Feminism and SJWS spread hate

Third World Country Dept. again….this time, accord. to Chris Plant, talking about this story on his show this morning.

Presser after the Dem official stabbed to death a journalist in Vegas.

After sheriff talked, reporter asked one question— Do you condemn former Pres. Trump’s normalization of violence against journalist?

WTF?????

Yesterday, printed a long list of democrat violence. On the other side, there is absolutely nothing except assertions, as if they are hoping that if they say it often enough, everybody will believe it (just as they tried to turn PDT into:

… a Russian agent, an idiot – who just happens to be a business mogul on a global scale –, incompetent –w/ four ME peace deals and the best economy in decades– , a white supremacist, a criminal, and more….even though he was a popular celeb for decades, one who people begged to run for president, for years before the intel agencies and the rest of the deep state – including the corporates, media and otherwise – got ahold of his reputation and started trying to tear it to shreds (iunsuccessfully.)

But this….this was totally bizarre. Lots of bizarre with the journalists/democrats (but I repeat myself) these days.

In other words:

We should be able to discriminate base on race, but we promise it’s for good reasons.

Don’t you love it when they openly say that diversity on campus can only be maintained by racial profiling.

Didn’t…didn’t the ACLU file lawsuits against racial school admission, back in the day?

If you re-define racism, you can do anything you want.

Wow. Shows how much they "respect sex workers"

incels. they're literally just incels, look at this fucking incel logic of perceiving women as discriminatorily-withholding providers of the sex to which they're entitled.

sure, let’s play ball, let’s say sex work is work. is “you’re not entitled to enjoy your job or deny service under any circumstance” the hill supposed leftists are going to die on now

Imagine writing an article about how you couldn’t even get laid if you paid them and then painting yourself as the victim

How big of an L is it when you can't even get a damn prostitute to sleep with you lmao

Who writes this kind of thing and thinks they're still advocating for anything even close to resembling democracy?

Also who reads this kind of thing and is either so spineless or mentally programed that they actually let this influence them to vote for the party asking for the votes.

Broken record at this point, but if the GOP wrote something like this it'd be all over the news and people would be screaming about cooersion, fear mongering, and strong arm tactics.

Democracy means the freedom to do what you’re told.

Feminism is believing Johnny. It is believing victims. He is literally going against the patriarchal status quo by doing this. What Amber is doing is setting back women so far. Her real intentions and feelings are on tape. Not falling for those white women crocodile tears ever.

Edit: to all the "feminists" in my notes, a woman can be manipulative and abusive, which can result in messy horrible reactions from the victim. It all could've been handled better, but a victim is a victim.

ALSO why are yall pressed about the usage of "white women tears". White women more often than not love to capitalize on the innocent delicate feminine image attributed to them, which is definitely not a luxury that nonwhite/POC women get to experience. Don't start

I love how you place “feminists” in quotations. Like feminists aren’t the ones pushing the rethoric that men can’t suffer abuse (or, “they aren’t oppressed!” like they blather in complete ignorance). Like they weren’t the ones pushing to believe Amber Head because SHE’S A WOMAN! SHE HAS NO REASON TO LIE!!! But I’m going on a limb and guess that you’ll go No True Scotsman on this.

Also, fuck off with your racism.

The status quo was set by feminism. The Duluth model of what constitutes as domestic abuse and was maintained gendered in both language and execution for so many decades, was cultivated and shaped by academic and institutional feminism. Unless you are willing to explicitly say, “Patriarchy is feminist,” don’t even start by saying feminism is believing Johnny. Because it isn’t.

And, “Patriarchy is TERF feminist,” does not count. Because Intersectional Feminism maintains the exact same history of feminism, it just pretends all the bad things bad feminism did are part of Bad Feminism and Intersectional Feminism isn’t responsible for any of that. It’ll certainly do mentaly gymnastics and take credit for upholding the positive things concept feminism has done, though.

Intersectional/modern feminism’s desperate attempt to claim pre-modern feminism was just conservative white woman feminism has to be the most insulting rebranding and gaslighting to date. But I expect nothing less from the same values and logical sleight of hand that gave us, “real socialism/communism has never been tried.” Do the whole, success has a million fathers but failure is a bastard thing.

Feminism guilty of anything? Disown pre-modern feminism as a product of evil white women and admit the filthy evil white women dominated feminism did that so it, “doesn’t count, different people.”

The disavowal of “old” feminism is especially ironic when feminists still try to ride the coattails of suffragtes.

The same suffragettes who were raciest as fuck and still wanted to keep the vote away from black people? The ones who went White Glove Society and demanded men go off to die in the world wars?

Sounds about right.

>The ones who went White Glove Society and demanded men go off to die in the world wars?

I made the same point to a Feminist on Reddit recently.

S/he ignored me.

If it hadnt been for african slavers there wouldnt have been african slaves.

Slavery isn't the history of black or white people. It's world history. Slavery was commonplace. On a long enough timeline pretty much everyone was both the slaver and the slave, to varying degrees. Trying to turn slavery into a white only thing is ahistorical.

So has there been any viral hate crimes that turned out to be real in the last 5 years or so? Or has it all really been made up BS?

When the demand outstrips the supply.

Quick informational on items that are actually part of the Men’s Rights Platform.  It is not exhaustive, and is simplified. Many of the Issues above are more nuanced than presented and have a host of other symptoms as well.

Higher Res Version. Because Tumblr shrank it in the wash.

At first I actually thought this was a joke. That’s absolutely awful. Like, I knew men had lots of problems in society but I wasn’t aware of these issues.

we are trying to get the word out

like

we never quite shut up about these things.

are we gonna ignore that these are all feminist issues

because they are

Name ONE feminist campaign, something like ban bossy or “tell men not to rape!” that has EVER focused on one of the above issues.

as much as all of the issues on this infographic are feminist issues your entire comment just now was basically

#how dare there be feminist campaigns that aren’t about men

i’m fine with those. but if feminists say they’re working on these issues, i’d like to see the evidence.

It’s amazing how the person who came in and bought up feminism also passive-aggressively complains in the notes about being expected to care for men.

Almost as if she doesn’t actually believe her own nonsense, and wants to take credit without any actual responsibility. Even the responsibility of backing up her own words.

“These are all feminists issues!”

Feminists literally pushed for the Duluth Model to be law. Feminists literally pushed for gendered language in DV laws. Feminists literally pushed for “the mother is always best” custody rights.

Feminists literally terrorized the woman who opened the first EVER men’s DV shelter (and the first dv shelter for women in England) to the point she had to move countries. TWICE.

Feminists literally bullied the man who opened the first Mens domestic abuse shelter in Canada until he killed himself. Part of the abuse was ensuring that he was never given a dime from the state to support his operation despite women’s dv shelters getting a hefty chunk of the federal budget each year.

Feminists make No Shave November about themselves EVER DAMN YEAR despite it being made BY men FOR men to bring awareness to prostate cancer and its lack of funding despite it being just as prominent and deadly as breast cancer.

Do I need to go on??????

Mens Rights issues are not feminist issues.

And the feminists that do try to talk about male issues and female privilege without filtering it through ‘toxic masculinity’ (IE it’s all men’s fault, women don’t have privileges) get kicked out of the treehouse.

Feminists have spent more effort trying to shut up people helping men, including other feminists, than actually helping men themselves.

If the parents didn’t commit actual felonies upon hearing about this I have given up on humankind

This sounds like it should be good for some jail time and a hefty lawsuit. Sue the teacher too not just the school, that way when they get out of jail they'll still have a monthly chunk taken out of their cheque to extend the punishment period.

Lockdowns during the first COVID-19 wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe, according to a Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies.

"While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted," the researchers wrote. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

The researchers – Johns Hopkins University economics professor Steve Hanke, Lund University economics professor Lars Jonung, and special advisor at Copenhagen's Center for Political Studies Jonas Herby – analyzed the effects of lockdown measures such as school shutdowns, business closures, and mask mandates on COVID-19 deaths.

"We find little to no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates," the researchers wrote.

CHICAGO GUNSHOP SEES SKYROCKETING SALES FOLLOWING LOCKDOWNS, CRIME SPIKE

The researchers concluded that limiting gatherings may have actually increased COVID-19 mortality.

"[Shelter-in-place orders] may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where he/she risks infecting family members with a higher viral load, causing more severe illness," the researchers wrote.

"But often, lockdowns have limited peoples’ access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places."

Researchers also pointed out other unintended consequences of lockdowns, such as rising unemployment, reduced schooling, an increase in domestic violence incidents, and surging drug overdoses.

From May 2020 to April 2021, the U.S. recorded 100,306 drug overdose deaths, a 28.5% increase from the 78,056 deaths that were recorded in the previous 12-month period, according to CDC data.

A study from the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice last year found that domestic violence incidents increased 8.1% in the U.S. after lockdown orders were issued.

About 97% of U.S. teachers said that their students have experienced learning loss during the coronavirus pandemic, according to a Horace Mann survey last year.

The unemployment rate peaked nationwide at 14.8% in April 2020, but declined to 3.9% in December, which is still slightly higher than the 3.5% rate it was at in February 2020.

"These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best," the researchers in the Johns Hopkins University study wrote.

"Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument."

President Biden has pledged to focus on testing and vaccinations to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 instead of the lockdowns that characterized the earlier part of the pandemic.

"It doesn’t include shutdowns or lockdowns, but widespread vaccinations and boosters and testing a lot more," Biden said in December about his winter plans for fighting the pandemic.

Several cities and states around the country still have mask mandates, remote learning, and other measures in place.

_______________

INB4 Fox news

A Johns Hopkins study says 'ill-founded' lockdowns did little to limit COVID deaths

Johns Hopkins report: Lockdowns did not work.

Study: Lockdowns had little or no impact on COVID-19 deaths

Lockdowns Had ‘Little To No’ Benefit On Public Health, Analysis Finds

Really think about what this means. Think about what was taken from you and others, and for what?

Now do this but for "all" black people.

Go on.

By this logic, All black people deserve to be treated like criminals because *some* (a small minority) are bad and other races may develop some bigotry because of it.

Discrimination and the perpetuation of systematic discrimination isnt okay because of your paranoia.

Stop shaming the victims of your bigotry because it makes you uncomfortable not to.

durr it’s also bigotry to lock your door at night. what, do you have suspicion that the people outside might harm the people inside???? imagine if you did that to black people. SICKENING!!!

That’s how you sound. I’m so sick of seeing this argument. The irony is the people claiming this is “bigotry” almost always never care about issues of racial or sexual discrimination outside of this one instance of dismissing female trauma and fear.

If I am alone at night, see a man, and decide to exercise the caution of crossing the street or creating space between us, I am not personally judging him to be evil or inferior as a man. I am dealing with the reality that there are systems of power which both privilege men over women and threaten them. One of these examples is the obvious physical advantage men have over women. It is not “bigotry” to acknowledge the reality that men have used their physical privilege and aggression against women, and that I reduce my chance of becoming a victim by exercising caution.

And no, you can’t just exchange “man” for “black person” and claim discrimination. Last time I checked, there are not pervasive widespread systems of power which privilege blacks over whites in such a way that threatens their lives in the United States. But generally we acknowledge there are systems of power which privilege whites over blacks. It’s not suddenly “bigotry” for a black man to avoid a white neighborhood or white cops because he wants to avoid trouble. That black man knows there is a long, deep, systemic history of whites making victims of blacks, and lives under that reality. Calling that anxiety and caution “bigotry” is a nefarious way of dismissing the racism that is responsible for his anxiety and caution in the first place.

Violence against women is similarly long, deep, and systemic. It’s not like the patriarchy is a boogeyman. Further, the majority of women have likely experienced some aspect of harassment or assault from men, and so have positive evidence within their experience to believe they may be victimized again. Experiencing anxiety at living under this reality isn’t “bigotry.” We live in a world where classes of people have used their power against other people. Suggesting otherwise simply protects and enables those systems of power.

And to be clear, it doesn’t have to be personal. These two thoughts can coexist: 1) That man on the street may very well be a nice and good person who would never harm another human being, and 2) There are systems of power in place which put me at a disadvantage as a female, and the anxiety this provokes causes me to express measures of caution and safety.

The real question is, why are you blaming women for experiencing fear, instead of the men who have given women a reason to fear?

What makes this one particular man at night more likely to attack you than any other person?

Did you miss the post?

Nope, you are just trying to justify paranoia based on immutable traits, while hiding behind outdated, debunked statistics and "the system is at fault".

I will always prioritize my safety over your perceived sense of Equality. Feel judged? Big freaking whoop. Worst case scenario for you is hurt feefees. Worst thing that happen to a woman is rape and murder. So yeah I’m gonna cross the street and avoid walking near strange men at night.

When it's your physical safety on the line, the instincts living within us that remind us of the days long past when man didn't always have the upper hand vs nature and there were lots of big scary things that could and would hurt us come out of the woodwork to keep us safe. Even now we don't go into the woods at night, because coyotes might only come up to our knees, but one is all it takes to mess you up. These instincts are all the more appropriate when it's dark out and there's something else that's bigger and stronger than you in your vicinity, they're at least another human being but their intentions are unknown, and a losing guess on the question of "are they dangerous" is a one way ticket to the hospital or the morgue.

This doesn't need explanation. This isn't about statistics. We have plenty of history to point to about heterosexual men not taking no for an answer. And one (1) report in recent memory of cat calls turning violent, or women being assaulted because a heterosexual man couldn't take no for an answer is all the justification necessary for the schrodinger's rapist question to exist.

That doesn't mean lumping everyone in a specific group is either called for or right. If you can substitute men for any minority and sound like a massive racist, chances are you're already saying something really bigoted, you just don't realize it.

If I see a coyote, I'm going to make big, scary motions while removing myself from the vicinity. If I see a bear, same thing. If women feel, understandably, threatened by a man's presence, they have the right to exercise some distance.

I'm not advocating for shooting creepy guys or even violence in general. But there's a difference between systemic racism and prejudice, and a reasonable concern about personal violence.

So statistics on violence make it okay to discriminate against men, but not black people?

Systematic misandry is okay but racism is not?

The point was that the original post was advocating for something that we would never allow for black people. It was pointing out your double standards. If your paranoia causes you to discriminate against another person, or otherwise treat them worse for how they were born, that's a you problem, not a them problem. It is not their job to accommodate your bigotry.

Feminists love saying "our safety over men's feelings", but in reality, it is your paranoia, your biases, your feelings, that are perpetuating systematic misandry, moat of which is experienced by men at higher rates than black people (police brutality, false arrest, sentencing disparity, arrest disparity, conviction disparity, incarceration disparity, and even gendered laws and programs). In reality, youre saying "women's feelings over men's lives". Which, given how disposable we deem men, isnt even a controversial statement.

And before you respond with more attempts to justify and perpetuate systematic discrimination, please note that I have thoroughly explained why this is wrong in multiple posts

Here

And here

People feminists will really advocate for bigotry and call it progressive.

Y’all a cult I’m sorry to say

Imagine telling a stranger on the Internet they don't get to choose what defines them or what they believe is most important to their identity. Trying to erase someone's individuality to emphasize they're a member of your group and that's all that matters about them? Cult.

Current drone images of Ottawa

(source, from a person who is currently there and constant live streaming)

Horowitz: Whistleblowers share DOD medical data that blows vaccine safety debate wide open

DANIEL HOROWITZ JANUARY 26, 2022

“Data, transparency, and surveillance. That is what has been missing from the greatest experiment on humans of all time throughout this pandemic. Now, military medical whistleblowers have come forward with what they claim is perhaps the most accurate and revealing data set on vaccine safety one could possibly find.

The pro-pharma politicians and media claim the CDC’s pharmacosurveillance tool “VAERS” is not good enough to trigger investigations into the shots because anyone can supposedly submit a vaccine adverse event entry. Thus, all the concerning safety signals from VAERS are being ignored, even though that system was put in place as a consolation to the public for absolving vaccine manufacturers of liability. Well, now some military whistleblowers are coming forward to present data that, if verified, would signal extremely disturbing safety concerns about the vaccine that make the VAERS data look like child’s play.

On Monday, during Sen. Ron Johnson’s five-hour hearing on a “COVID-19: Second Opinion,” Ohio attorney Thomas Renz, who has been representing clients suing the vaccine mandates, presented DOD medical billing data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) that paints a shockingly disturbing picture of the health of our service members in 2021.

According to the military, DMED is the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch’s (AFHSB) “web-based tool to remotely query de-identified active component personnel and medical event data contained within the Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS).” In other words, it contains every ICD medical billing code for any medical diagnosis in the military submitted for medical insurance billing during any given period of time. Three military doctors have presented queried data to Renz that shows a shocking and sudden spike in nearly every ICD code for common vaccine injuries in 2021.

In a declaration under penalty of perjury that Renz plans to use in federal court, Drs. Samuel Sigoloff, Peter Chambers, and Theresa Long — three military doctors — revealed that there has been a 300% increase in DMED codes registered for miscarriages in the military in 2021 over the five-year average. The five-year average was 1,499 codes for miscarriages per year. During the first 10 months of 2021, it was 4,182. As Renz explained to me in an interview with TheBlaze, these doctors queried the numbers for hundreds of codes from 2016 through 2020 to establish a baseline five-year average. These codes were generally for ailments and injuries that medical literature has established as being potential adverse effects of the vaccines.

Renz told me the numbers tended to be remarkably similar in all those preceding years, including in 2020, which was the first year of the pandemic but before the vaccines were distributed. But then in 2021, the numbers skyrocketed, and the 2021 data doesn’t even include the months of November and December. For example, some public health officials speculate that COVID itself places women at higher risk for miscarriages. But the number of miscarriage codes recorded in 2020 was actually slightly below the five-year average (1,477). However, they were not drastically below the average on any one category in a way that one can suggest it reflects lockdown-related decreases in doctor’s visits, which somehow led to an increase in 2021 diagnoses.

The database has all the ICD codes for both military hospital visits and ambulatory visits. The data presented by Renz so far is all from the query of ambulatory diagnosis data.

Aside from the spike in miscarriage diagnoses (ICD code O03 for spontaneous abortions), there was an almost 300% increase in cancer diagnoses (from a five-year average of 38,700 per year to 114,645 in the first 11 months of 2021). There was also a 1,000% increase in diagnosis codes for neurological issues, which increased from a baseline average of 82,000 to 863,000!

Some other numbers he did not mention at the hearing but gave to me in the interview are the following:

All these numbers are among the ambulatory visits because those are where the vast number of diagnoses in the military occur. However, Renz did say the increases were indicated in the hospitalized patients as well. I have seen one of the sworn declarations from one of the military doctors, and it states as follows, “It is my professional opinion that the major increases incidences of the above discussed instances of miscarriages, cancers, and disease were due to COVID-19 ‘vaccinations.’“

According to Renz, it was the actual clinical experience of the three named doctors and several unnamed doctors that led them to investigate DMED, and their discoveries reflected their experience treating patients with ailments extremely unusual to healthy, young soldiers since the rollout of the vaccines.

I have spoken to one of the whistleblowers who attests to being gravely concerned with seeing young soldiers with sudden metastatic cancers, auto-immune diseases, and heart and circulatory disorders that have caused many soldiers to drop out of various training programs. “These doctors were motivated to explore DMED data due to the numbers of case increases they were seeing empirically,” said the whistleblower, who served in the military for many years. “Some physicians throughout the force (all branches) have been intimidated by commands not to perform the full spectrum of testing and adhere to the regulations, which implicitly direct full workups for EUA vaccination adverse reactions. It will require other military physicians to step forward and share experiences to fully ascertain the enormity of these allegations and engender an investigation to the fullest extent.”

Renz claims he has a video with two witnesses showing the entire process of downloading this data from the database and is prepared to present it in court. He also told me that this is just “the tip of the iceberg,” as the codes have increased exponentially in numerous other diagnosis categories. Renz said his spreadsheet, which includes over 100 medical diagnosis categories, was shared with Senator Johnson and his staff before the Monday hearing.

It’s important to note that these numbers do not represent the number of individual people diagnosed with various ailments, but number of diagnoses codes used in totality at a given time. For example, someone who has a stroke is obviously going to rack up numerous neurological ICD codes over the course of a year with multiple ambulatory and hospital visits. However, the apples-to-apples comparison from the previous five years clearly shows an unmistakable spike in ailments.

If these numbers are verified in the upcoming court cases, then absent some massive military insurance fraud or bizarre glitch in the system, it potentially paints a shocking picture of vaccine safety concerns that would indicate that not only were the VAERS safety signals something that should immediately have been followed up on, but they are plagued by woeful underreporting. The military is a defined, finite, and closely controlled and monitored population. They are also overwhelmingly young and healthy. If allegations of neurological, cardio, and cancer concerns surrounding the vaccines are indeed true, the military would be the most revealing place to discover it, and their data is the most reliable and undisputable.

DMED is quite literally an epidemiological surveillance program designed for the express purpose of detecting surges in illness and injury to make sure the military is combat-ready. It’s about national security even more than public health. Why would the military not have blown the whistle and warned the CDC right away about this data? On the military health system website, the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division (AFHSD) is described as “the central epidemiologic resource for the U.S. Armed Forces, conducting medical surveillance to protect those who serve our nation in uniform and allies who are critical to our national security interests.”

How could the blaring and glaring surveillance signals of a lifetime be ignored by the Defense Health Agency (DHA), and how was this not conveyed to the general public? The question is why the military public health analysts have not been communicating with military doctors about the shocking spikes in diagnoses this year and why they have not put out any analysis explaining it.

For his part, Sen. Ron Johnson said at the Monday hearing that he put DOD on notice that it better not delete any of the data. “The Department of Defense, the Biden administration is on notice they must preserve these records and this must be investigated,” said Johnson. Renz testified at the hearing that some of the myocarditis data was slid backwards since the doctors originally downloaded it last year.

Even if somehow these earth-shattering increases have nothing to do with the vaccines, isn’t it important that our government investigate what appears to be a catastrophic decline in the health of our active-duty fighting force? After all, the DMED data was designed for this very purpose. “A person can do a research paper just on this data alone,” said one of the whistleblowers I spoke to. “It was designed for this very purpose. The amount of data points you could query is nearly unlimited.”

The bottom line according to Renz is that the onus of proof is on the government, not on the military personnel and citizens being forced to take the shots. If the manufacturers are exempt from liability for government coercion to use their product, and the only pharmacological safety data we have is completely ignored, then where is the recourse of the people to redress safety concerns? In the opinion of the Ohio attorney, if the shots are safe and effective, then the Pentagon should have no problem explaining the source of these gargantuan increases in instances of numerous illnesses. Transparency is the most potent cure of a pandemic of secrecy.”

Still not over this.

1. Biden isn't a progressive, neither are his supporters.

2. Do you think quality is so rare among ethnic minority women that it takes a political stunt to elect them to high offices? If not, why hasn't it happened to this one yet?

1. Most people who say they're progressive actually arent.

2. You clearly (perhaps intentionally) misunderstood. He did not choose the best candidate because he limited himself to only women who arent white. This is no different than only choosing from white males. He did it for favorability, rather than for what was best for the country.

Equality is choosing the best candidate, without favoring or rejecting people based on things like race and sex. "Progressive" thinking is that discrimination is fine, as long as it benefits their preferred groups.

Had he instead chosen to not discriminate in deciding on who gets the position, he would have just been called out merely for choosing a bad running mate (Harris has a huge record of being against the groups she claims to support...as does Biden).

3. Me stating that he shouldnt have picked her based on her sex and race (and thus inherently excluded others for those same traits) does not mean that i think only white men could possibly be best for the job. My criticism is that he inherently limited the pool of candidates, not based on ability (or lack of it), but for traits they were born with. Which means he very well could have passed up the best person for the job, in order to seem "progressive".

It was pandering, and unfortunately, it worked.

There have been 115 Supreme Court justices, elected over 232 years. Has not a single minority woman who was worthy of that position lived over the course of that entire duration?

And over 70% of the NBA is black.

And a majority of teachers are women.

And Asian Americans are disproportionately represented in Tech and Science.

You've confirmed that youre intentionally misunderstanding. What matters is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Women, of every race, have the *equal opportunity* to run for office. We cant know about the opinions of the people who vote for or appoint them, but if the issue is them being discriminated against, then advocate for the process to have less (as little as possible) or no discrimination.

What youre saying is that we should fight sexism and racism with...sexism and racism.

Imagine if we said "no more recruiting blacks in the NBA. We need more representation!" That would be passing up possible superstars based purely on their race. That's racism, even if it might increase diversity ("progressive").

Im advocating for equal opportunity for all, not just some. While youre advocating for discrimination that benefits groups that you like.

Let's be very clear om what this conversation is.

I'm not intentionally misunderstanding anything, I'm ignoring what's irrelevant to my argument. I'm making a point, not fighting your entire post.

We can infer the biases of the people who do the selecting by their choices, especially as there's been a trend for most of our history that lines up with attitudes about the people who aren't being appointed. Those biases affect their other decisions, which affect how society is built.

Let me be clearer: the system has been built and run by racists for a very long time, and as a result, is racist. And when you are surrounded on either side by people making decisions to prevent representation from marginalized groups, your decision to pick the same way they do is not some grand moral stance just because you call it something else. It's just falling in line with the system while pretentiously acting like you aren't. The result is the same.

This argument of neutrality only comes up when progressives want to break the mold. It's assumed that when a member of a majority group is elected, it's done without bias; that they're simply the best for the job, every time.

We can handle this pretty easily.

1. Is choosing (or not choosing) a qualified person for a position purely based on their sex and race descrimination?

If your answer is yes (it should be) then the next question is

2. Did Biden select his VP based on her sex and race?

He did. He admitted it. It isnt even up for debate.

Which leads us to the final question

3. Is discriminating against people based in sex and race bigotry, yes or no?

These are very clear questions with very clear answers.

I am against discrimination against any group, and think people should be chosen based on their qualifications. I've asked quite a few times, and it seems that you disagree with this stance. You clearly see discrimination as acceptable.

This is what I meant by "progressives" perpetuating inequality while painting it as equality. You think youre doing good, but youre using the same tool you claim to be against to get what you want. Clearly you dont find racism and sexism all that bad if youre willing to perpetuate it to get what you want. Just like the school principal who segregated her own school to appear progressive. Just like the businesses that refuse to hire or promote qualified white or male employees purely based on those traits. You claim to be against bigotry and unfair treatment, yet you have no problem doing it to others. You could have just advocated for a lack of discrimination, but I suppose that was asking too much.

There isnt anything i can do for people who are blinded by their own biases. Youre free to start another conversation when youre open to change and equality. Which, if i havent made that clear so far, definitely isnt now.

And people wonder why I’m against giving the government more power over the healthcare industry…

A large number of illegal aliens are being released into the United States hours after being apprehended at the southern border. Fox News reporter Bill Melugin pointed out the illegals are largely military-aged males. Federal agents released at least 4 busloads of illegal aliens into Brownsville, Texas where they were then taken to Harlingen airport.…