Dr. Rachel McKinnon / Dr. Veronica Ivy / Rhys McKinnon / Rachel Veronica McKinnon / Foxy Moxy / SportIsARight - failed out of a tenured job,man who competes in womens sports, gained like 100 lbs in 2022 (page 813), comically fell off bike before a race (page 830)

artilleryfroth said:
REEEES is being mocked online for getting close, but not quite close enough, to realising the truth here:
Click to expand...
I really want to get into the psychology of why this keeps happening (mediocre straight white men that think they are not mediocre straight white men). That creepy Clymer dude infamously tweeted "Lord give me the strength of a mediocre white man", there's the Kevin Gibes & Tranch crew that are constantly talking about how they're making rural Colorado more "diverse" despite literally being a collection of heterosexual white men, there's ContraPenis making fun of women for dating boring white guys or whatever, PhilosophyTube also seems to be going in this direction... I even knew a guy like this irl, who no fucking joke had a beard and presented 100% male but thought calling himself a they/them made him somehow the most oppressed person on the planet.


Like I get that these dudes think trooning out somehow makes them not mediocre white men, but is there a psychology beyond this? I don't think it's the same as when someone with actual grievances who faces actual systemic discrimination, like say, a black woman, complains about mediocre white men. I feel like on some subconscious level, guys like Rhys must realize that they are, in fact, mediocre white men.


Or maybe that's part of why they troon out in the first place? Too engrossed in SJW culture which villainizes le cishet yt male and they internalize this, but the "white man bad" mantra clashes with their own blimp-sized ego, and rather than realize and accept that either (A) yes they (as in, individuals such as Rhys) genuinely ARE that bad, or (B) woque folx culture that says all straight white men are evil by default is not actually a healthy way to deal with grievances, even if racism/sexism are genuine problems in society-- instead, they think "Welp, if straight white men are evil and I'm this amazing, this must mean I am not a straight white man then".

Sometimes I wonder if it's a deliberate strategy? Like deep down (or not so deep down) they actively know they're exploiting a loophole in SJW logic to dominate the pyramid of oppression, despite literally being among the most privileged people to ever live?

Or is it due to a serious lack of self esteem? Living in an environment that says "as a straight white man, you have all the advantages"... and yet they're such losers. That would mean the blame for their pathetic lives is all on themselves. Everyone else around them can blame "patriarchy" or "white supremacy", but they are the white supremacist patriarchy.
No, they think, that can't be! They have to find an identity that would allow them to blame the world instead of reflecting on themselves.

Tbh I kinda want woke culture to collapse in on itself by this point. You can't just make "some people are more oppressed and therefore they deserve to be given special platforms and attention and have their bad traits always forgiven" a core part of your belief system AND add in a clause of "the most oppressed people of all time, whose oppression trumps every other group and thus they deserve the most power and attention at all times, is transgender people, of which there is no definition (because gatekeeping is bigotry) so literally anybody can join this category just by saying they belong there".
Those two values inherently clash, and they just end up replicating the "evil straight white men dominate everything" structure from the original society they claimed to hate. That is to say, the straight white men are still running the show even in woke world, they've just put on dresses.

I guess this all just boils down to wondering "On some level, these men know they're still men, right?".
I genuinely cannot fathom the idea of a hulking mansplaining ogre like Rhys not understanding on any level that he is male. I just can't.

I find it interesting that the "granny trannies/tranpas" tend to be more at peace with the idea of their biological sex. and the fact that there is and always will be a difference between a trans (wo)man and a biological (wo)man. Or is that just a result of survival bias where the troons who don't live in reality all 41% themselves before reaching old age?
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Autistic
Reactions: Raging Euphoria, Marvin, Rosetree and 17 others
Nice to see that Rhys does still have some form of fame (notoriety). Perhaps in the many interviews he is going to do he can reply to Tucker's criticisms
1615019730401.png
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Gaylord Brachiosaurus, Marvin, Clotso Coof and 18 others
papaya said:
America literally enslaved black people for a majority of its history, major racial segregation continued until like 50 years ago, and not everybody's attitudes are up to speed yet. The laws help but it's not that easy to prove discrimination. Trump (whom I hear you Eurofags hate) was pretty much a direct backlash of white people shitting the bed that a black man got elected president.
Click to expand...
Backlash against a black president, whom they voted in...twice.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Dumb
Reactions: Clotso Coof, chickenbutt, Struggle Cakes and 8 others
axfaxf said:
Maybe you could enlighten me and I´m sure a lot of others, by explaining to me wtf you mean?

I may be a eurofag, but it was my understanding that almost any kind of discrimination was forbidden by law in The Land of The Free Lawsuits. Meaning that if someone somehow can prove discrimination, there´s a potential for a very large payday (for a lawyer, but still).
Click to expand...
Explicit discrimination based on a very small set of classifications is unconstitutional. These are limited to race, religion and national origin. Discrimination by the government against these are considered inherently suspect and subject to strict scrutiny. The government can discriminate based on these categories, but only if there is a compelling government need and the means used are narrowly tailored to that compelling need. Sex is another category that is not explicitly protected in the Constitution itself but is subject to intermediate scrutiny. Discrimination on this basis requires an important government interest and means substantially related to that interest.

To the extent sexual orientation and gender identity are protected at all under the Constitution, it dangles from that semi-invented category of sexual discrimination.

Anything else is subject to rational basis scrutiny, which is nearly anything goes. It only requires a legitimate government interest and means rationally related to that. So for instance, one can "discriminate" against owners of a specific kind of vehicle by saying they have to have mud flaps on it within city limits. Only when these are motivated by pure animus against a group are they subject to higher "rational basis with bite" scrutiny. For instance, "no hippies allowed in town under any circumstances."

This is discrimination under the Constitution and it is prohibited for the government to do it.

The rest of anti-discrimination law, and that which applies to private employers, landlords, people who operate places of public accommodation, and so on, is statutory law that could be amended, expanded, or even removed.

This is where you have explicit protections for sexual orientation or gender identity under some laws, sex, national origin, religion, age, physical or mental disability, or actually more or less anything federal, state, or local authorities decide to protect.

One can sue for discrimination under any of these statutes or administrative regimes, but one needs someone specific to sue who is responsible for the discrimination, and one has to prove someone was specifically harmed by some specific act or set of acts by the party in question.
axfaxf said:
What is this systemic discrimination and how does it play out? I think it would be very entertaining to finally(!) find out. :)
Click to expand...
Systemic discrimination is inequality of outcome based on the general setup of society and institutions. You can't really sue over "systemic discrimination" because it is "in the air," so to speak. For instance, if you grow up in a shitty neighborhood, with a shitty tax base, you are likely to go to a shitty school, get a shitty education, and a shitty job (or no job at all).

Generally, you are out of luck if there's an aptitude test, for instance, and you don't do well at it because you were raised speaking a disfavored dialect of English, or don't have good ESL skills. It isn't directed at your race but your aptitude (although there are some limited statutory exceptions like affirmative action even those do not allow simply setting aside a quota for specific races).

There's nobody to sue, because nobody said "let's go get this guy for being black," it's just the natural outcome from living in a crapsack world that isn't fair.

This is vastly oversimplified of course and doesn't even get into fairly basic things like the difference between intentional discrimination and disparate impact (i.e. when facially neutral policies affect different groups differently), and when either of these two can be invoked legally. But it will have to do since nobody wants to read a 50 page spergathon.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Marvin, TheBlackVolga, Brain Problems and 16 others
AnOminous said:
Explicit discrimination based on a very small set of classifications is unconstitutional. These are limited to race, religion and national origin. Discrimination by the government against these are considered inherently suspect and subject to strict scrutiny. The government can discriminate based on these categories, but only if there is a compelling government need and the means used are narrowly tailored to that compelling need. Sex is another category that is not explicitly protected in the Constitution itself but is subject to intermediate scrutiny. Discrimination on this basis requires an important government interest and means substantially related to that interest.

To the extent sexual orientation and gender identity are protected at all under the Constitution, it dangles from that semi-invented category of sexual discrimination.

Anything else is subject to rational basis scrutiny, which is nearly anything goes. It only requires a legitimate government interest and means rationally related to that. So for instance, one can "discriminate" against owners of a specific kind of vehicle by saying they have to have mud flaps on it within city limits. Only when these are motivated by pure animus against a group are they subject to higher "rational basis with bite" scrutiny. For instance, "no hippies allowed in town under any circumstances."

This is discrimination under the Constitution and it is prohibited for the government to do it.

The rest of anti-discrimination law, and that which applies to private employers, landlords, people who operate places of public accommodation, and so on, is statutory law that could be amended, expanded, or even removed.

This is where you have explicit protections for sexual orientation or gender identity under some laws, sex, national origin, religion, age, physical or mental disability, or actually more or less anything federal, state, or local authorities decide to protect.

One can sue for discrimination under any of these statutes or administrative regimes, but one needs someone specific to sue who is responsible for the discrimination, and one has to prove someone was specifically harmed by some specific act or set of acts by the party in question.

Systemic discrimination is inequality of outcome based on the general setup of society and institutions. You can't really sue over "systemic discrimination" because it is "in the air," so to speak. For instance, if you grow up in a shitty neighborhood, with a shitty tax base, you are likely to go to a shitty school, get a shitty education, and a shitty job (or no job at all).

Generally, you are out of luck if there's an aptitude test, for instance, and you don't do well at it because you were raised speaking a disfavored dialect of English, or don't have good ESL skills. It isn't directed at your race but your aptitude (although there are some limited statutory exceptions like affirmative action even those do not allow simply setting aside a quota for specific races).

There's nobody to sue, because nobody said "let's go get this guy for being black," it's just the natural outcome from living in a crapsack world that isn't fair.

This is vastly oversimplified of course and doesn't even get into fairly basic things like the difference between intentional discrimination and disparate impact (i.e. when facially neutral policies affect different groups differently), and when either of these two can be invoked legally. But it will have to do since nobody wants to read a 50 page spergathon.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this. I always assume our cows are full of shit, but it’s always interesting to know exactly what kind of shit they’re full of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin, TheBlackVolga, Brain Problems and 3 others
I really regret inadvertently starting a debate about "does racism/sexism/etc exist in America", that was not my point. The point is that people like Rhys operate within a SJW/wokie framework that says it does. People in those circles genuinely believe that straight, white, middle to upper class men are born with all the privileges in the world and are to blame for all the problems in the world. It doesn't matter whether you personally agree with their framework or not. The point is they are living in a plane of existence where it is believed that a straight white man is the worst thing to be as evidenced by the fact that they all talk shit about straight white men.
This is paradoxical because they obviously are straight white men themselves. I was wondering how they internally square this away because I cannot accept the idea that they genuinely think they're not men in any sense of the word.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: adderall, Next Task, Mr Snoid and 11 others
Turin Turambar said:
Nice to see that Rhys does still have some form of fame (notoriety). Perhaps in the many interviews he is going to do he can reply to Tucker's criticisms
View attachment 1973494
Click to expand...
From this shot he looks surprisingly like the Chicken Lady. Rhys missed his calling as the 6th Kid in the Hall.
download (2).jpeg
EDIT: To be clear, I believe Rhys hatched from an egg.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Feels
Reactions: Clotso Coof, Behavioral Sink, Brain Problems and 5 others
Still no Navratilova, yet more Billie Eilish:
Untitled.png

It finally dawns on trannies that the Dems hate them too:
Untitled.png

Untitled.png
So Rhys is against experimentation on children after all?

EvzSK7wWgAA9r3v.jpg

Rhys educates on the Philosophy of Language:
Untitled.png

Remember Rhys has started a memoir? Now, after putting down 2000 words, he wants to outsource it:
745.png

EvzSK7wWgAA9r3v.jpg
I'm not sure how many employers are eager to hire a drug fiend.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: Marvin, plastiche, Clotso Coof and 15 others
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! said:
From this shot he looks surprisingly like the Chicken Lady. Rhys missed his calling as the 6th Kid in the Hall.
View attachment 1975004
EDIT: To be clear, I believe Rhys hatched from an egg.
Click to expand...

I had to watch a Chicken Lady skit to see what it's about. Yeah, Rhys is the Chicken Lady.

rhys_chicken_lady.gif


Even he agrees. BWAAK!

rhys_BWAAK.gif


There's another critter he resembles, one you should never feed after midnight.

rhys_stripe_gremlin.jpg

artilleryfroth said:
I’m willing to bet that REEEEES makes a comment about how nobody is “super straight” once they meet him, being the “smol” and “cute” chunky fat man that he is.
Click to expand...

"Not joking... there was a waiting list for a piece of Rhys when I was still fucking"

get_in_line_for_troon_peanuts.png
 
  • Like
  • Horrifying
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Raging Euphoria, Marvin, Fannyscum and 33 others
Positron said:
View attachment 1976251
Click to expand...
Oh, gee whiz Rhys, thanks for schooling us retards on who Dr. Mengele was. I certainly did not learn about him in the 4th grade. I think I will look at the wikipedia article you kindly linked.

When is Rhys going to comment on Super Straights? I need his super professional opinion on this.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Dial M for Misgender, Marvin, plastiche and 13 others
Chapstick4Lyfe said:
Oh, gee whiz Rhys, thanks for schooling us retards on who Dr. Mengele was. I certainly did not learn about him in the 4th grade. I think I will look at the wikipedia article you kindly linked.

When is Rhys going to comment on Super Straights? I need his super professional opinion on this.
Click to expand...
God, let's hope it's soon! Please validate me with your impotent hate and scorn, Rhys, and maybe if we're lucky one of those Really Influential tweets where you go: " 'Bullshit assertion of nonsense'. Why? BECAUSE I, PRESIDENT PLUMP, SAY IT IS SO!"

I'm #SuperStraight! I'm straighter than a beam of light from the eye of the Sun and I DEMAND Rhys jizzes all over my face with his rancid Troon-Messiah disapproval. Troonkakke? YUM YUM!
 
  • Like
  • Horrifying
  • Feels
Reactions: Marvin, Xenu Warrior Princess, chickenbutt and 7 others
People (and I use that term loosely) like Rhys are the best recruiting tool that the Republican Party has ever had. I'm pretty liberal, but the idea that the Democrats are going to enable, um, individuals like Troony McTroonface to shit up public discourse with their nonsense and force everyone to go along with them under pain of being completely ostracized is fucking appalling.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Raging Euphoria, Marvin, plastiche and 24 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back