian peasantry.
The point of the New York Times is not to provide factual news, it is to provide its leftist readers with the affirmation and the confirmation of their biases. Since none of them will ever bother to check the facts behind the narrative peddled by their newspaper, there is no earthly reason why the newspaper itself would be so conscientious as to do so. Milo Yiannopoulos is the enemy of everything that the New York Times holds dear, and this has provided a perfect opportunity for the paper to reinforce this view of Milo in the minds of its readers.
I must say I am slightly touched by the vestigial trust you put in the journalistic integrity of the supposed (and self-proclaimed) paper of record.
Oh, it’s very vestigial.
Oh, it’s very vestigial.
Yeah, thought so.
Oh boy. I remember my university days (which weren’t all that long ago). I was inclined to be contrarian, childishly so, I’ll admit. I remember one occasion when I presented an anti-vegetarian argument (at the time, there was a move to increase costs in Hall for everybody because the costs of catering would go up if “vegetarian options” became standard). My argument was poor and it was politely dismantled. Afterwards there were no hard feelings. I continued to adopt contrarian positions about all sorts of things. Sometimes my arguments won out, but all too often I found myself bested by very smart people. But there were never any hard feelings. I learned a good deal in those days. Being contrarian was pretty much encouraged, but only on the understanding that if you’re going to adopt a pugnacious standpoint, you need to take the punches. Or put another way: the University’s gift to you is to teach you to grow up intellectually. I rather fear that those were the dying days of a great institution. I’d be surprised if the freedom and tolerance that existed then remain these days, but I hope that I’m wrong. The University in question, by the way, is Oxford.
Cathy Young has a thoughtful, measured take on the Milo / Twitter saga. Worth reading in full.
Apparently Laurie Penny and Milo had a little date a few days ago:
“I’m a radical queer feminist leftist writer burdened with actual principles. He thinks that’s funny and invites me to his parties.”
She was with him when he found out he was banned on twitter:
“How does he feel about his suspension?
“It’s fantastic,” he says”
If you can tolerate the flowery rhetoric then it’s a funny read: https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-banned-8d1b6e0b2932#.kijvl1ym8
If you can tolerate the flowery rhetoric then it’s a funny read
See the comments in today’s ephemera thread.
What would little Penny Whistle do without her endless Easter Parade of patriarchal villainy? The more there is, the more she loves every minute of denouncing it. She’s like a little puppy that rolls over on it’s back, wiggles in excited glee and pees all over the carpet. She’s having a breathlessly wonderful magic-carpet ride, and she seizes every moment of it. Perhaps though, deep down somewhere inside, she might come to realise that it’s all been a matter of pure expediency, and that one day she will be dispensible, or replaceable. What will she do then, when the limelight has faded?
What will she do then, when the limelight has faded?
She will get ever more desperate about the loss of attention focused on her, and make ever more noisy, outrageous and absurd claims and assertions to try to get it back. She will do anything to seek attention, generating an accelerating spiral of screeching, posturing, loony stunts. She will be like Kim Kardashian without the tits.