Time to get on the TRUMP train

[blake]

The Shapiro incident was 1 month after Charlottesville. Few weeks before that there was a far right protest and counter protests from left that got violent. Berkeley overreacted and shot off 600k for Shapiro's security. Pretty much nothing worth mentioning happened. I have no idea why i should be outraged about this? Or even how this ties into political correctness?

lol “i have no idea why i should be outraged about this.” you’re an uber-uber-uber liberal though. i sincerely believe that you, like half this board, actually equate conservative thought as hate speech, so in your view, why should they get to speak, right?

would you be outraged about this if liberal speakers were prevented from speaking? what if there were widespread protests to stop liberals from speaking on campus? what if hundreds of officers needed to be deployed when a liberal came to town.

of course, you couldn’t possibly imagine this happening cause that will never ever happen and the thought of it, outside of maybe an isolated incident, is ridiculous

the real point here is that it’s not just outright hate speech, but conservative ideology, in and of itself, that’s not politically correct anymore.

for example, if i was to go on facebook and say “All lives matter”, half the country would condemn me as racist. or if i said i think that the US should have a means-based immigration policy so that only people who can provide for themselves should be allowed in.

you can say i’m overdramatizing it, but i really believe it’s 100% accurate to say that in this climate, this kind of talk would leave me virtually unemployable, even if those are arguably legitimate positions. (i don’t really have an opinion on either topic, just trying to make a point.)

anyway, if i take the opposite (liberal) stance, i’m fine, no protests, no potential job loss, etc.

[sonatine]

this kind of talk would leave me virtually unemployable, even if those are arguably legitimate positions. (i don’t really have an opinion on either topic, just trying to make a point.)

maybe the climate is onto something.

[gimmick]

The Shapiro incident was 1 month after Charlottesville. Few weeks before that there was a far right protest and counter protests from left that got violent. Berkeley overreacted and shot off 600k for Shapiro's security. Pretty much nothing worth mentioning happened. I have no idea why i should be outraged about this? Or even how this ties into political correctness?

lol “i have no idea why i should be outraged about this.” you’re an uber-uber-uber liberal though. i sincerely believe that you, like half this board, actually equate conservative thought as hate speech, so in your view, why should they get to speak, right?

would you be outraged about this if liberal speakers were prevented from speaking? what if there were widespread protests to stop liberals from speaking on campus? what if hundreds of officers needed to be deployed when a liberal came to town.

of course, you couldn’t possibly imagine this happening cause that will never ever happen and the thought of it, outside of maybe an isolated incident, is ridiculous

the real point here is that it’s not just outright hate speech, but conservative ideology, in and of itself, that’s not politically correct anymore.

for example, if i was to go on facebook and say “All lives matter”, half the country would condemn me as racist. or if i said i think that the US should have a means-based immigration policy so that only people who can provide for themselves should be allowed in.

you can say i’m overdramatizing it, but i really believe it’s 100% accurate to say that in this climate, this kind of talk would leave me virtually unemployable, even if those are arguably legitimate positions. (i don’t really have an opinion on either topic, just trying to make a point.)

anyway, if i take the opposite (liberal) stance, i’m fine, no protests, no potential job loss, etc.

So were they prevented from speaking? Is that what we're imagining happened here?

The Bill Maher incident was a commencement speech. After some study into this speech of commencements it appears to be the culmination of these kids education. The most important moment of their very short lives. A celebration for a new generation of baristas. Now call me crazy, but i don't see it as problematic that these kids would have a say in who speaks at their graduation.

Don't worry justice prevailed in the end. The administration chose to silence the 4000 kids that objected and the student board that voted on the issue. The egotistical cunt that couldn't stand the idea someone didn't like him won in the end and kids learned a valuable lesson about democracy. Get fucked dweebs, your voice doesn't matter.

Far as i see this, this was a rough equivalent of being outraged that a bride has her say about the wedding band. Who the fuck cares what the wedding band thinks about her decision.

[gimmick]

Oh and i do share your pain that sometimes we can't use phrases that racists use as dog whistles without someone getting the wrong idea. I can totally see how we should assign full blame to political correctness.

Like i personally like the swastika in the 70s punk type of way, but try explaining that to crazy liberals in this climate.

[MumblesBadly]

TIme for some delightful “fake news”!



(Suck on it, Trumptards!)

[big dick]

[blake]

So were they prevented from speaking? Is that what we're imagining happened here?

The Bill Maher incident was a commencement speech. After some study into this speech of commencements it appears to be the culmination of these kids education. The most important moment of their very short lives. A celebration for a new generation of baristas. Now call me crazy, but i don't see it as problematic that these kids would have a say in who speaks at their graduation.

Don't worry justice prevailed in the end. The administration chose to silence the 4000 kids that objected and the student board that voted on the issue. The egotistical cunt that couldn't stand the idea someone didn't like him won in the end and kids learned a valuable lesson about democracy. Get fucked dweebs, your voice doesn't matter.

Far as i see this, this was a rough equivalent of being outraged that a bride has her say about the wedding band. Who the fuck cares what the wedding band thinks about her decision.

you're kind of ignoring the issue.

bill maher, who is nearly as liberal as you, was disinvited from the commencement because of his position on islam. when i say "his position," he mostly just read statistics/polls that liberals didn't like.

fair enough as to your argument that kids should have some say into their commencement speaker, but indulge me with a hypothetical.

if, instead of taking the position on islam he did, what if bill maher's position was "islam is a religion of peace and anyone that tries to say otherwise is racist."

what if far right Berkeley students didn't like being called racist, etc., and objected to maher giving the commencement speech?

do you think the school would have disinvited him? if you don't dodge this question -- and you're being halfway honest -- you'll admit there is a 0.0% chance of that happening.

(of course, one other flaw in this analogy is that there would never be thousands of students railing against maher if he took that position, cause to do so would render them unemployable. you know, cause of the political correctness that doesn't exist and all.)

Oh and i do share your pain that sometimes we can't use phrases that racists use as dog whistles without someone getting the wrong idea. I can totally see how we should assign full blame to political correctness.

Like i personally like the swastika in the 70s punk type of way, but try explaining that to crazy liberals in this climate.

it's not that i disagree with you on racist dog whistles -- i've made the case repeatedly in this thread that "MAGA" is a racist dog whistle.

but that doesn't disprove my premise that the reaction to it -- the overbearing political correctness from the left -- is real. i guess i'm a bill maher fanboy cause he makes this point ad nauseam.

there are certain topics that are worthy of debate in this country, that can no longer even be discussed for fear of offending the left.

example that i used before -- what if i took the position that "i think that the US should have a means-based immigration policy so that only people who can provide for themselves should be allowed in." facially, there's nothing racist about that statement, though i admit that a high number of people holding that position probably have some racial biases. anyway, that's not a position you can publicly take anymore, unless you're self-employed.

what if i said i didn't think high school trans-women should be participating in women's high school sports? legit position, isn't it? are you risking your job if you say it? absolutely

anyway, i can go down this road forever, but i'm guessing i haven't convinced you

<end rant>

[limitles]

you're kind of ignoring the issue.

bill maher, who is nearly as liberal as you, was disinvited from the commencement because of his position on islam. when i say "his position," he mostly just read statistics/polls that liberals didn't like.

fair enough as to your argument that kids should have some say into their commencement speaker, but indulge me with a hypothetical.

if, instead of taking the position on islam he did, what if bill maher's position was "islam is a religion of peace and anyone that tries to say otherwise is racist."

what if far right Berkeley students didn't like being called racist, etc., and objected to maher giving the commencement speech?

do you think the school would have disinvited him? if you don't dodge this question -- and you're being halfway honest -- you'll admit there is a 0.0% chance of that happening.

(of course, one other flaw in this analogy is that there would never be thousands of students railing against maher if he took that position, cause to do so would render them unemployable. you know, cause of the political correctness that doesn't exist and all.)

Oh and i do share your pain that sometimes we can't use phrases that racists use as dog whistles without someone getting the wrong idea. I can totally see how we should assign full blame to political correctness.

Like i personally like the swastika in the 70s punk type of way, but try explaining that to crazy liberals in this climate.

it's not that i disagree with you on racist dog whistles -- i've made the case repeatedly in this thread that "MAGA" is a racist dog whistle.

but that doesn't disprove my premise that the reaction to it -- the overbearing political correctness from the left -- is real. i guess i'm a bill maher fanboy cause he makes this point ad nauseam.

there are certain topics that are worthy of debate in this country, that can no longer even be discussed for fear of offending the left.

example that i used before -- what if i took the position that "i think that the US should have a means-based immigration policy so that only people who can provide for themselves should be allowed in." facially, there's nothing racist about that statement, though i admit that a high number of people holding that position probably have some racial biases. anyway, that's not a position you can publicly take anymore, unless you're self-employed.

what if i said i didn't think high school trans-women should be participating in women's high school sports? legit position, isn't it? are you risking your job if you say it? absolutely

anyway, i can go down this road forever, but i'm guessing i haven't convinced you

<end rant>

lol your two page hypothetical. boil it down for the love of allah

”there are certain topics that are worthy of debate in this country, that can no longer even be discussed for fear of offending the left.”

please be specific because offending others with outright deceit is a daily routine for Republicans

[hongkonger]

There is political correctness on both sides. It is insidious and often results in unknowing self-censorship. It prevents honest discussion. For every topic where political correctness on the left is common, you can point out another one where there is political correctness on the right. The NFL players kneeling during the anthem controversy for example. They are just substituting one political statement for another but to many on the right it is unconscionable and shouldn't be allowed. Classic example of political correctness.

[blake]

i mean, just as a recent example of political correctness run amok.

i give you the story of a transgender girl participating in girls high school track and field, and obv destroying the competition



http://www.courant.com/sports/high-s...520-story.html

some people defending the policy that allows this:

“A transgender girl is a girl and ought to be treated like a girl,” Buzuvis said. “If you start to put limitations or exclusions on their participation, not only do you run the risk of violating state anti-discrimination law, but also you are disregarding and disrespecting a population of students based on a core aspect of their identity, which is something that schools should not be in the practice of doing.

“I understand that it appears to many people as an inequitable playing field, but they don’t have any context or knowledge about how that athlete’s life would be if she weren’t transgender. And it would be possible she’d be beating their daughters if she was cisgender (someone who identifies with their birth sex).”

seriously? how is this possible?

[sonatine]

i mean, just as a recent example of political correctness run amok.

i give you the story of a transgender girl participating in girls high school track and field, and obv destroying the competition



http://www.courant.com/sports/high-s...520-story.html

some people defending the policy that allows this:

“A transgender girl is a girl and ought to be treated like a girl,” Buzuvis said. “If you start to put limitations or exclusions on their participation, not only do you run the risk of violating state anti-discrimination law, but also you are disregarding and disrespecting a population of students based on a core aspect of their identity, which is something that schools should not be in the practice of doing.

“I understand that it appears to many people as an inequitable playing field, but they don’t have any context or knowledge about how that athlete’s life would be if she weren’t transgender. And it would be possible she’d be beating their daughters if she was cisgender (someone who identifies with their birth sex).”

seriously? how is this possible?

respectfully i dont consider this political correctness, its just bad science.

and its every bit as ignorant and absurd as flat earth or climate change denial.

[blake]

i mean, just as a recent example of political correctness run amok.

i give you the story of a transgender girl participating in girls high school track and field, and obv destroying the competition



http://www.courant.com/sports/high-s...520-story.html

some people defending the policy that allows this:



seriously? how is this possible?

respectfully i dont consider this political correctness, its just bad science.

and its every bit as ignorant and absurd as flat earth or climate change denial.

to say it's bad science implies that there are people that truly believe that trans-women are physically equivalent to biological women, so that one side has no physical advantage over the other.

respectfully, i have a hard time accepting that there is anyone on the planet that truly believes that.

instead, what we are seeing, in my opinion, is that the subject is so absurdly taboo that no one would dare step in and question, "how does it make sense to let this biological male compete against biological women?"

in fairness, at least the mother of the girl that lost to the trans-girl is complaining. but i still can't get why this ever was (and still is) allowed.

[sonatine]

respectfully i dont consider this political correctness, its just bad science.

and its every bit as ignorant and absurd as flat earth or climate change denial.

to say it's bad science implies that there are people that truly believe that trans-women are physically equivalent to biological women, so that one side has no physical advantage over the other.

respectfully, i have a hard time accepting that there is anyone on the planet that truly believes that.
.

bro people voted for donald trump to be the president of the united states.

where have you been?

[RS_]

Part of the problem, or perhaps the main problem, with all this political correctness bullshit is people misinterpret what "equality" means. Equality means that we should show each other similar respect, we have the same worth as a human, we have basic human rights, and all that good stuff. People mix this up to mean people are equal in every possible way.

Men and women are equal -- we should be respected equally, neither be taken advantage of, and all that good stuff. That doesn't mean we are equal in strength, physical fitness, baby nurturing, or whatever else. Same goes with race and sexual orientation. How many Asians do you see in pro sports compared to blacks? It's not that blacks are better than Asians as human beings, but they are better than them at sports. Elementary school teachers and others in child-care tend to be women. That doesn't mean women are better than men as human beings, it means they're better at them at child-care shit.

Now we got boys turning into girls and girls turning into boys, damn - how time has changed.

[gimmick]

respectfully i dont consider this political correctness, its just bad science.

and its every bit as ignorant and absurd as flat earth or climate change denial.

to say it's bad science implies that there are people that truly believe that trans-women are physically equivalent to biological women, so that one side has no physical advantage over the other.

respectfully, i have a hard time accepting that there is anyone on the planet that truly believes that.

instead, what we are seeing, in my opinion, is that the subject is so absurdly taboo that no one would dare step in and question, "how does it make sense to let this biological male compete against biological women?"

in fairness, at least the mother of the girl that lost to the trans-girl is complaining. but i still can't get why this ever was (and still is) allowed.

Can't see the article, but yea stupid people exists.

With new stuff there's usually problems. It's being fixed. Some point some uniform practice is taken to these. And as you said everyone wasn't quiet.

[gimmick]

you're kind of ignoring the issue.

bill maher, who is nearly as liberal as you, was disinvited from the commencement because of his position on islam. when i say "his position," he mostly just read statistics/polls that liberals didn't like.

fair enough as to your argument that kids should have some say into their commencement speaker, but indulge me with a hypothetical.

if, instead of taking the position on islam he did, what if bill maher's position was "islam is a religion of peace and anyone that tries to say otherwise is racist."

what if far right Berkeley students didn't like being called racist, etc., and objected to maher giving the commencement speech?

do you think the school would have disinvited him? if you don't dodge this question -- and you're being halfway honest -- you'll admit there is a 0.0% chance of that happening.

(of course, one other flaw in this analogy is that there would never be thousands of students railing against maher if he took that position, cause to do so would render them unemployable. you know, cause of the political correctness that doesn't exist and all.)

Oh and i do share your pain that sometimes we can't use phrases that racists use as dog whistles without someone getting the wrong idea. I can totally see how we should assign full blame to political correctness.

Like i personally like the swastika in the 70s punk type of way, but try explaining that to crazy liberals in this climate.

it's not that i disagree with you on racist dog whistles -- i've made the case repeatedly in this thread that "MAGA" is a racist dog whistle.

but that doesn't disprove my premise that the reaction to it -- the overbearing political correctness from the left -- is real. i guess i'm a bill maher fanboy cause he makes this point ad nauseam.

there are certain topics that are worthy of debate in this country, that can no longer even be discussed for fear of offending the left.

example that i used before -- what if i took the position that "i think that the US should have a means-based immigration policy so that only people who can provide for themselves should be allowed in." facially, there's nothing racist about that statement, though i admit that a high number of people holding that position probably have some racial biases. anyway, that's not a position you can publicly take anymore, unless you're self-employed.

what if i said i didn't think high school trans-women should be participating in women's high school sports? legit position, isn't it? are you risking your job if you say it? absolutely

anyway, i can go down this road forever, but i'm guessing i haven't convinced you

<end rant>

I dodged your question because it's kinda useless in two different ways. First it's a hypothetical scenario with hypothetical response. How correct my assessment of it's likelihood depends on my honesty among other things. As such it has no value as proof of anything. Second it's such a narrow slice of reality that we would need thousands of similar scenarios to get any kinda picture that even resembles full scope of the situation.

My honest answer is that i neither know or care.

As Hongkonger mentioned we can just take the very recent national anthem debacle as an example of right political correctness. We don't have to guess. We know how right behaves when something offends them. We know how consistent they are in defending uppity n-words right for political expression. Rational civil discourse about the issue with minimal death threats and almost no ones patriotism was questioned. The distance they went to protect the 1st amendment. The same 1st amendment that trumps everything when sacred conservative views are concerned.

Here's how i saw it, from a thread month ago...

"NFL have their shareholders, sponsors and customers to answer to first. And after that comes the players personal needs. Using the spotlight NFL and the team gives you for a personal protest that has nothing to do with the sport just isn't the place for it. Doesn't matter at all how valid that protest is."

https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...l=1#post768904

...and now you know how partisan my stance was.

Regarding public stances one can take, tough titties. It's not exclusively conservative views. And i don't think we can ever nor we necessarily should get rid of the practice. Same way we can't control what offends people, we can't control what they are afraid to say. It's a long ever changing list of political, social and say sexual items. It also depends of the setting. Like are there any conservative gay politicians that have outed themselves? If there are, i assume this is a recent change.

At another time things like McCarthy, Hollywood blacklists and COINTELPRO were a reality. At another place right now people are afraid of taking a private stance for a fear of death or imprisonment. Mildly hostile environment for very public stances just isn't a big deal itself (it could lead to something, but we aren't there yet).

[ErickAA]

you're kind of ignoring the issue.

bill maher, who is nearly as liberal as you, was disinvited from the commencement because of his position on islam. when i say "his position," he mostly just read statistics/polls that liberals didn't like.

fair enough as to your argument that kids should have some say into their commencement speaker, but indulge me with a hypothetical.

if, instead of taking the position on islam he did, what if bill maher's position was "islam is a religion of peace and anyone that tries to say otherwise is racist."

what if far right Berkeley students didn't like being called racist, etc., and objected to maher giving the commencement speech?

do you think the school would have disinvited him? if you don't dodge this question -- and you're being halfway honest -- you'll admit there is a 0.0% chance of that happening.

(of course, one other flaw in this analogy is that there would never be thousands of students railing against maher if he took that position, cause to do so would render them unemployable. you know, cause of the political correctness that doesn't exist and all.)



it's not that i disagree with you on racist dog whistles -- i've made the case repeatedly in this thread that "MAGA" is a racist dog whistle.

but that doesn't disprove my premise that the reaction to it -- the overbearing political correctness from the left -- is real. i guess i'm a bill maher fanboy cause he makes this point ad nauseam.

there are certain topics that are worthy of debate in this country, that can no longer even be discussed for fear of offending the left.

example that i used before -- what if i took the position that "i think that the US should have a means-based immigration policy so that only people who can provide for themselves should be allowed in." facially, there's nothing racist about that statement, though i admit that a high number of people holding that position probably have some racial biases. anyway, that's not a position you can publicly take anymore, unless you're self-employed.

what if i said i didn't think high school trans-women should be participating in women's high school sports? legit position, isn't it? are you risking your job if you say it? absolutely

anyway, i can go down this road forever, but i'm guessing i haven't convinced you

<end rant>

I dodged your question because it's kinda useless in two different ways. First it's a hypothetical scenario with hypothetical response. How correct my assessment of it's likelihood depends on my honesty among other things. As such it has no value as proof of anything. Second it's such a narrow slice of reality that we would need thousands of similar scenarios to get any kinda picture that even resembles full scope of the situation.

My honest answer is that i neither know or care.

As Hongkonger mentioned we can just take the very recent national anthem debacle as an example of right political correctness. We don't have to guess. We know how right behaves when something offends them. We know how consistent they are in defending uppity n-words right for political expression. Rational civil discourse about the issue with minimal death threats and almost no ones patriotism was questioned. The distance they went to protect the 1st amendment. The same 1st amendment that trumps everything when sacred conservative views are concerned.

Here's how i saw it, from a thread month ago...

"NFL have their shareholders, sponsors and customers to answer to first. And after that comes the players personal needs. Using the spotlight NFL and the team gives you for a personal protest that has nothing to do with the sport just isn't the place for it. Doesn't matter at all how valid that protest is."

https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...l=1#post768904

...and now you know how partisan my stance was.

Regarding public stances one can take, tough titties. It's not exclusively conservative views. And i don't think we can ever nor we necessarily should get rid of the practice. Same way we can't control what offends people, we can't control what they are afraid to say. It's a long ever changing list of political, social and say sexual items. It also depends of the setting. Like are there any conservative gay politicians that have outed themselves? If there are, i assume this is a recent change.

At another time things like McCarthy, Hollywood blacklists and COINTELPRO were a reality. At another place right now people are afraid of taking a private stance for a fear of death or imprisonment. Mildly hostile environment for very public stances just isn't a big deal itself (it could lead to something, but we aren't there yet).

You don't seem to have a strong grasp of reality IMO. We are very much there yet. People are losing their jobs for saying pretty innocuous things that are not political correct. You are actually not a liberal at all (most liberals aren't). You are just a leftist. No liberal would ever just accept it is ok for people to be scared to think/say things that aren't politically correct, and argue it isn't quite to the level of McCarthyism yet so it isn't that big a deal. That pretty much is the exact opposite of a liberal position by definition.

To go back to Blake's example, if one of us went onto some social media platform and made some proclamation that trans women are biologically different than biological women and shouldn't be allowed to compete in high school athletics as a female (a completely reasonable position that also happens to be correct per current scientific understanding and common sense), or that biological women and men have different interests that might explain some occupational gender differences (again a completely reasonable position that also happens to be correct per current scientific understanding and common sense) if the wrong activist got a hold of that post and started making a big deal out of it and started a Lynch mob that started putting pressure on our employer, many of us would probably be fired. This is a sick and twisted world we are living in that that is the case, yet here we are.

[ErickAA]

I do find it extremely ironic that in the tech sector, and other STEM fields, so much pressure is being put on college departments and employers to increase the % of women participating, when literally every single non STEM discipline that involves a college degree has a higher % of women then men.

Even within what we traditionally think of STEM, women are actually a majority in pretty much all biology/health related disciplines across the board, including being MDs.

The amount of cognitive dissonance going on that doesn't recognize this, and is arguing women are being systemically oppressed, is amazingly staggering and absurd.

[devidee]

As I've said before, ugly women ruin everything.

And in the ethno-state the myth of equality won"t be an issue.

[gimmick]

I dodged your question because it's kinda useless in two different ways. First it's a hypothetical scenario with hypothetical response. How correct my assessment of it's likelihood depends on my honesty among other things. As such it has no value as proof of anything. Second it's such a narrow slice of reality that we would need thousands of similar scenarios to get any kinda picture that even resembles full scope of the situation.

My honest answer is that i neither know or care.

As Hongkonger mentioned we can just take the very recent national anthem debacle as an example of right political correctness. We don't have to guess. We know how right behaves when something offends them. We know how consistent they are in defending uppity n-words right for political expression. Rational civil discourse about the issue with minimal death threats and almost no ones patriotism was questioned. The distance they went to protect the 1st amendment. The same 1st amendment that trumps everything when sacred conservative views are concerned.

Here's how i saw it, from a thread month ago...

"NFL have their shareholders, sponsors and customers to answer to first. And after that comes the players personal needs. Using the spotlight NFL and the team gives you for a personal protest that has nothing to do with the sport just isn't the place for it. Doesn't matter at all how valid that protest is."

https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...l=1#post768904

...and now you know how partisan my stance was.

Regarding public stances one can take, tough titties. It's not exclusively conservative views. And i don't think we can ever nor we necessarily should get rid of the practice. Same way we can't control what offends people, we can't control what they are afraid to say. It's a long ever changing list of political, social and say sexual items. It also depends of the setting. Like are there any conservative gay politicians that have outed themselves? If there are, i assume this is a recent change.

At another time things like McCarthy, Hollywood blacklists and COINTELPRO were a reality. At another place right now people are afraid of taking a private stance for a fear of death or imprisonment. Mildly hostile environment for very public stances just isn't a big deal itself (it could lead to something, but we aren't there yet).

You don't seem to have a strong grasp of reality IMO. We are very much there yet. People are losing their jobs for saying pretty innocuous things that are not political correct. You are actually not a liberal at all (most liberals aren't). You are just a leftist. No liberal would ever just accept it is ok for people to be scared to think/say things that aren't politically correct, and argue it isn't quite to the level of McCarthyism yet so it isn't that big a deal. That pretty much is the exact opposite of a liberal position by definition.

To go back to Blake's example, if one of us went onto some social media platform and made some proclamation that trans women are biologically different than biological women and shouldn't be allowed to compete in high school athletics as a female (a completely reasonable position that also happens to be correct per current scientific understanding and common sense), or that biological women and men have different interests that might explain some occupational gender differences (again a completely reasonable position that also happens to be correct per current scientific understanding and common sense) if the wrong activist got a hold of that post and started making a big deal out of it and started a Lynch mob that started putting pressure on our employer, many of us would probably be fired. This is a sick and twisted world we are living in that that is the case, yet here we are.

Yup not a liberal. Never said i was. I don't really consider myself responsible for the limited amount of boxes Americans seem to have for all political beliefs.

I can't do anything about things you're afraid to say. Far as i know you can say a lot things if you just avoid being an asshole. You can say even more things if you don't care if you're perceived as an asshole.

If it helps, i don't think trans should compete as females. I think at the olympic level even genetic women that were born with extremely high testosterone levels are excluded now or there is a discussion about it. Trans competing at all is very new idea. Expecting every kink to be solved immediately is kinda retarded. Nothing just works like that. It takes a while, like with literally everything. Maybe they'll form a National Sissy League. I don't know. I don't care.

If you really want to get on a government watch list, try talking about the merits of Jihad in the workplace or positives of man-boy love relations. I have no problem with there being things people are expected to keep to themselves in certain context. Closest things resembling government limiting political expression have come from the right in the last few years. But yea lets forget that and focus on imaginary scenarios that can't be proven in any direction.