I paraphrase, of course. Though not, I think, wildly:

The alleged harms of debate and the citing of statistics are not mere rudeness or a failure to flatter, but “lasting psychological damage.” Because statistics can do that, apparently.

What might constitute controversy in the minds of such implausibly delicate creatures is not made clear, though we are told that the terms “blind review,” “handicap parking” and “immigrant” were considered “harmful language” by Stanford University’s IT department. Which does rather suggest a kind of neurotic contrivance.

Humble, you say. We’ll get to that in a second.

You can guess where this one’s going.

And,

And what better gift to the world than imposing your own hang-ups and inadequacies on everyone else, quite emphatically, at every opportunity?

And then we arrive at this glorious conundrum:

The study, found here, informs us that those most keen to pre-emptively shut down discussion, including by vigorous means, also “rated themselves as higher in… empathy.”

The inversions of progressive “empathy” – and its routine departure from reality – have of course been poked at here before.

And regarding those claims of humility, nothing says, ‘I entertain the possibility that my assumptions may be wrong’ like forbidding any and all attempts at contradiction.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.