Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

Barna77

Oh Jesus Christ almighty. And that pdf link at the bottom .... :eek:

https://www.uis.edu/gendersexualitystudentservices/about/lgbtqaterminology/



LGBTQ2IA+ "In Student Experience, we like to use the term LGBTQ2IA+, which stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Two-Spirit, Intersex, Asexual, and other identities that fall outside of cisgender and heterosexual paradigms."

"Ally – Someone who confronts heterosexism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, heterosexual and genderstraight privilege in themselves and others; has a concern for the well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and intersex people; and a belief that heterosexism, homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are social justice issues."

"Heterosexual Privilege: Unearned, often unconscious or taken for granted benefits afforded to heterosexuals in
a heterosexist society based on their sexual orientation"

"Queer Ally Program" (University program)

It's just so nutty.

Wibbs

Two-Spirit...


We're people not labels!! Invent more labels!! brain and irony free morons.

Look, all of that alphabet soup can be rounded down to this; Gay, straight, bi. Male, female, intersex. Job done. Every one of those "identities" fits in that lot. Then again and as I reckoned earlier, much of this is down to social media companies driving ever more categories they can flog to advertisers.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Two-Spirit...
.

We're people not labels!! Invent more labels!! brain and irony free morons.

Look, all of that alphabet soup can be rounded down to this; Gay, straight, bi. Male, female, intersex. Job done. Every one of those "identities" fits in that lot. Then again and as I reckoned earlier, much of this is down to social media companies driving ever more categories they can flog to advertisers.

The point is that some people seem to be hell bent on creating divisions between members of the general population.

While all this "inter group" infighting is going on, it is easier to divide and conquer!

We will really wake up soon and find that all the freedoms we had gained in the middle of the 20th century have been taken away (1984 style),
I am serious when I write this.

Cordell

And a lot of freedom will be taken away not by forbidding certain things, but by mandating some others. We won't be told you can't do this, we will be prevented from doing that by being told you have to do that. And a lot of people will not see it for what it is and claim that since there is no direct restriction there is no problem.

WrenBoy

Wibbs wrote: »

Two-Spirit...


We're people not labels!! Invent more labels!! brain and irony free morons.

Look, all of that alphabet soup can be rounded down to this; Gay, straight, bi. Male, female, intersex. Job done. Every one of those "identities" fits in that lot. Then again and as I reckoned earlier, much of this is down to social media companies driving ever more categories they can flog to advertisers.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Two-Spirit...


We're people not labels!! Invent more labels!! brain and irony free morons.

Look, all of that alphabet soup can be rounded down to this; Gay, straight, bi. Male, female, intersex. Job done. Every one of those "identities" fits in that lot. Then again and as I reckoned earlier, much of this is down to social media companies driving ever more categories they can flog to advertisers.

I'm sticking with
Male and female - gender/sex
Gay, straight, bi - sexual preference

stefanovich

WrenBoy wrote: »

Norm is great

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sticking with
Male and female - gender/sex
Gay, straight, bi - sexual preference

Intersex people most certainly exist and there are a number of genetic and developmental conditions that give rise to it. I would strongly suspect that down the line Trans individuals, or a proportion of them could be put in this category.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Intersex people most certainly exist and there are a number of genetic and developmental conditions that give rise to it.

Mea culpa.

keano_afc

Barna77 wrote: »

"0 representations of LGBTQIA+ characters" What does the A stand for now?

Attention seeking.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

Two-Spirit...


We're people not labels!! Invent more labels!! brain and irony free morons.

Look, all of that alphabet soup can be rounded down to this; Gay, straight, bi. Male, female, intersex. Job done. Every one of those "identities" fits in that lot. Then again and as I reckoned earlier, much of this is down to social media companies driving ever more categories they can flog to advertisers.

I don’t think intersex should be differentiated like that. Intersex conditions are medical, they are disorders and the people who have them are male or female with a disorder.

On sexuality, I agree. Everything is covered by gay, straight or bisexual. There is not one that I can think of that doesn’t fit in to one of those categories.

Sir Oxman

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I don’t think intersex should be differentiated like that. Intersex conditions are medical, they are disorders and the people who have them are male or female with a disorder.

On sexuality, I agree. Everything is covered by gay, straight or bisexual. There is not one that I can think of that doesn’t fit in to one of those categories.

100% agreed.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

There is not one that I can think of that doesn’t fit in to one of those categories.

Unless it involves another species/object. :P

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Unless it involves another species/object. :P

Then you just check if the German gendered word for it I suppose

Wibbs

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I don’t think intersex should be differentiated like that. Intersex conditions are medical, they are disorders and the people who have them are male or female with a disorder.

I would contend someone who is transgender to have a disorder too. By definition it is not the gender norm. Intersex can be quite the range of disorders too, from the "mild" to more severe. I would argue that(at least with a percentage of those who are Trans) they have the "wrong" brain in the body they're born with.

There are some differences between male and female brains and brain development, if a biological woman ended up with a male brain because of a genetic or developmental fault that could be included in Intersex.

Indeed Intersex folks can demonstrate these fundamental brain differences. In the bad old days where Intersex babies were assigned a gender after birth and often surgery, quite the number of them rejected that assigned gender as they grew up and into adolescence and adulthood. They knew the didn't feel the gender they were told they were.

Problem with this of course is it butts up against one major tenet of "Wokeism", that is "gender is cultural, not biological".

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I would contend someone who is transgender to have a disorder too. By definition it is not the gender norm. Intersex can be quite the range of disorders too, from the "mild" to more severe. I would argue that(at least with a percentage of those who are Trans) they have the "wrong" brain in the body they're born with.

There are some differences between male and female brains and brain development, if a biological woman ended up with a male brain because of a genetic or developmental fault that could be included in Intersex.

Indeed Intersex folks can demonstrate these fundamental brain differences. In the bad old days where Intersex babies were assigned a gender after birth and often surgery, quite the number of them rejected that assigned gender as they grew up and into adolescence and adulthood. They knew the didn't feel the gender they were told they were.

Problem with this of course is it butts up against one major tenet of "Wokeism", that is "gender is cultural, not biological".

Intersex and transgender ideology are of course almost antagonistic ideologies, the first being a biological fact, the second denying biology.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

There are some differences between male and female brains and brain development, if a biological woman ended up with a male brain because of a genetic or developmental fault that could be included in Intersex.

Has that been observed and is it classed as being an intersex disorder?

HansKroenke

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/unusually-high-proportion-of-young-males-researching-far-right-topics-1.4500287?mode=amp

This article appeared in the IT and straight away as I read it I realised it was full of conjecture and confirmation bias. Ross Frennett of Moonshot CVE (you can see his neck beard on LinkedIn) discusses conclusions of some research this entity, backed by Google no less, carried out.

One fantastically stupid quote from this Ross eejit;

Popular search terms in Ireland include searches for anti-Semitic films and the main website associated with the QAnon conspiracy theory. “To be searching for them you would have to already have some level of knowledge of the far-right scene,” Mr Frenett said.

The term confirmation bias was what I was thinking when I read the article and then started researching into this Moonshot CVE group. Find them on LinkedIn and you will see the archetype woke company with a cast of employees fitting the bill for woke.

One post in particular made me laugh but also worry as this Moonshot CVE bunch of woke spoofers are paid by governments to do research apparently! They have recently codified a policy to not have their male employees (or staff that identify as male as they say it) attend all male discussion panel events. Using the hash tag "#manel" as well! Truly a sad, miserable bunch are the employees of this Moonshot CVE group.

Montage of Feck

So mr woke himself got caught out. The pious self righteous types never change, just the religion.

biko

From The Guardian:

Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?
No matter how vile we may consider the sexual predilections of paedophiles, we should not be in the business of putting people in prison for simply looking at things.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2003/jan/14/childprotection.rodliddle

Moving the goalposts on child pornography

Invidious

That article is from 2003 though

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I would contend someone who is transgender to have a disorder too. By definition it is not the gender norm. Intersex can be quite the range of disorders too, from the "mild" to more severe. I would argue that(at least with a percentage of those who are Trans) they have the "wrong" brain in the body they're born with.

There are some differences between male and female brains and brain development, if a biological woman ended up with a male brain because of a genetic or developmental fault that could be included in Intersex.

Indeed Intersex folks can demonstrate these fundamental brain differences. In the bad old days where Intersex babies were assigned a gender after birth and often surgery, quite the number of them rejected that assigned gender as they grew up and into adolescence and adulthood. They knew the didn't feel the gender they were told they were.

Problem with this of course is it butts up against one major tenet of "Wokeism", that is "gender is cultural, not biological".

No no, gender doesn't exist. But it does. But it's not physical. But you have to take hormones and/or have surgery. Or create a new tag.
It's all a nonsense and I'm sick of hearing about it at this stage.

Someone who genuinely thinks they need a part of their body chopped off to be happy has my sympathy. Somehow it's not considered an illness or a disorder though. :rolleyes:

biko wrote: »

From The Guardian:

Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?
No matter how vile we may consider the sexual predilections of paedophiles, we should not be in the business of putting people in prison for simply looking at things.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2003/jan/14/childprotection.rodliddle

Moving the goalposts on child pornography

Check the date.

Gruffalux

Wibbs wrote: »

I would argue that(at least with a percentage of those who are Trans) they have the "wrong" brain in the body they're born with.

There are some differences between male and female brains and brain development, if a biological woman ended up with a male brain because of a genetic or developmental fault that could be included in intersex.

What kind of percentages approximately would you argue/estimate have the wrong brain in the wrong body?

stefanovich

biko wrote: »

From The Guardian:

Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?
No matter how vile we may consider the sexual predilections of paedophiles, we should not be in the business of putting people in prison for simply looking at things.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2003/jan/14/childprotection.rodliddle

Moving the goalposts on child pornography

Ah yes, the Guardian, full of vile people. Roy Greenslade just admitted supporting the IRA and writing for An Phoblacht.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Ah yes, the Guardian, full of vile people. Roy Greenslade just admitted supporting the IRA and writing for An Phoblacht.

That article is by Rod Liddle though... Works for the Spectator as an editor. I actually like his writing usually. Is he promoting it? Highly doubt it. Let me actually read the full article!

Omackeral

stefanovich wrote: »

That article is by Rod Liddle though...

I heard he left his wife for a youngone.

Wibbs

Gruffalux wrote: »

What kind of percentages approximately would you argue/estimate have the wrong brain in the wrong body?

I have no clue and scientific research seems to have stalled on this. It's an area of research that could have political type overtones so probably not so popular. Like the research that showed Gay men's brains appeared to have some differences in certain parts of the brain compared to Straight men's brains, some and I do say some activists had a fit about it. The other problem is that men and women's brains share far more similarities than differences and the differences are on a sliding scale. Now if you were presented with a brain scan and some clinical background and were told, left handed, somewhere on the autism scale, learned to talk later, high spatial skills, you could quite reasonably conclude; Bloke. However there are left handed women who are on the autism scale, learn to talk later and crush spatial tests.

There's no real point where you can definitively say, yep woman's brain. I suspect there will come a time where science can indeed pin it down more and I further suspect we'll find that many Trans people will be found to have more of the structures found in the gender they weren't born as. In essence they'd have an "Intersex" brain.

Gruffalux

Wibbs wrote: »

. I suspect there will come a time where science can indeed pin it down more and I further suspect we'll find that many Trans people will be found to have more of the structures found in the gender they weren't born as. In essence they'd have an "Intersex" brain.

I suspect we won't and they won't. Or at least in very few not many.
Trans in the numbers appearing now is by far more likely a nurture thing. The nurture effect can begin very early.

And if there is any ''natural'' occurrence of a wrong brain in a wrong body - if ever found - it would have to be investigated for pathological sources, as it causes such apparent and extreme suffering to the one who experiences it, which would not be a popular cause.

Besides gender identity as a fashion statement, there is actual statistical evidence of childhood trauma, abuse, etc in many children presenting with dysphoria. People working in the area note significant paraphiliac contributions to gender identity (all nurture again, not nature).

I do not believe in blank slate theories but differently ''sexed'' brains in any significant way is a big claim, in the sense of it applying to how one feels as a gender. That does not mean that brains are not different - they obviously are. Perhaps more on an individual level than between the sexes. There are of course evolutionary differences in male and female brains eg pattern matching (female) target finding (male) etc but these are nothing to do with gender expression. Also nurture affects the brain a lot - so gender roles/ expression will have an effect.

Masculinity and femininity are ever-changing concepts and very diverse. They do not reflect '' sexed brains'' either. Feeling like a man or a woman would be very hard to pin down to a brain thing. What particular characteristics of the transgender person do you think would be a reflection of a differently sexed brain? Or of a man? Or of a woman? What gender expression characteristics of me are because I have a ''female'' brain?

Hormones do have an effect on the brain function as they are powerful, that is why they are used and desired by people with different gender identities to their natal sex - if there is some ab initio wrong brain thing going on then there may be questions to be answered about endocrine disruptors, chemicals and hormones in the environment having an adverse effect on human brains. But that would be a research into what is effectively pathology - a species harming itself by its practices - and would be politically unacceptable at present I imagine.

I would prefer to start such potential enquiry at the body, eg phthalate exposure having an effect on penis size (which it does) or hormones in the food chain causing gynecomastia (breasts on boys/men). And then one could perhaps enquire if the body effects were having some effect on gender identity (which I doubt would be the case.) But then that creates weirdness because why should a transgender person have to have some chemically induced irregularity to ''prove'' themselves? And yet the way the brain/hormones would have been disrupted (made be in the wrong body) is by malign interference if that theory was to prove true.

If there is something going on that is producing female brains in male bodies (or vice versa) that would have to be considered a serious pathological issue at a species level that needs to be investigated urgently, especially now that the modern treatment of such involves huge physical trauma that results in sterility, pain, dysfunction, lifetime medicalisation and degrees of impotence. It is not something we could afford to be casual about.

Personally is think the idea of transgender brains to any significant degree outside of as a possible result of adverse endocrine disruption is very unlikely.

Invidious

HansKroenke wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/unusually-high-proportion-of-young-males-researching-far-right-topics-1.4500287?mode=amp

This article appeared in the IT and straight away as I read it I realised it was full of conjecture and confirmation bias. Ross Frennett of Moonshot CVE (you can see his neck beard on LinkedIn) discusses conclusions of some research this entity, backed by Google no less, carried out.

What ridiculous article. We start off with the scaremongering lede:

They found more than 9,000 individual searches from Irish users for far-right topics during the six-month period which it categorised by gender, age and location.

Oooh, sounds worrying. The far right is on the rise! You can almost hear the Darth Vader theme playing in the background...

But let's break down the maths a little bit. 9,000 searches over six months boils down to fewer than 50 searches a day, across the entire 5 million population of Ireland.

Furthermore, even that figure is inflated. The period they chose to study was September 2020 to February 2021, which spanned the US election and aftermath. The article does acknowledge that:

Search traffic in the lead-up to the US presidential election, during which the far-right was frequently discussed in the media, was significantly higher than in the months which followed.

In other words, they categorized as far-right extremists people who had been searching certain topics in the context of learning more about the US elections. The fact that searches for these topics have since tapered off illustrates the disingenuous scaremongering at play here.

Also:

Each search term did not necessarily correspond to an individual person, Mr Frenett said. “One person could be searching for something five times or five people could be searching for it once.”

In other words, they don't even know how many people were carrying out searches? Even if ten people had each searched five topics a day for six months, that would amount to the headline total of 9,000 searches.

If this article is intended to stoke the "rise of the far right" narrative, it actually does quite the opposite.

Complete nonsense, all of it.

stefanovich

Invidious wrote: »

What ridiculous article. We start off with the scaremongering lede:



Oooh, sounds worrying. The far right is on the rise! You can almost hear the Darth Vader theme playing in the background...

And yet, 9,000 searches over six months boils down to fewer than 50 searches a day, across the entire 5 million population.

Furthermore, even that figure is inflated. The period they chose to study was September 2020 to February 2021, which spanned the US election and aftermath. The article does acknowledge that:



In other words, they categorized as far-right extremists people who had been searching certain topics in the context of learning more about the US elections. The fact that searches for these topics have since tapered off shows that this so-called "study" is nothing more than disingenuous scaremongering.

Also:



In other words, they don't even know how many people were carrying out searches? Even if ten people had each searched five topics a day for six months, that would amount to the headline total of 9,000 searches.

Complete nonsense, all of it.

Does googling a subject mean you support it? If I google communism does that make me a supporter of gulags and mass extermination?

jam_mac_jam

stefanovich wrote: »

Does googling a subject mean you support it? If I google communism does that make me a supporter of gulags and mass extermination?

Exactly. You could be googling Q anon because you are hearing loads about it. Doesn't mean you are remotely far right.

Invidious

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Exactly. You could be googling Q anon because you are hearing loads about it. Doesn't mean you are remotely far right.

Exactly. I myself googled the "Proud Boys" after the media furor about them, just to find out who they were. I'd never heard of them before and want nothing to do with their beliefs. But that was probably classified as a "far right" search term, and I may have got myself tagged as an extremist :eek:

stefanovich

Invidious wrote: »

Exactly. I myself googled the "Proud Boys" after the media furor about them, just to find out who they were. I'd never heard of them before and want nothing to do with their beliefs. But that was probably classified as a "far right" search term, and I may have got myself tagged as an extremist :eek:

Does google review your search history before a job offer?

"I see you like large breasted women and hitler"

Gruffalux

I have had to google (for example) what nonce, bell end and bukake meant. :eek:
If they classified me by my google searches I would be in serious trouble.

stefanovich

Gruffalux wrote: »

I have had to google (for example) what nonce, bell end and bukake meant. :eek:
If they classified me by my google searches I would be in serious trouble.

Maybe you are just interested in cryptography, worcestershire and noodles.

CrabRevolution

Mr Pyke wrote: »

I'm really starting to hate America and the fcuked up racial obsessions of the Americans.

A great example of this was a headline recently in the NYT about 2 rival candidates for the New Year Mayoral Election, both of whom are black. They described the rivalry as "a complicated story of race".

What they really mean by "complicated" is "There's no logical basis for crying racism in a rivalry between 2 rich black men. However, since it is our stance that everything is racist, we have to claim racism is involved anyway by claiming it's 'complicated'"

Invidious

Invidious wrote: »

Exactly. I myself googled the "Proud Boys" after the media furor about them, just to find out who they were. I'd never heard of them before and want nothing to do with their beliefs. But that was probably classified as a "far right" search term, and I may have got myself tagged as an extremist :eek:

I'd be hesitant to label proud boys far right. A men's drinking group really who hate antifa and believe that western chauvinism is the best.

Led by a POC and set up by a Canadian comedian.

Hardly "far right"? Having said that, I don't know too much about them. I'd be glad to be educated

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Does googling a subject mean you support it? If I google communism does that make me a supporter of gulags and mass extermination?

It's worth considering that not only the elections but also BLM was at play. For anyone interested or discussing the topic, would likely have searched for examples of far right groups, in seeking info that supported their stances on BLM, or the problems within the US (or Europe)

TomTomTim

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd be hesitant to label proud boys far right. A men's drinking group really who hate antifa.

What truly annoys me about this is that, regardless of what you think of him, Gavin McInness is not far right. I remember his specifically denouncing the alt right because he felt that there needed to be a home for black conservatives, something the alt right obviously wasn't offering. Part of the reason PB's were set up was to dissociate themselves from hardline right wingers. Gavin himself is married to a Indian woman, who he has a child with. One of the PD's who got arrested in NY was married to a black woman, and had two mixed race children. None of that matters to the mob though, they'll still call them a white supremacist group, regardless of all the counter evidence.
.

Danzy

biko wrote: »

From The Guardian:

Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?
No matter how vile we may consider the sexual predilections of paedophiles, we should not be in the business of putting people in prison for simply looking at things.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2003/jan/14/childprotection.rodliddle

Moving the goalposts on child pornography

This isn't the first time that this old chestnut has been brought back.

Yeah_Right

Invidious wrote: »

Exactly. I myself googled the "Proud Boys" after the media furor about them, just to find out who they were. I'd never heard of them before and want nothing to do with their beliefs. But that was probably classified as a "far right" search term, and I may have got myself tagged as an extremist :eek:

I was the same. Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, Boogaloo Boys, various other groups and people that were coming up in the news last year, I googled lots them. I'm politically centre-right but socially liberal. However I like to be informed so I look up people and groups that are being discussed in the news. It is stupid to pigeonhole anyone based on their google searches.

Sorry but if an article about the internet contains "Over 9000" then it has to be a pisstake. It might as well have a soundbite from Leeroy Jenkins.

Mad_maxx

Invidious wrote: »

What ridiculous article. We start off with the scaremongering lede:



Oooh, sounds worrying. The far right is on the rise! You can almost hear the Darth Vader theme playing in the background...

But let's break down the maths a little bit. 9,000 searches over six months boils down to fewer than 50 searches a day, across the entire 5 million population of Ireland.

Furthermore, even that figure is inflated. The period they chose to study was September 2020 to February 2021, which spanned the US election and aftermath. The article does acknowledge that:



In other words, they categorized as far-right extremists people who had been searching certain topics in the context of learning more about the US elections. The fact that searches for these topics have since tapered off illustrates the disingenuous scaremongering at play here.

Also:



In other words, they don't even know how many people were carrying out searches? Even if ten people had each searched five topics a day for six months, that would amount to the headline total of 9,000 searches.

If this article is intended to stoke the "rise of the far right" narrative, it actually does quite the opposite.

Complete nonsense, all of it.

Conrad Gallagher, nuff said

Part of the new breed of activist journalists like Ellen coyne, shona Murray or Sorcha pollock

Ash.J.Williams

Watched a Jonathan Ross clip earlier remember “4puffs and a piano” the house band , can they still do that ?

Invidious

The insanity continues...

A veteran Bronx educator claims she was fired in part because she refused to mimic a salute to Black power from the 2018 comic-book movie “Black Panther” during superintendent meetings.

At official gatherings of high-level Department of Education bosses, then-Bronx superintendent Meisha Ross Porter often asked the group to do the arms-across-the-chest gesture of solidarity from the mythical African nation of Wakanda. The salute is considered a symbol of empowerment.

When Rafaela Espinal — a Dominican-American who describes herself as Afro-Latina — declined to join in, she “was admonished and told that it was inappropriate for her not to participate,” according to a Manhattan Supreme Court lawsuit filed Feb. 3 against the city DOE, Chancellor Richard Carranza and some of his top-ranking lieutenants.

Espinal was one year shy of earning a lifetime DOE pension when she was abruptly fired from her role as head of Community School District 12 in Bronx without explanation, after repeatedly refusing to do the “Wakanda Forever” salute, according to the lawsuit.

You can now lose your job for refusing to mimic salutes from a comic-book movie to a made-up African country?

biko

Wakandan Meisha Ross Porter is on a mission.

Incoming schools Chancellor Meisha Ross Porter has made it her mission to racially revamp the employment rolls as she moved up the ranks of the Department of Education — often at the expense of white and Jewish educators, critics charge.

The educator, tapped by Mayor de Blasio to replace Richard Carranza after the chancellor abruptly announced his resignation Friday, is accused in at least two recent lawsuits of discriminating against older, white and Jewish educators.

She is not named as a plaintiff in either action, but is accused of creating a hostile environment.

https://nypost.com/2021/02/27/new-nyc-schools-chancellor-meisha-ross-porter-marginalized-older-white-women-suit/

Invidious

biko wrote: »

Wakandan Meisha Ross Porter is on a mission.

And she has just been appointed as the first black female Chancellor of the New York City school system, overseeing 150,000 employees and a $34 billion annual budget.

Many white and Jewish teachers must now be fearing for their jobs, and working to perfect their comic-book salutes to an imaginary black nation.

Sir Oxman

Invidious wrote: »

And she has just been appointed as the first black female Chancellor of the New York City school system, overseeing 150,000 employees and a $34 billion annual budget.

Many white and Jewish teachers must now be fearing for their jobs, and working to perfect their comic-book salutes to an imaginary black nation.

Don't forget!
There are 'no real world consequences, none whatsoever. It's only online!' etc

Dyr

Wokeness weaponizes modern liberalisms pathological need to appease groups that it has classed as victumes

As soon as society stops appeasing, wokeness dies. If that kills modern liberalism in the process, no ****ing harm, it's done enough harm.