Awe, bubbe. I missed you too you interminable nudnik.

When police departments such as the NYPD have themselves reported that there have been an increase in both the number of hate crimes being reported and the number of hate crimes actually taking place, I'll take their word for it over yours. While it's true that some hate crime reports have been found to be hoaxes, I don't know how you conclude that "most" were hoaxes.
I never said not being politically correct implies you are racist. Saying black neighborhoods are violent is a generalization, and a parochial one at that. You will definitely find many black neighborhoods that are violent, but nonetheless not ALL black neighborhoods are violent. If I could point out some violent white neighborhoods, would it be fair for me to say "white neighborhoods are violent", implying that anywhere where white people live is violent?

Yes. PC has become ridiculous.

Please link me actual cases of hate crimes, where there's an arrest. Not pictures of swastikas. I'm not impressed. And funny you take NYPD statistics hook, line and sinker when trying to make a point but then would argue that blacks and minorities are targeted by police. Which is it? Are the police targeting blacks or are they a trusted organization which one can blindly believe all the facts they report? It seems you pick and choose when to find a source credible or not. Besides, I've read at least 20 hate crime hoaxes. I've been to prison and know what real white supremacist shit looks like. And most the media reports look fake af. There becomes a point when you have to question the incidents being reported. Especially, when there's an obvious inclination for people to do the crimes themselves... They can do what ever they want and blame it on the evil white man. I grew up in violent neighborhoods and have been jumped a few times for being white, the reverse almost never happens nowadays. Also, I can go in some of the worst Hispanic and Black neighborhoods cuz I speak from an Og's perspective. Black neighborhoods are "generally" more dangerous. But that's not the arguement, which you avoid. The argument is that us discussing black neighborhoods being violent means one argument is seen as morally wrong even though it's factually right. And the other, morally right while it's factually wrong. Because leftist use pc to demonize, alienate and stifle debate and points of view that differ from their own.

That blacks are targeted by police and that the NYPD could conceivably provide reliable statistics---are not mutually exclusive. I never said the police are a trusted organization, all of who`s reports one can believe blindly. I just stated that on this particular subject of whether there has been an increase in hate crimes, I find their report more credible than yours. Here is a link to a hate crime arrest that was made (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...135654693.html). Feel free to Google and find others. You said "most" of the hate crime reports are hoaxes. How did you arrive at that? Have you looked at every single hate crime report and realized a precise percentage that turned out to be hoaxes, or have you just been spending lots of time reading Breitbart and Alt-Right-wingers rant about "fake news" and liberal media conspiracies? Picking and choosing when to believe whether a source is credible---is exactly what I`m doing. It`s called using one`s own discernment, and it`s what we should all be doing and what I`m pretty sure you must have done along the way to arrive at your viewpoints. I agree with you about questioning things being reported...not just the hate crimes, but everything, from every source (even Breitbart). To believe that the vast majority of hate crimes are hoaxed or self-perpetuated in order to blame the "evil white man"--borders on tinfoil hat-wearing. The original statement you suggested was "black neighborhoods are violent," not "black neighborhoods are more dangerous," which is a different argument in my view. I still think it`s a parochial and narrow-minded thing to say (maybe it`s the PC kicking in me), because what exactly is a "black neighborhood," and what is it more dangerous than? The same neighborhoods you refer to as "dangerous black neighborhoods" can just as well be looked at as "dangerous poor neighborhoods"...and forgive me for being so PC, but the implicit correlation between poverty and violence if one said "poorer neighborhoods are more dangerous"--is more accurate than the implicit correlation between race and violence if one said "black neighborhoods are more dangerous." I`m almost certain that poorer predominantly white neighborhoods are often more violent than more affluent predominantly white neighborhoods. There is no need to include "white" in the terms when talking about these neighborhoods and falsely imply that their levels of violence has to do with whiteness.

Some degree of political correctness is necessary in order to maintain a prosperous social structure. But, it's difficult to walk the fine line between regulation, and censorship. On the smaller scale, I think disparaging remarks are less critical to a culture when made by the every day man, and as such it's hard to say explicitly that these people can't say this, or that. But, on a larger scale, these remarks have the potential to sway entire nations, and as such need to be regulated to some degree.

---------- Post added at 03:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 AM ----------

Side note, if I see "Freedom of speech" as a defense for bigotry one more time, I'll lose my fucking shit.

Are you actually saying that the government should limit speech? Oh, Rant no. No.

Are you saying that the freedom of speech gives you the right to say whatever you want? It doesn't. There are caveats to the first amendment that deal with things like reputation. Racial slurs, and derogatory remarks have the capacity to weaken the reputation of entire subsects of society on a cultural level. Bigotry and dispiriting speech are not a constitutional right afforded to you by the bill of rights.

"Never said the NYPD was a trusted organization".. Yet, you source them? I guess you don't know how sourcing works.

"I trust the NYPD over you".. Then why do you believe black people are being targeted by the police? Cuz the NYPD will say it doesn't happen. And It's regular citizens who speak out against police brutality. So do you only believe the police are corrupt when it suits your needs?

I'll let you in on a little secret, the police, DA and the whole judicial system gets raises, promotions, bribes and political clout by making arrests. The more arrests the bigger the budget they get. So of course they're going to always claim crime is on the rise. To get more money and take away more rights. You can't trust those who are paid to keep you in chains, homie.

And your proof of increased hate crimes against muslims is a link to gay guys fighting with some weirdo on a moped. A link with no "conviction" at that? Lol what ever bro. And btw, you're making the claim so the burden of proof is on you. Show me actual convictions of white people committing hate crimes against muslims. Maybe, the increase you speak of was those 4 black people who kidnapped and tortured that white handicapped Trump supporter? They were charged with hate crimes. Lolololol.

I came up with my idea of all the hoaxes being hoaxes after reading twenty articles about twenty hoaxes. If hoaxes weren't so prominent then why couldn't you post an actual hate crime against a Muslim? Nope, just gay guys.

I actually don't watch TV or rely on just websites or any of that. But when I do I listen to all stations, all experts, then follow the stories and leads myself. Ascertain to who's credible and who's not. If you're a far left weirdo or a neocon I definitely won't believe you easily. I read Breitbart, watch Stefan Molyneaux, James Corbett and many others but I also listen to and watch KNPR, CNN, MSNBC and a slew of liberal media. Not to mention, I've studied political science to a far greater degree than most.

"What's a black neighborhood"? LOLOLOL!! Are you serious? Semantics little bro!! You don't know what a black neighborhood is but have no problem identifying a white one. And see this is the problem with pc, you approach this with a smug attitude that you're morally superior to this white racist who's just too inferior to comprehend the reality of it all. When you just admitted black neighborhoods usually are more dangerous. I grew up in a mixed hood and believe me the area that was all black white boys didn't dare go alone lol.. Besides, fool, I've actually donated money time and have done tons of charity work! In these neighborhoods. From the poor to the sick. I've been there. And what, you have some moral high ground over me just cuz of the words you choose to use? Put your money where your mouth is and maybe I'll find you credible.

My hypothetical about black neighborhoods being dangerous has you all bent out of shape. Even though you admitted it yourself. Pc causes you to break with reality apparently.

And I'm not going to argue against classism as that's my dominion. You put all your chickens in the racism coupe.

The argument is about pc being good or not. Obviously, it's not good cuz this convo is not pc. You just make ad hominem attacks by making non pc akin to being racist or using racial slurs. Which it's not.

---------- Post added at 08:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 AM ----------

That's why we're talking about pc, as certain speech isn't protected so it's a moot point. We don't need any more laws against freedom of speech. It's only used to silent opposition. Quit the bullshit about racial slurs. That's not the same as not being pc.

:confused: You're right, ethnicity has nothing to do with political correctness. Even though it's in the definition, and everything.

Yet the pc definition doesn't say anything about racial slurs or racism. So what's your point? You don't have one. And pc is about one's perception of what's said. Meaning, not being pc doesn't mean you use slurs and are a racist but rather talk about controversial matters in a controversial way.

Your interpretation of the meaning of political correctness does not necessitate its semantic definition.

As long as the words you're saying don't put people in harm's way it absolutely does. The right to free speech gives anyone the right to say anything that they want. Can you shout fire in a crowded theater? No. That puts people into potential harm, but calling people names does them no physical damage and, as such, can not and should not be limited by the government.

I'm not so sure unless you're talking about the ability to take a civil case against someone. In which case, it's not the government limiting the speech as much as it is giving a person who has been harmed by false statements an opportunity to recoup those damages financially. It's not the same thing at all though. A civil case is one citizen against another. You're talking about the government being able to charge people with a crime for speech and that is a dangerous road to take. Once that Pandora's box is open it can't be closed.

I don't think so. You can make the argument that people calling blacks niggers or other slurs in the past is why their situation got so fucked up but I'm going to argue that you're wrong because it wasn't the words themselves that caused slavery, segregation, lynching etc. It was the ideas that lead to the use of those words and you don't need those words to spread those ideas. Look, at what Trump has done. He's not out there screaming "The sand niggers need to go" but he's done a REALLY good job of getting that same ignorant and despicable idea across with out it.

Yes they are. The bill of rights neither prohibits or protects you from assholes and idiots. People are allowed to be cunts, legally, as long as they aren't causing damage to persons or property. You can not like that. That's fine. However, you cannot assert that the Constitution doesn't protect fucking dickheads and speech you don't like because that's not the way it works.

It's the definition. And who are you to complain about being non pc when you make fun of handicapped people? Just last night in chat. Besides, you pretended to be black. Painted your online face black, you of all people shouldn't have shit to say. :grass:

Where did I complain?

---------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

Hate speech is criminal speech, and as such cannot be considered free. And SHOULD not be considered free.

There is no difference between a civil case in which a single party brings charges to another, and that in which a governmental body does so.



Positions of power bring with them an inherent "stroke"(obligatory wrestling terminology.) And as such have the capacity to influence a large group of people with their words and actions. By many, hate speech can be seen as advocacy of hateful acts. If the president of a country were to condemn an entire sect of the populous a large percentage of people in the country would likely follow suit.

The bill of rights is not a pass to make defamatory remarks. Hate speech is obscene, and slanderous. As such, it can be considered as constituting the same legal restrictions as any other forms of these examples of behavior.

You're making straw-man arguments...putting words in my mouth, then arguing against those statements I never made. I'm tired of saying "I never said this or that..." so I'll just ignore those parts of your argument. Moving along...
I'm familiar with how most police departments issue arrest quotas and the whole prison industrial complex. You asked for links where an arrest was made and I provided one and asked you to Google the rest. You never asked for links showing convictions. Now you want to disqualify the link because it doesn't talk about a conviction? Lol...okay, I give up bro...you're right, they're all hoaxes. Smh! I did mention hate crimes against Muslims, but I was also talking about a rise in hate crimes in general. When I sourced that NYPD article, the NYPD were talking about a rise in hate crimes period, against Jews, Muslims, Gays, whatever. So you want to discount the article because it wasn't specifically about a hate crime against a Muslim? Whatever it takes man! You won the argument. Lol. I hope you realize that "What's a black neighborhood" was a rhetorical question. I haven't claimed any moral high ground over you because of my choice of words. What I've tried to argue is that 1) people's choice of words often contain implicit narratives...2) some narratives can be threatening or considered dangerous by some minority groups and...3) when they get all "PC" about your choice of words, it is not the truth of what you're saying or your freedom of speech that they are trying to stifle. It is often the narrative, which they consider to be dangerous.

You just sound brainwashed by communist professors when it comes to the whole pc thing. And no, you said muslims were being targeted, I asked for proof and you sent a link about gay guys. And I just thought it was funny that these hate crimes have spiked so much yet all you can find is links about gay guys and even that didn't involve an arrest. Your link disqualified itself honestly. Cuz you said crimes against muslims went up. Donald Trump was also the first nominee for president to have gay pride flags on stage with him. You live in a bubble, a giant echo chamber.

https://media.giphy.com/media/WRMq4MMApzBeg/giphy.gif

PC gets thrown around too much these days, it's the new ignorant.

Not in America it isn't. It shouldn't be either for two reasons:
1. Allowing the government to limit speech opens the door for further limitation and the American government at this point can not and should not be trusted with that power. It wasn't that long ago that one of California's senators tried to say the government should be allowed to define who is and isn't a journalist so they could limit who could and couldn't act as one and report news. I think we can both agree something like that would be INCREDIBLY dangerous.

2. Prohibition has never stopped something from happening. People will still do something if it's illegal if they want to do it. Besides, look at Canada. They have hate speech legislation and they still treat their first nations people like absolute dog shit.


I'm not sure I have the time or the energy to explain the difference between a civil and criminal cases but if you take the time to look it up I can assure you they are two completely different things.


It's already happening and I'm not seeing most of the people following in the Commander in Cheeto's footsteps on this one. Most of the people agreeing with that shit seem like they would have agreed with it already and are just using him as confirmation of they already present bias.


That might be your interpretation but thus far, no court or legislation has taken that position that I'm aware of. At this point the general interpretation seems to be that any speech that doesn't cause someone real harm is protected.

Look, I agree that being called a racial slur harms someone emotionally. I've had it happen to me on more than one occasion. Being called a kike right to my face is not an experience that I enjoy or want to have happen again. However, I understand that my feelings being hurt doesn't justify placing someone in a cage or forcing them to pay a fine to the government (In which case the victim would never see a penny of it unless they took up a separate civil suit.) when something as valuable as being able to criticize the government and its actors is at stake. When you open that door you give them the power to potentially punish for saying things like "pardon Snowden" or "Senator Feinstein is a stupid cunt for wanting to allow the government to say who is and isn't a journalist." and that's not a world I, or anyone else should want to live in. Without the ability to criticize government we have no redress for things the government does and no way to do anything about it.

The issue with "political correctness" is that it's determining what is and isn't a "correct" opinion. People are actively working to limit and silence these "incorrect opinions" no matter what their content may be, and because mainstream media falls on the side of political correctness, people are pandering to these ridiculous beliefs.

The issue with more people who say things like "SJW" or "PC culture" is that they often take a hard stance in the other side of the fence, and the hard stance on that side is filled with hatred and negativity.

For example; any black death at the hands of a white police officer. The "PC" side jumps onto "Well this is the absolute worst thing ever, an outrage, this is terrible, something must be done to punish this white cop" while the other side say "this is bullshit. He clearly did this and that to deserve it".

When you break it down, one of these sides is pushing towards looking into the system and putting them on trial, which will decide their fate (although unfortunately they won't accept a decision that doesn't fit their agenda). The other side is immediately dismissing the possibility of murder at the hands of someone in a position of power, for what?

Overall, if you take a hard stance on anything you're in the wrong place. Political correctness is about being a victim and silencing others (for example, Nick has called me homophobic because I personally don't believe there is any need for an LBGTQ+batmansymbol-^% parade). The opposite is about feeling that people SHOULD feel insulted and hurt, even though those people very often have not had to overcome as much adversity to actually feel like they are no longer being insulted and hurt.

In short, stop being a cunt.

Bottom line, point blank, period.. If the PC police, on this thread and in rl had their way hip hop would be outlawed and rappers would be imprisoned. Rap is about as anti PC as you can get. And not too many years ago, many of the same leftist leaders and *right wing free speech advocates* you call revolutionaries now were trying to ban hiphop. Guess we forget our history and how quickly the gun can be flipped onto us. *edit to be more inclusive*

---------- Post added at 08:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 AM ----------

I agree with most of what you said. But I feel you're confusing PC with the left / right dichotomy that's currently dividing our political system. Pc is not a left or a right wing concept. But rather a tactic employed to further divide the country. Republicans basically want freedom from government and democrats want freedom given by government.

Yeah, all of us lefties are hanging out on this site and rapping because we hate Hip Hop. It's an inside operation.

Never said you were intelligent. But yes, essentially, you're asking to ban hiphop 👏

Yeah. Talib Kweli, Lupe Fiasco, KRS ONE, Macklemore, Jay Z, Nas.... we all hate hip hop.

Never said you hated hiphop. Nice try. And if any of them are asking for restrictions to free speech they're looking at a hiphop ban themselves. Right now you're picking and choosing what pc is to you and saying ban what you want. But obviously, rap, which has been called misogynistic, racist, homophobic and sexist will be the first to go.

---------- Post added at 08:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 AM ----------

You're honestly on the verge of trolling.

PC isn't asking for restrictions to free speech. It never has done and never will do. You failed to provide a definition earlier in the thread so I'm going to do the work for you.

From the Cambridge Dictionary:
"Someone who is politically correct believes that language and actions that could be offensive to others, especially those relating to sex and race, should be avoided."

I would consider myself politically correct. There is nothing in the term politically correct that implies that others can't say offensive things. That's not what the term means or is about.

I defined pc several times and honestly you're asking for proof that's not needed or rather a clarification. As we all know what PC means or can use google to find out. And regardless of it's definition there is its application also. And people in this thread were advocating to restrict rights based on what's pc and should be permissible.

And I'm glad you consider your self pc. But of course you would because PC is often about ones perception and not based in fact.

So if the pc police in this thread and in rl had their way hiphop would be outlawed. It almost was once before, or at least severely restricted. As it was seen a misogynistic and could influence listeners to commit crimes. And that sounds just like what you and Swagga were saying about Trump. There's no difference besides your internal system of morals. Which you think should be the standard bearer for society. And honestly, I don't think you're pc I think you're extreme and don't want you telling me what's right or wrong or what to say. No thanks Stalin.

Nick, one thing funny to me is that Lyve's ridiculous responses remind me so much of yours. "You honestly must be trolling right now" = "I disagree with your opinion but am frustrated that my flawed replies are not changing your entire beliefs".

None the less, Lyve saying I'm confusing whatever with the "left and right" is where this stupidity comes in. People convince themselves that they must tailor their entire belief system around some bullshit expression and label. You don't have to automatically assume every black person shot by a white person is guilty, nor do you have to assume they are innocent. You can take that situation as an individual point. People pick a side, or a label, then proceed to surround themselves with an exclusively biased form of media. If every time you log onto the internet you see an article saying that the white man's doing this, that college kids are doing that, that men are doing whatever, you will start to belief that that's the only narrative that makes sense.

Here's an example (aka here's a personal against me if we ever battle). When my girlfriend put up the "announcement" of us going out, she got 3 guys saying creepy shit. One a random dude who gave her a lift home one night 7 months before I knew her who actually used a picture I'm in, kissing her, as the basis of his "hey you look hot" message. Another was a guy saying some weird shit who it turns out with she was seeing for a bit. Another I can'tt remember. She thinks it's normal for guys to act like this now. She says that shit happens to her friends all the time and it's just something you "accept" as being a girl in 2017. I dunno if it's just cause I missed out on this whole 'tinder / internet dating' shit, but that shit is completely not normal, and I'd tell my best mate he was being a fucking weirdo if he acted like that with a girl.

When everything that surrounds you is saying one thing (or everything you surround yourself with in the case of PC culture / anti-PC culture), you are going to start to believe it.

You proved absolutely nothing in this long winded rant. The left and the right use PC like they do abortion, gay marriage and any other controversial issue to divide the country. Please point out what I'm wrong about and prove your point.

And you've proved a tonne in the thread so far right?

There's nothing to "prove". This is a discussion. People are saying their opinions and thoughts. I said that "the left and right" are stupid definitions to try and consolidate an entire person's belief systems.

And I think political parties shouldn't be allowed in politics. I also am not "alt - right" (a term none of you used prior to the 2016 election) or right wing at all. I believe in the smallest government possible and freedom of speech and body if not hurting anyone. And yes, I honestly put the most factual and logical information into this thread. Some speak much more eloquent than I do but poison can be drunk with kool aid. If you disagree with what I said, let me know what.

I continue not to use the term because I don't group beliefs into directions.

Nick is correct in what the definition of political correctness is. He just has a habit of picking out small things in vernacular to try and deviate the point or marginalise the topic. The issue with a lot on the politically correct side is that it's no longer just a view they hold. When they are blocking university entrances to exclusively white students, or when they are trying to create safe spaces and limit what can and can't be said, this is where you have an issue. When they are trying to instigate something because you decided to dress as a native american for Halloween, this is where you have an issue.

The belief of "everyone should be treated equally", which EVERYONE should agree with, becomes skewed by bias and personal agendas. Misreading, or even worse misreporting, statistics to highlight something you feel offended by is an example.

But that doesn't mean that acting with human decency and allowing everyone to do and live their lives is a negative.

The first point of action in any debate is to make sure you're actually debating the same thing. Once you've agreed what it is that you're debating then you can go from there.

There is good reason for this. You can find a good breakdown in the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell but essentially students from low income areas that have a slightly lower test score than those from high income areas tend to achieve roughly the same performance in university. Therefore it makes sense to allow an allotted percentage of students to come from those lower income areas. In the long run this allows families to get themselves out of poverty and become higher earners (the american dream).

Well, let's work on your first point; I'm talking about the PHYSICAL prevention of white students (ie. the protest which blocked the university to white students, and not students of colour).

This is when it's an issue. When people are taking their beliefs and trying to use them to silence the beliefs of others, such as safe spaces or the previously mentioned blocking of white students (a racist act).

While I tend to agree with your irrelevant point, fulfilling a quota for students of colour isn't the same as affirmative action as it deliberately excludes disadvantaged white people.

@Mindless I think you're over generalizing a lot of what I said.

This is the first good response I've had in this thread. I wish we could have conversations like this as oppose to all the Alex Jones-style conspiracy type shit.

I haven't heard of a protest in which the purpose was to block white people going to university? Can you source that, this is the first I've heard of it so would need to know more before I can comment.

You make a good point regarding affirmative action but I think it's a little surface level. If we set our first criteria for selection as low income and have 500 applicants and 100 spaces now we have to narrow that down again (lets assume they all have the same mark). If our hypothetical university is majority white male then it might make sense to give a higher volume of those 100 spaces to women or people of different races. Again, allowing these people to have an opportunity to better themselves and their families that they wouldn't of got otherwise.

Tbh, from jump you were calling people fascists and other names, implyied non pc people were racist and used ad hominems every chance you got.

You never argued anything of substance.

1) If you believe that Trump and other people should be stopped from saying the stuff they do cuz it could lead to violence, homophobia and misogyny and believe it needs to be curtailed then you also want to go after rappers and curtail their freedom of speech too.

2) Your smug attitude, the fact you started every example you gave with shit like "if you think Mexicans are all rapists" shows you feel you have moral superiority in this discussion. Almost like you think you're arguing against actual nazis.

3) The application of pc when enforced by soecity hinders ones ability to express them self without feeling attacked. Because the PC crowd constantly accuses, ridicules and forces their opinions on you with the implication you are morally inferior if you disagree.

It's funny how you can toss around insults and never provide an ounce of proof or even disprove one thing then again insultingly say "Alex Jones conspiracy posts". You're really an asshole and you insult people then want to be treated differently than you act. You've non stoped used ad hominems and insults. You are just PC so instead of saying how you feel you bust out with sideways comments out your neck.

---------- Post added at 07:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 AM ----------

And point out my Tinfoil hat comment? I'm very educated and many in academia agree with my stance on pc. Sorry, it differs from your point view. I know the communist who schooled you taught you to call your opposition racists, fascists and crazy but ain't gonna work this time.

That, along with the entire concept of safe spaces and the focus on gender equality, recognition of gender identities, racial awareness and other things over focusing on actual education (and often, such as in this case, the actual prevention of education) are when I have a problem with it.

I actually don't think there's a specific issue with the affirmative action racial angle. If anything, from a purely economic standpoint, it will help people feel comfortable to be around people with the same cultural background as them and know that regardless they have that to fall back on. This will make it a more sought after school for many people (even though of course education should be the highlight).

But when it gets to this stage, it annoys me to see the scales tilt. When this exists, and when people of different ethnicities have a much easier route than white people (specifically males) of the same economic position...why are they protesting the majority of "white cis males" in the uni? What can you do? Do you then have to start denying white males who's parents grafted to earn them a spot in that uni...just because of the colour of their skin?

Another example is a review I saw on Kung Fury. This is a pretty brilliant kickstarter comedy film, set in like the 80s, and made by a Scandinavian film crew who are pretty damn independent. essentially the only characters are a police chief, Kung Fury, Kung Fury's friend, two Viking warriors and Hitler.

The film was reviewed by a couple of critics as "lacking diversity". I mean not only is this a pisstake of 80s action movie (hence the chicks with big tits and machine guns) but what did they want? This small film company to go out and specifically hire a black guy to black Jamal, Kung Fury's other friend who...ehh...aids him along the way...or something? They actually wanted a person hired by this film company, who probably barely even know any black people due to their location, and shoehorn the character in to fight a "diversity quota".

I mean you only have to google "Marvel's Iron Fist" and see a massive clusterfuck about the fact that Marvel hired a white person to play this white character, instead of randomly hiring an Asian guy. For some reason those people don't seem to bitch as much about Idris Elba and Samuel L Jackson being black guys playing previously white characters as much.

I think when something is for the right cause, then awesome. Gay marriage for example. Who in the fuck would want to oppose that, other than for religious reasons which apparently isn't understandable as these (cause tolerance is a one way street?). But it's getting more and more common for people to go on and on and on about certain bollocks that is just that, bollocks.

The pink tax - The belief that women pay more for their products than men (completely doesn't take into account the demands on female products, and the large amounts of additional ingredients required for things like 'soft skin' that commonly don't feature on men's products).

The wage gap - Doesn't take into account what jobs people are actually taking up, and simply looks at the average female and average male earnings overall. When you look at specific fields, it's typically roughly the exact same.

Requirement to teach studies on homosexuality in schools - A legitimate thing that's being brought into the UK now I believe. Since when did kids ever get taught about heterosexuality?

People are misdirecting what are actual problems, and instead are professional victims, getting annoyed at every little thing they possibly can. It's getting more ridiculous all the time, and it's sad that they are too stupid to realize the chain reaction they are causing. Every time a regular person goes on Youtube and sees a video of some racist sexist girl, like the bitch frorm MTV Unplugged or whatever it's called, basically saying they are the fucking devil, that guy gets a bit more pissed off. Eventually, a lot of these people are turning to the other side, voting for Trump and Brexit out of randomness just because they know it's the opposite of the people they hate (and that hate them for no apparent reason).