by Vox Day
They have also invented the useful concept of the “microaggression”. This is an inadvertent offense committed by an offender who violates the Narrative without even realizing he has done so. It is the most insidious violation because it means that the hate is buried so deeply inside the offender that he doesn't even realize it is there. Needless to say, SJWs have a highly developed ability to observe these microaggressions being unwittingly committed.
It can be breathtaking to see how an SJW can find an offense being committed by almost anyone doing almost anything. Did you ask someone about his ancestry? That's a racist microaggression because it is offensive to multiracial people to ask them “what” they are. Did you notice someone is black? That's racist. Did you fail to notice someone is black because “you don't see color”? That's racist too. Did you defend yourself against charges of being racist by pointing out that you are married to a black woman? That just shows how racist you truly are because you have objectified a black woman and reduced her to nothing more than a shield to cover your racism. Do you point out that you can't be a white supremacist because you are not white? That's just hiding behind your genes, which is, of course, racist.
We are reliably informed by SJWs that it is a racist microaggression to assume that a person of Hispanic appearance speaks Spanish. It is also racist to assume that a person of Hispanic appearance does not speak English. Your safest bet, one presumes, is to address him in Klingon. Then, when the individual with the bronze complexion suggestive of possible membership in la raza cósmica replies with either “what?” or “¿qué?” you will learn how to correctly address him without committing any offensive microaggressions in the process.
In the world of the SJW, being married doesn't mean you don't hate women, having African friends doesn't mean you're not racist, marrying a black woman doesn't mean you're not racist, marrying a Jewish woman doesn't mean you're not anti-semitic, working in an AIDS hospice doesn't mean you're not homophobic, and being black, or Mexican, or Chinese doesn't mean you're not a white supremacist. There is literally no possible defense that anyone accused by an SJW can offer.
In addition to being able to read minds and divine deeply hidden prejudices, SJWs are also walking, talking odioscopes capable of detecting otherwise undetectable hate at microscopic levels of only 15 parts per billion.
This refined ability to detect offense is very important for the SJW because it provides him with a ready excuse to go on the attack against almost anyone while wrapping himself in the virtuous cloak of either a) the noble champion of the downtrodden and oppressed or b) the holy and sanctified victim. While the chosen target—may not have violated any social norms perceptible to any sane individual, the SJW's infallible hate-detector will always be able to manufacture something that will justify his launching a campaign of socially just retribution against the offender.
However, SJWs vastly prefer to manufacture mountains out of molehills instead of their own imaginations. They prefer real violations of the Narrative. It's much easier for them to drum up outrage throughout their social circles, and on social media, if the target legitimately gives them something about which to complain. It doesn't have to be much, it doesn't need to be anything significant, but if there is some small action on the part of the target which the SJW can claim, however nonsensically, is in violation of the SJW-declared norms, that makes their case easier.
It can be a political donation of $1,000 to a successful political campaign for which seven million people voted. It can be a joke told at a public speech. It can be a single picture on Facebook. It can be a comment made 26 years ago by your ex-wife. It can even be a tweet that contains nothing but a link. Give them an inch—and the SJWs can whip up a ready-made pogrom in a matter of hours with an impressive degree of shamelessness.
The important thing to note here is that while the violation is always an action, the target is always an individual, and the object is always the casting out of the individual from the organization. The action itself only matters insofar as it indicates that the individual is a Bad Person, and since there is NO PLACE for such Bad Persons in the university, the corporation, the club, the group, or the organization, the only possible solution is for the target to be promptly expelled. And that is why, if necessary, the violation of the SJW Narrative will be created if it cannot be located.
STAGE TWO: Point and Shriek
Once a violation of the Narrative has been identified, the next step is to summon other SJWs by pointing at the target and shrieking about how terrible, outrageous, and completely unacceptable he is. Again, the actual offense itself doesn't matter and in fact will often be ignored in favor of various accusations of -isms and -phobias and other sins against diversity that clearly indicate what an evil and irredeemable person the target is. Consider the attack on Sir Tim Hunt by Connie St. Louis after the black female lecturer in science journalism at London’s City University designated him a target following his address to female journalists at a lunch sponsored by the Women’s Science & Technology Associations in Korea. Note that there are no typos in the section below; it precisely replicates the creative approach St. Louis, whose academic qualifications, credentials, and professional resume have been described in the British media as “dubious” and “questionable”, takes to the art of punctuation.
Nobel scientist Tim Hunt FRS @royalsociety says at Korean women lunch “I’m a chauvinist and keep ‘girls’ single lab
Why are the British so embarrassing abroad? At #WCSJ2015 President lunch today sponsored by powerful role model Korean female scientists and engineers. Utterly ruined by sexist speaker Tim Hunt FRS @royalsociety who stood up on invitation and says he has a reputation as a male chauvinist., He continued "let me tell you about my trouble with girls "3 things happen when they are in the lab; you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you crticize them, they cry" not happy with the big hole he has already dug he continues digging "I'm in favour of single-sex labs" BUT he "doesn't want to stand in the way of women. Oh yeah! Sounds like it? let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry! So as a result, he's in favor of single-sex labs but he doesn't want anything to satnd in the way of women. Really does this Nobel Laureate think we are still in Victorian times???
—Connie St Louis @connie_stlouis 12:37 AM - 8 Jun 2015
She pointed. She shrieked. Her tweet was retweeted 653 times and favorited 211 times. And 31 hours later, her pointing and shrieking was rewarded when the Royal Society took the bait and responded to her on Twitter.
The Royal Society Verified account @royalsociety 8:26 AM - 9 Jun 2015
@connie_stlouis @royalsociety is committed to a diverse science workforce. Tim Hunt's comments don't reflect our views
It was inadvertently brilliant timing on St. Louis's part because Dr. Hunt was flying back to England and did not have a chance to respond publicly to her before it was too late. As Guy Adams described it for the Daily Mail, “By the time he touched down at Heathrow, his career and reputation, built up over 50 years, lay in tatters. The days that followed saw him unceremoniously hounded out of honorary positions at University College London (UCL), the Royal Society and the European Research Council (ERC).”
Connie St. Louis's attack on Sir Tim Hunt is the most devastatingly successful example of an SJW point-and-shriek I've ever observed, but all of them more or less follow the same model. The delivery vehicle varies; it may be a tweet, it may be an anonymous note left on an executive's desk, it may be a planted newspaper article, it may be a complaint lodged with the university administration, or it may be a public accusation made before a group of friends. But they all have the same goal in mind, and that is to single out the target and identify him as someone that other SJWs are expected to promptly follow the accuser's lead in attacking.
STAGE THREE: Isolate and Swarm
Immediately following on the heels
of the Stage Two pointing and shrieking is the third stage. This stage involves two parts, the first of which focuses on the isolation and marginalization of the target, while the second involves overwhelming the target with social pressure brought on by other SJWs and any moderate parties who can be persuaded, or bullied, into joining the witch hunt.
The primary objective of both the isolating and the swarming is to demoralize the target by separating him from anyone who is likely to give him emotional support, and elicit an apology for his actions. Typically the SJW will have a number of close allies who will immediately leap to the attack on command, and then turn around and cite those allies as evidence that the outrage is widespread and significant in an attempt to turn the “reaction” to the target's offense into a story that will garner media attention. This is particularly effective if the SJW and his allies have connections in various media organizations, which allows them to rapidly transform a minor event into something that is perceived by the public as a major one. The purpose of the media campaign is two-fold, to stamp the Narrative with an “objective” perspective that echoes the SJW's accusations and to let other potential allies know about the hate campaign in the hopes that they will add their weight to the hogpile.
All of the language used to describe the target will be chosen to marginalize him and render him as unsympathetic a figure as possible. These days, it is almost de rigeur to refer to any SJW target as racist, sexist, and homophobic in addition to any specific qualities that may be relevant to the matter at hand; some adventurous SJWs are already adding “transphobic” to the standard list. In fact, this set of accusations is so common now that if you merely type “racist se” into Google, Google will offer to autocomplete the phrase as “racist, sexist, homophobic”.
Indeed, the mere act of belonging to a seemingly innocuous group is now sufficient to render one a hateful hate-filled hater; for example, the science fiction SJW Nora Jemisin reliably informs us that not only was Robert Heinlein “racist as *fuck*”, but most of science fiction fandom is too. Other groups deemed “institutionally racist, sexist, and homophobic” by SJWs include the Cardiff City football team's management squad, the San Francisco Police Department, the Franciscan Order, the people of Toronto and their mayor, the Washington Post editorial page, ad agencies, the Catholic Church, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Among many, many others.
To return to the example of the SJW attack on Sir Tim Hunt, consider the astonishing degree of isolation and swarming that took place as soon as Connie St. Louis pointed and shrieked at him on June 8, 2015. These are just a few of hundreds of similar examples. Note that within 48 hours of the pointing-and-shrieking, the SJWs managed to transform what The Times confirmed a month later to be nothing more than a joke that amused the female scientists in the audience into a general indictment on male sexism in science and in society, as well as a revelation of the malicious anti-female hatred long harbored in secret by the dastardly Nobel Laureate. From Twitter to the august pages of the international newspapers, the lynch mob was soon in full cry.
Notice in particular that some of his own SJW colleagues at the Royal Society and University College London were among the first to leap to the attack. Gereint Rees is the Dean of the UCL Faculty of Life Sciences, while David Colquhoun is a pharmacologist at UCL who is a fellow of the Royal Society.
The biologist who called female scientists “girls” who fell in love with him then berated them for crying too much isn’t an outlier. For females in the science world, sexism is the norm. Lady scientists: they’re always falling in love and crying about it. Amiright. So says important man of science, knighted and Nobel Prize-winning biologist Sir Tim Hunt, at a luncheon for science journalists hosted by Korean women scientists.
—“Nobel Prize-Winning Biologist Calls Women Love-Hungry Crybabies”, Brandy Zadrozny, The Daily Beast, 9 June 2015
The British scientist, who won the 2001 Nobel Prize in medicine, was giving a talk at a journalism conference when he expressed his support for sex-segregated labs and admitted he has a reputation as a misogynist. A Nobel laureate has come under fire for shockingly sexist remarks at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, South Korea.
—“Nobel Prize Winner Makes Shockingly Sexist Remarks At Journalism Meeting”, Cat Ferguson, BuzzFeedNews, 9 June 2015
Ana Gomez (@anacrgomez) 9 June 2015
Here is Tim Hunt, a Nobel winning biologist, trying to make his nose hair not be the most disgusting thing about him
Mats Grahn (@Mats Grahn) 9 June 2015
Revoke the Nobel prize awarded to Tim Hunt. His contribution to science cannot outweigh the damage he has done
David Colquhoun (@david_colquhoun) 9 June 2015
The Royal Society is quick of the mark in dissociatiing itself from Tim Hunt's dreadful comments #huntgate
Geraint Rees (@profgeraintrees) 9 June 2015
@ucl Faculty of Life Sciences totally rejects the comments allegedly made by Sir Tim Hunt FRS today. Science needs women @royalsociety
David Colquhoun (@david_colquhoun) 9 June 2015
David Colquhoun retweeted Geraint Rees. Very glad to see my dean coming out swinging on the Hunt affair
Dorothy Bishop (@deevybee) 9 June 2015
@profgeraintrees Could we ask that he not be on any appointments or promotions committees, given his views
This is a moment to savour. Hunt has at last made explicit the prejudice that undermines the prospects of everyone born with childbearing capabilities. It is not men who are the problem, it is women! So here’s a hypothesis, Sir Tim. It’s not the women who are the problem. It’s you.
—“Tim Hunt, where’s the science in your prejudice against women?”, Anne Perkins, The Guardian, 10 June 2015
David Colquhoun, emeritus professor of pharmacology at University College London, said Hunt’s comments were a “disaster for the advancement of women”. Hunt’s words have also been roundly criticised by female scientists on Twitter. One woman, a postdoctoral researcher, tweeted: “For every Tim Hunt remark, there’s an extra woman in science that takes an interest in feminism. Ever wonder why there are so many of us?” Hunt, who won the Nobel Prize for discovering protein molecules that control the division of cells, could not be contacted for a comment.
—“Nobel scientist Tim Hunt: female scientists cause trouble for men in labs”, Rebecca Radcliffe, The Guardian, 10 June 2015
Tim Hunt complained that female scientists “cry” and make male colleagues fall in love with them… The Royal Society, of which Hunt is a fellow, quickly tweeted a message distancing itself from Hunt’s remarks, writing that the comments “don’t reflect our views” and later adding, “Science needs women.”
—“A Nobel Scientist Just Made a Breathtakingly Sexist Speech at International Conference”, Alissa Greenberg, TIME, 10 June 2015
Aaron Mifflin (@aaron_mifflin) 10 June 2015
Not surprisingly, most women I know also have a rule that states they shouldn't have #TimHunt in their labs.
STAGE FOUR: Reject and Transform
Sir Tim Hunt apologized for his remarks almost immediately. So did James Watson. So did Brandon Eich. But SJWs don't seek apologies for the same reason normal people do. They don't demand apologies in order to see that the individual who has offended them admits that he has commited an offense, regrets having done so, and will seek to avoid doing so again in the future.
The reason SJWs demand apologies is in order to establish that the act they have deemed an offense is publicly recognized as an offense by the offender. The demand for an apology has nothing whatsoever to do with the offender. It is focused on the SJW's need to prove that the violation of the Narrative involved is publicly accepted as a real and legitimate offense for which punishment is merited. And once the apology is duly delivered by the accused, who is usually bewildered at the accusation and in a state of shock at the unexpected social pressure he faces, it is promptly rejected, because remember, it
is not the action, but the actor who is the real target.
Keep in mind that it is not in the interests of the SJWs to accept the apology anyhow, because if the action that violated the Narrative can be forgiven, that will limit its utility to use against others who reject the Narrative in the future. What use is it to go through the whole process of publicly crucifying a Nobel Prize winner if you're only going to let him off the cross when he says he is sorry? After all, Voltaire didn't observe that the Royal Navy found it necessary to criticize an admiral from time to time to encourage the others, he observed that the British found it necessary to kill one.
The ultimate purpose of an SJW attack is not to destroy the individual attacked, but rather to make an example of him that will dissuade others from violating the SJW Narrative in a similar fashion. And that is why it is absolutely and utterly futile for the target of an SJW attack to apologize for whatever offense he is said to have caused.
Consider the sequence of events in three of the most significant SJW lynchings in recent years. In each case, the sequence is the same.
SJWs attack a statement or action by the target.
The target apologizes in the hopes of resolving the situation.
The apology is deemed to be insufficient or irrelevant in some way and the social pressure actually increases.
The target is destroyed.
James Watson, Brendan Eich, and Tim Hunt all apologized. And as the following pairs of quotes should suffice to demonstrate, they really need not have bothered doing so.
