Look, I consider myself a provocatëur of sorts. I have a carefully curated online presence and I seek to inspire discourse amongst my peers. Unlike SOME people out there, I am more than open — criminally agape, in fact — to hearing ALL views from ALL people from ALL walks of life. Prompting discussion on relevant issues is incredibly important not just for my intellectual satiation (which, due to my IQ [Intelligence Quota] is often a gargantuan undertaking), but for the health of our democracy.
Some people can’t handle the discourse I inspire. Okay, fine, you made me say it – these people are usually women. Females often get offended by my various online treatises (some call them “twitter threads,” but I prefer the term treatise), and will not appreciate that I am entitled to debate with them. And no, I do not feel entitled. Though I loathe his ideology, Ben Shapiro was correct when he said that “facts don’t care about your feelings.” My entitlement to other people’s time and ignorance of their opinions is a simple fact of life. Civil discourse with peers is how our democracy thrives. I don’t think it’s out of the question to say that to deny me access to other people’s time and space is to unequivocally endorse the spread of fascism.
Some of you may have heard of the philosopher Socrates. He famously compared himself to a gadfly, saying that his main purpose on Earth was to provoke. Much like Socrates, I aim to provoke – mostly women, though, and only if I feel they can handle the rigor of my intellect. In my experience, I often find that women are less willing to push themselves in academic settings. I notice this when attempting to engage with them – as soon as I raise my hand, females look away and whisper to each other. Being respected feels good, but not if it literally sends my fellow classmates hurtling down a dark and dangerous road towards all-encompassing authoritarianism.
This may sound like a trite cliche, but I was born in the wrong generation. Oh, how I would love to have been alive in Ancient Athens, where free debate was prioritized as a pillar of the social order, where men became citizens in the crucible of political action. Aristotle, a niche philosopher from this time period, did say “men” when describing citizens, but I’m sure it was one of those situations where he meant “mankind.” I’m comfortable taking this interpretation, even though he explicitly said that women were a sub-citizen class and should never be politically active. Although, as a promising new voice in neo-Aristotelian thought, I feel that perhaps he had a point. Women in my classes don’t want to speak to me or engage with me as I make points. And when they do, it’s never anything worthy of the time allotted to me in my section. That’s the nice thing about democracy – we can speak freely. I wish more women realized that my voice – which I am sure I would use to advocate for them, on occasion – would be lost if it were not for democracy. Much like a woman who murders her older husband for his inheritance, totalitarianism would smother me with her satin pillowcase as I slumbered. And oh, that would be a shame.