Trigger-warning Tyrants

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke3/23/17
People like thinking the best of themselves, which is partially why we have “trigger warnings,” “microaggressions” and claims of “taking offense” — so these complainers don’t have to come to terms with the fact they’re spoiled, self-absorbed, tyrannical brats.

Here’s how it works: When accusing you of “microaggressing,” the truth is that, generally, these snowflakes just don’t happen to like what you’re saying. But shouting “Shut up! I hate that type of expression!” makes you seem intolerant. So to preserve your image and self-image, you use the ploy of shifting the onus onto the one whose speech you want to suppress.

Note that actual ideas are often targeted. Examples are “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” and “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough,” which academia has identified as “racial microaggressions.” The principle is: If you can’t refute it, boot it.

Since coining psychobabble terms is in today, I’ll label this onus-switching “Oppression Transference.” The snowflake oppressor stifles the speech of his victim by making the latter seem the oppressor — a microaggressor, an agent of triggered feelings or offender in chief.

Another major factor is that, lacking the power of the state, the snowflake has to use social pressure to impose his will. He might just put you in a gulag were he a Stalin, but he’s not, so he shackles you with political correctness.

Since snowflakes pride themselves on tolerance, it should be emphasized that they don’t even understand the concept. “Tolerance” always implies the abiding of a perceived negative. You’d likely never have to tolerate a fine car or delectable meal, but you would have to tolerate a stubborn cold or bad weather (unless you’re a masochist).

In other words, if, let’s say, you like homosexual behavior or just don’t care about it, that’s not called tolerance; it’s called affinity or indifference. A prerequisite for tolerating it is considering it a negative.

Thus, the true measure of tolerance is how well you handle things you don’t like. And pro tip: If you’re so triggered by “Where are you from?” and “You speak English really well” — which are also labeled microaggressions — that you participate in a Stalinesque effort to purge such things from discourse, you’re not just not tolerant; you’re not even tolerable.

Snowflakes are also pathetically self-centered and self-absorbed. If your feelings are hurt by the terms “black hole” or “man up,” well, you need to man up. If you think The Great Gatsby, Mrs. Dalloway or The Merchant of Venice needs a trigger warning, you’re not just a sniveling little wimp. You also haven’t learned an important life lesson once imparted during toddlerhood: Your feelings just aren’t that important.

There are seven billion people on this planet with seven billion sets of feelings. When snowflakes demand their feelings be the arbiters of policy, they’re saying that their emotions should be preeminent, with others who feel contrary being subordinate. Worse still, they’re saying that their feelings, which are subjective, should trump what should be the yardstick for policy: the objective, principles such as the imperative of encouraging the expression of Truth.

This is the crux of the matter. Saying that something originating within you (feelings) should take precedence over Truth, which exists outside of you, is a universal and is meant to be feelings’ arbiter, is the epitome of self-centeredness.

There is the occasional academic who stands against the snowflake phenomenon, such as Oklahoma Wesleyan University’s great president, Dr. Everett Piper, who penned an open letter to his students titled “This is Not a Daycare. It’s a University!” But modern universities, which now resemble dens of iniquity where all the hookers have Ph.Ds, are generally the problem.

For instance, the term “microaggressions” was popularized by a Columbia University professor, Derald Wing Sue, who got the idea from a more original Ivy League lunkhead. Brown University was content to let students establish “a ‘safe space’ that offered calming music, cookies, Play-Doh and a video of frolicking puppies to help students cope…,” reported the Telegraph. And institutions of lower learning have created charts of microaggressions so all us bigots can know what not to say. An example is the following from the University of Wisconsin:

As for trigger warnings, there’s an interesting thing about them. The people complaining about the “graphic violence” in The Great Gatsby weren’t raised in a cloistered Amish cocoon; they grew up imbibing the most violent, perverse Hollywood fare imaginable. So I suspect that what really bothers them is something else — such as the more traditional paradigm for society older works portray.

Tragically, the “educators” facilitating snowflakism are ignorant of the harm they do. The University of North Carolina warns that saying to a woman “I love your shoes!” or “[i]nterrupting a female-identified colleague…” can be a microaggression. So can saying to “a person of African descent: “Can I touch your hair?’” because it sends the message “Your appearance is exotic and foreign to me.”

Okay, but what if my appearance really is exotic and foreign to the person? When I was 19, I visited a rural Taiwanese town, a place where homes still had straw roofs. I was brought to the elementary school, and it just so happened that the children had recess. Circling around me curiously, it was plain they’d never personally seen a blondish white person before. The friend I was with told me they wanted to shake my hand, and, after extending it, it wasn’t long before I had a dozen Chinese lads on each arm screaming and pulling me like it was a tug-of-war. It was a fun experience I’ll never forget.

The point is that this curiosity is normal. And here’s another life lesson: If you can’t understand that or are offended by it, you’re abnormal. Thankfully, this abnormality can be cured.

But here’s where the harm lies. Is a couple, or two friends, closer when there’s nothing they can’t discuss? Or when many subjects are off limits and they must walk on eggs?

By creating the latter situation, the snowflake enablers are actually building walls between people. When you can’t acknowledge obvious differences among people — whether they relate to race, ethnicity, sex, religion or something else — you’re playing pretend. Another word for this is pretense, which has as a synonym “charade.”  Also note one of its antonyms: honesty.

How do you combat trigger-warning tyranny? Stop being defensive. The people effecting it are trying to shut you up as they purge Truth from your tongue. They’re using social warfare against you, so strike back; fight fire with fire and put the onus on them. Call them what they are: intolerant, spoiled, self-centered, evil tyrants. Take no prisoners.

Only when these oppressors masquerading as victims are stilling their tongues, fearing the scorn, ostracism and possible career destruction threatening sane people today, will we know we’ve made America great again. Remember, people who cannot be reasoned with, can only be fought.


Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke) has written for The Hill, Observer, The American Conservative, WorldNetDaily and American Thinker. He has also contributed to college textbooks published by Gale – Cengage Learning, has appeared on television and is a frequent guest on radio. His website is www.SelwynDuke.com. • (741 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to  Trigger-warning Tyrants

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    An excellent analysis. Your point about tolerance reminds me of the argument that “free speech” involves legal tolerance of speech you don’t like. Everyone is willing to let others agree with them. Similarly, your point that talking about “microaggressions” is a way to disguise the fact that what they’re really doing is simply saying “shut up, shut up, shut up” ad infinitum reminds of a point I’ve made before about liberals: All those smears of “Nazi”, “racist”, “fascist”, “extremist”, “sexist”, “homophobe”, “Islamophobe”, etc. are really euphemisms for saying “I hate you” — because even liberals realize that saying nothing but “I hate you” all the time exposes their own virulence.

    The self- absorption with their own feelings is also a good point. Note that the professionally outraged will often complain in the name of others (upper-class whites are probably a lot likelier to complain about “cultural appropriation” than members of the relevant racial/ethnic groups). No doubt some of this is intended to make it seem that their obsessive sense of outrage is about others rather than themselves.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Something tells me that when we took the word “pansy” out of the lexicon, we were headed for all this. People indeed need to “man up.” But the only direction recognized by the party of the feminists and gender-benders is “manning down.”

  3. Steve Lancaster says:

    All those smears of “Nazi”, “racist”, “fascist”, “extremist”, “sexist”, “homophobe”, “Islamophobe”,

    More than that it is an attempt to shut you up. Most of the time from people who have never had any contact with the real world examples of the above. And have never and would never stand to post defending their own right to make these slanders.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The interesting thing about liberals (and one of the indicators that they’re basically fascist) is that they devote most of their intellectual effort (such as it is) to coming up with excuses (usually smears) for demanding that those who disagree with them shut up. They find it much easier than actually winning arguments fairly. No doubt it’s because the smears reflect their overpowering emotions, whereas honest disputation requires knowledge and rational thought.

  4. David Ray says:

    I hear that Sweden now has something in common with London . . . the number one baby name is Muhammad. I’m not sure which European nation leads in rapes, but thanks to that fool Merkel, Germany is now givin it some stiff competion.
    I know of at least one German lady who has since moved here. (At least B. “lunch money victim” Hussein can no longer try to deport her like he did the Romeikes.)

    Isn’t islam a wonderful, peaceful culture.

  5. Timothy Lane says:

    There was an interesting piece at patriotpost on the professor who reported how ill he felt at seeing people be kind to a uniformed veteran. (I guess he mustn’t like old Elvis music, because Elvis’s experience as a draftee left him very respectful of the military.) The piece notes the element of envy, which will be no surprise to anyone here, but suggested that this is envy about honor — honor which people like Iraq veterans have earned, unlike most professors. It’s similar to militant homosexuals being concerned with forcing approval. The link is:

    https://patriotpost.us/posts/48298

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Evil is always an opportunity to clarify the good. And let’s understand this in terms of the daily outrages and bizarre behavior that is so typical these days, and not just this one incident.

      It helps to understand that you can judge a cause by how the most authentic and pure advocates operate. Think of what you and I hold dear. Who are our greatest representatives of the ideas, principles, and virtues that we believe in? George Washington. Abraham Lincoln. Thomas Edison. Isaac Newton. William Shakespeare. Mother Theresa. Francis of Assisi. Beethoven. Frederick Douglass. Booker T Washington. Neil Armstrong. Nathaniel Hawthorne. Benjamin Franklin. Babe Ruth. Bob Hope.

      Whatever our individual weaknesses and frailties, we are not rotten to the core. If you take our principles to the extreme, you will get Washington, not Alinsky. This is why it is very very important to not be corrupted by Donald Trump. He might be useful in the short-term, but he is most decidedly part of the swamp.

  6. Timothy Lane says:

    The Blaze has a piece on yet another college atrocity, or actually a pair of them. Heather MacDonald went to UCLA and Claremont McKenna on successive days to speak of her work on the war against the police, and faced the sort of mob attacks one would expect in a place of “higher” learning. She noted that even when she was able to speak at UCLA, the mob didn’t bother listening — they were only there for organized thuggery. But at least she did get to address an audience. At CMC she had to pull a Murray, going to an empty room to live-stream her speech because the mob wouldn’t let anyone attend. At least no one seems to have been injured at either place, and there probably wasn’t any major property damage.

    One of the cries of the CMC mob was “Fuck the police!” It occurred to me that one interesting way to deal with these thugs would be to outlaw them — which, in its original meaning, meant to put someone outside the protection of the law. None of them deserve its protection. (MAD Magazine, naturally, had a cartoon on this during the protest years of the 1960s. Some hippie type, seeing a couple of cops on the corner, called out “Fascist pigs!” A nearby hardhat grabbed him in a chokehold, and he changed his tune in a hurry, asking the police for help. They answered, “Ain’t nobody here but us pigs.” I was definitely on their side.)

    The article link is:

    http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/07/black-lives-matter-mob-descends-upon-campus-building-pounds-windows-shuts-down-pro-cop-speech/

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Speaking of interesting stories, it is apparent that yutes still trump queers in terms of victim status. (Good…children should be protected from sexual predators.) Still, it’s surprising to see these allegations against Seattle’s homo mayor given emphasis. Stay tuned. Frankly, I thought a little fondling was considered okay.

  7. Timothy Lane says:

    Many readers may have heard of the Berkeley riot this weekend, between pro-Trump and anti-Trump forces. According to David French, this had an unexpected result: the Trump forces (including a lot of bikers) were ready for the leftist thugs this time, well aware that the forces of “order” in the People’s Republic of Berkeley would never side with them. They fought back against the Obamathugs — and, according to unhappy leftist sources such as Mother Jones, they won. And good for them.

    Peaceful streets would be very desirable, but today the only way to achieve this in many areas is to surrender to the Obamathugs pre-emptively, which is extremely undesirable. The universities will do nothing (for all the fine talk at Middlebury, not a single student has yet been punished for their own riot), and often neither will the police (they certainly haven’t in Berkeley).

    Until the universities that do this can be totally defunded (in the same fashion as Hillsdale, but for much better cause) at the federal level (it will never happen at the state level in California or Vermont), the only alternative is to fight back violently. Since the forces of sanity are usually better armed and outnumber the Obamathugs, this can be quite successful, however regrettable the necessity is.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Have biker will travel. They’re our much-needed leathershirts. Really, I hope this becomes a regular thing…getting in the face of the Snowflakes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *