Woe Is He
In case you missed it in the comments, here’s another illustration of the severely educated and their unhappy mental trajectories. In this case, Mr Anthony Oliveira, a writer and “pop culture critic,” who boasts of his PhD, in English literature, and whose pronouncements are, shall we say, very much of a type. And so we learn that, “queer people are permanently disadvantaged and marginalised by the capitalist power structure,” that, “‘the family’ as we now understand it is a capitalist invention and is specifically designed to exclude queerness,” and that, “queerness is incompatible with capitalism.”
What, you didn’t know?
Readers may pause to wonder how the passing of time will treat those who’ve internalised such woke theatre and made it their persona, their schtick, with the inevitable declaration of pronouns (“he/them”) and equally inevitable pretensions of victimhood. Such that being gay is The Defining Feature Of One’s Life, the basis of a career, and framed by default in terms of exclusion, “oppression” and being marginalised. What happens when the professionally oppressed hit forty, or fifty? Will they still expect the world to be fascinated by their gayness, their queerness, and its supposed incompatibility with a market economy? Will they still be banging on about it?
When you’re a teenager, being gay is, understandably, a big deal. But if it’s still a big deal when you’re in your thirties, or forties or fifties – if it’s still your primary identity badge, the basis of your alleged oppression and intersectional status – as if you lived in the livelier parts of Yemen or Somalia, while actually living in Toronto, as Mr Oliveira does – then the words functional adult aren’t the ones that come to mind.
Via Tim Newman.
I see the link doesn’t work, sorry.
Ah, I’m guessing you mean these people. Well, yes, quite.
If someone thinks a good way to spend the day is to strip naked, smear themselves with paint and wander through Times Square, brandishing inane or delusional slogans, all in the name of woke piety, and amid a cloud of self-congratulation… then, like most people I know, I’d assume they’re a narcissistic wanker and best avoided.
The narcissistic wankery, the insufferable woke neediness, being the issue.
Well TBF, let’s keep in mind that these are the characters that were portrayed as “cool” in the sci-fi flics of the 70’s and 80’s.
What flicks were those? I cannot remember any such.
…except, I suppose, Rocky Horror with a murderous transvestite as the hero.
Ah, I’m guessing you mean these people. Well, yes, quite.
OTOH, it could reinforce people’s thinking about “not you lot”, as this guy with the right idea does.
…narcissistic wanker…
Collective thought bubble for photo 6 from the link…
OTOH, it could reinforce people’s thinking about “not you lot”, as this guy with the right idea does.
I’d foolishly assumed it was against the law for grown men to expose themselves in front of other people’s children.
I’d foolishly assumed it was against the law for grown men to expose themselves in front of other people’s children.
Only if it is for self gratification, this is art, man, important, stunning, powerful, and brave Art with a capital A.
For some reason, the phrase pepper spray to the genitals came to mind.
For some reason, the phrase pepper spray to the genitals came to mind.
Oh, right, you’re the type of guy who would take a hammer to The Pieta or spray paint to the Mona Lisa. Philistine.
Walsh, who uses a wheelchair, said body painting disrupts the way people think about “whose bodies are valuable”.
I don’t know exactly when the phrase “[X] bodies” crept into SJW language, but it is damned annoying.
I don’t know exactly when the phrase “[X] bodies” crept into SJW language, but it is damned annoying.
Second the motion. For a group who is constantly crying and blowing snot about “marginalization”, “dehumanization”, and similar nonsense, calling people “bodies”, as if they were some commodity like sacks of feed corn or bricks, rather than individual people seems rather regressive – or Soviet, which may be the intent, in which case, mission accomplished.
I’m guessing you mean these people.
The green guy in the picture; I always wondered what happened to Igor from the Hilarious House of Frightenstein.
Hi David,
ABC took down the original story I linked to, but, as I suspected, it didn’t take long to find some more loons!
Also, I just saw a comment on Youtube that the musical Mongol horde had their song subtitles mistranslated; commenter says song is actually about leopards and makes no mention of wolves. With this invalidation of spotted bodies, the SJWs have gone too far!
I think the “[X] bodies” sin can be laid at the feet of one Tanehisi Coats (don’t quote me on the spelling) who got very rich off it and thus inspired a, er, horde of hopeful copycats. 🙄
Want to make white people squirm? Ask them to name a single famous Indian person.
Elizabeth Warren.
Hee hee hee hee hee 😄
Queerness may not be compatible with capitalism, but evidently it is compatible with stupidity.
Hee hee etc
Want to make white people squirm? Ask them to name a single famous Indian person. Wait for them to say “Gandhi.” Smile, spread your fingers, and say, “Okay, okay, fine. You got me. Now, name *another* one.” Then watch them squirm.
This isn’t quite the gotcha Joe imagines. There are at least four other Gandhis who qualify as famous – Indira, Rajiv, Sanjay and Sonia – so one can just keep on saying “Gandhi” for the first few minutes of the smug interrogation. One might then move on to “Vaz” which should serve to close down the conversation.
On pride parades, David was saying, “I was thinking of the words cartoonish, alienating and degenerate. But yes.”
There’s quite a gulf between “gay pride”, on the one hand, and gay dignity on the other.
I think the latter has done far more for the appropriate social acceptance of homosexuality than the former. But radicals will not soon be celebrating mere bourgeois decency, from homosexuals or anyone else.
This isn’t quite the gotcha Joe imagines.
Better still, if Joe wants another after Gandhi, say Jinnah, who technically was an Indian having been born and raised in British India prior to the partition – not that I would expect Joe to know anything about that.
Incoming!
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/333468/
I am literally shaking right now.
Well, NOW they tell me!
“lesbians don’t have penises”
That’s why they buy those rubber toys.
“lesbians don’t have penises”
Never get caught in some gang’s terf war…
Meanwhile, just in time for pride month, sheeeee’s baaaaaaaaaaaack !
some gang’s terf war
I’m stealing that.
More than ten hours later…
pepper spray to the genitals <== band name. You people are slipping. I saw Pepper Spray to the Genitals open for Lesbians Don't Have Penises on the Make White People Squirm tour in 2014.
We’re supposed to be embarrassed about the fact that Americans can’t recognize a Bollywood star
The current CEOs of Microsoft and Google are Indian. If he gets anyone in tech he’ll be doubly embarassed.
Wait for them to say “Gandhi.” Smile, spread your fingers, and say, “Okay, okay, fine. You got me. Now, name *another* one.”
Gandhi, Indira.
Gandhi, Rajiv.
Nehru — Indira Gandhi’s dad.
Gandhi, Sonia. Does that one count?
Hey, I can’t help it that Indian politics is like that! How far back are we allowed to go? Does Buddha count?
Jahangir Khan — cricketer
Jahangir Khan — squash player
Jahangir — khan.
There’s a certain ease to this game! It’s pretty much all two or three for one.
As Mr Newman pointed out, the famous Indian trick doesn’t work with anyone remotely familiar with cricket. I think I got to 10 without breaking a sweat or relying on Gandhi and his family.
I’m suddenly reminded of a mate in second-year engineering who, after a particularly devastating calculus midterm, was maintaining a list of mathematicans he would go back in time and kill if time travel were ever invented. Number Two on the list was “Mr. Cartesian”.
but it’s understandable he’s so obsessed with his sexuality, given that modern culture seems to be telling gay people that being gay is literally the most important thing about them,
It is rather conformist, a predictable trajectory. Though to make being gay the basis of one’s identity and career, as if it were a credential, and the filter through which almost everything is viewed – “a queer scholar, analysing and remixing pop culture, politics, and literature” – seems a tad monomaniacal, and neotenous. Again, a fixation with identity politics – and with it, a pantomime of victimhood – doesn’t seem to be something that will age well.
And if, as a grown man, you’re writing with bewildering earnestness about how Buffy the Vampire Slayer saved your life, then the word neotenous doesn’t seem unfair.
“Ask them to name a single famous Indian person….”
Rudyard Kipling.
Oh, being born in India doesn’t automatically make you an Indian? How interesting!
The follow the ramifications of that claim, and watch them squirm. 🙂
Total demolition of the hatter’s theme:
– Giorgio Armani
QED
Giorgio Armani
The list of gay millionaires and billionaires would be fairly extensive and, needless to say, there are plenty of gay people who are doing just fine despite the alleged evils of the “capitalist power structure.” (I use the word despite with just a hint of irony.)
Mr Oliveira admits that “some queers CAN achieve wealth, but they do so at a permanent and reinstantiated handicap,” by which he means, I think, that successful gay people tend not to have children, and specifically gay children, to whom they leave “accumulated resources.” Why this should be denounced as a uniquely capitalist conspiracy, some supposedly wilful oppression, as opposed to a function of not reproducing, I’m not entirely sure. One might just as well argue that, on account of rarely having children to finance and worry about, gay people are less oppressed and more free to spend their earnings on themselves and their own interests, rather than with an eye to posterity, inheritance and future generations.
Yet the above is presented as justifying “a complete system overhaul.” I.e., the toppling of capitalism. Freed from which, apparently, we’ll all have lots of wealth, somehow, in ways never specified. And puppies will smell of candy floss.
And if, as a grown man, you’re writing with bewildering earnestness about how Buffy the Vampire Slayer saved your life, then the word neotenous doesn’t seem unfair.
Indeed. Although in this case you’re asking a single word to bear more responsibility than is reasonable.
The physicist Chandrasekhar
Nikki Haley – that would freak Joe out.
Mr Oliveira admits that “some queers CAN achieve wealth, but they do so at a permanent and reinstantiated handicap,”
Sounds like someone’s pissed off at getting in debt for a PhD in literature.
Spike Milligan, b. Ahmednagar 16/4/18
Here is his touching tribute to the sub-continent.*
*Some of our American friends may struggle with this. I’m afraid that there is no easy explanation.
An interesting perspective…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but is Mr. Oliveira making a case for banning queerness?
you’re writing with bewildering earnestness about how Buffy the Vampire Slayer saved your life
The whole thing’s a roman a clef for Marti Noxon’s extramarital affair with Joss Whedon[1], not exactly something one thinks of as particularly empowering given how it ended.
[1] Although, in all fairness, so is everything Noxon writes
I’m not sure what the word queer just means “gay” any more. Or does it? Alas, I haven’t done my homework on these crucial sub-definitions – which I suspect have been deliberately screwed around with just to confuse me, and necessitate a very severe scolding.
Perhaps the Everyday Feminism site archives can help me out! Ah, here we go…
“Queerness exists for us as an ideality that can be distilled from the past and used to imagine a future. The future is queerness’s domain”
“What is sex anyway? … Can we ever truly know?”
“There’s So Much Erasure* of People of Color, Gender Nonconforming, Non-Binary, and Other People In “Gay” and “Queer” Spaces” (are we still doing classic sentences?)
A naive observer might think they’re being deliberately meaningless.
*Erasure – a fine band. I think they might have been queer or gay or something
A naive observer might think they’re being deliberately meaningless.
An easy way to avoid ever being proved wrong…
“queer people are permanently disadvantaged and marginalised by the capitalist power structure”
Despite being one of the richest demographics in that “power structure” (why? Hint – count the number of children).
The Lord must love crazy people, he sure made a lot of them
I fell down a rabbit hole following that link and came across a spectacular essay https://parallaxoptics.wordpress.com/2018/11/12/on-woke-capital/
Money quote: “White men are the most competent people on the planet, but their independence and consumer spend profile makes them tricky to extract maximum value out of. So, what if we could have the competence of a white man, with the herd-mindset and profligate spending of a woman? Tada! I bring you the gay Pride movement.”