I think what this misses is the responsibility of the fame-chasing whores (of both sexes, although my understanding is that this particular pimp was only into women) for accepting the deal.
But he really expected support from the US state department.
I don’t understand how so many people in alt tech (and this is true of a lot of alternative conservative media, too) are still so naive.
I don’t think I know this reference.
-Migrants and homeless people moved to other cities :(
Is the sad face on this one because they're not being deported, imprisoned, or executed as appropriate?
Like “the total elimination of this group [is contextually understood to be desirable].”
You might see it in the context of a news story about a member of one group or another doing something particularly heinous, and then a commenter would post “T[X]D.”
He has the most important qualification: a dedication to putting things in his tunnel.
Yeah, but do you think she cares about any of that? I suspect that any sting she’s feeling is in the blow to her ego and the reduction in salary and personal prestige. On an individual level for her, staying employed at Harvard is a win.
There is no win for Claudine Gay in this one.
The school has shown it will burn itself down to keep giving her a six figure job, and that’s assuming people keep on the pressure to actually make the burn-down happen. Assuming she’s completely shameless—and she is a black, female academic—I think there are a lot of scenarios that are wins for her here.
Hey now, it does seem like reading other people’s research might be her only skill….
To be honest, this one seems pretty minor. Some of the others I saw are much bigger… if my only introduction to localization issues was this post, I’d assume the complainers are nitpicking.
X-phobia the forbidden one(s)
Impossible! No one's ever been able to correctly gender Xem before!
“Diversity” in almost any modern context should be understood to mean “anti-white racial Marxism.”
Do you know for sure they’re aware of it?
Is there any way to report this behavior to Steam?
Given what kind of "organization" it was, the Diversity Officer may have actually had a more relevant and important job.
I also enjoyed that film, but looking back I am of the opinion that—since it is a version of an English cultural myth—it is unacceptably diverse and should be regarded as bad, even if it is fun.
The implication is that red piller activity on Twitter was incentivized and turned to engagement farming when Elon started giving out part of the advertising revenue to to large accounts that had Twitter subscriptions. This is at least a little true, but no more than any other ideology, group, or subculture has gained their own engagement farmers hoping to cash in.
The further implication, from that, is that these red pill accounts have driven women away from the right, ergo they are selling out conservatism for money. This is laughably false, as women have leaned heavily left since long before Elon buying Twitter. There would probably be relatively more truth in blaming the leftward leaning of women for red pill philosophy than vice versa.
A small disclaimer, though—while women do lean left relative to men, and we see even here users that like to blame “white women” for the ills of modern liberalism, I do feel it fair to point out that when one accounts for race as well as sex, white women still support Republicans at a higher rate than non-white men.
I thought they hit that point at least five years ago.
Which is questionable given that California has so many illegal immigrants and is even more openly one-party dominated than the rest of the US. I wouldn't trust any "voting" that happens there.
Also, you have the issue where the people that would have voted for it are not exclusively the people it affects. I'm not saying there are tons and tons of red voters in Cali—although there are still many more than a lot of people think—but I would venture that what red-voters there are are overrepresented in small business owners, while blue voters may be overrepresented among those stealing from them.
Given all that, "consent is given by voting for it" seems pretty dubious as a moral argument.
That one is such a brilliant joke it must be him exposing himself as doing a bit, right?
As always with the left, their political stances are "default values and baseline decency," and therefore not against the "no politics" rule. Your questioning this value judgment, however, is political and therefore in violation.
I’m pretty sure that Indians, Africans, and Middle Easterners (broadly categorizing) each have their own brands of degeneracy. The Jake Shields, Lucas Gage, et al. vision of some sort of anti-Jew pan-everywhere alliance is delusional.
What do you think contributes to making an environment like Syria or Libya or Somalia worse than one like France or Japan or America?
When you say “environment,” how do you mean that?
It's his fault for offering the deal, and also [his/her] fault for taking it. The whole transaction is repugnant, and everyone involved should be viewed with disgust for participating.
You aren't wrong to say that Harvey Weinstein should probably get some punishment for offering. You are wrong to say that the women have no agency in accepting. You draw the analogy of an "attacker," but he did not "attack" anyone. These people walked into the office, they were offered "fame and fortune for your body," and they said "yes."
Realistically, the whole thing is closest to prostitution, except that in this case the john and the pimp are essentially one guy. Ergo, the prostitute and the john/pimp should both be punished. Unfortunately, we are not operating under that system, and the substitute system we have, of lying about what actually occurred to displace all the blame onto one party, is not good. When you call Weinstein an "attacker," who "forces mindrape" on people, you are siding with that system, because you are also displacing agency and thus culpability from the women who willingly took the deal.