"Don't get me wrong Trump has already started out doing all the worst things we feared. Gutting DEI programs although I need y'all to understand that DEI was always trash. The main people going to get hurt by DEI programs are white women and I don't wish bad upon those white women but understand the real purpose of DEI was never being that anyway."
(I assume he means DEI programs being removed will mostly hurt white women.)
They know this really. I see many on social media bring that up. They view liberal white women as being in charge of the left (tm) so they have a particular deep hatred and fear there.
Took me 2 seconds to find this from days ago lol (it's a constant conversation on twitter really):
Liberal white women are a threat against western civilization!I read a paper that basically seemed to suggest when black women are competent they are seen as better leaders than black men and white women. White women are seen as more ruthless and pushy and just have higher visibility really. Competency has no impact on perception of authority for white women though, so it makes sense if/when white women decide not to play that game.Are the 92% of black women who voted against Trump also a threat to democracy or only the White women? Are you saying black women are too ineffective to be a threat, or that White women are uniquely more threatening, or something else? Just wondering.
So in other words yes. They do percieve white women as more threatning.
I can't really blame them:
I don't think this is that paper but it seems to reference it and other things:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....78023119836000
In support of hypothesis 1, Figure 1 shows that the white woman receives a significantly greater dominance penalty than the Asian American woman, white man, and Asian man (p values < .05). In other words, regardless of whether the candidate's behavioral style is dominant or communal, participants perceive a highly competent white woman as more "pushy" and "ruthless" than her Asian and male counterparts. These results also do not differ by race and gender of the subject.Recent research challenges the universality of the dominance penalty and suggests that race and gender intersect to differentially shape reactions to authoritative behavior. In particular, research that takes an intersectional account has highlighted distinct reactions to dominance behavior exhibited by black Americans compared with white Americans (Livingston and Pearce 2009; Livingston, Rosette, and Washington 2012; Pedulla 2014). For example, Livingston et al. (2012) showed that black women who demonstrate high levels of competence face less backlash when they behave authoritatively than do comparable white women or black men.White women are the most dangerous type of women. They kill you with their infinite empathy.They are both a threat. White women just have larger numbers.
For the most part, women (and men with low T) are a threat to civilization (yes, not all women)I think the implication is you're willing to break the sexism taboo but not the racism taboo. Some of your ingroup think you're a bit weak and pathetic for that.I think the implication is that everyone knows the deal with black women so it doesn't need to be said. At least he added "liberal" to the white women bashing
I don't really care as both those things suggest you're unintelligent and uncreative and why would I want that? You're not even nice - because you're posting on twitter so that alone means you're at least somewhat disagreeable and these days usually very disagreeable (and seeing as many intelligent people are assholes - especially online - that's usually some kind of hypothetical plus.)
#himborights
It's never like that on twitter (because they're not himbomaxxing. They're just tweeting about "Kanye humilating his 'Italian wife' (who seems to be Australian)" but I have no context for this story. And how white women deserve bad things or whatever for dating black guys.) Also I just realised Jason is Floridaman:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37615303/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....20221241238321Creative mindset reduces racial ingroup bias in empathic neural responses
Our findings suggest that creative mindsets may reduce racial ingroup biases in empathic neural responses by undermining spontaneous racial categorization of faces.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-iq...s-complicated/Conservatism Negatively Predicts Creativity: A Study Across 28 Countries
Previous studies have found a negative relationship between creativity and conservatism. However, as these studies were mostly conducted on samples of homogeneous nationality, the generalizability of the effect across different cultures is unknown. We addressed this gap by conducting a study in 28 countries. Based on the notion that attitudes can be shaped by both environmental and ecological factors, we hypothesized that parasite stress can also affect creativity and thus, its potential effects should be controlled for. The results of multilevel analyses showed that, as expected, conservatism was a significant predictor of lower creativity, adjusting for economic status, age, sex, education level, subjective susceptibility to disease, and country-level parasite stress. In addition, most of the variability in creativity was due to individual rather than country-level variance. Our study provides evidence for a weak but significant negative link between conservatism and creativity at the individual level (β = −0.08, p < .001) and no such effect when country-level conservatism was considered. We present our hypotheses considering previous findings on the behavioral immune system in humans.
Ehhh yeah sometimes (that explains why conservatives and liberals don't usually get along,) but also as you can see in this post the far right guys actually also hate outgroup men who think a lot like them in a lot of ways lol. Like non-white conservative or religious fundamentalists from around the world.People in the study with lower intellectual abilities tended to dislike minorities they perceived as liberal. People higher on the IQ scale exhibited more prejudice toward conservative groups such as religious fundamentalists.
"Because our study finds this on both ends of the cognitive ability continuum, it suggests this isn't just something that's unique to people with low cognitive ability," said Mark Brandt, a psychologist at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, who conducted the research along with Jarret Crawford, a psychologist at The College of New Jersey. "The simplest explanation for this result is that both people with high and low cognitive ability seem to express prejudice towards people they disagree with."
There are exceptions. I don't think I'm very intelligent (I've taken two intelligence tests in my life with very different results but only one in person when I was 11, and that one I scored pretty low in - 94.) But I'm pretty biased against the military (which apparently is a liberal thing..) Well... I think that militaries shouldn't exist universally actually. As a thing.They found that low-IQ people tended to dislike groups that were both perceived as liberal and that people have little choice about whether they join, such as blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and gays or lesbians.
Higher-IQ people tended to dislike groups that were perceived as conventional and that people seem to have more choice about joining, such as big businesses, Christianity, the Tea Party, Christian fundamentalists and the military. It was somewhat surprising to see prejudice among liberal-leaning people, Brandt said, as liberals tend to be high in the personality trait of openness to experience.
"Even people who are high on openness to experience, openness to new ideas -- they show this link between perceiving somebody as having different attitudes than them and expressing prejudice," Brandt said. "It's kind of depressingly robust." [How to Talk About Race to Kids: Experts' Advice for Parents]
I also think some people are biased against some racial groups but not others so this seems simplistic but it's looking at broad group trends I guess rather than individual variation in bigotry.
Why would it be white women in particular? From what I've read women in general have a ingroup preference for being women that is greater than men's ingroup preference for being men.White women are uniquely bad due to white peoples extremely documented out group preferences. Every other race on the earth has an in group preference except white people (white women in particular). So yea they act in their worst interest in most instances.
Obviously there are more insulting tweet responses about black women as well that I'm not quoting.
I'm always saying this.Women should have zero rights or leadership roles if you want a thriving civilization.Have you thought of moving to a Muslim country? It seems more to your liking.
There are lots of countries like Saudi Arabia that are like that, but they wouldn't be part of the ethnic majority there so they are not interested. Like the guy in the above video said they're 'bratty subs' I guess.
Imagine your son having control over your entire life. The only reason he's even alive is because she chose not to abort or otherwise kill him...Under Saudi Arabia's male guardianship system, every woman must have a male guardian who has the authority to make a range of critical decisions on her behalf.
Traditionally, a woman's male guardian from birth is her father and once she is married her guardian becomes her husband. In other cases, such as when a woman's father or husband has died, a brother or even her son may serve as her male guardian. All women in Saudi Arabia are subject to this practice.
Until August 2019, women in Saudi Arabia were universally treated as legal minors, requiring a male relative's permission for a range of critical decisions, such as working, obtaining family records, and applying for a passport. Women who traveled abroad were required to be accompanied by a male relative, including if they were attending school. Women also could not serve as legal guardians of their own children.
edit: It's like this tweet I just found same kind of thing where the people they are most similar to are the people they hate the most (well aside from Jewish people where applicable but that's just envy mostly):
It was actually mostly ethnic minority people who were avoiding getting vaccinated in the UK and probably the US too but weird far right white guys are always an exception to this rule:We were probably the last country on Earth (besides China?) that required permanent resident applicants to get COVID-19 vaccine, despite its ineffectiveness.
If you were one of those people waiting in Europe to start your consular processing, you can do it now.
I really can't stress how much of a deterrent this was for good immigrants, btw. A deliberate move by Biden to keep anyone White from entering the country. I've gotten a lot of emails from people in UK/AU/DE wanting to come to the US but not wanting the shot.
After adjusting for differences in age, the ethnic groups with the lowest proportion of people continuing to a fourth vaccination were Pakistani (34.8%), Bangladeshi (36.3%), and Black African (41.8%), compared with the White British group (78.1%); the Pakistani and Black African groups were among the lowest uptake of the third vaccination (40.9% and 42.4%, respectively), and far fewer Bangladeshis had continued to a fourth dose (53.1% receiving three doses).
Among the eligible population, people identifying as Jewish had the highest proportion of people continuing to a fourth vaccination (80.7%), with those identifying as Muslim having the lowest continuation from third to fourth dose (36.6%).
People living in the most deprived areas were least likely to continue to a fourth vaccination (63.8%), with vaccination rates increasing as deprivation reduces. Similarly, people in higher managerial occupations had the highest continuation from third to fourth dose (80.7%).Online survey data was collected from US adults (N = 2,022).
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy odds greater for younger, women, & Black respondents.
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy odds greater among Independent and Republican affiliation.
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy odds increased with experiences of racial discrimination.
Social processes in the Increasing Vaccination Model should include racism.^ so this basically found the US and UK had similar levels of hesitancy but because access is better in the UK uptake was still higher for minority groups in the UK compared to the US because it was actually just more difficult to get in the US (say if you don't have insurance I'm guessing.)Worldwide, racial and ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 with increased risk of infection, its related complications, and death. In the initial phase of population-based vaccination in the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K.), vaccine hesitancy may result in differences in uptake. We performed a cohort study among U.S. and U.K. participants who volunteered to take part in the smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study (March 2020-February 2021) and used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios of vaccine hesitancy and uptake. In the U.S. (n = 87,388), compared to white participants, vaccine hesitancy was greater for Black and Hispanic participants and those reporting more than one or other race. In the U.K. (n = 1,254,294), racial and ethnic minority participants showed similar levels of vaccine hesitancy to the U.S. However, associations between participant race and ethnicity and levels of vaccine uptake were observed to be different in the U.S. and the U.K. studies. Among U.S. participants, vaccine uptake was significantly lower among Black participants, which persisted among participants that self-reported being vaccine-willing. In contrast, statistically significant racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake were not observed in the U.K sample. In this study of self-reported vaccine hesitancy and uptake, lower levels of vaccine uptake in Black participants in the U.S. during the initial vaccine rollout may be attributable to both hesitancy and disparities in access.
I remember there was this conspiracy being spread from a religious black guy in... Luton of course (my hometown.) The Luton part is important. Just like Ohio etc.
A recording spread around the world at the end of March, purportedly featuring a former Vodafone executive claiming to let the public in on a secret that the coronavirus pandemic is cover for a global plot to install 5G mobile phone masts, track the world's population through vaccines, and then destroy human society as we know it.
In reality, the Guardian can reveal, the voice on the tape making the baseless claims is an evangelical pastor from Luton who recently tried to convince Zimbabweans to use cryptocurrency in their economy.Edit: ^ this guy is kind of himbomaxxing but it's so dangerously stupid it's not cute. He himbomaxxed too close to the sun imo."It has nothing to do with biological warfare but is our bodies reacting to radiofrequency radiation," he told listeners to the 38-minute recording, claiming the real cause of global deaths was new mobile technology causing cell poisoning. "They are using coronavirus to try to hide the fact that people are dying from the 5G frequency."
Also he's not a conventionally attractive slim guy who eats lollipops and likes pikachu so. There was an attempt but no.
Also there's the thing where:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6890261/
The total regression model indicated odd beliefs/magical thinking, trait Machiavellianism, and primary psychopathy were significant, positive predictors of belief in conspiracy theories. No other predictors reached significance. Results of the current study highlight individuals who might be more susceptible to believing conspiracy theories. Specifically, these results indicate that the individual more likely to believe in conspiracy theories may have unusual patterns of thinking and cognitions, be strategic and manipulative, and display interpersonal and affective deficits.Results provided partial support to the prediction that trait psychopathy would predict belief in conspiracy theories. Interestingly, results showed only primary psychopathy was a significant (positive) predictor of belief in conspiracy theories. As discussed in the introduction, primary psychopathy is characterised by traits such as social dominance, self-confidence, selfishness, manipulation of others, and a callous nature [26, 27]. This more composed, confident nature of primary psychopathy contrasts the impulsive, destructive, and volatile nature of secondary psychopathy (Evita March, Jordan Springer, 2019)I mean I'm sure I would score higher than average on psychopathy too.As characteristics associated with primary psychopathy such as social dominance, exploitation, and manipulation have all been associated with belief in conspiracy theories [14, 15, 19], it is not surprising that primary psychopathy was a significant positive predictor. The lack of utility of secondary psychopathy to predict belief in conspiracy theories suggests that such beliefs are less associated with impulsivity and emotional reactivity, and may underpin a careful, structured, and detached interpersonal style where relations with others are based on dominance and manipulation. This speculation is supported by the significant role trait Machiavellianism plays in predicting belief in conspiracy theories.
Spencer Reid managed to himbomax while being a genius (cause he's a conventionally attractive slim guy who eats lollipops):
^ Well that can't be embedded. So
But yeah anyway real life isn't TV. Or even worse not a music video. Except when I'm walking around St. Pancras International while listening to My Dying Bride:
The people don't move in tempo with the music.
The responses just get more 'creative' after this:
I agree that's why this is my number one political position:Long hair = Trust
Short hair = No trust
Together I really do believe. We can bring back long hair.
I won't rest until a cute guy with long hair and glasses knocks on my door to misdeliver me someone else's pizza.That does make people with periods pretty cool/badass.Don't trust anything that bleeds for a week and doesn't die.
Oh no I think you're confusing liberal white women (tm) with BTS fans. Or Loki's fanbase.. Think that was called army too back in the day. Either way they're all still (mostly white) liberal women when it comes to American fans so.Most certainly And there's an ARMY of them🙄
Never want to be mistaken for that kind of beast! Embarrassment to the intelligence and spirit of American women everywhere!
Their South Korean fans seem especially insane though tbf. I've heard stories.
I don't get it really. For example. How is Inanna collectivistic?:In the millenia long battle between the Feminine/Collectivists and the Masculine/Individualists, this meme encapsulates both the conflict and how it must be resolved.
Well done!
Gilgamesh would be nowhere without a woman who birthed him, wiped his ass, and who for years kept him alive, so that hey may reach adulthood.
You be nothing without your MawMaw, who may or may not be a liberal white woman.
I think the direction they went in with Sylvanas character from WoW is a bit similar.In the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh, Ishtar appears to Gilgamesh after he and his companion Enkidu have returned to Uruk from defeating the ogre Humbaba and demands Gilgamesh to become her consort.[319][i] Gilgamesh refuses her, pointing out that all of her previous lovers have suffered:[319]
Infuriated by Gilgamesh's refusal,[319] Ishtar goes to heaven and tells her father Anu that Gilgamesh has insulted her.[319] Anu asks her why she is complaining to him instead of confronting Gilgamesh herself.[319] Ishtar demands that Anu give her the Bull of Heaven[319] and swears that if he does not give it to her, she will "break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion [i.e., mixing] of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of the dead will outnumber the living."[321]Listen to me while I tell the tale of your lovers. There was Tammuz, the lover of your youth, for him you decreed wailing, year after year. You loved the many-coloured Lilac-breasted Roller, but still you struck and broke his wing [...] You have loved the lion tremendous in strength: seven pits you dug for him, and seven. You have loved the stallion magnificent in battle, and for him you decreed the whip and spur and a thong [...] You have loved the shepherd of the flock; he made meal-cake for you day after day, he killed kids for your sake. You struck and turned him into a wolf; now his own herd-boys chase him away, his own hounds worry his flanks.[102]
Anu gives Ishtar the Bull of Heaven, and Ishtar sends it to attack Gilgamesh and his friend Enkidu.[318][322] Gilgamesh and Enkidu kill the Bull and offer its heart to the sun-god Shamash.[323][322] While Gilgamesh and Enkidu are resting, Ishtar stands up on the walls of Uruk and curses Gilgamesh.[323][324] Enkidu tears off the Bull's right thigh and throws it in Ishtar's face,[323][324] saying, "If I could lay my hands on you, it is this I should do to you, and lash your entrails to your side."[325] (Enkidu later dies for this impiety.)[324] Ishtar calls together "the crimped courtesans, prostitutes and harlots"[323] and orders them to mourn for the Bull of Heaven.[323][324] Meanwhile, Gilgamesh holds a celebration over the Bull of Heaven's defeat.[326][324]
Her most popular story is actually when she attempted to take over the underworld which was ruled by her sister Ereshkigal. This story is a bit like the Greek story of Hades and Persephone:
The Descent of Inanna into the Underworld (or, in its Akkadian version, Descent of Ishtar into the Underworld) or Angalta ("From the Great Sky") is a Sumerian myth that narrates the descent of the goddess Inanna (Ishtar in Akkadian) into the Underworld to overthrow its ruler, her sister Ereshkigal, the "Queen of the Dead." However, following the removal of her adornments, she perishes and her corpse is suspended on a nail. The god Enki intervenes indirectly, restoring Inanna to life. However, on her return journey, Inanna is required to deliver another living human in exchange for her freedom. She selects Dumuzi, her spouse, who is abruptly transported to the Underworld. In response to the pleas of Dumuzi's sister, Geshtinanna, his circumstances are somewhat ameliorated: he is permitted to remain in the Underworld for only a portion of the year, with his sister assuming his role for the remaining duration.Paul Thomas, a scholar of new religious movements, has criticized the modern portrayal of Inanna, accusing it of anachronistically imposing modern gender conventions on the ancient Sumerian story, portraying Inanna as a wife and mother,[396] two roles the ancient Sumerians never ascribed to her,[396][28] while ignoring the more masculine elements of Inanna's cult, particularly her associations with warfare and violence.[396] Gary Beckman, a researcher of religions of ancient Near East, calls neopagan authors "not revivalists, but inventors",[397] and notes that they often "incorrectly view all historically attested female divinities as full or partial manifestations of a single figure,"[398] and highlights that while Ishtar did overshadow many other deities, she was never a "single Goddess".[399]I have long been interested in Mesopotamian literature and I know that there are practitioners in this subreddit, but there is something about it that's bothered me deeply. It has to do with Inanna's depiction in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where she said to bring her lovers to horrible fates, threatening a zombie apocalypse and sending the Bull of Heaven to destroy a city, and killing Enkidu. I do not mean to offend but this does not sound like a benevolent deity to me. It's especially egregious when you consider Gilgamesh helped her by getting these demonic creatures off the Hulappu tree and fashioning a bed out of her. That sounds deeply ungrateful at best given her later actions. Elsewhere in myth, she steals all the good and evil aspects of civilization (the mes I think) from Enki, the god of wisdom, by getting him drunk. That would mean she is responsible for everything good and evil in human society.
Now, I don't ignore some more noble aspects ofar her, like punishing a farmer for? let's say "having his way" with her in her sleep. Still, she comes off as deeply self-centered and fickle.
I know Inanna/Ishtar is popular in this subreddit, and if I offend, I apologize. What do you guys make of this? How do you guys deal with this information?*modern world.A common theme in the ancient world was the emasculating fear of being pursued by a goddess and being forced to succumb to her. This is notable in Hellenic myth and the motif of a vengeful goddess who is spurned by a mortal lover is nothing new. In one myth, Aphrodite demands retribution from Zeus for receiving such treatment.
I don't know if that's true but I think it would explain a lot about Western culture. Or American social media culture.One thing to understand about the epic of Gilgamesh is, Gilgamesh's reject of Inana is actually traditionally understood to be one of his failures as king. As king of Uruk, part of his religious duty is as consort of Inana, and the way he rejects her being especially disrespectful, doesn't help his case. It's part of his learning experience, and what leads to the death of Enkidu.
Canada is actually the biggest threat to the USA:
I'm backing Canada atm. I like their flag more.
It's no Welsh flag (which I dislike aesthetically actually - but it has a dragon on - so wins purely based on that,) but it's still pretty good.
It's giving Mirkwood realness.