For the past year or more much has been made about online harassment. Groups have formed to combat it, countless articles have been written and even the UN had their own typically impotent committee. What has made all of this happen is the distortion and watering down of the words “safety” and “violence” so that first-world snowflakes can hold a straight face while they tell the cameras and their potential “victim bucks” donors that they don’t feel safe. Ironically much of this was started by Anita Sarkeesian who criticized the “damsel in distress” trope used in games, Mario Bros being her laughable primary example, but then herself went on to make money and achieve fame by being pretending to be a damsel in distress.
I tried to speak about this on BaconBits last night but upon reviewing my comments I was not satisfied I made my point. So, as the website promises, I am continuing the show here.
Last night I said that these people didn’t understand what violence was. It has become readily apparent that the word has lost all meaning when you use it in relation to social media platforms such as Twitter. Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO, even went so far as to use the word “safety” in his new Trust and Safety Council. Obviously the implication being that people, in particular women, aren’t safe using Twitter. So twisted has the definition become that SJWs now say they are made unsafe by disagreements. Every 8-year old understands that sticks and stones may break his bones but words will never hurt him. So why, then, is this basic concept lost on the rabid feminists and outrage culture junkies of the internet?
All over the world there are people who would see it as a major miracle if the only violence they had to worry about was “online” violence. This Twitter “safety” issue exemplifies what people mean when they refer to first world problems. You could list the people, particularly women, in other parts of the world who face actual violence and literally are not safe and not run out of examples for hours. In parts of the world, for instance, you must have 4 male witnesses to report a rape, in other parts of the world they will toss you from a building for being gay, behead you for being Christian, amputate your arms for being in the wrong tribe as they do in Sierra Leone or turn you into a child soldier.
Those people aren’t safe, in the literal and intended sense of the word. Keyboard activists, by comparison, are completely safe from everything, save disagreements and the occasional mean tweet. Someone issuing a refutation of your latest accusation of sexism, be it in video or Tweet form, does not mean you are imperiled. It means you have critics.
I would like to think that were some of these SJWs dropped into a country where real violence is a daily occurrence they would be ashamed of themselves for screaming about their safety while sending out Tweets on their iMacs and raking in Patreon bucks.
People like Sarkeesian live and work in the greatest country on earth and enjoy access to opportunity and wealth unequaled in most of history and what they choose to do with that freedom and prosperity is whine and redefine serious concepts until they have lost all real-world meaning. Just imagine telling people who reside in third world nations that your biggest concern isn’t starvation, beatings, imprisonment by a tyrannical government or being killed by a falling bomb but mean Tweets. How many women in the world would trade places with every single member of Jacks Trust and Safety Council? How many women in the world wish they had the time, freedom, money and carefree life style that would allow them to post videos online about sexist video games or men whistling at them on the street?
What Anita and her fellow SJWs need is an all expense paid trip around the world. Perhaps then they could gain some perspective and maybe come to understand what violence means.