“I Say, Therefore, I Am”… How The Left Reinvented Reality…

“And thus, the actions of life often not allowing any delay, it is a truth very certain that, when it is not in our power to determine the most true opinions we ought to follow the most probable.”
― Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method

In my article, “Woke” Or Still Dreaming???, I pondered the finer points of being “woke” and how it could be merely an illusion, a dream that one is unaware that they are in fact dreaming! However, there is a related point in a similar train of thought: If dreams vs. wakefulness can be called into doubt, what about the concept of reality???

See, we all mostly take for granted what we think “reality” is. What is reality? Facts? Figures? Opinions? Experiences? etc… The scientist tries to determine reality through the seeking out of facts. Proven and testable hypothesis to create theories for how the world works such as gravity, discovering natural laws, such as Newton’s laws of motion for instance. Things we feel confident enough, have enough evidence to say, “yeah, this is most likely to the extent of our knowledge how things are”… The philosopher can ponder the natures of more intangible things: What is our purpose? What is love? Emotions? (Although neuroscience is getting more and more of a say in that 😉 ) Can we really know if we are in a dream, or if we even “exist”? What does it mean to exist? And so on…

Reality is not just one narrow view, but is comprised of many different angles. The abstract must have a different nature to it than the concrete and tangible, but we both consider abstract concepts like justice, or love to be “real” as well as matter or air! However one cannot say that they can exist in identical ways as each other! Then again, reality isn’t just about whether or not things exist! Reality can also comprise of factual statements, factual knowledge. For example citing a statistic, let’s say, “1 in 5 women are raped”. It’s either true or not true. If the statement is proven to be factual, then we can consider it part of our reality, a truth in our world. However, if that statistic is incorrect, then it is not real….

Look, I apologize for going on a lengthy “meditation” on the many facets of the nature of “reality” but let me just get to the point: The Left purports that reality is subjective, and relative, and we each can have our own reality! Their premise is this; we all have our own experiences, colored by who we are, our socio-economic status, our race, gender, sexuality, etc…etc… And on this basis, therefore, we each have our own individual “reality”, how the world treats us and how we perceive the world. On its face, it’s not a ridiculous idea. It is true we all will perceive the world differently. Many things in this like ARE subjective. A man cannot experience the world as a woman. A person of color will have a different experience than a white person. And so on…

However, the problem starts when this view of a subjective reality takes over completely! For example, many Leftist doctrines say that people of color must always be believed that they were “microaggressed” or that someone was racist towards them not based on concrete facts or statistics, but on their word alone just by virtue of being a person of color! Simply because they’re a minority, their reality must supersede anyone else’s who’s not a minority! The white person’s perspective on what transpired gets zero credence! Well, what if they never meant to be hurtful or racist in that question they asked? What if the statistics don’t show any racial or gender bias against the job candidate who was rejected and the hiring manager clearly stated it was due to something completely unrelated they weren’t chosen? Whose version of the events must be believed?

What about the woman saying her reality is comprised of 1 in 5 women being raped, or women only getting 77% of their paychecks and no one is allowed to question it because it’s “her reality” and men can’t have an opinion, not because these assertions were objectively tested and proven true for everyone! And if she claims she was assaulted, “her reality” must be believed over the guy’s side of the story since she’s now the “victim” in her reality… Or what about the man who says he’s now a woman, so we must take him at his word or be labeled “transphobic”? As they say, every story has two sides, but apparently one side now supersedes the other’s validity if they’re in a special interest group!

Just like Descartes postulated “I think therefore I am”, the left’s new motto should be “I say, therefore I am” since they believe that they can speak their own reality into existence! I say to the world I am a woman now and no longer a guy? Done! I say I was discriminated against without providing concrete evidence? Done! I say he assaulted me that night I can’t even remember the details of? Done! Saying something happened is enough for the Left to take it as gospel truth…

But… Wait a minute! What about the wider shared reality we all have??? Yes, we all have different perceptions of what happened, what we feel we’re experiencing, but that’s not enough! In science, that is called an anecdotal experience. One person’s experience is not the sum total of everyone’s! Just because you feel you were treated in a biased manner, doesn’t mean it actually happened! Just because you feel you were microaggressed against, doesn’t mean that’s what the person on the other end intended in the least! Just because you genuinely did get assaulted, or not given fair pay at a job you had, doesn’t mean every woman in the entire room did along with you! Yes, there are cases of real racism, bias, hatred, prejudice, injustice.

However, if you want to make sweeping statements, that apply to numerous people, hundreds, thousands, millions, you need more than just “I experienced it in my reality” to make it THE reality for the world! No, people, your reality is NOT reality if it’s something that extends beyond just your immediate experience! Yes, in “your reality” pizza can taste bad, and no one can argue otherwise, or you feel sad, no one can tell you, “no you don’t!”, however, “your reality” ends when other people come into the picture… Verifiable assertions that can be proven by an outside party are subject to scrutiny by everyone, not just the court of your personal opinion! That’s where statistics come in… 😉

It’s not just “my reality” that broken homes are detrimental, or women have XX chromosomes, or immigrants/refugees from 3rd world countries being in crime and drain resources. There is actual proof of these things occurring! This is where the earlier seemingly unrelated thoughts come into play from the beginning of my post… “Reality” is indeed not just one thing, that can only be seen from one angle. Proving abstract things are far harder than proving concrete ones. There are some “personal realities” that do exist, such as preferences for one color over another, certain foods, TV shows, hobbies, emotions etc… that no one can actually “prove” wrong!

However, there are plenty that can be determined to be “real” or not to the rest of the world! That’s what forensics, courts, clearly defined laws/rules, protocols, statistics, research studies, scientific experiments, peer review, evidence and such are for! Just because the researchers want the Nobel Prize really badly doesn’t mean they discovered a new element in their reality and it is considered valid for the rest of the scientific community! If the matter extends beyond your own inner mind, sorry kids, you have to share “your reality” with other people, and let them scrutinize it 😉 You can feel like you were discriminated against, or others like you are because of your own experiences, but if tests and studies and statistics say otherwise, then the reality for everyone else says “no”! One person’s reality is NOT 7.7 billion (as of now’s) reality!!! 

Look, the jig is up! Provide evidence, or quit whining! If you can’t test it, prove it, verify it, get the numbers to come to your conclusions, the research studies to verify your ideas, experiments to prove your hypothesis, then no, it’s NOT reality! And one last note, what about the other sides’ reality??? That’s right, the reality for the white person, the man, the cisgendered person, etc… The reality in which white people are guilt tripped via white privilege and denied jobs due to their skin color? The reality where a man can be ruined for life on one baseless, unsubstantiated allegation? The reality where women fear for themselves and their children in their own bathrooms and changing rooms? The reality where Asian-Americans are being held to a higher standards and denied in top colleges and universities on a racial stereotype? The reality of all the families whose children were killed by illegals? What about THEIR realities??? Oh, that’s right, the only reality is your reality!

Lefties, the saying goes “I THINK therefore, I am” NOT “I SAY therefore I am!” 😉

Related image


  1. Well, ALoR, I somehow managed to get through all this “discussion” without committing blogicide, but I really have to wonder if it was worth it. The only thing being proved to me here is that the accusations of both sides against the other side are just different words saying the same thing about each other, with a total lack of “reason” on either side.
    One side calls the other side “adult children” while the second side calls the first side “childish adults.” Same difference, so to speak.
    Have you written that post you promised yet? Or did I misread your intent?


  2. All the education an information available on the internet and people can’t seem to be able to think for themselves. It’s like a bunch of lemmings falling off the cliff. Note: if you don’t rember or never heard of lemmings, Google it or look it up. It’s called research.
    A little research can go a long way. What is harder to get is unbiased facts. Before you attack or go on warpath, try doing some research. Finding out what the actual truth actually is can be very liberating.

    Liked by 1 person

    • If you do your research, you will find lemmings do NOT jump off cliffs. Walt Disney faked that story in Edmonton using an oldstyle (compared to these days) record player and about a dozen lemmings. But everyone believed thst story, and so they now believe lemmings jump off cliffs. Now you believe that too, only YOU ARE WRONG! So much for your reality.


  3. Provide evidence, or quit whining!

    I don’t know whether to call you a liar or flatly say you are ignorant.

    You say you are “secular” yet you “like” every post incel misogynist “Wintery Knight” posts including “his” Christian apologetic posts.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ahh! Welcome back! I was afraid you lost interest in my blog! You’re a wonderful source of amusement to my followers and really keep the conversation going! 😉
      Oh, and P.S., there is such a thing as sharing common ground with people even if you have different reasoning for the same agreed upon conclusions, i.e. him being religious and me being secular but both being conservative….

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jesus Christ, Reject! Did someone piss in your Cheerios or what!? If you have a problem with the Knight, take it up with him. Just because Lady “likes” his comments doesn’t mean she subscribes to every little thing he says. But if she did, THAT’S HER PREROGATIVE. Not only that, she is a very polite person and appreciates the opinions of her readers, even yours, no matter how disgustingly hateful and divisive they are, if you actually had anything worth relating.

      How exactly is Lady a liar by asking that SJW’s like yourself actually provide EVIDENCE in an argument? I know that word is foreign to the Feelings Trump Facts crowd to which you ascribe, but true Criticsl Thinkers will have actual facts to provide in an argument. Btw, as this is an OPINION BLOG, Lady isn’t required journalistically to provide evidence as it’s her persuasive opinion we are here for, not her ability to write an informative news article. She presumes her readers are wise enough to already know what she’s talking about, or to look things up for themselves, and to form their own opinions. As we have seen in the recent past, research isn’t your forte so of course you demand proof from us in a bid to try and discount our well-informed opinions without providing evidence for your own. That’s an inequitable plane from which to try and hold an intelligent conversation. But then, I picture you as a gangweed-puffing basement monkey banging away at his keyboard in fits of rage that his whole M.O. has been outed as a mere fiction you have devised for yourself and insist is true. I like to sing like I’m a rock star but it doesn’t make me Rihanna, and your malevolent sarcasm doesn’t make you Bill Maher.

      As to Lady’s beliefs, instead of believing in an organized religion, she chooses to follow Common Sense and Reason. You Liberals keep trying to assume we are all Fundamentalist Christian, but I personally am Messianic Hebrew. We come from ALL walks of life and everyone has their own beliefs and opinions. We don’t demand everyone be the same like you NPC’s. You all think the same and look the same, wear hemp clothing, rarely bathe, have man-boobs growing from all the soy, etc. Don’t you get tired of repeating what Don Lemon says word for word like you’ve been hypnotized and inculcated? You’re all like a bunch of bots!!

      Btw, there you go again with your fallacious ad hominem attacks, calling Knight an “incel”!! But I suppose a bleach-huffing basement monkey like you would like to think no one else is “getting some” because you’re doomed to a lonely sex life of sock and hand lotion. Do try to come up with REAL arguments, not abject personal insults. In debate, name-calling is an automatic DQ, and that makes you DISQUALIFIED.

      Liked by 3 people

      • T Fool,

        Thanks once again for demonstrating your incorrigible ignorance of the ad hominem fallacy. A claimed fact is not an argument and therefore, by definition, cannot be fallacious. Claimed facts are either true or false and arguments are either valid or invalid. You seem incapable of grasping this. Your fifth grade debate team may not care about that distinction but everyone with a developed prefrontal cortex does. It’s hilarious when an ignoramus like yourself tries to lecture her superiors on what constitutes an argument! It’s cute like a t-baller lecturing a MLB player on how to play baseball!

        I predict: you’ll think that my accurately naming you an ignoramus constitutes committing the ad hominem fallacy, thereby demonstrating once again your ignorance and incomprehension of the difference between a claimed fact and an argument. But, consistent with the Dunning-Kruger effect, you’ll forge ahead. You’re in a hole and so ignorant as to what a hole is that you keep digging.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Defect, it’s seriously time to put the bong down and step away. I think you got some bad gangweed going on and you’re becoming a bit of a Chad. Your aggro is a macroaggression of masculine toxicity and white male privilege, and now I need my pink pussy hat, my binky and my Safe Space in mommy’s basement!!
        Oh wait, I just imagined I was you there for a second!!
        There you go with your fallacious concept of the Ad Hominem Fallacy AGAIN. I hope you asked Santa this year for a brain with apps for reading and comprehension because your parents obviously didn’t have any to pass on genetically.
        Please read, and PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME:
        “Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead ATTACKING THE CHARACTER, MOTIVE, OR OTHER ATTEIBUTE OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ARGUMENT, or persons associated with the argument, RATHER THAN ATTACKING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENT ITSELF.”
        To break it down AGAIN for your infinitesimally small mind, it’s like this – imagine we’re kids squabbling over a toy:

        Me: I should have it cuz Santa gave it to me!

        You: Yeah, well, you’re a doody-head!

        See what happened there? I reasoned the fact that it is my toy, and instead of refuting it, you resort to an ad hominem attack. That’s okay. You’re still mentally 4 years old so we don’t expect you to share toys with their owners, anyway.
        You’re evidence of what happens when idiots only see the word “fallacy” and then invent a whole new definition to cover what they want it to mean based on that word, rather than taking the time to go further than the headline. You failed to actually READ the FULL DEFINITION and see that you repeatedly resort to character assassination and name-calling to make your argument, which isn’t an argument, which is wherein lies the “fallacy”. Here’s an adult example of an argument we might have:

        Me: We need a border wall because according to the WaPo, statistics show that illegal immigrants cost Americans $170,000 per immigrant every year.

        You: You’re just a racist!!!!

        See how that went down? The wise Me provided a documented fact and instead of attacking the evidence or offering a counter argument, the ignorant You goes directly to a fallacious ad hominem attack on Me’s character. It’s what moron Leftists like You rely on when the facts decimate their “widdle feewings”.But we Republicans have learned to pat poor, badly-educated Democrats like them on the head and lead them to knowledge, and we can only pray you drink some up before you all die of sheer stupidity.

        Glad you mentioned my debate team! I only taught debate for two years because my next school had a divided speech and drama department and I admit I was more into the drama side of things. But I took teams to UIL State twice, and that was my first two years teaching altogether. Quite unheard of in the teaching biz, although I admit my first team were seasoned seniors, but I got them past Regionals for their first time, and to the semi-finals at State that year. But the proof is in the new team I started that first year who went to State the following year and actually won. Thanks for bringing them up! I love to toot our collective horns. I taught these kids how to research and have irrefutable facts in their arsenal, and how to attack an ARGUMENT instead of attacking their opponents motives or character because, once again, that will only disqualify them and then they’d be no better than you, who proves that an idiot who doesn’t actually read about the argument style he is arguing for is like a monkey who craps in his own hand and then flings it at others.

        Love, Time

        P.S. #ReadingIsFundanental

        Liked by 2 people

      • T Fool:

        LMAO! I predicted it! And you stepped right in because you can’t help yourself in your un-self-aware ignorance!

        Unless you can turn a statement of fact such as: “T Fool is an incorrigible ignoramus” into an argument your whole spiel is the obstreperous dreck of a coprophagous idiot.

        Your “argument” is based on the false premise that a statement of fact is an argument.

        Let the stupidity of that sink in. You are claiming that a fact (whether true or false) is an argument.

        Claim it is false all you want but to claim it is “fallacious” is a huge waving flag of “I’m a moron that doesn’t understand the basic distinction between facts and arguments.”

        Wave that flag T Fool. Wave it proudly in your Dunning-Kruger effect induced haze.

        Now, go ahead and waste hours of your time composing paragraphs of testimony to your ignorance.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dearest Defective Reject,

        I knew you’d beat that fallacious drum like the incapacitated imbecilic child you are. You refuse to read the definition and see how completely stupid you continue to look. And breaking out that thesaurus from your dusty collection of “thousands” of unread science books only to glean new terms just compounds the depths of your foolishness as you strive to sound as truly educated I am.

        A claimed fact IS an argument in the learned hands of someone like me, and this isn’t a component of the “ad hominem fallacy” anyway because the fallacy lies as you (for the first time ever) correctly assert, that by failing to back up your arguments with definable facts and relying instead on calling me an “ignoramus”, is the very acting out of the true definition, not the fake one you made up and continue to profess because you know you’ve made an unmitigated ass of yourself before all of Lady’s readers. But the key term here is “READERS”, meaning they can see my definition and yours and look it up for themselves to see that it’s all a fallacy created within the tiny reaches of your obviously drug-addled mind.

        Since you like to diagnose people with terms you’ve lifted, along with your definition, from out of thin air, I’d like to diagnose you with the term “Post-Abortion Syndrome”. You’ve shown yourself to be a complete and utter numpty and now are desperate to deny your stupidity by pretending that we all don’t see you for the complete and total asshat you are. You are also in denial that your definition has been publicly denounced by anyone who can read English, and yet forge ahead with your glaring mistake hoping desperately you’ll get the “last word”. Not going to happen, Reject. As long as you persist in your personal fallacies and re-writing of long-standing truths, I’ll be here to hold up a mirror so you can see the egg all over your stupid face. This took me all of ten minutes to write, but as I’m an oil heiress, I’ve got plenty of free time to keep showing you what a vast schmuck you are. ☺️

        Liked by 2 people

      • T Fool:

        *Slow Clap*

        So you double down in the demonstrable idiocy of arguing that facts are arguments.

        You’re a fracking moron.

        I make my living, quite successfully, on arguments.

        You’re a dilettante ignoramus who taught elementary school kids debate. (LOL)

        <—Oh, (for the slow kids [and teachers]) that was a claim. It can be true or false but it can't be fallacious.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oh, Defunct, you pretentious little worm!! I’m starting to think you’re not just a weed monkey but also a total crackhead! It’s either that or you’re nursing a serious case of Munchausen Syndrome. I do know one thing, you’re expending an awful lot of big words today!! My my!! Did I make you feel that Dunning-Kruger effect you keep rabbiting on about? Because I’d have to take my brain out before you can accurately accuse me of DKS in an argument with you. And those big $10 words like “dilettante” must be hard to scratch up for a non-Googler like you!! Alas, if only my interests allowed for being but a dilettante. I’m afraid it is the exact opposite, I fairly wear out a subject. And right now my interest is in thoroughly spanking you in a public forum. I never do things by halves, my mendacious friend.

        “I make my living, quite successfully, on arguments.”

        Really??? SERIOUSLY??? You expect any sane person to believe that crock??? I take serious note that you don’t ID at least the industry in which you supposedly work at this successful job in which you argue. As we say in Texas, I CALL 🐮💩!! Seriously, Reject, grandiose declarations fairly reek of desperation. Also it rings extremely hollow that your work involves arguing because you’ve been systematically showing us all how NOT to do it. An argument requires more than what you’ve exhibited here, which is nothing more than thinly-veiled snide questions and contemptuous name-calling. You have yet to provide actual facts to back up whatever it is you’re asserting, which we’re never quite sure of other than it’s just intended to insult whomever you’re addressing. If you made your money arguing, as I have, you would know that NONE of what you do is effective argument. I suggest you pick up a Freshman college book on Speech Communication and look up how to argue, paying close attention to the chapters on Inter-Personal Communication and Argument. I’ve taken years of classes to know how to argue at leaping bounds over your minuscule head and taught it to high school students who went on to win awards. I have seen enough to know that you’re yet again nothing but a LIAR. Your job, your “Inbred Fundamentalist Conservative Family”, your vast library containing THOUSANDS of books on just science, and now your lucrative job that involves arguing. Maybe you could really have all that if you would step away from the gangweed and the crackpipe, move out of mommy’s basement cuz the bleach fumes aren’t helping, quit pretending to be multiple people, and GET A LIFE.

        And/or get help for your Munchausen Syndrome because that’s a serious possibility. For now I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, but I gotta tell ya, that doubt gets smaller every time you post.

        Liked by 2 people

      • T Fool:

        Oh, and unless you identify yourself, with personal identifying information available for all the Internet to see, YOU’RE A PROVEN LIAR! And that’s using your own “reasoning”.

        So, you’re an “oil heiress”. List your merits.

        Merits. Let’s see them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Now see, right there. You just floated another lie. Your job sure keeps fluctuating, Champ. That doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in you and it will be a cold day in hell before I share more of my life than I already have. What makes anyone who reads this think that you’re going to back up your own BS with the truth? I think you’re a little weed monkey who pounds away at his keyboard and likes to think he’s being provocative, but no one will ever take you seriously if you don’t at least learn about the topic which you are arguing first, and come prepared with your own arguments. Lady has told me that the articles attached to my research are STILL getting clicks today, showing that people ARE interested in seeing the proof behind your assertions. So stop wasting everyone’s time and enjoy all the crap emails people will be sending you into perpetuity. That alone disqualifies you into perpetuity. 😂

        Liked by 2 people

  4. I love you. (Don’t worry, it is just respectful love not the creepy stalking kind of love 🙂 ). Honestly so few people seem to want to challenge the current cultural conventional wisdom. An example you didn’t choose to use but could have is the NFL. Every rich football player who knelt and disrespected the flag last year “knows” that America is an awful racist place where white cops routinely hunt down and kill young black men. This is provably false as Heather Macdonald has proven via her scholarship over and over. Having said that, demonstrating the ludicrous premise of their protests with facts is met with a barrage of charges of insensitivity and racism. The only principle that is defended is their “right” to protest regardless of the reality of their cause. Thus, what is left of our culture continues to be ripped asunder with the fawning support of more than half of the population. This is genuine insanity. It can’t end well for us if everyone is entitled to their own version of the truth regardless of facts.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. What a great read! You expressed what many like-minded folks have been thinking, feeling, and expressing themselves not only in the political arena of the day; but in our very own homes, churches, places of work, school, etc..our entire environments!
    You also managed to present a clear and true case for what reality really is!
    People are always confusing “experientialism” —- any doctrine or theory that maintains that personal experience is the only or the principal basis of knowledge—with reality, universal truths, and set absolutes orchestrated by God as depicted thru nature and science. Nurture is influential; nature is more often than not; at the end of the day, absolute.
    On a personal level what you wrote about I have experienced on a personal level being a person from a hometown of 8 million, married to a person from a hometown of 2000. Talk about experiential reality! lol!

    Liked by 3 people

  6. The war between left and right brained people. Or the art based people and science based people is in motion.

    Those that believe in logic and facts, testability of ideas are dismissed.

    Even looking to how are their ideas working in places that already implemented it like Europe is dismissed as useless information.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Very accurate and well written throughout. You keyed on the myriad of facts and realities that our “Snowflake” generation and the far reaching consortium of their controlling mentors by word and action, vehemently deny. Not a popular position for any of us to take given the Left’s agenda/thesis that honest, open debate by those with a fact based opposing position simply must be silenced as all manner of evil.

    With the defeat of the Clinton campaign, the reality is, we are great in number, we fair minded, balanced people living with the realities of jobs and businesses to go to, families and dependents to provide for and we hold a deep respect for the positive things that the USA makes possible for those willing to work and sacrifice to achieve. We’re not going away and recent events over the past two years have galvanized even greater opposition to the left’s efforts to undermine everything that made America the country that the entire globe has looked to for leadership .

    As a common man, I now understand that I, along with my conservative brothers and sisters, will never lay down for these people or their destructive globalist, divisive ideologies. Just watch me…

    Liked by 4 people

  8. I found this to be a perfect explanation of what is “reality” and true versus what people might “want,” or “think” to be reality. I do run into people who still believe that because it happened to one, it must have happen to all at some point, this infuriates me at times because I have experiences in my life that would blow your mind, but to say that it has to be true for everyone else belittles and diminishes my experience to mean little more than just a common experiece.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Your commented reminded me of something. There was a video being shared on Facebook – one I had shared myself, a couple of days earlier – about the problem of sexual assault women in Brazil experience when going to dance clubs. Women complained about constantly being groped, grabbed, kissed, and having unwanted sexual advances forced on them, but their complaints were brushed off as exaggerations. In the video, three women were given touch sensitive dresses to wear – which required the dresses to have higher necklines and long sleeves, and the skirts were knee length, so they were rather modest. They then went to a club and the sensors in their dresses sent live data to computers being monitored elsewhere. Later, the readings were shown to men who were at the bar. The three women were inappropriately touched and groped an average of over 170 times per hour.

      I left a comment under the video, wondering what would happen if women refused to spend their money at these clubs until things changed; if the clubs lost half their clientele, would they not then have incentive to make changes that would attract these clients back, by enforcing a safer environment (I was thinking things like kicking out men who are caught groping women, for example). In the process, I mentioned that I have never been groped and perhaps it was because 1) I no longer go to bars and 2) I don’t live in Brazil.

      Amazingly, I was attacked by other commenters because, apparently, my saying that I have never been sexually assaulted somehow de-legitimized the experiences of women who have been. Apparently, I am not the norm, and because of this, I should not say anything. Oh, and my question was twisted into my putting the onus on women to change, and they shouldn’t have to stop going out, because it’s on men to stop their behaviour.

      So… my reality (as someone who has never been groped in a bar) is denied, because it doesn’t match the reality of other women, who apparently get groped every time they step out of their houses. I was even asked if I never went to the movie theatre, because apparently, those are hotbeds of unwanted sexual attention. Now, I’ve been harassed, stalked and threatened, but because I have, I don’t assume that this is the norm for other women. Nor do I think that fact that most women haven’t been harassed, stalked or threatened the way I have means that my experience has been de-legitimized. But somehow, my not being a victim of sexual assault meant that I was denying the reality shown in the video.

      It was a surreal conversation.

      Liked by 3 people

      • That’s a ridiculous response to your very valid point! Suggesting that someone stop doing something that has a track record of getting them assaulted is nothing like blaming them for the assault. When someone decides to violate another person’s rights, that’s their fault and their misbehavior. However, I also can’t help but question the good sense of someone who repeatedly returns to a hostile environment without any real necessity.

        As a man — and one who has never been sexually abused to boot — I won’t claim to fully understand all the emotional complications of the experience. However, I think I have an easy to understand comparison. Please forgive me if this seems oversimplified or if it seems to take anything away from the victims of sexual assault — I in no way mean to say that they’re equal.

        When I was very young, maybe four or five, I recall reaching up and touching the iron on my grandmother’s ironing board. That was a mistake, and I had to suffer those consequences. Now, unlike being sexually assaulted, which requires someone else’s malevolence, that was my own fault. Having said that, I’ve never since touched a hot iron. If today, at 34, I touched a hot iron and complained about it, most folk would say, perhaps even with a laugh, “well, you should have known better.” And they’d be right.

        How is this any different? The first time you don’t know better. After that — or at the very least, after the third or fourth time — you should know better. Who’s the bad guy in this story? The sexual assaulter, of course. But if you know that going to a club (not a job, not a hospital, not the grocery store, but a freaking club) is going to get you molested, then don’t go!

        Liked by 4 people

      • UnabashedSarcasm, yes, exactly. I had asked the same question; why do they go back? It was pointed out to me that women should be able to go out for a few drinks and to dance without worrying about it, so they shouldn’t have to change their behaviour. True enough, to a point. But this is where the market can come into play. If there is a demand for it, why not start a club that specifically caters to women who just want to go out, have a drink and a dance? Bars are notorious for being meat markets. Instead of being passive victims, why not do something? It’s a valid point to say that the culture has to change, and just as valid to say the men have to change their behaviour, but why not be proactive about it, instead of just saying, “it’s all on men to change?”

        I have to admit, though, some of the things that came up in the conversation had me really wondering. The way they were talking, it was as if there was nowhere women can go without being sexually harassed or assaulted. One woman even described trying to turn down a guy that was coming on to her, and he licked her face. All I could think was, where on earth are you, that this happens all the time? It’s not even just that I’ve never had it happen to me. I’ve never even SEEN it happen. I don’t know any guys that would do that, or think it’s okay to do that. In fact, most guys I know would kick the living shit out of a man who did something like that. Just as an example (not sexual in nature, but as close as I’ve ever had happen to me), when I was a teen, I was at a beach party with a group of my peers. My ex-boyfriend sat beside me. After a while, his brother did something silly and I cracked a joke. It was the opening he was looking for. He made a nasty comment at me, then slapped me across the face.

        Then he ran like hell, with me right after him. There was a brief altercation, then we both backed off. Every other guy on the beach who saw what happened promptly gathered around, threatening him for hitting a girl. Including guys that didn’t particularly like me. I’ve never had a man try to strike me since, and even when I was being harassed and threatened, it was from a distance, and my stalker was being paid (long story). In my experience, people who try to do stuff like this can’t handle it when someone is willing and able to fight back, because ultimately, they are cowards.

        But that opens up a whole different conversation.

        Liked by 3 people

  9. Great minds move in similar channels! Just before reading your post, I was watching a podcast of Thomas Sowell talking about how intellectuals tend to form opinions without testing them against empirical evidence. Logic is an invaluable tool but, as Alfred Sloan put it, alone it is just an organized way of going wrong with confidence.

    Theories must meet the test of facts. An idea, by itself, isn’t worth much unless it agrees with the facts and, to quote John Adams, “Facts are stubborn things.” Many intellectuals will support an idea because their peer group embraces it. They do so out of the belief that their high intelligence and education confers a degree of infallibility on them. “If all the smart people think this, it must be true.” The long list of great minds who have been proven wrong doesn’t seem to give them a sense of humility.

    Having a vested interest in pushing an idea tends to make a person reluctant to see that idea proven wrong and that causes an aversion to facts. Likewise when those pushing the idea don’t stand to lose much if the idea is a fallacy they don’t feel a strong need to look at the facts. On the other hand, if you stand to lose a lot if it doesn’t actually work, you are likely to be skeptical of an idea until it has proven itself empirically. Regardless of what the theory says, who wants to fly in an untested airplane?

    I think your article is very insightful and you support your point well. I also noticed with your articles that the more of them that you write, the better you get at it too…

    Liked by 3 people

  10. I’m seeing a lot of this, too. I think what I find alarming is that I have watched, over years, people I know to be intelligent, who used to be rational, thoughtful and logical, devolving into what you describe. I can at least give younger people some leeway, because this is what they were indoctrinated into and they don’t know any better. But how to explain people who used to at least be able to hold a rational debate about differing conclusions, but are not completely into emotionalism and relativism? There was a time when I could hold a conversation with people who were more liberal/left that myself, and even if we disagreed, they would try to use facts and data to defend their positions. Now, it’s like rational thought has gone out the window, and it’s all about how we feeeellll, and if you disagree, well, you’re just an evil right winger, white supremacist, islamophobic, homophobic, racist, bigot, TERF, [insert insult here].

    I’m reminded of a Facebook conversation I had with someone, a while back. This person claimed to be a Christian, but held come decidedly unChristian views. As this person was supposedly a Christian, I used the Bible to show that her position was completely the opposite of what was actually taught by Jesus. In the end, she finally declared that, well, HER god was a god of love, therefore she was right.

    Then she unfriended me and deleted the conversation before I could point out that she just admitted that she was worshiping a god of her own making, not the God she claimed to believe in. It was all about her feeeeeelllliiiinnnggggsss.

    I just don’t get how people can live with that sort of cognitive dissonance. How does one live, while being so utterly detached from the real world?

    Liked by 4 people

    • There is a huge broadening of Christian doctrine into the one word love . The Beatles wrote that memorable song ‘ All you Need is Love ‘ in the age of flower power. What ever a person is like , whatever he or she does , we must love them , it is supportable from : ‘ Father forgive them for they know not what they do ‘ and is one of them most serious dangers of new testament Christianity.

      Liked by 4 people

      • People don’t seem to understand that you can love someone and still tell them when they are doing something wrong. There is nothing loving about validating and accepting wrong and harmful choices, under the guise of “accepting them who they are”.

        Liked by 4 people

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 )

Connecting to %s