Total Pageviews

Featured Post

Evil - for dummies

What you do is you start a bank, then by sleight of hand you convince everyone that while you only have 10 units of coin in your coffers y...

Monday, October 19, 2015

type 7 Homo sapiens: the Social Justice Warrior

type 123456, 7

If you do not know the Social Justice Warrior in your midst it is because he or she (hereafter she) seems so innocuous that she has not caught your eye; and you have not caught hers because you and she have not yet had a social justice run-in.

Once you do, the SJW will be like a mole digging tunnels under your feet. The stable footing you once thought you had in a company that has employed you with satisfaction for over fifteen years will suddenly give way, and you will find yourself neck deep in a quagmire, seated before a panel of inquiry investigating an alleged infringement of the company’s Code of Conduct by YOU.
What the f..!

An innocuous social justice warrior saw it fit to report you to the head of Human Resources, who promptly conducted confidential interviews with the aggrieved co-worker to ascertain the veracity of the claims made against you. Now she is interviewing you to ensure that she has a “balanced” view upon which to adjudicate this “delicate matter”.

You are sitting in front of three SJWs, one has her head titled at a ten to fifteen degree angle, permanently, suggesting pity or contempt, it is hard to tell which. Beside her are two minions from Human Resources, gorging on their own self-righteousness, emboldened by the prospect of fighting social injustice here and now. After all, before them is seated a seething sexist, likely homophobe and potential anti-Semite, what with those blue eyes and all. It is best therefore that they have never spoken to him or sought his company.

This sexist, homophobic, anti-Semite, is you, in case that failed to register. You are being investigated for sexist remarks in the workplace. The other charges are glowering in the wings, ready to pounce should the sexist thing not stick.  

You are being investigated for pronouncements made during a conference attended by yourself and a co-worker. The circumstances of these pronouncement was drinks at a bar after the conference with male, co-conferencees. The co-worker in question was a woman.

Four beers into aforementioned drinks, a co-conferencee notes that the sheer dearth of  “good looking chicks” at such conferences is “inhumane”. All but the co-worker guffaw in acknowledgement at this stark truth, until – realizing there's a woman in the group – all back pedal, and in unison pronounce: except you, of course. An awkward silence ensues.  

That’s it. That’s all of it. From thereon it was polished and politic.

Now you are being fingered for sexist statements made in the workplace. Tilty-head notes sternly that such statements are “problematic and not in keeping with the company’s Code of Conduct”.

Would you consider apologizing to the co-worker for making such statements?

Apologize?  For what?

For implying that she is unattractive, making her feel uncomfortable, and suggesting that conferences are for picking up women, or as you say “chicks”.

The former was never directly stated, but is an opinion to which I am entitled, and for which I could not in good conscience apologize under these circumstances. The latter was not implied by the statement which (by the way) I did not make, but merely concurred with.

The two minions cannot contain their indignation. How dare he. Had they been dogs not humans, foam would have gathered on their lips.

We would like you to rethink this in a broader context  of inclusiveness and seriously consider apologizing.

Titly-head scrawls notes on a notepad, struggling to appear professional in what seems increasingly like a gag.

You think back on the beers and the jocular co-conferencees, and note to yourself that the statement for which you are being accused by association was very mild, and that worse things about men are written in glossy magazines every day, but you decide not to engage her within her frame of reference, and instead simply refuse to apologize, something you might have done naturally had this “delicate matter” been brought to your attention in an informal setting, without accusations, minions and social justice.

Tilty-head is steadfast. Alright then, I think you’ve made yourself clear. And closes her notepad.

That’s it? you ask.

Yes. For now.

The next three months are a Kakfaesque mini-drama in which you are again summoned before the panel – expanded with senior (male) executives and their minions –  to be informed that your behaviour is now "highly problematic" where it was once merely "problematic", and that "all of this" is not going to “go away by refusing to apologize”. The suggestion being that, apologizing will make it all go away. But you are smart enough to know that the point is not the apology, the point is legitimizing the speech-police headed by Tilty-head and her minions. The point is the culture. They need you to consent to their bullshit. If you give in, it will not be over. Next you will be packed off to sensitivity-training where you will be patronized by an LGBT-advocate about the merits of diversity, inclusiveness and equality, and there will be no sense in asking whether guys-talking-like-guys-with-other-guys can be included in this diverse community of equals. 

Three months later you are packing up your office things into a box never to return again. And so it would appear that they have successfully policed you, three innocuous seeming SJWs. It would appear that they have won ground and purged from their midst this hardened Homo sapiens. It would appear so.

further reading: SJWs Always Lie, by Vox Day