A Fun New Drinking Game!

Recall the Three Laws of SJW:

  • SJWs always lie.
  • SJWs always project.
  • SJWs always double down.

If you want to go out like Leaving Las Vegas, a fun drinking game is: Sip every time you find an example of the Three Laws in a typical feminist rant.  Stacy McCain has a great one to get you started.  But here’s the catch: You have to clearly identify each example.

It’s tougher than it sounds.  Try it.

Men are socialized since birth to think their feelings and thoughts are the objective truth.

Now, is that a lie, or projection?  I know I for one was “socialized” to regard my feelings as much closer to the opposite of truth — that’s why they’re called feelings, not facts.  So I’d call that a lie.  Then again, I grew up in the Jurassic, so maybe it’s true now.  Millennial “men” certainly value their pwecious widdle feewings more than us fossils do ours.  But there’s definitely a whopping shitload of projection here, too, since feminism commonly calls the whole idea of “objective truth” a tool of The Patriarchy.

See what I mean?  And that’s just the first sentence.

They are taught they are generally right about something, unless contradicted by another male with equal or more authority.

Again, lie or projection?  I want to say projection — this “truth flows downhill from the head cheerleader” stuff is classic chick — but it’s also a lie, plus a double-down on her previous shrillery.  Be very careful — if the rest of the players vote against your interpretation, you have to drink an extra one.

Here’s an easy one:

This is why men often offer strong opinions on topics they just heard about, especially if they’re contradicting a woman.

But what about

Women are considered wrong by default and must argue their way to display their truth, no matter how strong their credentials.

The first one is classic projection — getting white-hot furious over stuff they’ve never heard of is classic SJW — but the second sentence beats my pair of jacks.  I’d venture to say that the kind of gelatinous, neutered “males” your typical feminist hangs around have never contradicted a woman on anything, ever.  Think this guy even remembers what it’s like to have a sack?


But then there’s the lovely incoherence of “display their truth.”  Are we back to maintaining, in default feminist mode, that there’s no such thing as objective truth?  Because I thought you just said men regard their opinions as objective truth.  Isn’t “my truth,” syntactically speaking, something that’s objectively true to me?  Yes yes, I know there’s no way to square that circle, because we’re arguing in oxymorons — the phrase “my truth” makes no more sense than the phrase “Lenin or coffee how.”  But you’d think someone who threw around the phrase “objective truth,” even to denigrate it, would have the weensiest little problem writing “display their truth” with a straight face.  Cognitive Dissonance Czar, can we get a ruling?

And then there’s the bit about arguing their way to something.  I can’t even parse that one out.  I know we have a former grammar teacher among our readership.  Can you do us a favor and diagram this one for us?

Women are considered wrong by default and must argue their way to display their truth, no matter how strong their credentials.

I’m tempted to be generous, and assume this is just bad writing (McCain says this gal is 25 years old, and she certainly writes like a grad student).  In other words, the sentence should read something like “Women are presumed wrong and must argue for the truth of statements men would accept by default from men, even if the woman’s credentials are greater than the man’s.”

Is that what she’s saying, though?  Or is “their way to display their truth” to be taken as the object of the argument, roughly equivalent to “opinion”?  Such that the sentence should read “Women are considered wrong by default and must defend every single one of their opinions, while men let that kind of thing slide from other dudes”?

You’ve got to figure that one out before you can determine if she’s lying or projecting.  Again, Omega Boy up there has never challenged a woman on anything, so I doubt Princess here has much experience arguing for anything (whereas guys routinely challenge other guys’ claims just for the hell of it — “busting balls,” we call it, which is another reason Omega Boy has no experience with it).

However it turns out, I definitely need a goddamn drink.

Loading Likes...

7 thoughts on “A Fun New Drinking Game!

  1. Janet A. Roesler

    Yes, I’m one of those dinosaurs wholearned to diagram sentences, but diagramming that sentence will tell you only how the writer has made words to function in a particular sentence. (Anyway, my computer is noticeably absent a diagramming function.)

    Diagramming won’t tell you whether those words can logically be forced into that pattern. It won’t tell you whether his – or her, in this case – choice of words is clumsy or infelicitous or, as you said, incoherent. “Argue their way to display their truth” doesn’t make syntactic sense; she’s just blathering at this point. The only solution is to re-cast the entire phrase. That’s my motto: When in doubt, re-cast! Leaving aside any consideration of whether truth can be displayed or whether there even is such a thing as “her truth” (no to both), I think your two re-castings state her supposed case more sensibly and accurately.

    1. Janet A. Roesler

      Geez, how come the instant I post something, whatever editing errors I made just leap out at me, with no recourse for a fix?

      1. CGHill

        There’s something about pushing the Post button that makes hitherto unnoticed errors distressingly visible, and WordPress, alas, is noticeably absent a preview function. (I grafted one onto mine, but it’s not particularly pretty.)

      2. Gary

        Leaving aside any consideration of whether truth can be displayed or whether there even is such a thing as “her truth” (no to both), I think your two re-castings state her supposed case more sensibly and accurately.

        Yes, but when you need to decipher so much blather, you soon start to wonder if it’s worth the effort.

        At first I was going to describe this thing as “one batshit-crazy, hateful load of lunatic raving,” which I guess it is. But the more I looked at it, the funnier it got. IMHO, weird locutions like “display their truth” are the textual analog of spittle spraying from the mouth of a nutjob in a fit of angry, demented shouting.

        I think the same applies to misspellings, failing to capitalize the first word in a sentence and certain other grammatical errors. These quirks act as a humorous undercurrent that sabotages the “seriousness” of her unhinged tirade:

        1) men subconciously believe they are firmly right about things so much they won’t even consider…
        -Didn’t her spell-checker underline “subconciously”? Also, “men” is the first word in that sentence.
        -Watch out for the spittle coming from the double-emphatic “firmly right about things so much.”

        2) … that is why women are “crazy”, because it is so difficult for men to even consider the possibility that they don’t know shit.
        -She almost has a point here. If I did think women were “crazy,” it probably would be “so difficult” for me to “consider the possibility” she mentions.

        3) Men probably have to tell themselves they’re logical all the time just to keep up the lie that feeds their ego.
        -Indeed. “Logical” is my mantra and that of most of my male friends.
        -Should that last word be “egos” or is there some kind of Collective male ego, like Jung’s Collective unconscious?

        4) …while women are constantly being argued against and therefore exploring the topics more deeply and doing more thinking.
        -Should read: “… and therefore explore the topics more deeply and do more thinking.”

    2. Severian

      I realize diagramming has its limits, but I think at least some of the way these people “think” can be revealed by the peculiar ways they use language. For instance, I think one of the reasons students use passive voice so much is that they’re framing their language in response to test questions. “Who wrote Hamlet?” “Hamlet was written by William Shakespeare.” Call-and-response, like a tent revival.

      I think the left illustrates Orwell’s idea that language thinks your thoughts for you (or, that people think in “frames,” if you prefer George Lakoff’s obfuscatory pseudo-science restatement of the same basic idea). “Display their truth,” on my reading, is just an incantation — they have no idea what it actually means either. Seeing how it’s used in a sentence might help tease that out.

      1. Janet A. Roesler

        People also write in the passive voice because it adds to the word count, if a minimum is required. Also, it sounds more elegant than the direct jab of an s-v-o construction. It just sounds more sensitive if nobody and nothing are actively doing something to somebody or something else. I think this is related to the god-awful “to you and I” business. “To you and me,” even though it’s correct, sounds unpolished and graceless, but “to you and I” sounds high-class and elegant. As a matter of fact, that’s an example of what is termed “elegant English,” meaning the mistake sounds more high-class than what’s right, so we will just go with what sounds more pleasing. And in my experience, if a person is into his adult years, it is nigh onto impossible to teach him to use the objective case first-person pronoun in such constructions. After about 10th grade or so, that horse is out of the barn and it isn’t coming back.

        How these people think? I really try not to think about the cognitive processes of leftists. That way lies madness. The important thing is that the left, unlike the oblivious right, realizes and uses to its great advantage the emotional impact of words, and it regularly hijacks the language because that is the quickest way to achieve their social and political ends.

        Yes, language normally changes a bit over the years, but normal changes aren’t usually the product of ulterior motives. “Justice” means something entirely different to a leftist than it does to a conservative. For a stable society (or nation) to survive, much less thrive, there must be a common language with commonly understood and accepted meanings. Stability undermines the underpinnings of leftists because without conflict and turmoil, they can’t advance their march to a socialistic society.

  2. Pingback: FMJRA 2.0: Common People (William Shatner ST:TOS Video Remix) : The Other McCain

Comments are closed.