“Hate crimes” are effeminate. It isn’t that motive in crime is unimportant when considering crime, but calling “hate” a crime is absurd because it punishes thought, not actions. It’s not even the accused who gets to say what he thought. The accuser’s word is taken as sufficient proof of thoughtcrime.
“Hate speech” is therefore matriarchal because it’s all about feelz, and nothing else. To bar speech that might hurt feelz is toxic femininity.
The University of Wisconsin Oshkosh is banning speech deemed by the ladies “insulting” or “demeaning”.
All members of the University have a responsibility to promote and a right to expect…an environment that is free of harassment and free of insulting and demeaning comments and epithets based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, military status, socioeconomic status, family status, or political views; and consistent enforcement of federal, state, and university protections against discriminatory treatment yet is free from any official speech codes.
Only women and male effeminates would believe, or even come within a mile of believing, they have a “right” to expect an “environment”, or even their personal selves, free from “insulting and demeaning comments”.
What’s with this “environment” business we always hear about, anyway? Insults come from people, not environments. The ladies want to blame the air, the buildings, the very surroundings, like they were infested with hateful insult and discrimination demons. That can only be removed by exorcisms and rituals of you-can’t-make-mean-faces-at-me law passing.
It does no good to point out that if a man is being an exit hole, make him stop. Men aren’t allowed to use violence to do this stopping any more, because that’s been deemed wrong. Hence all the “Be nice” rules and laws, which only certain someones are allowed to violate (pets and handsome men). But if it’s just hearing “You’re wrong” that you don’t like, put in a funny way, then you’re the problem, not the “You’re wrong”-sayer.
Further, it is useless to argue that these laws are always one-sided. That the harpies and ackshually boys feel free to form a screech circle around you the moment you point out the flaws in their feelz. Then it suddenly becomes okay to hate and discriminate. See how far “The debased are the real haters” gets you.
It is worth, though, in some tortured way, looking at enormous list of “shared principles” which contain the hate crime/speech lists.
It starts by emphasizing “a shared commitment to education as a dynamic learning process”. Now part of this horror is because of the tendency in all bureaucracies to decorate their words with needless encrustations. But, after all, the entire sentence isn’t needed. It’s a university, for crying out loud, what else would it be doing except educating?
Yet they repeat “learning process” so often—e.g. “Those who teach and those who learn assume a mutual responsibility to explore and add new dimensions to the learning process”—it can only bring to mind some sort of therapeutic feelz correction. Why else would they write of “Powerful learning experiences”? Anything focused on feelz at leans toward toxic femininty.
It’s funny how they emphasize they feel strongly that student and profs should have “The widest possible range of free inquiry and expression”, and that “Members respect the rights of others when they express their concerns, opinions or beliefs.” Which are direct contradictions of the speech proscriptions mentioned earlier.
This is hypocrisy, yes, but also an indication that they ladies and soy boys still feel (it’s always feel, not think) they are the besieged ones, that thoughts needing free expression are theirs because they are the victims of oppression. Who could it be that’s oppressing them, though, when they’re in charge of everything?
They also believe that their thoughts will bring only joy, while the thoughts needing muzzles bring only hate. Saying “I think poopdick is disgusting” is hateful because it condemns something they enjoy, yet their saying “I think people who think poopdick is disgusting are disgusting” is something to be celebrated. So it’s “who, whom?” after all.
This is how they can conclude “Upon observing discriminatory behaviors or hearing offensive comments, every reasonable effort is made to protect the victim(s) and witness(es) from further harassment.” And not give even a hint of a word of what to do about false accusations, or about how only side’s feelz count and the other’s doesn’t.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here