Skip to main content

Oberlin retrospective

It seems like such a weird thing. Ten years ago getting accused of racism was the worst possible thing. Anyone I knew did everything they could to avoid it and even the merest suggestion would create incredible stress. It was the *worst* thing that could happen to your reputation.

Now, well, a lot of people stopped caring so much because the accusations became the default, and attached to anything and everything that had nothing at all to do with race. (If everyone is racist, then no one is.) And then even the definition changed so racism wasn't dependent on opinions or actions anymore but simply on who you are... or who you weren't. The woke happily carry on with their public theater of racist confession because it requires nothing of them, no change in their behavior because they aren't (in their mind) actually guilty of anything. It's all show.

So when they go on to accuse someone of a "long history of racism" they aren't any more serious than if they were confessing their own long history of racism, which doesn't bother them at all because they're LYING.

"Well, why does it bother you if it's not true?"

"The fact that you're so mad means that you must be racist."

How exactly does that work? A 90 year old man isn't supposed to be bothered by a FALSE attack on his reputation, he's only hurt and angry if the attack is true?

"You must be racist if you don't accept this injustice toward yourself for the greater good. Compared to what people of color have gone through, this is just an inconvenience and the fact that your inconvenience is more important than All Of History, just proves how racist you are."

I could channel "woke" all day long but I still can't quite get my mind around how a person GETS there.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...