George Orwell hates your Crying Game

May 4, 2008

George Orwell hates crybabies 

 

there is a potential for harm associated with irrational thinking. People who uncritically accept one claim are just as likely to uncritically accept other claims. The potential for harm is not caused by any particular belief: it comes from the manner in which those beliefs are formed and the uncritical way in which they are accepted

That page, found here, begins today’s indictment of many feminists. I think we can all agree that irrational or magical thinking is the sign of an ignorant person, but just what defines that peculiar dissonance is up for grabs depending on who you ask. I prefer to call it what it is: non-logical thinking — which of course upsets all the people who resent being told that they are non-logical and therefore total fucktards.

People who do not think logically will find all kinds of justifications for why non-logical thinking is preferred or beneficial. Usually they will appeal to emotion, which as we will see, is the common denominator of children. Non-logical adults will disguise this trait with hyperbole, as graciously explained by George:

As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.

Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, “I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.” Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as “keeping out of politics.” All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.

The feminazi translation: Know with absolute certainty that if someone lacks the capacity to be clear on some issue, they are either an idiot or a liar. When someone’s stupidity is pointed out, they always scream that their feelings are hurt; we are not supposed to notice that the actual criticism is never addressed. It was TheBewilderness who taught me how turds always flush the subject without wiping first; although in this specific instance of her brillance, she was reaming a troll who was attempting to change the focus from *men being assholes* to *women being man-phobic*. She is quoted below:

But many of the comments above seem to be based on some prurient hatred of sex instead, which is disturbing.

This is a cheap transparent trick to change the subject from the behavior of men, to the feelings of women. Every time you hear the term hate used in this fashion it is always a cheapass way to change the subject. Serious people do not like to be manipulated in the style of political operatives.

Men rape women.
Why do you hate men.

Porn hurts women.
Why do you hate sex.

Do you see the shift from the behavior of the perp to the feelings of the victim? You can see it any time you like on the cable news networks, where that crap passes for discussion.  It does not pass here.

That was a such a brillant remark, I would tattoo it on my forehead if I had enough room. It has all kinds of other handy interpretations upon further reflection. For instance, that remark taught me about the crying girls who expect everybody to drop the original criticism because they are sad.

I don’t know how many WOC were raised this way, but we have a situation in the US where young white liberals are typically raised to believe that they are entitled to having their feelings protected forever, which is of course a very child-like expectation. According to them, if their feelings are hurt in any way, then the person who hurt their feelings must be rude. Since their feelings are paramount, the criticism must always be inaccurate.

This explains why so many idiot young white feminists automatically assume that the crying girl is right, rather then just crying. We don’t know if her claim if valid, we only know she is crying. Only idiots conflate the two.

Perhaps that was too plainly stated, and feminists need a more polite version in order to avoid becoming distracted by their own emotional reaction. Intellectualized gobbledeegook once again saves the princess from dealing with reality:

In order to establish a more nuanced dynamic inclusive of protected emotive environments without negatively impacting group cohension and individual authenticity, it becomes necessary to encourage a scaling growth pattern reflecting objective social normatives in conjunctive with new behavioral modes which precludes excessive emo-pander-itis.

Thus ends today’s lesson which can be summarized: feminists are idiots if they lack the capacity to differentiate between emotion-based manipulation and fact-based evaluation.

Don’t compound your irrational dissonance further, you fucktard feminists: Stop equating “feminazi sees logical inconsistencies in transgenderism” with “feminazi thinks harrassment of transfolk is okay”. And for the last goddamn time, stop blaming others because you lack the capacity to think through this shit for yourself.

Yes, I’m condeeeeescending — that’s what always happens when adults speak to retards. Patience ain’t my strong suit, and some idiot’s insistence on focusing on their own emotional reaction instead of addressing the actual criticism merely proves my entire point. Want some respect? Then grow the fuck up.

I hope that was clear enough for you.

25 Responses to “George Orwell hates your Crying Game”

  1. thebewilderness Says:

    Criminy, you make me blush, and I love it when you talk jabberwocky.

  2. bonobobabe Says:

    mAndrea,

    I love you with the heat of a thousand suns. 🙂

    For instance, that remark taught me about the crying girls who expect everybody to drop the original criticism because they are sad.

    According to them, if their feelings are hurt in any way, then the person who hurt their feelings must be rude. Since their feelings are paramount, the criticism must always be inaccurate.

    That is the IBTP forum to a T.

  3. pisaquaririse Says:

    You took the frustration right outta my head.
    Grrrrracious I am tired of the kowtowing!

    “We don’t know if her claim if valid, we only know she is crying. Only idiots conflate the two.”

    I think the other conflation going on here (which you essentially say but I’m driving this home) is that those of us who don’t always respond emotionally do not have *personal feelings* on the matter. And by the way, “emotionally,” for some reason, seems only to immediately mean negative reactions like *sad* or *angry* or *upset*. Happiness or agreement or confusion or ambiguity expressed are never really seen as “someone being emotional.” I think back-seating other emotions like this perpetuates a situation wherein someone can always take center stage by proclaiming they are hurt. It’s a breeding ground for emotional manipulation.

    (Note: I am not against negative reactions or “emotional” ones. But emotions are not *points*–usually more a sign that you disagree with the statement being made. I use emotions as indicators all the time.)

    Quoting TheBewilderness will always make your post more brilliant. I highly recommend more of it.

    Kick bootah m Andrea! Do stay around a while.

  4. m Andrea Says:

    Thanks! But it’d be better if there wasn’t so much swearing. That being said, I think I’m just going to start telling certain people to sod off and then link to this post. It’s time the children understand that they are in fact children; mature people do not pull that guilt trippy crap.

    And that quote by TBW really is like a jewel, you can get so much more out of it simply by looking through it from another angle.

  5. pisaquaririse Says:

    Whatddya mean “swearing”?

  6. m Andrea Says:

    There’s a couple places which just cries out to be “Twistified”, but alas I suck.

  7. bonobobabe Says:

    Please do not “twistify” your posts. Twisty’s analysis is always spot-on and brilliant, but alas her blog smacks of classism. I have TWO college degrees and I sometimes have to look up words, and I often have trouble understanding her. She claims if you don’t understand her it’s because you’re a neophyte blamer, but I think she’s using big words to put people in their place, and I don’t like it. People with smaller vocabularies are hurt by the patriarchy, too.

    There may be something to the idea that using swear words will make your argument seem less valid, but replacing swear words with good, solid prose should be fine. No need for 5 dollar words.

  8. pisaquaririse Says:

    Further OT: This past weekend and for the first time ever I pointed my parents to my blog. They both came back with criticisms about my swearing (to which I’m like PSSHHH–they raised me on a sailor’s tongue!)
    My dad was like “I *get it*–you’re just trying to be ‘edgy’.”
    I was like “Diiiiiiiissssed!”

  9. m Andrea Says:

    I bet you rock at math and chemistry, though! Having the hard sciences come easy is the better deal, imo. If you think of those twistified words as nonsense words which are meant to convey a “sense” rather then anything in particular, it’s easier to parse out what her intended meaning actually is without bothering to look it up. And if you know the latin root then it’s even easier to guess, and the test is if it works in the rest of the sentence. Big words are like puzzles and a long string of them is logic set to music, at least the best ones are; and Twisty has elevated that to a whole ‘nother level.

    Incidently, the transfolk won’t even notice that I can loathe some of Twisty’s politics yet still admire her; their simple world is all good/all bad.

    PisaQ, I never notice the swearing in your writing, which means it has flow. Mine glares out at me because I only use it when I can’t think of anything better most of the time. And avoiding swearing would require rewriting all the sentences around it.

  10. bonobobabe Says:

    I bet you rock at math and chemistry, though!

    Who me? Not really. I mean, I am a microbiologist. I work in a lab. However, I don’t feel that I’m stronger with math and science. I pretty much scored about the same in every subject. In fact, I was an English major for my first two years of college!

    I have a pretty good vocab, I think. But I had to look up obstreperous. Come on. Who uses that word ever? And Twisty supposedly has a problem with people posting things without perfect grammar, she doesn’t like ellipses, etc.

    I just think it’s sickening to worry about someone’s grammar if they post a comment about how they’ve been harassed at work, or raped, or whatever. Some things are indeed more important.

  11. buggle Says:

    I like swearing, personally. I don’t like feeling like I should be a dainty little lady or some crap. So, I like other bloggers who swear.

    I SOOO agree about Twisty- I mean hey, write whatever you want, but they are so rude over there sometimes if you don’t use perfect grammar or whatever. Rude to new posters who DARE to not capitalize or use ellipses… I agree that it’s classist. I don’t bother looking her words up. Maybe if I didn’t have to WORK for a living, I’d have time to learn a bunch of big impressive words. (yeah, I’m snarky).

    And um, yeah, what bonobobabe said about the IBTP forums, YES! Just because someone’s feelings are hurt, doesn’t mean that I did something BAD to them. Blah.

    thebewilderness’s comment is so right on, I see that happening so much, that twisting and manipulating. I used to just not have a response to it, because I didn’t realize what they were doing. I love me some TBW smartness 🙂

    Can I be a pain in the ass though, and say that I don’t really think you should call people “retards?”

  12. m Andrea Says:

    “Can I be a pain in the ass though, and say that I don’t really think you should call people “retards?””

    lol I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up. I debated using it, as it’s insulting mentally handicapped people, but ultimately decided it was Orwellian in the extreme to believe that stupid people will suddenly grow more brain cells if we just call them something else. Plus I really wanted to insult feminists!

    I’ve never understand the nit-picks over grammer and punctuation, especially when that’s the only criticism. It’s almost used as a silencing technique, to keep the little people in their place. Although it does make it harder to read when people don’t capitalize sentences.

  13. bonobobabe Says:

    Here’s a link to a post where the commenters harped on some woman who didn’t use capitalization and ran her off. Twisty didn’t participate, but she didn’t intervene, either. The woman even said that she had some physical problem with her hands, and I believe one person told her to get special software! They were like a pack of wolves, and some said things like, “Well, I personally don’t have a problem, but Twisty will tear you a new one.” It was fucking pathetic.

    http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/07/15/anal-is-the-new-third-base/

  14. m Andrea Says:

    I read that particular post, there didn’t seem to be any good reason for the pile-on. Many great philosphers and writers have made the point that grammer and punctuation have no coorelation to anything, but yet, being able to diagram a ninety word sentence results in great reading comprehension. Which is why I have no respect for Nietzsche, the guy never said a damn thing in twenty pages.

    Just remember you are all free to call me on *my* shit! I have an extremely thick skin (think high functioning Asperger person), and have to make a concious effort to remember the more sensitive people, but probably forget to do so half the time. The only way I know how to consider the sensitive person’s feelings is not to ask how I would react to such-and-such, but how would a child react. Which is itself insulting, but I haven’t figured out a better way.

    But Bonobobabe! You are a really smart person, that is obvious! It is an honor to have such intelligent people post here. I would attempt to follow TBW around at Twisty’s forum just to soak in her brillance, but I’d end up screaming at them all. I do not have her patience to tolorate bad logic.

    Just let me know when I do something stupid, ‘k?

  15. starfish Says:

    To give you something to read, gracious hosting person:

    Well, to carry on with pisaquarise’s(sp?) point about all different emotions, I was say that this post clearly has an emotional aspect. ie. your frustration, possibly anger, but I expect you know that. That’s what rants are, aren’t they?

    I’m glad you’ve somewhat explained the dissing of children, who I’m a great fan of. They’re at the bottom of the hierarchical heap anyway… couldn’t we find some other less oppressed group to name in their stead. Howabout, “whining and flailing like MRA’s” – something like that.

    Also, anytime a feminist woman (including myself) quotes teh menz (Orwell here), I always wonder about the woman/women dealing with the “shit and stringbeans” (to reference a post quoting from _The Women’s Room_at Deb’s Burning Times) of said man’s life, allowing him the leisure to pursue writings of “reason”.

    As an aside, I do have personal experience of being called Aspie by a woman who lives, speaks, acts mostly directly from her emotional responses and equates that with her actually being “in touch” with her feelings, as opposed to someone like me who is, from her pov, all calm, reasonable = patronising, condescending, (like her second husband, apparently!).

    Seeing as I have an ellipses problem, I’d almost certainly run into trouble posting at IBTP, though I seldom read there much ’cause I find it pretty classist generally… that’s my main issue with it anyway.

  16. Level Best Says:

    Thanks all of you who have addressed classism. I don’t know why some bloggers and commenters don’t grok that any group that is oppressed and disadvantaged from birth just might (a) not automatically have the means to obtain higher education and therefore perfect grammar and spelling and (b) still have valid points and a firm grasp on reality. This is an interesting post, m’Andrea!

  17. Level Best Says:

    Sorry, that should be mAndrea. I don’t mean to mis-address.

  18. m Andrea Says:

    “I was say that this post clearly has an emotional aspect. ie. your frustration, possibly anger, but I expect you know that. That’s what rants are, aren’t they?”

    Starfish!! You are too intelligent for that bullshit! Stop it now!! Besides that, you hurt my fweelings; therefore you must be wrong.

    Please do not make the mistake of minimizing the purpose of this post, or of proving my point: that some would prefer to shift the focus from the actual criticism to the feelings of the victim.

  19. m Andrea Says:

    How bizarre. WordPress is all wonky.

    Btw, I removed my first reply because it was too rude.

  20. luckynkl Says:

    Moderation is always key. Tho logic is important, emotion is important as well. I have no desire to be a robot or a man. I know the worship of men and the hatred of women is in, hip and cool these days, but I’ll pass. Logic, of course, is associated with men. Hence, logic = cool and valuable. Emotion is associated with women. Hence, emotion = worthless and uncool.

    Men’s emotional development is arrested and stunted at an early age by our society so that he never much progresses past the emotional level of a 5 year old. You may think this cool. I do not. Because emotion is what makes us human. Without it, we could just be replaced by machines. Which may explain why men find machines so fascinating. They identify with them!

    In short, devoid of emotion, humans become dysfunctional, robotic and limited.

    However, that doesn’t mean one has to now throw the baby out with the bath water. Again, moderation is key. IOWs, a healthy balance between logic and emotion. Both should be considered valuable and cool, not just one. They are not opposites, as men have made them out to be. They are both healthy and necessary to be a functional human being.

    That said, you’re talking about here, is something a bit different, mAndrea. What you’re talking about is manipulation, not emotion. Sure, emotion can be used as a manipulative tool, and often is. But the same holds true for logic.

  21. m Andrea Says:

    I don’t understand Lucky, how can you manipulate with logic? Something is either true or not true. I always go with logic first, and then run the facts through the emotion filter by asking “how do I feel about it?” Sometimes I decide that some thing would logically be the better option, but I just like the non-logical option better. But I won’t develope wacky justifications for my choice just because I like the non-logical option more — that would be unlogical!

    I’m probably misunderstanding you. The only way I could see logic being manipulative would be if the facts were distorted, which would render it untrue.

  22. bonobobabe Says:

    I don’t know what luckynkl means by manipulation with logic, but I can think of some examples where a man would use logic and facts to force a woman to do something that she didn’t FEEL comfortable with. Let’s say a married couple is investing their money. The man says that based on past performance, rate of return, etc. that they should invest their money in X. Woman says, “I have a bad feeling about X. I don’t know why. I just don’t like it.” Then man berates her until she gives in, and then a few months later, they lose all their savings. Man will, of course, find a way to blame THAT on woman as well.

    It’s like what you said above. You might like the non-logical option better, but a man would call you names and insist that you do the logical thing. That’s probably not manipulation, though, since manipulation is subtler.

    A lot of times I see logic go wrong because the conclusion follows logically from the premises, but the premises are full of shit. And the men state them as if they are true. Kind of like: Woman are X. You are a woman. Therefore, you are X. And if you aren’t, I will shame you for not being a proper female. So, that might be manipulation, a way to get women to act a certain way by insisting that all women are X, and you should be, too.

    I could also just be rambling. I’m in that kind of mood. 🙂

  23. Sis Says:

    Unfortunately what is logical thinking to one culture is nonsense to another, as I believe Franklin learned, too late.

  24. Kim Says:

    “Retard?”

  25. m Andrea Says:

    Kim, you may not be aware of this, but the terms imbicile, idiot, moron, retard, all used to have specific clinical meanings and indicated a person who possessed cognitive abilities within a very narrow range.

    Not being able to identify (or solve) extremely simple logic problems qualifies as below-average intelligence — so referring to someone by their cognitive capabilities is quite truthful and accurate. As the terms came into popular use, the social workers would create new words to describe the same old thing in order to spare the delicate sensibilities of sensitive souls. Suppose I could call these folks “developementally disabled” or “mentally handicapped” if you prefer, although the latest term is some variation on “learning disabled”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#Archaic_terms

    Sis, while “cultural relativism” is up for debate, “logical relativism” doesn’t even exist. That’s another one of those “hey you’re hurting my fweelings so you must be wrong” kinda tactics. I am thooooo evooool. Actually, pretty sure I am, sorry.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: