What if I told you that in this overly woke era constantly on the lookout for new prejudices to denounce... there's a group society DEEPLY oppresses by lib "disparate impact" standards who Libs actively encourage discrimination against?
That group is "short men."
1/Many
I'm 6'3"s though, so I'm not saying this for myself. Only to make the point.
I think it's time we asked why Libs think discrimination against the short is not only considered tolerable...but amusing? Height prejudice isn’t demonized today
2/Many
Evidence for discrimination against short men is widespread (and I'll discuss that more directly with any doubters the comments, but I think we can agree this is true for the sake of argument.)
3/Many
The TLDR is that short men make less money, are considered less attractive, are less likely to hold public office, are poorer, and are less healthy relative to their taller peers.
4/Many
So why does this obvious point of discrimination get a pass from SJWs?
I think that this is because it is more often women discriminating against men over height than men discriminating against women.
5/Many
There's a widespread consensus that women consider taller men more attractive (to the extent that men outright lie about their height on dating websites)...whereas women absolutely don't engage in similar behavior.
6/Many
I speculate that punching down at short men is fine in the eyes of SJWs...simply because they are men and thus "privileged."
This strongly indicates that Libs only care about oppression and discrimination when it can be woven into series of pre-existing political goals.
7/Many
Again: I'm a 6’3″ married king personally, so I'm not sore about this for own benefit.
I'm standing up for my oppressed height-challenged brothers! Because, no one can hear them from down there.
8/Many
Statistics don't lie.
The wife is only taller in 3.8% of American couples.
Quite frankly, if libs were serious about standing up for oppressed groups, they'd be all over short men (puns intended.)
9/Fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
And...this is the important bit...if you changed SuperBowls to be scored by yardage instead of points, you're changing the game to such an extent that both sides would change their tactics (as would voters.)
I mean...DUH!
2/5
This progressive's argument is literally "if you change the rules, both sides will behave in exactly the same way."
So I recently tried to share a @TimKennedyMMA video ...only to be told "independent" fact checkers found it "partly false" that authoritarian regimes used gun control.
So I went down a rabbit hole...and TLDR is that fact checking is a total lie. 1/5
"Independent" Politifact claims theres "no direct link" between said regimes and gun control.
Politifact's position is literally "Yes, Tim K's right that this happened, but authoritarian regimes didn't say they murdered people bc they were disarmed so he's wrong."
2/5
That is...extremely stupid.
Something someone could only believe if they were being paid to do it.
Speaking of that, seems like "independent" is owned by the Poynter Institute...so who funds Poynter?
Interestingly enough, Wyoming has a murder rate the same as right across the border in more gun-controlled Canada...about a third of the US as a whole.
BC factors giving Canada a low murder rate give Wyoming a low murder rate...and those don't include lower gun ownership.
Similarly, there are many US states that combine very low firearm ownership with very high murder rates.
The highest "state" murder rate in the country is that of Washington, DC, which has a murder rate of 21.8, more than twenty times that of Wyoming
It took SIX WEEKS to declare a victor and (more) progressive candidate refused to concede...went on MSNBC and said “voter suppression is a real thing" in the Dem party.
This happened because #USPS got overwhelemed in a fairly low turnout race relative to general election.