and, to address the most absurd and naive point of all: shouldn't i be looking for a "safe space" given that i'm an openly queer jew stumbling around smashed by myself?

but, what liberals have been saying since the beginning of time is that when you give an entity power of surveillance or control, that entity always goes after the most vulnerable. this idea that expanded powers will protect us is preposterous: there is absolutely no empirical basis for it whatsoever, and rather mountains of evidence that implies the opposite.

minorities like myself will always be targeted, as soon as you let anybody target us. and, so, the way you keep us safe is that you take away the watchers, and let a kind of concept of group immunity kick in. this operates at every level, from the very top to the very bottom.

i'm, in fact, upholding a well understood and time-tested truth. and, if you were to sit down and analyse the situation carefully from the start, the idea that the tranny jew would get targeted by security is so obvious as to be unavoidable - which, to be clear, is not a personal attack on the individual security personnel, but a broader critique of security, to begin with.

i want to be clear as possible: you should not have expected a bar with heavy security to protect the tranny jew. you should have, from the start, expected such an arrangement to have no other outcome but targeting the tranny jew - and other minorities it's supposed to be shielding. you don't even need to cite milgram's or something. it's something liberals have understood since the renaissance, and is scattered across centuries of writing on authority: they always go after the minorities. and, you can't avoid that, it's systemic.