Sunday, March 06, 2016

Crybullies need group therapy after Milo visit

The crybully movement is still going strong on US campuses. These are university students who combine aggressive demonstrations against their opponents with claims that their opponents are triggering their mental health problems.

The latest incidents occurred when the conservative media outlet sent their tech editor, Milo Yiannopoulos, to give talks at several campuses. Milo is a well-presented, plain-speaking, homosexual, conservative journalist. Not exactly what you think would be scary to 21st century students, but nonetheless his presence on campus triggered a mental health hysteria amongst left-wing student activists.

Here is what happened at Rutgers University:
Students at Rutgers University were so traumatised by Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos’ visit to their campus that they had to hold a group therapy session, campus newspaper The Daily Targum reports.

According to the paper, students and faculty members held a wound-licking gathering at a cultural center on campus, where students described “feeling scared, hurt, and discriminated against.”

“A variety of different organizations and departments were present to listen, answer questions and show support” to the apparently weak and vulnerable students, who just a few days prior had disrupted Yiannopoulos’ event by smearing fake blood on their faces and chanting protest slogans.

One student at the event told the Targum that they “broke down crying” after the event, while another reported that he felt “scared to walk around campus the next day.” According to the report, “many others” said they felt “unsafe” at the event and on campus afterwards.

“It is upsetting that my mental health is not cared about by the University,” said one student at the event. “I do not know what else to do for us to be heard for us to be cared about. I deserve an apology, everyone in this room deserves an apology.”

A number of organizations were at the event to offer support to the poor, traumatised students. These included Psychiatric Services, the Office for Violence Prevention and Victim Assistance, and the Rutgers University Police. However, as far as we know, none of the protesting students were institutionalized, arrested for vandalism, or for assaulting the peaceful attendees of Milo’s talk with red paint.

Even more astonishingly campus authorities are encouraging this kind of attitude amongst the students. The "student life centre" at the University of Michigan organised a group therapy session for students to heal from Milo's visit; and the University of California Los Angeles cancelled a similar talk by another Breitbart figure, Ben Shapiro, after students complained that it would be a "threat to their lives" and "would be damaging to their mental health".

A similar outpouring of anguish occurred after Milo's visit to the University of Pittsburgh, where the Rainbow Alliance organised a safe space "for those who have experienced trauma, been triggered, or felt any kind of pain because of the events".

But why? Why would leftist activists hold themselves open to ridicule in this way? I'm not confident I know the exact reason but I can suggest a few possibilities.

First, feminists and POC activists on campus are used to getting ahead by promoting their victim status. This means, first, that presenting yourself as a fragile victim may not have the same negative connotations within their circles that it does elsewhere. It might, too, disrupt the normal processes of building adult resilience and so lead to poor mental health outcomes.

Second, a liberal ideology claims that there is no objective right or wrong, but that value is to be found in the free act of choice that individuals make in defining their own good. Therefore, there is a problem for leftists in seeking to formally impose a one view orthodoxy on campus - it violates their own beliefs. Leftists do have a few ways round the problem. They can claim that the opposing views are not in line with the liberal idea of respecting others in defining their own good via qualities such as respect for inclusion, diversity, non-discrimination etc. In other words, they can use the catchphrase "hate speech" in shutting down views they don't like. However, there is also a history of liberals using the issue of health as a "neutral" and "scientific" standard of determining what is permissible. It is possible that this explains the appeal to campus authorities that "x cannot be allowed because it is detrimental to health".

Third, it is possible that some young women and POC don't find campus a congenial environment, i.e. that they are discomfited by an environment not designed around them, and that this really does create some psychological distress for them.

Whatever the case, it is extraordinary to witness university students carry on in this way: to respond hysterically to the presence of one person holding views different to their own.


  1. Many of these fools will be absolutely useless when they graduate. They will be entirely unable to cope with the stresses and crises of ordinary life. I suspect very many are entering third-level education that are entirely unsuited for it, because there are no longer any viable careers for them upon leaving second level. They also seem to leave second level schooling still extremely immature, and terrified of growing up, responsibility and commitment. One would fear for their futures, then again fear of the future is endemic among them.

  2. The most advantageous political battlefield is the one on which you are free to attack viciously and are rewarded for doing so, and one on which you cannot be counter-attacked.

    Those high on the cultural Marxist victim hierarchy get attention, credulous sympathy, and often rewards when they lament and accuse designated oppressors of hurting them, while those they point the finger at get punished and silenced.

    Designated oppressors such as white men cannot fight back in the same way, but are mocked, belittled and punished if they cry victim.

  3. Indeed some are merely emotional incompetents. Others, however, are behaving this way because it is a highly effective tactic for disrupting and blocking potential speakers. University management is generally weak and cowardly in front of their agonised and emotional demands, and if the activists are black the admin are on thin ice.

    1. The use of "unsafe" and related terms isn't exactly because the SJWs are truly afraid. It's designed to convince the admins that they face Clery Act investigations. If they were merely offended, no one really cares. But to raise the specter of violence forces everyone left-of-center into the Overton Window of the Civil Rights Movement mythology.

    2. We should also note that their tactics are mostly tame and prankish, rather than the armed occupations, building burnings, riots, and Weathermen during the 1960s-70s.

  4. I don't think these students feel the least bit "unsafe" or "triggered" or "traumatised" - they have simply found that this is an excellent way to shut down debate and silence dissent.

    It terrifies the university authorities because they have visions of facing lawsuits from students pretending to be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or some other nonsense. So the authorities cave in every time, and the crybullies win every time.

    It's a symptom of the feminisation of society. Women have always used these tactics to get their own way. If they're losing an argument the tears start. Now SJW men have learned to use the same tactics.

    There's a simple way to deal with this - tell these students that if the campus makes them feel unsafe they should leave. Tell them they are being asked to leave the university for their own protection.

  5. Am I the only one to wonder why the government will happily spend millions of dollars to assist the proslytising of Islam but insist that Bible stories have no place in our school system? Or that Christmas carols are corrupt reflections of colonial mind control but it's ok for students to wear any weird clothing as long as it reflects a foreign fashion of heterodoxical perversion...

    Notwithstanding the economic support provided by the mining boom, people are worried about the future now that Australia has effectively become a third world country.. They are worried about their jobs, paying their bills and the future of our country. They are worried that we are seeing the decline of the Australian way of life – our cultural norms, our values and social mores.

    They should be worried because the evidence is there for all to see. But being worried isn’t enough and we simply cannot afford to wait around another 6 months until the next election or until theres some sort of coup inspired by black flag wielding heretics hellbent on ideological usurping of the judaeo christian order.

    It’s time for conservatives to do something different. It’s time for them to let others know they are as mad as hell and they’re not going to take it any more! That they are utterly and completely mad and won't be quiet about.