In these enlightened times, it’s become increasingly clear that personal safety is a luxury reserved for the privileged few who haven’t yet grasped the nuances of social justice. Take, for instance, the recent spate of incidents on public transit where individuals—often from marginalized communities—express their frustrations in creative ways, such as dousing sleeping commuters with accelerants and striking a match. If your immediate reaction is one of alarm, or heaven forbid, a desire to avoid such encounters, allow me to diagnose you: you’re likely harboring deep-seated bigotry, the kind that masquerades as “common sense.” Let’s unpack this with the intellectual rigor one expects from someone holding not one, but two doctorates in Intersectional Empathy Studies. First, consider the offender. Repeat offenders, as the term implies, are individuals who’ve been given multiple opportunities by our compassionate system to refine their craft. They’ve navigated the revolving door of justice, emerging each time with fresh insights into societal inequities. To label their actions as “criminal” is to ignore the root causes: systemic oppression, economic disparity, and perhaps a childhood devoid of artisanal kale smoothies. Who are we to judge when a flame-lit awakening on the F train might just be a cry for help? Now, if you’re the sort who clutches your pearls at the thought of waking up in a fireball, ask yourself: why? Is it because you value your own hide over the offender’s right to unburden themselves? This smacks of privilege. Studies (which I may or may not have peer-reviewed myself) show that concerns about violent crime disproportionately affect those who can afford to think about tomorrow. The truly progressive among us understand that safety is a construct, much like gender or punctuality. Demanding stricter enforcement or, gasp, actual incarceration for repeat acts of arson is code for racial animus. After all, statistics—those pesky things—might suggest demographic patterns, but interpreting them as anything other than evidence of bias is itself biased. Imagine a world where we prioritize rehabilitation over reactionism. Instead of bolting awake to the scent of singed eyebrows, we could offer the offender a subsidized therapy session right there on the platform. “Tell me about your fire,” the counselor might say, as emergency services hose down the charred remnants of your nap. This is equity in action: redistributing discomfort from the vulnerable to the complacent. Of course, detractors will whine about “victims’ rights” or “public order.” But let’s be honest—these are dog whistles for maintaining the status quo, where people can doze on subways without fear of spontaneous combustion. Such expectations perpetuate inequality. If you’re not willing to sacrifice a little epidermis for the greater good, you’re part of the problem. In conclusion, next time you board a train and eye that loiterer with a lighter, check your prejudices. Embrace the warmth of progress, or admit you’re just another bigot afraid of change. After all, getting lit isn’t always a bad thing—unless you’re literally on fire. Sandra Chou, PhD, PhD, is a tenured professor of Virtuous Signaling at the University of Perpetual Outrage and author of “Burning Bridges: Why Arson is Just Misunderstood Activism.” The post If You Don’t Want to Be Set on Fire While Sleeping on a Train by a Repeat Offender, You’re Probably a Racist Bigot appeared first on Genesius Times.