“Start your own platforms!” they said.
You assume an even playing field.
It’s as corrupt and political as the Indian government.
In order, the worst things to be from least to most.
Straight, male, white, conservative, Christian.
Being Christian is unforgivable.
Huh. That would work on economics .
I prefer a different tactic since few are intellectually honest.
You can get away with throwing crumbs for those.
1. I promise something based on my talents.
2. They laugh at me.
3. I wait.
4. It happens.
5. They cry.
6. I laugh.
Repeat as needed. Most things can only be hinted and still, they complain, over opinions.
History teaches us you can’t warn people, they’re stupid now as they were the first time.
1- However, this is assuming the data you need exists.
Heard of publication bias?
And what about grant application bias?
What about liberal privilege in academia?
And why would it be online, for free, no paywall or subscription service, where you can link it and any old pleb could peruse?
Why would the taxpayer need to see the fruit of their investment? Trust the experts. Why would they lie?
[And why wouldn’t a liar, lie about their sources too? Even the ones who give them don’t expect you to check.]
I try to source data for some posts but sometimes I have to say, trust me, I’ve seen it. Eventually you will too?
The reality means this is necessary for discussion’s sake. If they cared, they’d buy a textbook or pay an expert on the sly. The real 101 stuff doesn’t have a source, it’s just known.
But not by laymen. Which is a feature, where concentration of power is concerned.
This means you’re screwed. Rarely, good information slips through. They plug those leaks quickly.
Plenty of my old, good links are dead or distorted. Coincidence?
Many times, they don’t link from this site but work fine on others. We have tested this.
If you can’t say it, you can’t think it.
In 1989, the New South Wales parliament in Australia passed the Anti-Discrimination Act that includes these chilling passages, Orwellian in their implications:
The law invests in the Anti-Discrimination Board the power to* determine whether a report is ‘fair,’ and whether a discussion is ‘reasonable,’ ‘in good faith,’ and ‘in the public interest.’ The Board will pronounce upon the acceptability** of artistic expression, research papers, academic controversy, and scientific questions. An unfair (i.e., inaccurate) report of a public act may expose the reporter and the publisher to damages of up to $40,000.3
*Laws can’t change shit about reality, they have no such “power”.
**The worst kind of church.
The Left always does the same thing: pretends to be nice, gets in power, censors, punishes, intimidates, introduces freedom-killing laws and eventually shoots free-thinkers in the back of the head when re-education*** fails.
Gaslighting*** when an individual does it.
The Berkeley police finally restored order, moving the crowd out of the building and into the street, where they continued to chant, shout, and demonstrate.
“Demonstrate” civil unrest ya mean?
It isn’t a violent mob if it’s students?
Shoot them like dogs if they won’t act like humans.
Use the pellets if you aren’t hard enough for bullets. Water jets?
Since Irving’s invitation to speak came from the Berkeley Coalition for Free Speech, they apparently also no longer teach irony at that institution.
ba dum dum tssh
And given the horrific history of race relations in America such hate speech laws could be rationalized
Is that a joke?
as relevant to the claim that there are genetically-determined differences between blacks and whites
Races do exist, it’s the basis of forensics?
in intelligence, because such information (whether true or false) might lead white supremacists and other bigots to commit violence against blacks.
THE TRUTH IS NOT AN EXCUSE.
THE TRUTH IS NOT AN EXCUSE.
Because parts of science may be true but not all science is legal to discuss.
Land of the FREEEEEEEEE…..
Or, considering the long struggle women have had to gain parity to men,
one could argue
if one is a liar
that research on gender differences in cognitive abilities could turn back the clock on women’s rights
The economy isn’t suddenly going to lose the majority of its workforce on a Maybe.
should a disparity be found in favor of the gender still dominant in positions of power.
The laws showing favour to women are based in those differences, same with race.
You cannot deny those differences while pushing for laws founded on them.
Since people act on their beliefs,
Not violently, they don’t. Unless you curtail their freedom to passively avoid.
Freedom of association keeps society peaceful.
and beliefs are expressed in the form of speech,
To be challenged.
You can’t challenge someone who isn’t talking.
isn’t it reasonable to argue that certain scientific findings be categorized as a form of hate speech that should be censored?
Science describes reality.
You do not have the power to censor reality.
You cannot magically raise African nations’ IQs either. This is King Canute levels of delusion.
Social engineering was a fraud. Head Start didn’t work on little white Timmy either!
Diverse or equal, you cannot claim both. First place or no winners, pick. Merit or bias?
What they really want is a visible hierarchy you are forbidden to question.
To know who rules over you….
Thankfully, the populace always outnumbers them. And more people means more brains noticing the same observations and reality.
People will notice and if you make it taboo, they’ll think about it more.
That’s how oppression works.
Angela Merkel admitted the experiment of multiculturalism failed, why can’t we discuss this?
Hate speech is a postmodern construct that won’t last the century. You cannot rule a feeling illegal. The CPS are not psychics divining feelings from the ether and it isn’t enforced equally, it’s enforced against whites and therefore, illegal by our original founding laws. “Protected groups”, the basis for the “positive” discrimination (end) of justice do not exist either because we are all equal under the law according to the true and real law. Justice is blind. And if science is to be believed, everyone is racist, so either it doesn’t count by neutralisation OR every crime, is a hate crime – that’s impossible to enforce and again, neutralises.
Stereotypes are statistically true and if social science continues to deny its un-PC findings, it will find itself de-funded, put on trial for abuse of position and on the wrong side of history.
Under the law equality is a legal construct, technically a legal fiction.
For example, the legal fiction will expect a man can run to a fire alarm until in a case one turns up to court in a wheelchair. Then the fiction dissolves, in that case. It is not kid gloves, the way it’s treated.
Being treated with dignity is something else entirely, mostly a personal decision (they mis-inform to bias) to treat someone as average, above or below (but still human) and the law cannot demand respect from one subject to another, no man can insist on being accorded honourable status without earning it.
The Honour’s List is a joke, full of preening narcissists.
The law has over-stepped its place for decades. We never needed a race relations act for millennia! If people can’t act like civilized First Worlders, should they even be here? To be tolerated in our land is their privilege, their immigrant privilege, not their right.
Even that has its conditions and that applies to say, whites in Africa.
As for Europe?
They never conquered us and we never voted for them to be nor remain here.
We refuse to worship invaders and kiss the toes of traitors.
Positive = Punishing children for what their fathers might’ve done. Treating natives as second-class in their rightful homeland because treating anyone as second class is what evil tyrants do.
They never enforce by class, do they? You’ll find most non-whites protected by such laws are middle-class against the working-class aka it’s social INJUSTICE.
It’s become illegal to offend the middle class.
Nobody gives a shit if Christian white van man is offended. Oh, but volunteer for the army, and you won’t get hired in the police!
The new no Irish signs.
The justification of such laws in the consequentialist argument that people might be incited to discrimination, hate, or violence if exposed to such ideas fails the moment you turn the argument around and ask:
Thinking is not a crime, a thought is not violence.
Any idea that can die with the slightest criticism, should.
They have one job and people are noticing the lies.
If you won’t inform them of the truth, they’ll hate you.
Scientism: the false belief that objective reality is politically correct.
Scientism is dying, like the non-whites and women science pretends aren’t any different, and so cannot legally develop functional medication for!
[Metaphor is also not dehumanizing or all Disney films are illegal.]
[i’m always extra]
Tangents, get cha tangents here!
They deserve their suffering for this and they’ll get it in full.
The Bible is clear on this point.
Rule of the internet #43
The more beautiful and pure a thing is – the more satisfying it is to corrupt it.
The epitome of evil. Is that not Satan’s MO? Sadism?
42 Nothing is sacred.
They live in a superficial world where words are like magic spells and make reality.
No wonder they’re obsessed with HP.
Love is love?
Then why all the divorce?
Lust is stronger than my conscience.
Wicked people, wicked ways, wicked ends.
Our horror films are about these people.
People watch adulterous media over boy meets girl.
Divorce lawyers profit.
I’ve said before, we’re rotten to the core.
Many of the Biblical crimes we commit are treated with reverence.
Carousing, fornication, blasphemy. Worse than Sodom.
They wanted to corrupt the one pure guest, remember?
Evil cannot stand goodness in its midst.
Leftism eats away at whatever container it is put in – whether that container be religion, science, education, the legal system, the military or whatever. All these started out carrying a small beaker of Leftism, and ended-up being dissolved into Leftism.
And Leftism really is like acid – it destroys the functionality of all social systems, reduces them to a confluent lagoon of Leftism – but does not thereby unify them….
becoming corrupted into routinely-dishonest, gibbering slogan-mongers.
SJWs Always Lie?
They don’t see it as lying. Cover-ups, twisting, defamation, all for the Greater Good of their Leftism. It’s taqiyya, basically. The truth would harm their cause, like a crusade only “Progress”…
We should therefore be wary of being ‘too virtuous’ by negative avoidance of action, when this prevents us living fully; since not even trying to live is the worst thing we can do.
Want of inspiration.
Our role models are blocked from publicity. This is the real Dark Ages. We don’t know their names.
I’m sure the London crime spree has nothing to do with funding and celebration of criminals in music culture.
We have a culture of chaos.
The ‘genius famine’ in art and music has been just as damaging as has the decline of genius in science and technology; and has contibuted to the alienation and demotivation characteristic of modernity.
Think of that Boomer anthem Imagine.
A song about peace ..from a wife beater.
You don’t count BOE?
Sweden? The anal-tight cling of the Swiss? Denmark?
I mean sure but… like it’s the only one. Think of all those “abandoned” safety deposit boxes. I bet some even date back to WW2… or the Russian Revolution. Or items from Napoleon.
Who’s to blame?
My money is on Queen Victoria.
Feel free to steal the photos by the way.
Multiculturalism has ‘utterly failed’ – Angela Merkel, 2010.
Update: I deliberated whether to include this but, you know there’s really no such thing as multiculturalism? It’s pure idea. It is referenced like a deity you must appease. Think about it. Multiculturalism forbids anyone their identity, since individual identities would congregate to a cultural standard en masse. We can’t have that. Diversity, on the other hand, is the complete opposite. It is forcing the foxes into the chicken coop. Everyone has their identity, it is stable and unchanging. There are many different ones. They conflict sometimes. All the evils of the world in one place, many peoples. Multiculturalism allows only one culture: materialist “addicted to distraction” pop culture. It blurs and prevents expression or personal liberty, authenticity. However, humans have a legal right to their identity (race, sex, cultural heritage) so multiculturalism is impossible. There is no way to make it practical. It isn’t even a theory because a theory needs consistency. Postmodernism has no concrete theories. This plus another thing is the best it can do, there is no foresight, hindsight or deeper agency or reasoning. There is certainly no critical thinking.
What multiculturalism? Where? All we see is compulsory diversity, totally different.
Suppressing the people’s identities for a Guardian reader’s vision of “polite society” is causing most of the social unrest. It makes them feelgood, cue another revolution…
The materialism mentioned can only be supported by wide debt enslavement. The good times are over, we’re running on the fumes of fumes. This is how Empires die. The socialism rewards those who socially conform (or people without jobs couldn’t afford the goodies and they’d riot out of envy). Equal in misery, equal in poverty.
The poverty of culture is the tragic loss. We had so much and let idiots throw it away.
The most rebellious thing you could do is express your heritage.
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” Camus
The recent interest in the Eisenstadt v. Baird case
might make it look like I’m picking on the Yanks. OK, I was, but I can also pinpoint a moment we were morally doomed too.
Subsection (1) above shall not affect the offence of conspiracy at common law if and in so far as it may be committed by entering into an agreement to engage in conduct which—
(a)tends to corrupt public morals or outrages public decency; but
(b)would not amount to or involve the commission of an offence if carried out by a single person otherwise than in pursuance of an agreement.
Anything “consensual” goes, quite a powerful label.
We could technically make online porn illegal over night, since it’s cinematographic and children frequently view it, which is not only grooming but corrupting.
(3)In section 2 of that Act after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
“(4A)Without prejudice to subsection (4) above, a person shall not be proceeded against for an offence at common law—
(a)in respect of a cinematograph exhibition or anything said or done in the course of a cinematograph exhibition, where it is of the essence of the common law offence that the exhibition or, as the case may be, what was said or done was obscene, indecent, offensive, disgusting or injurious to morality; or
(b)in respect of an agreement to give a cinematograph exhibition or to cause anything to be said or done in the course of such an exhibition where the common law offence consists of conspiring to corrupt public morals or to do any act contrary to public morals or decency.”
(4)At the end of section 2 of that Act there shall be added the following subsection:—
“(7)In this section ” cinematograph exhibition ” means an exhibition of moving pictures produced on a screen by means which include the projection of light.”
(5)In section 3 of that Act (which among other things makes provision for the forfeiture of obscene articles kept for publication for gain) at the beginning of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the words
“Subject to subsection (3A) of this section”and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
“(3A)Without prejudice to the duty of a court to make an order for the forfeiture of an article where section 1(4) of the Obscene Publications Act 1964 applies (orders made on conviction), in a case where by virtue of subsection (3A) of section 2 of this Act proceedings under the said section 2 for having an article for publication for gain could not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, no order for the forfeiture of the article shall be made under this section unless the warrant under which the article was seized was issued on an information laid by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
Wonder why nobody wants to see plays anymore?
Abolition of censorship of the theatre
1Abolition of censorship of the theatre.
(1)The M1Theatres Act 1843 is hereby repealed; and none of the powers which were exercisable thereunder by the Lord Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household shall be exercisable by or on behalf of Her Majesty by virtue of Her royal prerogative.
(2)[F1In granting, renewing or transferring any licence under this Act for the use of any premises for the public performance of plays or in varying any of the terms, conditions or restrictions on or subject to which any such licence is held, the licensing authority shall not have power to impose any term, condition or restriction as to the nature of the plays which may be performed under the licence or as to the manner of performing plays thereunder:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prevent a licensing authority from imposing any term, condition or restriction which they consider necessary in the interests of physical safety or health or any condition regulating or prohibiting the giving of an exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism within the meaning of the M2Hypnotism Act 1952.]
Health and Safety overtook the concern for public morality.
That’s why actors can get naked and perform sexual acts in a play.
There’s our own Race Relations statute (we never used to need one….) and hate speech was only written in once the original protection of the natives, White Christians, was written out.
That is the year we officially became second class citizens in our own country.
It just so happens to be around the time left-wing batshittery became intolerable.