Then there's the irony of the fact that so many of the SJWs mocking Knox for his column -- which was basically him wagging his, er, male feminist finger at Chris Gayle -- were the same ones appalled by the cricket star's "sexism" in the first place. These chumps really are eating their own.
Fluffy wuffies are quite sad little creatures, aren't they? One trick trolls, that's for sure. You gotta wonder, can they do anything other than shriek "homophobia", "misogyny" and "racism"? That, and play victim themselves, of course ...
Clearly, they're always lookin' to be offended. And that's a fair conclusion to make because that's pretty much all they ever do. Yet they think that even pointing that out is some kinda mini-hate crime. Gawd.
Accusing people of looking to be outraged is a kind of gaslighting
— Erin Riley (@erinrileyau) January 8, 2016
But back to Knox's excruciating article: Many said it was racist because of its use of Jamaican Patois. This was not unlike blackface, they reckoned.
Well, you could argue that's a false equivalent because African Americans and Jamaicans are different cultural groups. And blackface is just loaded with historical baggage. But an Anglo tryin' to sound like a laid back Rastaman? Hardly oppressive. Whitey tighties pushing this conflation angle should really check their privilege.
But let's say they're right, and "blackvoice" is as degrading as blackface. What's next? Is a European cooking a Jamaican dish racist too? And if a whitey using blackvoice in print is racist, what of "blacklocks"? Given how many sneering hipsters are big time bong sucklers, doubtless many palid middle class revolutionaries sledging Knox sported dreadlocks themselves. Their hypocrisy is world class.
Bet some of them were even snorting up a storm at this image:
IMHO Malcolm Knox's new byline photo is actually very witty, risque and a real game changer pic.twitter.com/A2sQpapaxw
— Eddie Sharp (@sharp_eddie) January 9, 2016
If only these particular hipsters could laugh at themselves they wouldn't need social media at all. Just have to look in the mirror, wouldn't they? But they don't possess that facility at all. Take 'emselves way too seriously.
Knowing how shallow, vacuous and vain your average counter-culture hepcat is I'm pretty sure the thing that really annoyed a lot of 'em was that Knox was being uncool. He was culturally appropriating an element of a culture that they worship and sometimes even emulate. But unlike them, he did it clumsily, and therefore -- in their tiny bong-smoke addled minds -- disrespectfully. Hence all the posturing about "racism".
Because in the end all these sad little stoners value is fashion. And what could be more fashionable than being pompously, relentlessly right-on?