Women who speak up about protecting sex-based athletics, the actual violence against women by men who claim to be women while in prison and speaking up about the violence of crossdressing husbands are often threatened, demeaned and subjected to name-calling of the vilest sort, deemed justified by trans activists. The illogic is sweeping and spectacular. When I left a message at a house of worship, after I noticed a huge "trans flag" in front of the sanctuary, requesting the clergy watch the documentary, Behind the Looking Glass (profiling 18 of us trans widows--I appear in the second half of this film at Lime Soda Films YT channel) to understand the risks to women in these situations, they sent the police to my house for a "wellness check." At least I was able to mention to these local officers that women in the same home as a crossdressing husband must be taken seriously when they call 911 because he committed battery strangulation. Women have been killed by these crossdressing husbands, who then serve the 25 to life sentence in women's prison facilities. Details:
I dunno. If nobody but nobody put up with it, then it would never have gotten off the ground. Recall that only about 9% of the population *really* believe any of this stuff, the rest are just going along. If they stopped, then it would all end overnight.
“racialised people expecting violence from white people”
“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
Yeesh. Well, given that we’ve previously been told that words are violence, but also that silence is violence… really, what ISN’T violence at this point (in someone’s eyes)?
Absurd that this kind of “research” gets (a) funded, and (b) published.
And even if there were any credibility to this work — what does one do with the results? It’s all a little circular. What are they scared of? The “patriarchy.” What’s the patriarchy? The thing that’s making them scared. So of course it must be dismantled—and replaced with what? Have they not read “Animal Farm”?
my only quibble with this piece is the repeated reference to these people as “feminists”. um, they stole that word, too. actual feminists center the needs and rights of actual women. they don’t do whatever this Minority Report-esque queer intersectionality BS is.
men are not women and extreme left nutter academics aren’t feminists.
This research will demonstrate that [epistemic turbulence | metaphorical cannibalism | post-structural ankle sprains]—caused primarily by [syntax-induced hallucinations | rhetorical gluten | feral grammar particles]—has become so pervasive that it now produces [full-body semantic concussions | parachuting adverb attacks | existential toenail detachment] in 97% of test subjects.
Initial findings reveal that language has evolved from a communication tool into a free-range predatory organism, with several nouns recently documented lunging off the page and mauling researchers like a pack of disgruntled thesauri. In one double-blind peer-review cage match, a feral semicolon escaped its enclosure and held an entire dissertation hostage, demanding editorial concessions.
Our ultrasonically-peer-pressured data shows that [overheated metaphors | chronically dehydrated similes | misaligned participles] regularly trigger linguistic thunderstorms, during which rogue sentences accelerate to highway speeds, perform illegal U-turns, and occasionally merge without signaling into unrelated paragraphs.
In the longitudinal chaos cohort, subjects exposed to high concentrations of academic jargon began hallucinating footnotes, including one citation that violently disagreed with itself and had to be sedated with MLA formatting. A subset developed rare cases of reflexive narrative echo, causing them to repeat themselves. Repeat themselves.
Our research recommends immediate deployment of [hyperbaric lexicon chambers | syntactic riot shields | semiotic bear repellent] to minimize exposure to weaponized prose, especially in enclosed spaces such as libraries, lecture halls, or coffee shops where grad students gather to brood.
The writing and publishing of that article constitutes a horrific act of violence. It is the moral equivalent of a savage beating, knifing and shooting. In a purely beneficent act of societal self-preservation, the authors, publishing staff and grant-providing agency personnel should be bio-terminated (after a speedy trial, of course).
Expressing my thought in a slightly different form, the authors see their expansion of the meaning of "violence" as something useful to use against their ideological foes. But it could just as easily be used against them.
I would have thought intent may not be required. It seemed to me that vehicular manslaughter would be justifiably called violent, and it fits at least one of the definitions. However, after a quick online search, it looks like us law does not consider it violence when there is not intent. The words negligence and recklessness still apply, legally, but not violence. I have learned something new.
While psych services monitor against diagnosing someone because of their public work.
Sadly this is yet another example of neuroses paraded as norm.
To highlight such wholesale garbage is crtitical. Thank you for your work!
If one might suggest,humorously, perhaps a field of social media psych where one ‘likens’ published works as potentially correlating with a psychotic collective, offering deprogramming & normative recovery strategies, holds value.
Aka: Their unbridled verbal feces could do with oral potty training.
The error being described is the familiar one of a narrative of the world substituting for the actual world. The actual world may be full of all sorts of things, but the narrative simplifies and, notionally, creates navigable life within the actual world. A narrative that poorly describes reality will eventually create disasters of misalignment of preconception-actuality. The politics of this insanity is the powerful push to force the narrative down everyone’s throat. It’s not a new problem. Its original is in the nature of the mind, which requires narratives in order to see and act—to understand and choose—and thus cannot be eliminated.
"racialised people expecting violence from white people"
LOL! The only demographic being "racialised" in this phrase is "white."
For most of my life, I have been proud to be Canadian. But now, when I learn about nonsense like this, I feel ashamed.
Hey, you still have a lot to be proud of. And if it hadna been for the Donald you could already be having the corrective of a Conservative government.
Women who speak up about protecting sex-based athletics, the actual violence against women by men who claim to be women while in prison and speaking up about the violence of crossdressing husbands are often threatened, demeaned and subjected to name-calling of the vilest sort, deemed justified by trans activists. The illogic is sweeping and spectacular. When I left a message at a house of worship, after I noticed a huge "trans flag" in front of the sanctuary, requesting the clergy watch the documentary, Behind the Looking Glass (profiling 18 of us trans widows--I appear in the second half of this film at Lime Soda Films YT channel) to understand the risks to women in these situations, they sent the police to my house for a "wellness check." At least I was able to mention to these local officers that women in the same home as a crossdressing husband must be taken seriously when they call 911 because he committed battery strangulation. Women have been killed by these crossdressing husbands, who then serve the 25 to life sentence in women's prison facilities. Details:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHRqk8IPJPI&list=PLOFlPPQm71IgFGCRHe5VxMtDlq1qtJQCy&index=88
Is there anything that can be done to push back on this garbage?
Take a stand. None of this would have happened is sane people had refused to accept it from its inception.
Yes, but just saying that something is nonsense is like shouting into the wind.
I dunno. If nobody but nobody put up with it, then it would never have gotten off the ground. Recall that only about 9% of the population *really* believe any of this stuff, the rest are just going along. If they stopped, then it would all end overnight.
“racialised people expecting violence from white people”
“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
Rev Jesse Jackson
Yeesh. Well, given that we’ve previously been told that words are violence, but also that silence is violence… really, what ISN’T violence at this point (in someone’s eyes)?
Absurd that this kind of “research” gets (a) funded, and (b) published.
And even if there were any credibility to this work — what does one do with the results? It’s all a little circular. What are they scared of? The “patriarchy.” What’s the patriarchy? The thing that’s making them scared. So of course it must be dismantled—and replaced with what? Have they not read “Animal Farm”?
my only quibble with this piece is the repeated reference to these people as “feminists”. um, they stole that word, too. actual feminists center the needs and rights of actual women. they don’t do whatever this Minority Report-esque queer intersectionality BS is.
men are not women and extreme left nutter academics aren’t feminists.
This research will demonstrate that [epistemic turbulence | metaphorical cannibalism | post-structural ankle sprains]—caused primarily by [syntax-induced hallucinations | rhetorical gluten | feral grammar particles]—has become so pervasive that it now produces [full-body semantic concussions | parachuting adverb attacks | existential toenail detachment] in 97% of test subjects.
Initial findings reveal that language has evolved from a communication tool into a free-range predatory organism, with several nouns recently documented lunging off the page and mauling researchers like a pack of disgruntled thesauri. In one double-blind peer-review cage match, a feral semicolon escaped its enclosure and held an entire dissertation hostage, demanding editorial concessions.
Our ultrasonically-peer-pressured data shows that [overheated metaphors | chronically dehydrated similes | misaligned participles] regularly trigger linguistic thunderstorms, during which rogue sentences accelerate to highway speeds, perform illegal U-turns, and occasionally merge without signaling into unrelated paragraphs.
In the longitudinal chaos cohort, subjects exposed to high concentrations of academic jargon began hallucinating footnotes, including one citation that violently disagreed with itself and had to be sedated with MLA formatting. A subset developed rare cases of reflexive narrative echo, causing them to repeat themselves. Repeat themselves.
Our research recommends immediate deployment of [hyperbaric lexicon chambers | syntactic riot shields | semiotic bear repellent] to minimize exposure to weaponized prose, especially in enclosed spaces such as libraries, lecture halls, or coffee shops where grad students gather to brood.
The writing and publishing of that article constitutes a horrific act of violence. It is the moral equivalent of a savage beating, knifing and shooting. In a purely beneficent act of societal self-preservation, the authors, publishing staff and grant-providing agency personnel should be bio-terminated (after a speedy trial, of course).
Expressing my thought in a slightly different form, the authors see their expansion of the meaning of "violence" as something useful to use against their ideological foes. But it could just as easily be used against them.
I would have thought intent may not be required. It seemed to me that vehicular manslaughter would be justifiably called violent, and it fits at least one of the definitions. However, after a quick online search, it looks like us law does not consider it violence when there is not intent. The words negligence and recklessness still apply, legally, but not violence. I have learned something new.
While psych services monitor against diagnosing someone because of their public work.
Sadly this is yet another example of neuroses paraded as norm.
To highlight such wholesale garbage is crtitical. Thank you for your work!
If one might suggest,humorously, perhaps a field of social media psych where one ‘likens’ published works as potentially correlating with a psychotic collective, offering deprogramming & normative recovery strategies, holds value.
Aka: Their unbridled verbal feces could do with oral potty training.
The error being described is the familiar one of a narrative of the world substituting for the actual world. The actual world may be full of all sorts of things, but the narrative simplifies and, notionally, creates navigable life within the actual world. A narrative that poorly describes reality will eventually create disasters of misalignment of preconception-actuality. The politics of this insanity is the powerful push to force the narrative down everyone’s throat. It’s not a new problem. Its original is in the nature of the mind, which requires narratives in order to see and act—to understand and choose—and thus cannot be eliminated.
Very thought-provoking comment. Thank you.