It is possible to be a member of a demographic group that is being criticized for the group’s typical behavior without taking that personally and getting angry. As a man, I can hear “men are more violent on average and women have to take that into account”. I can hear it without responding, “Are you saying that Josh Slocum is a rapist?”
It all seems to stem from the civil rights era and trying to have simple-minded government solutions: declare certain groups as victims and it becomes forbidden to notice any misbehavior by members of those groups. With no criticism allowed, those people become frail and privileged (even as they accuse everyone else of having "privilege.")
Hear hear! I'm so sick of this melting down over observations that, ironically, when the person hearing them melts down, actually proves to be true. Take what happened to James Damore at Google for example. Women ARE more neurotic. They didn't feel "safe" with A MEMO. Never mind how unsafe Damore was around THEM.
In the wake of the brutal murder of Social Justice Advocate Ryan Carson in Bedford-Stuyvesant in the wee hours of Monday morning, I revisited dinner with a friend wherein while relaying an anecdote from a faculty meeting where my white colleagues (all women) were decrying the "white supremacists" running around hunting black people, he clutched his pearls and denied my incredulity that white people are the problem.
Imagine defending the kind of person who'd stab you in the heart, betraying the person sitting across the table from you.
Now, I admit to melting down in that faculty meeting in response to this 'white people bad' crap. It was over concern that Asians were being "targeted." Yet every video of an anti-Asian hate crime was committed by an unhinged black person, apart from the brothel shooting, and they of course had ingested the distortions, and not the reality. So I told my dinner companion that what made this so awful was that it's just NOT TRUE. White people are not hunting down black people.
He turned a brilliant shade of red and, well, GAS LIT ME. I said: Read the data. Watch the videos. I live in Bed-Stuy. I've read the NYPD Gang Handbook. I see the murals to fallen gangsters on every street corner.
This made him even angrier. WHAT GANGSTERS? HE knows how to read DATA! He grew up in DETROIT!
(Talk about cognitive dissonance -- how could he have grown up in Detroit thinking that white people are the problem? His own brother slept in the family home with a RIFLE!)
Another favorite of mine is trying to discuss how feminism has gone wrong with women. The most vehement defenders of feminism are the women who are blatantly exploiting men. Case in point the friend who hasn't worked in 13 years and lives off CHILD SUPPORT. It's fitting that until recently, she boasted about buying clothes in the children's department.
And, speaking of the brutal murder of Ryan Carson -- watch the video -- there's so much to unpack there. He really believed his social justice credentials gave him the Jesus-like ability to talk down an unhinged black person with a knife. Stabbed in the bleeding heart.
Rest in Peace, Ryan. It's good to see the good in people. I can certainly get behind that. But it's also very dangerous to assume all people are good.
I defected from the left because some opinions are much more dangerous than others.
Carson's naïveté draws some parallels to the American missionary John Allen Chau, who went to North Sentinel Island, home of an isolated tribe (who've been openly hostile to visitors), insisting he could convert "the last bastion of Satan." The inhabitants of the island are probably the closest thing to an "uncontacted tribe."
Well, they killed him just as they've done to other visitors who didn't heed their warnings.
I was thinking about that— some awful karma. These frothing race zealots endangered everyone with their religious fervor, mostly those they believed they were saving. I still can’t wrap my brain around approaching this agitated creep! Reminds me of a faculty meeting when I was arguing that instead of encouraging students to pity themselves, let’s give them the tools. For example, know who to smile at and who to move away from. Our wise Millennial countered: “I smile at everyone!” To which I responded, in Boomer fashion: That’s not street smart Dear. That’s how your blond hair ends up in a ditch. Which brings us back to Ryan Carson….
The naively is stunning, isn’t it? These stories keep coming up, too. I’ve been hearing about stuff like this since I was a kid.
Did their parents never teach them that bad people exist, and they do very, very bad things? Is it truly ego, sometimes, they’re proving they’re so pure and good that these criminals will immediately recognize them as saviors, and crumble onto the ground in a sobbing heap of relief? What on earth are they expecting??
Now of course I’m brought to mind the stories of virgins taming ferocious beasts, apparently by charm, alone. Is that what they imagine? They’re so narcissistic and solipsistic that I can actually imagine that.
Let’s be honest, here. Most of these passionate white saviors don’t actually know many black people, if they know any at all. Any they *do* know are from the same class they are, but for the most part, these are white people used to moving through a world of mostly other white people.
I feel like this creates a truly weird dynamic when they take it upon themselves to advocate for black people. Everything they think they know comes from third hand accounts and critical race theory.
Of course, this is all a desperate attempt to deflect criticisms of white people. “I’m one of the good ones!” because that’s apparently what we do now. By speaking passionately but doing nothing (lookin’ at YOU, academic “feminism”) they get to show off and feel good about themselves, but not actually have to be around poor blacks (ew! I mean aaaaw!). This also seems like typical female maneuvering for social dominance, plus an added compulsive and neurotic need to control how others think about you.
You answered your question yourself. It all boils down to victimhood. There are those people seem to revel in it - woe is me. They take what others would term as generalities personally and that grants them the victim status. They view this as permission to complain endlessly about perceived grievances that beget them attention, and bad attention is better than no attention at all.
Yeah you are correct, but black rage, female rage & trans rage are profitable & very power industries that have influence over everyone in society and are middle managed by some of these groups use it very well to their benefit. That is why they are empowered to act the way they do and the source of the problem is who is exploiting these groups so they can be like this because a lot of these groups have schismed out into their own belief systems. I met someone the other night who was part of one of them. It was both fascinating, gross and sad.
The ACLU is exploiting the shit out of people with body dysmorphic disorders, and dragging those with legit disorders of sexual development along with them. They’re doing it for both ideological and financial reasons.
I feel like changes in the way these groups are structured, as well as how they take donations has a lot to do with the hysteria-stoking. Mass mailing, rather than making an effort to meet people in person. Much more money from the uberwealthy than from regular people, etc.
It all starts with the decision to use a little lie, a little exaggeration, to make your case in a more direct and streamlined fashion. But in our current, extremely interconnected world, a lie like that can become something much bigger and more damaging than intended.
Non-profits like the ACLU and many others like them have been exploiting the mentally ill for a very long time, and why not? They are people society doesn't care about much so they can use them for profit, experiment on them and the odds that they will sue for exploitation one day are slim because they self destruct often before that can happen. There are a lot of non-profits and the very wealthy industries around them involved in a lot of stuff and they have their musty tentacles wrapped in government like you cannot imagine.
I view extreme defensiveness as a maladaptive coping skill that is associated with Clyster B personalities. A defining characteristic.... thin skinned narcissists that CANNOT bear any hint of criticism, no matter how truthful the observation is.
Yes, essentially it’s become a culturally approved way of being. Christopher Lasch noted this trend in the late 1970s in “The Culture of Narcissism”, and it’s only gotten progressively worse.
Something that has been bothering me since I was a teen. Gay men always were put in the “good” bucket, and I saw a lot of people misbehaving.
I think everyone needs to be accountable for their own behavior and actions and accept that no group has an automated behavioral out. There are bad people in every group and we can only get better as a society if we hold every individual accountable regardless of identity group
Just the tribalism these identity groups are causing is toxic enough,
It's interesting to me that ever since we (the heteros) invited the Ls and Gs into polite society... they've largely moderated their behavior. The old stereotypes of sex-mad gay men banging their way through every bathhouse in town no longer *seems* to be as "true" as it used to be.
(I say "true" and not true, because, of course, its a stereotype. But it didn't pop up out of thin air, either).
I see lots of folks talking about the unintended consequences of the gay rights movements (birthed/influenced the trans lobby, for a salient one), but few of the benefits to both gays and mainstream society. One is that gay men are less likely to lead reckless lifestyles now that they're no longer sneaking around a subculture. They've assimilated (or are in the process of it). That's profound and something worth serious consideration in light of other areas our mainstream culture is or will be changing (thinking the "browning" of America).
(A good counterpoint is that, for gays to be "acceptable," there would be assimilation to the majority. Gays will never be the majority. Now, Latin American or Muslim cultures very well could come to dominate Western societies and shape their mainstream cultures by sheer numbers alone. How much influence can a shrinking majority have on a swelling minority when it comes to assimilation?)
I'm sorry to tell you that you are incorrect. Gay men's hedonistic behavior is far, far worse and more widespread today. I see things you probably don't see.
No. It did not get better. It got worse. Because "trans queer".
I certainly may be conflating "mainstream presentations of gay relationships and lifestyles have changed" with "gay relationships and lifestyles have changed."
I can certainly hear (and make) criticisms of groups to which I belong without taking them personally. I just wish some of the people making those criticisms could understand that generalizations are just that. It’s hard to deal with members of your audience looking to repeal women’s suffrage, joking or not, when they’re applying leftist collectivism and ends-justify-means “rationale”.
Oct 4, 2023·edited Oct 6, 2023Liked by Josh Slocum
I do, and I wasn’t blaming you. If that’s how it came across, I apologize.
Edit: I should have know better than to reply quickly on my phone. Better reply up after access to a keyboard. I wasn't trying to put the responsibility for your audience's comments on you, but I am hoping that some members of that audience also read the comments on your posts here. I'd like to talk to them in a forum other than live chat on streams.
OK, here's what I'm getting at, now that I'm not on a phone:
When someone takes offense, it’s often because there’s a bite of truth. See the TERFs who get comments asking if they’re really TIMs. It’s easy to laugh off, because they’re clearly female. When people ask me how I’d like it if someone misgendered me, my response is that it just says there’s something wrong with the person who referred to me by male pronouns when I’m clearly female. There’s no bite in it.
There are clearly people who hear a generalization about a group to which they belong and take it personally. The generalization typically applies to those people, but rather than acknowledge the truth, they say it’s offensive to say about other people.
And we all know the diagnosis for those who take offense ostensibly on behalf of others. See the thesis of your show 😉
I don't remember the numbers (and who can even trust studies now), but some significant portion of the population is apparently intellectually incapable of understanding hypotheticals. I suspect that extends to understanding generalizations. If they can't understand "if", then I doubt they can understand "not all".
What I was clumsily getting at, because I'm a terminal devil's advocate, is the marginal case where the person who is making the statement is using the generalization to further some other agenda, explicit or hidden. It becomes difficult to separate the generalization, even if it's true, from the reason it's being made. People who react emotionally may not be taking it personally but rather reacting out of fear or revulsion at the goal they believe the generalization furthers.
For example, it's clearly true that young black males are disproportionately criminal. A young black male who is opposed to a stop and frisk type policy may not be able to make a 4th amendment argument, but can certainly say "but I'm not" in an attempt to resist that policy. What he means is that he doesn't deserve to be treated as if he were, which he very well might be under stop and frisk.
I think it’s more than that they don’t want to make the distinction between criticisms of group characteristics and personal attacks--they think they are virtuous for erasing the distinction. How many times have you heard something like:
“An attack on the transes is an attack me!!!!!!”
They think that the insistence of being emotionally deranged to the extent that everything is personal is what makes them the saints they perceive themselves to be.
Yes, absolutely. They act like any other congregation of believers. The more total their faith, and the more extreme their behavior as a result, the better. Belief in ridiculous, impossible things is once again the ultimate test of faith in the belief system and loyalty to the cult. Social media make that waaay worse, by giving every crazy POS that can form a sentence a platform to influence others.
I’m getting a clearer and clearer picture of early Christianity in Rome as all of this unfolds.
I’ve always found bratty, spoiled, childish, and selfish behavior disgusting and pathetic, so naturally I’m very critical of women and like you, I am not in the least offended when others (man or woman) criticize women for these same reasons because I don’t act like that.
I hear ya! If you identify by a group identity in a primary manner then you should be prepared to wear both the expectations you demand and criticisms your ‘team’ wroughts for itself. If you cant objectively accept both, then you are grandstanding on a e-bus (exceptional) you are probably prepared to ride even when its on fire.
Then again Josh there is an unofficial Mazlov’s hierarchy of means.. a sort of pyramid of tragedy and vulnerability that offers both a set of privileges and punitive punishments. You are denying the new DEI world order.. so sayeth the Church of TRANSBLM.
I suspect I am one of the very few Jewish disaffectants (because, in America, Jews hard left), and I do wish for a more nuanced take on Jewish issues on the show when they come up. Nonetheless, I am a First Amendment absolutist and can listen without being "offended."
I feel you. Born Jewish, but can't stand the number of Jews who either cheerlead or buy in to all this leftist crap. Now, all the bs about anti-Semitism whenever their ideas are opposed, without any concerns about the real problems of AA violence towards Jews (and Asians, and Whites, or anyone in their immediate vicinity). No doubt the "unnoticing" part of the deal with political bedfellows.
I hear you on all this, but that was not the point of my comment- not the main one anyway. I wanted to point out that ideas that make in into the show at times ("Jews are a protected class"--never were anywhere, at any point in history) may misinform the non-Jewish disaffectants and play into the hands of left-wing anti-Semites. If Josh needs me to clarify this, I'm happy to do so in private. That said, the show's opinions are protected by the First Amendment, and I remain a fan.
You are 1000% correct! Note also that those you describe do not follow their own principles when it comes to others. They melt down if bad actors within their group are criticized for bad behavior, yet they have no problem making blanket criticisms of other demographics, even unfair and dishonest criticisms (like going on and on about white people being the perpetrators of "hate crimes" while refusing to acknowledge data that shows this is simply not true, and that whites suffer far more interracial violence than they commit against others). It's all bad-faith Cluster-B crybullying.
Spot on. Of course they can. It's not that they can't; they just won't. And they are rewarded for their bad behavior.
This is the Age of Aqu...... no wait.....of Competitive Emoting & Victimhood. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/
Yes..so much wisdom in what you say and only derived by some terrible experiences you’ve had.
It all seems to stem from the civil rights era and trying to have simple-minded government solutions: declare certain groups as victims and it becomes forbidden to notice any misbehavior by members of those groups. With no criticism allowed, those people become frail and privileged (even as they accuse everyone else of having "privilege.")
Hear hear! I'm so sick of this melting down over observations that, ironically, when the person hearing them melts down, actually proves to be true. Take what happened to James Damore at Google for example. Women ARE more neurotic. They didn't feel "safe" with A MEMO. Never mind how unsafe Damore was around THEM.
In the wake of the brutal murder of Social Justice Advocate Ryan Carson in Bedford-Stuyvesant in the wee hours of Monday morning, I revisited dinner with a friend wherein while relaying an anecdote from a faculty meeting where my white colleagues (all women) were decrying the "white supremacists" running around hunting black people, he clutched his pearls and denied my incredulity that white people are the problem.
Imagine defending the kind of person who'd stab you in the heart, betraying the person sitting across the table from you.
Now, I admit to melting down in that faculty meeting in response to this 'white people bad' crap. It was over concern that Asians were being "targeted." Yet every video of an anti-Asian hate crime was committed by an unhinged black person, apart from the brothel shooting, and they of course had ingested the distortions, and not the reality. So I told my dinner companion that what made this so awful was that it's just NOT TRUE. White people are not hunting down black people.
He turned a brilliant shade of red and, well, GAS LIT ME. I said: Read the data. Watch the videos. I live in Bed-Stuy. I've read the NYPD Gang Handbook. I see the murals to fallen gangsters on every street corner.
This made him even angrier. WHAT GANGSTERS? HE knows how to read DATA! He grew up in DETROIT!
(Talk about cognitive dissonance -- how could he have grown up in Detroit thinking that white people are the problem? His own brother slept in the family home with a RIFLE!)
Another favorite of mine is trying to discuss how feminism has gone wrong with women. The most vehement defenders of feminism are the women who are blatantly exploiting men. Case in point the friend who hasn't worked in 13 years and lives off CHILD SUPPORT. It's fitting that until recently, she boasted about buying clothes in the children's department.
And, speaking of the brutal murder of Ryan Carson -- watch the video -- there's so much to unpack there. He really believed his social justice credentials gave him the Jesus-like ability to talk down an unhinged black person with a knife. Stabbed in the bleeding heart.
Rest in Peace, Ryan. It's good to see the good in people. I can certainly get behind that. But it's also very dangerous to assume all people are good.
I defected from the left because some opinions are much more dangerous than others.
Carson's naïveté draws some parallels to the American missionary John Allen Chau, who went to North Sentinel Island, home of an isolated tribe (who've been openly hostile to visitors), insisting he could convert "the last bastion of Satan." The inhabitants of the island are probably the closest thing to an "uncontacted tribe."
Well, they killed him just as they've done to other visitors who didn't heed their warnings.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2018/12/08/john-allen-chau-is-no-jim-elliot-the-story-of-john-chau-illustrates-the-dangers-of-indoctrination-in-evangelical-culture-and-being-naive/
That was God telling him that arrogance is a mortal sin.
I was thinking about that— some awful karma. These frothing race zealots endangered everyone with their religious fervor, mostly those they believed they were saving. I still can’t wrap my brain around approaching this agitated creep! Reminds me of a faculty meeting when I was arguing that instead of encouraging students to pity themselves, let’s give them the tools. For example, know who to smile at and who to move away from. Our wise Millennial countered: “I smile at everyone!” To which I responded, in Boomer fashion: That’s not street smart Dear. That’s how your blond hair ends up in a ditch. Which brings us back to Ryan Carson….
The naively is stunning, isn’t it? These stories keep coming up, too. I’ve been hearing about stuff like this since I was a kid.
Did their parents never teach them that bad people exist, and they do very, very bad things? Is it truly ego, sometimes, they’re proving they’re so pure and good that these criminals will immediately recognize them as saviors, and crumble onto the ground in a sobbing heap of relief? What on earth are they expecting??
Now of course I’m brought to mind the stories of virgins taming ferocious beasts, apparently by charm, alone. Is that what they imagine? They’re so narcissistic and solipsistic that I can actually imagine that.
Let’s be honest, here. Most of these passionate white saviors don’t actually know many black people, if they know any at all. Any they *do* know are from the same class they are, but for the most part, these are white people used to moving through a world of mostly other white people.
I feel like this creates a truly weird dynamic when they take it upon themselves to advocate for black people. Everything they think they know comes from third hand accounts and critical race theory.
Of course, this is all a desperate attempt to deflect criticisms of white people. “I’m one of the good ones!” because that’s apparently what we do now. By speaking passionately but doing nothing (lookin’ at YOU, academic “feminism”) they get to show off and feel good about themselves, but not actually have to be around poor blacks (ew! I mean aaaaw!). This also seems like typical female maneuvering for social dominance, plus an added compulsive and neurotic need to control how others think about you.
You answered your question yourself. It all boils down to victimhood. There are those people seem to revel in it - woe is me. They take what others would term as generalities personally and that grants them the victim status. They view this as permission to complain endlessly about perceived grievances that beget them attention, and bad attention is better than no attention at all.
*people who seem
Yeah you are correct, but black rage, female rage & trans rage are profitable & very power industries that have influence over everyone in society and are middle managed by some of these groups use it very well to their benefit. That is why they are empowered to act the way they do and the source of the problem is who is exploiting these groups so they can be like this because a lot of these groups have schismed out into their own belief systems. I met someone the other night who was part of one of them. It was both fascinating, gross and sad.
The ACLU is exploiting the shit out of people with body dysmorphic disorders, and dragging those with legit disorders of sexual development along with them. They’re doing it for both ideological and financial reasons.
I feel like changes in the way these groups are structured, as well as how they take donations has a lot to do with the hysteria-stoking. Mass mailing, rather than making an effort to meet people in person. Much more money from the uberwealthy than from regular people, etc.
It all starts with the decision to use a little lie, a little exaggeration, to make your case in a more direct and streamlined fashion. But in our current, extremely interconnected world, a lie like that can become something much bigger and more damaging than intended.
Non-profits like the ACLU and many others like them have been exploiting the mentally ill for a very long time, and why not? They are people society doesn't care about much so they can use them for profit, experiment on them and the odds that they will sue for exploitation one day are slim because they self destruct often before that can happen. There are a lot of non-profits and the very wealthy industries around them involved in a lot of stuff and they have their musty tentacles wrapped in government like you cannot imagine.
I view extreme defensiveness as a maladaptive coping skill that is associated with Clyster B personalities. A defining characteristic.... thin skinned narcissists that CANNOT bear any hint of criticism, no matter how truthful the observation is.
Yes, essentially it’s become a culturally approved way of being. Christopher Lasch noted this trend in the late 1970s in “The Culture of Narcissism”, and it’s only gotten progressively worse.
That was a great book
Ooo a new book to read! What happened in the 70s?
In New York City where I grew up and Lasch was based, this is what was happening. I never partied as hard as my parents got to.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10740017/New-Yorks-uninhibited-70s-nightlife-Studio-54-Fun-House-captured-iconic-photos.html
Much obliged!
this
Something that has been bothering me since I was a teen. Gay men always were put in the “good” bucket, and I saw a lot of people misbehaving.
I think everyone needs to be accountable for their own behavior and actions and accept that no group has an automated behavioral out. There are bad people in every group and we can only get better as a society if we hold every individual accountable regardless of identity group
Just the tribalism these identity groups are causing is toxic enough,
It's interesting to me that ever since we (the heteros) invited the Ls and Gs into polite society... they've largely moderated their behavior. The old stereotypes of sex-mad gay men banging their way through every bathhouse in town no longer *seems* to be as "true" as it used to be.
(I say "true" and not true, because, of course, its a stereotype. But it didn't pop up out of thin air, either).
I see lots of folks talking about the unintended consequences of the gay rights movements (birthed/influenced the trans lobby, for a salient one), but few of the benefits to both gays and mainstream society. One is that gay men are less likely to lead reckless lifestyles now that they're no longer sneaking around a subculture. They've assimilated (or are in the process of it). That's profound and something worth serious consideration in light of other areas our mainstream culture is or will be changing (thinking the "browning" of America).
(A good counterpoint is that, for gays to be "acceptable," there would be assimilation to the majority. Gays will never be the majority. Now, Latin American or Muslim cultures very well could come to dominate Western societies and shape their mainstream cultures by sheer numbers alone. How much influence can a shrinking majority have on a swelling minority when it comes to assimilation?)
I'm sorry to tell you that you are incorrect. Gay men's hedonistic behavior is far, far worse and more widespread today. I see things you probably don't see.
No. It did not get better. It got worse. Because "trans queer".
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
I certainly may be conflating "mainstream presentations of gay relationships and lifestyles have changed" with "gay relationships and lifestyles have changed."
What the eff is "trans queer"?
I can certainly hear (and make) criticisms of groups to which I belong without taking them personally. I just wish some of the people making those criticisms could understand that generalizations are just that. It’s hard to deal with members of your audience looking to repeal women’s suffrage, joking or not, when they’re applying leftist collectivism and ends-justify-means “rationale”.
Did I do it? Did I just do the thing?
Been looking for a reason to bring it up.
You're getting pretty close, yes.
At least I’m self-aware, eh?
That was good:)
I am not responsible for anything my audience says. Period. You know this.
I do, and I wasn’t blaming you. If that’s how it came across, I apologize.
Edit: I should have know better than to reply quickly on my phone. Better reply up after access to a keyboard. I wasn't trying to put the responsibility for your audience's comments on you, but I am hoping that some members of that audience also read the comments on your posts here. I'd like to talk to them in a forum other than live chat on streams.
OK, here's what I'm getting at, now that I'm not on a phone:
When someone takes offense, it’s often because there’s a bite of truth. See the TERFs who get comments asking if they’re really TIMs. It’s easy to laugh off, because they’re clearly female. When people ask me how I’d like it if someone misgendered me, my response is that it just says there’s something wrong with the person who referred to me by male pronouns when I’m clearly female. There’s no bite in it.
There are clearly people who hear a generalization about a group to which they belong and take it personally. The generalization typically applies to those people, but rather than acknowledge the truth, they say it’s offensive to say about other people.
And we all know the diagnosis for those who take offense ostensibly on behalf of others. See the thesis of your show 😉
I don't remember the numbers (and who can even trust studies now), but some significant portion of the population is apparently intellectually incapable of understanding hypotheticals. I suspect that extends to understanding generalizations. If they can't understand "if", then I doubt they can understand "not all".
What I was clumsily getting at, because I'm a terminal devil's advocate, is the marginal case where the person who is making the statement is using the generalization to further some other agenda, explicit or hidden. It becomes difficult to separate the generalization, even if it's true, from the reason it's being made. People who react emotionally may not be taking it personally but rather reacting out of fear or revulsion at the goal they believe the generalization furthers.
For example, it's clearly true that young black males are disproportionately criminal. A young black male who is opposed to a stop and frisk type policy may not be able to make a 4th amendment argument, but can certainly say "but I'm not" in an attempt to resist that policy. What he means is that he doesn't deserve to be treated as if he were, which he very well might be under stop and frisk.
I think it’s more than that they don’t want to make the distinction between criticisms of group characteristics and personal attacks--they think they are virtuous for erasing the distinction. How many times have you heard something like:
“An attack on the transes is an attack me!!!!!!”
They think that the insistence of being emotionally deranged to the extent that everything is personal is what makes them the saints they perceive themselves to be.
Yes, absolutely. They act like any other congregation of believers. The more total their faith, and the more extreme their behavior as a result, the better. Belief in ridiculous, impossible things is once again the ultimate test of faith in the belief system and loyalty to the cult. Social media make that waaay worse, by giving every crazy POS that can form a sentence a platform to influence others.
I’m getting a clearer and clearer picture of early Christianity in Rome as all of this unfolds.
I’ve always found bratty, spoiled, childish, and selfish behavior disgusting and pathetic, so naturally I’m very critical of women and like you, I am not in the least offended when others (man or woman) criticize women for these same reasons because I don’t act like that.
I hear ya! If you identify by a group identity in a primary manner then you should be prepared to wear both the expectations you demand and criticisms your ‘team’ wroughts for itself. If you cant objectively accept both, then you are grandstanding on a e-bus (exceptional) you are probably prepared to ride even when its on fire.
Then again Josh there is an unofficial Mazlov’s hierarchy of means.. a sort of pyramid of tragedy and vulnerability that offers both a set of privileges and punitive punishments. You are denying the new DEI world order.. so sayeth the Church of TRANSBLM.
Applies to bicyclists and motorists too.
Individuals in both groups can misbehave and make things worse for the rest of us.
I suspect I am one of the very few Jewish disaffectants (because, in America, Jews hard left), and I do wish for a more nuanced take on Jewish issues on the show when they come up. Nonetheless, I am a First Amendment absolutist and can listen without being "offended."
skew hard left
I feel you. Born Jewish, but can't stand the number of Jews who either cheerlead or buy in to all this leftist crap. Now, all the bs about anti-Semitism whenever their ideas are opposed, without any concerns about the real problems of AA violence towards Jews (and Asians, and Whites, or anyone in their immediate vicinity). No doubt the "unnoticing" part of the deal with political bedfellows.
I hear you on all this, but that was not the point of my comment- not the main one anyway. I wanted to point out that ideas that make in into the show at times ("Jews are a protected class"--never were anywhere, at any point in history) may misinform the non-Jewish disaffectants and play into the hands of left-wing anti-Semites. If Josh needs me to clarify this, I'm happy to do so in private. That said, the show's opinions are protected by the First Amendment, and I remain a fan.
You are 1000% correct! Note also that those you describe do not follow their own principles when it comes to others. They melt down if bad actors within their group are criticized for bad behavior, yet they have no problem making blanket criticisms of other demographics, even unfair and dishonest criticisms (like going on and on about white people being the perpetrators of "hate crimes" while refusing to acknowledge data that shows this is simply not true, and that whites suffer far more interracial violence than they commit against others). It's all bad-faith Cluster-B crybullying.