Quote:

---

Canadian journalist quit CBC over woke ‘radical political agenda’

A veteran news producer for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has said she quit in disgust at the national network jettisoning “journalistic integrity” for a woke “radical political agenda.”

In an op-ed for the National Post, Tara Henley said she left following a flood of complaints about the dramatic change at the CBC over the last 18 months.

Working at the network now involves having to “abandon journalistic integrity,” Henley insisted.

“It is to sign on, enthusiastically, to a radical political agenda that originated on Ivy League campuses in the United States and spread through American social media platforms that monetize outrage and stoke societal divisions.

“It is to pretend that the ‘woke’ worldview is near universal — even if it is far from popular with those you know, and speak to, and interview, and read,” she said.

CBC staff have to “accept the idea that race is the most significant thing about a person, and that some races are more relevant to the public conversation than others.”

“It is, in my newsroom, to fill out racial profile forms for every guest you book; to actively book more people of some races and less of others,” she claimed.

She said the radical change at the broadcaster led to a flood of complaints in the months before she quit.

“People want to know why, for example, non-binary Filipinos concerned about a lack of LGBT terms in Tagalog is an editorial priority for the CBC, when local issues of broad concern go unreported,” she wrote.

---

Quote:

---

Meet Jed Rakoff, The Judge Who Exposed The "Rigged Game"
Wednesday, Jan 05, 2022 - 08:40 PM

Authored by Matt Taibbi via TK News,

On November 27, 2011, a federal judge named Jed Rakoff threw out a $285 million regulatory settlement between Citigroup and the Securities and Exchange Commission, blasting it as “neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest.” The S.E.C. and Citigroup were stunned. Expecting to see their malodorous deal wrapped up, the parties were instead directed “to be ready to try this case” the following summer.
Jed Rakoff

Try a case? Was the judge kidding? A pattern had long ago been established in which mega-companies like Citigroup that were implicated in serious offenses would be let off with slaps on the wrist, by soft-touch regulators who expected judges to play ball. These officials in many cases were private sector hotshots doing temporary tours as regulators, denizens of the revolving door biding time before parachuting back into lucrative corporate defense jobs. A judge who refused to sign the settlements such folks engineered was derailing everyone’s gravy train.

Citigroup had replicated a scheme employed by numerous big banks of the era, helping construct a “born to lose” portfolio of rotten mortgage securities to be unloaded on customer-dupes, who were unaware the bank intended to bet against them. A similar case involving a Goldman, Sachs deal called “Abacus” had concluded the previous year with a hefty fine, but, infamously, no admission of wrongdoing.

In the Citigroup version, the bank earned $160 million in profits, customers lost $700 million, and the S.E.C. wanted to impose a $285 million fine. As noted by papers like the Washington Post at the time, the S.E.C.’s logic was to ask the bank to return the money ($160 million plus interest equaled $190 million) and pay a $95 million civil penalty on top.

Citigroup that quarter alone earned $3.8 billion in profits, which meant the S.E.C. proposed to charge the bank — which had been functionally bankrupt in 2008 and was booming again thanks to a massive public bailout, engineered in part by former Citi officials by the way — a fee of 2.5% of its quarterly profits. In a country where an ordinary schlub could get multiple years in prison for something like third-degree attempted theft of a car, seeking no individual penalties and asking shareholders to forego a tiny fraction of earnings as restitution for stealing $160 million was a joke.

The fine was “pocket change to any entity as large as Citigroup,” noted Rakoff, in a blistering 15-page opinion. Objecting to the practice of allowing corporate crooks to walk away without admission of wrongdoing, he noted that Citigroup had already begun asserting its right to deny the allegations, both in litigation and to the media. This, he said, left the public despairing “of ever knowing the truth in a matter of obvious public importance.”

Such a policy, he concluded, would reduce the court to “a mere handmaiden to a settlement privately negotiated on the basis of unknown facts.” And, well, screw that.

There was cheering in the legal community and even in the press (“Judge Jed Rakoff Courageously Rejects SEC-Citigroup Settlement” was the Post headline) for a few minutes. Then came the inevitable plot twist. Citigroup and the S.E.C., robber and cop, joined together to appeal the decision, forcing Rakoff to retain counsel. Before long, Rakoff was overturned. An appeals court judge ruled he had stepped out of bounds by demanding the “truth” behind allegations, saying “consent decrees are primarily about pragmatism.”
The original dirty deal was re-routed back to Rakoff, who was then forced by the appeals court to approve it. “That court has now fixed the menu, leaving this court with nothing but sour grapes,” Rakoff wrote in a succinct but seething opinion, adding one parting warning:

This court fears that, as a result of the Court of Appeal’s decision, the settlements reached by governmental regulatory bodies and enforced by the judiciary’s contempt powers will in practice be subject to no meaningful oversight whatsoever.

The symbolism of the Rakoff episode was striking. Citigroup had been created by something like the ultimate insider deal. The merger of Citicorp and the insurance conglomerate Travelers had been struck in the late nineties despite apparently conflicting with several laws, including the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.

The merger to create the first American “supermarket bank” only happened because a temporary waiver was granted by Alan Greenspan’s Federal Reserve. This held up in time for Bill Clinton to sign a bipartisan piece of legislation called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, sanctifying the deal after the fact. Former Clinton Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin then skedaddled to a job at the new super-bank that Citi itself described as having “no line responsibilities,” but nonetheless would go on to earn Rubin $115 million, a transaction that grossed out even the Wall Street Journal.

Thus the way the S.E.C. and the Appellate Courts essentially joined hands with this particular firm to strike down Rakoff’s ruling was a graphic demonstration of the self-defense capability of what one former Senate aide I know calls “The Blob,” i.e. the matrix of interconnected (and, not infrequently, intermarried) lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, and executives who run the country from the Washington-New York corridor. I don’t think it’s an accident that politicians in both parties, ranging from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump, began scoring political points by talking about the “rigged game” just after Rakoff’s Capra-esque gesture was overturned. What did Rakoff himself think?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Meanwhile why is this not front-page news?

Quote:

---

Meet Jed Rakoff, The Judge Who Exposed The "Rigged Game"
Wednesday, Jan 05, 2022 - 08:40 PM

Authored by Matt Taibbi via TK News,

On November 27, 2011, a federal judge named Jed Rakoff threw out a $285 million regulatory settlement between Citigroup and the Securities and Exchange Commission, blasting it as “neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest.”

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:


"Back in the day, you could squeeze a lassies titties and she knew it was a joke, nowadays everyone is sooooo woke..."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Seems to me that most people who complain about woke just feel pissed off that they can spill their bigotted bile without actually getting push back.

"Back in the day, you could squeeze a lassies titties and she knew it was a joke, nowadays everyone is sooooo woke..."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Seems to me that most people who complain about woke just feel pissed off that they can spill their bigotted bile without actually getting push back.

"Back in the day, you could squeeze a lassies titties and she knew it was a joke, nowadays everyone is sooooo woke..."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Seems to me that most people who complain about woke just feel pissed off that they can spill their bigotted bile without actually getting push back.

"Back in the day, you could squeeze a lassies titties and she knew it was a joke, nowadays everyone is sooooo woke..."

---

Maybe things are different in Australia,more backwards, but I call baloney on this, MAGONS.

Today, people get offended if you don't call them by the right pronoun- which they have arbitrarily decided is theirs- and obsess over the lack of non-gendered pronouns in Tagalog? Male rapists can arbtrarily decide that they're women and get sent to women's prisons? Math, hard work, and punctuality are "white"? Cooking an ethnic dish is "cultural appropriation"? Using words like "black" and "brown" are "mucroaggressions"? University students need cuddle puppies (poor puppies, being manhandled by a series of random needy strangers!) and coloring-book "safe spaces"?

Meanwhile, it's OK to say "whites are racist", "whites are evil and should be killed" and we're all supposed to accept that?

SERIOUSLY??

I know bigoted bile when I hear it. Having worked in a male-dominated profession and experienced ACTUAL discrimination (not allowed to do field work because "we always had a woman in the lab") and ACTUAL sexual harassment, I think ppl are being overly sensitive.

I used to supervise a fairly large group, and one of my team filed 25 complaints - 25!! - against various people including against her closest friend, and only one was justified.

I have sat people down and required apologies for insensitive or insulting comments, and faced down hyper-aggressive staff who tended to ball up their fists and yell. Privately counseled gay and drug-usimg staff on their HIV and HepC problems and clipped someone, repeatedly, for his insulting/ sarcastic sense of "humor" (which did not go over well with most of the female Asian staff, I can tell you!).

So it's not like I didn't address problems. BUT, some people are just overly sensitive and can't be happy with common politeness, they insist on carrying their grievances wherever they go and demand continuous recognition for the precious unique snowflakes that they are.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Seems to me that most people who complain about woke just feel pissed off that they can spill their bigotted bile without actually getting push back.

"Back in the day, you could squeeze a lassies titties and she knew it was a joke, nowadays everyone is sooooo woke..."

---

Maybe things are different in Australia,more backwards, but I call baloney on this, MAGONS.

---

Quote:

---

Today, people get offended if you don't call them by the right pronoun- which they have arbitrarily decided is theirs- and obsess over the lack of non-gendered pronouns in Tagalog? Male rapists can arbtrarily decide that they're women and get sent to women's prisons? Math, hard work, and punctuality are "white"? Cooking an ethnic dish is "cultural appropriation"? Using words like "black" and "brown" are "mucroaggressions"? University students need cuddle puppies (poor puppies, being manhandled by a series of random needy strangers!) and coloring-book "safe spaces"?

Meanwhile, it's OK to say "whites are racist", "whites are evil and should be killed" and we're all supposed to accept that?

SERIOUSLY??

I know bigoted bile when I hear it. Having worked in a male-dominated profession and experienced ACTUAL discrimination (not allowed to do field work because "we always had a woman in the lab") and ACTUAL sexual harassment, I think ppl are being overly sensitive.

I used to supervise a fairly large group, and one of my team filed 25 complaints - 25!! - against various people including against her closest friend, and only one was justified.

I have sat people down and required apologies for insensitive or insulting comments, and faced down hyper-aggressive staff who tended to ball up their fists and yell. Privately counseled gay and drug-usimg staff on their HIV and HepC problems and clipped someone, repeatedly, for his insulting/ sarcastic sense of "humor" (which did not go over well with most of the female Asian staff, I can tell you!).

So it's not like I didn't address problems. BUT, some people are just overly sensitive and can't be happy with common politeness, they insist on carrying their grievances wherever they go and demand continuous recognition for the precious unique snowflakes that they are.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I have learned that sometimes bringing about change

---

Quote:

---

means you ahve to be a bit unpleasant, you have to get bolshy in order to get your view across. You have to piss off the status quo,

---

Quote:

---

Magonsdaughter:
Seems to me that most people who complain about woke just feel pissed off that they can spill their bigotted bile without actually getting push back.

"Back in the day, you could squeeze a lassies titties and she knew it was a joke, nowadays everyone is sooooo woke..."

SIGNY: Maybe things are different in Australia,more backwards, but I call baloney on this, MAGONS.

MAGONS: Ouch that hurt - especially coming from an American :) Now if you were European I would probably say you had a point.

---

Quote:

---

SIGNY: Today, people get offended if you don't call them by the right pronoun- which they have arbitrarily decided is theirs- and obsess over the lack of non-gendered pronouns in Tagalog? Male rapists can arbtrarily decide that they're women and get sent to women's prisons? Math, hard work, and punctuality are "white"? Cooking an ethnic dish is "cultural appropriation"? Using words like "black" and "brown" are "mucroaggressions"? University students need cuddle puppies (poor puppies, being manhandled by a series of random needy strangers!) and coloring-book "safe spaces"?

Meanwhile, it's OK to say "whites are racist", "whites are evil and should be killed" and we're all supposed to accept that?

SERIOUSLY??

I know bigoted bile when I hear it. Having worked in a male-dominated profession and experienced ACTUAL discrimination (not allowed to do field work because "we always had a woman in the lab") and ACTUAL sexual harassment, I think ppl are being overly sensitive.

I used to supervise a fairly large group, and one of my team filed 25 complaints - 25!! - against various people including against her closest friend, and only one was justified.

I have sat people down and required apologies for insensitive or insulting comments, and faced down hyper-aggressive staff who tended to ball up their fists and yell. Privately counseled gay and drug-usimg staff on their HIV and HepC problems and clipped someone, repeatedly, for his insulting/ sarcastic sense of "humor" (which did not go over well with most of the female Asian staff, I can tell you!).

So it's not like I didn't address problems. BUT, some people are just overly sensitive and can't be happy with common politeness, they insist on carrying their grievances wherever they go and demand continuous recognition for the precious unique snowflakes that they are.

MAGONS: I would probably agree with much of what you say here actually. People sometimes seem to fight the wrong battles in my view, but I do see that people who throw around the word 'woke' often don't like being called out on their views, or being asked to consider something uncomfortable about their own position of priviledge, to which they are often largely blind. It's easy to dismiss something as 'woke' if it makes you uncomfortable.

---

Quote:

---

MAGONS: Some of the stuff you mention makes me uncomfortable too, but I get that the pronounn thing was meant to demonstrate being an ally to a group of people who traditionally have had it very tough. Lots of violence and discrimination against TRans people, having worked with a couple many years ago before they started to lobby.

I have learned that sometimes bringing about change means you ahve to be a bit unpleasant, you have to get bolshy in order to get your view across. You have to piss off the status quo,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Punctuality is whiteness.


I have heard this said.
But I always assumed it was a joke, a caricature, a pejorative. To say that blacks were incapable of being punctual, productive, competent, lawful just seemed mocking.

But now I see they are serious. For blacks to consider lateness, incompetence, tardiness, laziness, addictions, and lawbreaking to be virtues is just jarring to me - a logic failure. Seems more antisocial than any inherent sociability.

I have understood that some blacks practice criminality as a virtue, but I had considered that as merely gang related action, similar to Italians or East Coast morals.


I am rethinking my experiences with friends and co-workers who were black.
I guess the goal is for us to pity them, as we would the mentally retarded. Little wonder they maintain a socially isolated clique, whereas I merely thought they were being racist.

Boggles the mind a bit.

Until now, I had not considered that blacks might be an inherently alien species, antithetical to the human condition of striving, prisoners to the geneologic failures and faults of their race, like any dog or monkey. I had assumed they were capable of thought, rationality, and I granted them equal intellectual footing. Not realizing they were striving to be less, the lowest they could be.

---

Quote:

---

Punctuality is whiteness.

I have heard this said.
But I always assumed it was a joke, a caricature, a pejorative. To say that blacks were incapable of being punctual, productive, competent, lawful just seemed mocking.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The problem with "the left" ("progressives", "social justice warriors", "BLM", "Antifa" or whatver they call themselves) isn't their "by any means necessary" mantra.

---

Quote:

---

The problem with "the left", or however they choose to call themselves is that they're backed by people with real money and real power: the media, big tech, the DNC, Wall Street. Without that backing, they'd just be loose wingnuts trolling on fff.net.

The funny thing is, these people actually think they're "fighting the status quo!" Haven't they bothered to wonder why big money is mouthing their causes(s)?

Boy, are they naive!! Until you affect the big corporations' bottom lines ... and the rules that govern their behavior ... you have't done dick. If you're doing something real, you'll get pushback: not from little people like you and me who have no power, but from seriously wealthy and powerful people. Push hard enough, and you will be discredited, threatened, ruined, possibly jailed, or even killed. Nobody on "the left" has even come close to touching that third rail. ergo, they're not doing anything that REMOTELY affects the power structure, the status quo.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Punctuality is whiteness.


I have heard this said.
But I always assumed it was a joke, a caricature, a pejorative. To say that blacks were incapable of being punctual, productive, competent, lawful just seemed mocking.

But now I see they are serious. For blacks to consider lateness, incompetence, tardiness, laziness, addictions, and lawbreaking to be virtues is just jarring to me - a logic failure. Seems more antisocial than any inherent sociability.

I have understood that some blacks practice criminality as a virtue, but I had considered that as merely gang related action, similar to Italians or East Coast morals.


I am rethinking my experiences with friends and co-workers who were black.
I guess the goal is for us to pity them, as we would the mentally retarded. Little wonder they maintain a socially isolated clique, whereas I merely thought they were being racist.

Boggles the mind a bit.

Until now, I had not considered that blacks might be an inherently alien species, antithetical to the human condition of striving, prisoners to the geneologic failures and faults of their race, like any dog or monkey. I had assumed they were capable of thought, rationality, and I granted them equal intellectual footing. Not realizing they were striving to be less, the lowest they could be.

---

Quote:

---

SIGNYM:
The problem with "the left" ("progressives", "social justice warriors", "BLM", "Antifa" or whatver they call themselves) isn't their "by any means necessary" mantra.

SIX: It's a VERY large part of it. "You're going to do EXACTLY as I say or you are going to pay the price" is not a healthy attitude. It's what sociopaths do. It's what hypocrites do. It violates any form of good including the Golden Rule.

SIGNY: They're all over the political and religious spectrum. If they were Muslim we'd call them jihadists. If they were anti-establishment we'd call them "revolutonaries". If they believed that whites were truly superior we'd call them "white supremacists". In any case,we'd call them "extremists".

SIX: I'd like you to clarify this part of your post. I had started writing a reply, but then realized I don't think I'm actually understanding where you were getting at and didn't want to go off topic.

---

Quote:

---

SIGNY: The problem with "the left", or however they choose to call themselves is that they're backed by people with real money and real power: the media, big tech, the DNC, Wall Street. Without that backing, they'd just be loose wingnuts trolling on fff.net.

The funny thing is, these people actually think they're "fighting the status quo!" Haven't they bothered to wonder why big money is mouthing their causes(s)?

Boy, are they naive!! Until you affect the big corporations' bottom lines ... and the rules that govern their behavior ... you have't done dick. If you're doing something real, you'll get pushback: not from little people like you and me who have no power, but from seriously wealthy and powerful people. Push hard enough, and you will be discredited, threatened, ruined, possibly jailed, or even killed. Nobody on "the left" has even come close to touching that third rail. ergo, they're not doing anything that REMOTELY affects the power structure, the status quo.

SIX: I can't argue that point. But I think you're going beyond my point here and referring to the powerful people with money who are pulling the strings. I'm talking about bottom feeders like you and I and the rest of the 90% of us.

Hitchens said you can't have a debate with somebody who despises you. This is obviously true.

Look at the devolution of my relationship with Wishimay over the years as an example of that. When we first met here, she, JO and I regularly posted outside of the RWED. I posted a lot of pics of the work I was doing, she would post about things that she and her husband were doing, JO was developing nualf and talking about some pretty fantastical math things that were way over my head. We liked each other.

Sometime along the line I turned into a full-time alcoholic and abandoned that and Wish seemed to have made the jump to spending most of her time in the RWED when on this site. By the time I finally woke up out of my 5 year long alcohol bender, she hated me. I'm sure that I was at fault for that and I did or said things that I shouldn't have.

---

Quote:

---

SIX: But I tried, for a very long time to diffuse that situation and get back into her good graces. But eventually I figured out that this wasn't even possible. The Wish I knew before I disappeared into myself wasn't even there anymore.

I was a white male. I didn't agree with her politics. I was an irredeemable piece of trash. If she had her way, I would be first in line for her proposed genocide.

I'm not trying to shirk any responsibility of mine here. I don't know exactly how or when I destroyed our relationship, and being drunk is not an excuse for bad behavior. But I did try, many, many times to apologize to her for anything I'd done.

But it was too late. This wasn't even about me anymore. Something had changed with her in real life. Possibly some sort of major life-changing event for her or somebody she cared about. She was full of hate now. And I had apparently made myself a great lightning rod for her hatered with something (many things?) I said or did while I was drinking myself to death.


It was hard for me to finally turn on her like I did. One of the memories I have a vague recollection of during my drinking days was seeing her go into the RWED and start getting into arguments here and I implored her to stay out of the RWED.

But you can only be abused so long by somebody before you tell them to fuck off.

Wish and I were never, ever going to be able to have a debate about any topic. She hated me with every fiber of her being, even to the point of flat out denying that we ever enjoyed each other's online company with JO despite a long post history that says otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

Slavoj Zizek discusses cancel culture and censorship on Tara Reade’s RT podcast
Many are living in a state of ‘unfreedom’, Zizek said

Slavoj Zizek, the “most dangerous philosopher in the West,” joined Tara Reade on her RT podcast ‘The Politics of Survival’ to discuss the censorship that is currently growing and happening on both sides of the political aisle.

New forms of “de facto censorship” are appearing today, Zizek told Reade during their wide-ranging conversation, and much of it is beginning to come from liberals, who are introducing an “even worse censorship” hidden under the guise of “progressive” politics.

“One word can literally ruin your career,” noted Zizek, the author of ‘Heaven in Disorder’. He and Reade turned to ‘Harry Potter’ actress Emma Watson to prove their point. She received backlash even from the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations after recently posting an image from a pro-Palestine protest.

“Anything you say can be used for whatever purpose,” Zizek said of anti-Semitism accusations thrown at Watson and others, noting that making “abstract” arguments helps in labeling certain views as hateful.
READ MORE: Comedian Ron Placone talks cancel culture on Tara Reade’s RT podcast

Such control and de facto censorship is derived from “unfreedom,” the author declared at one point, noting Julian Assange currently facing numerous charges for simply publishing material that shone a negative light on the US government and others.

“You are free, but you are free within certain coordinates which are tightly controlled and regulated,” he said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


Maybe there is a mutual misunderstanding. My impression of Australia (you ARE Australian?) is that there is a tight, macho, male-bonded culture that revolves around sports and beer, from which women are excluded; and that women are thought of (by men) as being lesser creatures, somehow.

What is your impression of America? (Don't judge us by the posters here, or by our movies!)

---

Quote:

---

That's not pissing off the status quo, it just pisses off ordinary people who have to listen to all the whining.

The ruling elite have no problem with .. in fact, they take advantage of... the fact that we are dividing ourselves into smaller and smaller competing groups fighting over crumbs of "privilege". If you look at the gap between where we ordinary peons live v the REAL privileged elite, the difference between us peons is miniscule. None of us have any REAL agency over how our economy runs, do we? When was the last time you decided on building a factory in Australia? And isn't all of the fuss, in the end, about money? (Who gets the better job, who lives in a safer neighborhood or- here in the USA- who gets healthcare?) Instead of fighting over crumbs of "privilege", why don't we do away with the elephant in the room?

Obviously, I don't condone discrimination, much less violence, against targeted groups, but can't we just commit to a standard of behavior that applies to everyone, and true meritocracy instead of fucking around like this?

You know my tag line?

"I believe in solving problems, not sharing them"?

Well, I believe in solving the lack of opportunity, for EVERYONE, not in ensuring that we're all equally shat upon... or fighting to make sure that somebody else is shat upon more. All of this "wokeness", as far as I'm concerned, is just a major distracting ploy by the privileged elite to prevent us from addressing the REAL problem.

---

Quote:

---

SIGNY: In CA, by the time you parse thru all of the "protected classes" (sex, race, gender, religion age etc etc) there is only ONE "unprotected" group- white, hetero, Xtian, non-aged, males. And they are ... what? Fair game? Shouldn't we All be protected against discrimination and rude behavior?

MaGONS: Boo fucking hoo. Again, look at who owns stuff, who has power.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Richest people in the world.

https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

All men, mainly from the US. A few years back you would have seen only US in the top 15, but world power is changing fast.

NUmber of women Presidents in the history of the US - 0.

But you know, meritocracy etc

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Richest people in the world.

https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

All men, mainly from the US. A few years back you would have seen only US in the top 15, but world power is changing fast.

NUmber of women Presidents in the history of the US - 0.

But you know, meritocracy etc

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Richest people in the world.

https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

All men, mainly from the US. A few years back you would have seen only US in the top 15, but world power is changing fast.

NUmber of women Presidents in the history of the US - 0.

But you know, meritocracy etc

---

Saying that the wealthiest people in the world are all (or mostly) men isn't the same as saying that all men are wealthy. That's a BS argument, MAGONS, and you know it.

MOST men are as shat upon as most women. They're also expected to do the hardest most dangerous work- mining, construction, etc simply because men are (mostly) stronger than women Sorry but that's a biological fact. That's why there's such a problem with trans women competing in women's sports.

Anyway, your point is wrong.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Richest people in the world.

https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

All men, mainly from the US. A few years back you would have seen only US in the top 15, but world power is changing fast.

NUmber of women Presidents in the history of the US - 0.

But you know, meritocracy etc

SIGNY: Saying that the wealthiest people in the world are all (or mostly) men isn't the same as saying that all men are wealthy. That's a BS argument, MAGONS, and you know it.

MOST men are as shat upon as most women. They're also expected to do the hardest most dangerous work- mining, construction, etc simply because men are (mostly) stronger than women Sorry but that's a biological fact. That's why there's such a problem with trans women competing in women's sports.

Anyway, your point is wrong.

MAGONS: Strawman argument what? Where did I say all men are wealthy. Men clearly hold most power and wealth in the world. That doesn't mean all men are better off than all women. You know that isn't what I am saying.

Men are not just ahead because of biological factors, I call BS on that one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Mags seems to be really really pissed that after almost 250 years of this experiment of Free Market, Free Enterprise, Freedom and Liberty, the U.S. is the home of so many of the wealthiest commoners. Out of something like 264 nations.


On another note, I recall hearing that, if all African-Americans would group as one, their economy would be the 13th largest in the world. Implying that being born in USA is a huge gift for them, a far greater advantage than 150 other complete nation's - including their "nation of origin" they claim.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Don't focus too much on just one thing though.

The zoning is a problem. My brother worked in San Diego for a few years and though he was making great money out there, the rent was sick. He got himself into a tiny "apartment" that was somebody's attic and it was $2,500 per month, and that was a good price.

Rent is certainly based off of a supply/demand issue, particularly in large cities like this. And the zoning that they talk about in the video makes sure that affordable rent that is a reasonable distance from a person's place of work is not within reach because there's not nearly enough rental properties to accommodate them, while there are an overabundance of multi-million dollar houses that the could never afford. Most people there aren't going to be making what my brother did either.



I can't even really argue with the people who are charged with the zoning. I've watched neighborhood after neighborhood that I grew up in and around turn into dangerous shitholes over the decades. That's what happens when you make things cheap.

I just appreciate NYT pointing out the hypocrisy of rich, white Liberals.

The ones who virtue signal all day long about equality while the rest of our neighborhoods fall to shit aren't letting any of that happen in their own neighborhoods.



--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

---