This may be a pet peeve revulsion, but something that I’ve found very disgusting about academic histrionics and victim complexes in these past few months is the following: Most of the articles I can think of written by academics do that whole “Yes I am sympathetic to trauma victims” and “Yes please let’s have a good faith discussion about this and not see each other as enemies” thing. It’s transparently manipulative, and I’m not at all surprised by this, but THEN what happens is that people reblog and repost these “so sensitive to the students and their needs BUT” articles like: “YES! Finally someone standing up against these pathetic whiners.”
And then, despite the academic who wrote the initial article claiming, in the article, all sorts of sympathy and understanding and “good faith,” the academic doesn’t take any measures to tell these people who *make fun* of trauma victims/survivors that they are radically misinterpreting their article or anything like that.
And I’m not even talking about Jock here because Jock’s article had the benefit of being really, REALLY easy to mock. There is actually a good group of people right now in Jock’s circle who have to pretend not to think that parody Twitter is funny, for example, because honestly his scholarship has always kinda transparently sucked and he’s always been kinda an emperor’s new clothes type figure.
But the whole issue of assault on university campuses, and how those assaults are actively encouraged and covered up…I dunno. I’m still kind of mad about that Higher Ed. think by E. Freeman, with that gross list about why her and that dude won’t use trigger warnings. There was one point on the list where they were like, “It’s really awful that there are so many rapes on campus, administrators should really deal with that.” No characterization or framing of campus sexual assault as an “attack on intellectualism” or an “attack on the classroom.” No call for collective action against these cover ups or mention of the complicity of professors or even of the administration.
Anyway I forget where I’m going. I just mean to say, I think, that you know you’re dealing with truly shit people when they write articles about how much they are sympathetic to people and how they desire to operate in “good faith,” and then don’t seriously object when others flat-out mock the people who are supposedly being engaged with with “understanding” and “good faith.” (This also creates a situation where anyone who reacts with anger is “venomous” - there is no correct response here but compliance).