All sane people will have noticed the disturbingly large amounts of stupidity rampaging unstoppably through the Western world in recent years.
A lot of it is an attempt to ensure people’s safety. But this often descends into overprotectiveness or mollycoddling. Or as I like to call it an indulgence in people’s stupidity.
I’m sure you’ll all have plenty of your own examples, but some of the ones I’ve read about include:
Australian researchers find the word cyclists, dehumanises people.
A University tells lecturers to avoid using capital letters in their classroom handouts.
A University takes issue with signs that encourage the use of stairs instead of elevators to improve health, as it promotes the idea that weight loss is a good thing.
A University investigates a person for making a ‘Build the Wall’ joke.
A school suspends a student for not agreeing with its policy that a person can choose their own gender.
To put this in perspective: I have a smartphone with which I can talk to someone thousands of miles away and get instant access to almost all of humanity’s collective knowledge. I live in a house with all sorts of technological devices that make my life easier. Modern medicine gives me a good chance of living longer and healthier. Humanity has built cities, planes, warships, cruise liners and guided missiles. There are satellites that can see land formations and structures on the ground, and telescopes that can see 10 billion light-years away. Men have travelled to and from the moon – but the important thing is not to offend anyone by suggesting a little exercise.
Now I know that not only must there be technological advancement, but there must also be some kind of moral advancement too. You know, from racism and bigotry to not hating people who are different to you, from inequality to equality. And I’m happy for you to continue your crusade, provided that the problem you’re moaning about really is a matter of inequality and not a rejection of your stupid and absurd ideas.
The Three Principal Mollycoddling Rules: Microaggressions, Trigger Warnings and Safe Spaces
Microaggressions are the seemingly innocuous things you say to minorities which they find hostile, derogatory and offensive, even if that was never your intention. Some argue that microaggressions are violence, which therefore makes a response of actual violence permissible … I mean understandable.
Trigger Warnings are statements which warn your audience that you’re about to say something that someone may possibly – because they had a bad experience with something to do with something you’re about to talk about – find distressful. That way they have a chance to run away. So for example, if you’ve had an abortion because … you know … it would have had too big an impact on your life, then you’ll want a head’s up before seeing or hearing anything that proves the person you murdered was an actual human being.
Safe Spaces are designated places that you will find on college campuses and at some workplaces, where people who feel marginalised can escape that which they feel marginalises them. It is immediately obvious that the amount of actual marginalisation is inversely correlated with the number of safe spaces – so you’ll find no safe spaces in countries where people are persecuted for their religious beliefs or where women are treated as property, but plenty of safe spaces in countries where that kind of thing is actually against the law – but this is easily explained. In recent years the definition of marginalisation has been broadened to include any feeling of being offended or demeaned which was on the rise due to the correlating rise in the number of people believing Leftist ideas, the ever increasing absurdity of Leftist ideas and the number of rational, sensible people easily disproving them. Since there are far more people whose sensibilities are being disturbed in the West than there are being persecuted for their religious beliefs or for being a woman in other countries, it stands to reason that we need the safe spaces more.
The Conventional Objections to Safe Spaces and Other Mollycoddling Rules
There are a number of conventional objections to the ideas of microaggressions, trigger warnings, safe spaces and other ridiculous mollycoddling rules and proposed societal modifications which the Left try to impose in an attempt to rid the world of beliefs, opinions or ideas they don’t like under the guise of ‘safety’.
The first is that they’re really the Left’s attempt to rid the world of beliefs, opinions or ideas they don’t like under the guise of ‘safety’. In the past, you were required to disprove a belief, opinion or idea using logic and / or evidence. Today, you only need to be offended by a belief, opinion or idea and it becomes too dangerous even to discuss. A trigger warning before and the need for a safe space to avoid it are the ways to show how offensive and therefore dangerous a belief, opinion or idea is and magically it’s removed from society.
This in turn, leads to an increase of intolerance towards people who do accept those ostensibly dangerous beliefs, opinions or ideas. And the logic behind this is faultless: It’s true that only terrible people have terrible beliefs, opinions or ideas and it’s true that to protect ourselves, terrible people should be excluded from civilised society – one cannot be tolerant of intolerance. It’s just fortunate that the Left were so easily able to decide that their beliefs, opinions and ideas are morally virtuous while everyone else’s are not.
Some people who advocate for these types of rules really do mean well – even if they are mistaken. But there are always those who will take advantage of this acceptable intolerance. They choose their ideology based on how intolerant they’re allowed to be. You can either be a conservative who thinks Leftists are colossal morons for believing easily disproven, staggeringly stupid ideas or you can be a Leftist and ‘know’ that people with different ideas are so wicked that any measure to stop their ideas from spreading is not only justified but imperative. If you’re the kind of person who likes to bully and control others – usually because those others have the skills, talents and abilities to achieve some degree of success or at least the drive to learn them, whereas you’re just jealous and lazy and therefore unlikely to accomplish anything other than making as many people as possible as miserable as you – then it’s not too difficult to predict the type of person you’ll choose to be.
A second conventional objection to all this mollycoddling is that it achieves exactly the opposite of the purpose of being in college in the first place. Institutions of higher education are not meant to be safe spaces for people. They’re meant to be safe spaces for ideas. They’re meant to be places where even controversial subjects can be freely and rigorously discussed and debated, not a place that stamps out ideas because you’re disturbed by the mere mention of them. Institutions of higher education are meant to be intellectual unsafe spaces for people as you’re brought into contact with new ideas, some of which you won’t like, some of which you’ll find distasteful, and some of which will challenge the way you think and how you view the world. The point of going to institutions of higher education is to encounter ideas that will make you examine your existing beliefs and either find a way to defend them or abandon them as wrong.
And by the way, this growth is a good thing. You’ll learn new things, you’ll broaden your mind, and most importantly of all, you’ll develop your ability to think.
By being shut off from different ideas, the whole process of intellectual growth is stopped before it can start. Which is necessary especially if as per the first conventional objection you’re trying to rid the world of different beliefs, opinions or ideas. Brainwash people with your ideology and stop them from hearing anything different or developing the critical thinking skills that would allow them to see through the ridiculous ideas that make up Leftist ideology. To that end, colleges have been transformed from educational institutions that teach you how to think into ideological institutions that tell you what to think.
A third problem with these kinds of rules is that it inhibits free speech. In a democracy, freedom of speech is not only a fundamental right but part and parcel of what it means to live in a free society. The idea that I can say anything without fear of retaliation is exactly the opposite of how we used to live, and how many still do live, under some form of totalitarian government. Being censored, deplatformed or removed for what you have to say is undemocratic, an attack on freedom and a return to the totalitarianism and oppression that we have only (relatively) recently escaped from.
Now I know that not being black means I can’t speak about racial issues, being a man means I can’t speak about women’s issues, and that being normal means I can’t speak about transgender issues, so I assume that having never lived under a totalitarian government means I can’t speak about it. Nevertheless, using what I like to call ‘my brain’, my ability to ‘think’ and my ‘imagination’, I’m confident when I declare that even you wouldn’t like it at all. Unless you were the dictator …. wait a minute … things are starting to make sense.
The final conventional objection people usually make to all this mollycoddling is that those who are mollycoddled will be unable to cope when they finally enter the real world. In the real world you will be told if you’re an idiot, fired if you do a poor job, and shunned if you make a nuisance of yourself – and there’s nowhere to hide. They will discover that people with what they consider to be evil beliefs, opinions and ideas are still out there and their moaning and groaning about it will not change anything. They will realise that the one skill they did learn in college – how to get what you want by playing the victim and blaming everyone else – is not what made … anything. We do not yet know the full impact of the shock a Leftist will experience when they realise that the world does not revolve around them, that people are not going through an ever-increasing checklist before speaking to ensure they don’t offend them and that no one will grovel at their feet to apologise for whatever perceived slight has offended them this time, but I imagine it will be fun to watch.
The Real Problem with Safe Spaces and Other Mollycoddling Rules
Any one of the conventional objections are enough reason to conclude that safe spaces and other mollycoddling rules have no place in our society, but there is one other objection to them that is not really spoken about, even though it points to something far worse than anything already mentioned.
In order to explain this problem, we need to look at the underlying principle that runs through all these mollycoddling rules.
The Underlying Principle of Safe Spaces and Other Mollycoddling Rules
The principle that underlies all this madness is: Thou shalt not make anybody else feel bad.
Let’s return to the examples I brought earlier. You can’t call a cyclist a cyclist because they may think that you think they’re not quite human, merely cyclists. You can’t use capital letters in handouts because you will generate levels of anxiety in your students so high that they’ll be too scared to continue their studies and they’ll fail whatever useless course they’ve just wasted three years of their life studying.
You can’t promote the idea that losing weight is a good idea as you’ll remind fat people that they really should be doing more exercise and eating less cake. You can’t mention the best solution for keeping out illegal immigrants because those who don’t understand the difference between the word ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ will think they live in Nazi Germany. And under no circumstances can you even contemplate the possibility of informing someone that identifying as something doesn’t makes you the thing you’re identifying as – it makes you deluded.
In other words, no saying anything that even remotely sounds like you don’t have 100% percent respect for someone and everything they believe. You must not assign fault or responsibility or say anything that can somehow be interpreted as criticism. If you do, you will have violated the most important law of all, the principle that runs through all these examples: Thou shalt not make anybody else feel bad.
This rule is also the underlying principle of microaggressions, trigger warnings and safe spaces. As explained, microaggressions occur when minority groups feel offended even if you never meant any offence. Did you assume I’d be like other black people in some way? That’s not the result of the tendency all humans have to generalise in order to cope with the sheer amount of information entering their mind every waking moment! That’s you’re innate racism. Did you assume I might be able to explain something about Mexican culture just because I’m Mexican? That’s not a sensible assumption and logical deduction! That’s your innate racism. Are you unable to pronounce my name ;kliuasdqsajdhgjadgsfhjafklajsdh s ggggggggvvvvvvgggggg 001 303-763-5754 3355 MPC properly? That’s nothing to do with the fact you weren’t brought up speaking Klingon! That’s your innate racism and I feel offended and you’re not allowed to make me feel bad.
While microaggressions (and the previous mollycoddling rules) are ways of trying to prevent people from saying specific things that others find offensive, trigger warnings and safe spaces don’t stop the offensive remarks from being made. Instead they ensure that people are insulated from anything they don’t want to hear, once again because it might make them feel bad and that’s not allowed.
And if you argue that there was never any ill intent meant when the ostensible offense occurred, then you’ve missed the point. Because regardless of intent there was impact. The person was offended because of something you said or did so whatever your intent, you’re in the wrong. You see, the first rule actually is: Thou shalt not make anybody else feel bad even if there was no ill intent and even if the person is making a mountain out of a molehill. Impact is what’s important, not intent. If you say or do something innocent and someone still feels offended, you are responsible, not them. It’s not their fault they’re so petty as to be offended by something so ridiculous, it’s your fault for saying or doing something that someone can take offence to.
In other words, you’d better have a complete list of things that anyone in any time or place could find offensive because you’re responsible for how other people feel, not them.
The Real Problem with Safe Spaces and Other Mollycoddling Rules Is That They Create Emotional Retards
Psychologists disagree with Leftists. They believe that you can’t change how the world behaves. The only person you can change is yourself. And the only person responsible for how you feel is yourself.
Why give everyone else in the world power over your feelings? You don’t want anyone else to have power over you when it comes to other areas of your life. You don’t want anyone else telling you what to do, where to go, who you can talk to and who you can’t, what you can say and what you can’t, so why would you want anyone else to have the power to make you feel bad?
I know you’re going to say that it’s completely different because feelings are an automatic response, so you can’t help it if something someone else says makes you feel bad, but the truth is how you feel is a choice. And more specifically, your choice. Then you’ll say that it’s very hard to choose to feel different when an automatic response is ‘making’ you feel bad, but it’s still a choice and your choice, even if it’s a hard choice.
And if you dare to choose to take the power over your own emotional state back from everyone else and become emotionally independent, you’ll become a much stronger person psychologically.
Yes, you won’t be able to blame others for how you feel. Yes, you may realise that you’re wrong about one or two things. Yes, you’ll eventually become less interested in controlling people who have different points of view. Yes, you may even become less afraid of a confrontation between your ideas and someone else’s because you’ll be able to cope if you’re wrong. Yes, you may even become emotionally strong enough to wonder if it wasn’t your constant shifting of responsibility to everyone else that wasn’t the cause of your being an abject failure in every area of your life. But these are small prices to pay for becoming a fully developed human being.
Because the real problem with safe-spaces and all the other mollycoddling rules is that they create emotional retards by removing the need for a person to have to grow up emotionally. After all, the underlying principle of all these rules is that everyone else is responsible for how you feel, so why bother developing emotionally when you can blame everyone else for how you feel and remain an emotional child long after you’re supposed to have become a fully functioning adult and perhaps for the rest of your life. The mollycoddling rules mean it won’t even occur to you that you could take control over your own emotions and mature into a well-rounded, well-adjusted human being. Instead you’ll balk at the thought and argue that you have no control over these automatic responses.
Without these rules, such people would have been thrown into the deep end of a big wide world that’s too busy getting on with a life that grows shorter by the day, to care one iota about how you feel. They would have been forced to grow up and adjust to the realities of life. They may not have achieved the ultimate level of well-rounded, well-adjusted human beingness but they wouldn’t have been the quivering mangled psyches we see today.
Now I know having said this that it seems natural to finish off the point by asking how these people will be able to cope in the real world, which is one of the aforementioned conventional objections, and it’s true that there’s a relationship between what I’m saying (these rules are creating emotional retards) and that objection (how will emotional retards cope in the real world), but I think that the existence of emotionally stunted people is a problem in and of itself, regardless of the fact that they’ll be unable to cope in the real world, and what’s more, it’s a far worse problem.
After all, let’s say hypothetically speaking that we found a way to change the world so that no one would ever dream of being offensive, and now, these mollycoddled people would be able to cope in the real world, they would still have a problem. They would still be emotionally stunted, immature people, who because of that, will be unable to take the great potential they have just by virtue of being a human being and achieving great success. They’d be able to cope in the real world with no problem, but they’d still be useless, hopeless, under-developed, puerile, halfwits who will never accomplish what they could have.
It’s not about what they could contribute to society, but who they could become.
It’s not about wondering how they would cope in the real world but with stopping an over-protectiveness that while well-meaning, stunts growth and prevents the full realisation of potential.
This is the real problem with safe spaces and other mollycoddling rules. Conventional objections which point to the attempt to gradually remove certain beliefs, opinions or ideas, the rise of intolerance or the inhibiting of free speech, are focused on the effects of these rules on our society and how they will make it an unpleasant place to live, whereas the real problem is focused on the direct effect these rules have on peoples’ development and objecting to Leftist controlled educational institutions being turned into production factories that are manufacturing a steady stream of immature, emotionally retarded, useless … sorry I’ve run out of derogatory synonyms for idiots, who will only actualise a fraction of their potential.
Happily, apart from the normal understanding-a-problem-helps-us-find-the-solution benefit, there’s another major benefit to understanding the real problem with safe spaces. And that is it’s made the difference between Leftists and normal people crystal clear.