A tightly-wound progressive gentleman offers lifestyle advice:

It all sounds terribly exciting.

Leftist shares his plan if Trump wins this election. This is a whole new level of delusion… pic.twitter.com/BYYqVAL8T9

— Amala Ekpunobi (@amalaekpunobi) October 26, 2024

Update, via the comments:

Martin D adds, not unfairly, 

Ah, yes, but there’s a sweet role to play, a self-flattering psychodrama to enact. Or as Mr Muldoon puts it, 

And regarding the prospect of Our Betters being forced into some terrified silence, Eagle quips,

That was, I think, the bit that really strained credulity. The idea that Agitated Chappie and his radical comrades could ever inhibit their compulsion to announce their own superiority at every opportunity. It was a stretch, even compared to the implication that the streets would soon be patrolled by some Trumpian Sturmabteilung.

Lifted from the comments, a spot of anthropology. In which, a progressive woman seeks irritation, some cause for concern – and, with effort, finds it:

What’s amusing about these displays of woke piety is, I think, the eerie uniformity, the contrivance, the same weird psychology.

Ms Jeffery, the editor-in-chief of Mother Jones, is not only ostentatiously vexed by an unremarkable expression of politeness and goodwill – such that she feels a need to alert her 134,000 likeminded followers to the imminent Christian Nationalist uprising – but we’re also expected to believe that her account of events is entirely true. That her peculiar disapproval was shared, audibly, by many other passengers, which, frankly, seems unlikely.

Oh, and she’s also revealed in the subsequent thread to be something of a hypocrite, and a repeated user of the same, supposedly offensive term. The latest instance being a mere three days earlier. I’m sure you’re all shocked. Do take a moment to steady yourselves.

As Clam adds in the comments,

It does suggest being accustomed to getting away with it. An expectation of mutual dishonesty, in which no-one pulls at the obvious threads, lest the favour be repaid and their own pronouncements receive an unwelcome scrutiny.

I suppose we could see the dubious story above – in which an innocuous expression of politeness is proof of “creeping Christian nationalism” – as a new spin on the woke eight-year-old phenomenon from 2016, in which countless progressives, including MSNBC “analysts” and editors of leftist magazines – and including Ms Jeffery herself – started tweeting, competitively, about their small children, all aged eight, supposedly saying Oddly Precocious And Terribly Progressive Things:

As I said at the time,

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.

For grown adults, our supposed moral betters, this is… odd behaviour.

Update, via the comments:

Rafi quips,

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.

Ms Jeffery seems oblivious to how petty, presumptuous and mean-spirited she sounds. As if complaining about a commonplace word of kindness, a courtesy, and construing it as offensive and vaguely sinister, were what righteous, well-adjusted people do. As if it were something one should boast about, publicly, while waiting for applause.

Ms Jeffery goes on to complain about disrespect – as if she had been violated by someone wishing her well – and she depicts herself as being oppressed by some “dominant culture.” In which flight attendants say nice things to passengers.

Readers are invited to imagine what it must be like to publicly mouth some bizarrely implausible claim, for no discernibly pressing reason, knowing that the bullshit-like properties of your claim, and your own hypocrisy, can easily be discovered, in a matter of seconds, and to mouth it anyway. And then, when challenged, to double down on the implausible and bizarre. Again, it strikes me as an odd compulsion.

Ms Jeffery is now calling those mocking her “so, so, so dumb.”

Quoted below, extracts from a conversation that in many circles would result in much hissing and flailing of limbs, but which, it seems to me, very much ought to be had:

From the following video, in which Andrew Gold talks with the formidable Mia Hughes, author of The WPATH Files, about pseudoscience, malpractice, and experiments on children.

It’s a forty-five-minute watch, but there’s plenty to chew on. Much that could be quoted. I should point out that the later sections of the interview, which explore surgical affirmations, or as one surgeon puts it, “creating body types that do not exist in nature,” does get a little vivid, and indeed surreal.

Lifted from the comments, a tale of what can happen when love, or professed love, collides with designer agonising:

Point of view: you just found out one of your favorite people in the whole world stopped masking and now you feel unsafe.

Also, that person lives across the country pic.twitter.com/teIMYiPBUj

— Dr. Jebra Faushay (@JebraFaushay) March 12, 2024

For those who missed it:

And so,

As you can imagine, there was some speculation as to whether the outpouring above is a well-executed parody, a feat of satire.

Well. It turns out that no, it’s not.

Update, via the comments:

“It’s your choice to make,” says madam. As if the odd behaviour were somehow not her own. As if the party choosing to end the relationship – a relationship with “the person that I love most in the world” – with a weird ultimatum – were not her.

WTP adds,

It is, I think, a signature of our times. Like many others, I watched the video twice and still wasn’t sure. Though in our defence, I don’t think there’s much reality in the reality, if you see what I mean.

One for the totally-balanced-educator files:

Meet DeDe Duffy. A preschool teacher in Cape Coral, FL. She says she teaches her students that if they don’t like their parents, they can find another family.

She also says she teaches them to be gay.

These are the people teaching your kids. pic.twitter.com/e5HJFzMOvD

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 11, 2023

Those pre-school children are in good hands, clearly. Ms Duffy’s pronouns, since you ask, are they and them.

Update, via the comments:

Rafi adds,

Well, it would be nice – refreshing, even – if these people worked out their serious mental health issues on their own time. Rather than, as seems to be the fashion, inflicting them on other people’s children.

Chris G offers the following,

Indeed. Ditto TikTok likes. And yet, as we’ve seen many times, the more scrupulously woke a teacher is, the more likely he is to issue the class instructions to remember his birthday, to use his made-up pronouns, to browse his social media accounts, and to tell him, seemingly daily, just how pretty he is.

Ms Duffy has now locked her social media accounts, so further illumination is, sadly, denied us. But it occurs to me that if I were employed to work with small children, I don’t think I would choose to film myself having eye-widening meltdowns – or to then share the recordings with lots of random strangers on TikTok and Instagram.

But maybe that’s just me. Shy soul that I am.

Azi asks,

The supply of bedlamite educators does seem all but inexhaustible. Such that one might wonder whether schools and universities, those fiefdoms of the progressive, are actively favouring the psychologically marginal. Presumably, there are people doing the hiring who think that emotional instability and pretentious “non-binary” pronouns denote an ideal candidate, an exemplar for impressionable children.

Rather than… well, you know.

In case you missed it in the comments, I bring news of a dream employee. You see, she’s not at all entitled. It’s just that the world must revolve around her:

Tiktoker claims to suffer from “time blindness” and blasts employers who make employees come on time. She wants to dismantle the system which says people should be on time pic.twitter.com/jbW6SccYJz

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 13, 2023

I think we can assume that madam’s professed “time blindness” – which apparently precludes the use of the reminder function on her phone – doesn’t result in her turning up for work early, or accidentally working extra hours. Or being in any way more useful or helpful, or less self-involved.

I think we can assume that with some confidence.

If the elevation of chronic lateness to some kind of progressive credential or state of pious victimhood sounds familiar, we have encountered several variations on this theme.

Unreliability is, for instance, championed by the Oregon Health Authority, on grounds that “urgency is a white supremacist value,” and therefore expectations of punctuality and preparedness are terribly problematic and something to disdain. Whereas, in matters of health, tardiness and lack of forethought are presumably aspirational, a woke ideal.

And then there was the time we were told, by Marcus Moore, an “equity transformation specialist,” that the cultivation of self-absorption and lack of focus, along with a disregard for deadlines, standards and obligations – and by implication, a disregard for reciprocity – will somehow catapult minority students into gainful employment and a world of many, many friends.

Because expecting minority students to turn up on time is merely “bending to whiteness” and therefore a cause of “tremendous harm.” Unlike the “equity” poison being tipped into their ears. Examples of which abound, some positively surreal.

As noted at the time:

And,

Readers will likely have registered that the convolutions of “equity transformation specialists” are not entirely dissimilar to the insufferable narcissism of the young lady in the video above, our “chaotic philosopher.” It is, I think, worth noting that, when used by Clown Quarter academics and their fellow pinhead agitators, the term “equity” translates as something like “equality of outcome regardless of inputs.”

And so, we have people who disdain the habits of bourgeois life as something to be “dismantled” and done away with, at least for themselves or certain favoured groups, while still expecting the rewards of those same bourgeois habits.

Perhaps there’s a word for that.

From the Telegraph, the thrill of modern high-street banking:

If your eyebrows have even twitched ever so slightly, you’re a very bad person.

Because the above is part of an “LGBT-friendly diversity measure,” endorsed by Stonewall, and is therefore beyond reproach. Indeed, it’s the very measure of moral sophistication. The cutting edge of corrected thought. And employees who aren’t sure who or what they are at any given time must be encouraged to enact their “masculine and feminine” personas according to mood and medication.

Hence the double-sided lanyards, obviously.

It’s not just a matter of lanyards, of course:

Oh shiny tomorrow.

Employees have also been trained in “how to confront non-inclusive behaviours.” Which I’m assuming includes customers whose eyebrows are not yet under control.

We have, needless to say, been here before:

Because “gender fluid” and “bigender” employees should have “multiple pass-cards with different forms of gender expression or linked email accounts / intranet accounts with different names and photos.” You see, “workplace equality” will apparently be enhanced by enabling “non-binary employees to have their identities recognised on all employee-facing workplace systems.”

And by introducing confusion and farce into the workplace, along with security complications and a kind of obligatory collective pretension. Such that employees may be unsure of which make-believe “identity” a colleague is inhabiting on any given day and, consequently, which email address to use in order to avoid complaints or claims of being oppressed.

But hey, banking and mental illness, together at last.

An educator, obviously:

According to the educator in question, Steven Shaviro, “It is far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic or transphobic speaker than it is to shout them down.” What unfailing criteria might be used to determine such things, and how those gorged on indignation might avoid error, prior to any murder attempt, isn’t made clear.

The professor goes on to blame “right wing” student groups for inviting speakers who “provoke” leftist students – who mustn’t be expected to have any kind of self-possession – making them behave in ways that are threatening and delinquent, even sociopathic. Behaviour illustrated here many, many times – as, for instance, at Middlebury College, where the 74-year-old scholar Charles Murray, a contender for the title of World’s Most Polite Man, was physically chased off campus.

Says our educator,

Or put another way, “How dare you try to discredit leftist Mao-lings by even briefly existing in their proximity and thus making them want to murder you.” I paraphrase, of course, but not enormously.

Update, via the comments:

Given sufficient squinting, readers may have noticed the professor’s tiny rhetorical fig leaf. We’re told that he doesn’t advocate breaking the law – by murdering someone for shits and giggles – he merely admires it, a lot. And so, if, for example, a woman says that she doesn’t think a mentally ill man should be using the women’s changing rooms and toilets – and is then murdered for her “transphobia” – this would be a good thing and “far more admirable” than merely ganging up on her and preventing her from speaking.

He’s an intellectual, you know. A terribly caring intellectual.

Update 2:

In the comments, Pete R adds,

No, not really. This, remember, is a man for whom demurral on a wide range of contentious topics is by definition “reprehensible” and, in his mind, could only exist in order to “provoke” the righteous and good-hearted, i.e., people much like himself, who fantasise about menacing and killing those who disagree with them. Note the implication at the end of his post – that after murdering someone – say, someone who doesn’t think that dysmorphic men and autogynephile perverts are actually women – one should be acquitted, as one’s actions would have been “justified.”

These sentiments don’t suggest a detached thought experiment or some devil’s advocacy. More a sociopathic urge. Maybe inside our professor’s head, there’s a loud, relentless buzzing noise.

This shaper of young minds, a self-styled “Kitsch Marxist,” has been suspended with pay.

Previously in the world of totally balanced educators.

Via Tom Joyce.

Heather Mac Donald on the feminised university and its pathologies:

Christopher Rufo has some related thoughts:

Apparently, the way to entrance others and to suddenly become fascinating is to make yourself your own go-to subject.

And Anna Slatz on “inclusivity” and questionable role models:

Genevieve Gluck brings news from Scandinavia:

A man in Norway is sparking outrage on social media after he was sympathetically interviewed about his decision to begin identifying as a disabled woman… In the interview, [he] stated that he had always wished he had been born a woman who was paralysed from the waist down.

So not just a woman, but a woman in a wheelchair, which confers bonus points. So many intersections. So many opportunities to impose on others. The gentleman in question, Jørund Viktoria Alme, is a 53-year-old senior credit analyst for Oslo’s Handelsbanken. He is of course able-bodied, if a tad high-maintenance:

“In the same way that I experience being a woman in a man’s body, I experience that I should have been paralysed from the waist down. This is not a desire to be a burden on society. It is about the wheelchair being an aid for me to function in everyday life, both privately and at work,” Alme stated.

Unsurprisingly, many actually disabled people, whose use of wheelchairs is not recreational or a prop in some theatrical psychodrama, have aired their reservations about this new frontier in the world of make-believe identities. Among them, Noomi Alexandersen, a woman with cerebral palsy, who told Norway’s TV 2 that Mr Alme’s professed “identity” is an insult. Mr Alme, however, prefers to think of himself – an activity well-practised – as an activist of sorts, overcoming prejudice and facilitating “diversity and inclusion.” It’s all terribly selfless and heroic.

Oh wait.