Stop being nice to leftist intimidators

By Patrice Lewis

As we watch our nation becoming more and more divided, one troubling trend is accelerating with amazing speed: the increase in “-ist” accusations.

If you’re white, you’re automatically a racist. If you’re a man, you’re automatically sexist. If you’re a boss, you’re automatically an oppressive capitalist. If you live in Idaho, you’re automatically a white supremacist (trust me on this). And on and on it goes. Judgmental. Hater. Intolerant. Phobic. Did I miss anything?

Accusations of “-ist” became widespread because they were so effective. Ever try to engage a liberal in conversation? The moment – the moment! – you say something they don’t like, the accusations start. “Hater!”

How do you argue against that? Most people immediately move into defensive mode, sputtering denials the other party soaks up like water, causing their baseless accusations to bloom and flourish. “Hater! Racist pig! Sexist jerk!” And on and on it goes.

A defensive reaction to these groundless accusations is normal and nearly universal. Progressive activists (also known as Social Justice Warriors, or SJWs) have learned to exploit it like few other groups ever have. Why? Because it works. They’ve learned there are rewards for being offended.

You see, most people are nice and decent and just want to get along. We operate under the old rules of civility, which dictate that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, and if we disagree, we shrug and agree to disagree.

But SJWs don’t operate under these rules. And the sooner you understand that, dear readers, the sooner you can learn how to respond to their attacks.

Because we are rational – and because we mistakenly assume others are too – whenever an SJW called us a name (racist/sexist/hater/whatever), we’d stop and examine our behavior/words/attitude/lifestyle, concerned they might be right. And although we couldn’t see what was offensive, in the interest of getting along we would dutifully change whatever thing they found distasteful. Then we’d come back and proudly say, “OK, I’ve done what you’ve asked. I’ve changed, so now I’m not racist/sexist/whatever anymore.”

“Oh yes you are!” the SJW would accuse. And we’d go away puzzled, trying to further examine our behavior/words/attitude/lifestyle to determine how we could possibly be what they accuse us of being. And more importantly for the SJW in question, we’d also shut up.

Or, as Vox Day so succinctly put it, the following is a typical exchange:

Liberal 1: Attack, ATTACK! Attack, attack, attack! ATTACK!
Liberal 2: ATTACK! ATTACK!
Conservative: Defend.
Liberal 1: So rude!
Liberal 2: Yes, very rude.

Bottom line: We have to stop being nice and decent to people who accuse us of an “-ism.” We have to stop trying to see their side. We have to stop assuming we are wrong. We have to stop thinking that if we turn the other cheek, they’ll understand that we’re not “-ist” and stop accusing us.

I call this the “doctrine of hurt feelings,” and it’s resulted in society waking around on eggshells – and for a very good reason. Charges of being “-ist” are irrefutable, along the lines of “Have you stopped beating your wife yet, yes or no?” Since no one wants to be metaphorically accused of beating his wife, our language has becoming sanitized and our behavior wary.

SJWs know that no one likes to be scorned or mocked. Consciously or unconsciously, most people avoid situations where they will be intimidated, isolated, or impugned. By accusations and insinuations, SJWs can intimidate individuals into silence and thus, by default, gain more ground toward their totalitarian agenda. And since the mainstream media are firmly in their court, SJWs can count on the fact that the media will only report their progress in favorable terms (while painting conservatives as buck-toothed knuckle-draggers, of course).

The only way we can stop the SJW agenda is to deny them the ability to shut us up. How? For starters, when you are called an “-ist,” don’t rise to the bait.

Do you hate or disparage a group of people primarily on the basis of melanin content? No? Then you’re not a racist. Do you loath half the world’s population because of their chromosomal makeup? No? Then you’re not a sexist.

Once you have determined, logically and rationally, that you are not the “-ist” that someone has labeled you, then that person is either illogical, irrational, or is attempting to shut you up simply because you are a threat to their agenda. And people like that do not deserve a “civilized” response.

So what should you say?

Consider this brief comment exchange on a WND article:

Male 1: “How did Europeans turn into such a bunch of sissies?”
Male 2: “Feminism did it.”
Female 1: “Oh, here we go again. Try growing a pair, and women’s rights won’t scare you so bad.”
Male 2: “Spare me the shaming tactics. It’s so old school Marxism. People are over it and it has no effect except to indicate the ineptitude of the accuser.”

This brief conservation sums it up well. Two people are minding their own business and having a conversation. A Social Justice Warrior jumps in and throws out an accusation of “-ist.” But this time, the accused lobs back two important bombs: 1) indifference; and 2) disdain for the SJW’s opinion and for the person.

The conversation ended. The SJW was defeated and retreated from the scene.

For far too long, well-meaning decent people have been brainwashed into believing they are the problem. They are told they need to shut up and suppress their innate understanding of right and wrong. They’re told the “truths that are self-evident” are really not true at all.

This is why it’s important to shut down the SJWs. We can no longer afford to be temperate or moderate in our answers. We must, in the cause of decency, no longer compromise our understanding of right and wrong.

As a result of this failure to stand up and to strike back, our nation – and the world – is in great danger from some pretty durned big “-isms.” As the saying goes, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

So what are these big “-isms” plunging the world into danger? How about communism? Totalitarianism? Radical Islamism?

If the SJWs were truly concerned about social justice, they would fight tooth and nail against these horrific “-isms.”

But they’re not. What does that tell you? Whose side are they on?

Learn how to achieve a simple lifestyle without “going green” or joining a monastery. Read Patrice Lewis’ helpful book, “The Simplicity Primer: 365 Ideas for Making Life more Livable”

Media wishing to interview Patrice Lewis, please contact [email protected].

Leave a Comment