Fashionable Malice
Via the comments, Spiny Norman steers us to another ‘progressive’ initiative:
The University of Cincinnati is sponsoring a workshop on “white fragility” and “white tears” this semester… “White fragility,” as defined by a paper in the International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, “is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviours such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviours, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium.”
In the spirit of reciprocity, I’ll attempt an alternative, and perhaps more realistic, definition. “White fragility” is the unremarkable fact that people by and large don’t like being slandered as racists and then assigned with some pretentious collective guilt, the supposed atonement for which requires deference to actual racists and predatory hokum merchants.
As Hippogryph notes in the comments, the official definition of “white fragility” looks an awful lot like Kafkatrapping, a dishonest and pathological manoeuvre, a form of emotional bullying, in which the denial of an unproven and insulting accusation is instantly seized upon as damning confirmation of said accusation. The object being to inculcate pretentious guilt via some notional group association, making a person feel somehow responsible for the actions of others, even strangers long dead, over whom he or she has zero influence. It’s an attempt to induce a profound unrealism, and thereby compliance.
In light of which, we could parse the official definition of “white fragility” a little further:
These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear…
Or, put another way: “How dare you be annoyed by our slandering? How dare you question our motives as anything other than benign?”
…and behaviours such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation.
Or, “How dare you talk back and draw attention to our question-begging? How dare you not want to remain in the presence of people who wish to do you psychological harm?”
I’m paraphrasing, of course.
“White fragility” is the unremarkable fact that people by and large don’t like being slandered as racists and then assigned with some pretentious collective guilt, the supposed atonement for which requires deference to actual racists and predatory hokum merchants.
That! 🙂
See also this:
Yes, guilt in all directions.
“Fragility” -Why do I suspect they aren’t getting quite the amount of upset whites that they think they are and are throwing annoyed ones in to inflate the count?
If it is fragile to be upset by people deliberately saying you are complicit in all sorts off ghastliness, what term is left for feeling upset by a microaggression of which the alleged aggressor wasn’t even aware? Hyperfragility? Or, going on orders of magnitude, megafragility?
Or, going on orders of magnitude, megafragility?
Clearly, you’d reach a racially superfragilistic state. Avoid high winds with that umbrella. And yes, your black umbrella is racist. How dare you appropriate “blackness” without acknowledging your role in the oppression holding back every university student of color.
Crazy is easy…and it’s fun!
throwing annoyed ones in to inflate the count
Well, quite. It’s the casual impertinence of it. However you respond to their smears and insinuations – anything besides instant deference and prostration – will be construed as defensiveness, as proof of “white fragility,” and therefore of guilt. In fact, it’s proof, if more were needed, that the absurd and the sinister aren’t mutually exclusive.
For another illustration of just how unrealistic you’re expected to become, see the third item here. Because while you’re being scolded for your invisible racism and your “white fragility,” you mustn’t ask any unsophisticated questions.
Do not grant these terms legitimacy by boosting the signal. They are not intended to inform but to place you on the defensive. By denying it or debating it you end up fighting a battle you cannot win.
Instead, openly refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the terms and the competence of the person using them to judge you. Accuse them of verbal terrorism. If you refuse to acknowledge or debate the terms they cannot use you as a platform for their views.
Thing is, once you’ve downed the “diversity” Kool-Aid and cultivated all that exploitable pretentious guilt, and once everyone is hung-up on race, fixated by it, you may soon find yourself keeping some very strange company.
People like Dr Riyad A Shahjahan, a “social justice theorist” who wants us to believe that people with brown skin are mystical and exotic, akin to leprechauns, and who denounces expectations of punctuality, attentiveness and competence as racist and oppressive. Or Dr Caprice Hollins, who dismisses grammar and foresight as “white values” and expectations thereof as “cultural racism.” Instead of encouraging students who happen to have brown skin to articulate their thoughts, to be responsible and plan ahead, like everyone else, we must, she says, see people as “racial beings” and “teach [children] to view the world through a racial lens.”
But we mustn’t correct their grammar and spelling – even if this reduces their chances of getting a decent job.
Those of us on the anti-madness side spend an awful lot of Time and effort discussing the insanity of this movement.
I’m coming to the conclusion, after watching lots of these videos, that time might be better spent working out verbal strategies to cope with such argumentation tactics. A verbal judo, if you will. We need to begin a program to educate people to the potential techniques that might work in such confrontations.
After all, they are simply using verbal tactics. It can’t be beyond the wit of man to come up with counter tactics.
“behaviours such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation”
I like how they covered all their bases. What other possible behavior is there?
I like how they covered all their bases. What other possible behaviour is there?
If you engage with them at all, in any way, and even if you don’t, you’ll be found guilty. And guilt, even pretentious guilt, is exploitable. First, you inculcate racial neurosis and imaginary sin, in every campus you can, then you can pretend to offer a solution, a path to atonement. And in time, if left unopposed, you end up with places like UC Berkeley spending $20 million a year and employing 150 full-time staff to remind students of just how bigoted and racist they are.
But we mustn’t call it hustle.
To engage with them at any level is to admit defeat. Just ignore them, and if they attack you, beat the shit out of them.
“Clearly, you’d reach a racially superfragilistic state.” — and if occurring in California presumably supercalifragilistic.. To expunge it all in the desired docile fashion one could then claim to be “expiallidocious”. The successful transitional process for the workshop would then aim for one to be supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
“behaviours such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation . . . What other possible behavior is there?” — knee slapping laughter?
you mustn’t ask any unsophisticated questions.
Oh, of course. If someone kept doing that people might notice the prog’s favorite social programs are wrecking ethnic groups under the pretense of protecting them.
After all, they are simply using verbal tactics. It can’t be beyond the wit of man to come up with counter tactics.
Already done, and the tactics are very easy to remember, since they consist of a simple two-word phrase, the second of which is ‘off’.
a “social justice theorist” who wants us to believe that people with brown skin are mystical and exotic, akin to leprechauns,
Am now laughing on crowded train.
Stuck-Record
Re-frame, as they say in the manosphere. I don’t talk to nutters. That’s not my religion. I gave at the office. It’s all politics with you commies, isn’t it? Why are non-whites obsessed with race?
The problem with not dealing with them is that it isn’t an option for a great many people – and is becoming a larger and larger problem as this stuff has moved out of the Unis and into the ‘Real’ World.
In my business, publishing, it is no longer possible to ‘not’ express an opinion. ‘Not’-expressing is increasingly seen as agreement with the Patriarchy or Oppressive whatever is the biggest stick to beat you with. You are automatically a racist/sexist/transphobe and (increasingly) a Fascist.
You are done. Seriously. Your career is over.
Silence is no longer an option.
We need at least two different response strategies.
1. For those like myself. A way to navigate the jobs where the Witchfinders hold enormous power.
2. The brutalist street confrontations.
This dynamic bears certain similarity to dysfunctional relationships, wherein one party engages in all manner of irrational abusive behavior and then tries to “gaslight” the victim into believing its the victim’s fault s/he is on the receiving end of the abuse.
And, BTW, it’s interesting that those who are so keen to deploy the phrase “fragility,” are the same ones who discern “microaggressions” in the most prosaic of human interaction. Project thee much?
Kian, while you could *wedge* most behaviors into one of those covered bases, I think a simple “Your opinion is noted, I disagree” still seems to fall outside what would normally be called “argumentation”.
Stuck-Record, I think Pillarisation may be your best hope on that score. Find a faction you can tolerate, stick with their alternative institutions, work preferentially with people in your pillar.
it’s interesting that those who are so keen to deploy the phrase “fragility” are the same ones who discern “microaggressions” in the most prosaic of human interaction. Project thee much?
Quite. But enough of such quibbles. We must heed Laurie’s wisdom:
Atone ye!
Atone ye!
Does contributing occasionally to your efforts count? If so, I’m still waiting for my gold-embossed and framed indulgence(s).
I don’t talk to nutters.
I’ve had luck with affecting a voice and expression of great concern, and telling the socialist clown that ‘Oh, I just don’t interact well with the mentally ill. Good luck, and God bless you!’
And then, of course, walking off with an insufferably pious look on my face, which I have practiced assiduously in front of the bathroom mirror.
“you mustn’t ask any unsophisticated questions”
I do love that ‘sophist’ is a key portion of the word, ‘sophisticated’.
It’s racist to have a learned response to race hectoring from all previous hectoring. Why, the very fact that you’re capable of recognizing hectoring is hectoring priviledge. Now submit and be hectored. Racist.
What other possible behavior is there?” — knee slapping laughter?
One might roll eyes and make a masturbating gesture in the air while humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Er, not that I would do such a thing. Much.
After all, they are simply using verbal tactics. It can’t be beyond the wit of man to come up with counter tactics.
A simple “yes, dear” works pretty well.
Wear your racial shame with, er, pride!
There is a tactic that the left has yet to find a way to defend and our friend Milo has been using it to great effect: Mockery
Mockery is my preferred weapon and it certainly adds the element of fun. I usually would stay away from Facebook because, the only friends that would post political were the lefties, the rest of us would just ignore the rants. However, there has been a shift on my FB and I have indulged myself of late with entertaining results.
One tactic that I enjoy is to feign agreement with a lefty and then take the issue to an absurd level. A discussion of Trump’s immigration EO was proceding as expected with lefties posting the media issued talking points; immigrants and refugees had not committed any attacks here (untrue, of course) therefore the EO was trying to fix a problem, that we don’t have, so I fell in with the lefties and took the argument to its logical conclusions; that I would have to see dead Americans first and lots of them before I could be persuaded that we should take preventative measures. You can imagine just how entertaining this can be. I have been enjoying myself.
That Laurie Penny twitter thread is incredible. It starts with a girl claiming some comment Laurie made about “manic pixie dream girls” not existing dehumanized her, which I initially took as a joke before realizing she was serious. Laurie says she’s sorry, but also apologizes if her comment gave someone else “ammunition” to harm her. So, you know, in case the purported harm of the comment was caused by someone besides Laurie.
Our manic pixie dream girl goes on to say, “My experience was that your school of thought made men ashamed to admit to being with me for fear of looking unfeminist.” I bet you can’t guess who Laurie is going to blame in this situation. Oh, you guessed the men? That’s very astute of you. You’d think she would be happy her influence has caused these men to be worried about being unfemenist.
There’s no way to know for sure, but I have a suspicion that manic pixie dream girl’s relationship problems aren’t really the result of men being worried about being unfemenist.
“No matter how accepting someone is, that doesn’t stop them from being part of a system based on centuries of inequality.”
This, because these white people “allow” society to continue exist without working assiduously to implement Ms. Ida’s political program. (I really can’t imagine Ms. Ida letting those awful white people off the hook of her Kafkatrap by working against injustices according to their *own* moral and political judgment.)
To rephrase Ms. Ida: “You are personally complicit in racism, unless you submit to all of *our* political demands and tendentious accusations–including howsoever they be modified by us from time to time!” Or maybe just: “Do what you’re told, bigot.”
Hollywood Babalon (manic pixie dream girl from my previous post) has some great insights:
I have to say, if being a witch isn’t supernatural, just hard, what’s the appeal?
It can’t be beyond the wit of man to come up with counter tactics.
I’m sure the German Jews in the late 1920s thought they could counter anti-Jewish fervor in the universities with reasoned discourse, which they should have had the wit to invent.
Obviously, you cannot engage them on a rhetorical level because their rhetoric is crafted in intensely bad faith. It IS Kafkatrapping, which by design you will lose. Every time. You cannot out-debate the devil.
The only way to fight back is to have the power to neutralize their power as well as their aspirations for ever-more power.
Does a lone editor have the caché to slap down all of the fanatics who would crush him?
Only if he’s the top dog, and only then if he can withstand a sustained campaign of outrage that’s designed to drive him from his position.
Which, precious few people are in a position to withstand such a thing, regardless of their determination and backbone.
Sometimes the bear gets you because you’re in a cave full of bears and the exit is blocked by… more bears. The only way to win was to flee when you still had the chance.
Or not go into the cave at all.
Remember the only goal here is to get the normals to submit, all means are on the table to achieve the end. Knowing your enemy is essential and a willingness to be equally ruthless must be the posture. The normals must be as unrelenting in their pushback.
We must remember who we’re up against, they are not formidable, regardless of the picture painted by the media. I know these people, you know these people and they are ill-equipped, emotionally and intellectually and I would feel quite ashamed of myself to lose to these clowns in any venue.
Historically, there has been an unwillingness to engage the left, which is finally starting to change. However, too many are still loathe to jump into the fray, so we must not relent, to encourage the sideliners to get in the game.
I have to say, if being a witch isn’t supernatural, just hard, what’s the appeal?
You can float?
I have to say, if being a witch isn’t supernatural, just hard, what’s the appeal?
You can float?
*sustained applause*
Oh, I’ve been at this all day: https://twitter.com/dicentra33/status/831921095036985345
The prefix of the next civil war will be the refusal and inability of anyone to speak with the enemy, and by “enemy” I mean the progressives. If they will not listen, few options are left when they attack. Argumentation and silence are behaviours? One only argues when there’s hope. Silence is appropriate when it’s hopeless, like teaching my Labradoodle to speak Greek.
If I’m damned no matter what I say because of how I am made (white and male), then this is a precursor to genocide. I, for one, won’t ride in the boxcar.
Being a witch isn’t supernatural, it’s just hard.
You hope for Wanda Maximoff, in a chic tailored outfit and bending reality with her gestures, but instead you get an unemployable feminist with a bag full of sea shells and a mood disorder.
Scott, – If they will not listen, few options are left when they attack.- I’d favour water cannon followed by a baton charge. What was that you said about civil rights?
I wonder if using reverse tactics might do the trick…so do definitely agree with them: non-white people need to be protected from grammar and planning ahead, they need to never be on time and never get their work done. To ask this of them is to be completely racist! In fact, from now on we should endeavor to not teach non-white children the alphabet or numbers, nor any other “white” academic endeavor.
All of this shall be left to the whites because to do otherwise is cultural hegemony…this means that white instructors can only teach white children (and those who don’t want to can…just not teach at all) and only white children will be taught alphabets and numbers, etc. because those are white and to do otherwise is profound imperialism.
Nor should we have non-white people wear anything that could be construed as “white” so no jeans and tee shirts, no tennis shoes et al. Nor should they eat “white” food or use “white” cutlery, nor should they be forced to live in houses that use “white” construction methods, nor should they engage in buying or selling anything that was invented, developed, distributed, owned, raised, grown or marketed by a white person — that includes any money or economic instruments too. And we should definitely endeavor to make sure that white people are not habituated near non-white people; for only through separation from such creatures can the mystical non-whites be kept from oppression.
It is only by doing this that one can completely negate ones overwhelming whiteness.
If anyone points out that this is horrifically racist sounding (as well as being absolutely ludicrous and un-pragmatic), moreso than many slavers and totalitarian race supremacists have even come up with, then perhaps they may be in a position to actually be asked to revisit their line of original thinking.
Although I wouldn’t hold out too much hope there, because they’d probably like the insane notions I just mentioned.
And I’ve used these tactics on my small children to get them to do something they don’t want to do…it works until they are about age 5/6, when they begin to question the logic of it all, and can at least come up with more sensible reasons for their tantrums.
Also use it on teenagers, but I have to be prepared for stompy feet and door slamming…at which point it’s always good to remind them that corporal punishment can be brought into play against the completely unreasonable.
Again, I wouldn’t hold any hopes though, as my kids are not certifiably insane to the best of my knowledge. These guys I’m not so sure about.
You hope for Wanda Maximoff, in a chic tailored outfit and bending reality with her gestures
Or even Zatanna, at a pinch. I say this even having encountered rather… large Zatanna cosplay.
Yes, I know, not witch so much as woman of magic, etc.
Also, an idle question: Is Edgar Winter the root of all evil? I’m pretty sure he has more whiteness to spare (even in his name!) than any three of us more commonly white people.
Or even Zatanna, at a pinch
Or Amora, the Enchantress. As I recall, she had some groovy leggings.
Speaking of the Enchantress, if the villain of your movie is a pretty, tragically fragile white girl routinely tormented by an older black lady, and also as hot as feck in costume, I think you chose wrong.
it’s interesting that those who are so keen to deploy the phrase “fragility” are the same ones who discern “microaggressions” in the most prosaic of human interaction. Project thee much?
Faculty at the University of California, Santa Barbara have been busy planning how to sabotage an upcoming talk by Ben Shapiro. After vandalising signs advertising the event and holding debates on the best methods of gratuitous disruption, and amid claims of emotional “distress” at even the prospect of hearing him speak, staff and students plan to ease their upset with poetry and candle-making.
Previously, at Marquette University.
amid claims of emotional “distress” at even the prospect of hearing him speak, staff and students plan to ease their upset with poetry and candle-making.
Thank God they’re the clever ones.