|Photo: Heat Street|
The list of micro-aggressions keeps growing like a tumor on the butt of a liberal. You can add talking about your homework to the list.
Stanford "Professor" Ruth Starkman wrote in the Huffington Post: "Sure, you had no ill-intent, and absolutely nothing racist in mind at all. But by merely uttering the words out loud, you risk a micro-aggression because you don't know who in class may have struggled with the assignment," she says.
Even attempting to explain why you found an assignment easy is also a micro-aggression, the fluttering snowflake explains. So if the assignment was in chemistry, let's say, and you had college-level chemistry in high school and both your parents are chemists, your sister and brother are chemists, and all they talk about at the dinner table is chemistry, it's still a micro-aggression if you try to explain why you knew that H2O is water while the idiot next to you thought it was jet fuel.
"Not everyone went to your high school, had your fortunate circumstances, or such a dazzling delivery room arrival, and even if they did, they might still be suffering because of the genuine challenges of the assignments," Starkman writes.
And if the idiot next to you who doesn't know that H2O is water and you tell him why it was easy for you, that might make him feel bad. And if he feels bad, he may cry and realize how unfair life is and go into a deep state of depression . . . and melt.
Starkman claims that some students struggle while others breeze through because of an injustice she calls "unevenly distributed knowledge."
It's kind of like the idea of an 'uneven distribution of wealth.' Socialists actually believe that if I have more money than they have because I'm a chemist, for example, and they're a children's party clown, it's unfair if I make more money developing cancer curing drugs than they make for shaping balloons into giraffes.
In Starman's socialist mind, any student who attends an elite university with a good educational background is excelling academically because of their wealth and privilege. "Chances are your parents paid substantial sums of money for that knowledge," she says, "either in property taxes in highly resourced school districts or in private education or in pricey enrichment."
So why do libtards refuse to go along with school choice?
Starkman actually thinks that paying high property taxes is another form of privilege that wealthier people should feel guilty about. It isn't equal distribution of wealth--it isn't socialism nor communism--thus, it simply isn't fair in her mind.
"Your response 'I already had this in high school' really means 'not only do I have rich parents, I somehow took exactly the right courses to be perfectly prepared,'" the Stanford professor writes. "Congrats if you did. Try not to be a jerk about it."
Progressives always interpret what you say the way they want to hear it. You're being 'a jerk about it' no matter what you say if it somehow illuminates their shortcomings.
They're like the street beggar who asks you for your money then gets upset when you don't want to give it to them.