Reheated (113)
I expect to be busy elsewhere for much of this week, so, to soften the blow, the trauma of it all, here are some items from the archives:
An experiment in self-annihilation.
It seems to me we’ve strayed very far from the idea that an attractively developed society should – and must – be discerning about which kinds of newcomers it welcomes, lest it be flooded with incompatible tribes and the trash of the world. The idea that the locals, the voting citizens, might want a good deal and ask, “What’s in it for us?” seems anathema to Our Betters. Likewise, the notion of a civilised society implying, quite strongly, “You’re lucky to be here. Behave accordingly.”
And so, instead, we get the routine airbrushing of crime news, and instructional videos in which ludicrous progressive women film themselves performing please-don’t-rape-me dances.
On the psychology of Antifa’s Transgender Enforcement Wing.
And remember, the targets in the videos above – the unimposing, the elderly, the disabled – are chosen deliberately and with glee. Because that’s who they are, these mighty warriors of the Cluster B Tendency. Malevolence is their aphrodisiac, their euphoria. It’s how they feel important. It’s how they process the buzzing noise inside their own heads…
The threat of catastrophic injury would, I suspect, be the only language such creatures are likely to heed. It’s certainly hard to imagine them being swayed by appeals to logic, reciprocation, or basic decency. I see no evidence of a better nature to which one might appeal. I mean, once you’ve chosen to spend your afternoon menacing the elderly and disabled precisely because they’re unlikely to give you the vigorous kicking you deserve, you’re pretty much beyond any negotiation or genteel outreach project.
How To Invalidate Your Own Vocation.
On the evaporating standards of “affirmative psychotherapy.”
In this supposedly therapeutic context, the words affirmation and validation translate as a willingness to lie. A willingness to indulge obvious bollocks and play along. And so, one might wonder how Dr Tess Kilwein – PhD, pronouns “she/they” – might affirm and validate some of the chaps seen here. Or this merry bedlamite, who violates women’s toilets and pushes his phone camera under the doors of occupied stalls in order to livestream to his admirers, all those affirming fans, the protests of his latest victim.
Clara Jeffery, the editor-in-chief of Mother Jones, is not entirely honest.
The phenomenon was seemingly contagious and quite bizarre, a collective fit of transparent fabrication, and soon became a mocking meme. But I think we’re seeing much the same psychology. The same telling of tall tales in order to assert status and to fuel some progressive psychodrama.
The urge to inflate grievances, and indeed to fabricate them, to balance umbrage and chest-puffing on the merest mote, is a progressive credential. Theirs is a hamster-wheel world of competitive indignation. But when you’re very publicly complaining about a flight attendant using the word blessed, as if this one word signalled some impending theocracy – and when you’re using your eight-year-old child as a political ventriloquist’s doll – then we’re in the land of make-believe. And possibly, anti-psychotic medication.
For those craving more, this is a pretty good place to start.
Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
Ooh, three buttons. I wonder what they do.
The fad of tots mouthing ‘Oddly Precocious And Terribly Progressive Things’ does seem to have abated.
Given the rank implausibility it is curious how it ever took off to begin with.
When you pay close attention to how the left uses the term, you will notice that “one hundred percent diversity” means “no white people whatsoever.”
Well, annihilation of all whites who are not leftists.
The original intent of “celebrating diversity,” IIRC was to combat the situation where one ethnicity was dominant, not just numerically but also socially and politically.
It was about letting everyone have a seat at the table. From a Classical Liberal standpoint, it’s a perfectly reasonable idea.
But then the Critical Theories had to intervene, designating oppressors and oppressed, and then setting up different rules for those groups — which applied also to individuals — which got us where we are with a two-tier justice system and far more injustice than when we started.
Everything old is new again.
It’s an idea that invites abuse, depending on a number of presuppositions to have any hope of working, first among them being the notion everyone at the table understands the purpose of silverware.
The Critical Theories lot exploited those too bemused by the ‘perfectly reasonable idea’ to enforce any limitation or boundaries.
Compare, contrast.
Why is this the first I’ve heard of Botswana?
I’ve only ever heard about their basket-case neighbor, Zimbabwe.
How is it that Botswana can pull itself out of abject poverty and the others can’t? I mean, why don’t the neighboring countries follow Botswana’s example?
Granted, the psychopaths in the various countries won’t do it, but how did Botswana get so lucky to be blessed by sane leadership?
And why aren’t the citizens of other countries demanding the same kind of governance?
I suspect that as per usual, people are being lied to about why Botswana does well. Diamonds, yes, but whatever your natural resources, you have to incorporate them into a healthy economic system for them to lift the country out of poverty — otherwise, it’s just a few people getting rich.
Also, if Botswana is doing well, then it destroys the idea that Africans are too stupid to build decent countries. Obviously, the Botswanans grasp property rights, economic freedom, and anti-corruption well enough to make a difference.
I really despair for humanity sometimes. Here’s a model of how to do things, but nobody will follow it.
I want that framed.
It is, I think, pretty much a default template among progressives. It’s bizarre, almost comical, yet ubiquitous.
As I said in the post,
Anyhoo, I’ll be heading out for much of the day. Play nicely. Use coasters.
*Cough*