In the comments, pst314 shares an uplifting, utopian spectacle for Portland’s commuters.

What’s striking about such scenes, I think, is the eye-widening selfishness on display. Other passengers, other people, including children, are seemingly of no importance. Except, perhaps, as obstacles, or targets. And yet we’re told, often and at length, that those who repeatedly indulge in antisocial and criminal behaviour are creatures deserving of indulgence, and with whom we should empathise. As if the favour would ever be returned.

If you’ve watched the reality series Cops or Live PD, pathological selfishness is very much a staple, a defining attribute of the assorted misfits and predators. I remember one lengthy pursuit of thieves who’d robbed a store at gunpoint, terrorised its owner, and then fled the scene in a stolen car, and whose bid to escape did costly damage to other people’s property, and caused other road users to veer and crash, resulting in serious injury.

When finally apprehended, the thieves, themselves unharmed, were entirely unconcerned by the horror and destruction left in their wake, or the fact that it was all but miraculous that no-one had been killed. Instead, they were loudly indignant, as if they were the victims of the drama, heatedly objecting to the discomfort of handcuffs, and demanding to know why their phones had been confiscated. While, within earshot, injured children were being rushed to hospital.

It’s curious how those who find endless opportunities to declare their own altruism and compassion, and thereby signal their elevated status, are very often determined to excuse selfishness of a sociopathic kind and to perform remarkable contortions while doing so.

Such that, having been burgled, for instance – in the middle of the night, by people armed with carving knives – one should apparently sympathise with the bipedal vermin breaking into one’s home and driving off with one’s stuff – in one’s own car. And then, via incoherent prose in a national newspaper, fret about their wellbeing. Burglars being so deserving of our forbearance and goodwill, you see.

If readers are left somewhat puzzled by the piece in question, by Guardian contributor Anna Spargo-Ryan, this is understandable. Consistency doesn’t appear to be a priority, or indeed an option. What matters, it seems, is that Ms Spargo-Ryan is hailed by her progressive peers as a “beautiful person,” oozing, as she is, with infinite compassion. Albeit not so much for other local residents, also robbed in the night, most likely by the same criminal gang, and whose expectations of justice are deemed terribly proletarian and unsophisticated.

But then, ostentatious displays of sympathy for criminals – rather than for their numerous victims, and future victims – are much more statusful. And hey, that’s what matters.

As seen in the links above, the mental convolutions can be quite bizarre. If another illustration is needed, see also this stern moral lecture from the pages of Vice, in which we’re told, emphatically, that the people we should dislike and disdain, and indeed fear, are the ones who don’t feel entitled to rob us, or beat us insensible, or burn down our homes.

Lifted from the comments, a small but telling thing:

“I’ve not done anything wrong.” Why has this become so normal? pic.twitter.com/GKHzIozlRj

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) May 7, 2023

Regarding which, sH2 replied,

Well, indeed. We do seem to be witnessing an upsurge in such sly provocations, and almost always from the same kinds of people with the same kinds of views – an eerie uniformity. And so, Narcissistic Glitter Bint can invade someone’s personal space and shower them, and their children, with some substance – in this case, glitter – and do it repeatedly, against their wishes, while saying, rather triumphantly, “I’m not touching him.”

The dynamic is basically, “You, unlike me, have some self-restraint, which gives me an advantage, therefore I shall test it and see how far I can go.” It’s the psychology of a child unaccustomed to consequences.

Left uncorrected, it’s a psychology that can quickly become quite vile. As seen, for instance, here.

Update, some variations on a theme:

In the comments, we mentioned the videos of Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”), filmed at Portland State University, in which students who disagree with him – our supposed intellectuals of tomorrow – feel entitled to harass and threaten, and to throw water on him, and to steal his phone and other belongings.

This related video, embedded below, is ostensibly less dramatic, but in some ways more instructive. The charming songbird seen early in the video, and in those above, is Chrissa Mae Kalal, a student, adjunct employee, and self-styled “trans refugee from West Virginia.” Schooled in the role of persecuted saint, Mr Kalal – formerly Chris Burney – spends an awful lot of his time disrupting and physically blocking other people’s conversations – say, around three minutes in, by repeatedly shoving his bike at the legs of the participants while looking enormously self-satisfied – and generally harassing them in a gratuitous and fairly creepy way.

As one does when one is a Higher Being and stipulator of pronouns.

Note too the equally divine creature in the pink mask, who, around six minutes in, also seems unhappy about strangers having a polite conversation.

This brave woman at Portland State University ended up in tears, afraid of the backlash she’ll get for agreeing with us.

She doesn’t know what’s going to happen to her, and says sharing these views in university will get her a bad grade.

She has to fear for her future for… pic.twitter.com/aC58mIoW4X

— Billboard Chris 🇨🇦🇺🇸 (@BillboardChris) May 9, 2023

It’s worth noting that the man with the bicycle, the lovely Chrissa, and his masked accomplice – the one circling the conversation and ‘accidentally’ barging into its participants, repeatedly – are trying to intimidate the young woman in the video. And judging by her nervousness, and the need for continual looks over the shoulder, they’re doing a fairly good job of it.

Needless to say, what you’re seeing is pathological – one might say malevolent – and yet, for some, it’s a marker of woke status, a progressive ideal. And the behaviour above isn’t the result of some fit of temper or a one-off aberration. It isn’t done reluctantly or under duress. It’s practised and calculated. It reveals a sadistic ingenuity.

Hence the grinning and the self-satisfaction.

He likes to intimidate women and to pilfer things of no possible use to him.

Now tell him how pretty he is. Repeatedly.

Update, via the comments:

Note the obfuscatory use of the term TERF, which in context simply means women. Or non-compliant women. Or women caught off guard.

Oh, and a riposte of note:

Also, open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

In other we’re-letting-the-mentally-ill-teach-your-children news:

The teacher in question, a dysmorphic man named Ashlee Renczkowski, is apparently prone to “phases of depression,” and was, in his words, “having bad thoughts.” And hence of course the comments about shooting the children in his care, grades six through eight, presumably with the three firearms in his possession. The ostensible cause of this rather severe mood swing was a social media post in which unnamed people were “talking negatively” about Mr Renczkowski’s sexuality and professed womanhood.

And any reservations about Mr Renczkowski are, clearly, unfounded.

When not “feeling cute and beautiful” and exploring the possibilities of a “zero-depth vaginoplasty,” Mr Renczkowski boasts of “giving students a safe place.”

Some ironies are just a little too on-the-nose.

Mr Renczkowski has since been removed from the school and his weapons confiscated.

And in other, entirely unrelated news – when a sociology researcher discovers the wrong kind of things:

Readers are invited to guess the area of research before clicking the link.

Little things. For instance,

Below the fold, you’ll find a short film by Rob Montz about Amy Wax, quoted above, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania.

Professor Wax has been mentioned here once or twice before. Generally regarding her observations of everyday phenomena that are seemingly unmentionable, at least on campus, and the performative indignation and outright hysteria that reliably ensues. As when students, supposedly adult intellectuals, claimed that the professor’s mere presence on campus was “physically and emotionally harming all of us,” with the law school’s Dean, Theodore Ruger, another supposed adult, invoking the “lasting trauma” of hearing her speak.

Notable moments in the film include Professor Glenn Loury summarising the inevitable consequences of “affirmative action” and wildly varying standards of admission – which, it seems, mustn’t be acknowledged realistically – and Professor Wax’s comment about the race-grifting “equity” establishment, and its opposite – gratitude.