Monday, January 5, 2015

The Inherent Hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors, and the Goal of "Cultural Preservation"

In response to an article that I read about transgender people, and how their plight should be treated no differently than any of the panoply of "intersex" disorders (such as incomplete, malformed, or missing genitalia), I had a few observations.  
One of the issues that the SJWs run into is that the idea of a person being transgender runs entirely afoul of third-wave feminism.  I do love so much how the twisted logic of these progressive types ends up running afoul of itself so often.  
"So, uh, like, yeah.  I only eat organic food, because all chemicals are bad.
I realized this after dropping LSD one time. You know what I mean?"
You see, third wave feminism holds out as truth that there are no innate differences in gender, and that the differences between men and women that have become evident are a result of social conditioning only.  This is just stupid.  It is a pipe-dream that I could easily refute in a million different ways, but in the interest of keeping this short enough to be readable, I will address that at some later date.
The inherent rub here is that the very existence of transgendered people runs entirely afoul of third-wave feminism's claims.  They are people who claim that they were born with the wrong genitals.  In a world where gender is nothing more than a physical difference in genitals and nothing more, transgendered people could not exist.  
I give you Franklin Roosevelt wearing a dress.  Your argument is invalid
And so, the solution to this is a push by SJWs to create a "third gender".  In some cases, they've created even more.  The problem is that transgender people don't identify as a "third gender".  They generally identify as either male or female, and in large part, they reject this attempt to pigeon-hole them into this third gender classification that they do not feel that they belong to.  They find it offensive, and do not like this ham-fisted attempt of the SJWs to re-define them so that the SJWs can feel better about their own twisted logic.  It makes about as much sense as the Icelandic language.

All of it?
It occured to me then that in most cases with these SJWs, what the actual aggrieved class wants is not important to them – theSJWs just want a battle to fight, and in their own arrogance, they wedge themselves into the battle in an attempt to make everything about them. They aren’t fighting it FOR anyone (except themselves and their own ego).
I’m reminded of the high school sports team in South Dakota, if I recall correctly, that were called the “Fighting Sioux” or something similar.
SJWs attacked them for being racist and derogatory. After a period of time, it became clear that the local Lakota (Sioux) tribes didn’t mind the name at all, and actually thought of it as a badge of honor, but the SJWs didn’t care.
Being the most arrogant and self-sure sonsofbitches on the planet, they patiently explained how years of racism and subjugation made the tribe completely incapable of seeing racism, and therefore completely incapable of deciding for themselves whether the name was offensive or not.  In a sense, they just called the entire Lakota nation a bunch of morons.
This is his "not impressed" face.
I cannot imagine anything more insulting or racist ever being spoken, and it was spoken by SJWs who were, in their minds at least, putatively DEFENDING these people that they were  so grievously insulting.
It’s like a 20th century version of “the white man’s burden.” These “brown people” (or other aggrieved classes) are too stupid to take care of themselves, so it is up to us wealthy white folk to swoop in to their rescue.  The transgender people don't know what they feel - WE know better than they do what they feel, and so WE get to define the terms under which we have any discussion about them; it's the "white man's burden" all over again.  
There really is nothing new under the sun.
"See, old chap?!  I told you that in 100 years they'd be looking at what we did here
as good and revolutionary!  We'll go down in history as the world's first SJWs!"

Sometimes I think SJWs are more interested in preserving their own exclusive human zoo, than they are actually seeking social justice.  In the same article, there was discussion about the current SJW fight to actually prevent parents from having cochlear implants put into their deaf children, in an attempt to "preserve the deaf culture, and deaf language."  

"What's that?  I couldn't hear you over the sound of FUCK YOU!"

To them, it is more important to have a "deaf people" exhibit in their own personal "cultural zoo of humanity" than it is to allow children to experience a full life with all 5 senses.

"And over here in this exhibit, right next to the transgenders, who have their own unique gender, are the deaf people, who have their own unique language and culture!  Let's observe them in their natural habitat, and understand their experience of living with a debilitating disability for our own enjoyment!"  

Most of this "preserve the culture" stuff is just anti-western reactionary bullshit, and it is absolutely wrong.  It is SWPL taken to a deadly extreme - the extreme of making sure that in the year of our Lord 2015, people are still dying of perfectly preventable diseases for the sake of "cultural preservation."  

So worth it, am I right?  At least his culture is in tact!  Right guys?  Right?
You take a guy that lived his entire life in the Amazonian jungle, fighting for every meal he's ever eaten, making his own living/clothing/abode/etc at huge expense of labor, and living every day with the fear of that next cut becoming septic and killing him, or that next sniffle being the cold that brings him down, or the next monsoon not being monsooney enough and his family starving to death, and you give him a pair of Levi jeans, some tennis shoes, a first world education, and modern medicine, and HE WILL CUT YOUR FUCKING THROAT before he will let you stick him back in that jungle.  

"This is so much more awesome than having enough to eat and being comfortable, ever!
 Just leave me out here to die!"

But SJWs want to keep him there, unmolested by western "cultural pollution" like modern medicine and central air conditioning, in order to "preserve his culture", without giving him an educated say in the decision at all.  More of that SJW superiority.  

This idea of "allowing the brown people too stay in their place" smacks an awful, awful lot like "keeping the brown people in their place."  

We all know how un-racist and inclusive keeping the nig--- I mean, the BROWN PEO-- or rather, those "delightfully ethnic" people in their place is, don't we?   
LOOK!  There's one of those celebrations of the "delightfully ethnic" now!

I don't know who died and left these SJW motherfuckers in charge, but it sure as hell wasn't me.  


  1. Speaking as someone with a debilitating injury, I don't want a special enclosure; I WANT A CURE!!!

    1. Yeah, and to be left alone to decide what that injury means to you, and how you're going to deal with it. If you were something other than a white male, SJWs everywhere would feel totally justified in dictating both of those things to you without a hint of how ironic that is.

  2. Its sort of akin to what I think about the charge against agricultural advancements. People can seriously look at things, from their clean, dry, well-fed lives, and decide that it is NOBLER or BETTER or CLEANER to DIE OF -ING MALARIA, because they don't want to expose people to a MINISCULE LIKELIHOOD of a mildly elevated cancer risk, which may or may not be a factor not of DDT exposure but of LIVING TWICE AS LONG AS THE PREVIOUS GENERATION!

    Sorry for the yelling. I'll give your soapbox back.

    And yes, you've a good point.

    1. Any advancement in agriculture allows us to feed more people and continue to prove them wrong about their breathless assertions that we're over populating the globe. They've been secretly hoping for famine since the 70s and that pesky advancement of agricultural science continues to deny them their famine.

      For many, the prize is the ability to say that humans are bad. For some, western "overconsumption" (although you never see them volunteering to be the first to cut back. Still others just want to be able to beat their chest and say "see? I was right!"

      Worst of all are those who see widespread famine as their in-road to power and the technocracy that they've been aching for for decades.

      But the upshot is that they all hate ag science as a result.

    2. Also wolfman-it's acceptable to them FOR OTHER PEOPLE to die of malaria. If their kids, family, loved ones etc were actually catching malaria and dying from it, they'd want that shit fixed, now, at any cost. The DDT would be flowing like a river.

      But it's just those "delightfully ethnic" folk in that zoo over there dying, so they can afford to be picky about disease control methods.

    3. Aren't you over the top? I work in agriculture. There are tradeoffs involved. Also between quantity and quality. It's entirely possible that the cumulative load of all strange, never before experienced chemicals easily exceeds the risk of cancer coming from 'all-natural' (organic is a stupid name) traditional farming. Think: to simultaneously kill pests and to be completely harmless to humans at once. Isn't it a tall order? There are unavoidable overlaps in biochemistry. It is no clear choice between good and evil, but a choice of the least evil option.

    4. Of course, plants eaten by pests produce their own chemical defenses, but people who were the most sensitive to them died off already. So as long as the genetic lottery does not introduce the same vulnerabilities again, or intermixing with an unexposed population happens...