I garnered these responses to this US Coast Guard tweet from a pro-Ukraine “open-source intelligence” feed—actually, anyone who is in an “open-source intelligence feed” will be a Ukraine supporter by default; why? It’s about collaboration, obviously—who would be into “crowdsourced knowledge” where we all say nicey-nice things to each other as we “collaboratively share information”? Leftists, obviously—these open-source projects, often “non-profit”, are more about the idea you are a nice person who talks to other nice people about e.g. crowd-sourced satellite analysis of an earthquake than about the actual work. In a sense, “crowdsourcing” is a circle-jerk—and so it attracts circle-jerkers, and they are, of course, “soy”. Meanwhile, less agreeable and individualistic people (i.e. rightists) will steer clear of biccy-wickys and a pot of tea and a chat. So it goes.
These particular tweets counter-signal the way the USCG has used the traditional phrase “shark-infested waters”. There are a few points in operation here: firstly, it is actually narcissistic—it is not about the fishermen who were rescued, it is about making the tweeters feel special; in this case, they have some important information to convey (supposedly). Yet the “important information” is just pedantry—oceans are a natural home for sharks; therefore, it is “incorrect” to say any waters are shark-infested waters. Yet this itself is not correct; it depends on a wilful decision to misinterpret the sense of the phrase “shark-infested waters”. Waters are shark infested, me hearties, from man’s viewpoint—when we say that waters are shark-infested this is not some biological observation about shark habitat, it is about the peril we face as humans in particular waters from sharks.
The tweeters, however, think about the situation from the shark’s point of view—i.e. the humans are the interlopers on the shark’s territory, the sailors in the water are an “infestation”. Notice how this inversion runs through all leftism: sharks, pitbulls, criminals, immigrants, Muslims, blacks, transsexuals—everything has to be looked at from their point of view, not objectively; and to do so is construed as somehow “moral”, even if it flatly contradicts reality. This viewpoint inversion is then supported by specious statistics that say *technically* sharks hardly ever predate upon humans. Yet, let me assure you, if you dumped these smug tweeters in Louisiana’s “shark-prevalent waters” (to use the politically-correct term) they would be concerned soon enough as regards the fins that circled them.
Where does it come from? Partly it is neurosis: in this case, the inability to understand sharks are killers—just like pitbulls are killers. “But not all…” This pedantry disguises the fact that they cannot deal with reality, the reality is that sharks are killers—the pedantry is a defence mechanism; sure, you can swim in a pool with a shark and not be eaten—just like Timothy Treadwell lived with and approached grizzly bears for years (until he was eaten). Sure, you would be surprised how much it takes to provoke a fully-fed grizzly to try and eat you, and the same goes for sharks—except this does not change the general nature of the beast.
This refusal to accept reality leads, in the human world, to acquiescence to evil—since people cannot believe, as in the case of Lord Longford, that prisoners like Myra Hindley are “really evil”. Look, so goes the liberal reformer, should we judge someone by the murder they participated in for three minutes of their life—what about the thousands of other minutes they will live…? Sure, the pitbull tore the toddler apart for three minutes, but what about the thousands of other…
This refusal to accept reality, to accept what they know to be true really as regards a general tendency in people and animals, meshes with narcissism—with the desire to “look good”, “look like a nice person”, and “look smart”. You see all three in the above tweets, the tweeters both look like they claim some special scientific knowledge, look like they are combatting “ingrained anti-environmental prejudice”, and look “nice”. “Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.”
They do not know what they do because they are so wrapped up in their image—compassionate progressive environmental defender—that they have concealed reality. Also, it is a way to draw attention away from the rescuers—quasi-militaristic, old-fashioned Coast Guard; even the name induces “bad feelz”—and instead draw it to the sensitively “virtuous” pro-shark tweeters. Further, whether or not the USCG today is composed from bearded tobacco-chewing old salts, it is undoubtedly more masculine than the pro-shark tweeters—and they are effectively feminised men “flirting”, counter-signalling, masculine men who act (helicopter pilots, rescue divers etc).