When you lose elections 70-30%, try again using even more intimidation, threats and attempts to destroy people.
Just one month ago, critical race theory was rejected in a massive landslide in Southlake, Texas. Now the people who beat it back are being terrorized. One of them is a pilot for American Airlines.
The Southlake Anti-Racism Coalition, led by current and former students, included four screenshots of Midkiff’s Twitter posts in a tweet that read, “Your employee has been harassing students and community members relentlessly for months for speaking out against the racism they experience in our town. From targeting individual minors and accosting our organization, here are just some of his most recent unprofessional comments.”
American responded in a tweet, “Your comments concern us so please DM the link where it shows the employee comments for us to take a closer look.”
Then the media allies of CRT sprung into action and wrote a hitpiece on the pilot, naming him and all. That would be Anna Caplan of Dallas 'News' For her article, she interviewed several who attacked the pilot, no one who defended him.
A hard-left associate professor who lives in Southlake wrote:
Not to mention the adults in the community he has harassed for standing up against hate. @AmericanAir must be ecstatic to have such an ambassador using his privilege to treat everyone with dignity and respect.
Southlake Together, the CRT organization wrote:
It is great to see @AmericanAir standing up and keeping to their values.
This is a man who could have benefited from @AmericanAir ’s DEI education but instead he chose to ridicule it and harass many members of our Southlake Community, especially focused on minority women and students.
This is a real world example of why @Carrollisd students need a plan. American is enforcing its code of conduct, as it should. He deserves to be punished. As a start, he owes those he has repeatedly attacked an apology. Unfortunately, the real harm to them cannot be undone.
Isn't it interesting that 30% is trying to terrorize 70%?
Yes, he's an extremist, but he has an easily-observable central premise: women have a very, very strong in-group preference (when the group in question is "female"), but, like any group, is willing to sacrifice some members in the pursuit and exercise of power.
Now, I will disagree that there's a species-wide conspiracy to do away with men, but I cannot disagree that the in-group preference serves that agenda perfectly, and there is a degree of complicity when women vote for any stripe of feminist, regardless of how simple or uninformed their motivations may be.
Your strategy of hoisting every woman or girl who suffers up as counter-evidence of the grand conspiracy isn't working, and on occasion backfires so horribly that you're actually helping TIm1 gather support.
I'd advise you take a step back, reconsider how you're expressing your arguments, pick your battles, and try to be more effective.
I feel like the fact that they have prissy slap fights on nearly every thread that goes on way too long, changes neither mind, and just makes them both look worse has become the biggest joke of our little .win.
Kind of a boy who cried wolf situation. Anything with women involved, TIm1 blames the matriarchy, and Anti comes in to deny the existence of wolves by pointing at a dog.
Personally, I'd rather know about the wolves, even if most of them aren't really there, so I'll give it a once-over, even if I'm not expecting anything definitive.
Its just so tiresome because its every single time and both sound stupider the longer each one goes on.
Also, bold of you to assume women need to be involved to activate our Impossible boy's almonds to blame them.
The point is not that 'they suffered', it's that Pakistani Muslim rapists were considered more important than young girls (when they are of working-class families). That is a pretty strong indication of who comes at the top of the victimhood hierarchy.
Same for the vast black crime rates that are ignored. Same for the violence and threats sent to women by 'transgenders'. Women outrank white men, but they sure as hell don't outrank these others.
Not sure if I should upvote this for explaining my point or downvote for calling me an extremist.
I think you've got the right target, but the wrong ammo. Too many pellets on cardboard, not enough in the 10 ring.
You frequently come across as blaming all women for the problems caused by female supremacists, which is true in instances where they knowingly vote or materially support female supremacist causes, but counter-productive in instances where they unknowingly support fem-Stalinism or oppose it.
Occasionally, you see a tree and call it a forest, but those who disagree with you more often see too many trees and still deny the existence of the forest.
But you are an extremist. Not sure why you'd shy away from that label. You're extremely focused on a singular issue and attribute everything to it. Just embrace it man.
Extremism is generally associated with violence, which I don't advocate for.
Are you squeamish about being called an extremist?
Not gonna make it man, that's one you should hold with pride.
I don't want to be associated with violence.
I want feminists to be punished, but I want it to be via existing laws and done by the book, so they can't claim any unfairness.
Extremism isn't necessarily violence. Its taking an extreme position. They haven't even changed the definition to include violence yet. Your positions are very extreme, especially compared to the mainstream, so you will be an extremist even in MRA circles.
Also, they will always claim unfairness, they are women. Victimization is their entire operandi, even if they have to make it up or warp reality. And its quite foolish to think laws will ever do enough to reach your goals.
Then you are kidding yourself. They claim unfairness even when the laws benefit women.