I don't know if this is making headlines in Italy (I only find an article in the courier), but there is a lot of talk about the story of Mila, a French girl who has had the "misfortune" to say what she thinks about the homophobia of the Islamic religion. The result is that she received thirty thousand death threats, the same for the school and its professors, until the school decided to expel her.

But it does not end there, because the girl has sought other schools, but no school wants her for fear of attacks. As the thing got into the French newspapers, a military college had offered to host it, but on condition that the name of the college was not given . Since now the girl has been told which college, the military college has also decided to expel her, in turn.

The link is here

I do not comment on a military college that does not consider itself capable of providing the safety of the cadets. As I remember, when I served in military service, both the Academy and the schools in Taranto had guardhouses, a security space beyond the walls and the normal pine forest for the guard. And the armed guard.

Evidently in France this is not the case.

But the point is another. The point is, we have to ask ourselves how this all happened. Let's try to remove the "we kill you" step. Let's imagine that ONLY Westerners had reacted to that post, which is actually quite heavy on Islam, even if the contents correspond to the truth.

What would have happened if we had stopped a step before "we kill you"?

It would have happened that:

• the school would have expelled her for hate speech.
• the friends would have proceeded to a "canceling" calling her racist
• tons of newspaper articles would have ruined her life anyway.

The same can be said of the French professor who was slaughtered for showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons in class. Suppose that instead of cutting his throat, the Muslim student and his family had written a letter to some "sensitive" newspaper denouncing the fact. What would have happened?

• the professor in the newspaper as the monster who teaches kids hate
• his resignation clamored by all over the country.
• complete canceling, with no other school willing to hire it.

Apparently, the physical threat (or assault) is THE ONLY STEP that divides the fanatic who slaughters you from the "politically correct democrat" who "erases" you.

In both cases, life is destroyed. In one case, death also comes. It is the only difference.

But now we have to ask ourselves a question. How can we really condemn those who want to kill the person for his ideas, if we find it normal to annihilate the same person for his ideas?

Of course, we can say that the difference between ostracism and murder is quite big because life is involved, but all we will conclude is that the last step of the process is longer than the others, but there are many processes that do this: in the end, preparing a lunch can cost days of work, eating it only costs a few tens of minutes, and that's the destructive part. There is nothing strange about that.

Likewise, once the existence of the professor or the girl is annihilated, the last step is killing. After all, we know that it is a strategy of the mafia to isolate and then kill. And if no one protects the girl, sooner or later someone will kill her.

But let's get back to the point: if there are ten steps, of which the last step is killing, whoever walks the first ten steps is preparing for the last step .

When I wrote the disclaimer on politically correct I was told that maybe the politically correct could exceed many times, but the #metoo is lalala and you have to fight against racism and blablabla and it all starts with words and lalala and killing words is not like kill all cats (mentioned in the disclaimer) seriously.

But that's not the case.

If it all begins with words, then whoever kills a person with words also kills him from life. And this also applies to those who are "canceled" by the standard bearers of the SJW.

And so I rewrite here what I wrote:

Politically correct, as well as its supporters (so-called SJW), are the most socially toxic thing to have appeared in recent decades. It is a form of (apparently) soft tyranny, which intoxicates and makes any environment unlivable. It is not compatible with any form of civil coexistence, the proof is that the same movements that propose it are constantly breaking up. The people who support it are the most incredibly toxic herd of infantile narcissists to ever walk the face of the planet, and they turn any space they step into into an unlivable place.

Maybe someone has misunderstood, and thought that SJWs make places unlivable by their presence. But the truth is that when the idea of ​​a popular uprising that lynches people, without judges and without guarantees, for having said something, we are legitimizing the nine steps before the public execution of the person, who is only the last step.

The slaughter of the French professor, as well as what is happening to Mila, is the result the SJW WANTED to reach: the difference between SJW and the Islamic executioner is that the executioner kills materially, while the SJW says that "everything begins with words ”, but refuses responsibility for how HIS words end.

When the SJW says not responsible if the target of its fights is slaughtered, is it the same person who then shouts that "words have consequences"?

Because there are two cases:

1. if it is true that words HAVE consequences, then the public lynching that the SJW spills on its victims is responsible for the subsequent slaughter of the victim. And then the slaughtering is his responsibility.
2. if the words HAVE NO consequences, then there is no point in changing the language to defend a minority. Given that HER words are not the cause of the slaughtering, you cannot say that MY words are causing the femicide.

One of the two: either you are murderers, or you are scoundrels.

In neither case, it is worth following your advice.