… the dumbest thing you’ll read today.

4 Reasons Demanding ‘Objectivity’ in Social Justice Debates Can Be Oppressive

No, really, the author is serious.

1. Often, Those Who Seem ‘Objective’ Are Actually Just Privileged

2. Everyone Speaks From a Social Position and Has Biases

3. Striving Towards ‘Objectivity’ Is Used to Justify Tone-Policing

And the piece de resistance, the coop de Gracie…

4. Sometimes Emotions Are Just as Important as Facts

Ta-da…

Basically, this mental giants position is that since some people promptly lose their co0ol when their world views are challenged… their world views should not *be* challenged, and losing ones cool is a valid form of debate-winning. Behold:

We need to understand that feelings, lived experiences, and psychology are absolutely important in activism and social justice.After all, social justice is about human experiences. It’s absurd – violent, even – to discuss human experiences while leaving out such an important part of our humanity.

It’s “violent” to discuss experiences rationally.

Well, maybe it’s time to play that game. Clearly the recent election has demonstrated that there is a hunger for turning the social justice warriors playbook against them… Trump didn’t win by being rational, logical or even what you might call “honest.” Instead he won by being petulant, insulting, snide, irrational, easily offended. In other words… he played the game like a social justice warrior.

So, let’s play that game. Whenever someone throws “check your privilege” at you, just remember: “What you call ‘privilege’ is just me being better than you.” Whenever an SJW calls you cisgendered or heteronormative or some such, just point out, with a scornful look and a wagging finger, “tut-tut, I identify as ‘normal,’ thank you very much.” And, where possible, laugh at them. And accuse them of laughter-shaming if they have a problem with it.