Any prochoicer who thinks removing a dead baby and abortion are the same/should be classified as the same is either insane or not acting in good faith. No pro lifer sees them as the same thing and nobody is arguing to let women hemmorhage to death for some miasmic principle only pro choicers believe in
Can't find the post but somewhere there's one about a baby hemorrhaging in the womb and wishing he'd been aborted "because it would be the same" even though I'm 90% sure the mom survived without the abortion but like.. Mom dying will kill the kid. So why risk her life when one could do an emergency c section or inducement and potentially save the baby? Because profit is more important than healthcare. Because trying to save a baby who's dying is more difficult than sitting and waiting to see if it'll be miscarried on its own OR aborting it without a thought. As of yet I have never come across a scenario where doing one's best to save the baby would be contraindicated for the mother for the simple fact that if a mother dies, any baby in utero dies with her. We live in an age of medical miracles and still somehow debate around a completely erroneous binary
Any prochoicer who thinks removing a dead baby and abortion are the same/should be classified as the same is either insane or not acting in good faith. No pro lifer sees them as the same thing and nobody is arguing to let women hemmorhage to death for some miasmic principle only pro choicers believe in
It would be funny if it wasn't so fucking sad watching women treat their men like children and wonder why they feel like shit and don't want to do x.
"I passive aggressively tell my boyfriend he's a failure and worthless because he's a failure and that his feelings make him a broken person and even though I'd fly off the handle to be told the same things, I'm surprised he doesn't seem very loving or willing to risk new things and maybe fail at them." Hey maybe try letting go of the stick up your ass and the highly unnecessary choker leash you keep your boyfriend on
Sokoto state, a majority Muslim state in north-west Nigeria was bombed on Christmas day.
It is still unclear how many bombs were dropped and where. Confirmed is a bomb dropped on a Mosque in Jabo, killing 5 people.
Trump has claimed that this is in retaliation of the "Christian genocide" happening in Nigeria, committed by "radical Islamists" of the ISIL (ISIS), and the specific choosing of Christmas day was to reify that this is a religious based retaliation.
This Christmas, I am in Nigeria. My family is majority Christian. We are without fear of being persecuted on the basis of our religion. So, what is going on?
There is no Christian genocide in Nigeria. Nigeria is a complex country that faces a lot of violence, exploitation and subsequent neglect from our government. But it is not Christians being targeted in our country. This insidious piece of misinformation has been dutifully organised by US officials for months and gained steam on platforms like X and Truth Social.
I do not believe though, that this action was done to fight Islamic terrorists or protect Nigerian Christians. The reason being:
Sokoto state is not a state with ISIL activity.
This is another display of US throwing its weight around, conveniently, onto the most oil-rich country in Africa.
Do not believe everything the US tells you about its foreign affairs. The US will gladly spill blood on the flimsiest of justifications just to continue gorging its empire.
Please keep love in your hearts for the Nigerian people.
I don't think this is the "Whiteness" of Tumblr, it's more about that few people outside Nigeria care about what's going on in Nigeria. Unlike Gaza, Nigeria isn't a hot button political issue that is put in people's social media feeds so they haven't been primed to have a political opinion about it.
For the record, I don't think the US should be bombing Nigeria, and while Christian oppression does occur there, I don't think Trump gives a shit about that. It's mostly about pretending to care about Christians to appeal to the administration's Christian base.
Just in case any pro-aborts out there are wondering, saying “having kids just makes me more ok with killing kids before they are born” is not a good look.
But thanks I guess for continuing to say these kinds of monstrous statements out loud so we always have examples of how pro-choice ideology is corrupted at the very core.
Telling women and girls that it’s their own fault for getting pregnant and that a collection of cells is more innocent and therefore takes precedent over the life of a sinful woman who has had sex is also not a good look.
I’m glad we agree that what you posted is terrible and a bad look for pro-choicers.
Another not good look is you referring to the baby as a “collection of cells” as if that somehow devalues them and proves they’re aren’t a human being? Seems like pro-choicers as a group skipped the week of school where the rest of us learned that cells are the building blocks of nature and “a collection” or “bundle” of cells would by default create a life or a thing, depending on which cells are involved. Everything is a collection of cells. You are a collection of cells. The mother carrying the baby is a collection of cells.
It is profoundly ignorant to refer to anything as a “collection of cells” to infer something is a random of mass of cells and nothing more. That shows you don’t even have a basic understanding of what a cell is and means you are someone whose opinion should really not be given much weight in this matter since you clearly have much less knowledge than the average person on what is involved here.
And if women choose to have sex and end up pregnant how is it their not their fault? Being pregnant isn’t a bad thing but acting like women get pregnant through no fault of their own is again, just you displaying your opinion here is worth nothing because you have no idea how pregnancy works.
No one is saying the life of the baby is more important than the mother. Something you pro-aborts need to understand is no one in this scenario has to die. Both the mother and the baby can live. It happens all the time.
Yeah I've genuinely never seen a pro lifer say that women deserve to suffer pregnancy as punishment. That is always an implication of prochoicers that really shows how anti women they really are.
I've had multiple conversations that boiled down to "hey maybe we all collectively improve women's healthcare and education and hold men responsible for the children they father" and "obviously you hate women because you want to force them all to be pregnant, which is inherently bad and we clearly both think that"
Really? Most conversations I have with forced birthers usually boil down to—she had sex so she is obligated to suffer through a pregnancy whether she wants to or not. It’s not about the pregnancy itself. It’s about “responsibility for having sex” and “the purpose of sex is to have children” and “women are inherently sinful and must labor in childbirth because they tempted Adam with the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
I’m all for improving maternal health and paternal responsibility, but pregnancy will always suck and no one should have to deal with it just because they happened to have sex.
See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Pregnancy is really Not That Bad for healthy women with good support. It's simply an elusive experience with modern prenatal care. It is in no way anyone wants people to "suffer though" but merely to experience. Yeah pregnancy is a consequence for sex but consequence and punishment are different words with different meanings. Yes, one specific type of sex is for having babies and that's important because it's incredibly easy to just Not Do that Specific sex if you don't want to get pregnant. It is 100% on you as a person who chooses sex to be responsible about it- to get pregnant or not, to not catch or spread stds, to make it enjoyable for yourself and your partner. And that's not just for women either. Men have the same responsibilities. Nobody just happens to have sex. It's a choice. And being aware of the consequences is very important. I've talked about it before but it's also important to have informed consent about abortion. It can be a dangerous procedure, resulting in sterilization and even death in extreme cases. As someone who works in the medical field, I have personally seen women who had professional abortions rushed to the hospital with internal bleeding. Everything has risks and when something that has risk is easily avoided, it's silly to pretend it just happens. The easiest way to avoid ALL risk with pregnancy and abortion is to not ejaculate sperm into a vagina. It's simple. It's easy. There's so many fun sexual experiences that do not end that way. Be responsible. Avoid things you don't want instead of fixing your mistake with invasive procedures. Simple as. And that's not even getting into moral or health reasons.
I had two very mild pregnancies—no throwing up, but even with all the support and time off before the pregnancy it wasn’t great. Your clothes don’t fit. Your feet swell. Your teeth loosen. You feel nauseous and your appetite changes. You have trouble turning in your sleep. Also, not all pregnant people are healthy. Very few people have good support.
Sure, people should have safe sex. But men don’t have to have the consequence of pregnancy, so I don’t think they should have any say in whether or not someone else chooses to end that pregnancy. For that matter, if you’re not pregnant, it’s not your decision.
Abortion is statistically safe—safer than actual childbirth, which can also end in sterilization and death.
Getting pregnant is not a mistake. It’s something that happens sometimes, and it is easily remedied by miscarriage pills. if surgical abortion is necessary, that’s usually very safe too. If you don’t want to bring a child into the world, I think that’s the responsible thing to do. But it’s not my decision. It’s the choice of the pregnant person.
I'm not saying men should have a say in abortion. I'm saying they have responsibility to not get a woman pregnant if they don't want it.
Pregnancy is a mistake when you don't want to je pregnant but get pregnant anyway. Like I said, easily avoidable.
Saying you had an uncomfortable time really does nothing considering I already addressed better women's healthcare multiple times.
Overall abortion is a bad bandaid on a tumor and will always be promoted by a medical industry that doesn't want to take better care of women. Moral questions are answered on a societal level and pretending it's an individual's choice is simply nonsense- you want it to be socially acceptable and accessible and therefore a valid choice people can make. It's how most mass killings happen, being the easy solution to a problem that then becomes socially acceptable to a society. Harming people for the convenience of a group who's simply unwilling to make intelligent decisions is unacceptable to me. Letting people be harmed because it's socially acceptable to not have better healthcare is unacceptable. There are already solutions to every problem that can be solved with abortion that are massively more beneficial to all involved, we just don't mass implement them because of the fetish feminists have with abortion as a human right, which I refuse to believe comes from anywhere other than unethical corporate marketing, as feminists generally have women's best interests in mind, if not in results.
Just in case any pro-aborts out there are wondering, saying “having kids just makes me more ok with killing kids before they are born” is not a good look.
But thanks I guess for continuing to say these kinds of monstrous statements out loud so we always have examples of how pro-choice ideology is corrupted at the very core.
Telling women and girls that it’s their own fault for getting pregnant and that a collection of cells is more innocent and therefore takes precedent over the life of a sinful woman who has had sex is also not a good look.
I’m glad we agree that what you posted is terrible and a bad look for pro-choicers.
Another not good look is you referring to the baby as a “collection of cells” as if that somehow devalues them and proves they’re aren’t a human being? Seems like pro-choicers as a group skipped the week of school where the rest of us learned that cells are the building blocks of nature and “a collection” or “bundle” of cells would by default create a life or a thing, depending on which cells are involved. Everything is a collection of cells. You are a collection of cells. The mother carrying the baby is a collection of cells.
It is profoundly ignorant to refer to anything as a “collection of cells” to infer something is a random of mass of cells and nothing more. That shows you don’t even have a basic understanding of what a cell is and means you are someone whose opinion should really not be given much weight in this matter since you clearly have much less knowledge than the average person on what is involved here.
And if women choose to have sex and end up pregnant how is it their not their fault? Being pregnant isn’t a bad thing but acting like women get pregnant through no fault of their own is again, just you displaying your opinion here is worth nothing because you have no idea how pregnancy works.
No one is saying the life of the baby is more important than the mother. Something you pro-aborts need to understand is no one in this scenario has to die. Both the mother and the baby can live. It happens all the time.
Yeah I've genuinely never seen a pro lifer say that women deserve to suffer pregnancy as punishment. That is always an implication of prochoicers that really shows how anti women they really are.
I've had multiple conversations that boiled down to "hey maybe we all collectively improve women's healthcare and education and hold men responsible for the children they father" and "obviously you hate women because you want to force them all to be pregnant, which is inherently bad and we clearly both think that"
Really? Most conversations I have with forced birthers usually boil down to—she had sex so she is obligated to suffer through a pregnancy whether she wants to or not. It’s not about the pregnancy itself. It’s about “responsibility for having sex” and “the purpose of sex is to have children” and “women are inherently sinful and must labor in childbirth because they tempted Adam with the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
I’m all for improving maternal health and paternal responsibility, but pregnancy will always suck and no one should have to deal with it just because they happened to have sex.
See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Pregnancy is really Not That Bad for healthy women with good support. It's simply an elusive experience with modern prenatal care. It is in no way anyone wants people to "suffer though" but merely to experience. Yeah pregnancy is a consequence for sex but consequence and punishment are different words with different meanings. Yes, one specific type of sex is for having babies and that's important because it's incredibly easy to just Not Do that Specific sex if you don't want to get pregnant. It is 100% on you as a person who chooses sex to be responsible about it- to get pregnant or not, to not catch or spread stds, to make it enjoyable for yourself and your partner. And that's not just for women either. Men have the same responsibilities. Nobody just happens to have sex. It's a choice. And being aware of the consequences is very important. I've talked about it before but it's also important to have informed consent about abortion. It can be a dangerous procedure, resulting in sterilization and even death in extreme cases. As someone who works in the medical field, I have personally seen women who had professional abortions rushed to the hospital with internal bleeding. Everything has risks and when something that has risk is easily avoided, it's silly to pretend it just happens. The easiest way to avoid ALL risk with pregnancy and abortion is to not ejaculate sperm into a vagina. It's simple. It's easy. There's so many fun sexual experiences that do not end that way. Be responsible. Avoid things you don't want instead of fixing your mistake with invasive procedures. Simple as. And that's not even getting into moral or health reasons.
I had two very mild pregnancies—no throwing up, but even with all the support and time off before the pregnancy it wasn’t great. Your clothes don’t fit. Your feet swell. Your teeth loosen. You feel nauseous and your appetite changes. You have trouble turning in your sleep. Also, not all pregnant people are healthy. Very few people have good support.
Sure, people should have safe sex. But men don’t have to have the consequence of pregnancy, so I don’t think they should have any say in whether or not someone else chooses to end that pregnancy. For that matter, if you’re not pregnant, it’s not your decision.
Abortion is statistically safe—safer than actual childbirth, which can also end in sterilization and death.
Getting pregnant is not a mistake. It’s something that happens sometimes, and it is easily remedied by miscarriage pills. if surgical abortion is necessary, that’s usually very safe too. If you don’t want to bring a child into the world, I think that’s the responsible thing to do. But it’s not my decision. It’s the choice of the pregnant person.
I'm not saying men should have a say in abortion. I'm saying they have responsibility to not get a woman pregnant if they don't want it.
Pregnancy is a mistake when you don't want to je pregnant but get pregnant anyway. Like I said, easily avoidable.
Saying you had an uncomfortable time really does nothing considering I already addressed better women's healthcare multiple times.
Overall abortion is a bad bandaid on a tumor and will always be promoted by a medical industry that doesn't want to take better care of women. Moral questions are answered on a societal level and pretending it's an individual's choice is simply nonsense- you want it to be socially acceptable and accessible and therefore a valid choice people can make. It's how most mass killings happen, being the easy solution to a problem that then becomes socially acceptable to a society. Harming people for the convenience of a group who's simply unwilling to make intelligent decisions is unacceptable to me. Letting people be harmed because it's socially acceptable to not have better healthcare is unacceptable. There are already solutions to every problem that can be solved with abortion that are massively more beneficial to all involved, we just don't mass implement them because of the fetish feminists have with abortion as a human right, which I refuse to believe comes from anywhere other than unethical corporate marketing, as feminists generally have women's best interests in mind, if not in results.
Just in case any pro-aborts out there are wondering, saying “having kids just makes me more ok with killing kids before they are born” is not a good look.
But thanks I guess for continuing to say these kinds of monstrous statements out loud so we always have examples of how pro-choice ideology is corrupted at the very core.
Telling women and girls that it’s their own fault for getting pregnant and that a collection of cells is more innocent and therefore takes precedent over the life of a sinful woman who has had sex is also not a good look.
I’m glad we agree that what you posted is terrible and a bad look for pro-choicers.
Another not good look is you referring to the baby as a “collection of cells” as if that somehow devalues them and proves they’re aren’t a human being? Seems like pro-choicers as a group skipped the week of school where the rest of us learned that cells are the building blocks of nature and “a collection” or “bundle” of cells would by default create a life or a thing, depending on which cells are involved. Everything is a collection of cells. You are a collection of cells. The mother carrying the baby is a collection of cells.
It is profoundly ignorant to refer to anything as a “collection of cells” to infer something is a random of mass of cells and nothing more. That shows you don’t even have a basic understanding of what a cell is and means you are someone whose opinion should really not be given much weight in this matter since you clearly have much less knowledge than the average person on what is involved here.
And if women choose to have sex and end up pregnant how is it their not their fault? Being pregnant isn’t a bad thing but acting like women get pregnant through no fault of their own is again, just you displaying your opinion here is worth nothing because you have no idea how pregnancy works.
No one is saying the life of the baby is more important than the mother. Something you pro-aborts need to understand is no one in this scenario has to die. Both the mother and the baby can live. It happens all the time.
Yeah I've genuinely never seen a pro lifer say that women deserve to suffer pregnancy as punishment. That is always an implication of prochoicers that really shows how anti women they really are.
I've had multiple conversations that boiled down to "hey maybe we all collectively improve women's healthcare and education and hold men responsible for the children they father" and "obviously you hate women because you want to force them all to be pregnant, which is inherently bad and we clearly both think that"
Really? Most conversations I have with forced birthers usually boil down to—she had sex so she is obligated to suffer through a pregnancy whether she wants to or not. It’s not about the pregnancy itself. It’s about “responsibility for having sex” and “the purpose of sex is to have children” and “women are inherently sinful and must labor in childbirth because they tempted Adam with the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
I’m all for improving maternal health and paternal responsibility, but pregnancy will always suck and no one should have to deal with it just because they happened to have sex.
See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Pregnancy is really Not That Bad for healthy women with good support. It's simply an elusive experience with modern prenatal care. It is in no way anyone wants people to "suffer though" but merely to experience. Yeah pregnancy is a consequence for sex but consequence and punishment are different words with different meanings. Yes, one specific type of sex is for having babies and that's important because it's incredibly easy to just Not Do that Specific sex if you don't want to get pregnant. It is 100% on you as a person who chooses sex to be responsible about it- to get pregnant or not, to not catch or spread stds, to make it enjoyable for yourself and your partner. And that's not just for women either. Men have the same responsibilities. Nobody just happens to have sex. It's a choice. And being aware of the consequences is very important. I've talked about it before but it's also important to have informed consent about abortion. It can be a dangerous procedure, resulting in sterilization and even death in extreme cases. As someone who works in the medical field, I have personally seen women who had professional abortions rushed to the hospital with internal bleeding. Everything has risks and when something that has risk is easily avoided, it's silly to pretend it just happens. The easiest way to avoid ALL risk with pregnancy and abortion is to not ejaculate sperm into a vagina. It's simple. It's easy. There's so many fun sexual experiences that do not end that way. Be responsible. Avoid things you don't want instead of fixing your mistake with invasive procedures. Simple as. And that's not even getting into moral or health reasons.
Just in case any pro-aborts out there are wondering, saying “having kids just makes me more ok with killing kids before they are born” is not a good look.
But thanks I guess for continuing to say these kinds of monstrous statements out loud so we always have examples of how pro-choice ideology is corrupted at the very core.
Telling women and girls that it’s their own fault for getting pregnant and that a collection of cells is more innocent and therefore takes precedent over the life of a sinful woman who has had sex is also not a good look.
I’m glad we agree that what you posted is terrible and a bad look for pro-choicers.
Another not good look is you referring to the baby as a “collection of cells” as if that somehow devalues them and proves they’re aren’t a human being? Seems like pro-choicers as a group skipped the week of school where the rest of us learned that cells are the building blocks of nature and “a collection” or “bundle” of cells would by default create a life or a thing, depending on which cells are involved. Everything is a collection of cells. You are a collection of cells. The mother carrying the baby is a collection of cells.
It is profoundly ignorant to refer to anything as a “collection of cells” to infer something is a random of mass of cells and nothing more. That shows you don’t even have a basic understanding of what a cell is and means you are someone whose opinion should really not be given much weight in this matter since you clearly have much less knowledge than the average person on what is involved here.
And if women choose to have sex and end up pregnant how is it their not their fault? Being pregnant isn’t a bad thing but acting like women get pregnant through no fault of their own is again, just you displaying your opinion here is worth nothing because you have no idea how pregnancy works.
No one is saying the life of the baby is more important than the mother. Something you pro-aborts need to understand is no one in this scenario has to die. Both the mother and the baby can live. It happens all the time.
Yeah I've genuinely never seen a pro lifer say that women deserve to suffer pregnancy as punishment. That is always an implication of prochoicers that really shows how anti women they really are.
I've had multiple conversations that boiled down to "hey maybe we all collectively improve women's healthcare and education and hold men responsible for the children they father" and "obviously you hate women because you want to force them all to be pregnant, which is inherently bad and we clearly both think that"
ive said it before and i'll say it again but carrying a weapon does not make you safer, it gives the person assaulting you a free weapon. i know we live in a time where fear is profitable and the cute pink stun guns make feminism sexy but they do not work like you think they do.
there is an extremely slim chance you will be able to deploy the pepper spray/taser/gun in a way that does not harm you at all. pepper spray blows back, guns miss, tasers slip. there is a much much larger chance things go poorly and you end up getting hurt worse than originally intended because now your assailant is pissed and more heavily armed.
im not talking out my ass here, i'm a case manager at a homeless shelter for addicts. we have a lot of violent behavior. none of our staff carry any sort of weapons. we are trained to de-escalate or remove ourselves from the situation. i have worked there over two years without being harmed despite intervening in many fights and having weapons pulled on me.
there is safety in numbers. there is safety in well lit streets and staying on your phone and knowing when to scream and run. there is no safety in "personal defense items".
it's an illusion. it's a mental game. a weapon is a safety blanket that will sooner kill you than stop someone else from doing so.
we are also not in PVP grand theft auto. as scary as things seem, humans are not out there re-enacting the purge 24/7. there are lots of people who benefit from you being afraid of everyone you pass on the street. a lot of those people will try to sell you things to keep you safe. don't fall for it.
Yikes at the lying about the Martin-Zimmerman case, too.
In February 2012, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was walking back to a relative’s house after buying snacks at a convenience store when George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch coordinator, spotted him and called 911 to report a “real suspicious Black guy.”35
That is a lie. The citation merely repeats the same lie.
Zimmerman's 911 call transcript is available online several places, here's the Internet Archive, and it does not contain the quoted phrase. Zimmerman calls to report a "real suspicious guy", then the dispatcher asks about race, and Zimmerman replies to that question with "He looks black".
Splicing those two quotes is the most definite, easily checkable lie, but there's more lies from the Center for American Progress.
The article is also lying about "Against police instruction, Zimmerman exited his vehicle and pursued Martin" which you can read in the same transcript. There was no such police instruction. The closest it gets is this:
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
That is not an instruction.
And where the article says vaguely "Following a brief confrontation" it should instead say something like: After Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground, and repeatedly punched Zimmerman in the head, Zimmerman fired his weapon at (into) Martin. Trayvon had deployed deadly force.
I can't find the medical report itself at the moment, but secondhand reports, for example CNN, say:
A medical report by George Zimmerman’s family doctor shows the neighborhood watch volunteer was diagnosed with a fractured nose, two black eyes and two lacerations on the back of the head after his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin.
There is also the eyewitness testimony that one man was on top of the other delivering a beating, and forensic ballistics evidence that Martin was shot from in front and below.
In addition to the lying discrediting the Center for American Progress and their gun-grabbing cause, this kind of lying is extra immoral because it's also a sort of low-grade intimidation campaign against black people. The evidence indicates that Trayvon Martin was shot because Martin violently assaulted George Zimmerman, and Zimmerman acted in self-defense, so Zimmerman was acquitted at trial. When the CfAP elides the violent assault with the vague word "confrontation" and makes it about "racial profiling" instead, the CfAP gives black readers a false impression of how America works.
Logically, if it's so easy to disarm someone, couldn't I just disarm the assailant who disarmed me in turn?
I've seen someone seriously argue that career criminals are used to facing guns and are therefore good at combat.
Completely missing the part where criminals generally don't want to get shot, often fail to even hold guns correctly, are known for missing targets in drive bys which are about getting away as fast as possible...
...and if they knowingly took the risk of getting shot on a regular basis they have a high chance of not taking any more risks, ever.
Sooner or later, the die will come up snake eyes.
Claims like OP are extremely...counterintuitive.
I suspect it has something to do with a (Harvard?) study which found gun owners were more likely to be injured in violent crimes than non-owners.
Lot of people held that one up, and none of them went "how often did guns keep attacks from becoming homicides?"
You know, the primary use of a gun for self-defense.
If guns won’t make us safe then guns won’t make criminals dangerous, so there’s no point in banning guns and we should double-down on punishing violent criminals.
Female surgeons have better overall patient outcomes than male surgeons.
Departments with a significant percentage of female surgeons have better overall patient outcomes for all surgeons.
This is demonstrated in study after study after study.
Why? Because surgery is such a male-dominated field that a female surgeon has to be orders of magnitudes better than her male peers to be considered for the same job positions/research grants, etc.
And when you get enough female surgeons in a department, they start being able to influence decision-making to improve patient safety and procedure efficacy for the entire department.
But hospitals don't like hiring female surgeons because they might do something inconvenient like needing time off to give birth to the next generation.
DEI in medicine doesn't just ensure a genuinely merits-based hiring process, as opposed to a convenience-based one.
That Tweets was a very very bad example though, given the FAA literally did lower their standards for black people in order to get more black people. That did literally actually happen. It was a very significant deal.
I love how so many progressives have magically forgotten that token hiring is a thing, and never, ever discuss the well-known lower standards for women in, say, the military, or firefighting. Or the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard..
If DEI proponents truly believed that the only limiting factor in hiring was bias against identity, they would be clamoring to remove such identity from the selection process, not forcing it into every possible space and planning equity. If the hiring process is discriminating against certain people for their immutable traits, you make it so the hiring process has no access to that information, so it cannot use it to make such determinations. That is not just the best way to prove your point, it is literally the only way. Reinforcing it really only means you just want to make sure the discrimination is used in a manner more pleasing to your sensibilities.
Don't spoon feed me bullshit and tell me it's chocolate.
Good point. Though it's possible they could really believe what they believe, and think the best solution is to make the pendulum swing in the other direction.
You know, it really is interesting that with conventional sex within marriage only philosophy, the idea that women should give husbands sex whenever is generally accepted but with modern feminist free love philosophy, there's often the idea that a woman being obligated to have sex in a committed relationship is evil and abusive
M*n lovee twisting stories/making up shit just to get mad at.
The doordash woman didn't even go inside the m*les house! she dropped the food off at the door step where the m*le had his dick out with the door open, most likely knowing that his dasher was a women based on her name and profile picture.. yet men think shes the one to blame
If the m*le was a gay guy (had a pride flag or something in his house or on his porch) and the dasher was a m*n I bet the reaction from the m*le community would be very different.
damn. What the fuck... also iirc the male customer had felonies.
(& nothing to do with the point & not blaming her/trying say she deserves to be in trouble at ALL, but I will say uploading the video was a huge mistake ☹️ other than that she did everything else right)
Oswego, NY. (THECOUNT) -- November 18, 2025 — A 23-year-old DoorDash driver from Oswego, New York, has been charged with felony unlawful sur
Turns out she was told to leave the order at the door, saw the door was open, looked inside, saw the guy passed out naked on his couch, then walked inside and filmed him nude without his permission and posted it online. That's sexual harassment.
because men have done their damned best to keep women out of the workforce, and any woman who goes into these specific fields is more likely to suffer abuse/harassment from her own fellow coworkers because they don’t want her there
Once got into an argument with someone over this, specifically whether or not women have lower muscle density and if that might affect their capability to perform well. Which really ignores all the other aspects of why women choose other professions but that is where we're at in political discourse
Post your mugshot from the sex offender registry, muchacho. I know your kind make up the bulk of it, considering you can’t keep those dirty ass hands of yours off the white kids you wish your inferior genes could make.
As a white person with no criminal background this is the most ironic hatemail I think I've ever gotten. Anon please send me more and tell me which post made you think I was a.. Mexican? Sex offender? Clearly I don't need to hire a dei writer to make posts for me, it sounds authentic enough already
you cannot convince me illegal immigration is a real problem and I'm sick of pretending it is. yk when you were a kid and you got mad at your sibling for crossing an imaginary line that you drew in the car? that's what you're doing right now except you're actually killing people over it
I get how we need records of who's in the country for like census or tax purposes, yk boring logistical stuff. but you know what we could do with people who don't have the paperwork? send them to the courthouse to fill out their paperwork. boom problem solved and you didn't have to spend 80 thousand dollars detaining and deporting them
