Social Justice Warriors Thread

[C-Mag]

Latest fad for radical feminists


https://downtrend.com/donn-marten/femin ... rmpit-hair

I see the drapes, what color is the carpet?

OK, I wasn't ready for that one.

I should have, it was just hanging in the strike zone.

[Okeefenokee]

they eat their own.

[Ph64]

https://medusamagazine.com/beyond-pro-c ... e-abortion


LIBERALS ARE ABORTING THEMSELVES NOW AGAHAHAHAHA 100

AWESOME HISTORY LESSON GIBS MOAR FORCEFUL PENETRATION OF THE INDIGENOUS, EGALITARIAN HOMELAND PLZ

In a progressive society, it is often white families that stand in the way of equality and justice. Systemic white supremacy depends, first and foremost, on the white family unit. When white conquerors forcefully penetrated the indigenous, egalitarian homeland of the Native peoples of America, they were quick to replicate their white societies, initiating their parasitism by establishing white plantations, headed by white fathers, submissive white mothers, and, most critically, white children, with full dominion over the enslaved and oppressed people of color that were forced to uphold these micro-fiefdoms.

Definitely nothing racist there.

Just adding... Possibly (probably?) a hoax, though one that sounds pretty convincing given current SJW craziness.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... ly-a-hoax/

[de officiis]

SJW's now invading the courtroom...

A federal court asks jurors to confront their hidden biases

There’s something of a formula to the first morning of jury duty. ... in one federal district, the customary civics lessons for jurors have been given a twist to alert them to the hidden biases they might bring into the courtroom.

The source is an 11-minute video—believed to be the first of its kind—that since March has been shown to every prospective juror in the two federal courthouses, in Seattle and Tacoma, that serve the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The video—which cost the court $15,000 to make—complements the customary voir dire process, during which judges and lawyers question potential jurors about conflicts of interest and obvious prejudices that could prevent them from deliberating fairly. It features three speakers: the district’s U.S. Attorney Annette Hayes, Reagan-appointed Judge John Coughenour, and Jeffery Robinson, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union who started his career as a criminal defense lawyer.

“You might have a deep-seated belief that basketball is a better sport than football, and you may prefer strawberry to raspberry jam,” Robinson says in the video, describing examples of conscious—or explicit—bias. “Today, though,” he says, speaking slowly and looking directly into the camera, “I want to talk to you about unconscious bias: something we all have, simply because we’re human.”

Robinson, who spearheaded the project, said that alerting jurors to their underlying prejudices was a “no-brainer,” citing decades of research on the role of unconscious racial biases in “every aspect of American society,” from hiring practices to policing. “You have two choices: either talk about it or don’t talk about it, and haven’t we seen what happens when we don’t talk about it?” said Robinson. “If it goes unchecked, implicit bias will run rampant.”

Though no particular case in his decades-long career incited his passion for the issue, Robinson said he has seen many jurors who “trust police officers implicitly” and hopes that those who do may reconsider their assumptions.

“If you’re a white person and the only time you see a police officer is when he helps you with a flat tire or responds when someone steals your stereo, you have one view of the police,” Robinson said. Jurors who are distrustful of the police, he said, might be dismissed for being unfair. “Why would trusting the police make you more fair in a criminal case?”

Seattle-area lawyers and judges have generally praised the video tutorial, but its use remains at the discretion of trial judges, according to the court clerk, William McCool. And this week, for what is believed to be the first time since the video became part of the routine, it was barred by a judge in the case of Leonard Thomas, a black man who was shot and killed by a police SWAT team after a standoff at his home four years ago.

The judge, Barbara Rothstein, ruled on Tuesday that the video would be “simply too prejudicial,” especially because the plaintiffs intended to argue that the officers were affected by racial bias when they shot Thomas. Objections to the video had been raised by the officers’ legal team in the wrongful death civil lawsuit.

Brian Augenthaler, a lawyer for the officers, argued that watching the video could lead jurors to believe that his clients shot Thomas because of an unconscious bias against black people. This was especially so, he asserted, because Robinson is a well-known civil rights attorney who had once served on the ACLU’s board of directors with one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Although the video has been well-received, its effectiveness has yet to be evaluated. The body of research on implicit bias has expanded greatly in the last three decades, but there seems to be little consensus about ways to curb discriminatory behavior.

[Viktorthepirate]

It can be prejudicial when used in a case where the defense's whole argument rests upon racial bias.

But in many other cases I think it is a good thing. It's human nature to have these biases and having people watch a video so they at least think about their own biases is a good thing.

First step to overcoming your own biases is to realize you have them.

[Okeefenokee]

seems pretty thin.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

seems pretty thin.

Hey! Wait a minute... you're... you're tryin' to razz me!

[Ex-California]

[TheReal_ND]

AWESOME HISTORY LESSON GIBS MOAR FORCEFUL PENETRATION OF THE INDIGENOUS, EGALITARIAN HOMELAND PLZ

Definitely nothing racist there.

Just adding... Possibly (probably?) a hoax, though one that sounds pretty convincing given current SJW craziness.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... ly-a-hoax/

Yeah a lot of people think it's another false flagging site but nobody is sure lol

[Speaker to Animals]

Are you a man in your forties and feel like you can't really compete with other power lifters? The solution is to grow your hair long and "identify" as a woman..

A man, identifying as a transgender woman, recently dominated a female weightlifting competition, sparking debate on fairness in sports.

Gavin Hubbard, 39 — now going by Laurel Hubbard — is a New Zealand weightlifter who dominated the Australian International weightlifting competition in Melbourne on Sunday. Hubbard lifted 590.9 pounds in the women’s 198.4-pound division, out-lifting the competition by 45 pounds.

Hubbard is the first transgender individual to win her division in this competition.

While many may find this progressive and a reason to celebrate, some of Hubbard’s competitors aren’t seeing it quite that way.

“She is who she is. That’s the way the politics … and what the New Zealanders have decided. I can’t say much more than that,” disappointed bronze medalist Kaitlyn Fassina said. “She is seen as female and that’s the way it is.”

Two-time Olympian Deborah Acason said, “If I was in that category, I wouldn’t feel like I was in an equal situation. I just feel that, if it’s not even, why are we doing the sport?”

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/21 ... -fairness/