Striving For Diversity
And so you must be excluded:
It means they’re holding you responsible for their out-of-control feelings and they’re hoping you’re tolerant and kind enough to let them call you intolerant and unkind.
It’s a pathetic power move from life’s losers meant to turn your own morals against you.
It’s one of the…
— Porkulence (@Porkulence) June 25, 2025
Update, via the comments:
It must be quite strange to inhabit a milieu in which the normal meanings of words are either ignored or inverted. By people who aspire to be professional writers. Communicators of ideas.
Such that safety translates as a compulsory and intensely neurotic following of very narrow ideological fashion.
A social environment in which celebrating diversity means pointedly and gleefully excluding anyone we suspect of possibly have differing opinions on something or other, whether expressed or not, and doing so in ways that, to others, those less progressive, seem petty and weird.
Something along those lines.
Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
And these are largely the same ones saying we should not lock up actual criminals.
Marxism and its variants are a personality disorder.
This teen is eventually going to murder a person. Unless steps are taken.
“It also means that readers can point out, publicly and at great length, when I screw up. For which I’ve been told I should be grateful.”
Doesn’t that make you feel unsafe?
What/who is inspiring the commenters is..well…I keeeed, I keeeeeed…I think.
That’s what his henchlesbians are for.
A brief interlude.
Maybe become a serial killer.
And:
She F’dA and FO, and now has a sad. Apparently hasn’t had a bath, but has a sad.
Not only is it quite strange to inhabit a milieu in which the normal meanings of words are either ignored or inverted but for the life of me I remain stumped as to the justification for everyone advertising their milieu’s via DIRECT VIDEO PROFILE DISCUSSIONS.
There was a time where you didn’t see crazy people advertise their problems for social approval that seems so long ago.
I don’t remember myself, but Grok appears to.
How to degrade your formerly high-trust society.
THAT was some brilliant animation, right there (released in 2012). Wow. What happened to you, Disney? What the actual hell?
First comment I see:
Somewhat related:
There’s more – much more – in this lively and extended post.
British comestible nomenclature of note.
Not unlike when you wander into a branch of Béres for a hot pork sandwich and they ask if you’d like it with crackle. Which, so far as I can make out, is shards of nickel-iron meteorite.
Granted, I’m no expert, but I’m not convinced that this is the look to go for.
Looks painful, actually.
And quite painful to look at.
I’ve mentioned before a casual social gathering in which one of the participants, a woman in her late twenties, a stranger to me, decided, apropos of nothing, to begin a loud and lengthy political tirade. The relevance of which to anything preceding it was not at all obvious.
The high-volume rambling – about non-leftwing people and how “hateful” they are – was both incongruous and incoherent, but the message being sent – via volume and body language – was nonetheless quite clear: “I am emotionally volatile and if you challenge my assertions or point out my factual errors, however politely, I will become even more volatile and may start throwing things.”
Which, in the context of an otherwise amiable social gathering, means either derailing the afternoon entirely with a huge and very loud row, which struck me as rude, another needless imposition, or sitting there patiently, listening to a browbeating lunatic shrieking insults in front of people she’s only just met and about whom she knows nothing.
There is a third alternative: Saying nothing but picking her up and throwing her bodily out the window.
Looking back, it was decidedly weird and a considerable test of patience. The mental processes in play were not entirely clear to me.
And then there was the irony of this unmannered mouthy bint telling us all, loudly and at length, how uncaring and hateful non-leftwing people are – and by implication how virtuous and empathetic she is – while showing no regard whatsoever for the feelings of those around her, who were either embarrassed, bewildered or quietly offended, and who were expected only to bear witness to her self-imagined magnificence.
She was counting on that.
Tolerance of lunacy and evil is not a virtue.
Quite possibly. I’m pretty sure that Shouty Madam was accustomed to the deference of people more polite and self-aware. Still, it highlighted a perversity I’ve noticed subsequently – say, when the person shouting about the importance of empathy is the least empathetic person in the room. Possibly, the entire postcode.
“It don’t matter if I’m nice or not. Make my food!”
pathological empathy for evil people in the criminal “justice” system
8 years sentence but he’ll serve less than 5 1/2 years (and, from what I’ve read, he’ll likely serve much less than that reduced term).
Wonder what sort of sentence the decedent would have received had he the temerity to defend himself.
Some Secret Service leaker just dropped video of Trump and Netty’s secret meeting. And after they went to the effort to go out to the desert where they thought no one would hear them.
And one can get a 2 year sentence merely for criticizing regime officials and unassimilable immigrants.
Just as universities claim to promote intellectual freedom but
inadvertentlyintentionally suppress it.…a woman in her late twenties, a stranger to me, decided, apropos of nothing, to begin a loud and lengthy political tirade.
The Blurting happens quite often at work here since Trump got re-elected. Co-workers who I would have judged reasonable people with their heads mostly screwed on correctly will suddenly go on paranoid, unhinged political rants. In my head I always see @David’s post The Blurting – it perfectly describes this behavior.
The most unsettling aspects are the Blurter’s absolute certainty of their rightness, and their absolute expectancy of acceptance of whatever mental incontinence they are unleashing. No repercussions for approved messaging. I remain polite and vague, but extricate myself as soon as possible.
In fairness, I have to say a colleague I admire and respect started in on that while we were chatting at a conference, but was self-aware enough to notice my bland, vague replies and stopped himself, saying that for all he knew I was Republican or a Trump supporter, and therefore he should stop talking because I’d be getting all crazy about it, haha. I replied, that no, I would not be going crazy, that he was entitled to his opinions, and could freely express them in my presence, but that I would probably not be sharing any of mine. He said he used to be a Republican, but he hates Trump, which probably explains his bit of self-awareness. We were able to continue amicably to discuss the scientific aspects of our collaboration, and even some political stuff – he has international students, so his university was scaring everyone about ICE. But the takeaway of that whole thing – and what’s in common with all the other Blurter’s – is the expectation that it is the right wingers who will get all violent if their ideologies are challenged. Lefties project like an IMAX.
The Blurting isn’t just a matter of incongruity or tone-deafness. It’s presumptuous, selfish and rude.
People have been pointing out for generations how academia promotes conformity.
Recall the Frank Sinatra satire “Their Way” (“I did it their way”.)
Judging by the departments, administrators and educators featured here over the years, academia’s most obvious function isn’t, say, enquiry or finding things out, but rather propagating assumptions deemed high-status.
On that subject . . .
Not exactly. The cluster B personality disorders are symptoms of complex PTSD. People with complex PTSD are frequently triggered by things which seem random and anodyne to everyone else; plus living one’s entire life in a state of constant fight-or-flight amygdala activation means an inability to distinguish between mild confrontation and actual life-threatening danger. People with complex PTSD do feel unsafe in nearly any uncertain, ambiguous situation where they’re not in control or are facing any form of conflict or confrontation, no matter how mild. And they instantly, instinctually resort to the defense mechanisms they learned as children. Defense mechanisms which are frequently offensive, manipulative and/or toxic.
However.
The annoying left has been co-opting the vocabulary of therapy and mental health care for decades, and it has not escaped their notice that pretending to have complex PTSD allows them to weaponize empathy for the traumatized. Which is absolutely intentional manipulation. Much like antifa hides their members within crowds of “peaceful” protestors, these nasty little narcissists hide among people with real trauma and disordered social triggers.
The only fix for this is to start telling both the legitimately traumatized and the poseurs that it is not anyone else’s responsibility to manage their triggers. This won’t help the legitimately traumatized, because virtually nothing can. It will shut down the poseurs.
I’d be willing to bet it was invented by dentists.
All this weaponized misplaced empathy reminded me of a quote:
Our age, too: Much pop fiction indulges in that neurosis: In Firefly, Mal repeatedly refrains from killing predatory people who try to kill him, guaranteeing that they will go on to kill many others. In Terry Pratchett’s Discworld stories, various heroes do the same. Even Heinlein on occasion (see Tunnel in the Sky). Tolkien portrayed mercy as a virtue (see: Gollum, and also the orcs after the destruction of the Ring) but one can argue that the West is committing suicide through mercy towards its deadly enemies who only interpret mercy and forbearance as contemptible weakness.
Well, I suppose it’s possible that careful slow acclimatization may help. Talking and hiding don’t.
Who badly need shutting down–with ungentle demands to STFU.
Although possibly this was imposed by Heinlein’s execrably censorious editor.
Being a U.S. citizen is “insufferable” for her.
Fortunately, there is a quick and easy solution available to her.
The Boghossian Principle: “A system that forbids open conversation about its own existential problems is a system unworthy of preservation because it has already guaranteed its own failure.”
PTSD: it is nasty that the Left has coopted this language because it is the boy who cried wolf. After college students demand safe spaces and crayons because someone won an election or people in Chicago claim that a rope to pull down a garage door is a noose or students say they are “oppressed” by dark wood paneling, people assume that anyone claiming to have PTSD is lying (I know i do).
There are interesting studies of people exposed to actual trauma (house burned down, earthquake). Some people are not severely impacted and recover quickly and others never recover and may become hoarders or substance abusers. An explanation for this is something about personality (tough vs fragile) but that is not a satisfying explanation.
The solution I believe is to not give in to absurd demands, but that would require that college admins grow a backbone, so not holding my breath.
@ccscientist: I have PTSD. Can you help me sue the UK?
Through early morning fog I see
Visions of the things to be
The pains that are withheld for me
I realize and I can see
Unless I know the person is a veteran the presumption is the ‘P’ stands for ‘Pre-‘ not ‘Post-‘.
pst314: You do in fact have my sympathy. As I said, “true trauma”…
[ Ponders how to parlay this into some free drinks. ]
The world of sci-fi has fallen without any kind of resistance to the trans cult – I read ‘Reactor’ magazine to find out about upcoming books, and the level of trans cult infiltration there has reached critical mass in the last few months.
I think it’s been a long time coming. Remember John Varley’s 70’s/80’s stories in which people change sex at outpatient surgery clinics?