Hi @Support how was this person whom I do not follow able to threaten my life in a DM? pic.twitter.com/Yqmi8bA1oe
— ????? ???? ??? (@HonkyTonkJew) July 18, 2016
Being in the minority, which those of us of a reactionary bent surely are, is advantageous for one reason: we do not assume: we know where we are, we know who we are. This is not always so for the majority, at least not reflexively.
I mean this in the “statistical” sense, as a stereotype. A majority member meets a person and, without giving it much or any thought, assumes the stranger thinks like he, the majority member. The stranger, unless his dress or circumstance be outré, will be thought to reside among the bien pensant; the stranger will be given the benefit of the doubt and welcomed.
So that if you, dear reader, were to put on ugly, minimalist clothing and slouch into Case Western Reserve University’s new “safe space“, you would be treated as an effeminate thumb-sucking temperamental pantywaist majorityite. If you curled into a ball and tucked yourself in a corner and whispered in horror “Republicans”—for the “safe space” was in honor of that party’s convention, which was held near the university—, you would have been given a lollipop and a Hillary t-shirt and be told that it’s okay to cry.
But now think of two closet reactionaries, or perhaps two conservatives, walking by the “safe space”, perhaps as curious as anthropologists used to be to take a peek inside and witness the strange rituals. “Can it really be true,” these minorityites say to themselves, “that students at an elite college act like frightened women when Trump’s name is mentioned?”
Now if these two minorityites were to meet at the entrance, unless there be some secret signal between these two outcasts, each minority member will assume the other is a member of the majority. This is rational because, not knowing anything else except that (by definition!) most are in the majority, this new person is likely in the majority. Stilted conversations and verbal dancing are therefore the norm on places like college campuses between minority members who aren’t interested in outing themselves.
Well, so much is common human nature. We’re interested here more in majority members who don’t realize they are in the minority per se, folks who are so embedded in the majority culture they assume nearly ever person except the fringeiest (you heard me: fringeist) are with them.
Take the New York Times. Examples abound, but for instance try the article “Peter Thiel’s Embrace of Trump Has Silicon Valley Squirming“. The premise is that Thiel is a San Franciscan elite, which is all a majority member should have to know about a man to properly peg that man as being enlightened. The presumption is that all techies are and should be majorityites. Why, just look at Apple! It’s so hip! “How could a conservative write computer code?” is a rhetorical question.
It’s natural to think this, too, because for example San Francisco is home of Twitter, which is ever banning conservative voices. The latest ban is Milo Yiannopoulos, who (it appears) inspired people other than himself to tease a foul-mouthed, white-hating actress (this actress had previously tweeted her disdain of whites, among other things).
Yiannopoulos, who is same-sex attracted, and boasts of it to the point of naming certain acts he enjoys with black men, and who because of his non-reproductive sexual preferences would ordinarily be embraced by the majority. But Yiannopoulos forgot that race trumps sexual desire in victimology cladistics, hence his banishment, hence Cologne, hence Rotterham, hence Munich, hence et cetera et cetera.
Anyway, Twitter whacked his account, as it hasn’t whacked accounts more profane, hateful, and bloodlusting as his but that belong to majority members (as seen at the top of this post; or at the bottom as a link to Twitter if you see this post via email). We might guess that “Jack”, Twitter’s CEO, views himself above these vulgarities, which he surely classes as vulgarities, but views them as being provoked by conservatives like Yiannopoulos and thus forgivable. Jack is so at home in the majority he can’t fathom that Yiannopoulos’s and his followers’ actions are themselves provoked.
A word about conservative. As has been said by others, conservative is defined as the philosophical, political, or cultural view that was held by the majority twenty years ago. That Yiannopoulos and Thiel are now considered conservative gives proof to this homely truth. Monetary utilitarianism is a constant theme for both the majority and conservatives, so in that sense, both are in the majority.