A recent jag in the feminist jihad has to do with what they are pleased to call microaggressions — what Jonah Goldberg recently worried might become nanoaggressions. So let’s talk about all that for a microbit.
Conservatives will frequently make merry about this kind of fevered brow behavior, assuming that these women’s-study-center-people have utterly lost it. Those who talk about microaggressions all the time must be doing so because of their microminds. But this goes wide of the mark by a good distance. What these people are doing to us is intelligent, rule-guided behavior. They are doing it because they are getting something important they want from it. Let me tell you a parable:
Once there was a game of pick-up basketball, and there were two teams — red shirts and blue shirts. The red shirts were from red states and the blue shirts were from blue states. With me so far?
Beyond the basic rules of the game, the blue shirts had only two requirements. The first was that they needed to be allowed to ref the game as well as play it, and the second requirement was that if anybody on the red team questioned any call, it was an automatic technical, and they had to go sit on the racist bench, or on the misogynist bench, depending on which eyebrow they had raised in protest.
At first the game looked kind of normal. But as time went on, the calls started getting more and more outlandish. First the blue players would flop when there was just slight contact, then when there was no contact at all, and finally they commenced to flopping whenever a red player came within three feet of them. Bam. Right on the back, and one of the others would always call it. Charging! Of course, there were some protests, and thus it was that the red state bench started accumulating a bad reputation for racism and misogyny. I mean, look at all of them sitting there. Such a poor testimony.
As I said earlier, some of the guys on the red player bench started joking amongst themselves about how stupid it all was. But then they started getting charged for micro-charging from the bench, and were made to sit on another bench behind the first one.
Pretty soon everybody was used to this system, and when a hot-headed player started to argue, or even looked like he was thinking about arguing a call, all the evangelicals in the bleachers behind him would start hissing at him. “Tesssstimony! Tessssssstimony! Sssssit down!” Most of the time he would.
In the off-season, lots of evangelicals from the bleachers would attend conferences dedicated to the question of why we were losing so many basketball games. They could actually fill arenas for such conferences, with about ten times more attendees than would show up for the basketball games themselves, and the registrations cost about five times more than the basketball tickets did.
Nevertheless, the consensus among the players remained that this whole set up was really stupid — they would talk about it in the locker room afterwards. This was the only place they were still allowed to talk about anything, and that was probably coming to an end by the next season as well. But in their remaining time, in order to make themselves feel better, they would complain bitterly about what morons the blue players were being.
But one day a new guy on the team decided to ask a question, one that seemed obvious to him anyway. “Why are they the morons?”
“What do you mean?” somebody else asked.
“I mean they are getting everything they want, they win every game, they make us conform to stupid and inane requirements, our own fans police those requirements for them, and we all go along with it. So I would ask again, why are they the morons?”
I interrupt this instructive parable to note that the word moron is no doubt considered offensive by some, and that three blue players are flat on their backs, and that one of them is clutching his ankle and making a lot of noise. On top of that, I am refusing to go to the bench, and I refuse to apologize. In addition, ascending to my personal zenith of irreverence, I refuse to apologize for any earlier expressions like lesbyterians, gaystapo, or that heretofore unremarked illage vidiots in the sidebar to the right.
This is not, incidentally, because I am a verbal sociopath. I was taught by my mother and father back in the Eisenhower years not to call people certain names, and to this day I honor the law of my mother (Prov. 1:8). Invective, scurrility and abuse are not my bag. But my mother also knew that actual charging was when you lowered your head and ran into a guy. I believe that our speech should be gracious, seasoned with salt (Col. 4:6), and that Christian discipleship that does not extend to the tongue, pen, and keyboard is a worthless discipleship (Jas. 1:26).
So I do believe in rules for polemical discourse. I believe that a biblical approach to it allows us to hit hard, and above the belt. But God defines for us where the belt is. What I do not believe in is the insane practice of putting the definitions of appropriate discourse in the hands of people who believe that every woman has an ongoing constitutional right to a childectomy, whenever she decides undertake the procedure. In his fine book, Rules for Patriots, Steve Deace rightly says that we should never accept the premise of our adversary’s argument. In this case, the premise I am rejecting is that those people have any grasp whatever of what appropriate discourse is. They don’t know what the womb is for, they don’t know what the anus is for, and they don’t know what liberty is for. But they do know what a red-shirted basketball player is for — somebody to call fouls on.
So we answer to God for our words, and He has set the standard of what constitutes appropriate discourse for us in Scripture. He has not put the bedwetters in charge of whether we are being gracious or not.
Okay then. I interrupt this line of reasoning to acknowledge that children who struggle with bedwetting have enough troubles without me making fun of them, so I am taking care not to do that. I am actually making fun of those adults who sneak down the hall at 2 in the morning for a glass of water to pour on their beds so that they can pretend to be actual bedwetters, in order to be able to shriek at me for being so insensitive. So I am not talking about real people with real problems who need real compassion. Telling a story about a boy who cried wolf did not make Aesop a hater of genuine wolf-warnings.
I am talking about those posers and hypocrites who have assumed a complete and preening authority over the public lexicon as an essential step in their drive to control all thought by controlling all language. These people are Orwellian in their up-is-down newspeak, and so I always want to have on hand a suitable Orwellian response. George Orwell once said that `whatever is funny is subversive, every joke is ultimately a custard pie.” But if you are the kind of evangelical who objects to the custard pie, and not to the overweening and arrogant tyranny-speak that was so rudely interrupted by that custard pie, then congratulations, you are the problem. Just go sit in the bleachers on the other side now and get it over with.
Jesus was not polite. One time He offended the lawyers (Luke 11:45), and when they protested it He took the occasion to multiply the offense in their eyes. Nice is not one of the fruits of the Spirit. Making baskets is not a bad testimony, and docilely accepting insane foul calls is not a good one. In Acts 13:45, when Paul and Barnabas were opposed by men full of envious snark, their response was not to walk on eggs. They met envious opposition with boldness (Acts 13:46).
So what many Christians are failing to realize is that all the hubbub surrounding pc-language, giving offense, microaggressions, and so on, is a transparent trick that is being run on clueless conservatives. The bad team is the bad team, but they are not the stupid team. That honor goes elsewhere.
I refuse to let those blue guys ref the game, but I do not call them unintelligent for trying it. It has worked for them so far. The stupidity lies elsewhere, which is also why I refuse to allow the fans on our side of the court to hiss me back onto the bench.
Friend, don’t you see? You are being worked. You are being played. You are being manipulated. You are being engineered. You are being finagled. You are being cozened. You are being duped. You are being gulled. You are being snowed. You are being chiseled. You are being hustled. You are being gamed.
I trust I have made my meaning clear enough. And I am not going to the bench. Just getting a drink.
Make that a quick drink. It will only be microseconds before the bed wetters start dribbling across the court.
You patience and kindness exceeds mine.
Where do I click “like”?
Where do I click “brilliant”?
We have yet to see what happens in this game when our team just says “No” very firmly and opts to carry on regardless.
That day is long overdue
Thank you for this.
Witness a small event in Oklahoma whereby the Governor issued an executive order in the face of an OK Supreme Court decision regarding an issue that is arguably outside its purview (since criminal matters are overseen by the OK Court of Criminal Appeals).
The dribblers immediately cried about checks and balances and separation of government.
Indeed!
As usual absolutely spot on. Thank you Pastor Wilson.
Two quick questions I’m sure you’ve considered, but which seem to jar a little bit with the tact you’re explaining here. Don’t mean to play gotcha, but there must be something I’m missing: How does this tact line up with your father’s “act, never react” principle? You summarize that idea in the video as “principled living as opposed to reactive living.” If you’re using language you wouldn’t otherwise use (gaytard, etc.) simply because the blue shirts told you not to, isn’t that reactive rather than principled? To this question, my guess is that the answer will have to do with… Read more »
Somehow I was expecting a baseball analogy. In any case, another one hit out of the park. To extend Doug’s analogy, something both teams need to realize is that history is full of backlash. If people are going to be demonized and harassed out of their livelihoods for expressing their views, and if they are going to be sent to the bench anyway, at some point they will stop simply expressing themselves verbally (as Doug is doing), and they will actually commit the flagrant foul physically. If they are going to be called guilty anyway, the reasoning is that they… Read more »
@Aaron Richmond, I am not sure what Doug will say but it seems to me historically civil disobedience is often doing whatever it is the unjust oppressors are saying you cannot do. So if the oppressors say I cannot sit in a certain place on the bus I sit there whether I was actually inclined to do so originally or not. You are taking a principled stand against unjust oppression, not on seating preferences.
Aaron Richmond wrote: “But you’re fond of saying that a Christian shouldn’t be a libertarian, but should be confused for one. Or a Christian preacher shouldn’t be an antinomian, but should be confused for one. Seems like a Christian shouldn’t be blown about by the PC-geist, but he might be confused with someone who is, simply because he has a civil tongue in his mouth.” Nouns are important. We can’t just drop in any noun and start drawing conclusions. For example, we shouldn’t be a slanderer, nor should we be confused for one. In regard to the principle of action… Read more »
Fine answers, all. And Doug’s performance at IU (and the like) is exactly why I would ask him what I have. He’s got the balance down much better than I have and I’d like to understand better how to use powerful language without being needlessly incendiary. In other words, katecho’s concern about an unprincipled backlash among the red shirts is my concern as well. I want to wear a red shirt wisely, not sprinkle my conversation with ‘retard’ and ‘faggot’ simply because the blue shirts don’t want me to. I need what katecho’s called ‘team reminders’ just as much as… Read more »
Aaron, “…it’s possible to dishonor God with my speech even if all the people who hear what I’ve said applaud.” Yes, it is, but it seems that in the current dynamic, very few of either the blue or red team are applauding. The blue team becomes apoplectic when they are reminded that the standard is justice, not “fairness”. And the red team, because they have been drinking the blue kool-aid (or grape juice as the case may be), (which by the way, acts as a type II 5α-reductase inhibitor) winds up swooning over the “harshness” of the discourse. Even the… Read more »
Aaron Richmond wrote: “In other words, katecho’s concern about an unprincipled backlash among the red shirts is my concern as well. I want to wear a red shirt wisely, not sprinkle my conversation with ‘retard’ and ‘faggot’ simply because the blue shirts don’t want me to.” If Aaron is genuinely concerned for principle, then I have a few to suggest. First, it’s not Doug’s point that we need to wear red shirts at all. That’s silly. He’s just observant of how the debate has been framed on a horizontal left-right spectrum in our culture. Clearly we need to be more… Read more »
Make it a quick drink indeed!
“I interrupt this instructive parable to note that the word moron is no doubt considered offensive by some, and that three blue players are flat on their backs, and that one of them is clutching his ankle and making a lot of noise. On top of that, I am refusing to go to the bench, and I refuse to apologize. In addition, ascending to my personal zenith of irreverence, I refuse to apologize for any earlier expressions like lesbyterians, gaystapo, or that heretofore unremarked illage vidiots in the sidebar to the right.” I just wanted to edify the readers of… Read more »
Those are good and helpful reminders, katecho. Thanks.
OR just maybe you could be missing something? Not going to argue that what you describe doesn’t happen–sure, it does–but it might become awfully convenient to start saying “SEE? I’m being persecuted!” every time you got a foul. And that is the definition of being a bad sport. I guess all I’m saying is just because bad calls are made doesn’t mean that every call is a bad call. Non sequitur and all that jazz. It seems at least that one COULD take this to an extreme and use it to insulate oneself from all outside criticism, and that would… Read more »
Aaron, your questions are quite reasonable. And I don’t want them to control me through what they prohibit, as though I will simply do the opposite of whatever it is. Progressives don’t like the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition, but that doesn’t mean I should buy one. I do want to act, not react. It seems to me that if I am anticipating and conforming (cringing), then I am in greater danger of that. If I am anticipating, but steam right on ahead — especially if I am going to get in trouble for it from friend and foe alike —… Read more »
Seems like a somewhat relevant quote for this situation, almost Wilsonian, clever but not quite so witty,
Thanks for the reply, Doug. Both it and the original post help a lot.
Thank you so much for being a light to a dark world!!! I know that you have do deal with a lot of foul calls, so I am strengthened and encouraged daily by your incessant refusal to sit on the bench. Stay strong!
“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” Matthew 5:11-12
Sarah, Doug’s not missing something. There was no hint of “SEE? I’m being persecuted!” in his post. He is correctly pointing out that the LGBT activists manipulate their environment, to undermine all opposing views, by redefining categories and language to suit their own purposes, without regard for anything or anyone except the score. From the phrasing in the second paragraph it seems you think of his analogy as representing a situation that happens rarely, and should not be used to develop a view that encourages a victim mentality. I submit that it is the normal form of political and public… Read more »
High inside four-seam fastball–brush-back on purpose–I am aiming for your head, go ahead, charge the mound–I have a two-seamer coming next. Why are we even playing their game? Is it not obvious that “we” are not the same people anymore? Merlin in “That Hideous Strength” expressed the killing of the Saxon’s with all the moral wrangling of a warrior chomping a breath mint. Yes, killing. As you recover from your vapors, remember that this scene was penned by C.S. Lewis–a Christian, warrior, who knew and lived a thing or two about the Lion of Judah. Is it not entirely in… Read more »
If we are going to be name-calling (not necessarily in the second-person, but to include even less directly via description in the third-person), then it must be a true/accurate deserving/just-cause (albeit not necessarily literal) description (Mt 23:24,33). We are not to be angry without just-cause (Mt 5:22), yet there is a righteous way to be angry without sin (Eph 4:26). Likewise, Mt 5:22 also teaches that we ought not to be name-calling on the condition that it is without just-cause in the sense of an accurate (non-literal) description in accordance with the “speak truth” instruction of Eph 4:25 that is… Read more »
Brian’s got a nice collection of Scriptural principles on this topic. Thanks. Good balance.
timothy wrote: Why are you paying taxes to fund the sacrifice of children to Moloch? This is a genuine and important question, yet a very similar one was used in an attempt to put Christ to the test in the first century. Recall that Caesar taxed the people for all manner of oppressive and immoral things. It was genuinely important for God’s people to know whether it was permissible. before God, in principle, for them to render taxes over into such a general fund. I’m in agreement with Doug’s observations elsewhere that Christ was teaching that God is able to… Read more »
It’s easy to find at least one typo in everything I post: “it’s God-given responsibilities”, should be, “its [narrow] God-given responsibilities”.
Loved the post Doug. I try to keep my “rage” in check by remembering that the “Coach” of the Red Team SCOFFS at the attempts by the Blue Team and its coach to fix the game. The Victory is sure though the timing is yet unknown.
You’re welcome, katecho. And, I certainly share in your lamentation regarding the typos (or even worse errors) of our fallibility after I katechw the keys of the keyboard for posting.
I’m just curious to know what actually what constitutes “an unprincipled backlash among the red shirts”?
An example of unprincipled backlash would be vigilantism. Another example would be tax evasion. Another would be looting and burning of public property. When the people see increasingly bold corruption in their civic leaders, as we are now witnessing today in America, they are invited to join in the corruption themselves. Demographics suggest that the blue team has won the “Santa Claus” vote until the money runs out. The red team can’t win on principle when running against a civic Santa Claus, so we are seeing some on the red team simply sell out their principles wholesale (since they have… Read more »
I said “until the money runs out”, which isn’t very accurate. I should have said “until the trust runs out”. Our wicked government has shown that the debt-money isn’t going to run out before trust in it runs out.
I remember Amanda Thatcher reading from Ephesians 6:10 at Lady Thatcher’s funeral. It was noticeable how the powerful heads of state gathered there fidgeted, looked here and there, and tried to ignore what was being said; the wholesale rejection of Christendom by England’s rulers was on display for the world to see. Then it struck me, Amanda Thatcher was not speaking to them, she was speaking to us (and through her, God was speaking to us) , reminding us of who we are and what the stakes are. The same dynamic is happening on this side of the pond; our… Read more »
Katecho writes: “Second, we need to realize that sometimes the objective is offense…. This is what Christ taught us, by example, as a true Shepherd fighting for the sheep…. Notice that the principle is not that we should always be looking for someone to offend. The principle is that sometimes offense is the righteous thing to offer against the wolves who attack the sheep.”
I believe this is grave error. I don’t believe Jesus’ objective, in what he said or did, was ever to offend another. He never willfully gave offense. Rather, others took offense.
Let me say that I generally side with Pastor Wilson on the issues, but sometime the rhetoric bothers me. Two points. First, the more personal of the two. I have four children, one of whom significant disabilities, both physical and intellectual. Using a pejorative based on her disabilities or anyone else’s disabilities bothers me. Maybe it shouldn’t, but it does. Technically, she is not a moron. Her disabilities are far more profound than that. Still, it strikes me as bad form, if not worse, to take a pejorative which is meant to assert that the target is a bad off… Read more »
John Barry: “I believe this is grave error. I don’t believe Jesus’ objective, in what he said or did, was ever to offend another. He never willfully gave offense. Rather, others took offense.” I struggle to grasp your meaning, as Jesus most certainly knew what sort of feelings would result from his statements. He didn’t verbally spit on newborn babies, but I’d say with certainty that he verbally punched their fathers in the gut. If we know our statements will cause others to take offense, and still say them, we are willfully doing so knowing that they will take offense.… Read more »
John,
So purposefully and purposely healing on the Sabbath while knowing what would be the response of the Pharisees was not intentionally offending? Telling people that their father is not in fact Abraham, but rather the Devil wasn’t seeking to offend?
That’s somewhat of a reach, no?
Wesley,
No, in neither case was Jesus’ objective to give offense. Nor, I believe, will you find such a case in the gospels. Willfully giving offense as one’s objective is sin.
And the apostle Paul is careful to not give offense and tells the Corinthians to do the same.
Well, perhaps we’re actually meaning two different things. Perhaps you mean giving offense as intentionally seeking to hurt someone, whereas I would say that Jesus (along with the OT prophets (“you cows of Bashan – Amos; Ezekiel 23; Elijah’s asking the prophets of Baal if their god is “relieving himself” in 1 Kings 18) and the Apostles (Paul calling the Galatians stupid) did seek to offend for a purpose and an end to convict of sin?
I’m honestly seeking to understand, so is that fair and/or accurate?
Seth, I responded to katecho as I understood him. He said that sometimes the objective is offense. This sounds to me like he’s advocating (at times) willfully giving offense as one’s objective. Perhaps I misunderstood him. Regarding your certainty that Jesus verbally punched the fathers in the gut, I confess I’m not sure what you mean by this. You say, “If we know our statements will cause others to take offense….” But nothing I say causes anyone to take offense. The listener is free to respond to my comments as he sees fit. I may even will to offend a… Read more »
Wesley, Thanks for your question. And for the reminder that it’s a good idea to define one’s terms at the outset of a discussion such as this. If offense is my objective, I take this to mean that I am willing ill rather than good to another. I intend for the other to stumble. This is sin. Of course, I don’t believe Jesus ever did this. Plugging my understanding of “willing to offend as an objective” into your last statement above, it would read something like, “I would say that Jesus and the OT prophets and the Apostles willed ill… Read more »
John Barry wrote: “He said that sometimes the objective is offense. This sounds to me like he’s advocating (at times) willfully giving offense as one’s objective. Perhaps I misunderstood him.” John understood me correctly. I believe Jesus, acting as Shepherd, on behalf of sheep in danger, struck wolves to deliberately offend them. See Luke 11:43ff: “Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the chief seats in the synagogues and the respectful greetings in the market places. Woe to you! For you are like concealed tombs, and the people who walk over them are unaware of it. One of the lawyers… Read more »
Katecho emphasizes what the lawyer says Jesus is doing. But this isn’t what Jesus is doing. The Greek word translated “insult” is hybrizo, which may be translated “to run riot; to outrage, to treat in an arrogant or spiteful manner”. The verb is used in the following verses: Mt. 22:6; Lk. 11:45; 18:32; Acts 14:5; 1 Thess. 2:2, and is typically translated “mistreat” or “ill-treat”. Did Jesus ever run riot? Did he ever treat anyone in an arrogant or spiteful manner? If the lawyer was outraged, this was his free response to Jesus’ words. Jesus’ objective wasn’t to outrage the… Read more »
“You brood of vipers!” says Jesus to the Pharisees. Or, in other words, “you are snakes, and your Mama is a snake!” If that is not an insult, then words have no meaning.
What would Jesus have had to say if He had intended to insult? If Jesus had taken a white glove and slapped the lawyer across the face with it, some would apparently find a way to suggest that the lawyer would still have been free to take offense or not.
katecho, you ask, “What would Jesus have had to say if He had intended to insult?” In what sense(s) do you use the verb insult?
If I will to insult, give offense, stumble another, then I have sinned. I understand willing these actions to be wrong by definition. Jesus did none of these.
katecho, Jesus took a lot more than a white glove across the face from those who willed to offend, mistreat, insult Him.
Jesus chose to not take offense.
So, there ya go!
I get that you’re worried about the PC-police here, but you don’t really address microaggressions proper. I’m wary of the PC-police too, but I think ‘microagressions’ is a pretty decent neologism (as opposed to the three doozies you coined a few posts back, which I don’t get). Microaggressions are “brief and commonplace verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate [hostility]” (Derald Wing Sue’s definition). An example I read once of a microaggression (on Femina) is when a mom goes grocery shopping with their children and someone in the checkout line says, “You do know what causes… Read more »
I hate sports analogies. I think everyone is a moron. Please God save us from ourselves. Lol