Category: equality

F/U/O

Golden Globe Awards, a place for all the elite better than most of us people slobber in a orgy of self and peer absorption pedestaling.

After a few months of nauseating reports trashing men in the industry who were alleged, not proven in a court of law, to have done bad things to women as if women have never done bad things to men, it was refreshing to see the writers of the opening MC skit basically poke fun at the matter though trashing Spacey might have not exactly been on par with Weinstein, nevertheless they did a great job of doing their job, entertaining. Other years we have heard nauseating over emphasis of political views that over-permeate these industry award reely good shows.

Alas, as the show went on we get to the end and the big black woman speaks. She had a talk show once. She’s about to receive the CBD award. She has to buy a warehouse again to house them all. The woman has an ego like a freight train heading toward a snow pile.

In her speech she tells the story which she is good at of Recy Taylor, an black woman born who was “brutally raped and left blindfolded by six white men as she walked home from church in 1944.”

The story was told using “African-American” to describe the woman, and instead of using Caucasian, no, she uses the term white. It’s the thing these daze to trash white men. They have destroyed the world that created a system of wealth generation that she slobbers over.

The former nauseating talk show host should received the award for being a big bag of air, using storytelling to twist reality. She did it with health problems – HIV/AIDS/GARBAGE.

Look at her use of language.

Take a HEAR at how different it seems when it’s said as she actually said it, “Recy Taylor an African-American who was brutally raped and left blindfolded by six white men…”. Do you notice how it makes the woman appear better than the white men? I mean drop the rape part and just look at the two terms. This is how story tellers use language to get you into their world, a space where they purposefully want you to be, feeling all sorts of emotions that they want to elicit. This is the entertainment industry at it’s core.

The problem is that certain entertainers twist reality, and then move people to do things they had no interest in doing prior in a very crafty way.

Oprah is an opportunist. Note the above image. She and others like her use tragedies for their gain, get in the public eye, act like you will save them, like you care about them, then go back to your penthouse and watch yourself on TV and all the little people doing the real work.

She led the charge in promoting the failed theory that a virus was in charge of gay dudes dicks and entire bodies. It was HORSE/SHIT. You were not around then, you were a square then, and didn’t hear the terror that she and other story tellers created in people.

HIV was going to kill 2/3rds of the world’s population she presented on her show and of course it was due to a white dude, a flight attendant no less.

The story telling moved people to perpetuate non-non-nonsensical hype from other story tellers. HIV/AIDS was in the news daily and in all the talk shows. People flocked to their screens to learn.

Techniques used to elicit certain emotions for one’s gain:

1. Be sure to define an exact number of white men, or viruses, don’t leave it to their imagination. For example don’t say a virus, or a man, give it drama.

2. Use the general color when putting down someone who is American-European. Do not say European-American or American-European or dare say their exact nationality. Saying those although technically would be more appropriate and linguistically correct, when that’s said it brings the mind to wonderful Europe, we as STORY/TELLERS are not here to be fair, equal, correct, you don’t want to do that when subtly trashing white men. Make them ALL sound like gutter rats.

3. Never make the subject to be trashed seem equal in any way.

4. Get people excited.

These techniques have been used by many people to make themselves feel better, appear better than, etc. Sometimes it’s all for fun, but with her there always seems to be an agenda.

It was mentioned she should be President. Many love the idea.

Barf.

Feature image of Oprah Winfrey visiting the shelter after other wind blowing phenomena had swept through (Hurricane Katrina) is a FEMA image and in the public domain


Equality is cool

Sears Outlet online has a brand spankin’ new fabulous stainless french door refrigerator that would cost $1800 if perfect. It’s priced at $559.93.

It has some obvious flaws though, obviously.

At first when I looked at the photo I went “ooooooooooo that’s bad” and moved on but then I asked my self is it really worth paying $1200 more to have a perfect front door? Not really.

If it was for my house I might actually buy one of these with such damage, and then cover it up with magnet thingy’s or something creative, I mean like how many people have kids that need one of these new french door ones where they put their drawings up on the refrigerator. Others put up those magnets covering their entire front door.

Speaking of front doors, wearing condoms to protect oneself from viruses is like leaving the front door and screen door open and expecting to be protected from flies and viruses, but hey, according to government in 1984, that was all they have to protect you and thus they promoted that as protection! They still promote it as protection from viruses!

Back to what’s cool, save that $1200 by buying this unequal refrigerator for kids college or retirement. I’m even thinking there might be some other type of thing to do to work with the “flaw” rather than be “offended” by it. Not sure what exactly but there has to be something.

I support refrigerator rights.

All appliances should be treated equally including battered individual appliances.

Unfortunately many liberals would not support my views.

Feature image of cooling tower diagram By User:mbeychok [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia Commons

Additional image is cropped and was found on Sears Outlet website and is used in commentary and hope for finding this refrigerator a great home and is believed to be fair use.

BUY THIS UNIT – click here

archive


Make me a painting of a gay wedding cake

Poof, you are a painting of a gay wedding cake.

The gay atheist artist did not want to be forced to draw a painting of Jesus Christ licking the face of Mona Lisa and pissing on her. The state made it a crime for the artist to refuse the gay couple.

Logic says he should not be forced to, it’s against his beliefs. Heavy hand of government is not right.

Would you agree? Of course you would.

So too the gay cake artist should not be forced to make a gay wedding cake. It’s against the artist’s beliefs.

This is simple logic yet the SGCO/NEOAILS – Stupid Gay Community Of Non Elected Officials And It’s Libtard Supporters keep pushing this narrative that it’s an equal rights issue. It is not, it is a freedom of expression issue, or better put, a freedom to decide one’s expression issue.

You can’t force people to express themselves the way you want them to. It would be like forcing the atheist baby sitter to recite bible verses and she says “I’m sorry I do not want the job” and the mom has a fit and calls a lawyer saying her equal rights were violated and it stupidly has to go to the Supreme Court to DECIDE THAT she has the right to refuse the job.

Another example, the gay dude says “No I don’t want to recite fundamentalist Christian crap to your kid, find someone else to do that” and the mom again has a fit and says she has the right to force him to do the job.

Same with the Christian cake baker, he has a fundamental right to be able to refuse any job presented him. It’s not like he’s got wedding cakes in the window and the gay couple says “We will take this one” and he says “Fags I don’t sell to”, it’s that he’s refusing to be their hired artist.

This is not a matter of a cashier at a store saying they will not sell the Nintendo to the gay couple because they don’t believe in gay marriage, if someone did that that would be discrimination, this is about artistic expression and forcing one to do something against their beliefs. You can’t do that in the US.

Rolling Stone Magazine, a libtard pile of words, said it seems to be leaning way over toward the rights of the cake baker, claiming as to be expected, that such a thing is discrimination and that gays again will suffer those pangs yet again.

Paleeeze. Frankly, discrimination in many things is perfectly legal. Should the gay atheist cake artist be forced to do Fundamental Musli-Christian wedding cakes?

Supreme court will decide soon. I gather they of brilliant mind, Supreme Court Justices, will decide for the artist, and not the hissy fitter.

Reference article


Gay cake decorating goes to Supreme Court

Here’s why i think the gays are going to lose on this one, or the QWERTY’s or the whatevers….

An artist has a right to refuse service to anyone. They don’t have to take a job if they don’t want to.

Government cannot force me to sing Star Spangled Banner.

I cannot be forced to paint a Nazi image on a cake if it offends me.

A business can choose to not decorate on a cake or display on a store shelf a Nazi image. regardless of the fact that we are all free to say Heil Hitler, or write it on paper, or decorate a cake with it.

While government cannot stop you or anyone from freely making gay wedding cakes, or Nazi cakes, government also cannot force people to decorate the way a customer demands.

What kind of society would we have if government could force us to not be discriminating consumers and discriminating businesses and have discriminating taste?

Like the win for Hobby Lobby which won it’s case to refuse providing abortions through insurance based on the company owner’s religious beliefs, the non-gay cake makers equally provide that same non-service to others. They don’t care who is GLTBorQ+, they don’t make LGBTQ+ cakes for anyone.

With gay QWERTY wedding cakes, the business does not provide gay wedding cakes to any customer regardless of whether they are married same sex or married opposite sex, they provide them equally to no one.

They refuse to provide a gay wedding cake to anyone. Certain artistic expressions they feel violate their religious beliefs. They do this equally.

The equality argument that the “gay couple” is being discriminated against is not being applied correctly.

Artists can not be forced by government to do things against their religious beliefs or whatever beliefs, as long as they apply that equally.

Now if the cake decorator offered gay wedding cakes to straight couples who wanted one to display at their church to bash gays ceremoniously by smashing the cake to pieces, as a display of hate, and not provide a similar gay wedding cake to a gay couple, then we have a problem of unequal treatment. If this was the case then the gay couple would win.

Cake decorators in this case simply do not want to make gay wedding cakes for anyone. It doesn’t matter that gay marriage is legal. Equally, if a gay business doesn’t want to make straight wedding cakes for anyone, only gay wedding cakes, they have that right.

Gays simply cannot have their gay wedding cake in all it’s splendor and poop it out too, but really, the more pressing problem is figuring out how they got that square piece of cake from that round one (reference image above).

Feature image of a chocolate fudge cake By Tracy Hunter from Kabul,, Afghanistan (Chocolate Fudge Cake  Uploaded by Ekabhishek) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons


iSlaveU

The teacher at a college is being blasted for having history incorrect.

The quiz had multiple choices and the black student was stunned to have been corrected. Two of the choices were:

“C”: “Black family bonds were destroyed by the abuses of slave owners, who regularly sold off family members to other slave owners.”

“D”: “Most slave families were headed by two parents.”

Student picked “C” (wrong). Most slave families were headed by two parents.

Just off the top of my head, “D” seems correct, makes sense that a slave owner would find that it’s more efficient and overall works out better for slave families to have both parents around.

MAKES SENSE LIKE OMG SO TOTALLY MAKES SENSE.

But NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, the Black Entertainment Television online site has to write up and perpetuate the myths of “C”.

http://www.bet.com/news/national/2017/06/10/this-student-went-off-on-her-professor-for-saying–slave-familie.html?google_editors_picks=true

And Google of course has to perpetuate it as well (notice the end of the Uniform Resource Locator).

So there was a civil Twitter war that President Lincoln started and the girl who was graded “incorrectly” (correctly) says “she hopes that she raised awareness about whitewashing history.”

OMG whitewashing history? Is this what they are promoting? That is sickening.

People who believe that crap are slaves to their media masters!

Wikipedia states:

While slavery was institutionally recognized by most societies, it has now been outlawed in all recognized countries,[4][5] the last being Mauritania in 2007. Nevertheless, there are still more slaves today than at any previous point in history:[6] an estimated 45 million people remain enslaved worldwide.[7] The most common form of the slave trade is now commonly referred to as human trafficking. Chattel slavery is also still practiced by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. In other areas, slavery (or unfree labour) continues through practices such as debt bondage, serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, certain adoptions in which children are forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage.[8]

Debt bondage is especially prevalent in the United States.

Feature image entitled “The White Slave” by Abastenia St. Leger Eberle – “The Survey”, Journal Publication, Ohio. May 3, 1913., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2689616


Potty parity

When discussing politics to your Trump loving friends who hate political correctness and love swimming in apprentice stew, rose colored glasses are mandatory now as well as being politically correct in the discussion.

Yes it can be a challenge discussing how the planet will be spinning out of control around the sun for another billion years, but take heart, you can always throw the babies bathwater in their face as a way to get their attention.

So let’s chat with them about potty parity.

Wikipedia states: 

In 2013 that the state of California passed bill 1266 (“The School Success and Opportunity Act”) also recognized as the “transgender bathroom bill” which enforces gender-neutral toilets at universities. Bill 1266 only targets a small group of the population in the United States.

Pfft, what’s in a name!

Wikipedia also states:

Parity may be defined in various ways in relation to facilities in a building. The simplest is as equal floor space for men’s and women’s washrooms. Since men’s rooms include urinals, which take up less space than stalls, this still results in more facilities for men. An alternative parity is by number of fixtures within washrooms. However, since women on average spend more time in washrooms more men are able to use more facilities per unit time. More recent parity regulations therefore require more fixtures for women to ensure that the average time spent waiting to use the toilet is the same for women as for men, or to equalise throughputs of men’s and women’s toilets.[3]

Oh God, now this will be part of the issue, parity matters, equal time waiting for all genders, how dare they!

Wikipedia even went further stating:

Women spend more time in washrooms than men, for physiological and cultural reasons.[4] The requirement to use a cubicle rather than a urinal means urination takes longer;[4] twice as long on average in studies.[1] Women also make more visits to washrooms. Urinary tract infections and incontinence are more common in women.[4] Pregnancy, menstruation, breastfeeding, and diaper-changing increase usage.[4] The elderly, who are disproportionately female, take longer and more frequent bathroom visits.

Wikipedia sure talks a lot. Reminds me of the fat slobs that sits in the steam room expecting the fat to melt away, while they talk to you like someone pulled that string on their back, never shutting up and Elizabeth Warren who never shuts up about parity.

Of course, all this parity rights will be accomplished using millions of dollars spent on software and algorithms and consultants who are friends of politicians. Here is one of those tools that taxpayers might spend $1 hundred tribbion dollars on:

The Cuisenaire Rods

parity_of_5_and_6_cuisenaire_rods

 

Consider The Following When Shopping For Other Ideas

Going to the bathroom when out shopping at Target only affects a very small part of the population.

Suggest they just remove bathrooms since it only affects a tiny minority of shoppers.

Feature image credit of a By Rubric – Ian Henderson, Rubric, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=43885305

Image of Cuisenaire Rods credit By Hyacinth (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons


I’ve got to give a P

No one gives a P.

The acronym community includes Lesbians, Gays (lesbians are gay separating the terms as though gay is only men), Bisexuals, Transgendered, and Questioningals in creating and using the acronym LGBTQ, but they leave out Polyamorsexuals.

The new term is now LGBTQP thank you.

Polyamorsexuals are amorous with multiple people. This can be men on men or women on women or all genders.

If equality groups and community representatives who are not elected are going to continue to leave out the P stop donating to them, they are not promoting equality equally.


Sexual arousal as a base for arguing against bathroom inclusion doesn’t fly

It’s the same argument made against a society allowing women to wear mini skirts. In America’s dark ages those arguments were made that those skimpy dresses shouldn’t be allowed to be worn in public as they might arouse the opposite sex. Arousal is the argument that The Baptist churches use for women not wearing lipstick and makeup but most of society doesn’t make such restrictions nor does mere sexual arousal mean that a person can’t control their own behavior.

The Baptist church may be free to make those restrictions as a part of their religion and they are guaranteed the right to chose those restrictions as a part of their way to practice their faith without interference from government, but the US government and state governments may not. Thus the claim that we cannot have people of the “wrong sex” in bathrooms because they might be sexually aroused simply just doesn’t have any merit. A man can be sexually aroused by merely seeing a woman in a cold weather parka, pants, seeing blond hair, or just seeing them move without even knowing their gender! If we had to ban things based on sexual arousal, this whole society would shut down.

As it stands homomen use locker rooms and bathrooms and surely are occasionally or often aroused yet that doesn’t create any problem that we are hearing about in the news regularly, if there is any problem at all.

Another thing that doesn’t fly with these anti-gender-inclusion exclamations is the more a society suppresses such things the more these acts need to or want to come out and express themselves. Simply seeing something that is arousing does not force someone to act on their impulses. To  allow the intermingling of the different sexes in bathrooms ends up making one stronger, not weaker.

This argument can also be applied to the bullying problem. To simply separate those who bully from those who get bullied is not the solution to helping someone cope with their hurt feelings. Teaching those who get bullied to stand up for themselves or apply realistic principles of how to handle it effectively is better than separation except in more extreme cases.

To separate those who are on the “fringe” who feel they need to go to a bathroom that is more comfortable for them and doesn’t match their exact birth gender is like that latter way of handling bullying by separation. Why can’t these bathroom gender separation extremists see what they are doing? It’s complete hypocrisy when you compare it to all other areas of how these translogicals live their lives.

inspired by this article

read detailed description of the law and how many cities and businesses have boycotted the state of North Carolina

how did separate but equal bathrooms start? let’s look at a 1920’s law!


Issue identify

Everyone has issues. I dentify that people have issues. Issues even have issues, mostly with the people that create them.

The conservatives in North Carolina who pass gass and pass bathroom laws have issues with men “changing their sex” to woman and then using a woman’s rest room. Why? Because they are stupid and read their Bibles too much and listen to huckster preachers.

A nation that depends on hypocrites to write laws is pretty stupid. These people do not literally do what their Bibles tell them to do so why do they literally write laws that same way? No one does what their Bibles tell them to do such as sacrifice humans yet they sacrifice human rights all the time as they claim that the laws will protect us. This is what they believe about their Biblical Law, that it must be obeyed, yet again, when you look at what they do, they break Biblical Law all the time so why are these people writing our laws especially for things that only God understands, and not them, transgenders.

Here are a few points I wanted to highlight and comment on or clarify from an article found here.

WHEN a man gets “the surgery” that lops off their dick their birth certificate doesn’t just magically change AND the states have different policies regarding changing one’s sex on a birth certificate THEN it can take months for the process and paperwork to complete SO what is the now woman supposed to do hold it for 3 months?
SO now a woman she decides to break the law and use the woman’s bathroom THIS violates law like violating the old testament bathroom laws TRANSVESTITE made a decision based on her personal religious beliefs and evaluation of what felt best for her according to her religion so now that religious freedoms are protected she gets to use the bathroom of her choice THAT is what needs to take precedent, individual choice and religious freedoms in this case, but not necessarily in all cases we would look at

TRANS/MISSION

When you hear that word you think maybe a vehicle and shifter, or you might think of transmission of viruses. That’s what I thought of when I saw a banner that was displayed at a protest by a group that calls itself “Tranzmission”. So in reading that banner with the word “Tranzmission” my mind though immediately of sexual diseases because when does anyone hold up a banner about shifting automobile parts that says such a thing? I would suggest they use some other name for their group.

Tranzmission is a transgendered organization that is working toward equal rights, and possibly unequal at the same time when it comes to those goopy bathroom bills where men who have dicks can be forced to whip out their dicks in the same locker room as women who claim they are men trapped inside a woman’s body. Wait I said that wrong, it’s so confusing. That should be “same locker room…..” wait, I said that right the first time.

Since their OUTWARD BODY is what is most prominent, and causes separation between bathrooms and locker rooms, and not inner feelings or parts of the brain, it seems logical for those bathrooms and locker rooms to treat equally based on their bodies and not their minds. If we get into equal treatment based on how a mind was born that way, or how a mind evolves that way, we are going to get into a whole big mess of things, actually, we already are in that mess of things that’s why there’s such a push back in states that are creating bathroom bills and more.

If we continue down this road, basing things on the mind and not the body, then Norman Bates can say “I wasn’t born this way, I was born sane so I should not be locked up treated unequally to others in an insane asylum” or the child molester can say “I was born a child and have remained a child in how I feel, my body does not reflect who I am, so I want to go to preschool with all the other kids.”

This by no means is a comparison to criminal or insane behavior but rather an example of the problem we face when we favor the mind over the body in making these decision and the choice of terms to use when deciding on how to name an organization.

Those who have created the laws that keep things as they are have a point and it seems the scales of justice might just be tipping in their favor.

The Tranzmission.org website states this:

Take care of yourself, and your family and friends who are transgender, gender fluid and non binary.

Though I agree with taking care of people and their concern for the homeless, like OMG what the F is gender fluid and non binary? Do I now refer to GF and NB people? Is GF and NB a subset of T? Is it now LGB T/GFNB?

Of course I could languagally express the same OMG astonishdietystartlement about a billion other things that I don’t understand like terms used in rocket science, and medicine, but really, does sexuality and gender expression have to get so complicated?

In the article by The Advocate (link below) I was reading and felt sympathetic to the plight, but then I read this “I couldn’t believe that state lawmakers were so hell-bent on depriving me of basic equal rights”.

Really, basic equal rights? Hell bent? You continue to have many protections like everyone else on basic equal rights, this is about bathrooms, locker rooms, and being actually being born one gender by all physical accounts and feeling like you were born wrong.

That’s a mind thing and that’s not the same thing as being born a human and being told that you can’t get a job because your gender is wrong or your religion is wrong or your familial status is wrong as none of those things deal with bathrooms or locker rooms. That’s where equal rights make sense and those are BASIC EQUAL RIGHTS YOU STILL HAVE.

Now one might argue that people have basic rights where employers and restaurants and services cannot discriminate based on religion, but really, yes they can. If a Christian book store has someone apply who is a Satanist, runs a Satanist blog, and wears swastika tattoos, they can be discriminated against based on their religious beliefs.

So please, don’t give me this crap about being denied basic equal rights. This is about going to the bathroom or locker room that matches what your body was born with or continues to have. Just because you feel like a woman and wear a dress doesn’t mean you should be using the ladies room to whip out your cock and take a piss in one of the stalls.

Then again, maybe it does. Did you know there’s a safe bathroom map for transpeople?

And one could make the argument that birds and stables don’t have these issues.

references:

“Congratulations North Carolina you made me scared to pee”

Tranzmission.org

Safe bathroom map on Google for North Carolina

“If you lead a horse to water you have to let them pee”