The Culture of “Crybullying”: Using Claims of Victimhood to Harass Others

Helen Joyce has “penned” a vigorous reply to our “traumatized” culture.

In their 2018 book The Rise of Victimhood Culture, sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning describe how honour and dignity cultures are giving way to a moral code which elevates the oppressed. Call-outs and cancellations, they explain, are status-raising tactics, in which people claim to have been harmed by problematic views and to have suffered micro-aggressions in order to don the mantle of victimhood.

The spread of victimhood culture has helped popularise novel gender identities (non-binary, agender) and sexual orientations (aroace, pansexual) since they allow people to claim membership of oppressed groups without experiencing any actual hardship. It is also driving the self-diagnosis of mental illnesses, from quotidian conditions such as anxiety and depression, to boutique ones such as multiple-personality disorder or a novel form of Tourette’s transmitted by TikTok. 

More generally, this is a culture that encourages young people to regard themselves as traumatised. According to Jonathan Haidt, co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind, US schools and universities have started to promote three pernicious falsehoods: that what doesn’t kill you makes you weaker; that feelings are a good guide to reality and action; and that life is a battle between good people and evil ones.

These dysfunctional beliefs, which Haidt dubs “anti-cognitive behavioural therapy”, promote mental fragility. They encourage people to feel fearful of ordinary words and to regard censorship as virtuous. The logic goes like this: being dis-agreed with makes you a victim; victims are good; people saying things you disagree with therefore deserve to be silenced and punished. This is the culture of “crybullying”: using claims of victimhood to harass others.


Why do we give veto power to the weakest, most immature members of society? Why are they allowed to control what can and cannot be discussed? Or which words may and may not be spoken? What if they are not merely weak, or immature, but delusional?

When it comes to Gender Ideology we must love without submitting to bullying blackmail. And the denial of reality.

Adults. Resist. Lovingly. But resist. With integrity.

Companion Post

+++

Love Refuses To Affirm Confusion

NY City Venue Cancelled Her For Saying Sex is Real

The indefatigable Mary Harrington was just cancelled in New York City for defending reality. A book show for the US launch of her book Feminism Against Progress was scheduled for April 26.

“The contract was signed, the deposit was sent. But then something happened: The venue—which bills itself as “inclusive”—got critical comments on social media, and suddenly called it off.”

You can read what Harrington has to say about it here.

Excerpt:

…there is a difference between a commitment to ideas and a commitment to ideology. Pursuing the truth isn’t the same as refusing to notice anything that doesn’t fit your vision. Sometimes ideas and ideology are hard to tell apart, however. I have tremendous sympathy for the young people duped by gender ideology into self-mutilation. I dare say those who now seek to silence the quiet reminder, from a middle-aged mother, that biology still exists, sincerely believe they are making the world a better place.

But just because you find a viewpoint sympathetic doesn’t mean it’s true. Humans still can’t change sex. Even in New York City, embodied sex still matters. Deep down, fast-talking, freewheeling, street-smart, and book-smart New York still knows this. The show will go on. Somehow, somewhere we will hold the book launch. In the face of powerful resistance, we will defend reality.


+++

Courage

UK Prevent: Radicalization Could Occur From Reading C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Huxley or Conrad. I Kid You Not

An article in The Spectator by Douglas Murray is a critique of the UK government’s Prevent program, which was set up to counter radicalization and extremism.

Murray argues that the program has expanded its scope beyond Islamist extremism to include right-wing extremism, which is defined very broadly and arbitrarily by left-wing activist groups.

Murray cites a report by Prevent’s own research unit, which claimed that people who follow pro-Brexit and centre-right commentators on social media are at risk of being radicalized. He mocks this claim and suggests that it is an attempt to stigmatize and silence opinions that are shared by many British people. (And beyond)

He mentions Lewis, Tolkien and Orwell as examples of authors whose works could be seen as potential sources of radicalization by Prevent. Because according to Prevent’s logic, radicalization could occur from reading C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Huxley or Conrad. Murray adds that he is not kidding and that this is based on a document by Prevent’s education team that was leaked in 2019. The document listed these authors as examples of ‘challenging texts’ that could be used to ‘stimulate discussion’ with students who might be at risk of extremism.

This is absurd and shows how Prevent has lost its focus and credibility.

FULL STORY

+++