And so, Dr Louise Raw, a suitably woke BBC-employed writer and historian, denounces “virulent class prejudice” as a self-evidently bad thing, and then, in the very next tweet, is publicly amused by the thought of “rich, white, middle-aged men” being killed in disproportionate numbers, complete with smiley-winky face. 

And when other Twitter users point out this contradiction, with varying degrees of liveliness, our woke historian and BBC employee doubles down and dismisses those objecting, en masse, as “fascists,” “neo-Nazis” and “right-wing” crayon-eaters. Presumably on grounds that no-one else, none of her enlightened leftist peers, would register a contradiction. Or anything unsavoury. 

Update, via the comments: 

It’s worth taking a moment to ponder what it must be like to inhabit a milieu in which public expressions of racial disdain are not only aired with expectations of impunity, but also as a marker of status. A way of signalling one’s social credentials and general modishness. And being so accustomed to this environment, so steeped in its values, that, when challenged, the obvious response is to construe any demurral – all of it, wholesale – as the work of “neo-Nazis.”

It’s a complicated dance. Quite a contortion.

Via [+] in the comments.

Crank the volume for some inter-species punishment. || Today’s word is interloper. || Today’s other word is ambition. || His is better than yours. || Hey, DJ. || Pattern detected. || Apology of note. || Assorted Peel Sessions. || Concerned pet. (h/t, Damian) || Angela Lansbury paired with teapots. || Unexpected nesting. (h/t, Julia) || Headline of note. || Star Wars, “The original radio drama,” 1981. || Do bear this in mind. (h/t, Dicentra) || You have mail. || Farmland. || From Everest. || Scenes. || Got length. || At last, iridescent chocolate. || Assorted string quintets. || Contrasting attitudes. || Hours of fun for lockdown evenings. || And finally, a quiz for all the family: Antidepressant or Tolkien Character?

Wisdom of the woke:

So, to recap. You should, like, totally get Big Sexy with whomever – even people you aren’t attracted to, apparently – but if your sexual and romantic appetites are insufficiently niche and radical, and more or less in line with mainstream leanings, then you should probably assume that there’s something wrong with you. Please update your files and lifestyles accordingly.

Ms Fabello and her throbbing feminist brain have been noted here before.

An open thread, in which to share links and bicker. But first, a little incongruity:

Wave by d’strict, Seoul, South Korea. Via Design You Trust.

Attention, woke citizens. During the current lockdown, do you feel a need to “challenge microaggressions” – those “verbal, behavioural or environmental indignities that communicate hostile, derogatory or negative racial slights”? Specifically, those committed during video conferencing?

According to Michigan State University’s Amy Bonomi, director of the university’s Children and Youth Institute, and Neila Viveiros, associate vice chancellor for academic operations at the University of Colorado Denver, the expanded use of virtual meeting platforms such as Zoom and Skype has created “a ripe setting for unconscious bias.”

But of course. The frontier of indignation must forever expand.

“Unconscious bias includes using language, symbolism and nonverbal cues that reinforce normative social identities with respect to gender, race, sexual preference and socioeconomic status,” Bonomi said. “For example, when the virtual background of a Zoom meeting attendee has pictures of his or her wedding, it unintentionally reinforces the idea that marriage is most fitting between opposite sexes.”

It turns out that the reckless visibility of a wedding photo may be crushing the self-esteem out of the touchily unwed. You see, the mere sight of a photo of someone’s happy day can “crowd out the experiences of people with minoritized social identities,” albeit in ways never quite explained. Other taboos include references to “simple activities like family dance parties,” which are apparently a thing, and “gardening with a spouse.”

Curiously, given the stated importance of “sensitivity” and being mindful of what things might mean, we aren’t invited to ponder the kind of person who would resent someone else’s wedding photo. And then complain about it. Or whether such neurotic affectations, these unhappy mental habits, are something to be actively encouraged. In the name of progress. At a university.

Update, via the comments: