Martin Luther King Jr. never registered as a Democrat or a Republican:
"In a 1958 interview, he expressed his view that neither party was perfect, saying, "I don't think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses ... And I'm not inextricably bound to either party.""
__Source__: https://books.google.com/books?id=qW-NYdIefPgC&pg=PA364#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://boingboing.net/2018/10/28/paypal-closes-accounts-on-far.html This cancer though...

I fuckin love how the left calls the right anti-semitic all the while being pro-pale-not-a-fuckin-state-stine

Yep.

it is hilarious

its because the right that is anti-semitic is actually more lefty. they are nat socialists after all

"vandalized"

somebody spray painted bullet holes on the buildling

vandalized by gunfire

holy shit lmao

thats some suicide via 2 shots to the back of the head shit

Sounds like CNN needs a few of their reporters to be "vandalized by gunfire"

They didnt give a shit about the mexican journalists who get vandalized by knives

Charlie hebdo was vandalized by AK fire

@angeryer tfw you find incriminating evidence against the Clintons

Lmao

space engineers

god i wish that game was more popular

Same

Paid 20$ for it

Havnt played it once

it has issues

*god i wish that game had devs that cared more about it*

Its one of those games where I am more interesting watching other people come up with shit

My favourite creation so far was the Iron Dome system.

i played it more like a survival game and on account of that didnt know creative mode existed for like

i dono how long

so my building skills are still lacking lmao

but on that front

if they made the game better in survival PvE it would be a hit, but it offers very little in survival PvE besides just building huge shit

i mean fucking spiders, wolfs, etc, its just bad NPC design

Pretty much

I see it as a engineering sim more than a survival

https://www.wweek.com/news/2018/10/31/racist-skinheads-beat-mulugeta-seraw-to-death-on-a-portland-street-thirty-years-later-the-crime-still-echoes/

Funny how they don't mention that the "anti-racist" are mostly white and violent and the other side is more diverse and responding to white violence.

very nice article, white supremacy is alive and well, continuing to cause mass killings every month

not sure why it's in here instead of <#398858182455459853>

this guy's death is definitely worth remembering, it sheds light on the deadly culture of white supremacy that pervades the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulugeta_Seraw

So Forbes published this amazing article, concluding that **"The solution: companies need to do more to educate white men."** . (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ruthieackerman/2018/10/23/year-of-the-woman-not-so-fast-1/#272751ce7f94)
They don't seem to link their sources for their statistics anywhere, but I'm pretty sure that I found them: https://www.reachire.com/wp-content/uploads/Women_in_the_Workplace_2018.pdf
It has all the numbers and even some of the same phrasing.

They bring up **5 statistics** in that article, arguing that companies need to do more to educate white men.

1. 50% of all employees think that their company prioritizes gender diversity.
**2. 66% of women have dealt with micro aggressions.**
3. 20% of women "identify" as the only woman at their workplace.
4. <50% of companies set diversity targets.
5. Women are **twice as likely** as men to say that it would be risky or pointless to report an incident.

Now I don't see how educating your white male employees is going to help with 1, 3 or 4, since these are mostly a result of company policy and hiring.
**It's also funny how the 50% from 1. matches the <50% from 4. .... About 40% of companies set diversity targets and about half of employees feel like their company is prioritizing gender diversity. Sounds to me like the employees are pretty spot on in their assumption.** 😂

.
**This leaves micro aggressions and the number 5.**

As for the microagressions. **This does seem to be the one valid point they are making,** though I do want to point out:
**Men that don't have other men coworkers also experience more microagressions than men that do. But admitedly at a lower rate than women.**
This seems to imply that micro agressions do go both ways, though not at equal rates. Wouldn't the right approach be to educate all employees on microagressions, since that's the one statistic that actually holds up?

"Women are **twice as likely** as men to say that it would be risky or pointless to report an incident."
They conveniently don't state any numbers here, but as it turns out it's about 8% of all women and about 3% of all men that make that statement.
Now in my opinion we've come really far, if only 3% of women see it as risky (5% see it as pointless) to come forward with alligations.
I'm not saying that's good, but generalizing that to "better educate white men" seems to be jumping the gun, especially since 1% (2%) of men also hold that same believe.

So apparently I can't post pictures here, the statistic regarding micro aggressions is on 14th page of that source article.

why do we need to do anything about microagressions given that 80% of the time, its "i don't like what they did/who they are, and since they are a man, it **must** be because i am a women", rather than a more likely scenario: they are treating the person like an equal, and since there is more people of a certain gender, there are chances things will be done or said which might be considered offensive but are not meant to be offensive.