The double tragedy of all this is that it is so harmful to the people it purports to protect. They are teaching people to be fragile. They are teaching them to feel slighted or injured when they would not normally have felt any injury. And that will not only make people feel worse about themselves, because it will make them imagine the world is more hostile to them than it really is, but it will also paralyze them, making them doubt their ability to function in the world.
This is very much akin to the entirely predictable result of the hate speech laws. Thanks to the "hate speech" exemption to the free speech principle, people began to label every form of speech that they disagreed with as "hate speech" in an attempt to get it banned. But the inevitable result was that they and those who followed them came to believe that people actually hated them. They respond now as you do when you think someone actually hates you, with is to say with vitriol and violence, which, in many cases, leads to people actually hating them, where they never did before.
This is, of course, exactly what the activist personality wants. They don't want peace or resolution. They want the chaos. They want the bitterness. They want the hate. These are the things that keep them in business. It is time we came to understand that you can't reach a resolution with an activist. Resolution is not their aim, nor is it in their interest.
Well said. This sort of thing is ridiculous, and harmful to the people it's supposed to protect because:
Ridiculous: it's impossible to monitor every word you say in case ypu accidentally micro-aggress (is that a verb?) someone. Monitoring yourself like that would drive you mad -- I suppose I'm not allowed to use that word, but I can't think of an alternative.
Harmful:
First of all, it's patronising. Why do some people think it's acceptable to presume to speak on behalf of people they've never met? Hubristic or what?
Secondly, unless you name something, how can it be dealt with? For example, if colleges, say, are not allowed to ask on their enrolment forms if you have a disability, or the nature of the disability, how can that disability be accommodated?
I really don't understand why, when people are told that using expressions like "turning a blind eye" is a microaggression, they just don't tell the accuser to get stuffed. These people only have power because other people give them power. And what's especially annoying about drivel like that appearing on the BBC website is that we in the UK are forced to pay for that rubbish on pain of imprisonment if we don't. Now you've got ME started: I'm going to take some Rescue Remedy!
Thank you so much for saying these things. They needed to be said. Seeing people going overboard policing language is infuriating and frustrating. If you follow what they say to avoid their pseudo-righteous indignation, you paint yourself into a corner as a writer and produce a work that literally no one wants to read.
Great article! Sorry for the late comment. I’m catching up on all my substack reads today. But I have to say, I agree with you on the topic. The state of all this speech monitoring is as disgraceful as it is exhausting. Sorry to hear about your epilepsy. My son has it too, but he never would want to be identified by it or made to feel fragile or weak because of it, which is exactly what this type thinking does, whether unintentional or not.
The writer of the article you site puts me in mind of an older sibling who insists on speaking for the younger (when they’re children), never allowing the latter to speak for themselves, and most of the time missing the boat as far as the latter’s true need is concerned.
Bravo.
The double tragedy of all this is that it is so harmful to the people it purports to protect. They are teaching people to be fragile. They are teaching them to feel slighted or injured when they would not normally have felt any injury. And that will not only make people feel worse about themselves, because it will make them imagine the world is more hostile to them than it really is, but it will also paralyze them, making them doubt their ability to function in the world.
This is very much akin to the entirely predictable result of the hate speech laws. Thanks to the "hate speech" exemption to the free speech principle, people began to label every form of speech that they disagreed with as "hate speech" in an attempt to get it banned. But the inevitable result was that they and those who followed them came to believe that people actually hated them. They respond now as you do when you think someone actually hates you, with is to say with vitriol and violence, which, in many cases, leads to people actually hating them, where they never did before.
This is, of course, exactly what the activist personality wants. They don't want peace or resolution. They want the chaos. They want the bitterness. They want the hate. These are the things that keep them in business. It is time we came to understand that you can't reach a resolution with an activist. Resolution is not their aim, nor is it in their interest.
Well said. This sort of thing is ridiculous, and harmful to the people it's supposed to protect because:
Ridiculous: it's impossible to monitor every word you say in case ypu accidentally micro-aggress (is that a verb?) someone. Monitoring yourself like that would drive you mad -- I suppose I'm not allowed to use that word, but I can't think of an alternative.
Harmful:
First of all, it's patronising. Why do some people think it's acceptable to presume to speak on behalf of people they've never met? Hubristic or what?
Secondly, unless you name something, how can it be dealt with? For example, if colleges, say, are not allowed to ask on their enrolment forms if you have a disability, or the nature of the disability, how can that disability be accommodated?
I really don't understand why, when people are told that using expressions like "turning a blind eye" is a microaggression, they just don't tell the accuser to get stuffed. These people only have power because other people give them power. And what's especially annoying about drivel like that appearing on the BBC website is that we in the UK are forced to pay for that rubbish on pain of imprisonment if we don't. Now you've got ME started: I'm going to take some Rescue Remedy!
As a good friend often says - you’ve put your foot down with a firm hand and really stuck your neck out here! 👏🏻
Yep. Once you start policing language you’re up shit creek. The fringe left cares nothing for fixing inequities. It’s 100% about power.
Terrific post - such excellent points eloquently and decisively made. Kudos!
This article was even more delicious than the warm pain au chocolat I ate while reading it this morning. It put a spring in my step. 😊
Thank you so much for saying these things. They needed to be said. Seeing people going overboard policing language is infuriating and frustrating. If you follow what they say to avoid their pseudo-righteous indignation, you paint yourself into a corner as a writer and produce a work that literally no one wants to read.
Great article! Sorry for the late comment. I’m catching up on all my substack reads today. But I have to say, I agree with you on the topic. The state of all this speech monitoring is as disgraceful as it is exhausting. Sorry to hear about your epilepsy. My son has it too, but he never would want to be identified by it or made to feel fragile or weak because of it, which is exactly what this type thinking does, whether unintentional or not.
The writer of the article you site puts me in mind of an older sibling who insists on speaking for the younger (when they’re children), never allowing the latter to speak for themselves, and most of the time missing the boat as far as the latter’s true need is concerned.
Very interesting topics discussed here and valuable points made by all involved
Wow! How refreshing. Speaking truth into lies. Nicely done.
If I was a clearer thinker and a better writer I would have penned those exact words.