Standards, self identification, deflection, projection, redirection, culpability, accountability, abrogation, respect, marginalization, victimization, degradation and the removal of and infringements against one’s agency and right to self-identify and exist without direct active assault upon said agency. The difference between passive and active states or behaviors. The difference between being threatened by a passive expression or behavior and being actually threatened by an active behavior. The difference between a legitimate active transgression (and transgressor) and having insecurities and emotions threatened by a passive expression of views or behaviors counter to one’s own realm of comfortable norms. The difference between having one’s boundaries or rights or agency violated and feeling like your own rights or boundaries or agency have been violated by another person speaking up for themselves or their group or defending their right to the aforementioned. The projection of blame at another passive party for perceived insult or offense actually and objectively related to one’s own emotional insecurity and difficulty accepting ownership of said feels. The active transgression against another individual or group in terms of agency or identification or sacred freedom of expression being justified by a feeling of the same directed at them due to not understanding the difference between passive expression and direct active assault.
These are things that people should learn about.
These are not rock science ideas or terms or esoterically complex constructs left to subjective “spin”.
Expressing an opinion on a news article that is counter to the views of the person receiving or witnessing said expression is not an “active transgression”, but a passive expression which is (if communicated appropriately) non-confrontation. But when people encounter views counter to their own, even if those are communicated non-confrontationally, today’s lack of personal and emotional and cognitive accountability encourages the recipient or witness of said views to feel justified in attacking or assaulting the person (or their views) as they “feel assaulted” themselves.
If I am wearing a beard in a place where wearing a beard means something critically bad or criminal or suspicious and I am in line behind somebody in this environment waiting for a coffee, my wearing a beard is a passive expression which is in every way, shape and form a non-injurious and protected and sovereign right. If that person actively engages with me from a place of redirection or confrontation on the subject of beard wearing, or attempts to call into question my relationship to said facial hair, or casts suspicion or communicated judgment or otherwise injurious assumptive leaps at my person through their physical mannerisms or spoken expressions, they are at fault. There is no defense for this sort of prejudicial behavior. It doesn’t matter whether the passive expression in question was a beard, a sexual preference, an ethnic or racial or cultural or religious quality or characteristic, a political view, a local sports team endorsement or whathaveyou. Active transgression to silence, redirect, challenge or otherwise demand that a counter-view submit to one’s scrutiny, suspicion, or bias — whether in a demand of justification or otherwise — is injuriously and outrageously inappropriate, unethical, and is the currency of marginalization and assault upon agency and will. It is what we in the know refer to as “douchemuffinry”.
If I rub my beard on a person who doesn’t like beards or I challenge their lack of beard or I call into question their right to speak or act in the adult world due to their lack of beard, or I otherwise pass obvious and active judgment upon them due to their lack of beards — or if beards confuse you, go back and replace that term with any of the aforementioned other things, like sexual preference or religion — than surely I am guilty of bad tidings and inappropriate injurious expression, active transgression against another.
But if I stand in a line or engage in open-platformed discourse with an opinion, view, stance, or otherwise expression which is counter to a given person or culture’s norms, in an otherwise appropriate and inoffensive (e.g. passive expression) fashion, I have done no wrong.
Dismissing a person’s views because you do not like a thing about that person, whether it is their views or their affiliations or their education or their culture identification or their choice in eyeliner, is douchemuffin behavior which can in some circumstances constitute a violation of agency, if your dismissal communicates mechanically that they have less right to expression than you do, on the grounds alone of your disagreement.
Co-opting the language that another group or individual has used to navigate through the murky waters of marginalized self-identification or the seeking of collective security through shared descriptors in order to strip away specificity and meaning and replace these with a one-size-fits-all “you don’t own that word!” idea is wrong-headed, shallow-hearted, against-society and in absolute violation of the agency of others. It communicates either a disregard for human rights or an extreme insecurity of one’s own identification (individual or collective), or — and quite frequently — both of these. Criticizing a group’s continued expression of the pain of active and consistent marginalization, or speaking on the subject at all in any way other than affirming and protecting that group’s right to identify and express in accurate and appropriate fashion is an assault by association or, at the very least, fucking bullshit laziness and abrogated social responsibility within the shared-world environs we cohabitate with one another and a fucktastically diverse range of beings, spirits, gods and others. Don’t you ever fucking dare to attempt to communicate an ethic of tolerance or acceptance or progressive social or intellectual or cultural or sexual standing if you are not willing to at the very least sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up when these issues come up. Don’t you ever fucking dare to make claims at being liberal or socially informed or ethically motivated if you are going to offer up armchair assault or “yeah yeah yeah!” to those who do on these and related subjects. If you want to be a fucking dick about this shit, that’s fucking great: own it. Be a closed-minded and narrow-hearted and socially ignorant and entitled and privileged individual openly and boldly and fucking proudly. Then you are actually useful to everyone else’s efforts to the contrary, because you showcase clearly and honestly and openly that which the rest of us — those interested in actual progress for all — must measure our distance from as we pass by you, celebrating freedom, celebrating society, celebrating the gods, celebrating love, celebrating conflict, celebrating the peace apart from conflict, an celebrating the fucking beauty of celebration, you dumb fuck.
When I say “douchemuffin”, I mean that.
Stop this shit.
That is all.
(This is what happens when I’ve had neither caffeine (because it is frozen in my van) or alcohol (because drinking a bottle of whiskey in a mall might be frowned upon). I’ll be more profane or profound next time, I promise.)