Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging

I found another copy of the LGBTQ v. Google filing since the link from 2019 was dead, so I attached it to this post incase anyone wants to see just how stupid it was. Almost every claim they make as to why they should be allowed to sue YouTube is just plain wrong from a legal standpoint. They make bizarre claims about Section 230, the First Amendment and California anti-discrimination law, the judge seemed to think they were trying to argue that the First Amendment itself is unconstitutional, etc. The claims as to the damages and relief make no sense based on their own evidence. They seem to be arguing that Google is actually a state actor and thus is required to ban other websites from talking about the plaintiffs while at the same time arguing that this means Google can't refuse to monetize their garbage because FIRST AMENDMENT. I'm not surprised that the lawfirm deleted it off their site once it was tossed.

It'll be good to preserve it here since there were so many fawning media pieces about the brave LGBTQ lawsuit against evil YouTubes with zero follow up or legal analysis.
 

Attachments

  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: chickenbutt, Elim Garak, UnsufficentBoobage and 6 others
AirdropShitposts said:
I found another copy of the LGBTQ v. Google filing since the link from 2019 was dead, so I attached it to this post incase anyone wants to see just how stupid it was. Almost every claim they make as to why they should be allowed to sue YouTube is just plain wrong from a legal standpoint. They make bizarre claims about Section 230, the First Amendment and California anti-discrimination law, the judge seemed to think they were trying to argue that the First Amendment itself is unconstitutional, etc. The claims as to the damages and relief make no sense based on their own evidence. They seem to be arguing that Google is actually a state actor and thus is required to ban other websites from talking about the plaintiffs while at the same time arguing that this means Google can't refuse to monetize their garbage because FIRST AMENDMENT. I'm not surprised that the lawfirm deleted it off their site once it was tossed.

It'll be good to preserve it here since there were so many fawning media pieces about the brave LGBTQ lawsuit against evil YouTubes with zero follow up or legal analysis.
Click to expand...
The brave LGBTQPQRSTUVLMNOP victims warriors who attempted to stand up against the "tyranny" of Google/YouTube" have yet to comment on their failure. However, they left up the original video of their initial claim..which is pretty much what's in the legal fliling you posted. It's hilarious...

 
  • Informative
  • Lunacy
Reactions: chickenbutt, Elim Garak, UnsufficentBoobage and 3 others
Screen Shot 2021-08-26 at 2.35.05 AM.png


:thinking:
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Lunacy
Reactions: chickenbutt, Elim Garak, UnsufficentBoobage and 11 others
piter_de_vries said:
Mrw:
View attachment 2481300


Also Lol at thinking that the family unit is a mere tool of capitalist indoctrination.
Click to expand...
Just wait till you realize they use the same line of thinking -- "The nuclear family is a tool of capitalism" -- to justify pedophilia and child rape.

The logic goes something like this: "The only reason families are a thing are because of selfish straight men wanting to leave a legacy for their children, when in reality the group should decide what his children get, a "legacy" is inherently selfish and greedy. The only reason why parents would object to us sucking their 8 year old kid's cock or shoving our dicks in their 4 year old daughter's anus is because of the same kind of greed. Children, like all property, should be shared and used in the best way for the collective."

This is all well documented madness from a lot of the early marxists and proto marxists out of France. They were blatantly trying to justify why they should be allowed to fuck kids in the street if they wanted to. Much like how you don't find out about thermonuclear space alien ghosts until you're too far into Scientology to escape, you don't learn about random child anal rape until you're a true believer in Marx.
 
  • Horrifying
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Horribadger, Elim Garak, UnsufficentBoobage and 11 others
Positron said:
[Woman getting jealous about another dude's birthday.]
How old is she? 7?

Let me mansplain it to clueless women: when a man celebrates another dude, it is really a mutual celebration, an excuse to have fun together; the celebrated is only nominally the focus of the attention. When a man celebrates a woman, it is the man preening her narcissism: she is the sole focus, and he disappears except as someone who mumbles pretty words and foot the bill -- and this is what women call "emotional investment"; you don't see a dude (gay or straight) complain that another dude doesn't put enough "emotional investment" on him. The dynamics in the two cases are completely different, and it is hardly surprising that men prefer one over the other.
Click to expand...
Wanting to be seen as important and being invested in isn't narcissism. Nobody likes not mattering and what they want being dismissed by people they care about. Now I completely get him finding the guy birthday much more fun than her birthday but I also get why she would be hurt by how he expressed this. Who would like getting name called over wanting something than see the same person going all in for that same thing for someone else? That would hurt a guy too.

Also if he doesn't have fun with her he should do something about that. It's possible to celebrate her too by doing something both of them like. Most girls are perfectly fine with less self indulgent but more enjoyable to him activities as long as she still has special time. Compromising and both taking each other into consideration is how good relationships are made. This doesn't need be male vs. female thing.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: chickenbutt, Elim Garak, UnsufficentBoobage and 8 others
Alessonincrippliningdepre said:
View attachment 2482553
View attachment 2482554
Maples is colonizing the motherland
Click to expand...
As @Marshal Mannerheim pointed out, China is elbows-deep in Africa countries, usually through agreements to "build infrastructure" that they retain control of in perpetuity, and can use as leverage against the gov't of the country in question. Basically, they come in an build whatever (I think it was a port in Addis Ababa, for example), and when Somali pirates were fucking with their shipping, they leaned on the Somali and Ethiopian gov'ts through threats of A) closing the port, and B) bringing the Chinese Navy into territorial waters. The reason they've been able to arrange this is because they offer much lower interest than the IMF, but that's entirely in exchange for the in-perpetuity clauses, and the completely asinine ability to "repossess" sovereign land, as we saw with that article about the CCP threatening to take possession of land in Spain for failure to continue making payments on the section of "New Silk Road" that still isn't completed.

Also, a bunch of "Canadian mining firms" have heavy investment from CCP authorized and controlled entities, so this just smells like plausible deniability, and arms-length operation, to me.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: graywolf88, Exterminatus, chickenbutt and 12 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back