and probably why theres fewer women in debate positions

I remember in my senior year of high school, I took AP World History, and one of our topics was how Muslim women were not oppressed. I didn't bother to say anything, but some other girl in my class did. It was basically her vs. the teacher. You could not even question the idea that no Muslim woman is oppressed.

In hindsight, I should have said something, but the teacher also had access to my grades.

David Packman is fucking stupid

Cooperate to Graduate

This is why I'm curious of when it's a good idea to step in and voice your opinion, even if someone with more authority than you.

'muslim women arent oppressed'

>google muslim women

5th image https://cdn2.img.sputniknews.com/images/101582/11/1015821168.jpg

Fuck cooperation that teacher is a dumb bitching lying to the youth

I understand not speaking up but Godspeed to the femoid

To be fair, I could see sealioning as a legit concept. If you're a dick for so long and then pretend to be nice just to troll people, I wouldn't expect them to take you seriously and so you'd have to work extra hard to convince them you're acting in good faith.

The problem lies in painting someone as a sealion when they HAVEN'T been a dick to you.

After the class watched some video about how the hijab is a choice, we all had to write if our opinion on the topic changed.

In this particular case she’s supposed to educate kids but she lied to them

That’s a big no no and it breaks the social contract between teacher and student

This is what happened to Sargon at VidCon, and even though he went in good faith, it wasn't reasonable for Anita to expect that he was, given his dickishness to her in the past

Also what happened to Crowder with Cenk

he said something about passing TYT in subs, and so he isnt going to be punching down on them

because until recently it was punching up

Punching up / down is a form of suprematism

not sure if you mean something else

it assumes inequality

When you want to have a civil discussion with someone, but they decide to smear you instead. <:comfort:592107824826417204>

If two people are equal, they should be able to criticize each other as peers. Saying one side can't hit the other is an acknowledgement of their inferiority. So like not criticizing PoC is a form of white supremacy and the soft bigotry of low expectations

Affirmative Action is the soft bigotry of low expectations. It assumes I can't succeed in life without the help of the government.

correct

so are reparations

although that's more complicated

I've always wanted to ask someone who agrees with the idea of reparations how the one-drop rule comes into play.

In general, at least the way it's currently sold, social justice is a form of white supremacy and feminism is a form of patriarchy. Because without a differential between groups, you'd have no need for either.

That isn't to say everything is perfect and there aren't still problems, but in general, if you're someone who already sees people as being equal, you don't need feminism or social justice.

The left cannot defend their claims. Even when they disagree, they cannot acknowledge the gravity of "not true leftists" acting harmfully.

So, in a cynical sense, IntFems and SJWs need there to be a problem to stay relevant

Take for example, when I brought this one up on a left-of-center Discord: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fTYz50MLMM

The reaction was:

It would be funny if some emails from intersectional feminists came out saying the need to use the pied piper strategy to make men the boogey man.

You have university professors calling out **ON TAPE** for extermination of whites, and
A) I need to come out of rabbit hole for bringing it up
B) it's only a problem in top universities
C) Orange Man Bad

the tax cuts are bad

Regarding the tax cuts, you can just use this next time:

because the richer people saved more money than the poorer people

huh???

I don't care to explain the tax cuts because the entire topic is **DERAILMENT**.