Sexuality is discrimination

Common sense but yeah.

50 points to Doctor Otto Obvious.

Discernment is a gift of perception, the biggest contributor of intelligence. To not notice something is to be dumb, dense and stupid. There’s a false perception there’s nothing there e.g. race. It’s conformist, you’re not supposed to see, Asch’s lines. PC is a status signal, how much can you afford to pretend the danger isn’t there? It’s a cultural game of chicken.

It’s an inverted prudence, what is prudent socially is politically correct but what is prudent for the individual and its success and survival is denial of PC. As celebrities go down one after another for betraying the ingroup, the societal priorities will shift. Even the Boomer concept of playboy in James Bond is no longer respected, he’s a thug in a suit. History is grinding it down to throw it away.

Do not feel sorry for these outdated people, they wanted a false reality. They are pretending to be and stay ignorant in the internet era. They won’t look around them. They had a lot of thanatos, they wanted danger. Don’t be stupid, don’t help them, do not be a martyr. If they had absolute power, they’d shoot you in the head against a wall for denying the Party Line. You owe them nothing, wherever they live. Be totally passive, the way they’ve been. When they have any problem, do nothing, be useless.

They wished for this world.

Let them have it.

They’re starting to go after celebrities now for not dating minorities.

BNW, this is worse. Peer pressure rape, yay, how liberating.

This is all the entitled do, rape. To forcibly take.

To take away your choice to say no, I don’t want this.
To take your money or property for their use (criminal conversion).
To take your body and autonomy.

Invasions are a rape, including the sexual but by no means limited.

Who has the most rights? Who has the most legal power? Not the natives? That’s called oppression.

End Mancrimination Posters

http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/dont-mancriminate#.qjgPlx17Wn

I don’t know whether to laugh that they’re accurate or cry that they’re necessary.

clapping in a snazzy suit

I know the men’s rights movement get a bad rep, but would you reject any legal favours they win for you? Exactly.

Transblack woman filed “anti-white” discrimination suit

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11676970/Civil-rights-activist-who-posed-as-black-sued-university-for-anti-white-discrimination.html

But she reportedly sued historically black Howard University in 2002, alleging that she was denied a scholarship and teaching post because she was white.

Ms Dolezal graduated from Howard that same year with a degree in fine arts, but claimed in the suit that the university was “discriminatory”, and preferred black applicants to their white counterparts, according to the report.

That is true, but if one place can be pro-black, I think other places should be pro-white. It should balance out.

Ethics: If you’re an egalitarian, how come you’re a speciesist?

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/02/if-youre-an-egalitarian-how-come-youre-a-speciesist/

On any of the versions of egalitarianism presented above, the individuals among whom value should be equalised are all those whose lives can go well or badly. They include all sentient beings. Since most nonhuman animals are sentient, our concern about inequality among individuals should be extended to them as well. To exclude some sentient beings from the scope of equality on the grounds of species membership (simply because they are not human) would be unjustified – an instance of speciesist discrimination. Therefore, any sound version of egalitarianism must reject speciesism.

Logically, if chimps were smarter than us, we should let them kill us. According to the egalitarian’s version of sentient value. The death warrant of egalitarian philosophy was written the moment we discovered DNA. Here is a thing which varies between all sentient organic beings, and yes, we can measure it.

I think they intend to use the term anthropocentric, but it’s a good read if you’re into that sort of thing.

Am I the only one who did the reading rdj tony stark

n.b. Being the smartest person in any given room isn’t usually a problem until the reverse never occurs.

Tattoo discrimination?

Writing that pained me.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/melanie-mcdonagh/2014/08/tattoos-are-sad-and-stupid-we-should-discriminate-against-people-with-them/

There is a bit of a debate going on at present – this being August, it’s not terribly heated – about whether employers are within their rights to avoid employing people who have visible tattoos. A report for the British Sociological Association last year suggested that many managers take a dim view of the phenomenon. Andrew Timming of St Andrew’s University who carried out the research – a fun project, as sociology goes – suggested that there was a ‘stigma’ attached to visible markings. Employers seemed to think that people decorated with, say, motifs from the Book of Kells or the motto, ‘Everything Happens for a Reason’ (I’m not making that last one up), might reflect badly on them. So they either dismiss staff who get tattooed or refuse to employ those who already are. And they are within their legal rights.

Cue the backlash: someone once called Matthew Whelan (now known as Body Art), the UK’s most prolifically tattooed man and – wouldn’t you know it? – a Lib Dem activist, has launched an e-petition to safeguard the rights of those with bodily modifications. He was nine, apparently, when he just knew that he was someone with a really enormous tattoo trapped inside a normal epidermis. And he now wants us to recognise the tattoos as an expression of personal identity – a bit like religion. We could sleep easy about all this, perhaps, were it not that, according to the British Association of Dermatologists, one in five Brits now has a tattoo. Mind you, it’s an ill wind, etc. Think of the fees to be gained from surgical removal.

Now if I were an employer with a choice of employing Mr Art or someone who looked less like an ancient Briton in woad I think I know who I’d go for. It’s not just the irritation of looking at a stupid slogan or a perfectly hideous bit of design on someone’s face or neck all day; it’s the thought that the individual who does it is apparently oblivious to the shifting, ever changeable nature of the human psyche. In other words, they are forever (pending expensive treatment) locked in the skin of the adolescent self that thought it a good idea to commission a climbing plant to go forever, distractingly, up their calf, without a thought for the respectable selves they may become.

It’s like tattooing yourself with the name of your first boyfriend. In fact, I think tattoo parlours (which flourish in places like my home town where nothing much that’s actually productive does) should be obliged to inform their clients that the procedure may not just cost around £120 for an inspirational motto but may damage their job prospects in perpetuity. David Beckham succeeded despite his tattoos, not because of them.

Mind you, the other day I found myself looking at a Greek tag on the back of a girl’s neck in a queue at a train station – a really irritating way of signalling that you have an intellectual side – and the annoying thing was, I found myself trying to read it. An invasive procedure, from every point of view.