The Creepy Crusade Against White Women By Liberals and Trump Haters

The Creepy Crusade Against White Women By Liberals and Trump Haters

(There are links to critiques or rebuttals below of the concept of “White Fragility”)


This whole post is another big case study in why I can never, ever be a liberal.

I was saying in a post or two in months past on this blog that liberals have thrown women under the bus, especially white women.

Liberals (Link): really dislike white people, but they dislike white women most of all, especially white women who are hetero, cis, and who are conservative and/or who vote Republican.

Over a year ago, I meant to do a blog post on the topic of “intersectionality” but never got around to it – I should have done it, because sometimes, hatred of caucasian women is done under the auspices of this feminist concept.

If you would like, you can read Wikipedia’s page that offers an explanation on (Link): what Intersectionality is.

On the one hand, a lot of liberals claim to stand for equality, they say they are opposed to sexism, but, they have a “pecking order” of victim groups, where some groups are more worthy of their protection than others – and white, cis, hetero women (especially who vote Republican) are at the very bottom.

That is to say, as I’ve (Link): explained before, if the concerns or needs of one favored liberal pet group clashes with that of white/ cis/ hetero women, the liberals will always, always, throw the women (especially if white / cis) “under the bus.” It’s creepy as hell.

Not only are white women subjected to sexism by all men, but they’ve been attacked or marginalized by all these other factions (which are usually liberal).

Continue reading “The Creepy Crusade Against White Women By Liberals and Trump Haters”

That Time My Friend Told Me Her Husband Didn’t Want Us Hanging Out Because I’m Not Married 

That Time My Friend Told Me Her Husband Didn’t Want Us Hanging Out Because I’m Not Married 

(Link): That Time My Friend Told Me Her Husband Didn’t Want Us Hanging Out Because I’m Not Married

Excerpts:

  By Theresa Ukpo

… Recently, I had to ask a friend why I hadn’t seen her in a while.

…. “My husband doesn’t want us spending time together. He thinks you may be a bad influence since you’re not married and all. You know we just have different priorities.”

I don’t know what insulted me more, the idea that her husband had said this or that she’d believed it enough to adhere to this insidious request. But come to think of it, this rhetoric isn’t at all uncommon.

Continue reading “That Time My Friend Told Me Her Husband Didn’t Want Us Hanging Out Because I’m Not Married “

Liberal Native Americans, Racism, Identity Politics, Cultural Appropriation, and the Irish

Liberal Native Americans, Racism, Identity Politics, Cultural Appropriation, and the Irish

Edit 3. My take away after being Tweeted at by people claiming to be Native Americans on Twitter is if you don’t agree with them on political matters (such as “cultural appropriation,” which is, yes, these days, closely aligned to an American liberal cause, not a “Native” one), they will accuse you of lying about your Native American ancestry.

In their world, you cannot be a conservative or right winger with Native American ancestry who disagrees with left wing talking points – only folks claiming Native ancestry who agree with liberals can be considered truly Native American. Good lord, this is pathetic.


I saw a news account (such as CNN or Time magazine) tweet an article about a Native American woman who was shamed and scolded by liberals for having worn a Native American head dress to a Halloween party contest.

I remarked above the tweet that this was nuts. I still think it’s nuts.

Here is the article, this one comes from The Blaze, and it mentions the same story:

Native American faculty member blasted for wearing headdress for Halloween because it’s ‘racism’

A faculty member at the University of New Mexico was blasted for wearing a headdress on Halloween, according to KRQE-TV,

There’s just one catch: The faculty member is Native American.

–(end excerpt)–

DEFINING RACISM

Before I get to discussing that story in depth, I’d like to say I disagree with the liberal definition of “racism.”

Liberals define racism only to mean systematic imbalances wielded by whomever is considered to be in power in a nation. Therefore, your average liberal will argue that only white people can be racist because whites have all the power in the United States.

I say wrong, incorrect, and false.

My understanding of racism is that it denotes an attitude or belief set where a person of any skin color condemns or hates an entire other group of people (say, based on their inborn traits, such as skin color).

This means, for instance, that I regard black people who hate white people as being racist. White people are not the only people who are capable of being racist.

Racism to me is not about who holds or wields most power in a society, but rather is a heart-attitude.

ISLAM NOT A RACE

(Islam, by the way, is not a race. Islam is a socio-political belief set with religious undertones, but it’s not a “race,” yet I often see American liberals refer to criticisms of Islam or criticism of Muslim behavior as being “racism” or “racist.” Anyone can convert to Islam, including white-skinned evangelical Christians.)

NATIVE AMERICAN WOMAN CRITICIZED BY LIBERALS FOR WEARING HEADDRESS

Anyway, after I put my comments above the news tweet about the Native American woman being scolded by liberals and deemed a “racist” by them for wearing a Native American head dress to a costume party, someone on Twitter tweeted me about it, I replied, and he later shared my response on his time line.

There upon, several people, claiming to be Natives, took me to task over my views.

One such Native guy (or woman?) said something to me such as,

“I am skeptical and suspicious of people like you who claim Native American ancestry, yet I see no mention of you being Native American on your Twitter bio. Usually Natives declare their heritage with pride.”

There are several observations I have about this comment, a comment which is so ignorant and makes so many assumptions.

First of all, my SoloLoner twitter account is primarily one where I tweet about topics pertaining to singleness, dating, and marriage, and one where I occasionally opine about hypocrisy I see coming from right or left wingers.

My SoloLoner Twitter account is not one where I tweet about my family ancestry. If I bring up my family background on Twitter (or this blog), it has always been in the context of liberal absurdity over identity politics.

Secondly, there are a lot of things I don’t mention about myself on this blog, or on my Twitter biography or account, but that does not make them any less true about me.

For example, my favorite salad dressing flavor is Ranch, and I am left handed.

I have never before mentioned these things about myself on my blog here, nor do I mention them on my Twitter bio.

The fact that I don’t identify my favorite salad dressing or favored hand on Twitter does not mean I am lying about either one.

Thirdly, I am neutral or ambivalent about my family ancestry. I am neither proud nor ashamed to be partially Native American.

Having full-blooded Native Americans on both sides of my family is just another fact about me, like I am left handed, one of my favorite television shows is The Walking Dead, and I hated math in my school days.

Lastly, I am a right winger, I am a conservative, so am not beholden to, or in agreement with, the left wing penchant and insistence for Identity Politics.

I’m not one of these liberal types who binds up her entire identity in something like my skin color, my family tree, or sexual orientation.

COMMENTS FROM NATIVE AMERICANS ON TWITTER

One or two Natives demanded, DEMANDED!!, to know which “tribe(s)” I come from.

I find that funny, because several months ago, I was reading a page by a liberal Native American who was attempting to educate non-Natives about terminology, and according to this person, it is ‘racist’ or wrong to use the word “tribe.” According to that person, the correct term is “Nation.”

If you must know, both sides of my family inter-married with full-blooded Cherokee and Choctaw.

Part of my family also hails from the Republic of Ireland – some of my family also immigrated to the United States from other European nations, which I shall not list here.

All I will divulge is to mention my family tree consists of, but is not limited to, Cherokee, Choctaw, and Ireland.

I have no reason to lie about any of this.

This is one of the things that kills me about these yea-hoos on Twitter questioning my family tree, as though I am making any of it up.

What do I have to gain about lying about myself on this blog or on Twitter about being a never married, hetero-sexual, partially white, partially Native American, who is left handed, was raised Baptist but who now has doubts about the Christian faith, who loves The Walking Dead TV show, and who has a decades-long crush on movie actor Hugh Jackman?

On this blog, in the several years I’ve been blogging here, I have never, ever claimed to be liberal, Asian, Latina, a man, Democrat, homosexual, Russian, French, Buddhist, or black.

I have consistently said on this blog for a year or more that I am a never-married woman who is part white, part Native American.

I’m sure as hell not making money or friends or gaining fame or anything else positive by discussing things about myself on this little blog or on Twitter.

Nobody is sending me awards or money for sharing things about myself, such as I am part Native American, that I love Ranch salad dressing, and I suffered through college algebra.

Over a year or more ago, in various posts, I already mentioned on this blog I am part Native American and part Irish (among other things, which I won’t delineate).

Now, in November 2017, a few Natives on Twitter were questioning my authenticity on all this.

I don’t claim strong ties to, or deep interest in, my Native American background, or to my Irish ancestry, or my other European ancestry, for that matter.

What do they want me to do, spit in a plastic vial and mail it in to Ancestry.com or  23andMe.com for verification? Please. And, I don’t owe these people any proof or anything else.

As I told one liberal Native who was tweeting at me, I’d say I identify first and foremost as an American.

And I mean simply “American,” not one of those hyphenated formats, such as “Irish-American” or “Native American Indian – American,” or God help me, the long mouthful of “Irish – Native American – (insert other nations from where my ancestors immigrated) – American.”

Edit. I also received this comment from someone recently (link to her Tweet):

(from) heatherfeather‏ @heather28df 

Replying to @sololoner2

Natives have bern talking about cultural appropriation for a long time so when you label us as “liberals” you’re erasing Native voices.

(end quote)

I am partially Native American, and I’m writing my views on my blog here and on Twitter, so no, Native voices aren’t “being erased.”

Her voice, “Heather Feather’s” voice, is not being erased, either (I take it she considers herself Native American). She’s using Twitter to amplify her views, just as I am – nobody’s voices is being silenced or erased.

As I told her on Twitter, complaining about cultural appropriation and the like is a Liberal cause, (or is now synonymous with American political liberalism), and it’s been an American Liberal pet cause that has become trendy or popular the last few years.

Edit 2. I just blocked her. The obnoxious cow was accusing me of lying about my heritage, that I am just trying to “look or sound” cool.

Er, no, sweetie, as I’ve outlined above, some Europeans married and had sex with full-blooded Cherokee and Choctaw in my family (on the paternal and maternal sides) down through the years.

My god, I have no reason to lie about this sh-t. I cannot help who boinked whom in my family tree, either.

She wanted to know “what tribe” I am from.

As I told her:

BTW, “tribe” is politically incorrect. As a liberal, you should know that. Are you SURE you’re Native? I am doubting that you are.

(end quote)

That’s right, according to liberal Native Americans I’ve seen elsewhere online, the word “tribe” is not politically correct and is offensive to Natives, but here she is using it with me, while in the midst of dressing me down.

Liberals and Liberal Natives cannot agree among themselves on any of this:

(Link):  Native American name controversy

The Native American name controversy is an ongoing discussion about the changing terminology used by indigenous peoples of the Americas to describe themselves, as well as how they prefer to be referred to by others. Preferred terms vary primarily by region and age.

As indigenous people and communities are diverse, there is no consensus on naming, aside from the fact that most people prefer to be referred to by their specific nation or tribe (terms which are themselves contentious).

(end excerpts)

See also:

(Link): Setting the Record Straight About Native Languages: Squaw

(Link): The Word Squaw: Offensive or Not?

NATIVE AMERICAN CLOTHING

Even if I did not have partial Native American ancestry in my family tree, my opinion would remain the same and be just as valid: there’s nothing wrong with non-Natives wearing Native American paraphernalia.

I don’t deem it “racist” for a non-Native to wear some piece of Native American clothing to a costume party. It doesn’t bother me.

If you’re a Native American who doesn’t like that sort of thing, I think it would be more suitable to use terminology such as “inappropriate,” “tacky,” or “insensitive,” but “racist”?

None of that is to say I’d necessarily agree that a non-Native person wearing something like a headdress is tacky or insensitive.

By the way, I wonder, do these rules apply equally to non-whites? If a black guy, a Latino, or an Asian, for instance, wanted to wear a Native American headdress, would it still be bad? Why or why not?

I just do not get worked up over things like white people (or black people, Asians, or others) wanting to wear Native American clothing.

I don’t take it as an offense.

COMPLIMENTARY

TEAM MASCOTS

As a matter of fact, I would regard a lot of what liberals negatively deem “cultural appropriation”  to be complimentary.

The reason some football teams refer to themselves as “Red Skins,” or in some other Native American terminology, is because they like or admire Native Americans.

You’re not going to name your professional or college team after something you perceive as weak or stupid, like “The Fierce Boogers and Snots” or “The Wimpy Losers.”

I would take it as a positive thing if a football team wanted to use part of my culture as their name-sake or logo, not as a put-down.

LEFT VS RIGHT WING

I am curious – are there any Native Americans who are right wing or Republican out there?

Do most to all of them tilt liberal or Democrat?

Where do the left wing Native Americans get off dictating to everyone else, including those of us with Native ancestry who are right wing, who can and cannot wear Native American items? I don’t see where I, or others, have to bow to their opinions on these matters.

Edit. I found this:

(Link):  Conservative American Indian Republicans

(Link): A Republican Native American? How Can That Be?

(Link): Appealing to the conservative Native American voter

So, apparently not all other Native Americans are liberals, vote Democrat, or presumably buy into the wacky world of liberal identity politics.

WHITE MASCOTS

THE FIGHTING IRISH

Some high schools I or my siblings went to as kids had mascots such as The Patriots, The Buccaneers, Raiders, and so on.

As someone who is partially white, should I object to the use of such white people as team mascots? I’m not offended by them. I don’t care.

(Link): Native Americans are crying foul at this poll saying native people don’t find the name ‘Redskins’ offensive

I’m part Irish, yet I’m not offended by Notre Dame’s “Fighting Irish” moniker or mascot.  (View the Notre Dame Fighting Irish mascot and logo or view it here)

I don’t remember seeing any Irish people screaming and yelling about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish mascot and claiming it’s “racism” and “cultural appropriation.” If there have been, they are just as nuts.

THE IRISH

Speaking of the Irish.

Some native born and raised Irish are arrogant little jerk weeds about Irish ancestry.

They get their noses bent out of joint, or mock, Americans of Irish ancestry who are proud of their ancestry and who celebrate it.

When Irish-Americans celebrate St. Patrick’s Day in the United States, for instance, some of the Irish in Ireland ridicule them for it.

Native-born Irish refer to Irish-Americans with the derogatory term “Plastic,” which is short for “Plastic Paddy.”

Perhaps there are some native Irish who use that term with affection, but it’s my understanding that the indigenous use it as a negative term to describe Irish Americans who celebrate their ancestry.

More here:

Wiki: (Link): Plastic Paddy

And here:

(Link): Tired of being mocked and called a “Plastic Paddy” in Ireland?

Excerpts:

… the stereotype has taken hold among many [Irish] – Irish Americans come from LaLa land.

The abuse comes mainly from Irish-born who feel that the only true Irish identity is that you have to be born on the island of Ireland.

…It seems our culture, heritage, and history is no longer to be prized but sneered at by many. It’s time to shout stop.

…It is an incredibly narrow perspective to believe that the only authentic Irish experience is to be born and live in Ireland.

(end excerpts)

I am neither proud of or ashamed of my European ancestry (which includes but is not limited to the Irish). I am largely “meh” about who is in my family tree.

To reiterate, I primarily consider myself American, not Irish / European or Native American.

However, considering the awful attitude some Irish have towards Americans with Irish ancestry, how would they feel, I wonder, if I repudiated the Irish in my family tree and said I’m ashamed of it and spit on it? Would that make them happy?

I would like to think that people born and raised in Ireland would be happy to see Americans with Irish ancestry openly proud of their Irish heritage. I don’t get the animosity or mocking over it.

CLOSING

I, of partial Native American background, do not get upset or offended by Non-Natives who’d like to wear Native American clothing or dress up as a Native American for parties, or who’d like to use Native American typology for football team graphics.

I also do not care if a Native American from Nation X would like to wear clothing items from Nation Z, nor do I consider any of this offensive, insulting, and it’s certainly not “racism.”

Related (more links even farther below):

Via National Review:

(Link):  The Liberal Fantasy of Cultural Appropriation

Via Daily Beast:

(Link):  You Can’t ‘Steal’ a Culture: In Defense of Cultural Appropriation

What began as a legitimate complaint has morphed into a handy way of being offended at something that should be taken as a compliment.

…But over time, the concept of cultural appropriation has morphed into a parody of the original idea.

We are now to get angry simply when whites happily imitate something that minorities do. We now use the word steal in an abstract sense, separated from any kind of material value.

…It used to be that we said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But now there is new way to see the matter: Imitation is a kind of dismissal.

(end excerpts)

(Link): What Chuck Berry Taught Us About Cultural Appropriation 

ITALIAN AMERICANS AS NATIVE AMERICANS

By the way? The actor who depicted a Native American in the 1970s PSA about pollution was actually of Italian descent. LOL.

More here:

(Link): The True Story of ‘The Crying Indian’

(Link):  Iron Eyes Cody (born Espera Oscar de CortiApril) 

Italian-American actor. He portrayed Native Americans in Hollywood films.

(Link): video link: Keep America Beautiful – (Crying-Indian) – 70s PSA Commercial

That’s right, this “Indian” is actually a guy of Italian descent:

More Related Content, other sites:

(Dec 2017): (Link): Native American activists coordinate fake news push to pressure Washington Redskins to change their name to the Redhawks

A push by a group of Native American activists to renew focus on the Washington Redskins’ name led to a bombardment of fake news in the sports world Wednesday.

The Rising Hearts coalition published multiple fake news stories purporting to be from Sports Illustrated, ESPN, the Washington Post, and others announcing the team’s name would become the Washington Redhawks instead of Redskins.

The group also created a Twitter account and a website for the new, made-up team.

“We created this action to show the NFL and the Washington football franchise how easy, popular and powerful changing the name could be,” said Rebecca Nagle, of the Cherokee Nation, who was one of the organizers.

“What we’re asking for changes only four letters. Just four letters! Certainly the harm that the mascot does to Native Americans outweighs the very, very minor changes the franchise would need to make.”

Native American activists have campaigned for years to get the Redskins to change their name, arguing the term is a racist reference to Native Americans that is offensive.


(this post had been edited several times to add more commentary and/or links)


Related Posts, This Blog:

(Link): Liberals and White People

Liberals and White People

Liberals and White People

In the past few weeks, I’ve seen more and more headlines about liberals complaining about white people, and stories along the lines of college kids wanting to exclude white people from campuses, for at least a day.

There are college kids who want non-white dorm buildings.

Liberals also go on quite a bit about “white privilege.”

I also saw a headline or two about some kooks who wanted to “kill all the white people,” and one of these kooks was arguing that anyone and everyone in culture be permitted to kill all whites.

There is also a headline or two about left wing college instructors who think society would benefit if all white people were dead.

One thing I cannot comprehend about this is how do multi-racial people fit in?

Not everyone out there has two white parents or is descended purely from white people.

In my family, for instance, both sides inter-married with full-blooded Native American Indians, from more than one Native American Indian Nation.

So, I’m not totally a “Person of Color” (or whatever liberals would call it), nor am I totally Caucasian. I’m a little of both. I’m not sure where I would fit in within the liberal scheme of things.

So, when these college kids call for “No Whites” day at their college, and if I were a student at their school, would they argue I could attend, or would they demand I stay at home that day? And on what would they base their response?

What do these liberals do with guys such as former American President Barack Obama, in that, I believe one of his parents was white and one was black?

A few decades ago in American culture, white racists did not want black people to be in the same areas as white people, so everything was segregated. Why in the holy hell do today’s liberals want to now segregate everyone? They’re reverting back to 1950s or 1960s-era culture. Very odd.

I’m still very curious as to how liberals would address people who are not 100% white or who aren’t descended from only white people.

If you’re advocating for killing white people – not that I think one should – but if you are, how can you be sure the person you’re killing is 100% white?

To some people, I may appear white, but others see I have Native American features.

What if you kill a person thinking she’s white, but in reality, she was only partially white?

Are you liberals advocating for this disgusting view (of killing all whites) going to do DNA testing on every person to make sure everyone you send to the gas chamber is totally white?

And what do you do with people of color who are married to 100% white people? (Previous post on this blog: (Link): More Americans Are Marrying People of Other Races Than Ever Before)

Do you really think a black person, Asian, or Hispanic person who is married to a 100% white person is going to stand idly by while you send his or her spouse off to a killing camp?

Here are some links about liberals calling for the killing of white people, or arguing for non-white spaces, and other related subjects:

(Link):  Police Tell Prof He’s in Danger for Not Participating in Evergreen State College’s Campus ‘No Whites’ Day By Tom Knighton [VIDEO]

(Link):  No Campus For Professors Opposed To Anti-White Racism 

(Link):  ‘White people dying has generally worked’: Black professor draws outrage for classroom remarks

(Link):  Professor Argued For ‘Killing White People As Self-Defense’

Professor Thomas Curry presented the case for “killing white people in context” in a 2012 radio interview. He also suggested that black people have to kill white people “as self-defense” on the road to equality, Campus Reform reports.

(Link): Student Mob Demands Professor Resign for Questioning No-Whites ‘Day of Absence’…

(Link):  Evergreen College closed for 3rd day after receiving ‘new threat information’ (Update) – June 5, 2017

About Trinity College:

(Link):  Trinity College Faces Threats After Professor’s Social Media Post

(Link):  Professor plays victim after publishing ‘#LetThemF**KingDie’ post about white people (editorial)

(Link):  Professor’s profane, anti-white messages cause campus controversy

(Link):  Outrage at college professor for calling white people who are proud of their race ‘inhuman’, and writing ‘let them f**king die’ after baseball gun attack on Republican lawmakers

(Link): Trinity College Faces Threats After Professor’s Social Media Post

(Link): Trinity College Professor Flees State Amid Death Threats Over Inflammatory Social Media Posts

June 22, 2017, by Katie Reilly

A professor at Trinity College in Connecticut has fled the state after receiving death threats over inflammatory social media statements that he says were taken out of context.

Johnny Williams, who has been a sociology professor at Trinity since 1996, recently shared a (Link): Medium article by an author known as “Son of Baldwin” that ended in a “call to show indifference to the lives of bigots,” Trinity President Joanne Berger-Sweeney said.

The article included an accusation that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise — who was shot last week during a congressional baseball practice and saved by Capitol Police officers who are black — holds racist views. “What does it mean, in general, when victims of bigotry save the lives of bigots?” the article said.

“Saving the life of those that would kill you is the opposite of virtuous,” it added. “Let. Them. F—ing. Die.”

Williams shared the article on his personal Facebook and Twitter accounts and used the hashtag #LetThemF—Die, including the expletive, prompting an outcry as the posts spread on social media.

What would liberals do about this baby:

(Link):  ‘I can’t let them do this to another family’: White lesbian mother who was inseminated with black man’s semen ‘after sperm bank mixup’ says she wanted blonde-hair blue-eyed baby

Or this:

(Link):  What Adopting a White Girl Taught One Black Family

Continue reading “Liberals and White People”

Sexual Assaults or Harassment Carried Out by CIS Men Taking Advantage of Trans-friendly Bathroom Policies

Sexual Assaults or Harassment Carried Out by CIS Men Taking Advantage of Trans-friendly Bathroom Policies – Collection of News Stories

(and related issues)

I actually have a long list of such examples in a  (Link): previous post of mine on the blog, but because some pro-Trans activists on Twitter are so lazy or stupid (they are incapable of finding those links in that post), here is a stand-alone on the topic.

I will continue to amend this post to add new links as I come across them. Should this post become way too long, I may make a part 2.

As an aside, out of my last 2 and a half or so years on Twitter under the “Solo Loner” account, the rudest, most intolerant, hateful, and vitriolic groups I have encountered on Twitter have been militant atheists(*) and pro-Transgender activists.

(*Please note I said “militant” atheists – I’ve run across a few non-militant atheists who were polite and agreeable.)

It doesn’t matter how non-inflammatory or polite my Tweet is in regards to atheism or transgenderism (even if all I am doing is re-tweeting a link without comments of my own), both those groups over-react and will send nasty, hate-filled rants. They are doing more damage to their respective causes than good.

Anyway, here is the collection of links to news stories about pro-Trans laws and regulations making it easier for CIS men to rape or otherwise sexually harass women and girls:

Examples of CIS Men Taking Advantage of Pro Trans Policies to Sexually Harass or Assault CIS Women and Girls

(Link): Top Twenty-Five Stories Proving Target’s Pro-Transgender Bathroom Policy Is Dangerous to Women and Children 

Continue reading “Sexual Assaults or Harassment Carried Out by CIS Men Taking Advantage of Trans-friendly Bathroom Policies”

Response to Various Cranky Critics Who Have Left Nasty Posts At This Blog From June to August 2014

Response to Various Cranky Critics Who Have Left Nasty Posts At This Blog From Around June to August 2014

If you have even bothered to glance at the heading on this blog, it says,

  • this is a blog for me to vent; I seldom permit dissenting views. I don’t debate dissenters.

This disclaimer doesn’t stop cranky people, the occasional troll, or idiot from leaving nasty, vulgar, or negative remarks.

I do not usually read the negative posts that closely. I generally scan the first few lines of a new post, and if I ascertain quickly it’s a troll post, that it contains vitriol, snark, or a rant, I send it to the trash.

In the past two months, I’ve gotten a handful of nasty grams. I sent those posts to the trash can.

Here are summaries of the various nasty grams I have received, and my responses.

In this post, I will be discussing,

  • 1. The Bitter Lady
  • 2. The Grouchy Be Equally Yoked Lady
  • 3. The You’re An Intolerant Homophobe Guy
  • 4. The Immature I Am a 40 Year Old Man Who Likes to Pork 20 Year Old Women Lying Creepster Troll

-among others

Continue reading “Response to Various Cranky Critics Who Have Left Nasty Posts At This Blog From June to August 2014”

The Marginalization of the Average Joe and Practice of Selective Compassion by Christian and Secular Americans

The Marginalization of the Average Joe and Practice of Selective Compassion by Christian and Secular Americans

I think conservative writer Ann Coulter’s editorial about Christians who shuffle off to assist ebola patients in Africa – which got her all sorts of vitriol by both left and right wingers, Christians and Non Christians – has been proven right.

I first wrote about that in another post or two:

(Link): Ann Coulter’s Article Hits Home — Literally, by S. Harris – And: further thoughts on U.S. Christian Priorities and Reverse Racism

(Link): Strawman Argument: “You’re Creating a False Dichotomy” – No, I’m Not (Re: Coulter editorial and U.S. Christians aiding foreigners)

After American, caucasian movie actor Robin Williams died from suicide a few days ago, on the one hand, there was, yes, a lot of sympathy and sadness expressed for him and his family online in the days that followed, as it should be.

But there were also some very insulting, unsympathetic views published, and at that, based on William’s skin color or his mental health problems, not only by guys like Bill McNorris and Christian Matt Walsh, but by atheist writer P Z Myers.

As far as I can tell, the Bible does not adhere to the concept of “privilege” as believed by liberals. The American progressives harping on “privilege” causes them to refuse to show care and concern for the groups they believe to be in power.

Jesus Christ taught that people’s sins comes from their hearts (from within), not from their environment, and he did not endorse the view that because you or your group has been systematically mistreated or oppressed at the hands of another group, that this excuses your sin, or makes it acceptable for you to hate your oppressor, or for you to refuse to show compassion to that group.

In Jesus’ day, ancient Israel was ruled first and foremost by the ancient Romans, and on a lesser level, by the religious ruling class (the priests and Pharisees).

A lot of American liberals will say it’s impossible for an American woman to be considered sexist, or for female dislike of men to be considered sexist, because men in American society hold all the power. They will say that because whites held all the power in the USA, that one cannot consider a black person’s prejudices against whites a form of racism.

Then we also get into the identity politics and hate crime laws, where liberals believe that someone should receive a harsher, or specific charge of hate, for, say, mugging someone in a certain group that they consider unprivileged.

For example, a crime that is motivated by hatred of skin color, where a white guy punches a black guy in the face, is supposed to be worse than, say, a white guy punching another white guy. A guy murdering someone who happens to be homosexual is supposed to be a hate crime, but the same act is not considered a hate crime if a homosexual or heterosexual murders a heterosexual guy.

I have never understood these positions, because, for one reason of a few, it doesn’t square with the Bible.

Jesus never once taught the Jews of his day that it’s okay for them to hate the Romans, nor did he excuse their dislike of the Romans, on the premise that the Romans held all the “privilege” or “power.”

Continue reading “The Marginalization of the Average Joe and Practice of Selective Compassion by Christian and Secular Americans”

Ann Coulter’s Article Hits Home — Literally, by S. Harris – And: further thoughts on U.S. Christian Priorities and Reverse Racism

Ann Coulter’s Article Hits Home — Literally, by S. Harris – And: further thoughts on U.S. Christian Priorities and Reverse Racism

Below you will find a link to, and excerpts from, an editorial by S. Harris I agree with.

One of the most annoying things about the backlash against the Coulter piece is how Christians arguing against it were tone-deaf or had tunnel vision. They totally mis-read her piece, or assumed things about it that she did not say.

Most of the criticisms I read were operating under the erroneous belief that Coulter said, “Americans should never, ever help foreigners.” -When she said no such thing.

Another variation on that were the idiots who thought Coulter was saying, “Americans should only help Americans, screw the world!” She also wasn’t saying that.

Look, if you are an American living in the USA and you have “Grandpa Joe” living under your roof, you’ve taken him in because he can no longer care for himself….

And good old Grandpa Joe has dementia and is in a wheelchair, and you’re not getting him proper medication, nursing visits, bathing him, -BUT- you are flying to Africa on a plane every four months to go build one room huts for Africans (and you pride yourself in taking these trips to help orphans in Africa), you are the selfish jerk with messed up priorities, not Ann Coulter for calling you out on that hypocrisy.

And sad to say, most Americans do indeed ignore Grandpa Joe, or guys and women like him, to go on humanitarian trips to places like Africa.

And they think this is so compassionate and loving. They cannot see the hypocrisy or insensitivity of it. If God wanted you to go help in Africa, he would have had you born there.

It makes no sense for the Africans to fly to the USA to help Americans, the French to fly to Brazil to help Brazilians, the Saudis to fly to France to help the French, the Russians to fly to Canada to help the Canadians, the Aussies to fly to Russia to help the Russians.

In an extreme situation, in a natural disaster type thing (which to me is different than an on-going disease outbreak that has a 90% fatality rate), I’m seeing a stronger rationale for action.

Where a nation gets blown off the map by a typhoon, or what not, by all means, let’s see the world come together and all nations mail food and fly in equipment and blankets, but the rest of the year, no, it’s a waste of time and resources for everyone everywhere to do these things.

According to several news reports I’ve read, the ebola disease is 60 – 90% fatal (depending on medical treatment), and the whole thing that kicked off the Coulter piece in the first place were these naive, American, evangelical do-gooder doctor and missionaries who flew down there to “lend a hand.”

Now these do-gooders have ebola and were flown back to the United States, and which potentionally exposes other Americans to this.

Someone on another site raised what I felt was a decent analogy – how people voluntarily go on mountain-hiking trips but then get stranded on the mountain, so that other emergency respondents have to risk their lives, and spend a buttload of money, to fly helicopters and what all to rescue them. It’s a similar scenario.

Here is the editorial I agree with:

(Link): Ann Coulter’s Article Hits Home — Literally by S. Harris

Excerpts:

    Ann Coulter’s recent article “Ebola Doc’s Condition Downgraded to Idiotic” really hit home — if you’ll excuse the pun.

    Coulter makes a good argument as she questions why American missionaries don’t stay home and help a country in the violent throes of spiritual decay. She accuses them of slinking off to Third World countries (and coming back with Ebola), while they abandon the most consequential nation on earth — their own.

    It’s a thought I’ve often had as I’ve watched church after church suck their congregations dry for overseas missionary work while the old lady in the house next-door struggles for food — physically and financially.

    These same missionaries are lauded as heroes for going to Africa when their hometowns are awash in drugs, pornography, murders, domestic abuse, pedophilia, and a thousand other byproducts of spiritual darkness.

    I would go even farther and liken the situation to child adoption in the U.S. Couples, often citing impossible U.S. adoption laws and red tape, have been going overseas to adopt children for years while nearly 400,000 American children remain in foster care.

    Roughly 102,000 of those are waiting to be adopted at any given time, and another 58,000 become available for adoption after their parents’ rights are terminated.

    I know a Christian couple who recently adopted five siblings from Bhutan. Another couple, misled about the health of a newborn, adopted a Russian baby who needed so many operations they nearly went bankrupt and ended up divorcing.

    All of this happens while a little boy or girl from Nebraska or Kentucky grows up in the uncertain love and insecurity of foster care. I’ve rarely met a couple who adopted an American-born child.

    The truth is, instead of staying and fighting, Americans developed a pattern of running to other countries — whether for missionary work, adoption, or cheaper labor and smaller overhead.

    …Ann Coulters article was harsh, but it needed to be said.

    … Still, Ann Coulter was right to raise such relevant questions: “…Why do we have to deal with this at all? Can’t anyone serve Christ in America anymore?”

I encourage you to visit the author’s editorial and read the whole thing, because in it, in a part I did not quote above here, she even has an example in there of a time she brought her India- born- and- raised friend to an American church with her as a guest.

Harris said she was a Christian wanting to find a home church. She said she invited her India-born friend to attend with her one day at a new church she was checking out, so he did.

Harris said that when the church people noticed her friend was from India and was a Hindu, that they swarmed around him to welcome him but they blew her off (she was, to them, an obvious American).

Harris said the next day, the church ladies visited the guy at his home – they had obtained his address the day before – and brought him baked cakes and other goodies, but they brought nothing to Harris.

And Harris was the Christian looking for a church – her Hindu friend did not give a rat’s ass about joining Christianity at all. He was delighted to get free cookies from the Christians but thought the church ladies naive (that was how I understood what she wrote).

I could be mistaken, but I would assume that Harris’ Hindu friend probably had brown skin, probably spoke with a heavy accent – so it was obvious to the church people he was foreign.

I have noticed that U.S. Christians are in fact inclined to do missionary work toward, or help, only certain groups of people – among them, dark skinned people, and especially ones who are pagan in religious beliefs (ie, Hindu, Muslim).

(Though evangelicals will at times make narrow exceptions in America to help suffering Americans, but usually only the most severe, “down and out” cases, such as homeless crack addicts and women who work as strippers in night clubs.)

There seems to be little to no concern by white Christians for white skinned, middle class, “average Joe” people in America.

It’s weird, revolting, and not at all biblical to play “pick and choose” in who you will show compassion to. Everyone is supposed to be your neighbor, not just orphan kids or ebola patients in Africa, or homeless crack addicts.

And no, I’m not a “white pride” person or “white nationalist” or whatever they call themselves. I don’t mind if whites help dark skinned people.

What I am saying is I am sort of turned off by how so many American white Christians view dark-skinned foreigners as exotic pets and/or as being more “worthy” to save or help than their white, native neighbors (and we also have dark skinned Americans in America who could use help). It’s kind of a form of reverse-racism, and Christians should have no part in it, but they do.

Years ago, during what seemed to be a trend of white Americans adopting black children from Africa (and greasing the wheels by throwing their money at charities in those nations), I saw editorials by dark skinned Africans* who wrote they found the white American do-gooder mentality towards Africans offensive and condescending – they say they don’t want or need a “white savior” to fly in and rescue them. You would think white Americans would get a clue.

*(some of the journalists either self-identified as being black people, and/or they had a staff photo of themselves accompanying their editorials.)
——————————-
Related posts:

(Link): Ann Coulter’s Very Accurate Ebola Post Being Criticized As Being Insensitive – But It’s Not; It’s Accurate

(Link): White Evangelicals, White Fundamentalists, and White Baptists: White Americans Don’t Need the Gospel or Compassion, especially not the affluent or middle class

(Link): Why Christians Need To Stress Spiritual Family Over the Nuclear Family – People with no flesh and blood relations including Muslims who Convert to Christianity – Also: First World, White, Rich People Problems

(Link): Radical Christianity – New Trend That Guilt Trips American Christians For Living Average Lives

(Link): To Get Any Attention or Support from a Church These Days you Have To Be A Stripper, Prostitute, or Orphan

General Observations Or Concerns About Stuff Christian Culture Likes Group and Blog

This is kind of a follow up to my previous post about SCCL (link at bottom – the group was recently mocking the T. Burpo book).

I found at least one blog post chronicling some of the abusive tendencies within the SCCL group (see link below) – this is so odd.

The SCCL like group members depict themselves as champions of the hurt and abused, but they sometimes bully and abuse other people themselves.

In addition, Drury (who is the owner and maintainer of the SCCL like groups, Twitter account, and blog), who tries to present herself as a feminist, and who also tries to come off as sensitive to homosexuals and more recently, transgendered people and their concerns, has made comments some of them have found offensive on several occasions on Twitter and/or Facebook, but she was reluctant to apologize.

You can read examples here:

(Link): For Surivivors of Christian Fundamentalism seeking refuge in Stuff Christian Culture Likes (group / blog)

A person (Shelly) on that blog left this comment (excerpt from her comment):

Another couple of people [at SCCL] were triggery for me, as they did shit that reminded me of the abuse I received when I was younger, and I no longer felt safe staying there, knowing that

she was perfectly fine to call out the abuse within the church system but wouldn’t call it out within the page that was supposed to be a safe place for the abused.

So I unliked the page, unfollowed her SCCL Twitter (I had unfollowed her personal one after t-gate), and stopped following the blog.

(end excerpts)

I’ve noticed the same thing.

It’s a group that scolds churches or Christian culture for perpetuating certain damaging views, or for allowing or committing abuse, but pretty much allows the regular members to bash the new-comers to the group who may speak up and disagree with whatever topic is under discussion.

I never joined the SCCL Facebook group. I may have left one post at one SCCL blog page once a long time ago (I don’t recall), but something never sat quite right with me about the types of people who post at either the group or blog, so I didn’t join.

The majority of SCCL members can seem kind-hearted and supportive most of the time, but then turn like sharks the next instant on an individual who isn’t keeping with the group think.

I once read a blog post about how even blogs / groups intended for survivors (survivors of church abuse or whatever) can turn out to be just as abusive as the church or cult the person has left. (That post may have also been on Blog on the Way, I can’t remember where I saw it).

If you have been hurt by a Christian, a denomination, or a church, be very, very careful which other groups you choose to align yourself with in the aftermath, or for support or healing.

The group you choose to make your “new home” or support system just may turn on you in the future.

I have seen some people post perfectly polite, fine questions or comments on SCCL Facebook page and get rudely ripped to shreds, ganged up on, by several SCCL members at once over it.

It’s not pretty, and some of the SCCL members, at times, act just as horribly as the fundamentalists, evangelicals, sexists and “homophobes” (what a stupid, inaccurate word, by the way) they complain about.

There are also some hard-core atheists who sporadically show up to SCCL to bitterly complain about theism, the Bible and Christians, and they are some of the most condescending, obnoxious jerks I’ve come across. They usually get shouted down by other SCCL members, but they do post there on occasion.

There is a Christian guy, an older gentlemen (his personal profile photo shows a white-haired guy) named “Warren” who participates at SCCL.

I’d say the guy makes good sense about 95% of the time, but he still gets shouted down and treated rudely by the SCCL regulars – because, in knee jerk reaction, they recoil at anything that smacks of Christian or traditional values.

Continue reading “General Observations Or Concerns About Stuff Christian Culture Likes Group and Blog”

Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists

Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists

I touched on this in an earlier post or two, such as this one: (Link): No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected.

But this time, I wanted to discuss Neo Calvinism and spiritual abuse blogs and advocates in particular.

I do not support Neo Calvinism, or even old school Calvinism. I think Calvinism is a crock of crap.

Many of the NC’s (Neo Calvinists, aka YRRs), are arrogant, narrow minded jerks.

My problem with seeing NC guys, their churches, or their positions discussed and picked apart by some bloggers is that the anti NCs go into reactionary mode.

Their positions often time seem not so much well thought out in and of themselves, but that they will take a position opposite of that held by most NCs just because it’s the opposite of that held by NCs.

I do know a little bit about NCs and their theological beliefs, but not as much as their frequent critics.

According to their frequent critics, NCs believe in a literal six day creation, not an old age of the earth.

(As for me, I am NOT an NC, and I believe in a literal six day creation.)

My issue when I visit blogs or Twitter accounts by people who are vehemently anti NC is that they will, it appears to me, automatically take the opposite position on anything John Piper, The Gospel Coaltion, and other NC guys say just to be contrary.

Continue reading “Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists”

Christians should marry Muslims to tackle Islamophobia, says peer

Christians should marry Muslims to tackle Islamophobia, says peer

(Link): “Christians should marry Muslims to tackle Islamophobia, says peer”

    CHRISTIANS should be encouraged to marry Muslims as a way of tackling Islamophobia, a senior peer claimed today.

Ho ho ho, NO. No, no, no, no.

Islam is a perverted, sexist, violent religion.

Muslims are a billion times worse than Christian gender complementarians, who regularly and ignorantly advise Christian wives to stay in abusive marriages and “submit” even more to an abusive Christian loser husband (based in large part on sexist interpretations of the Bible – see John “Christian wives should endure being smacked around for the night” Piper, Christian author and former preacher, as one example).

Muslims are into honor killings (where they will kill a female even over trivial issues, e.g., for dating a Christian, dating an American, or for totally unjustifiable, victim-blaming ones, such as a woman being a rape victim).

Muslims are into FGM (female genital mutilation).

Some Muslims shoot little girls in the head for wanting an education.

Do an internet search for the phrase “Boko Haram” and look up stories on Malala Yousafzai, who was a girl shot in the head by Muslims for wanting to go to school (see (Link): Boko Haram on Wiki, (Link): Malala_Yousafzai biography on Wiki).

If you would like to see endless laundry lists of the sexism, and more violence and perversions of Muslims, do visit (Link): this site or (Link): this one for examples.

On a tangent here, I love that this is my blog and I can say what I want.

I so tire of the “#NotAllMuslims #NotAllMuslims!” propaganda garbage I see from left-wingers on other sites whenever crimes and sins of Muslims are brought up.

I know, Lori Liberal, (you even have a dopey “COEXIST” bumper sticker on your car), that your best friend “Muslim Moe” who lives in Podunk, USA right next door to you, is a super nice guy, but unfortunately, 90% of his Muslim compatriots around the world hate Christians, Hindus, atheists, Jews, Americans, Brits, and regularly try to slit our throats or blow us up.

Sunni Muslims hate Shia Muslims and vice versa, so you have Muslims killing each other, too. The fun and hilarity never stops with these guys who believe in the Koran.

I don’t know if the guy suggesting in this article that Christians marry Muslims considers himself a Christian or not. I think he is. He mentions that several of his family members are Christians who married Muslims.

First of all, Christians are not “Islamophobic,” but the majority of Muslims are “Christophobic,” that is, Muslims hate Christians and murder them, and their religious texts tell them to do so.

Secondly. This sure flies in the face in the non-stop “be not unequally yoked” stuff I heard from other Christians growing up.

There were several guys I could have dated or married in my past, (some very good looking and financially well off), but they were not Christians. I was a Christian at the time and used to believe strongly in “be not yoked,” so I did not give those guys a chance (I would now, though).

Given that many Christians (and hypocritically, usually the ones who are now age 55, married at 17, who met their spouse while in high school or Sunday school at church) lecture the rest of us Christians singles who over over age 30 and still single, to hold out only for a Christian spouse, this whole view that “Christians should marry Muslims,” coming from some Christians now, is quite odd.

Given that many devout Muslim men are abusive, sexist, murdering weasels (yes, take your “#Not All Muslims” view point and cram it where the sun don’t shine: #Most-Muslim-Men-Are-Abusive-Violent-Maniacs-Yes-Indeed-They-Are), it is dangerous.

(Link): “Christians should marry Muslims to tackle Islamophobia, says peer”

    CHRISTIANS should be encouraged to marry Muslims as a way of tackling Islamophobia, a senior peer claimed today.

by Owen Bennett – Political Reporter
Jul 8, 2014

Lord Scott, a former Supreme Court Judge, cited his own family – in which two of his four children married Muslims – as an example of how interfaith families can thrive.

The peer, who sits as a crossbencher in the Lords, made the comments during a debate on how to improve relations between the Muslim community and other faith groups in the UK.

He said: “Of my two sons one has become a Muslim and of my two daughters one of those has become a Muslim, and I have 12 lovely grandchildren, seven of whom are little Muslims.

… “I do just wonder that if an improvement is needed between the faith groups, one way of promoting that might be to encourage interfaith marriages.”

According to Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the only way to God (see John 14:6).

Ergo, his daughters who have renounced Christ for Allah (quoting Jesus: “But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.” (link to that)), and his sweet, cute little baby Muslim grand children, when they get to whatever the age of accountability is, will go to Hell when they die, unless they convert at some point.

That’s not so “lovely,” there, fella. Sacrificing their souls to be politically correct isn’t lovely. What a loon.

I’m not on board with the “equally yoked” teaching anymore, but if there was one type of Non-Christian I would never marry, Muslim would be it.
———————————
(Hat tip to radio host Janet Meffered, which is how I first saw a link to this article earlier today – she tweeted a link to it.)
————————-
Related posts this blog:

(Link): Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric

(Link): A Critique of – 10 Men Christian Women Should Never Marry by J. Lee Grady / And on Christians Marrying Non Christians -and- Unrealistic, Too Rigid Spouse Selection Lists by Christians

(Link): The Dating Swamp: How Finding Love in DC May Be Impossible For Young Trump and GOP Staffers – Liberals Hypocritically Insist You Date Transgender Persons But Not Trump Voters

(Link): Majority of Heterosexuals Say They Won’t Date Trans Folk and That’s Discrimination Somehow – by Brett T.

(Link): Why Christians Need To Stress Spiritual Family Over the Nuclear Family – People with no flesh and blood relations including Muslims who Convert to Christianity – Also: First World, White, Rich People Problems

(Link): Christian Host Pat Robertson Tells Christian Woman Who Married Christian Man Who Turned Out to Be Totally Unethical That She has Discernment of a Slug – Single Women: toss Be Equally Yoked teaching in the trash can

(Link): Males and Females Raped at Christian College, College Doesn’t Care – Equally Yoked is a Joke

(Link): Typical Incorrect Conservative Christian Assumption: If you want marriage bad enough, Mr. Right will magically appear

(Link): Gender Complementarian Advice to Single Women Who Desire Marriage Will Keep Them Single Forever / Re: Choosing A Spiritual Leader

(Link): Married Christian Rock Singer in Legal Trouble for Hiring Hit Man To Kill His Wife – he also had drug addiction

(Link): Married Southern Baptist and Calvinist Preacher and Father of Boy Exposes His Naked Penis to Teen Girl in Store

(Link): Wife of Preacher Shoots, Kills Him, Recounts Years of Physical and Sexual Abuse – So Much for the Equally Yoked Teaching and the Notion that Christian married sex is Mind Blowing

(Link): Another Example of Why the Equally Yoked Teaching is A Joke for Single Christian Women : Baptist Preacher Arrested for Allegedly Fire Bombing Ex Girlfriend’s House While She Was In It

Off Site Link:
(Link): Is Interfaith Marriage Always Wrong, Given that the Bible Teaches Us Not to Be ‘Unequally Yoked’?

‘Check Your Privilege’ Means ‘Shut Your Mouth’

‘Check Your Privilege’ Means ‘Shut Your Mouth’

(Link): ‘Check Your Privilege’ Means ‘Shut Your Mouth’

Excerpts:

    What he actually said isn’t that hard to fathom, because he announced his target in his very first sentence: the use of the phrase “check your privilege” to “strike down opinions without regard for their merits, but rather solely on the basis of the person that voiced them.”

    It’s perfectly reasonable to ask someone to consider whether their arguments or observations reflect the biases of privilege. Perhaps an upper-middle-class white man’s claim about the hardships of poverty or the prevalence of racial discrimination reflects a lack of experience of those things, for example.

    But all of us need to ask ourselves whether our views are skewed, regardless of how privileged we are, because there are many possible sources of bias.

    Fortgang is quite right to complain that being obsessively on the lookout for white male heterosexual bias can obscure more than it reveals, in part by ignoring how much heterosexual white men can differ.

    In any case, Fortgang didn’t complain about being asked to reflect on the incompleteness of his worldview. He complained about the dismissal of opinions based on who was uttering them.

———————-
Related posts:

(Link): Warning: This Column Will Offend You – by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings in Written Material, Terms such as slut shaming, man-splain, etc)

(Link): Celibate Shaming from an Anti- Slut Shaming Secular Feminist Site (Hypocrisy) Feminists Do Not Support All Choices

(Link): So According to Some Feminists Believing in Female Equality Means Supporting All Actions and Behaviors by All Females Ever – Even their Pubic Hair Photos and Bloody Vagina T Shirt Designs? What?

Warning: This Column Will Offend You – by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings in Written Material, Terms such as slut shaming, man-splain, etc)

Warning: This Column Will Offend You by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings Before Written Material, Terms such as “slut shaming,” “man-splain,” etc)

(Link): Warning: This Column Will Offend You by M. Moynihan

    Should students be warned that reading The Great Gatsby might “trigger” a past trauma? The campus censors think so. But they are only protecting your feelings.

    It’s with a twinge of nostalgia that I recall all those incredulous faces. Sometime in the 1990s, I suggested to a group of college friends that it wasn’t exactly right to brand Ian Fleming a hopeless sexist (his deeply held dislike of America, all agreed, was a more agreeable phobia).

    This note of dissidence was interrupted by the sound of jaws shattering as they hit the floor, a crescendo of denunciations, and a few dramatic walkouts.

    One of those who remained said, with a jabbing finger, that mine was the argument of someone “unaware of his gender privilege.”

    It was almost inevitable, regardless of one’s personal politics, to find oneself — with bowed head, like an undergraduate Rubashov—accused of trespassing some previously unknown frontier of offense.

    I would soon learn never to object to the charge of privilege: it’s a phantom, something one possesses and abuses without knowing it. And like denying your alcoholism, a denial doubles as an acknowledgement that you’re afflicted with the disease.

    Floating in the fog of privilege, all sorts of voguish developments in language control bypassed me.

    But through the daily horror of Twitter, where these concepts are released into the non-academic world, I’ve been exposed to all the latest phrases doubling as argument, like the various prefixes affixed to “shaming” and “‘splaining” (the latter so rendered, I assumed, in homage to Desi Arnaz, before realizing this was a vulgar indulgence of Cuban stereotypes).

    Shaming” and “‘splaining” are fluidly defined verbs, though it seems an admonition to people with my biography (boring white guys) that they engage in conversation about race or gender in particular ways, with particular conclusions—and only when speaking to particular people.

    Thus, there is the scourge of “slut shaming,” which one can be accused of, for instance, when questioning whether the so-called Duke porn star is indeed “liberated” when shooting videos for defaceherface.com.

    And there’s the promiscuous use of “mansplaining,” defined by a fusty man at The New York Times as a condescending chappie “compelled to explain or give an opinion about everything — especially to a woman.”

    This midwived the now ubiquitous “whitesplaining,” best demonstrated (Link): in this Atlantic.com polemic upbraiding a member of the indie band The Black Lips for having opinions about—whitesplaining — hip-hop music. Not in a racist way, mind you. It’s just none of his cultural business.

    These faddish portmanteaus suffer from overuse, but one can at least see the point: They are polemical words, more pointed and ideological than what we used to call know-it-all-ism and sexist condescension.

    Being so behind the times, I only just discovered the neutron bomb of censoriousness masquerading as concern: the “trigger warning.”

    This is, roughly, a label that would accompany an article, film, song, book, or piece of art warning potential viewers that the content might make them upset or uncomfortable (often the point of art) and thus trigger memories of a traumatic event.

    Continue reading “Warning: This Column Will Offend You – by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings in Written Material, Terms such as slut shaming, man-splain, etc)”