“I’m Offended And That Makes You Wrong”


Many of us who frequent social media will have the dreadful “I’m offended” thrown at us at one point or another. But the question remains of how effective this tactic really is? To understand this we must first understand the various meanings and usages behind this tactic whether they are intentional or not.

What we find so often with the use of the offense taken sentence is that it normally comes when someone wants to go on the attack, someone wants to muster up a defense or when someone wants to do both at the same time. Rarely are these words utilized because someone is just offended and they leave it at that. After all being offended doesn’t mean someone is going to go on the defensive or offensive. At least not inherently anyways. Then that leaves the question of why do it at all if it is rarely used just to be offended?

To answer our above question we need to understand a few things about the people who use this line often. One, we should never misunderstand that being offended doesn’t generate an argument. Two, being offended doesn’t justify being more offensive than the very level of offense that a person is offended by. Three, these types tend to only be offended when it is convenient with a debate being a perfect example. Four, these types of people tend to be offended and use that to justify their world view as if their offended status is a true reflection of everyone else’s experience. And lastly the offended tend to flock in high numbers.

Let us go through each one of those points and see if we can spot the usual suspects:

  1. Christopher Hitchens said it best when he proclaimed that certain people shout, “I’m offended” as if that is an argument. In fact the sentence before this one is almost word for word what the man said. It is true. There are some people who believe that because they are offended that makes them right. Nothing could be further from the truth. One can be offended that the sun can cause blindness if one stares at it for too long. Does that change reality? One can be offended that black people are allowed to exist. Does that make that belief correct? No, it doesn’t and neither does being offended create a rational argument.
  2. Ever notice how a lot of the people who are perpetually offended by something turn around and justify or even engage in material that is far worse by objective comparison? For example there are those who would get offended if someone were to ask a woman to, “smile more.” But as witnessed by the author of this blog in that very same social media posting a person turned around the said that they would make a person lose teeth if they were asked to smile more. Do you see the lunacy in this? How can one be offended by something they deem offensive but then turn around and justify violence for a non-violent gesture? Another good example is how someone will complain about how someone sits on public transit due to rudeness but then turn around and advocate for laws for those people to be ticketed and even arrested for such a trivial offense. These are classic cases, but certainly not all of the cases, where being offended can become a weapon and even a justification for nonsense.
  3. This ties into point number one. Being offended can sometimes be an effective tool and a weapon in a debate. Someone taking offense to words and even statements can essentially erase rational arguments as if they didn’t even exist. Of course this doesn’t work most times because many of us can see right through this particular set of mental gymnastics. The idea is simple. One must be offended, declare it so, cast a label on the person making the statement and with that label comes outright refusal to hear the evidence. It is an effective tactic that is used in politics, social media and from person to person. For example if someone were to criticize a certain religious belief even if that belief has multiple racial identities participating it can be effective to call that person a racist even if it isn’t true or proof cannot be obtained. The reason why this can be effective is that it is a shaming and silencing tool. And believe this tool is standard issue for the perpetually offended.
  4. Finally, we have the, “I’m offended and you should be too” angle. This one is simple. It is not that hard to understand. This is essentially a person proclaiming that because they experienced something or don’t like something that everyone else should care. The problem with that word, “should” is that it is really an anger word. Yes everyone should be a nice person but there are no requirements to be that. Everyone should try not to litter but many of us do it. Should and reality do not mix. So while someone believes everyone should be offended at something that just won’t be the case most times and that is for any issue outside of rape, murder and other very serious crimes. For example if someone is offended at a certain word and don’t care to hear that word uttered by anyone that is that person’s opinion. In reality nobody has to listen or pay any attention to that person for being offended.

So we see where someone shouting that they are offended isn’t just something that is harmless. This is meant to either shut down discussion, shut down discourse, silence people or try to coerce others into being offended or joining a certain label. The tactic tends to work very well. Unlike other tactics if one were to look objectively almost any social group uses this and it is a major recruitment tool for many groups including religion, politics and what have you.

How far does the rabbit hole of horrors go? Let us take a peek into the nonsense and not to claw out our eyes in disgust. Here are a few examples:


Remember this lovely story? Well it is about Tim Hunt who is a Noble Prize winner who was fired after supposed “sexist” comments. Someone got offended and because of that someone got fired. Notable people such as Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox came to Tim Hunt’s defense. As it turns out and despite major media and social media demonizing of Tim Hunt the whole sexism story started to have more holes poked in it than swish cheese being assaulted by an automatic machine gun. But the Twitterverse went to action as soon as the story made waves. People were “offended” even though it is clear that at least 99% of the offended were not even present to know if Tim Hunt committed the offense or not. Remember when I said the perpetually offended tend to flock like birds of a feather? What do you think happened here? This is where being offended can be used as a weapon.


Remember this little gem? Matt Taylor did what many before him thought to be impossible. He landed a man made object on a space object traveling at speeds many of us will never witness even if E.T. landed on Earth tomorrow. The suggestion by this social media posting is that Matt Taylor is contributing to the relative lack of presence of women in STEM fields. So in other words some people got offended by a shirt (made by a woman by the way) and because of that offense attention was taken away from the monumental accomplish of this guy and placed on attire. What is hilariously hypocritical about all this is that the very ideology and social group attached to most of the outrage contain many people who’d say, “violence and crime is not justified by what someone wears.” Yet in a lesser degree they have no problem in reducing a man to tears on live national television because a few people don’t understand that someone has the right to wear what they want with or without their approval.


Now this is where it gets interesting. Similarly to how an army may attack a supplier that may not have anything to do with the actual war this attack on a company is so similar that it is almost sickening to see. Because someone got offended and interpreted a game as “transmisogyny” this person has the nerve to tell someone else what they should or should not back based off of their level of being offended. If this doesn’t represent the greater problem nothing will. Someone being offended is one thing but someone being offended (if they really are or not and aren’t just doing it for attention) should have no bearing on everyone else if others will not be seriously harmed in the process. One really has the burden of proof on them to demonstrate that a video supposedly displaying “transmisogyny” (a term probably coined out of outrage) is going to harm anyone since we known video games have not caused violence or sexism in any conceivable way and we have studies that demonstrate this.


Finally we have the easy way out of the offended and that is by being more offensive. How does one compare over a hundred people losing their lives in a single event to what happened on a college campus where nobody lost their life? Remember the black lives matter movement on the University of Missouri campus? Out of that protest came rap songs titled, “Fuck Paris.” Out of that protest came Asian journalists being harassed and assaulted for being a, “white supremacist” as if the KKK are suddenly taking Asian membership. Out of that protest came students being harassed and one female student in particular being referred to as a, “racist cunt” just for not wanting anything to do with a bunch of people bursting into a library and causing all sorts of ruckus. This is the offended on the attack. Remember when I mentioned how someone could use their offended status to go on the attack with a sword and then use a defense of being “marginalized” or “misunderstood” as a shield? There are few examples better than this.

Now we have a good picture of what shouting, “I’m offended” really means. It just means the person wants to be able to attack without you being able to defend yourself. It also means this person is out of intellectual ammunition and need you to the instigator of your own demise by labeling you something in order to have a weapon against you. Recognize these patterns and overcome this. In order for us to progress as a society in the West we need to recognize and defeat these tactics.


IJ Review

Kung Fu Liu (WordPress Blogger)


“Problematic:” Racism in Feminism’s Past

“Problematic”: Racism in Feminism’s Past”

By: Dion McNeil

One of the things that many of us may notice is how some people can view heterosexual “cis-gendered” white men as problematic based off of history. Now while it may be true that many people who happened to be straight white men did some rather horrible things it appears that there is an outright denial of atrocities committed by those who don’t fit that description. Of course it is almost too easy to spot the nonsense suggestions made by the very same people who make these claims. That is low hanging fruit. A more fruitful endeavor is discovering just how “problematic” certain ideologies are when it comes to being guilty of the same labels and accusations made at straight white men.

Racism is an “ism” thrown at people and sometimes it appears that label of racist is put out at random. Funny thing is that when it comes to some people, especially those who subscribe to modern day feminism, a little bit of educating is required to show the utter despicable racist ideals and actions perpetuated by those who did or would have easily integrated into that movement. For this idea we’ll be focusing on one of feminism’s earliest trail blazers in Susan B. Anthony. It’s not a secret that Susan was guilty of racist words. In fact, according to women’s history over at About.com we find that Susan B. Anthony was described as such:

“She sometimes argued that educated white women would be better voters than “ignorant” black men or immigrant men.

In the late 1860s she even portrayed the vote of freedmen as threatening the safety of white women. George Francis Train, whose capital helped launch Anthony and Stanton’s Revolution newspaper, was a noted racist.”

Someone could easily say, “well, that was a reflection of the times and lots of people were racist then!” Oh, we see that you’re willing to make an exception for Susan B. Anthony but hold the racist cloud over the heads of all white straight men? Do we need to discuss what a double standard is? But you see we aren’t done with Susan yet. Honestly if all she did was say some racist things that’d be one issue but she took insult to injury with some of her other actions. One action in particular is something she is partially responsible for and something that many in the minority community still feel the effects of.

To those saying that what Susan was doing was just a reflection of the times really needs to “educate” themselves as so many feminists love to tell others to do. Because according to Encyclopedia Susan B. Anthony and even Elizabeth Cody Stanton performed some rather despicable acts. For example:

“Some women’s rights activists, including Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, turned to the Democratic Party, portions of which supported white woman suffrage in order to stop black men from securing the vote.”

How are those who would act as apologists for this particular brand of feminism going to explain that one away? The outright demonizing of men of color, black men in particular, is disgusting. Quite frankly this wasn’t just a belief that was held during that time but something that brandished deep conviction. Even if someone wanted to argue that they were simply taking those actions because black men would get the right to vote over white women that defense would make no sense. One doesn’t solve a problem with equality by upholding a standard of inequality and one would have to engage in some heavy duty mental gymnastics to suggest that black people, male or female, had more privileges than white women at that time or any time for that matter.

In a book written by  M. J. Cosson entitled, “Affirmative Action” there is a description of the word, “minority” as it applies to affirmative action can become “problematic.” This is from Chapter 6 in the book:

“The term ‘minority’ in regard to race means many things. In general, it applies to anyone who is not Caucasian. For example, a person could be all or part African American, Native American, or Asian American and still be considered a minority.”

Doesn’t sound that bad, right? Well the same part of this paragraph should spark some serious questions. Take a look:

“It is becoming more difficult to use race as a factor in determining who qualifies to be a recipient of affirmative action.”

Let’s not pick on Susan B. Anthony so much. Her running mate in Elizabeth Cady Stanton also made some pretty asinine statements. If we were to glance over Phillip H. Rubio’s book entitled, “A History of Affirmative Action” we’ll find this following statement from Elizabeth Cody Stanton:

“Prejudice against color, of which we hear so much, is not stronger than that of sex.”

If that doesn’t demonstrate just how delusional some of these first wave feminists could be nothing will. Mind you, according to Mr. Rubio’s book and according to all available sources at least 4 million black men, women and children were slaves at the time that she made this statement. That isn’t to suggest that some of their ideas weren’t good ones and some of their actions weren’t justified. But for some people to sit around and suggest that there isn’t a serious problem of historical and even current racism located within the feminist movement is absolutely ridiculous. Some of the suggestions and even direct statements made by these feminists were far worse than what some straight white men would have said. It’s almost as if the suggestion is that we are supposed to ignore all these clearly racist ideas and focus only on the ones certain feminists want us to develop tunnel vision upon.

That can’t be right. Affirmative Action, in every meaning, was meant to be originally for those who were slaves (namely African Americans) to reverse the damage that Jim Crow laws and slavery inflicted. After all it was drafted shortly after very troubling times in the United States. So then how did women (as a specific group) end up being qualified for affirmative action if those women may have been Caucasian? We know there were white female slave owners. We know there were white women who said some pretty nasty things about African American men with Susan B. Anthony being a shining example of this. We know that there were plenty of white women who participated in the violence against, marginalization of and general misery directed towards people of color. So then how in the world did we end up in a situation where women were added when minority people in general, be they man or woman, would have sufficed in the definition?

We know how we ended up there. According to Terry H. Anderson’s book entitled, “The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action” we learn how we ended up in such a situation. We all know it was John F. Kennedy who put affirmative action into play but rarely do we get to see some of the decisions that led up to gender being apart of affirmative action. In Terry Anderson’s book we learn that in the U.S. House of Representatives Martha Griffiths made the following statement:

“You are going to have white men in one bracket, you are going to try to take colored men and colored women and give them equal employment rights, and down at the bottom of the list is going to be white women with no rights at all.”

Shortly after one of the most powerful act of law would change the landscape of the country. But analyze the above statement. Again, it was “white men”, “colored women”, “colored men” and then “white women.” It is almost as if not only did this person hold white men as the most powerful but at the same time it is as if they were suggesting that if people of color actually got rights that would somehow lessen the rights of white women who were by far more advantaged than what any black person could historically claim at that time. So, if it was clear that was the case just why did she want gender added? Could it be that she sensed that this would later benefit white women more than minorities in general? We can’t say for sure.

Piggy backing off of the above paragraph while we can’t say for sure what was the aim we certainly have the results of today. According to Sally Kohn’s piece over at Time Magazine affirmative action disproportionately benefits white women than any demographic of people of color. That may be some distressing news to hear considering that piece of legislation and eventual executive order by President Kennedy was intended for those who had a legacy of being slaves and were marginalized in ways white women could never attest to in the United States. If we want to be exact affirmative action benefits white women at a 6% higher clip than any minority group including minority women. That doesn’t sound that high until you consider just how many white women are in the United States.

Now that we have explored some of the ridiculous racism located in feminism’s history we’ll leave you with a wonderful list created by Toast. Enjoy! Click here for the Toast’s list.


A History of Affirmation Action (Phillip Rubio)

About.com (Women’s History)

Time Magazine

Affirmative Action by M.J. Cosson

The Toast


Dion McNeil is a writer for the Soap Box Corner. If anyone wants to be featured in the SBC Perspective series or have stories that should be covered by the Soap Box Corner email us at SBCPerspectives@yahoo.com. Thank you for reading!

“Problematic”: The Safe Space

“Problematic”: The Safe Space”

By: Dion McNeil

Unless someone has been living under a rock or simply choose to view the current situation on college campuses a different way there would appear to be a noticeable increase on these demands for safe spaces. The idea is to create a space, both metaphorically and literally, for people who believe that they need that space. Of course this runs against the very idea of college where intellectual thought, debate and general education is supposed to be the rulers of this plane. However we see more and more than safe spaces and the idea that certain people should never invade those spaces being spouting up left and right. This idea alone may not seem all that troubling but the damage is being done.

Safe spaces isn’t a new idea. Of course one could easily link this to the idea that some people require personal space from others who may not agree with their positions, beliefs or generally just want to exist in the same space. There are historical references and those are too many in number but the current forms are the most troubling. Consider that a young eighteen year old is going to college where some of their ideas about the world could be turned upside by a college professor. Now couple that with that same teenager believing that because their professor says something that they don’t agree with that perhaps this teen needs a space away from that professor’s teachings. Sounds far’fetched? No, that idea isn’t outrageous. This actually happened. We will discuss that later but first we need to get to some of the more recent head scratchers.

Few battlegrounds got as bitter and as nasty as the safe space demanding, new course suggesting and outright protest of a movement started on the campus of Claremont McKenna College (CMC). There were students protesting with demands from all sorts of student organizations. One of the most telling statements made by a student, according to Hannah Oh of the Claremont Independent went a little something like, “We want a center that supports marginalized students first and foremost.” If that doesn’t reveal the level of narcissism that some of these students had nothing will ever shine a light on that dark tunnel. The CMC situation only appears to be worse when there is a glance through the official letter sent by some of the protesters.

One doesn’t need to look far in that letter to see the problems. Take the below suggestion alone and one can see an issue:

Expose students to systemic oppression through FWS and FHS-this includes but is not limited to issues on race, sexuality, gender, class and ability. The need for such programs to educate the student body is evidenced by numerous microaggressions felt by students of color. The cultural insensitivity on campus is further highlighted by race themed party proposals, such as an Indian Wedding Party and Colonial Bros, Pilgrims, and Navajos themed TNC.”

In other words the demand here is that CMC is supposed to expose students to oppression. But then the obvious question becomes who is oppressed and who isn’t? If one were to look at the situation objectively many people can say that they are oppressed by the same standard no matter the race, sexuality, gender or any other factor that person happens to be affected by. If one were to read through that entire letter not a single shred of evidence is presented. Even if a recent event helped motivate the writing and mailing of this letter to the college president it is standard practice to at least reference a situation. Yet all we are left with is a claim, a sweeping demand that is desired to be implemented across campus and the demonizing of parties. Even if someone is insensitive, and that is debatable in this situation, that doesn’t mean a college has to spend loads of money to forcefully implement structures and impose standards on everyone.

CMC wasn’t the only victim of the safe space attack mob. In a piece written by  for the New York Times we learn that even Brown University has seen demands for safe spaces and a weapon form of this concept. Wendy McElroy went to Brown to speak about rape culture and have a debate with known feminist Jessica Valenti. Protesters to Wendy McElroy at the university successfully managed to obtain safe spaces in the event that the speaker said something that might “trigger” someone. The strange part about all of this were the statements that Jessica Valenti made. Now if someone is claiming they needed a safe space due to the words of Wendy McElroy why wasn’t there a safe space established for the people who may find that Jessica Valenti was almost on the verge on excusing violence and vigilante justice? After all lots of people lost their lives that way and there are numerous citations, buildings have been vandalized such as the UVA rape story where fraternity members feared for their lives.

Valenti wanted the safe spaces and even spoke about how it was a good idea. The noted feminist even said at the start of her soliloquy that she hoped to not trigger anyone as talking about rape could be triggering. But the idea of believing in safe spaces isn’t harmful in of itself it’s just when those ideas are turned into a weapon that is more concerning. According to the Brown Daily Herald Valenti said, “While I can’t officially suggest that you vandalize school property, I’m not against radical action.” That statement was in response to people writing names of accused rapists, or believed rapists, on school property at Columbia and Barnard College. So in one breath Jessica Valenti doesn’t seem to mind safe spaces but also apparently doesn’t believe in someone having a safe space from an accusation and a safe space from potential slander and defamation of character.

The practical implications of safe spaces and the consequences may not be immediately visible to some people. What we are creating is a generation that believes once someone shouts, “I’m offended” or “I need a space from you” that somehow the world is going to comply or be sensitive to this. It seems like humans are the only creatures on this planet who have members of the rank and file that will follow or even consider this brand of nonsense. Of course not many rational people are going to advocate someone do something overtly offensive just for the sake of doing it but at the same time one must understand the slippery slope attached. The idea is change the world and change speech. Speech will never be changed so long as there is a will to keep things the way they are. Another angle is to change hearts and minds but not in a good way. Peaceful cooperation has served to be the best way to convince another person of being peaceful. If someone shouts, demonizes, protests and call for resignations from someone’s job then maybe, just maybe, that isn’t the best way to go about bringing true change to the world.

One of the most vile ideas that comes out of those safe spaces to some is the very idea of the concept. A safe space is an environment where someone can come, not be questioned, not be made to feel uncomfortable and mostly importantly this is a place where someone’s feelings rules over everything else. Now a person who comes to college to have their positions challenged, actually learn something and actually wants a differing opinion even if a challenge isn’t desired the obvious problem should be visible. How does one learn anything without being challenged? A person who burns their hand as a child learns something from that experience. Would that person who burned their hand demand a safe space from stoves? The very idea of nature and survival is making it past challenges. Evolution, national selection and adaptation demand that each difference was simply a response to a challenge from one’s own species, other species or the environment uncomfortable and you may be non-violent but I need a space because I don’t want to feel uncomfortable.” To those people who think this way then a little wake up call is in order. Institutions of higher education and the ideas presented there in terms of safe spaces don’t translate all that well to the rest of the world. After all, how many times is someone going to go to their boss and tell that boss that they demand a safe space at their work place? No, it won’t work because the world doesn’t work this way. Being challenged is essential for job growth, learning, parenting, problem solving and living. Being offended or made to feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean someone cannot be challenged.

There are a lot of double standards in this idea of safe spaces. One of those double standards is the idea that one needs a safe space due to micro-aggressions and responding to those supposed aggression with outright aggression or demands. Calling for someone’s job and their position to be given to someone deemed to be marginalized calls into question the ethics of such demands. Demonizing someone based on racial identity and gender or the classical straight white male as the oppressor idea makes one wonder if some of these people know what a double standard is. One of the strangest ideas is that on one end many of these safe space protesters and demands of those advocating for these spaces call for safe spaces for the marginalized and yet even if a demographic isn’t deemed marginalized but some members of that demographic actually are marginalized then no exception is made. It is one thing to demand something of society because most of us will ignore this but it is another thing to demand a safe space but also not demanding a safe space from you.


Hannah Oh (Claremont Independent)

Rhea Stark (Brown Daily Herald)

Letter to CMC President Chodosh

Judith Shulevitz (New York Times)


Rape Culture (Marshall University)


Dion McNeil is a writer for the Soap Box Corner. If anyone wants to be featured in the SBC Perspective series or have stories that should be covered by the Soap Box Corner email us at SBCPerspectives@yahoo.com. Thank you for reading!

Incompatibilities: Germany’s New Rape Problem

“Incompatibilities”: Germany’s New Rape Problem”


By: Dion McNeil

Many of us are aware of the new issue concerning some migrants to Europe but Germany in particular. Some of us are aware of the outright cover up or at least an appeared cover up of so called, “rape gangs” that targeted women during New Years eve in Cologne. Women were targeted by many who were migrant men. These women were essentially herded like sheep, separated from the main crowds and proceeded to gang rape these women. According to Germany there were more than 500 reports of criminal activity with at least 40% of those reports being sexual in nature. This means that if there were, for example, 500 reports of crime and 40% of those reports were sexual in nature that would mean that in one night there were at least 200 of those reports were descriptions of sex crimes.

According to both Germany and CNN information the men who are alleged to have participated in these rape gangs were men of Arab and African descent. Now of course these reports are just allegations. However to get so many reports in just one night does bring a degree of credibility. Sure someone could easily say that people lie but this many people lying about the exact same situation, similar description of alleged attackers and all in the same night in much of the same area doesn’t scream “coincidence” to the rational thinker. One of the suggestions thrown out into the wild world of the internet is that these men were migrants which some of the victims in their descriptions of vocal accents and physical description such as skin color would appear to support. But of course in the world of political correctness these descriptions might not fit the bill of someone who is guilty of gang rape.

Many of us remember the gang rape story at the University of Virginia (UVA). Sometimes people, especially victims of such a crime, are not believed when they do come forward. Stories such as the UVA scandal explains this to some degree. However as bogus as some of the details in that case were hardly anyone can deny the level of validity in this particular situation. Women across European countries have experienced rape but many of those rapes were in fact committed by migrants and/or asylum seekers.

Here is some simple points of evidence to keep in mind:

  • In a piece written by Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard we learn that in 2012 there was a brutal gang rape of a 30 year old mother by 8 men who were all asylum seekers that were from some pretty gender regressive areas such as Afghanistan. Now this is just one case, right? Well it was bad enough for Sweden’s top public prosecutor at that time to call it the worst sex crime in Sweden’s history.
  • Sweden, Germany and other parts of Europe have witnessed sharp increases in rapes once certain individuals arrive to their countries from places that have regressive attitudes towards women. Certain countries in the African continent and many countries in the Middle East have generally oppressive governments that treat the women in those countries like second class citizens. So when some of those men come over to countries that generally have different attitudes from their own home countries problems will almost certainly come at least from some of those men.
  • We know that the attacks in Germany weren’t the only time European countries have reported a noticeable increase in rape and sexual crimes when migrant men showed up to their doorsteps. Of course this doesn’t mean every person from a certain country is a rapist but it does mean that some ideologies and some views in a country are not compatible with Western countries values.
  • Why stop? If one can rape and be defended by those who subscribe to political correctness and defend any action so long as that person is “not the true Scotsman” why would it matter? Would any of you care what someone thought if any action you took could be defended and even if that action is rape? Think about it. If you had a book like the Quran which is known to contain all sorts of regressive ideas about women and how women are to be treated, your countries are known to have governments and laws that oppress women and yet people will call others racist for criticizing, not your racial identity, but your ideology why would you not be a morally bankrupt monster? Even now after the situation in Germany many of Germany’s own citizens and some in the German media accused the German government of a cover up.
  • As many of us are fully aware these men who come from these countries who oppress women are probably not going to respect women just because they left their home countries. Think about it. If you grew up in a country where a woman could actually be put in jail when she was the one who was raped then it makes perfect sense that you would engage in a mob rape of German women.

801220e0bd491c9e4c089e2be4e5a017So who is to blame for all of this? Well of course the perpetrators in these European countries. Some of the citizens in these European countries are asking why more isn’t being done or even said about all of this. The obvious answer is political correctness. Just criticizing Islam in any way or criticizing someone who happens to be a Muslim can get someone branded as a racist. Of course Islam is just an ideology and is in no way translatable into a race. That doesn’t matter to those who subscribe to political correctness. It needs to stop. This is the cost of silencing people, shouting them down and/or daring them to question someone that another person or “professional victim” deems to be a marginalized group. It doesn’t matter if someone is marginalized or not. Rape is wrong. Those responsible for rape are wrong and any ideology that has books that spell out that rape is justified needs to be held to the highest level of scrutiny.

All too often whenever someone questions Islam it always becomes a battle of who can call who a racist the fastest. Let’s get one thing straight. No, you are not a racist for questioning Islam. Anyone, and yes this means anyone, who thinks otherwise knows nothing about Islamic demographics and should refrain from engaging in a conversation they know little to nothing about. First, examine the Cologne attackers. Remember the mentioning of Arab and men of African descent? That alone tells anyone that there appears to be different looks, different places of origin and even different racial identities for Muslims. So anyone telling another person that they are wrong for criticizing Islam or questioning why so many Muslim men feel like rape is okay that they are racist for doing so then that person doesn’t appear to know that Islam covers a lot of racial identities. A lot of people criticize Islam. Are they all racist? Even the ones who were once Muslim themselves?

There are some in the West who call our society a rape culture. No, this isn’t a rape culture. Well, at least it isn’t a rape culture currently anyways. We need to start questioning why has this rape epidemic went out of control, where the heck is the response from the people always calling the west a rape culture and why an entire government in Germany appear to have masses of their own citizens shouting about a cover up of gang rapes. We need to fight back against this tide of sex crimes and once and for all hold the ideologies, be they personal, mob mentality or religious, accountable. Shouting people down and labeling them with an “ism” is cowardly, unnecessary and, to be frank, had a hand in creating this.

It’s time we stop acting like certain ideologies are immune from criticism. No, there isn’t any part of telling someone, “that’s offensive” or “that’s racist” that is apart of intellectual thought or discussion. Conventional wisdom tells us that if it exists it can be criticized. There are those in Islam who would say that evolution never happened, that women are not as intelligent as men, that women are responsible for their own rapes, that men cannot control themselves as they are bloodthirsty monsters and none of that appears to get the same vitriolic response as someone simply questioning Islam and it’s rape enabling views. For too long have people shouted down others just for having an opinion and maybe if those opinions were heard we would be aware of the incompatibility of certain Muslims from certain countries.

Do we need to stop immigration? Of course not. Nobody seriously is suggesting that while not needing medication. But what is a good idea is simply questioning people on their views of society, women, men, children and other vital people, places and ideas to our Western democracies. If those people are found to violate any of our values they should be deported immediately and if the crime is a horrible one such as rape they should face a harsh punishment before deportation. We need to send a clear message. The only rape cultures are the ones located in the countries where some of these men came from. The rape culture suggestions are exaggerated here but the exaggerations will become reality so long as we shout down others just for having a question or an opinion. We should send a loud and clear message that we will not allow people who have incompatible views to create a rape culture here.

This stops here and now.



Gatestone Institute


Dion McNeil is a writer for the Soap Box Corner. If anyone wants to be featured in the SBC Perspective series or have stories that should be covered by the Soap Box Corner email us at SBCPerspectives@yahoo.com. Thank you for reading!

Tweet of Doom: “Trust and Safety Council”

Tweet of Doom: “Trust and Safety Council”

By: Dion McNeil

Are your stocks dying? Is your social media platform becoming more and more irrelevant compared to Facebook? Do you need to find a new way to piss off people who already didn’t want much to do with you in the first place? Well if you’re Jack Dorsey you need a new way to bring in a crowd after some accused your social media platform as being a hot bed for abuse, stalking and other sorts of horrible things. But of course you couldn’t just stop there. You needed a way to not only control what others say but how they say it and to whom they can say such things to.

There are people who have concerns about free speech being threatened. A long stereotype about Twitter is that there are lots of mean people and lots of people who are willing to harass, threaten, sexually harass and scare others off of Twitter. Funny enough even those like Stephen Fry learned that the demographic that is supposedly doing the harassment might be the ones targeting others with harassment that is pronounced enough where Mr. Fry left Twitter as a response. Think that was the people who hate others for being different that made Stephen leave Twitter? Nope, that’d be the offended by everything social justice warriors who did this.

Now of course with Twitter’s declining membership, Jack Dorsey is no longer a billionaire and with the clear cut reaction to some of the recent controversies involving harassment it isn’t any wonder why Twitter is taking a nose dive. However, Mr. Dorsey needed a response. Of course there are certain groups who needed catering to. Those groups included the social justice warriors, the cultural Marxists, the cultural authoritarians and those who are perpetually offended. Of course there were those who were genuinely threatened and harassed who may fit those demographics but we also know that a lot of people who belong to those groups or are easily identified as those types are also guilty of threats and harassment. But to appease some people something had to be done. Mr. Dorsey to the rescue!

Enter the Twitter’s shiny new “Trust and Safety Council” that was created to, “ensure people can continue to express themselves freely and safely on Twitter, we must provide more tools and policies.” Sounds innocent enough, right? Think again. Let us take a look at the list of those people who Twitter is trusting with this task of policing free speech. When you’re finished reading this post ask yourself, “how Orwellian is this going to become?”

Here are just a few honorable mentions:

Anti-Defamation League

This group has been known to create some controversy. After all even Fareed Zakaria of CNN returned the Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize he accepted from the ADL in 2005 after the group opposed the ground zero mosque. It’s one thing to oppose a religious belief but another entirely to treat people like garbage and oppose them having a place of worship due to whatever bias or belief that is held against that religious faith. While Islam may have some issues in some parts of the world that doesn’t speak for the entire religious faith in general. The ADL doesn’t appear to feel that way. Their excuse came from the ADL’s National Director Abraham Fox man who said that the league, “did not oppose the right for an Islamic Center or a mosque to be built” but rather “[made] an appeal based solely on the issues of location and sensitivity.”

So is that an excuse to oppose the building of a religious structure? By that same logic there shouldn’t be a church in any part of America for fear of offending Native Americans and African Americans because we all know the brutal stories involved in those situations. But it is doubtful that Mr. Foxman would feel the same about Christianity and Judaism as he does about Islam. Then again his whole organization has had a rather troubled history. Take this piece from Global Research for example:

2013 marks the 20th anniversary of the infamous “Anti-Defamation League (ADL) filescontroversy“  in which the ADL was discovered infiltrating, spying on and otherwiseviolating the privacy rights of a large number of anti-Apartheid, civil-rights and peace groups through the unlawful acquisition of private data from corrupt local law enforcement officials.

The single best retrospective is from long-time Middle East analyst and broadcaster Jeffrey Blankfort, who was also among those targeted by the ADL (see, “The Strange History of the Anti Defamation League: ADL Spies“).

Many Americans were outraged in 1993 after reading mainstream press accounts of a vast national ADL spy network with organelles passing information not only to Israel’s Mossad but also Apartheid South African intelligence services—possibly resulting in the mysterious death of Chris Hani and the rushed deportation/detention of many Palestinians.  Declassified FBI files newly reveal not only the flood of constituent letters pouring into Congress and the FBI’s unfulfilled assurances that justice would be served, but the ADL’s use of proven tactics that the Israel lobby has deployed since the 1940′s to skirt accountability for major criminal violations.

The FBI files, originally scheduled for declassification in 2038, were suddenly released to IRmep under the Freedom of Information Act on November 20, 2013 and may now be browsed and downloaded from the Israel Lobby Archive. 

It is a timely release since one of Israel’s most harmful spies, Arnon Milchan, is openly boasting about his criminal exploits and Americans may soon demand not only that unsuccessful old law enforcement tactics be retired but new strategies be fielded to punish Israel lobby wrongdoers and end their long stint of immunity.”

Really Twitter? Really Jack Dorsey? You employed the help of these people with their blatant Islamophobia, hatred of people who are just different and have a few who are extremists and these people were involved in a FBI investigation for espionage and you employed them to control online harassment? At this point anyone willing to defend Twitter bringing these people on when so many consider them hateful, many who belong to an entire demographic considers them evil and they may or may not have broken the law a few times has to be either blind or some serious type of narcotic. This was horrendous move.

Dangerous Speech Project

So the very title kind of sums who these people are. They believe that dangerous speech is dangerous. They believe that using certain words, phrases and even suggestions is a precursor to violence and often causes that violence. Sound familiar? Well the same thing was said about video games, movies, rap music, music in general and so on and so forth. And yes these people actually believe this. Don’t believe that? Here’s a quote from the front page of their website:

“Inflammatory public speech rises steadily before outbreaks of mass violence, suggesting that it is a precursor of, or even a prerequisite for violence. In many cases, a few influential figures turn their own people against another group, using speech that has a special capacity to inspire violence: Dangerous Speech. Found in myriad languages, cultures, and religions, Dangerous Speech is uncannily similar across them. For example, it often refers to people as insects, vermin, aliens, threats, or pollution.

Violence may be prevented by diminishing such speech, or by making it less compelling to its audiences – without harming freedom of expression. The Dangerous Speech Project works to find the best ways to do this.”

Is it possible for them to be anymore vague in what they meant? Sure, calling someone an insect, alien, threat, a pollutant or vermin isn’t nice but does that always lead to violence? Of course not. There are numerous logical fallacies at play here. One is the false cause which means these people presume that because someone gets called a name and violence happens that this automatically means the speech was the cause as if people ever needed words to be violent. The second is the slippery slope as they are implying that if we allow such speech violence will automatically happen. Third is the lovely Texas sharpshooter fallacy because since we know these words don’t always lead to violence these people are either lying or cherry picked patches of data to suit their presumption. Finally we have the middle ground fallacy because these people are pretending to take a middle ground between fighting what they perceive to be harmful words and balancing free speech.

This sort of group doesn’t need to be on Twitter’s council on cat litter let alone Trust and Safety. If they can’t even distinguish that not all words are violent words no matter how they try to twist reality to fit a narrative then it makes one wonder how they’d judge a tweet that may not be so kind. After all, are we really to believe this group exists because of the few words listed in their mission statement? Something about this group sounds very Orwellian and it wouldn’t be shocking if their idea of what “dangerous words” are isn’t as vague as their opening mission statement is on their front page. Don’t be shocked if those types of words has somehow caused the death of someone else to these people.

Feminist Frequency

Well it wouldn’t be long before we get to see the great Anita Sarkeesian pop up again. Her video series on tropes versus women in video games got her lots of praise and a lot of dislike. She is a woman famous for going to the UN and saying that harassment would also include people telling her that she sucks and that she is a liar. Now saying someone sucks is pretty rude but calling someone a liar isn’t really considered harassment to most people. But even then Twitter is trusting Anita and her crew to call out harassment with research. How reliable is her research? Well her recent video on “strategic butt coverings” shows just how terrible her research is. If she can’t understand that a cape on Batman would hide his butt and only because of the cape and not because of some mass conspiracy to hide the butts of men (especially since in the same game male character rear ends can be seen with just a change of character skins and Batgirl wears a cape that covers her butt as well) then we shouldn’t really rely on her research at all. Then again if she thinks that someone just calling another person a liar is harassment we kind of know where this is going. This is going to censorship.


Remember that controversial 10 hours of walking while being a woman in NYC video? Yes? Do you remember how Rob Bliss, the director of that video, was called a racist because of the depiction of men of color and the black face ordeals he had in the past? Well let’s just put these people in on the Trust and Safety Council and see if there is no level of double think and blatantly obvious evil deeds done. It’s one thing to bring someone on board who doesn’t even fit their own standards. It’s one thing to bring someone on board who has in fact gotten a lot of vitriol from those in minority communities. Another issue arises entirely when Twitter is so blind to the obvious problems of bringing in Hollaback who monetizes off of sensationalism and one sided presentations.

When reading those names, and trust and believe more could be scrutinized, one has to wonder what was the true purpose of creating such a council? Was it really to combat online harassment? Well Anita Sarkeesian would have someone banned for saying she is a liar, Dangerous Speech Project would have someone banned for referring to anyone as a furry creature, the ADL would probably have Islam loving people banned and Hollaback probably will make a video that one could imagine the name being “10 hours of tweet harassment.” It isn’t the single view of any one of these groups that one should really be concerned about. The combined effort of all of these groups, many of which have been repeatedly sighted for either making ridiculous statements or trying to squash free speech, that should be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Are we really to believe that this isn’t some grand attempt by people who are offended or can’t get simply hit the block button to make Twitter into a giant safe space? We know Hollaback and Feminist Frequency supports safe spaces and believe that any sorts of words are considered harassment if the person doesn’t want those words said and even if the words aren’t really all that bad. Take that 10 hours of walking video. Not much mention was made of the men who were simply giving that woman compliments or just greeting her but clusters of harassment were cherry picked to fit a narrative. It only gets worse when one realizes that only poor and high minority populated areas were the center of attention thus showing just how far a group like Hollaback is willing to go to fit a narrative and even if it means demonizing an entire demographic. Is this the brand of research and insight we are going to be getting about Twitter users and tweets?

Maybe we all need to send Twitter a unified message that this won’t be tolerated. Most of us are good people and want a safe world but not at the cost of becoming a giant hive mind. A bad culture is bad but a cultural controlled by bad people pretending to be good is even worse. At this point we don’t know who the enemy is anymore but we can all do something to stop this censorship of free speech before the real damage is done. Leave Twitter and show Jack Dorsey that a giant safe space isn’t what we want as consumers and Twitter users.

Thanks for reading!


Dion McNeil is a writer for the Soap Box Corner. Dion is a 29 year old stay at home dad who specializes in social issues and psychology. Feel free to comment, share, discuss or contact us at phalanxmedia@mail.com



The Guardian

Dangerous Speech Project

Huffington Post

Huffington Post (Fareed Zakaria)

Holla Back

Global Research

Youtube Video

Geek Bomb

The Free Thought Project

Vanity Fair (Stephen Fry)


Does black lives matter to #blacklivesmatter?

Of course some people are going to see the initial heading of this and dismiss the information contained in this blog outright. That is fine as that is their right. However for this blog and for this entry we shall explore black lives matter as a hashtag and movement.

How did it all come to this? That question has been hurled around a lot but it would appear to have a pretty solid answer. Shortly after the Trayvon Martin case where George Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges after shooting Trayvon Martin causing fatal injury the black lives matter movement was born. According to the Feminist Wire the movement was started by Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi. The movement was created as a form of a protest and a call to action to fight back against the oppression of black people.

If someone believed that the Trayvon Martin case was the only case where the #blacklivesmatter would be invoked that person really needs to brush up on recent history. Shootings of unarmed black people, police brutality and even political events such as those shouting, “black lives matter” at a Bernie Sanders speech are just a few of the situations where the hashtag has been invoked.

It would appear that at base level, especially given the fact that there has been historical and even current day unfair treatment of black people, that the hashtag movement and call to action is completely justified. But like any movement there will almost inevitably be the radical elements and elements that are perpetually offended no matter what the situation is.

A good place to start to reveal some of this double think is the shooting of an unarmed black man by the name of Walter Scott in Charleston, South Carolina on April 4, 2015. The black lives matter movement was seen in full force in Charleston. But was it really outrage that a white police officer in Michael Slager shot an unarmed black man or was it just another way to be outraged? Of course anyone who has actually been to Charleston, South Carolina has to know that it isn’t unusual to see someone get murdered. In fact in 2014 alone, according to Death Penalty Info out of all 50 states South Carolina ranked in the top 4 for the most rate of homicides per 100,000 citizens. In fact the FBI released a 2014 report that shows that North Charleston, a neighbor of Charleston, was one of the worst cities to live in if one wanted to avoid murder.

So if all of the above facts are true where was all the outrage when there was so much murder going on for such a long time before Walter Scott was even chased and shot down by a police officer? Is it really that black lives mattered to these protesters or does the color of the shooter make all the difference? Apparently so. Because since Walter Scott was tragically gunned down there have been more than a few murders with black people as victims but also as perpetrators. If black lives really mattered to these people and if the color of the shooter doesn’t matter where exactly is the outrage? When one asks such questions an all too common reply of claims of derailing, a labeling of racism, angry outbursts, demonizing, labeling one as a “coon” or “Uncle Tom” if the person asking the question happens to be black or one can experience the sound of crickets.

Okay, so maybe the hashtag movement has done some wrong but there are good things, right? Well yes of course. Highlighting some of the struggles of black people always helps. What a lot of people fail to realize is that many who would identify with the hashtag movement like Alicia Garza are also outspoken critics of gender based violence which funny enough Alicia never addresses that South Carolina ranks #1 in the whole country number of women killed by men but focuses more on white police officers who kill unarmed black people. Kind of fishy but let us not forget all the good those who identify with the hashtag have done. Everything from community service, helping those who have been the target of racial bias and highlighting many abuses of power by politicians and police departments around the country has done quite a bit of good.

But then there are the obvious problems with the movement. Again, radicals will exist. None serves as a more obvious example of this than the whole University of Missouri case. What happens when black lives matter goes too far or people who would identify with the hashtag go way too far? Consider this exchange and be the judge for yourself. Now if you watch the video in its entirety you will notice that Melissa Click who is an assistant media professor at the University of Missouri is physically assaulting Tim Tai, an Asian American photojournalism student, and encouraging others to remove Mr. Tai. This is what happens when black lives matter goes too far. Tim Tai was even accused of being a white supremacist as if the Ku Klux Klan is suddenly taking Asian American applicants.

So where are you? Is black lives matter a hashtag trying to seek change or is it a hashtag used as a weapon? Be sure to leave a comment and share your feelings.



The Feminist Wire

Daily Mailer

WIS News (Local South Carolina news station)


Death Penalty Info

Battle of the Trans

It is true that transgendered people can be marginalized. It also true that a lot of violence can come at a person who is transgendered. Even if someone wanted to be dishonest to the highest degree and claim that some transgendered people don’t face discrimination they couldn’t do it with a straight face. However when someone wants to try so hard to inject a transgendered person into a video game that becomes a whole different kind of problem. When something like this goes down one can expect that many gamers will respond and the responses won’t be so kind.


Take Brianna Wu for example. Brianna is a transgender woman. She is known to make splashes online with information that can be factual or just flat out lies. There is no other way to interpret it without being intellectually dishonest. Oh but there are those times where Brianna appears to be mistaken on some issues. Enter Oryx aka The Taken King from the popular Destiny video game. Brianna caused some cheering and also quite a bit of jeering when she made some statements. Polygon also backed her.


When someone goes and criticizes a game like Destiny using Brianna Wu’s tactics such as proclaiming Samus from the Metroid series to be a trans woman (which is an issue that will be later addressed in future blogs) that will almost assuredly create some anger. Now to those of you reading this who aren’t even gamers and never played Destiny it is easy to assume that Oryx is a transgendered male. Of course that person would have to throw out all understanding of what it means to be transgendered but we should  include everyone no matter how ignorant they may be on the issue.


To proclaim Oryx as a transgendered woman is to create controversy due to Destiny’s large following. There were numerous accounts of transgendered individuals who were insulted by this. After all it isn’t hard to see why those people would interpret this as someone quite literally comparing them to a hideous space creature who tries to dominate the entire universe. At the same time there were gamers who just didn’t want this kind of identity politics injected into games. But then there were those who were avid followers of the Destiny series and knew the lore of the game that knew better than to believe this Polygon article or Brianna Wu for that matter.


Anyone who has played the game will probably inform you of the “grimoire” which is the in-game bestiary information, character information and general information about every environment, planet, faction and even history within the game. In that grimoire explanations of every species are given and even the Hive race that Oryx belongs to is mentioned. Everything about the hive speaks of evil, darkness and utter despair should someone run into them. So right off the bat the transgendered gamers who were offended are validated with such information being readily available about the species they believe they are being compared to.


The specific claim that Oryx is transgendered is so wrong on so many levels for those of us who are students of the Destiny grimoire that some of us find the suggestion utterly laughable. First, let us read below what the hive actually are.


“Hive are born from pupae, much like colonial insects, and they feed on worms that they swallow whole.[25] Hive show traits of sequential hermaphroditism; All are born biologically female, and gain the ability to metamorphosize into male forms and back again as they reach adulthood.”

Now that would make a lot of sense given what some of us known about the Hive. But notice some of the words that are being used. “Pupae”, “insects”, “worms”, “hermaphroditism” and mentions of changing genders. Now it is easy to understand how someone can misinterpret that as being transgendered. But let us be clear. Being transgendered and being a biological hermaphrodite is in no way the same. If anyone wants to question this then we’ll let Webster decide the argument.


  • 1:  an abnormal condition especially among the higher vertebrates of having both testicular and ovarian tissue in the same individual—compare intersexuality, pseudohermaphroditism

  • 2:  a normal condition of most plants and some animals (as an earthworm) in which male and female reproductive organs are present in the same individual

 In other words what Merriam-Webster is describing is something like a clown fish. There are multiple hermaphrodites in nature. These animals and even some plants tend to change their biological sex in order to reproduce and ensure the survival of their species. This clever and amazing adaptation has served many species well through Earth’s history of life.
:  of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person’s sex at birth
Now if someone can spot how being transgendered is the same as being a hermaphrodite then that person deserves the medal of all medals. Someone not identifying as a gender, refusing the idea of a gender or believing they have a different gender identity than what they were born as is clearly not the same as an earthworm who changes gender based off of biological need. It is not the same and even the dictionary definitions demonstrate this.
So then what are we left with? If Oryx and the hive are not transgendered than what are they? After all all that mention of worms, insects and pupae. But wait, are you starting to see a trend here? These hive creatures live underground, are mostly blind, can change genders based off of need, appear to reproduce and act like insects and other factors appear to show something. What other animal acts this way with exception to eating worms? Oh! We know what animal is just like that! That would be the earthworm! So what Brianna Wu and Polygon tried so desperately to coin as a transgendered person is actually a biological hermaphrodite that clearly isn’t the same as a transgendered person.

“Night crawlers are so named because they are usually seen feeding above ground at night. They burrow during the day—typically keeping close to the surface—capable of digging down as deep as 6.5 feet (2 meters).

The worm’s first segment contains its mouth. As they burrow, they consume soil, extracting nutrients from decomposing organic matter like leaves and roots. Earthworms are vital to soil health because they transport nutrients and minerals from below to the surface via their waste, and their tunnels aerate the ground. An earthworm can eat up to one third its body weight in a day.


Night crawlers also mate on the surface. They are hermaphroditic but do not self-fertilize. Following mating, each worm forms a tiny, lemon-shaped cocoon out of a liquid secreted from its clitellum, the familiar-looking bulge seen near the first third of the earthworm’s body. The sperm and egg cells are deposited inside the cocoon, and it is buried. After a two- to four-week gestation period, the baby worms emerge.”

In other words it is pretty clear which animal the hive were probably modeled after and that animal almost certainly has to be the earthworm. The similarities are just too striking. The hive dig, are hermaphrodites, cannot see but react to light (which ironically one of the main mechanics in Destiny is something called “light” and that makes sense given that the hive are the main enemies with Oryx and react to light like an earthworm would), live underground and consume a lot of food very quickly and in shocking amounts given their relative size.
So we are left to brand Brianna Wu and this Polygon article whose author is Laura Dale are categorically wrong. What is even more surprising is that Brianna Wu, being a transgendered woman, would probably cause someone to wonder why she didn’t know better than to support something like this even when it was so wrong. Brianna is a known player of the Destiny game as she discusses the game quite often. Even with the in-game knowledge and even with dictionaries being a dime a dozen she still managed to get this wrong. However this isn’t surprising. Brianna has said some rather asinine things before.
Below is a short list of some of the craziest things Brianna has said. Enjoy!
She thinks she is somehow Batman.
She believes that people getting pissed that she wants to try to motivate change of a beloved character equals transphobia.
Brianna Wu never tried to force something down someone’s throat, right?
In one breath she’ll say she is not privileged and yet we read something like this.
What happens when you question Brianna Wu and you don’t threaten, use profane language towards, sexually harass or even harass her but just make a general comment?



National Geographic (Earthworms)

Merriam-Webster (Transgender)

Merriam-Webster (Hermaphroditism)

IGN (Hive Race Description)IGN (Hive Race Description)