It Stands to Reason

Here's what's going to happen ITT.

I am going to present an argument based on reason.

You are all going to make gross assumptions about me and/or my "agenda". Some of it will be based on things like my usage of words or how I structure my sentences; e.g., "Reddit Spacing". Some of you are going to assume my race and gender based on the disposition of my argument. Enough of you for the sake of "lulz" will attack my character ad hominem, spouting "cuck", "shill", "libtard" or a "nigger", or some other disparaging variation of slander.

You will invariably lose comprehension of reason due to your assumptions. You are smug and prideful with your apathy. It's your common veil, and it is entirely predictable as it is fallible. Enough of you are gullible in ways you can't even imagine--and that I can say with casual objectivity.

Comprehend so far? Either way, here is my argument:

>Why should any white male feel threatened by political correctness and diversity efforts?

Provisos: Note that I do not say, "globalism". But honestly: Though you may work hard and may not yourself be sufficiently wealthy, you have every social privilege at your disposal. You may face harsh accusation, but that accusation does not prevent you from exploiting all of the social and economic privileges that are readily at your disposal. So unless you take a personal bent against the term "privilege", you can hardly deny the position of advantage that white males have held throughout human history, disregarding ethics.

>tl;dr
White man: You are *supposed* to be the pinnacle of human evolution. I shouldn't have to spoon-feed this to you. You lambast the negro for his supposed lack of reading comprehension skills. Surprise me with your racially superior aptitude in a comprehensive rebuttal to my argument.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1-Mwtkod_VM
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>reddit

Your response has already been predicted:

>You are all going to make gross assumptions about me and/or my "agenda"
>e.g., "Reddit Spacing"

You lose.

Next!

You're a fucking Faggot

Your response has already been predicted:

>Enough of you...will attack my character ad hominem
>some other disparaging variation of slander

FAIL!

Next!

Reddit,

Sage

Maladaptive behavior is not a sign of strength or enlightenment. Any position of privilege must be defended to be maintained.

Your question is why should I be against having to censor my thoughts, words, and actions to appease our society of Soros-bots.

You don't deserve an answer.

As far as your "white privlilege" meme goes, I live in America. In America, anyone can become a great person with loads of wealth and accomplish their dreams if they work hard and believe in themselves. Everyone faces hardship. Everyone faces discrimination. The only reason the white privilege meme exists is because historically the progressive party's basis was that the IQ of white people is higher than any other race and they feel guilty about it. And while this is technically true (except asians who statistically have a higher IQ than whites), having a high IQ in no way determines your actual level of success. IQ doesn't determine your definiteness of purpose or your will to work or your level of faith in yourself.

>"cuck", "shill", "libtard" or a "nigger"

have some feed.

Now get on your knees like a good little slut of the NWO.

see
Honestly: What kind of flimsy excuse is it to reject an argument based on some sophomoric rivalry with another website?

You sound like petulant children fighting over cooties.

>political correctness
Speech control violates natural and civil rights
>diversity
"Diversity" racism violates natural and civil rights

Well, we should not fear actual diversity. But the "diversity" that is being preached today is not diversity, but the end of it. Racemixing will be the end of not only the white race, but eventually of all races. We will be left with a homogenous society of mixbreeds. I fear this, because as a white man I am proud of my culture. I am proud of my heritage. I do not want to see that spoiled by the powers that be. As for political correctness, we should fear it because it is not about being polite, it is about censoring the speech of those who disagree with (((their))) agenda. The mind of the liberal (such as yourself) is indoctrinated with the idea that they are always right, and can never be at fault. That they are on "the right side of history". This is just made up horse shit. Now you will probably just claim I am racist, xenophobic, or whatever else. The fact is I am. Political correctness has gone too far and people who follow it are blinded by the idea that they are doing good for their community when actually they are turning a blind eye to what is really happening. Rape, murder, theft, terrible crimes committed gone virtually unnoticed or uncared for because most are perpetrated by people of color, and it's "racist, stereotypical, and just white of you" to speak out against it. More and more "white" is being used in a negative connotation such as "you're acting too white stop". If this was reversed and people said "you're acting too black" there would be political outcry and backlash. But no. This is what we have to fear, you fucking nigger.

>I am going to present an argument based on reason.

>Never presents any argument at all
>There is no reason involved anywhere, it's just a question

diversity efforts are threatening by definition

I can almost see you flipping through your thesaurus looking for the best word to sound smart you Faggot

What is this trash
Why should any white male feel threatened by political correctness and diversity efforts?
its not only white males who are threatened by political correctness
>its everyone
when an opinion cant be said out of fear of being labeled as racist sexist or a bigot we have problems how are we ment to progress if we cant discuss these issues with out being labeled as such
Islam for example you cannot criticize The religion of peace with out being seen for demonizing it which is wrong
Political correctness Discourages discourse on Important and critical issues as it may offend Censorship is never okay

Any member of any race should be threatened by political correctness, it's goal is to make people afraid to speak freely. Sure maybe it'd be nice if some people were more considerate, but the effects that seep into the culture because of political correctness are deadly. It creates a society of people who are scared to talk to one another, people become more isolated and detached, relationships with family and friends are weaker. Not good for the happiness of the people at all.

As for "diversity efforts", well I'd say that you can have a diverse kitchen, but dumping all your ingredients into a brown slop doesn't give you a diverse stew.

Sufficiently reasonable.

Again, sufficiently reasonable. But now I ask: would it be fair to assume that this "lack of faith" is the underlying motivator of one's fear reaction?

>see my tl;dr

>Speech control violates natural and civil rights
But is it speech control, really? Where is the proverbial gun to your heads?

>"Diversity" racism violates natural and civil rights
I would say that, sure, there are those in pursuit of rampant "diversity" that do so without the consideration of other people's civil rights. But can you really suggest that, with non-whites being the minority of population in America, that this is truly a threat to you, personally?
>see above

Well make a well-formed argument on my behalf, then, since you are so intellectually superior.

>Why should any white male feel threatened by political correctness and diversity efforts?

Not an argument. But to answer your question, because they are laws which discriminates against them.

>Political correctness Discourages discourse on Important and critical issues
>It creates a society of people who are scared to talk to one another
Both rebuttals sufficiently reasonable.

Not sure what part of "There are too many white men on Transport" you think is non threatening to white men working on Transport.

the major of london is telling white people that they are going to lose their jobs because they are white.

>didnt read
>dont care
>your argument sucks
>youre a pretentious faggot

>Why
sjw's literally distilled it into a cartoon moment

So what is your new angle going to be? This won't be true for much longer, what will you do without the white man to blame? Whose fault will it be then, when we are the minority, and everything you complain about is worse than it was before?

>no white people
everywhere is africa now

Political correctness is a direct threat to my value of freedom of speech. It halts discussion and/or debates, thus halting the progress towards a united earth.
(Or some other Sci-fi bullshit).

>Not an argument
A question can be phrased as an argument, as I have done.

>because they are laws which discriminates against them
Please elaborate.

>the major of london is telling white people that they are going to lose their jobs because they are white
But surely this represents an isolated enough case spanning all industries. Are other trades historically dominated by whites equally threatened by this sentiment? Fear over this is irrational at best IMHO.

>see my tl;dr

>You are all going to make gross assumptions about me and/or my "agenda"
FAIL.

Firstly, I find it curious how anons tend to personify OP. Even with the proviso of anonymity, it's like people struggle to identify and characterize the arguer for the sake of rebutting them narratively. I wouldn't for once assume everyone who replied to me was a white male, for example.

That said:
>Whose fault will it be then, when we are the minority, and everything you complain about is worse than it was before?
This is the irrational mode of fear. There's nothing to suggest that if racial minorities are given the same office of privilege as whites have held historically that, "the world would slowly burn", so to speak. Consider the following rebuttal given by Neil deGrasse Tyson:
>youtube.com/watch?v=1-Mwtkod_VM

>Political correctness is a direct threat to my value of freedom of speech
Fair enough. But again: No one is pointing a proverbial "gun" to your heads. What is the punishment for speaking abjectly on race and gender? Trump has done so, and he's gone on to be President-elect of the United States. I would think that would make the whole freedom of speech violation moot.

>Why should any white male feel threatened by political correctness and diversity efforts?

Here is my take: "politically correct" is a term (specifically coined as an accusation) that underlines that something isn't actually (but politically) correct, or put simply, it is wrong.

If something is not wrong it's not "politically correct" it's just correct. In the grand scheme of things anything wrong will do damage (otherwise it wouldn't be wrong) and as such anyone will be a fool to not be 'afraid' (oppose) all and any political correctness, white people being a sub-division of anyone should be opposed to political correctness.

You can argue if something is politically correct or just plain correct, but you cannot meaningfully argue about political correctness not being poison (if you could they would not have used this as an accusation, you see).

In order to answer about the diversity efforts, you would have to explain what the "diversity efforts" actually are. This can mean anything, and one would assume you have something specific in mind.

Now, to your argument
>you have every social privilege at your disposal

You have to prove that is the case, before you can use it.

>you can hardly deny the position of advantage

Look at me go. To re-iterate, you are claiming your opinion is common knowledge. This is a waste of space, this invalidates the argument in a very obvious manner. In fact if all your OP had was "i think X", it would carry same amount of sense, but would be much quicker for a reader to discard, i urge you to consider this in the future.

As it is, disappointingly, there isn't an argument, what you have there is a claim, a claim implies an argument to prove the claim will follow.

And now for the character attack. Despite huge amounts of data to explore the only thing you are able to meaningfully understand out of human civilizations history is what color skin this or that human group had. Your racism has truly blinded you beyond reason.

There's only so often you can tell me you deserve my help before I'll clue in to the fact that you need it.

Your position is totally valid.

For your sake, however, I will clarify that I am only arguing to sate my own curiosity. My position is wholly vicarious, I can assure you. Which is why I stressed that it would be worthless to assume anything about me. It's entirely moot.

Are you implicitly personifying me? Or is this just a general statement of thought?

Is lack of faith the reason for fear? Well for me that answer is a resounding yes, although complete blindness/stupidity could also replace fear. But let me be clear as to what I'm referring to having faith in. Oneself, the universe, and plausibly a higher power of one's own understanding.

>This is the irrational mode of fear. There's nothing to suggest that if racial minorities are given the same office of privilege as whites have held historically that, "the world would slowly burn"
What about the genocide happening in south africa to the white folk who have lived there for generations now?

>What about the genocide happening in south africa to the white folk who have lived there for generations now?
What about getting attacked by giant squid in the ocean? We know they exist. Just how isolated does a threat have to be before we take to fear it irrationally?

Ok then, if you only interested in sating your curiosity, though i fail to see how you can't make the connection if that was the case — treating people based on their skin color has historically earned no results. If you accept lower test score to the university, because person who achieved it is a nigger - you are making a systematic error, it's wrong (in a sense that it distorts intended system output) and harmful (because system no longer produces what, most people agreed, they wanted). You can make similar connections with celebrating a goatfucker's right to hang fags because a goatfucker is brown or spearheading that a certain candidate has advantage over another because that candidate has a vagina.

This, as explained is not correct, it is however politically correct - by creating and fueling artificial group divisions you can aim to keep power by simply picking issues to address only the smallest sufficient number of groups. Logic we adhere to, because it works, because it's correct, cares not which one of the users is a nigger, as a principle it cannot recognize the user.

Here is another question to consider - if political correctness is wrong how come so many people benefit from it? And the answer to that one is very simple - they don't, they mistakingly attribute what scraps they get right now as free shit. Should the communists succeed, should the West fall, nobody will suffer more than the useful idiots. While one can proclaim somebody holding power at that point "a winner" it would be putting a lipstick on a pig.

Nobody suffered the failures of soviet communism harder than communists and russian (in that order). Though, on a personal note, i always thought both never suffered enough for my liking.

its not a rogue creature we have only herd about in fairy tales its a well documented fact that it is indeed happening
>how isolated does a threat have to be B4 WE fear it irrationally
well the fact its considered genocide i wouldn't say is irrational
But back to the question
>This is the irrational mode of fear. There's nothing to suggest that if racial minorities are given the same office of privilege as whites have held historically that "the world would slowly burn" looking at Africa The whites had control now they dont and the country is slowly burning
Now im not saying it would happen but there is evidence to suggest it could from what is happening there at this present moment in history

>based slav can smell the devil communist creep.

also > Just how isolated does a threat have to be before we take to fear it irrationally?
i dont think you can measure that
how close can u walk to the edge of a cliff b4 you relise it is dangerous

So much faggotry in one post. Well done OP, your LGBTQWERTY buddies will be so proud.

Back to rebbshit.

>If something is not wrong it's not "politically correct" it's just correct.
except political correctness has nothing to do with the truth value of something, it has to do with phrasing and general respectfulness in discussion

Are you seriously under the assumption that when someone says "thats not very politically correct" they are just saying "wrong"?

>Why should any white male feel threatened by political correctness and diversity efforts?

Well first those things need an explanation. In it's current form political correctness is censorship usually but not always attacking right wing politics.

And diversity is used as population control via turning the whole world population into mutts that are less capable than either of their parent race at what their parent race does best and exposes to lots of health risks. Such as higher genetic defects, lower organ transplant acceptance, not to mention psychological damage as you don't belong to your mother or father's group.

Diversity is also cultural and it tries to bring culture to the lowest common denominator, again making easier for population control.

The reason a white man should feel threatened by those two things is because he is the most vulnerable. Most migrant populations if not brought in like the rapefugees at least have a family to rely on. In the current climate propaganda has not just brainwashed most of the population it has destroyed family ties. So you as a white man are left alone against the tide.

And another thing, unlike African's we don't have the numbers to stem the tides, every lost is irreplaceable. Technological or tactical superiority has no relevance over raw numbers as seen many times before.

>This, as explained is not correct, it is however politically correct - by creating and fueling artificial group divisions you can aim to keep power by simply picking issues to address only the smallest sufficient number of groups.


So in your opinion everything thts been done for women and minorities is all a complex scheme rather than trying to make up for the historically very very recent genuine lawful oppression of those groups?

>Should the communists succeed
the most poerful men in the west are people involved in business. There is no logical reason why these people would support and secretly push for communism, and without the support of the powerful there is no danger

>and exposes to lots of health risks. Such as higher genetic defects, lower organ transplant acceptance
diversifying the gene pool stereotypically has a positive effect on general overall health in every type of population we've ever studied be it human animal or plant.

If you are going to bitch at least get your basic facts right

Rational thought, logic and humility have no place on pol

>So in your opinion everything thts been done for women and minorities is all a complex scheme rather than trying to make up for the historically very very recent genuine lawful oppression of those groups?

>Oppression of women

What in the name of fuck have we done to women in history?

Have we stoned them to death or something?

For as long as we can go back and just before the 20th century we have done everything we could to protect and please women. That is why men where the working and fighting sex cause it was dangerous as fuck to do those things.

As for minorities. Most ethnicities in the world have a nation where they are the majority and the leaders, if they don't like it they can fuck off. As for those without they are probably a relic of a past time when population A conquered the land of population B as it happens all the time in history.

>the most poerful men in the west are people involved in business. There is no logical reason why these people would support and secretly push for communism, and without the support of the powerful there is no danger

Have you not seen the inner workings of the USSR or any communist nation? If there is no Stalin a kabal of smart and powerful men with control over the factories are the ones who call the shots.

Please provide sources for your claims or sources that state that every part of the differing human genome can fit with whatever other part and become stronger as a result.

Here's one historical problem: blacks were arrested for cocaine, not heroin.

>diversifying the gene pool stereotypically has a positive effect on general overall health in every type of population we've ever studied be it human animal or plant.

I gave the examples of health risk you fucking dumbass. It is well known that a mix bred person has higher risk of organ rejection, because they are mix bred. And it is well know that they do have an increase of genetic defects. And it is more than well know that there is psychological damage.

Interesting. If I could elaborate, it's the same reason we are told not to feed wild animals at a nature preserve: It only makes those animals dependent on our misguided notions of generosity in a way that prevents them from sustaining themselves on their own instinctual devices.

This seems to be a more principled sort of "harm", though, than a material one. For shame, as you had mentioned, perhaps so. But as for material repercussions: Is that to say society is harmed intrinsically and inherently, or is it harmed because it has a fear reaction (rejection reaction akin to biological immune response) as a direct result of the "white establishment" trying to maintain its power?

Again, I speak academically wholly out of curiosity.

I think the fear response to any sort of genocide is irrational. Just my opinion. But then, I live in a high-rise condo in an affluent neighborhood far from the troubles of the world, so take that with a grain of proverbial salt.

>personification
>fear response
Congratulations!

The oft thrown about "privlege", which in a historical context you use erroneously, is something one with your views is simply a palatble codeword for the weak willed and parasitic for one undeniable fact -

Merit by Achievment.

Then again, maybe I should ask my African friends to check their "privelege" next time we shoot hoops?

...

>>personification
>>fear response
>Congratulations!

lame meta game you don't make the rules here leftist. lets play move the goal posts.

This.

By definition, a privilege ceases to be a privilege when shared among the entire group.

Those who possess a privilege must therefore safeguard it against those who do not.

If members of your group lack certain privileges, they must either elevate themselves to a status that warrants them, or leave your group to find one that is willing to grant them.

Examples: gay "marriage," the negro vote.

>Are you seriously under the assumption that when someone says "thats not very politically correct"

Indeed, i will point out that you will never hear somebody who is supports and maintains political correctness system to use the phrase. Unless they don't understand it. The phrase is created to point out an invariable flaw, it cannot be used as anything but accusation, for reasons described above. In case with phrase you suggested it can be only used to point out that, while you are correct, you are wrong in voicing it, because you will face unpleasant consequences for it. However political correctness will fight to the death before acknowledging itself, because that acknowledgment is it's death.

You're argument is flawed and pathetic.

>Though you may work hard and may not yourself be sufficiently wealthy, you have every social privilege at your disposal. You may face harsh accusation, but that accusation does not prevent you from exploiting all of the social and economic privileges that are readily at your disposal

For one, White Males don't hold social privilege in modern society, at least not anymore. With Racial and Gender Quotas, affirmative action, and """progressive""" educational istitutions putting non-whites first, it is becoming increasingly difficult for White males to gain a solid foothold in society when they come of age. Worse yet, morons like you still believe that White Males are more privileged than others, so you try to gives nonwhites even more advantages.

>you can hardly deny the position of advantage that white males have held throughout human history
Nice meme. The only definitive advantage Whites have had historically is the Mediterranean Sea. That's it. China had huge, fertile lands capable of supporting hundreds of Millions even in pre-industrial times. Arabia and the Fertile Crescent was situated between the Far East and the West, along the silk road. West Africa was also extremely Fertile, and also had the benefit of the Trans-Saharan trade. The reason why Europeans would come to overwhelmingly dominate the Globe can't be hand-waved with "White privilege", because that is no better than calling you a cuck for your writing style.

The world we live in is very different from the one leftists think we do. East Asia, the Middle East, and Africa are almost entirely homogeneous, and no-one has a problem with that. Yet White countries are not allowed to be, we have to be "diverse" and "inclusive". That all sounds well and good, but when I see news stories about places like Sweden, what I see is the slow and painful death of many distinct and wonderful cultures and peoples. It's not privilege, it's suicide.

Where is my reply you fucking Faggot

>This seems to be a more principled sort of "harm"
There isn't a difference between the two. Any principled sort of harm will inevitably reach material form and any material one has been principled sort at some point.

You can argue something isn't harmful at all, but you cannot meaningfully argue that harm isn't harm.

>Is that to say society is harmed intrinsically and inherently
That really depends on definitions. What isn't is deceit. If you are selling that your system does a certain thing, and society is sold, and later the system does not, in fact, does the thing, then the system is broken.

Granted it might turn out that action affirmed niggers are legitimate scientists and a woman can control anything by using her vagina thousand percent more effectively, we do have finite amounts of resources, time and, frankly, people. If an organism simply does systematically idiotic things because "well, you never know", the life expectancy of that organism is, reliably, not good. I maintain that it's better to discuss and analyze issues rather than claim that you can't know based on negligible percentage error margin, in what ultimately is a probability based system.

It's interesting that you compare rejection reaction with traditionalism because you do realize that mentioned biological immune response makes a whole lot of sense. It has been saving your ancestors lives long before they figured out how to use a club.

Equally if a doctor produces happy, healthy patients with transplanted organs it's greatly important how well he is able to bypass the rejection reaction, the more - the better. If, on the other hand, doctor only produces millions of mass graves, and has not a single case of success to point at, the question rather loses it's meaning.

Show's over lads, he's halfway to the local paleo cafe to meet xis friends and tell them how he braved the vile hive of Sup Forums for the victory of "informed" debate

[spoiler]I know your still lurking, and probably unwilling to reply after the expected troll responses gave way to actual intelligent rational rebuttal. This is why in your self proclaimed loft you will never be able grasp the true nature of the world, with modern revisionist liberal lies as your pillow and non threatening warm n fuzzy studies as your blanket. Thanks for playing.

>White Males don't hold social privilege in modern society, at least not anymore
That's arguable. A man who casually admitted to sexual assault assumes the mantle of Presidency. We all know if he were black he would have been ostracized, to say the very least.

>With Racial and Gender Quotas, affirmative action, and """progressive""" educational istitutions putting non-whites first, it is becoming increasingly difficult for White males to gain a solid foothold in society when they come of ag
I can see this as a fairly-put statement.

>morons like you still believe that White Males are more privileged than others
I already covered personification in my OP. So moot point. You neither flatter your rationale or your argument with statements like this.

>East Asia, the Middle East, and Africa are almost entirely homogeneous, and no-one has a problem with that. Yet White countries are not allowed to be, we have to be "diverse" and "inclusive"
That's reasonable.

This is the most elaborate personification of me yet. You have an interesting imagination, sir. Kudos. But I think it speaks more about you than it does me...

>is all a complex scheme rather than trying to make up for the historically very very recent genuine lawful oppression

It's not that complex of a scheme, i mean "promise special treatment" - "receive votes" doesn't ring complexity to me. There is no "making up" for anything, no platform, that i'm aware of, ever presents a bill "five trillion dollars, and three buckets of KCF and we are cool about slavery". All the slaves are dead, all the slaveowners are dead, they care not about anyone "making up" to them.

It's an infinity of "get out of logic" free cards introduced in a finite political system, it will never go away, unless destroyed. Nobody is willingly going to give that up at any point.

There isn't a single historic example of this achieving anything, but feel free to prove me wrong on this last one.

>the most poerful men in the west are people involved in business.
The most powerful men in the west are involved in all sorts of things, mostly working menial jobs, sure you have to get a lot of them to be worth a damn, but luckily there is a lot of them existing, one should not dismiss strength in numbers easily.

Communism is a mental virus (also called a meme) that reproduces within poor of any country, after the affected individuals outweigh the healthy one the country dies, and before it can be reborn out of the smoldering ruins millions of it's inhabitants die in an inhumanly violent fashion (which is quite clear, since it's not humans that cause it, there is no reason for it to be humanly violent).

I honestly believe that, in our bright future, people will enjoy a much clearer understanding of informational viruses, and maybe doing a case study on communism, as an example of what almost brought humanity to heel over and over again.

Of course it's equally possible that we'll enjoy our newly acquired roll of toilet paper and vileness of our lowly enemies instead. It can go either way, is what i'm saying.

>. I maintain that it's better to discuss and analyze issues rather than claim that you can't know based on negligible percentage error margin, in what ultimately is a probability based system
Interesting. I have no counter-argument to this.

>It's interesting that you compare rejection reaction with traditionalism because you do realize that mentioned biological immune response makes a whole lot of sense
I just want us to be careful: While you make a strong point above, we must not assume that these ideas are founded well enough to establish imperatives. A lot of this is still based on assumption, and the evidence surrounding it is far more anecdotal than empirical.

OP here. I think there has been sufficient enough response to my OP to follow-up on my original argument with a couple of academic questions:

>In your view, is there a *practical* remedy to political correctness and diversity efforts?
and
>How accountable do you hold yourselves to your own fear responses to PC and diversity efforts? As in, how much of the solution lies in your own perception of and reaction to said?

>a man who casually admitted to sexual assault

I won't read too much (regarding your political affiliations or worldview) into this, but what do you mean?

>how accountable do you hold yourselves to your own fear responses to PC and diversity efforts?

I have no fear response in this case. It's simple practicality and aesthetics.

Goddamn right I am the pinnacle of human evolution

I'm speaking of Trump and the whole "pussygate" fiasco.

>demanding special treatment
Who's the fucking nigger now, user?

>I just want us to be careful
Ok, probably a good idea.

>we must not assume that these ideas are founded well enough to establish imperatives.
So, let's not, here is how it works — you (abstract you) provide a better theory, better in a sense it's true more often than the other one, and we immediately adopt it. The snag is the theory has to be logically established.

No better theory was ever, to my knowledge, provided, compared to classical West capitalism.

>evidence surrounding it is far more anecdotal than empirical.
True, what also true is that anecdotal evidence is useless. Entirely. It provides no meaningful information and cannot be used to base any conclusions on.

>In your view, is there a *practical* remedy to political correctness and diversity efforts?

Yes. Better structured systems both have less persecution (political correctness) and ultimately destructive resource wastes (diversity efforts). If we structure our system better they will diminish. In, non-existing, ideal system they do not exist. We should strive towards that system.

>How accountable do you hold yourselves to your own fear responses to PC and diversity efforts?

100%. As i'm sure most of us are. If i didn't think that, after my best analysis efforts, beliefs i arrived at are the most logical ones there can be i would just move to what i think is more logical than that. Equally if i believed there was a better solution, i would advocate that.

This is an extremely silly question, by the way.

As a matter of practicality, consent negates valid accusations of assault, beyond the bizarre social constructs of leftists.

In other (vulgar) words, if a woman consents to your grabbing of her pussy because you are rich, that is in no logical way a "sexual assault."

We are going to genocide your people for having the arrogance to think you could colonize us.

Multi-culturalism was a mistake.

>The snag is the theory has to be logically established
But then, is that not a veritable "catch 22": You never try because there's no reason to, in a sense. It's the wheel that doesn't need fixing.

Therefore, a dumb blonde never gets that opportunity to prove that she's equally qualified to be a field mechanic. And that black kid doesn't get the opportunity to prove that he can contribute meaningfully to quantum computer research. And so on. Much less be the ones working service and hospitality jobs.

We don't "know for certain" that big-breasted blondes are lousy at mechanical engineering. This is not like measuring the speed of light in a vacuum or the precise amount of energy it takes to heat a cubic centimeter of water by 1 degree at sea level.

>100%. As i'm sure most of us are
I'm curious how many anons agree with you in principle but not practice.

>This is an extremely silly question, by the way
Perhaps. The way anons tend to go off about it, though, connotes they are victims of PC and diversity efforts, which I find humorously ironic...

Maybe. I'm not here to argue the case either way. I just mentioned it colloquially.

I don't know which is worse: Your assumptions about me, or your apparent enthusiasm to contribute infinitesimally to an enormously impractical cause...