in , , , , , , ,


The Truth behind “MICRO-AGGRESSION”

Much like every noble cause today’s left and liberals have destroyed and exploited for their own good, a new term is being propagated throughout our schools and colleges known as “micro-aggression” basically calling anything which offends them a small act of aggression. The way today’s left is using this as a weapon to silence debate and opposition is indeed shameful. Since anything which is not what you believe it to be, you can simply extinguish the opposition by saying that the idea offends you by calling the speech a micro-aggression, that’s the how the left views micro-aggression and is implementing in real life. And the arguments by the left to justify their culture of becoming violent when they hear an alternative opinion are just as preposterous, the most common arguments are-

1. “This man spreads hate speech” argument :- It has become a fact these days most of the Liberals and Leftists argue out of emotion instead of facts. Just because you don’t like what some speaker is talking, it doesn’t mean that it is hate speech. Just take the example of Mr. Ben Shapiro, most of the times he goes to schools, universities and colleges and cites facts and statistics and then draws conclusions which were pretty obvious from the facts and statistics. Saying out of the total number of people in prison, only 18% are women and hence saying that the United States isn’t sexist as a whole, isn’t sexist because that’s just a fact that only 18% of the prisoners are women. What sexism would be a vast number of women in prisons wrongfully imprisoned and letting convicted criminals who are men to roam free in the streets. And the thing that Mr Shapiro always says in most of his speeches is “sure that there are individual instances of sexism but to say that the institution is sexist as a whole is just not true”. Similarly racism, it isn’t racist to cite the fact that 52% of the homicides are committed by blacks, it is just a fact, and since they commit more homicides than whites, it isn’t surprising that they are a bigger majority in prisons. It isn’t racism when a person who is co-incidentally black and is convicted when he did commit a crime. And it is nothing but obvious that the incarceration rates are much more for blacks when they commit 52% of the homicides. That isn’t racist, these are just facts and statistics. Yet Liberals love to be “micro-aggressed” when they face such statistics and quite frankly, they do this when faced with logic related to their belief as well. It isn’t “hate speech” just because what you believe isn’t true, it isn’t hate speech because you don’t want to believe the facts. Yet they continue to call it a “micro-aggression” because that just enables them to silence debate and act in a violent manner when things aren’t going in their favor. What’s ironic is they are against fascism, yet are acting violently when someone gives an opinion based off facts.

2. The Argument referring to Hitlerism :- Universities and schools are banning speakers from giving speeches at schools out of fear of violence and disorder erupting. Well, since anything you are offended by is called a “micro-aggression” by the left, it basically qualifies you to act in an aggressive manner as well. When you term a thing which may not agree with your beliefs and then call it micro-aggression, it basically entitles you to respond in an aggressive way, which actually results in violence and disorder. If you can’t sit and listen to an alternative opinion without protesting it, you are violating someone else’s right to free speech as well. It is funny how such protesters so easily forget that while protesting a speaker speaking, you are suppressing somebody else’s right to free speech as well. And the left justifies it by making references to Hitler that if only someone had thrown a shoe at him whenever he spoke in public. My response is that that exactly is the reason why our founders introduced the second amendment. The reason why we should have an AR-15 rifle is exactly to prevent that from happening, to resist unexpected government tyranny. Besides, the Congress can not be dissolved even during martial law, and hence they can impeach the President even if he wouldn’t leave the White House. The Military would no longer be under an obligation to answer to the impeached president and hence, things are good. And just in case you were wondering that a totalitarian would not care about the constitution and hence he would dissolve the congress, he can any time in his own world but he can’t dissolve the congress, it would still function in the real world and would impeach the President, making the military under no obligation to carry out what the impeached President asks it to do. He might still be protected by the Secret Service but they can hide him from the world, which frankly we would want.

Hence, no need to worry for a Dictatorship arising in the United States, rendering the analogy of saying “if only Hitler were shooed when he spread his opinion” defunct.

These are the most common arguments made by the left to justify their culture of micro-aggressions, and obviously they aren’t rational and again are driven by passion and emotion. If everything would be based off how passionate you are about something, Hillary Clinton would have had been in jail, but probably the left would have had reserved this right to themselves.

What do you think?

3 points
Upvote Downvote

Total votes: 3

Upvotes: 3

Upvotes percentage: 100.000000%

Downvotes: 0

Downvotes percentage: 0.000000%

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Religion of Peace?

Government Shutdown 2018