Nike is murdering its own brand: Muslims, trannies and fatties.
Future business case study in NO.
Nike is murdering its own brand: Muslims, trannies and fatties.
Future business case study in NO.
They know we don’t give a shit, right?
It does show you a tactic of theirs.
(They’ve also been ‘protesting’ property developers, actually intimidation).
Thought police get the citizens to report one another.
This saves them time, resources, and allows them to move the goalposts on offences with cases.
Collectivism cultures manage this especially well with envy.
The SJWs “hurt feelings” = violence rhetoric is basically 100% chink.
They treat ‘shame’ like something humans shouldn’t have to feel.
You bought an over-priced car, you should feel shame. It was your choice.
Tie scarves on them and the communists who trashed developer offices would be anti-fa.
Most Asians are quite tough people. You wouldn’t see that shit in Korea, N/S.
Chinacoms are the weakest cucks to their government on the planet.
China has “hurt feelings” every week. It’s an abuse tactic, they’re trying to make you prioritise their feelings over yours (gaslighting) and infantilise them so they cannot be held responsible for their adult actions (like buying a shitty car). You can’t negotiate with that cultural tantrum unless you’re absolutely brutal, they vote in Big Gov because they need it to keep their infantile population in line. If you give in one time, they reference it like a shrew every time thereafter. Those are not respectable people.
They’re killing Christians now, it’s obvious. Plenty of their own citizens have disappeared but there’s a protest about this – distraction.
They’re trying to enforce speech laws from China in the West, if you look back to the Guardian article about Western Unis not using the word “Taiwan”.
This is the enemy.
To learn who rules over you……
Report “offensive comments” like this is Tumblrisms but they suddenly lack the funds to investigate burglaries?
They also mean IRL comments, freedom of speech.
They’re looking for a precedent.
But it’s so hard to be a man, innit?
That’s why I’m like
99.99% of the time. It just isn’t worth it. Why out anything? Why make enemies? Why label yourselves when it’s just a target to shoot at? You don’t need labels, they make you less effective in life. They can lock you up for a label, it’s like school, don’t stick out.
Ideological Greyman. Just introduce one idea at a time when appropos. Drip drip dip.
Act on the information you have, don’t try to fix idiots.
Like, if you need to plan, just plan. Don’t go round bragging like Noah building an ark.
With enough Overton, the Mrs Grundy morons will switch eventually for popularity. That’s how they work. Because they’re useful idiots.
At least men can physically defend yourself and experience lower stress levels when threatened (women have more active emotional centres). That’s without going into “friendly fire” of fake conservatives saying women have no place like men reproduce asexually and want to become full-time stay-at-home dads.
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.
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 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:
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!
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.
Most recently, police refused to chase a suspect because the ground was too muddy.
They expect a cushy pension.
Britain used to lead the way in terms of liberalism, speech is core to this.
Why is Pat not more popular?
The guy’s a living legend.
A THIRD of people in Britain believe they cannot speak freely on controversial subjects such as immigration and religion for fear they may be criticised, lose their job or be prosecuted.
The study by the New Culture Forum, a Westminster think tank, warns that Britain has developed a “culture of silence” where people censor themselves in the workplace.
According to a YouGov poll more than a third (36%) believe they cannot speak freely on immigration, while 31% feel constrained on religion and 27% on ethical issues; 20% feel they cannot express their political views.
Royal Britannia, Britannia rules the waves, Britain never-never-never, shall be slaves!
Put him on Question Time with Mogg and I’d happily pay for a very expensive ticket.
The days are numbered on the Politeness Police. They keep asking for more money to oppress us. A legitimate authority is politically neutral. Mrs Grundy was never this much of a shrew.
On the bright side, to make it official policy (still no end to rape gangs) and ‘crack down’, this must be closer to over than we think?
Hurting feelings now means more than hurting the body itself. Investigate rape? No. Investigate stalking/burglary/rapes*? Nah. You can call a white woman a hooker if you’re a Muslim man, but the white woman can’t call him a piece of shit in return.
When equality under the law goes out of the window, the People will turn on those given ‘special protections’, especially protections to harm everyone else. I believe this is deliberate, to distract us with racial and religious matters while the transfer of money and power is under way. We’d still have severe 5th column problems if they never came/were deported.
*Most reported ‘burglaries’ are actually a new form of crime, actually a stalking/burglary/rape. They target a woman, follow her home, spy on the home (also illegal), pretend to burgle it and happen to rape her while they are there. This gives them a better legal defense if caught. That’s why police don’t investigate ‘burglaries’ anymore.
There’s no police for real crimes, but taxes continue to soar.
If the Alt Right really wants to rustle jimmies, convert to Islam and read all the parts about sex slavery at a feminist demo. Untouchable.