Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging

So it's like Canada where we pretend to assimilate to the native culture for certain events, put up totem poles in airports, teach Native Studies in high school and then live our settler lives as usual?
Its almost like they are pushing the idea of the white race being superior. If only there was some sort of term for people that believed this.
Superior at a very specific thing (war & subjugation), in the same way that Jews are superior at subversion according to the far-right. They effectively think we had the Devil on our side, and the Devil is the Lord of this World.

Because how else can you drum up revanchist fervour with a touch of "By any means necessary" if you can't say "They took this from you, and that's the one thing they're good at".

"Yet the Contraband was right
When he told us they would fight
"Oh yes massa they would fight like the Devil!""
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUVcZApNmdg
 
Last edited:
No, just using them as an example of how the mob has been used as enforcers for the political establishment before.

The so called commies bit was a jab at OWS,MeToo and now BLM who still don't realize they're just puppets to the rich.

The Pinkertons weren't a mob, though, they were paid muscle, either private police or mercs, depending how you look at it.
 
Sorry for the censoring, can't find the original post. Person gives a store 1 star for not letting them steal and thinks being trans and vegan justifies it and makes them the victim:


Screen Shot 2020-07-30 at 5.44.40 PM.png


This is apparently the OP, and while this particular review seems to have been removed from their profile, their remaining other ones are bizarre as well:


Screen Shot 2020-07-30 at 5.55.00 PM.png


Screen Shot 2020-07-30 at 5.54.31 PM.png


Screen Shot 2020-07-30 at 5.55.28 PM.png


This person kinda reminds me of that Key and Peele skit where the obnoxious guy thinks his coworker is only annoyed by him because he's homophobic.

ETA: Here is what might be their Twitter: https://twitter.com/aaronboy100?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

EDIT 2: Yep, that's definitely their Twitter and this is not just a troll. Found some Tweets where they were melting down over some of their reviews being deleted and people making fun of them about them:

Screen Shot 2020-07-30 at 6.22.50 PM.png


Screen Shot 2020-07-30 at 6.22.40 PM.png

(read bottom to top.)

The review is their intellectual property and Reddit can't have it:
Screen Shot 2020-07-30 at 6.24.42 PM.png
 
Last edited:
Is this a route they really want to go down? This kind of argument just opens it up for people to pull up any flag of any nation and list all the atrocities that happened under that nation. Pretty much every nation has done something bad at least once because nations are made up of people, and people are imperfect.
 
Is this a route they really want to go down? This kind of argument just opens it up for people to pull up any flag of any nation and list all the atrocities that happened under that nation. Pretty much every nation has done something bad at least once because nations are made up of people, and people are imperfect.
Keep in mind that their overarching goal is the transformation of America, not just politically but demographically. All of those acts mentioned in that picture are for the most part 'White people's history'. The point of it is to justify why America's (white) past is so awful. They don't care about "any nation". They care about the USA, they care about Canada, they care about the UK, they care about Australia, etc. Sure, it makes sense for them to care more about those nations since these people tend to be from these kinds of countries, but they would never say this about China or an African country (except South Africa obviously).

This 'White people history' label is consistent in how it's applied: slavery is White people's history, fighting the Nazis is America's history, going to the moon is America's history (ironically, like it or not it should also be Nazi history too), etc. This isn't to say that there isn't truth to any of this, but it's the linguistics and the selective narrative building that's insidious. To use an SJW term non-ironically, there's a lot of cultural appropriation when deemed advantageous. You even see this within 'marginalized' communities with more recent scenarios like trannies trying to act like they played the major role in the Stonewall riots lmao. Nations are absolutely made of people and currently they're being remade by new people with their own narratives, mythologies and biases. The absurdity of that last part is that the people that perpetuate those things most ardently are the people they're replacing.

tldr - It's more than a flag. It's always more than the symbol, it's who it represents, not just what they represent.
 
I'm a woman, but Ive had sex with cut and uncut men, and I honestly don't have a preference, Some people are really deadset on uncut, while some will only take cut, but it really doesn't matter much to me as the foreskin retracts when erect anyways. I've found my cut male partners enjoyed sex as much as uncut, however, they needed different kinds of techniques to be handled, focusing on different points on the penis.

If I had a son, if it were entirely up to me I wouldn't have it done at birth. Clearly, I have nothing against men whove had it done, and I'm not even fond of calling it mutilation as I find it a bit disrespectful as I;ve had good sexual experiences with circumcized men. But I don't feel right about performing a largely cosmetic/non medically neccessary procedure to a child that cannot consent to it and exposing a child to unnessary risk. But my final decision in in practice would probably involve my husband as in his culture it may be done for religious reasons and I would want my kids to participate in both my culture and his.
post-op circumcision.jpg
Lots of circumcised fathers want their kids penises to look like their own. Those men are latent pedophiles. Be warned.
 
If only there was a less clumsy, more compact descriptive term than "individuals with a cervix." English is sadly lacking in that regard. :|

American Cancer Society now recommends cervical cancer screening start at 25, not 21
By Gisela Crespo, CNN

Updated 2:41 PM ET, Thu July 30, 2020


What you should do to prevent HPV 02:27

(CNN)Individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25 and continue through age 65, with the primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every five years as the preferred method of testing, according to a new guideline released Thursday by the American Cancer Society.

The cervical cancer screening recommendations say that HPV testing in combination with a Pap test -- also known as co-testing-- every five years or a Pap test alone every three years are still acceptable options as not all laboratories have transitioned to the primary HPV testing.

The updated guideline appears in the ACS's journal CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinician.

The ACS last updated its guideline in 2012 and recommended to start screening at age 21. In a statement, the organization explained that the decision to raise the age for cervical cancer screenings is due to new data that suggests vaccination has led to a drop in rates of precancerous cervical changes, which are the precursors to cancer.

Cervical cancer is low in the 20 to 24 year age group, and the numbers are expected to decrease as vaccine use increases, according to the ACS.

Debbie Saslow, the managing director of HPV & GYN Cancers for the ACS said the new "streamlined recommendations can improve compliance and reduce potential harms."
"They are made possible by some important developments that have allowed us to transform our approach to cervical cancer screening, primarily a deeper understanding of the role of HPV and the development of tools to address it," Saslow said in a press release.

Individuals who are 65 and older and have had an adequate negative result in prior screening can stop getting screened. Those with a hysterectomy can also discontinue screening after two consecutive negative HPV tests, two negative co-tests, or three negative Pap tests done within the past 10 years -- with the most recent having occurred in the past three to five years. The ACS recommended that individuals who don't have documentation of prior screening should continue getting screened until they have met this criteria.

According to the ACS, an HPV test is more accurate than the Pap test, and getting one every five years can reduce the risk of cervical cancer more effectively than a Pap test done every three.
"We estimate that compared with the currently recommended strategy of cytology (Pap testing) alone beginning at age 21 and switching to cotesting at age 30 years, starting with primary HPV testing at age 25 will prevent 13% more cervical cancers and 7% more cervical cancer deaths," Saslow said. "Our model showed we could do that with a 9% increase in follow-up procedures, but with 45% fewer tests required overall."

All ACS guidelines on cancer screening are created by a group of 11 clinicians and population health care professionals as well as one patient advocate.

Dr. Alexi Wright, director of gynecologic oncology and outcomes research at Dana-Farber Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said ACS's screening guidelines "are an important step in defining who should be screened --and how-- to improve outcomes."

"Cervical cancer could be eradicated within our lifetime in the United States if we do it right. It requires increasing HPV vaccination rates, regular screening, early diagnosis, and new therapeutics. But the most critical steps are boosting vaccine rates and screening."

Not much of an article, I guess, but it is kind of amazing how quickly this has all gone mainstream. Nowhere is the word "woman" or "female" used. I'm actually kind of impressed.
 
If only there was a less clumsy, more compact descriptive term than "individuals with a cervix." English is sadly lacking in that regard. :|
Because impersonal officialese like "individuals" is perfect for getting people's attention, right?
Groveling to troons is harming women.
 
These are the same idiots who reeeee about being poor and how whitey keeps them down, but then they cut themselves off from the population that is more successful and wonder why they have fewer opportunities. Can’t help anyone who doesn’t want to help themselves.
You don't get it, maaaan. "Being successful" is a "white" thing. If you're successful you've betrayed your race.
 
You don't get it, maaaan. "Being successful" is a "white" thing. If you're successful you've betrayed your race.

Does that included the chosen ones?

Btw, WTF is that, now they want to change the names of bird species because some names are racist and this isn't from the Babylon Bee or the Onion. Styx bitchuted on that case.
 
If only there was a less clumsy, more compact descriptive term than "individuals with a cervix." English is sadly lacking in that regard. :|



Not much of an article, I guess, but it is kind of amazing how quickly this has all gone mainstream. Nowhere is the word "woman" or "female" used. I'm actually kind of impressed.

If I were a woman, I wouldn't trust "doctors" who talk like this with my health. They clearly have absolute contempt for women.


This is why you check the social media of anyone trying to rent from you. Never rent to one of these fucks. I mean the retweeter.
 
Back