Post: #51

In America, if you are a ((())), you are number 1, period. Do not be fooled by what you perceive in the fake media. You can get away with alot of things women, gays, trannies and minorities cannot. However, if you are a ((())) and you go against (((their))) narrative willingly (ala Michael Savage), you will get the fury of a thousand suns from not only your own tribesmembers but also from all the librul white SJWs and their minority pets.

As for the whites who are not tribesmembers but are libruls and/or SJWs, yeah they are White Supremacists but they are White bohemian (urban) supremacists who only accept that white is under their socioeconomic, cultural and genetic lenses/definitions. Someone should do a genetics test on those bohemians to determine their haplogroups, I would be curious of the results!

Post: #52

What a time to be alive.

SPLC Demands Zuckerberg, Sandberg Leave Facebook Board Over 'Hate Groups,' Anti-Semitism

Post: #53

Quote:On Tuesday, a coalition of 32 liberal organizations including the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Media Matters, MoveOn, and the NAACP sent a letter demanding Facebook restructure its board of directors, removing CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, adding three members, and including a "permanent civil rights ombudsman." As would be expected from the SPLC, the groups denounced the "hate" Facebook supposedly supports.

The liberal groups insisted they have "engaged directly with your company in good faith, seeking change from within the company that we hoped would address ... how the platform has been used by hate groups, political entities, and others to stoke racial or religious resentment or violence."

Citing a recent New York Times exposé about Facebook, the groups argued that "in the face of clear evidence that Facebook was being used to broadcast viral propaganda and inspire deadly bigoted campaigns, the company's leadership consistently either looked the other way, or actively worked to lobby against meaningful regulation, shifted public opinion against its allies, and personally attacked its critics."

While Russian operatives were able to use Facebook to peddle misinformation, the accusation that Facebook inspired "deadly bigoted campaigns" seems a clear reference to President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign — specifically his announcement speech, which The New York Times characterized as charged with "racist sentiment." The Times suggested that Facebook's decision not to ban Trump's speech was an early sign of failure, and it seems the SPLC decided to ratchet this up a notch.

"Your company chose to target civil rights groups and our allies instead of changing the way you do business," the groups alleged, referencing Facebook's decision to hire the firm Definers Public Affairs to address its public image problem.

Facebook hired Definers to push back after the liberal organization Freedom From Facebook protested the social media giant. Protesters even held a sign showing Sandberg and Zuckerberg's heads on an octopus, reminiscent of anti-Semitic campaigns in the past. Facebook responded with research into Freedom From Facebook and research into whether or not liberal billionaire George Soros funded its affiliated groups.

The SPLC coalition characterized this research as "mimicking the tactics of the worst, disreputable political operatives and hate groups." The groups accused Facebook of jeopardizing "the safety and security of people who have dedicated their lives to the common good. This decision crossed all lines of common decency."

The SPLC coalition even suggested that funding research into George Soros constitutes anti-Semitism. "It's an absolute disgrace that Facebook sought to deflect criticism and discredit advocates by exploiting anti-Semitic campaigns against philanthropist George Soros," they wrote.

This charge echoed a growing movement to denounce any criticism of Soros — a billionaire who finances all sorts of Leftist groups — as anti-Semitic.

SPLC Leads Soros-Funded Groups in 'Orwellian' Attempt to Ban 'Hate Speech' on Social Media

Yet the SPLC coalition also blasted Facebook for denouncing the octopus image as anti-Semitic. "Unbelievably, Facebook sought to have their cake and eat it too; while you weaponized anti-Semitism directed at Mr. Soros, you attacked legitimate criticism of the company as anti-Semitic," the groups wrote.

Facebook is far from innocent, as the many conservatives who find their posts marked as "hate speech" know far too well. Ironically, the social media giant seems to be listening to the SPLC far too much, not too little.

The SPLC has recast mainstream conservative and Christian groups as "hate groups" for supporting traditional sexual morality and opposing transgender identity. It lists Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal nonprofit that has won 9 Supreme Court cases in seven years, and the Family Research Council (FRC) as "hate groups," on the same list as the Ku Klux Klan. In blasting the small Catholic nonprofit the Ruth Institute as a "hate group," the SPLC referenced the Catechism of the Catholic Church, suggesting the Roman Catholic Church is itself a "hate group."

The SPLC's "hate map" inspired a terrorist attack against the FRC in 2012. James Hodgkinson, the man who shot Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) at the congressional baseball game practice last year, "liked" the SPLC on Facebook, and the SPLC had repeatedly attacked Scalise along with other conservatives.

The SPLC may face as many as 60 defamation lawsuits from organizations maligned as "hate groups," after it settled a lawsuit from Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz — whom it branded an "anti-Islamic extremist."

In October, the SPLC led a coalition of Soros-funded groups in a campaign to make social media companies "Change the Terms" of service to keep "hate" off the Internet.

Despite the SPLC's clear partisan bent and its liability for defamation, Google CEO Sundar Pichai admitted last week that Google's YouTube considers the group a "trusted flagger."

The SPLC is by no means alone in this coalition. Along with Media Matters, MoveOn, and the NAACP, the coalition includes Muslim Advocates; the Arab American Institute; Center for Media Justice; CREDO — "America's only progressive phone company"; HOPE not hate; the Muslim Youth Collective; the National LGBTQ Task Force; United We Dream; and more. By and large the groups represent liberal causes.

Louie Gohmert Slams Google for Making the SPLC a 'Trusted Flagger' on YouTube

Both liberals and conservatives have serious concerns about social media, putting companies like Facebook in a tough position. Too often, they cave to the idea that "hate" should not be promoted on their platforms, and liberals complain about this the loudest. Indeed, social media companies arguably should remove posts that incite violence. The problem comes when people redefine speech as violence — especially when they define certain positions as inherently "hateful."

Meanwhile, conservatives find their posts flagged as "hate speech" when they never advocated violence or even insulted anyone. National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) President Jerry Johnson set a deadline for the end of the year, warning that if big tech companies do not stop censoring conservatives, he will lead his 60-million strong group in demanding Congress re-evaluate Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Johnson wants social media companies to lose their immunity from prosecution for the speech they post on their sites.

In general, so long as tech companies are a neutral platform, they should not be held liable for the speech of others. But if Facebook and Google are going to censor conservative views, they should be held liable for the speech on their platforms. If they are going to pick winners and losers, they change from becoming a neutral platform to essentially advocating a message of their own.

Conservatives need to respond to this SPLC coalition with their own demands, just like NRB. The SPLC is pushing tech companies to ramp up their censorship of conservatives in the name of suppressing "hate," while conservatives are just fighting to make sure they can have a voice on these platforms.

Facebook should not cave to the SPLC coalition's demands. The company has a great deal to answer for, but this advocacy will only make the censorship problem worse.

If Facebook yields to the SPLC coalition and places a "civil rights ombudsman" on the board of directors, the coalition will work to make sure that only a liberal definition of "civil rights" is represented. The culture at tech companies like Facebook is already skewed to the Left, and the SPLC is only pushing to make that bias worse.

Post: #54

Left wing activist Amy Siskind (alien?) Tweeted that she wouldn't support any white male candidate in the 2020 Dem primary. Other leftists call her out for racism, hilarity ensues.

Later, one of her more vocal critics on this issue, David Pakman (alien?) later Tweeted that Amy Siskind phoned Boston College (where he teaches) and demanded they no longer employ him.

Post: #55

^Obligatory photo of this lunatic:

Post: #56

(12-12-2018 06:40 PM)mr-ed209 Wrote:  The influence of the lefts cult in academia is growing to the point of self mockery.

Stormy Daniels was granted speaking time at the Oxford Union, for no other likely reason than she might be able to slander Donald Trump over her affair in 2006. Video linked below, I cringed hard when she joked about her 'gag reflex' a min or so in and couldn't really watch any more of it. Why one of the UK's top academic institutions is giving a platform to some washed up, publicity seeking thot goes to show just how far the liberal agenda can stretch to desecrate it's 'hate figures'. Anyone with a rational impartial mind would surely have to see the absurdity of what is going on.

The real imbeciles aren't officials at Oxford, it's the parents spending millions to prep/fund their children for going to "the most prestigious university in the world". They're the ones feeding the beast.

Post: #57

^you gotta wonder how long the bastions of the tertiary-education complex can coast on their names alone before potential applicants (and especially their parents) begin to wise up in numbers and seek alternative avenues of "education".

(moneyshot says, knowing full well that the answer is "not until the student-loan bubble explodes, and even after that the (((powers that be))) will pull some bullshit to convince the public that their institutions are legitimate")

Post: #58

(12-21-2018 02:57 AM)moneyshot Wrote:  ^Obligatory photo of this lunatic:

Nevertheless, Pakman is still a hypocritical douche:

Post: #59

(12-21-2018 07:19 AM)moneyshot Wrote:  ^you gotta wonder how long the bastions of the tertiary-education complex can coast on their names alone before potential applicants (and especially their parents) begin to wise up in numbers and seek alternative avenues of "education".

(moneyshot says, knowing full well that the answer is "not until the student-loan bubble explodes, and even after that the (((powers that be))) will pull some bullshit to convince the public that their institutions are legitimate")

Until the potential employers start to recognise the standards being produced by those prestigious institutions is dropping and a genuine alternative that produces better candidates arises I don't think there is much hope.

Hell, in my state it's well known that one of the other universities has a higher level curriculum and standard for the degree that I have and yet no employer, even people who went to that university, prefer it over the more prestigious university. Part of that is the access to potential clients from that university and its network but most of it's just the prestige of hiring from that university that can be used to advertise as well.

Post: #60

Women’s March Roiled by Accusations of Anti-Semitism

tl;dr women's march leaders gossiping against each other because one of them was a white Jewish woman.

Quote:Ms. Wruble was pushed out of the organization shortly after the march, and she now asserts that her Jewish identity played a role. She went on to help found an organization called March On, which supports local women activists. The rift is now so dire that there will be two marches on the same day next month on the streets of New York: one led by the Women’s March group, which is billed as being led by women of color, and another by a group affiliated with March On that is stressing its denunciation of anti-Semitism.

...

The accusations of anti-Semitism, which were outlined in an article this month in Tablet, an online Jewish magazine, have prompted some women to reconsider their support for the group.

...

“Since that conversation, we’ve all learned a lot about how while white Jews, as white people, uphold white supremacy, ALL Jews are targeted by it,” Ms. Mallory said in a statement to The New York Times.

...

Ms. Wruble, a central organizer of the march, says she agrees that white women, including Jews, should grapple with their racial privilege. She put out a call for women of color to join the planning team and was connected with Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez. At that first meeting, Ms. Wruble said, they seemed to want to educate her about a dark side of Jewish history, and told her that Jewish people played a large role in the slave trade and the prison industry.

...

At a meeting days after the march, an argument broke out between Ms. Wruble and the other leaders. Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez began berating Ms. Wruble, according to Evvie Harmon, a white woman who helped organize the march, and who attended the meeting at Ms. Mallory’s apartment complex.

“They were talking about, ‘You people this,’ and ‘You people that’ and the kicker was, ‘You people hold all the wealth.’ I was like, ‘Oh my God, they are talking about her being Jewish,’” said Ms. Harmon, whose account was first published by Tablet. “The greatest regret of my life was not standing up and saying ‘This is wrong.’”

Ms. Mallory denied that she disparaged Ms. Wruble’s Jewish heritage in that meeting, but acknowledged telling white women there that she did not trust them.

Post: #61

The left will defo eat each other

Post: #62

Women's march cancelled over fears participants would be overwhelmingly white

Quote: A planned Women’s March in California has been by canceled the organizers over fears about the lack of diversity from those taking part.

The march in the town of Eureka, in Humboldt County, was due to take place on January 19. In the run-up to the event, the organizers described being “at a crossroads” as they sought to create an event that “represents all members of our community.”

Read more: Chicago Women’s March has been called off amid ‘anti-Semitic’ Nation of Islam controversy

In a statement posted on Facebook, the organizers have confirmed that the event will now no longer be going ahead, following “conversations between local social-change organizers and supporters of the march."

"The local organizers are continuing to meet and discuss how to broaden representation in the organizing committee to create an event that represents and supports peoples who live here in Humboldt,” the statement added.

“Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community.

“Instead of pushing forward with crucial voices absent, the organizing team will take time for more outreach. Our goal is that planning will continue and we will be successful in creating an event that will build power and community engagement through connection between women that seek to improve the lives of all in our community.”

The announcement was met with criticism from some social media users.

“I was appalled to be honest,” Amy Sawyer Longwrote on Facebook. “I understand wanting a diverse group. However, we live in a predominantly white area…not to mention how is it beneficial to cancel? No matter the race people still want their voices heard.”

David Holper added: “I was really saddened to hear that the march won’t be happening this year. Isn’t there still time to reach out to minority groups and pull this together?”

According to Census Bureau data from July, Humboldt County is around 74 percent non-Hispanic white, 12 percent Hispanic, 6 percent Native American, 2 percent Asian, and 1 percent black, reports The Washington Times.

The event organizers said they are looking into is exploring holding an event in March to celebrate International Women’s Day and are still encouraging local residents to attend the Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration taking place in Eureka on January 21.
e Polls" event ahead of the midterm elections in November.

The cancellation also arrived amid the Chicago branch of the Women’s March criticising the national initiative’s relationship with Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, considered an anti-Semitic hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Post: #63

I love seeing the left self-destruct.

Post: #64

Post: #65

The left definitely eats their own but it takes a while before the self-destruction is complete. In this case, it cannot come any sooner because we as men and as members of Western Civilization need them to do so because the Left apart from (((them))) and women are getting in the way of red-pilled men in their ability to salvage Western Civilization.

Post: #66

(01-05-2019 11:11 PM)PharaohRa Wrote:  The left definitely eats their own but it takes a while before the self-destruction is complete. In this case, it cannot come any sooner because we as men and as members of Western Civilization need them to do so because the Left apart from (((them))) and women are getting in the way of red-pilled men in their ability to salvage Western Civilization.

Does it look like the left is eating its own? Where's the evidence, truly?

Fuck, even if it is eating its own, it seems to exist in every goddamned, fucking corner you turn, AND the numbers appear to be climbing!

No, we can only wish its influence is on the decline.

Post: #67

(01-05-2019 11:37 PM)MaxMillion Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 11:11 PM)PharaohRa Wrote:  The left definitely eats their own but it takes a while before the self-destruction is complete. In this case, it cannot come any sooner because we as men and as members of Western Civilization need them to do so because the Left apart from (((them))) and women are getting in the way of red-pilled men in their ability to salvage Western Civilization.

Does it look like the left is eating its own? Where's the evidence, truly?

Fuck, even if it is eating its own, it seems to exist in every goddamned, fucking corner you turn, AND the numbers appear to be climbing!

No, we can only wish its influence is on the decline.

MaxMillion, you have to view the Left eating its own as no different than that of a stock bubble. When you hit peak market/leftist crap/whatever, everyone is thinking that their is no end to this because there is no way it can stop going up/coming up with new leftist stuff/etc. At that point, you hit the top. Now, when you fall from the top and see a crash is where the doubling down and the "eating of oneself" begins to take place. We are at the 1st crash stage, and yes, it will get worse but it will get better because the crashes will get worse and the chicanery will be even more unbearable, but it will be at such a point where even the normies will say no more and demand purges. Unfortunately, the healing will begin only when there is metaphorically speaking "blood on the streets", whether people have lost their shirts or people marching on the streets demanding action be taken.

Post: #68

[/quote]

MaxMillion, you have to view the Left eating its own as no different than that of a stock bubble. When you hit peak market/leftist crap/whatever, everyone is thinking that their is no end to this because there is no way it can stop going up/coming up with new leftist stuff/etc. At that point, you hit the top. Now, when you fall from the top and see a crash is where the doubling down and the "eating of oneself" begins to take place. We are at the 1st crash stage, and yes, it will get worse but it will get better because the crashes will get worse and the chicanery will be even more unbearable, but it will be at such a point where even the normies will say no more and demand purges. Unfortunately, the healing will begin only when there is metaphorically speaking "blood on the streets", whether people have lost their shirts or people marching on the streets demanding action be taken.
[/quote]

"blood on the streets", and all of it RED, if you take my meaning.

Post: #69

MaxMillion, you have to view the Left eating its own as no different than that of a stock bubble. When you hit peak market/leftist crap/whatever, everyone is thinking that their is no end to this because there is no way it can stop going up/coming up with new leftist stuff/etc. At that point, you hit the top. Now, when you fall from the top and see a crash is where the doubling down and the "eating of oneself" begins to take place. We are at the 1st crash stage, and yes, it will get worse but it will get better because the crashes will get worse and the chicanery will be even more unbearable, but it will be at such a point where even the normies will say no more and demand purges. Unfortunately, the healing will begin only when there is metaphorically speaking "blood on the streets", whether people have lost their shirts or people marching on the streets demanding action be taken.
[/quote]

"blood on the streets", and all of it RED, if you take my meaning.
[/quote]


That's what it'll take, but yet strangely not mentioned - or barely.

People seem to think that "just talk it out" is somehow going to reverse what's happening.

Post: #70

https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocas...ge-1289345

Quote: ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ SLAMS MEDIA OUTLET FOR LACK OF DIVERSITY IN 2020 ELECTION COVERAGE: 'UNACCEPTABLE IN 2019. TRY AGAIN'
BY JASON MURDOCK ON 1/13/19 AT 4:45 AM

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was embroiled in a Twitter spat this weekend after criticizing CBS News for an apparent lack of black journalists covering the 2020 election.

The democrat, who represents New York's 14th congressional district, spoke out yesterday in response to a tweet from CBS producer Ben Mitchell which announced the team covering the upcoming election. In the Friday post, Mitchell published the headshots of the staffers.

Ocasio-Cortez wrote: “This WH admin has made having a functional understanding of race in America one of the most important core competencies for a political journalist to have, yet @CBSNews hasn’t assigned a *single* black journalist to cover the 2020 election.”

The newly-elected politician added: “Unacceptable in 2019. Try again.” The Twitter post has currently racked up close to 4,000 shares, with nearly 20,000 users “liking” the stance.

The tweet caught the attention of Josh Kraushaar, politics editor at the National Journal, who hit back on the social media platform likening Ocasio-Cortez to president Donald Trump.

“Another thing AOC has in common with Trump: media scold,” Kraushaar wrote on Saturday, using the common abbreviation for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s name. It didn’t end there.

Not backing down, the politician countered: “Or: maybe having powerful editorial positions awash in people from one race, class, or gender isn’t a good idea; since we get 1000% more takes on 'brown lady says a curse word' than an actual white supremacist in Congress. If you won’t look the mirror, people will do it for you.” As noted by The Hill, Ocasio-Cortez was speaking in reference to an article published by Media Matters for America, which she had also re-tweeted earlier.

Kraushaar later said the seven campaign reporters “looked racially diverse” but conceded there was no black representation currently on the team.

The editor tweeted: “For what it’s worth, the mix of 7 embedded campaign reporters looked racially diverse (at least based on last names), with the exception of lacking an African-American.

“If there aren’t strict racial quotas for every batch of hires, does it mean a company is racist?” he added.

Ocasio-Cortez, who has become known for connecting with followers with a savvy use of social media, was not done. “Do you understand how fundamental the black experience is to American politics? And to American history?” she wrote. “One race isn’t substitutable for another. It doesn’t work like that. It’s not about ‘quotas.’ It’s about understanding the country you’re living in.”

Making one final point on the matter yesterday, she added: “I am tempted to change my Twitter name to: ‘Alexandria ‘looked racially diverse (at least based on last names) Ocasio-Cortez.’”

Post: #71

Post: #72

Martina Navratilova criticised over 'cheating' trans women comments

Quote:The former Wimbledon champion Martina Navratilova has been criticised for “disturbing, upsetting, and deeply transphobic” comments after she argued that allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sporting tournaments was “insane and cheating”.

The tennis player and gay rights campaigner first drew criticism from equalities activists and trans athletes when she tweeted in December: “You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women. There must be some standards, and having a penis and competing as a woman would not fit that standard.”

Writing in the Sunday Times, Navratilova said she had subsequently promised to keep quiet on the subject until she had done some research on it. “Well, I’ve now done that and, if anything, my views have strengthened,” she wrote.

“To put the argument at its most basic: a man can decide to be female, take hormones if required by whatever sporting organisation is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a small fortune, and then reverse his decision and go back to making babies if he so desires.

“It’s insane and it’s cheating. I am happy to address a transgender woman in whatever form she prefers, but I would not be happy to compete against her. It would not be fair.”

Her comments attracted criticism across social media. “We’re pretty devastated to discover that Martina Navratilova is transphobic,” tweeted the rights group Trans Actual. “If trans women had an advantage in sport, why aren’t trans women winning gold medals left, right and centre?”

Under guidelines introduced by the International Olympic Committee in 2016, trans men are able to compete without restriction, while trans women must demonstrate that their testosterone level has been below a certain cutoff point for at least one year before their first competition.

Previous guidelines, approved in 2003, required transgender athletes to have reassignment surgery followed by at least two years of hormone therapy in order to be eligible to compete.

“Simply reducing hormone levels – the prescription most sports have adopted – does not solve the problem,” wrote Navratilova. “A man builds up muscle and bone density, as well as a greater number of oxygen-carrying red blood cells, from childhood.”

Following her comments in December, Navratilova was criticised by Rachel McKinnon, a Canadian academic and cyclist, who in October became the first transgender woman to win a track world title.

“McKinnon has vigorously defended her right to compete, pointing out that, when tested, her levels of testosterone, the male hormone, were well within the limits set by world cycling’s governing body,” wrote Navratilova on Sunday. “Nevertheless, at 6ft tall and weighing more than 14 stone, she appeared to have a substantial advantage in muscle mass over her rivals.”

The tennis star said she had been “pretty put out” by McKinnon’s accusation that she was transphobic and said she deplored “what seems to be a growing tendency among transgender activists to denounce anyone who argues against them”.

She pointed to her friendship with Renée Richards, the transgender tennis player who campaigned to be able to compete in the women’s US Open, and her support for Caster Semenya, who is fighting a legal battle to be able to compete without taking testosterone-suppressing medication.

In a statement to the Guardian, McKinnon described Navratilova’s article as “disturbing, upsetting, and deeply transphobic”. “She trades on age-old stereotypes and stigma against trans women, treating us as men just pretending to be real women. She seeks to deny trans women equal rights to compete under the rules,” she said.

“And the current rules, such as the International Olympic Committee since 2003, explicitly welcomes trans women to compete at the highest levels. I suppose it’s too much to ask for Martina to simply do the same.”

Following McKinnon’s win in the women’s 35-44 sprint during the UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Los Angeles in October, Jennifer Wagner, who came third in the race, complained that the result was unfair.

McKinnon responded by saying Wagner had beaten her in 10 of their last 12 races. “This is what the double bind for trans women looks like: when we win, it’s because we’re transgender and it’s unfair,” she said. “When we lose, no one notices (and it’s because we’re just not that good anyway). Even when it’s the same racer. That’s what transphobia looks like.”

A spokesperson for the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said: “Sport should be welcoming to everyone, including trans people. We need clubs and governing bodies, as the experts, to consider how their sports’ individual policies can work to be as inclusive as possible, and what advice and guidance they’re giving to ensure all people, including trans people, can take part in sport.”

Post: #73

(01-18-2019 02:28 PM)MOVSM Wrote:  

Reverse 4Chan / Onion :

"Is it OK to vote for a white male in order to oppose Trump?"

Post: #74

Years ago I thought we had reached peak insanity. How wrong I was.

http://www.stationgossip.com/2019/02/pri...decry.html

"See if you can follow this: a 1996 play called “The Vagina Monologues” that was built around fifteen monologues from women in the 90’s was viewed as problematic by the two female students who directed a recent production at Princeton University because the play assumes that women must have vaginas."

Edit:

May as well toss this in too.
http://www.stationgossip.com/2019/02/con...urity.html

Post: #75

(02-19-2019 11:05 AM)saner Wrote:  Years ago I thought we had reached peak insanity. How wrong I was.

http://www.stationgossip.com/2019/02/pri...decry.html

"See if you can follow this: a 1996 play called “The Vagina Monologues” that was built around fifteen monologues from women in the 90’s was viewed as problematic by the two female students who directed a recent production at Princeton University because the play assumes that women must have vaginas."
...

Well.
That just stinks...

It's almost like fish in a barrel for these folk...