Politics Woke links

Evil gator said:
was that a joke though? I know I've probably thrown tanrums/pity parties like that but why would you film yourself?
Click to expand...

Because he knows there are corners of the internet that will support him and blame it all on the white, cis-het patriarchy.
He probably wasn't thinking that Libs of Tictok would find it.
 
I prefer to ignore folks like that, crazy isn’t hard to find, and getting more prevalent. Grace is something easy to receive, often hard to give, and I suck at giving it
 
Panamag8or said:
Evil gator said:
was that a joke though? I know I've probably thrown tanrums/pity parties like that but why would you film yourself?
Click to expand...

Because he knows there are corners of the internet that will support him and blame it all on the white, cis-het patriarchy.
He probably wasn't thinking that Libs of Tictok would find it.
Click to expand...
Yeah.

Why would woke librarians and teachers brag on tik tok about teaching other people's children to be trans? Because liberals are fucking stupid.
 
Okay now this is insane:

https://libertyunyielding.com/2022/10/31/washington-state-supreme-court-imposes-racial-preference-in-favor-of-black-plaintiffs/

But in a truly bizarre ruling, the Washington State Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that it is presumptively racist to characterize litigants as “combative” or “confrontational,” if the litigants happen to be black. Based on this strange conclusion, it ruled that a $9,000 verdict for a black plaintiff was likely inadequate, and had to be overturned at the plaintiff’s request, unless the white woman who was sued could somehow prove the judgment would not have been larger absent its counsel calling the black plaintiff combative. It also ruled by a 7-to-2 vote that it was presumptively racist to point out that three witnesses all used the exact same phrase, as if they were coached, suggesting collusion, because the witnesses happened to be black.

Lawyer Ted Frank calls it an example of “a state Supreme Court applying critical race theory for the purpose of discriminating against whites in civil litigation” and how “pseudoscientific nonsense is infecting our institutions.” The ruling does indeed rely on Critical Race Theory books, such as “Racial Microaggressions: Using Critical Race Theory to Respond to Everyday Racism,” and critical race theorists, such as a founder of Critical Race Theory, Derrick Bell. The ruling also contains all sorts of bizarre unnecessary claims unrelated to its holding, like suggesting that welfare fraud doesn’t exist (it routinely occurs) and that its existence is just a racist trope invented by Republicans.

The case involved a black woman asking for a new trial because of opposing counsel’s successful attack on her credibility and calling her “combative” in cross-examination. The black woman sued for $3.5 million after a white motorist had a rear-end collision with her. Video showed the black motorist was faking the extent of her injuries. After defense counsel called into question her credibility, based on the video, the jury awarded the black woman only $9200.
In response to the request for a new trial, the trial judge did what trial courts would do in most of the country in this situation: it refused to do so. The Washington State Supreme Court reversed that ruling, saying that the burden was on the defendant — a white woman — to prove the judgment was not affected by racism. If the white woman can’t prove that, the plaintiff can have a new trial, and sue her all over again. The black plaintiff had sued for a whopping $3.5 million after her car was hit from behind in a car accident. The jury awarded her $9,000, which the black plaintiff said was due to racism. But it is rare for juries to award $3.5 million for a traffic accident. $9000 is a much more typical amount for a motorist to collect.
Click to expand...
 
Irish Mike said:
How can the defendant prove that something didn't happen?
Click to expand...

That's what's so insidious about this. The burden should be on the aggrieved party to demonstrate that the verdict was the result of bias, not the other way around.

Gatorbreeze said:
How can this be legal?
Click to expand...

State courts get to make up their own rules generally. I don't think they would get to challenge this at the US Supreme Court, but maybe an argument could be crafted that this rule violates the defendant's due process rights.
 
The comments here are hilarious. She’s a Russian plant for thinking kids shouldn’t be mutilated lol

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/1587763851314929666?s=46&t=pytPZQU2-N3Jr-qPUi1EkQ
 
pg. said:
Heard Ken Jennings refer to a contestant as "they". When you choose that pronoun does it mean you think you are more than one person? I'm so confused.
Click to expand...

yeah its just weird. A friend of mine's weirdo troubled daughter I guess decided she wanted called that, and when my friend was posting about "her" on FB I thought she was talking about both her kids. Clowntown.
 
Evil gator said:
pg. said:
Heard Ken Jennings refer to a contestant as "they". When you choose that pronoun does it mean you think you are more than one person? I'm so confused.
Click to expand...

yeah its just weird. A friend of mine's weirdo troubled daughter I guess decided she wanted called that, and when my friend was posting about "her" on FB I thought she was talking about both her kids. Clowntown.
Click to expand...

Your friend is an asshole for enabling her kid's stupidity.
 
Wait, now the staff not on the screen also have to be a minority? FFS.

On that note, I saw on a reactor channel where a black dude was reacting to Country Boy Can Survive and one of the black guys in the comment section was saying Hank Jr was clearly racist because there wasn't a single black person in the 40 year old video. There's like 4 people in the entire video who were probably his friends or family FFS. But hey, in 1981, if you didn't force a black redneck into the video, you're racist.
 
Juggs said:
Wait, now the staff not on the screen also have to be a minority? FFS.

On that note, I saw on a reactor channel where a black dude was reacting to Country Boy Can Survive and one of the black guys in the comment section was saying Hank Jr was clearly racist because there wasn't a single black person in the 40 year old video. There's like 4 people in the entire video who were probably his friends or family FFS. But hey, in 1981, if you didn't force a black redneck into the video, you're racist.
Click to expand...

Dude looks like a lady is hate speech!

Two guys in comments on a YouTube primal scream concept I was watching got into a fight and set up a meeting ala TB say the mandarin hooters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top