Why Did the Gamma Delta Sorority Girl Have to Resign?

From @benk84's news dump.

Why did this have to happen? What exactly turned this from "amusing incident" to Source of National Concern?

Here is a bullshit theory.

So why has Martinson’s screed been such popular online fodder? Many reasons, according to Michael Fertik, founder and CEO of Reputation.com, who told CNN it was because of the "mean girls" stereotype, the surprise factor of "something so vulgar and crude being spouted by someone who looks fairly angelic,” and the fact that a quick search of her social media accounts revealed other less-than-politic moments. And, he added, the email could follow the college junior for years.

“The Internet is forever,” Fertik added. “Unfortunately for her, her ‘online tattoo’ will stick with her for a long, long time—and it will likely color how peers, future employers, grad school admissions officers, etc., regard her as a person. She’s going to have to work very hard to show that she's taken this experience and used it to grow into a more mature, thoughtful, tolerant and compassionate person.”

I have an alternate theory: It's that deep down, people's favorite hobbies include Judging and Selecting an Ostracized Person for Coordinated Social Scorning.

I would further propose that because liberals have convinced themselves they do not have the impulses towards such things, they have no internal restraints against them. (Much like the observation that you can't quit drinking until you admit you have a problem; if you're telling yourself Everything's Just Fine, you lack the first prerequisite for modifying your behavior.)

This email was... what? Nothing. An angry email. With some profanity and some new deployments of rhyming vulgarities. And which looks dopey from the outside. From the outside, of course, we can see that it really doesn't matter if Delta Gamma impresses Sigma Nu or not; from the outside, the amount of emotional investment in pleasing the Sigs seems pretty trivial. So it strikes us as funny.

And... so? So we read a funny email. Why is it necessary to speculate, as CNN did, that there's something more to it than a somewhat embarrassing email which will be forgotten in a week?

I think it's because people, such as those speculating on CNN, and CNN "reporters" themselves, are quietly ashamed of themselves for pushing such a thing as "serious news" and, in the process, beating up on a 19 year old girl (or whatever age).

And I think they're doing this for ratings, and to satisfy viewer's desire for Judging and Scorning the Outsider Who (Horrors!) Erred.

Thus they have to justify such behavior to themselves, they cook the books on the supposed Importance Factor and dial up the knobs for What This All Means measurements and then hook it up to the Teachable Moment Bullshit Morality Tale generator.

They are compelled to justify their own bad behavior by blackening this girl's behavior into some great offense.

She wrote a stupid email.

I made an observation about Hate last week. Leftism is a cult. I'm sure most of you agree with that. Now, in many cults (or religions, more broadly) there are certain actions which are deemed taboo -- but a religion usually affords some way in which performance of the action is sanctified, if it's an action that is important and necessary.

For example, let's take sex. Sex is a taboo in most religions (and in most societies, period) and there are a whole bunch of rules for how sex must happen, if it it is to happen, and not be taboo. In a traditionalist religion, the most obvious form of sanctification of sex is via the vehicle of marriage -- marriage makes the relationship not about base sexual gratification but about something important and eternal (children, family).

Even non-religious society creates methods of sanctification of otherwise taboo acts. For example, among non-religious 16 year old girls, perhaps they might call a girl who sleeps around a "slut," but they also probably have constructed a sanctification safe harbor for sex: if it's a boyfriend you're going steady with (i.e., have dated for two weeks or more, almost an eternity!) and it's about love, then you're not necessarily a slut for having sex, unless we don't like you, in which case you still are.

The reason I bring this up is to point out that in the Cult of the Left, "Hate" is the Ultimate Taboo. The left has few taboos about sex, for example (except the general one that whatever you're doing, it's wrong, because They Know Best; also, they seem pretty convinced that if you don't just Experiment a little with Homosexuality yourself, you may be a Hater Who Hates).

But Hate is their big taboo. But note that they have created a ritualistic safe harbor for a sanctified, praiseworthy expression of hatred: If the Committee of the Whole declares someone persona non grata and Not of the Body, then all taboos against hate are rescinded and you are permitted -- nay, obligated -- to direct as much hatred towards that Designated Hate Object as your blackened heart may contain.

And thus, the need to hate -- to judge, to scorn, to mock, to ostracize, to bring low with insult and venom and screaming and anger -- is channeled, by the High Priests of the cult, towards socially benevolent purposes (at least when viewed from the perspectives of the High Priests).

Hatred is their taboo, their ultimate taboo, the One Forbidden Fruit of which they must not eat, but they soooo wish to bite into this delicious fruit of sweet hatred. To deny them fully would be very difficult, contrary to human programming, and Also No Fun At All.

So a safe harbor for sanctification of the free venting of hatred, judgment, and bullying ostracism is thereby created to appease this urge.

In this case, this girl was a Mean Girl and so that, of course, justifies all the Mean Girl behavior in the world against her (including, of course, the Mean Girl behavior of men, who really ought to be embarrassed of themselves).

This is the general Ritual Consecration of the Free Hate-- the claim that the Designated Hate Opponents are themselves haters and therefore it is now Moral and Godly to hate the Haters as hatefully as cerebral blood vessels will allow.

Nice little racket they've got there, no? Crusade against "hate" all day long, and then periodically declare an Approved Hate Opportunity to keep the parishioners happy and coming back to church.

There's a saying in Christianity that "God is difficult, but he is not impossible." He asks us to do the difficult-- but not the impossible.

The God of the Left is similar, it seems. The High Priests of the Left knows full well that hatred is not really taboo in the Cult, but rather the whole point for joining the cult in the first place.

So while hatred is, supposedly, forbidden, it in fact occupies the center of the cult in the dark church's most sanctified place. As every primitive, totemic religion requires scapegoats, sin-eaters, and blood sacrifice, so too does this one.

posted by Ace at 12:51 PM

| Access Comments