Meme - Crémieux @cremieuxrecueil: "This is both a good and a sad finding. In the American National Election Study....
Good: Few people have isolated negative feelings for members of other races.
Bad: There's a lot of disdain out there specifically for Whites."
"Isolated negative feeling (INF) by race"
Of course, if you say there is anti-white hatred, you get mocked by the left, who hate whites but claim no one does
The biggest hatred is by black people. Interestingly, Hispanics hate Blacks and Whites equally. And despite talk of Asian "anti-blackness", they hate white people more
i/o on X - "Republicans have been winning married men by 20 points, married women by 14 points, and unmarried men by 7 points. So who is keeping Democrats competitive? Answer: Single women are single-handedly saving the Democratic Party (favoring it 68% to 31%)."
Democrats and Republicans aren’t divided by gender, they’re divided by marriage - "This is why when President Barack Obama ran for reelection, his agenda was promoted through a slideshow that followed the “Life of Julia,” documenting how Democratic programs protect and provide for her throughout her life, without a father or husband ever in the picture. It’s why President Joe Biden followed suit with his own Linda slideshow, depicting, again, how Democratic programs protect and provide for women throughout their lives, without a father or husband ever in sight. The message the Democratic Party has for men is clear: You are, at best, worthless. Democratic Party programs have empowered women to procreate without you entirely. In fact, most likely, you are a #MeToo pervert who needs to be punished, without due process, by a college inquisition board. If you want, you can be a silent ally for women’s causes, but please don’t ever talk — we’ve heard enough from the patriarchy already. No wonder men, and women who want to be married to men, are fleeing the Democratic Party in droves."
No wonder left wingers are anti marriage
Labour’s Backdoor British Blasphemy Laws - "In the UK there are already de facto blasphemy laws. But under pressure from the Islamic lobby, which is growing in power, an incoming Labour government contemplates introducing legislation which would irreversibly damage freedom of speech and stifle any ability to criticize radical Islam. Among their various manifesto commitments, Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party have promised to upgrade the British state’s focus on “hate crime.” This should be a chilling prospect to anyone who knows how these laws are wielded in Britain... “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” This is the definition which the Labour Party has officially adopted for internal party purposes. The trouble with this definition is that its scope is so broad that it covers almost everything that might be said about Islam and about the practices of some of its most extreme adherents. It could be illegal to claim that the history of Islam has involved spreading the religion via the sword – which is, of course, true. It might also be illegal to associate certain crimes or harms perpetrated against women within some minority communities as having anything to do with Islam. Now, a Labour government wouldn’t have to criminalize “Islamophobic” speech to effectively introduce a blasphemy law through the back door. Simply the adoption and proliferation of the concept in policing, the work force, and guidance for public bodies would be enough to radically change the way Britons feel comfortable speaking about Islam... It is little comfort to know that you won’t simply be thrown into prison (for now) for making an oblique criticism of radical Islam, if you might, instead, easily lose your livelihood and have your life destroyed by overzealous Human Resources managers or vexatious activist colleagues for speaking your mind. It would have a huge impact on media and reporting as well. This definition of “islamophobia” would be adopted by the BBC and by Ofcom, the UK media regulator, which would radically undermine accurate reporting of anything which might offend Muslim sensibilities in Britain. Take the grooming gangs scandal, for example. The grooming and rape of young girls played out over many decades in deprived towns across Britain at the hands of largely Muslim men with Pakistani origin. These went unreported and not investigated by the police for fear of coming across as “Islamophobic.” In recent years, finally, there have been pockets of reporting around this issue which would likely be quashed by the proliferation of this definition throughout UK media institutions... This change could also radically undermine proper reporting on the Israel-Palestine conflict. In the APPG report introducing the new definition of “islamophobia,” even accusing Muslim Majority states of exaggerating claims of a genocide makes you an Islamophobe. As such, anyone who questions Hamas’ narrative of Israel’s military operation would be caught under the definition. The second commitment – upgrading the monitoring of Islamophobia – risks the police engaging in Stasi-like operations for which there has been precedent. In Britain, for many years the police have recorded what are called “non-crime hate incidents.” These are incidents which do not constitute a crime, but which are logged against someone’s name due to the perception of another that their speech was motivated by hostility based on an ever-increasing list of protected factors – race, sexual orientation, disability, and now possibly their “muslimness.” American readers, thank your lucky stars for the First Amendment. These are recorded regardless of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element and regardless of the motivation behind the speech. Before the previous government eventually relented and demoted the extent to which non-crime hate incidents were recorded there was a massive upsurge, with nearly 120,000 recorded between 2014 and 2019. And they aren’t innocuous either. Thousands have had the police knocking at their door or at their place of work for jokes made online, in particular. This is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. Because they are recorded by many police forces, they have flagged up during job applications, ruining careers without even the fig-leaf of due process or a right to a defense at trial. The idea that the Labour Party is actively signaling that it would encourage the upgrading of this kind of monitoring, combined with the adoption of such a broad definition, should worry any Briton. You don’t have to be particularly conservative or in the habit of voicing dangerous opinions to see that so open-ended a system is open to deliberate abuse, foolish misapplication, or even just plain misunderstanding. It should also remind us that the normalization of such policies in Western democracies risks the progressive degrading of our first amendment rights in the US. Freedoms are rarely removed all at once; they tend rather to die the death of a thousand cuts. Potentially the most sinister of all, however, is the proposal mooted by Labour for the creation of an ethics commissioner in Parliament... As it stands, MPs can say whatever they want during debates with no fear of legal interference. This “parliamentary privilege” is grounded in England’s 1689 Bill of Rights, the direct precursor of America’s own. Of course, if a member of parliament (“MP”) were to say something crazy or wicked, their party could kick them out or their electorate might punish them at the ballot box. Nevertheless, they have had total legal protection in the House of Commons to voice any concerns without fear of legal censure. A move to create this position would move Britain from being a truly representative democracy which wrestles with contentious political questions through the workings of the oldest parliament in the world, to a country in which the parameters of political speech and therefore potential political action are set by technocrats."
Don’t outlaw ‘Islamophobia’ | The Spectator - "I’m both a Muslim and a historian of Islam and I find the whole notion of Islamophobia to be wrongheaded, an etymological fallacy. The notion of Islamophobia was invented to mirror homophobia and draw parallels with anti-Semitism. But the word itself is inherently flawed. Both homophobia and anti-Semitism are directed against specific peoples. ‘Islamophobia’ is a fear of ideas, beliefs and attitudes. Violence or discrimination against adherents of any religion is obviously indefensible, but it should also go without saying that in a free society people should be at liberty to criticise or mock any organised religion. No intelligent Muslim should place the word ‘Islam’ and the word ‘phobia’ together in a single phrase. This is why the word did not exist until relatively recently. Islamophobia has been largely promoted by Islamists and jihadists, to protect them from scrutiny. Anti-Muslim bigotry, even violence, is a problem. But Muslims, like members of all religious minorities, are already protected under the 2010 Equality Act. The 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act makes it an offence to incite hatred against someone on the basis of their religion. But part 3A, clause 29J makes clear that this does not prohibit ‘discussion, criticism, or expressions of antipathy’ towards particular religions or their adherents. If you look into the forces demanding that Britain outlaws Islamophobia, you find the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, an anti-western global movement dedicated to destroying Israel and removing all Arab and Muslim governments; an organisation that is openly homophobic and misogynistic. Denouncing this extremism is a religious duty for most Muslims, because Islamists are destroying the beauty, pluralism and inheritance of classical Islam. Islamists are banned in Mecca but operate freely today in Britain. And they specialise in using the equalities agenda to demand the means to pursue, defame and (ideally) prosecute their critics. As Khan pointed out, Starmer is a prosecutor. He should have learnt by now to distinguish between Islam and Islamism, but he shows no sign of understanding the difference. He has acted on behalf of the Islamist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, and served in the cabinet of Jeremy Corbyn, who once called Hamas his ‘friends’. In the campaign video, Sir Keir says that anti-Muslim sentiment has risen since the 7 October attacks. But since it’s Hamas and Islamism that have created antipathy to Muslims, Starmer should be addressing them. If he did, he’d win over many in Britain who recognise that fundamentalism poses a huge threat to our country. Going after the hardliners would be a win-win for Starmer – but does he have the courage? Uprooting Islamists from Britain’s institutions and streets would make the country safer and do more to promote relations between Muslims and non-Muslims than any spurious new law. But neither Labour nor the Tories will commit to this ideological battle, which leaves the field open for Nigel Farage. Legislating against ‘Islamophobia’ would have disastrous consequences. The German judge who refused to grant a Muslim woman a divorce from her abusive husband in 2007 did so on the grounds that the abuse was culturally acceptable and sanctioned by the Quran. Such incidents would become normal for fear of accusations of ‘Islamophobia’. Let’s remember that the i-word has been used not only against politicians but also against Muslims who confront jihadists. To apostatise and proselytise, offend and embrace, accept and reject – these dualities uphold the essence of liberty. Where would we be if we had censored David Hume’s criticisms of Christianity in the 18th century, or banned Gibbon’s volumes on the history of Rome in which he condemned the institutionalisation of religion? Islam was born because the Prophet Mohammed mocked the pagan religion of the Meccans. Judaism thrived because Abraham and later Moses opposed the pagan Egyptians in their persecution of the Jewish people. Christianity emerged as Paul and the early disciples attacked the values of Rome and the laws of Judea. Offence is needed for freedom, and citizens of open societies must learn to become resilient. Criticism and discussion are the harbingers of progress. Muslims do not need to be patronised with excessive legislation. Today it is ‘Islamophobia’. What’s next? Are we to be prohibited from questioning the gender inequality of literalist Islam: wife-beating, the unfairness of divorce laws, inheritance disparity, reactions to apostasy? Islamophobia laws are a step backwards, making it harder for reformist forces in Islam. This is something that today’s secular politicians struggle to comprehend. Yes, there is clearly a problem of rising anti-Muslim sentiment in Britain. But if Starmer and the Labour party are serious about tackling it, then they should ban the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates. There is no better way to protect moderate, patriotic Muslims than to remove the cancer of extremism within today’s Islam."
Meme - iamyesyouareno @iamyesyouareno: "Getting awarded $11.25M for being late to work 47 times in 10 months time because showing up on time is white supremacy. The new American dream."
"She Said Equinox Fired Her for Being a Black Woman. A Jury Agreed. The high-end gym franchise was ordered to pay Robynn Europe, a former employee, damages of $11.25 million."
Equinox to Pay $11.25 Million in Ex-Worker’s Discrimination Lawsuit - The New York Times - "Ms. Europe’s tenure at the club was short-lived; Equinox terminated her employment in less than a year because, the company said, she was late 47 times in the course of 10 months. Ms. Europe held a different view of her firing, believing that her lateness was merely a pretext for discrimination, and soon after she filed a lawsuit in Manhattan federal court, arguing that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment and eventually let go because of her race and gender... In response to the verdict, Equinox did not engage in the current fashion for self-reproach and vows to do better. Instead, it issued a statement saying that it “vehemently disagreed” with the finding and did not “tolerate discrimination in any form.” In the motion it filed asking the court to reconsider the case, either by way of a new trial or a reduction in the award, lawyers maintained that the jurors, “guided by sympathy and emotion,” had “erroneously” bought into the plaintiff’s claim that she had been the victim of racial animus and “issued extreme, unconscionable damages” as a result... Her lawyers, all of them women at Crumiller, which describes itself as “a feminist litigation firm,” argued that their client’s complaints to male bosses went unheard."
The judgment mentions that other employees were also late but were not punished - but it doesn't say how often they were late (more than once a week is very often). It also says she had previously been warned about being late
Tristin Hopper on X - "Just a reminder that Canadian institutions are moving at warp speed to adopt a UK-style system in which police can show up at your door for "unacceptable" social media posts."
Human Rights Tribunal affirms hate speech jurisdiction, providing broader protections for online spaces - BC's Office of the Human Rights Commissioner
Cillian on X - "Princess Kate Middleton wore a hijab when visiting a Muslim-majority area in England, but a Muslim man refused to shake her hand because she is a woman. Imagine trying to placate a group of people who consider you filth. Pathetic."
Luckily she didn't criticise this, because that's Islamophobic
Alejandrogg on X - "How is that highly contentious? The man is allowed to kneel for his beliefs. Yes I would have an issue with a family member if they had an issue with that."
memetic_sisyphus on X - "There’s this mind numbingly dumb type of argument you see by progressives all the time, where they pretend you disagree with someone for the actual physical act of what they’re doing instead of the reason they’re doing it. It’s most common with protests. “Wow you’re against protests?!?” No I think your protest is dumb, I think your world view is dumb, I think your dumb worldview has you protesting a fake problem and I find it in bad taste."
neveragainlivepodcast@gmail.com on X - "Pro Hamas supporters take over the streets in Downtown Toronto and pray for the destruction of Israel and "Zionists ". And the police protect such incitement."
Aviva Klompas on X - "I adamantly believe in freedom of religion, but can someone explain why it is acceptable to pray in the middle of Toronto's busiest intersection?"
Edward Mondini on X - "“Some sources say there are over 100 mosques scattered across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)…” So why are Muslims praying in the middle of a busy intersection protected by Canadian law enforcement if it isn’t for a display of “power over infidels”?"
Christians should try this and see what happens
John Stossel on X - "Leftists talk about the “original sin of slavery.” Sen. Tim Kaine says, "The U.S. didn't inherit slavery from anybody, we created it." America created slavery? Author Wilfred Reilly (@wil_da_beast630) explains why what kids are taught today is just dumb:"
Wilfred Reilly on X - ""Slave" was one of the 1st twenty or so written human words. There is a hieroglyphic symbol for it."
Visegrád 24 on X - "There will come a day when we will see more extremists and terrorists coming out of Europe because;
- of lack of decision making,
- trying to be politically correct,
- or assuming that they know (…) Islam better than we do,” warned the UAE’s Foreign Minister @ABZayed in 2017."
Islamophobia (this was an unironic claim)! Time to arrest him and jail him for hate speech!
Imtiaz Mahmood on X - "Islamophobia doesn't exist and its creation is an attack on secular values.
It's not islamophobia to fear a religion that motivates people to literally behead you. Honour killings, acid attacks, suicide bombings, blasphemy laws, beheadings, and apostasy laws are all caused by one religion. It's not islamophobia to fear a religion that motivates people to literally behead. This conflict isn't only geopolitical but it's religious. Palestinians believe they are entitled to that land for religious reasons and Islam especially is quite violent when it's a religious entitlement. Islam has not been tamed by secular values. So blasphemy laws, legal child marriage, entitlement, and indignation in a Muslim country are completely different than in a secular country. Even in secular countries Muslims on average are significantly more devoted to their religion than others. There's no such thing as Islamaphobia, it's a rational fear to have when you hear a school teacher was beheaded in broad daylight. Go to Gaza or the West Bank carrying an LBGT flag or Start talking about transgender rights and see what happens there. Palestinians are literally on camera rejoicing at 9/11 yet leftists believe they are for Americans. Muslims overall are less tolerant of freedom of speech, mocking, etc so even in secular countries we see such things as " Islamaphobia " because Islam is a more sensitive religion that hasn't been tamed by secular values like Christianity has. We have surveys showing Muslims in secular countries would prefer to be under sharia law. It's clear that criticism of Christianity is considered a virtue to the left but criticizing Islam is Islamophobia. This is exactly what an intolerant religion wants."
Meme - Almost-nude blue haired person in pink underwear to preacher holding cross with mic and speaker: "STOP FORCING YOUR BELIEFS"
*Nearly nude man in public with underwear and red boots holding whip and leash with almost nude human pup at the end*
*Street with underwear, shit, urine and bottle on it*
*Rainbow crosswalks*
*Topless male couple making out on street*
*Pride flag bench*
*Man with pink motorcycle helmet and Pride flag on scooter*
*"Love is love" sign*
*Trans Pride flag flying from building with Neon Pride flag*
*Topless, shoeless man in tattered shorts holding on to a Rainbow rubbish bin*
*Pride flag mask and can on sidewalk*
*Topless Junkie on sidewalk with syringe and other drug paraphernalia around him*
*P.R.I.D.E flag, Pride t-shirt and Pride skirt on sale in shop*
*Kid in building pointing at porn shoot*
Of course, there were left wingers defending this, claiming this was about fun, letting people love who they want. fabulous etc
'Can we elect him Prime Minister here, please?': PM Lee's take on 'wokeness' praised by Australian media - ""In the West, they've got a movement called 'wokeness', where you're super sensitive about other people's issues, and you become hypersensitive when other people somehow or other say things or mention things or refer to you, without the respect that you or your super sub-group feel you are entitled to." PM Lee elaborated that it could lead to "very extreme attitudes and social norms, particularly in some academic institutions, universities". "You talk about safe spaces, you talk about appropriate pronouns," PM Lee added, before citing a typical 'trigger warning': "I'm about to say something which may be offensive to you if you don't want to hear it perhaps you'd like to leave now." PM Lee said that such discourse makes life "very burdensome, and I don't think we want to go in that direction." "It does not make us a more resilient, cohesive society with a strong sense of solidarity. We must be more robust," PM Lee added. Australian news channel Sky News Australia's presenter Rita Panahi, in an opinion segment, called the comments by PM Lee "60 seconds of wisdom". Panahi jokingly also asked another presenter Gabriella Power, "Can we elect him Prime Minister here, please?" Power concurred, replying, "Please, please come to Australia." Power felt that PM Lee's criticism of 'wokeness' was connected to broader issues worldwide. "He's completely right ... look at what's happening in Scotland, in the UK, where they're all going crazy over these hate speech laws. We're seeing this teacher that has been sacked for promoting critical thinking like that is when the 'wokeness' gets absolutely too crazy," Power said. Power here was likely referring to hate crime laws recently passed in Scotland, as well as an earlier Sky News segment where the presenters talked about a teacher who was, the presenters claim, fired for challenging a student's stance on whether JK Rowling was a transphobe and bigot. "Look at us as a society - we're so much stronger when we're in solidarity with one another," Power added. On the panel was also Caroline Marcus, a senior reporter at Sky News Australia who also happens to be born in Singapore. Marcus said: "I wish we had that type of common sense here, it makes me miss Singapore even more. It's my homeland, but it's also part of the reason I've spoken about, before, this rejection there of 'wokeism', political correctness, a refusal to pander to 'Cultural Marxists'."... Marcus opined that Singapore's "rejection of 'wokeism'" is why it "consistently ranks among the top countries in education, if not at the very top." "Meanwhile in Australia, where teachers are encouraging students to go and march for climate change and pro-Palestine, our students are ranking below that academic superpower, Kazakhstan," she added. A quick check of the 2019 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study shows Australia outperforming Kazakhstan in mathematics and science for both fourth and eighth-grade students, while the 2021 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study also shows Australia outperforming Kazakhstan. Regardless, Singapore topped the rankings in both studies. Marcus claimed that Singapore's educational success stems from the Singaporean educational system "focus[ing] on what is important for young people - getting a good education, family values" and not allowing "trivial things to divide [Singapore] as a society". Panahi went on to extol the low incidence of crime in Singapore, claiming that when she visited Singapore "a couple of times", apparently some shops here would not lock their doors, using only "a rope they put across the front door which is open". It is not clear where and how Panahi sourced this claim. Panahi and Marcus claimed that the low crime rate is because of Singapore's use of capital punishment and caning, which they argue is not embraced in the "civilised West". They also remarked on Singapore's "zero tolerance approach to drugs". Marcus then said that in her view, Australia's justice system "could learn a thing or two from Singapore."... Power said: "People on the far-left just can't handle conservative voices, promoting cancel culture and they get caught up in things that really don't matter so, look, I think the Singapore Prime Minister spoke very well."... Marcus interjected to provide a caveat towards the end of the segment: "In fairness, he may not be used to having people like ourselves criticise the government. That's not tolerated so well in Singapore, but many other aspects of life are superior.""
Paris Restaurant Defends Decision To Turn Away Serena Williams And Her Kids Despite Backlash - "A luxurious hotel denied access to Serena Williams… THE Serena Williams. The four-time Olympic gold medalist, 23 Grand Slam singles title winner, Serena Williams. The greatest tennis player of all time publicly called out the venue, prompting an avalanche of online criticism... “Unfortunately, our rooftop bar was indeed fully booked and the only unoccupied tables you saw belonged to our gourmet restaurant, L’Oiseau Blanc, which was fully reserved.” The venue added: “We have always been honored to welcome you and will always be to welcome you again.” Nevertheless, many observers remained critical, as a person suggested: “Let me give you guys a social media tip, find a solution... The Peninsula has over 3,000 reviews on Google, many of which were deleted since Serena slammed the business... “I’m not comfortable supporting that kind of business and I believe others should know about this incident before choosing to go.” “I wanted to experience this restaurant on my upcoming trip but after seeing Serena Williams was denied access because someone in the restaurant didn’t recognize her is astounding,” someone else wrote. “Basically black are welcome if a member of the staff recognizes you. It’s so unfortunate that people dislike black people so much in 2024. Do better Paris!”... “Celebrities often use their fame to obtain an awful lot of advantages in life – from upgrades on airlines to first-class treatment in hotels and restaurants,” Phil Hall, a media adviser, told The Financial Times in 2013. “With perks, however, comes responsibility – they cannot expect special treatment.”"
It's interesting how she didn't seem to get roundly slammed for demanding a restaurant find her a table even though she had no reservations. Probably because that would be racist and sexist. Indeed, if you don't find a spot for a black woman who has no reservations, you are racist and sexist
Meme - Blue Haired Guy: "NO ONE IS "FORCING," YOU TO AGREE WITH MY IDEOLOGY. We just have set rules everywhere saying if you disagree with us we'll compel you to agree or be quiet under threat of punishment or exile It's not like we're fining and jailing you like my allies do in the EU/CAN yet"
Answer to Do employers avoid those with Gender Studies degrees? - Quora - "I would be scared to death to hire someone like that. They could sue you for pretty much anything and they would bring a toxic atmosphere into the company (such as don’t use the words “man/woman”, don’t compliment a woman, and so on. It’s a disaster waiting to happen. And if you decide to let them go, they will destroy your reputation on Twitter. Avoid for your own sake."
Answer to Do employers avoid those with Gender Studies degrees? - Quora - "I would see it as hiring a potential future lawsuit and not even consider such a person. Who wants to hire a woman who is almost guaranteed to sue you, tweet about how evil and oppressive you are, etc., just because you come in to work one day and tell her that her new dress looks nice or her hair looks pretty. A woman with a gender studies degree is basically communicating to the world that she regards such basic compliments as a form of “male patriarchal oppression.” I would regard such a person as a lawsuit waiting to happen."
Saiffer's answer to Do employers avoid those with Gender Studies degrees? - Quora - "I would avoid hiring person with such “degree”. There is a potential of destroying your team and business. And 100% there will be demands to bend your company to their vision."