The ACLU was forced to apologize after tweeting a picture of a white baby with a free speech t-shirt on. Later tweeting "When your Twitter followers keep you in check and remind you that white supremacy is everywhere." with a "good point" GIF. I don't know what to say anymore. White supremacy is now code word for anything not explictly anti white. Ordinary people would see the message, not search for racial undertones where they don't exist. Even worse is the constant capitulation and thus validation of it that only serves to strengthen this nonsense that has now become so pervasive.
You can look at this shocking display of white supremacy if you want. Trigger warning though.
They weren't forced to apologize, they made a statement in response to some of the tweets in the thread. That isn't even an apology, which would, at a bare minimum, contain the words "We're sorry". And news flash: no one here needs or has ever asked for a trigger warning, whatever that is actually supposed to mean (supposedly that liberals will collapse in panic the minute they see something they don't like). Again, the real world is not the student union at some random college. If THIS is the type of stuff that Alt-right websites are pushing everyday, it's no wonder it's so easy to keep the anti-PC crowd perpetually up in arms about something. But there was no apology issued here, quit pretending there was. As a matter of fact, they later used the same picture in another tweet.
The ACLU was forced to apologize after tweeting a picture of a white baby with a free speech t-shirt on. Later tweeting "When your Twitter followers keep you in check and remind you that white supremacy is everywhere." with a "good point" GIF. I don't know what to say anymore. White supremacy is now code word for anything not explictly anti white. Ordinary people would see the message, not search for racial undertones where they don't exist. Even worse is the constant capitulation and thus validation of it that only serves to strengthen this nonsense that has now become so pervasive.
You can look at this shocking display of white supremacy if you want. Trigger warning though.
This is why the modern day left is a laughing stock.
It's all about muh feelings and fighting symptoms. It's also becoming a safe space for genuinely anti-white bigots. Fascists want this...force neutral parties into siding with them because the alternative is batshit crazy (that's how Hitler came to power BTW).
Oh, but a little context here, they say. How vulgar to take offense at something like this when all the people of color are suffering. Personally, I take more offense at the American flag. Replace the stars with a hammer and sickle and that's the future America needs.
Here's the way communists deal with trouble makers and rabble rousers (the video isn't real).
^ that was a joke btw and way over the top on purpose. People make mountains out of molehills these days, on both sides. A baby in a t-shirt LMAO.
Anwayz...
Looks like war is escalating in Afghanistan after all. This is not good. I wonder if Trump supporters will hold Trump accountable for lying all those times before when he said he's bringing the boys home?
Anyone want to make wagers on whether Trump supporters will hold him accountable?
^ that was a joke btw and way over the top on purpose. People make mountains out of molehills these days, on both sides. A baby in a t-shirt LMAO.
Anwayz...
Looks like war is escalating in Afghanistan after all. This is not good. I wonder if Trump supporters will hold Trump accountable for lying all those times before when he said he's bringing the boys home?
Anyone want to make wagers on whether Trump supporters will hold him accountable?
Trump doesnt have time to background check everyone who posts a meme about him.
The meme can also be taken out of context, in which Trump is just overshadowing Obama. How can he not like and retweet that? There is also no racial tones in the actual r etweet, unless you want to dig for them and assume what the orginial poster meant.
It reminds me Ford, the late mayor of Toronto, when the media would post a picture of him with random people on the street and say "see he's shaking hands with a drug dealer! He's evil!" Where his response would be, I shake hands with and take pictures with a lot of people. I don't know who these people are, except they are people from Toronto who like and support me." Same context with Trump and his re tweets.
If anything, the eclipse tweet could 've a burn about Trump. It can cause a lot of damage if you don't protect yourself from it, animals make a lot of noise when it occurs, it takes away a shining example of the day and replaces it with darkness, but best of all, it only lasts a really short time bringing brightens back in its passing.
I also find myself defending Trump from time to time. People (particularly media/social media types) are really just unfair to the point of being pathologically averse to anything related to Trump. Even to the point where people side with foreign dictators over their own president. When I see that behavior in people I view it as a sign of personal weakness on their part. Right now you even have total idiots in the WaPo comments section criticizing the editor of WSJ for not allowing personal attacks by accredited journalists toward the president. That's the kind of petulant children we're dealing with here.
Personally, I don't have a horse in this race because I hate the whole system.
Now on the flip side, Trump supporters are guilty of the same type of pathology. Real idiots in just about every way imaginable. I have no tolerance for it.
And if we're being honest, Trump makes himself a damn easy target. He really needs to just...you know...give people a break for a while. Even if for a few days, just give people a break. He comes on too strong and he tweets too damn much. And he focuses and takes exception to the dumbest shit.
I think it goes to show the type of people he associates with clearly. He probably follows that guy or hangs around the same websites as him. That the guy posted anti-Semitic goes to show the electronic company herr drumpf keeps.
It's no coincidence that a cursory glance into the background of the posters of pretty much everything he retweets comes from people with racist, supremacist, conspiracist people. That's the type of place on the internet our president lurks.
Trump doesnt have time to background check everyone who posts a meme about him.
The meme can also be taken out of context, in which Trump is just overshadowing Obama. How can he not like and retweet that? There is also no racial tones in the actual r etweet, unless you want to dig for them and assume what the orginial poster meant.
Justify why he is wasting time posting memes on social media like an irresponsible teenager at all, rather than doing his job.
Trump doesnt have time to background check everyone who posts a meme about him.
The meme can also be taken out of context, in which Trump is just overshadowing Obama. How can he not like and retweet that? There is also no racial tones in the actual r etweet, unless you want to dig for them and assume what the orginial poster meant.
It reminds me Ford, the late mayor of Toronto, when the media would post a picture of him with random people on the street and say "see he's shaking hands with a drug dealer! He's evil!" Where his response would be, I shake hands with and take pictures with a lot of people. I don't know who these people are, except they are people from Toronto who like and support me." Same context with Trump and his re tweets.
If anything, the eclipse tweet could 've a burn about Trump. It can cause a lot of damage if you don't protect yourself from it, animals make a lot of noise when it occurs, it takes away a shining example of the day and replaces it with darkness, but best of all, it only lasts a really short time bringing brightens back in its passing.
So ya, Trump is the best ecplise ever!
No, I'm sorry. The President of the United States actually should be looking into the backgrounds of those he retweets, or he shouldn't be doing it. This is why a functioning White House has a professional and competent communications staff. He is speaking for 300+ million people. He should act with a maturity greater than a 5-year old child. But again, the bar is so low it doesn't matter anymore.
I have noticed that my expectations of a president have dropped in the past 7 months...
As far as I can recall, Obama used Twitter to wish greetings to all Americans on holidays, and to acknowledge the deaths of major cultural figures. And to wish his wife and daughters Happy Birthday.
After Charleston, he went to the church and led the congregation in a rendition of "Amazing Grace". After Charlottesville Trump made himself a self-pitying martyr.
Trump doesnt have time to background check everyone who posts a meme about him.
The meme can also be taken out of context, in which Trump is just overshadowing Obama. How can he not like and retweet that? There is also no racial tones in the actual r etweet, unless you want to dig for them and assume what the orginial poster meant.
Justify why he is wasting time posting memes on social media like an irresponsible teenager at all, rather than doing his job.
That, in itself is another issue. But that is what should be called out and not that he retweeted someone who had tweeted racist tweets in the past.
It should also be noted that he has two twitter accounts, one personal (therealdonaldtrump) and the POTUS one (I guess the unreal Donald trump). The POTUS one is handled by staffers for "official" communications.
Trump doesnt have time to background check everyone who posts a meme about him.
The meme can also be taken out of context, in which Trump is just overshadowing Obama. How can he not like and retweet that? There is also no racial tones in the actual r etweet, unless you want to dig for them and assume what the orginial poster meant.
Justify why he is wasting time posting memes on social media like an irresponsible teenager at all, rather than doing his job.
Trump hasn't done his job. And he won't. He's delegated every single responsibility to someone else so that all he has to do is walk around in a bathrobe all day, watch the news and tweet. When they're ready for him to sign something they bring it to him. He doesn't read it. He signs it and goes back to whatever he was doing. He's a celebrity president that ran for attention and to stroke his ego, and he treats the office as a ceremonial honor. The queen of England is more hands on than Trump. I am dead serious.
It's kind of funny to watch two guys, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, that have defended Trump's every screw up and misstep of all shapes and sizes wind up in the cross hairs of Trump's criticisms and attacks.
They coddled him and defended him, now he's playing them for fools.
It is still a strain to our system, and many are pointing to Trudeau's own tweet's in response to Trump's immigration ban. Whatever the reasoning, here's hoping the federal liberals don't screw this up. Winter is coming and tent cities don't work well in -40 weather.
I have noticed that my expectations of a president have dropped in the past 7 months...
I am vaguely reminded of the fairy tale of the Log & the Stork. Possibly after Trump many people would vote for an inaminate carbon rod as president. On the brighter side it could herald an institutional pushback against the powers of the executive in the US, as congress reclaims some powers. It's now an accepted convention in the UK that parliament should be consulted before military action is authorised for example. While many may have hoped for dramatic social change by seizing control of the executive (see also Le Pen for president for example), I am generally in favour of avoiding the investiture of too much power in any one individual.
I will say, provided the individual in charge is competent there is a big advantage manueverability-wise... this is why armies like to have one person in charge. Committees imho might get better decisions, but they are slow and generally clumsy; they work best if there is an emphasis on concensus, but like a jury, holdouts can muck things up.
That said, entering a war you aren't really in, and the US had largely disengaged in Afghanistan, should be up to more than one person.
I'm secretly hoping that Trump's chain is being shortened with all the crazy public pro-nazi rants. Nobody would outrightly admit that sort of thing, but the Republican party is not exactly winning votes imho with those antics. They rely heavily on the centre-right to gain power, the substantial far right is too small to win on its own.
When women complain about being harassed on the street, we are admonished to simply talk back to our harassers. When we are beaten up or killed for talking back, people wonder why we provoked our assailants. When we are harassed or assaulted by someone in the public eye, we are presumed to be merely seeking publicity if we come forward. If we decide to speak out only when other women have done so first, then we must be lying, because why didn’t we mention this earlier?
I remember hearing each of these arguments at one time or another. And you just can't win when there's a double standard against you.
I don't disagree with the overall point, but neither is it safe to assume that allegations are always true. I remember for instance a few years ago some dubious psychiatric practice resulting in something of an epidemic in the UK of allegations by adults that they had been abused as children. Untrue claims by students against teachers also tend to follow 'fashion' cycles over the years.
Just yesterday a woman was jailed for 10 years for making a series of false claims about sexual assault. I'm uncomfortable about the length of that sentence (longer than most rapists would receive), but I agree it's a serious crime.
I'm not sure what the correct balance is for treating allegations of sexual assault. Police guidance in the UK was changed some time ago so that allegations should be treated as true unless demonstrated otherwise. I understand the reasons for that as treatment of those making allegations in the past has been poor and victims have been reluctant to come forward as a result. However, the new attitude has led to some high-profile errors of its own and I'm undecided as to whether this is a case where 'positive discrimination' is justified. This is an article about the differing views on the matter.
I think many recent events have in a sense caused a form of hypervigilance, or confirmation bias, where just about anything can be related to in a false or a negative fashion. It is not the best state of mind to be in all the time. Given, this is not always a bad thing, but too much and too often often can be. I believe once that point is reached, the ability to stay open minded to new input becomes much harder. Well, I know it has been so with me, and often as of late.
Them or us?
I knew the answer was yes, see?
Let me check my computer first to find out the truth...
When women complain about being harassed on the street, we are admonished to simply talk back to our harassers. When we are beaten up or killed for talking back, people wonder why we provoked our assailants. When we are harassed or assaulted by someone in the public eye, we are presumed to be merely seeking publicity if we come forward. If we decide to speak out only when other women have done so first, then we must be lying, because why didn’t we mention this earlier?
I remember hearing each of these arguments at one time or another. And you just can't win when there's a double standard against you.
Much the same way that people blame black people like Philando Castillo for getting shot for not listening to police instructions. Besides the fact that he did everything legally in regards to getting his conceal and carry permit, the immediate issue was this: he was told to keep his hands in view AND to get his identification. It is physically impossible to do both. Point being, if you are a woman, or a minority, you are living in a constant state of Catch-22. It doesn't matter if you do the "right" thing, because society is hard-wired to blame you no matter what. Anyone who has read "Catch-22", even though it is a great book, will also attest to the fact that it is a bit exhausting, which I think is by design. Imagine having to live in a situation where whatever you do can be construed as incorrect and the blame shifts to you by default.
Re voter fraud isn't a problem, voter suppression is
I think this is another example of 'fighting bias with bias'. The idea is that taking one extreme position provides the appropriate counter to someone else's extreme position. I can see the argument, but personally I don't think that's a healthy way to approach issues - particularly when the program presents itself as debunking myths.
In relation to the specifics in the program I wouldn't argue with the conclusion that there's no significant double voting or impersonation. I also wouldn't argue with the conclusion that voter suppression is a much bigger problem than voter fraud. However, the coverage on the issue of non-citizen voting is poor.
The main point at contention in relation to non-citizen voting relates to a study of past voting patterns by Jesse Richman and colleagues at Old Dominion University - which in broad terms is the origin of the claim Trump has made about 3m people voting illegally. The program gives the impression that the study is not supported academically and quotes a response by Stephen Ansolabehere and colleagues stating that it is likely there is in fact no non-citizen voting at all. While it is clear there is a large margin of error in estimates of non-citizen voting (which is why I've suggested previously further non-partisan work needs doing on this), to say this does not happen at all is not credible.
Richman has recently published a detailed study supporting his earlier work and explaining the errors Ansolabehere made in contending that all the apparent voting by non-citizens was in fact due to citizens mistakenly ticking the non-citizen box. There are a range of techniques used to do that, but the one I particularly liked was correlating the information on voting by non-citizens with responses to a series of other questions relating to immigration included in the CCES surveys that provided the original data. Responses to the questions are on average significantly different between citizens and non-citizens, so if the original results by Richman were due to citizens wrongly classing themselves as non-citizens that should be apparent in the answers to those other questions. In fact it is clear from those answers that they are in fact all or virtually all non-citizens.
I'm happy to discuss the details of the papers if anyone is interested, but I don't think those are crucial. I would though just repeat what I've said before that I believe it's a mistake to counter bias with bias. This just provides an excuse for Trump to continue with his claims of fake news while issuing his own propaganda.
The ACLU was forced to apologize after tweeting a picture of a white baby with a free speech t-shirt on. Later tweeting "When your Twitter followers keep you in check and remind you that white supremacy is everywhere." with a "good point" GIF. I don't know what to say anymore. White supremacy is now code word for anything not explictly anti white. Ordinary people would see the message, not search for racial undertones where they don't exist. Even worse is the constant capitulation and thus validation of it that only serves to strengthen this nonsense that has now become so pervasive.
You can look at this shocking display of white supremacy if you want. Trigger warning though.
They weren't forced to apologize, they made a statement in response to some of the tweets in the thread. That isn't even an apology, which would, at a bare minimum, contain the words "We're sorry". And news flash: no one here needs or has ever asked for a trigger warning, whatever that is actually supposed to mean (supposedly that liberals will collapse in panic the minute they see something they don't like). Again, the real world is not the student union at some random college. If THIS is the type of stuff that Alt-right websites are pushing everyday, it's no wonder it's so easy to keep the anti-PC crowd perpetually up in arms about something. But there was no apology issued here, quit pretending there was. As a matter of fact, they later used the same picture in another tweet.
The ACLU isn't a college campus. The DNC isn't a college campus. Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison aren't college students. CNN/Huffpo/Alternet/Salon/Vice/other left wing outlets aren't college campuses. Trying to act like this is limited to college is simply not in touch with reality especially given the current institution is in the field of law and it stretches up all the way to the top of the left wing political party.
The ACLU essentially admitted to unconciously promoting white supremacy. Unless you think they are okay with doing that, the context is obviously apologetic. But you are correct, they indeed did not use the words "im sorry".
I just read the tweet and the responses... and I see no reason why the ACLU's second tweet should be interpreted as serious and not sarcastic. If they seriously agreed with the notion that a white child means white supremacy, I'm not sure they'd use a Kermit the frog gif to say "good point." I don't think a dumb gif in a tweet amounts to ACLU's official policy, much less the entire philosophy of the American left.
I'm a liberal Democrat. Why aren't people saying my statements represent the beliefs of liberal Democrats?
When women complain about being harassed on the street, we are admonished to simply talk back to our harassers. When we are beaten up or killed for talking back, people wonder why we provoked our assailants. When we are harassed or assaulted by someone in the public eye, we are presumed to be merely seeking publicity if we come forward. If we decide to speak out only when other women have done so first, then we must be lying, because why didn’t we mention this earlier?
I remember hearing each of these arguments at one time or another. And you just can't win when there's a double standard against you.
So many likes and so many agree. Such a touching unity! Now, tell me please, how is it different from a man to be harassed? What? You can not even imagine a perfectly white man, some book worm (not a bodybuilder, not a fighter, a regular city boy) being harassed on the streets? And - no, not necessarily by any kind of minority gang either. Well, I can. Nobody expects a woman to fight back (literally), but man is still expected to do so, to be able to defend himself. If he does not - he is a weakling not worth listening, if he does - he will be much more likely heavily beaten or killed (just another pointless fight between men, obviously). Harassment and reaction to it is no different for anyone - no matter of gender, skin color or sexual orientation. Different people will be accused of attention whoring and laughed at for different reasons, but they will no matter who they are. Yet, instead of fighting mistreating itself, we are rallied to fight a particular mistreating of women/black/gay/whatever. Why?!
Nobody is fighting for human rights, for equality. No, the fight is always for rights for one group only. Only one - my - group is suffering, others are privileged. Segregation in it's best.
Comments
It's all about muh feelings and fighting symptoms. It's also becoming a safe space for genuinely anti-white bigots. Fascists want this...force neutral parties into siding with them because the alternative is batshit crazy (that's how Hitler came to power BTW).
Oh, but a little context here, they say. How vulgar to take offense at something like this when all the people of color are suffering. Personally, I take more offense at the American flag. Replace the stars with a hammer and sickle and that's the future America needs.
Here's the way communists deal with trouble makers and rabble rousers (the video isn't real).
And then that's it!
Anwayz...
Looks like war is escalating in Afghanistan after all. This is not good. I wonder if Trump supporters will hold Trump accountable for lying all those times before when he said he's bringing the boys home?
Anyone want to make wagers on whether Trump supporters will hold him accountable?
Trump doesnt have time to background check everyone who posts a meme about him.
The meme can also be taken out of context, in which Trump is just overshadowing Obama. How can he not like and retweet that? There is also no racial tones in the actual r etweet, unless you want to dig for them and assume what the orginial poster meant.
It reminds me Ford, the late mayor of Toronto, when the media would post a picture of him with random people on the street and say "see he's shaking hands with a drug dealer! He's evil!" Where his response would be, I shake hands with and take pictures with a lot of people. I don't know who these people are, except they are people from Toronto who like and support me." Same context with Trump and his re tweets.
If anything, the eclipse tweet could 've a burn about Trump. It can cause a lot of damage if you don't protect yourself from it, animals make a lot of noise when it occurs, it takes away a shining example of the day and replaces it with darkness, but best of all, it only lasts a really short time bringing brightens back in its passing.
So ya, Trump is the best ecplise ever!
I also find myself defending Trump from time to time. People (particularly media/social media types) are really just unfair to the point of being pathologically averse to anything related to Trump. Even to the point where people side with foreign dictators over their own president. When I see that behavior in people I view it as a sign of personal weakness on their part. Right now you even have total idiots in the WaPo comments section criticizing the editor of WSJ for not allowing personal attacks by accredited journalists toward the president. That's the kind of petulant children we're dealing with here.
Personally, I don't have a horse in this race because I hate the whole system.
Now on the flip side, Trump supporters are guilty of the same type of pathology. Real idiots in just about every way imaginable. I have no tolerance for it.
And if we're being honest, Trump makes himself a damn easy target. He really needs to just...you know...give people a break for a while. Even if for a few days, just give people a break. He comes on too strong and he tweets too damn much. And he focuses and takes exception to the dumbest shit.
It's no coincidence that a cursory glance into the background of the posters of pretty much everything he retweets comes from people with racist, supremacist, conspiracist people. That's the type of place on the internet our president lurks.
After Charleston, he went to the church and led the congregation in a rendition of "Amazing Grace". After Charlottesville Trump made himself a self-pitying martyr.
It should also be noted that he has two twitter accounts, one personal (therealdonaldtrump) and the POTUS one (I guess the unreal Donald trump). The POTUS one is handled by staffers for "official" communications.
They coddled him and defended him, now he's playing them for fools.
It is still a strain to our system, and many are pointing to Trudeau's own tweet's in response to Trump's immigration ban. Whatever the reasoning, here's hoping the federal liberals don't screw this up. Winter is coming and tent cities don't work well in -40 weather.
I will say, provided the individual in charge is competent there is a big advantage manueverability-wise... this is why armies like to have one person in charge. Committees imho might get better decisions, but they are slow and generally clumsy; they work best if there is an emphasis on concensus, but like a jury, holdouts can muck things up.
That said, entering a war you aren't really in, and the US had largely disengaged in Afghanistan, should be up to more than one person.
I'm secretly hoping that Trump's chain is being shortened with all the crazy public pro-nazi rants. Nobody would outrightly admit that sort of thing, but the Republican party is not exactly winning votes imho with those antics. They rely heavily on the centre-right to gain power, the substantial far right is too small to win on its own.
Should schools bearing Sir John A. Macdonald's name be changed?
Just yesterday a woman was jailed for 10 years for making a series of false claims about sexual assault. I'm uncomfortable about the length of that sentence (longer than most rapists would receive), but I agree it's a serious crime.
I'm not sure what the correct balance is for treating allegations of sexual assault. Police guidance in the UK was changed some time ago so that allegations should be treated as true unless demonstrated otherwise. I understand the reasons for that as treatment of those making allegations in the past has been poor and victims have been reluctant to come forward as a result. However, the new attitude has led to some high-profile errors of its own and I'm undecided as to whether this is a case where 'positive discrimination' is justified. This is an article about the differing views on the matter.
Hell Canada names entire school divisions after a federal traitor. Naming schools after are founding father shouldn't be an issue.
Given, this is not always a bad thing, but too much and too often often can be. I believe once that point is reached, the ability to stay open minded to new input becomes much harder.
Well, I know it has been so with me, and often as of late.
Them or us?
I knew the answer was yes, see?
Let me check my computer first to find out the truth...
In relation to the specifics in the program I wouldn't argue with the conclusion that there's no significant double voting or impersonation. I also wouldn't argue with the conclusion that voter suppression is a much bigger problem than voter fraud. However, the coverage on the issue of non-citizen voting is poor.
The main point at contention in relation to non-citizen voting relates to a study of past voting patterns by Jesse Richman and colleagues at Old Dominion University - which in broad terms is the origin of the claim Trump has made about 3m people voting illegally. The program gives the impression that the study is not supported academically and quotes a response by Stephen Ansolabehere and colleagues stating that it is likely there is in fact no non-citizen voting at all. While it is clear there is a large margin of error in estimates of non-citizen voting (which is why I've suggested previously further non-partisan work needs doing on this), to say this does not happen at all is not credible.
Richman has recently published a detailed study supporting his earlier work and explaining the errors Ansolabehere made in contending that all the apparent voting by non-citizens was in fact due to citizens mistakenly ticking the non-citizen box. There are a range of techniques used to do that, but the one I particularly liked was correlating the information on voting by non-citizens with responses to a series of other questions relating to immigration included in the CCES surveys that provided the original data. Responses to the questions are on average significantly different between citizens and non-citizens, so if the original results by Richman were due to citizens wrongly classing themselves as non-citizens that should be apparent in the answers to those other questions. In fact it is clear from those answers that they are in fact all or virtually all non-citizens.
I'm happy to discuss the details of the papers if anyone is interested, but I don't think those are crucial. I would though just repeat what I've said before that I believe it's a mistake to counter bias with bias. This just provides an excuse for Trump to continue with his claims of fake news while issuing his own propaganda.
If you want to review for yourself the competing views on voting by non-citizens that I've referred to above you can find them at:
https://cces.gov.harvard.edu/news/perils-cherry-picking-low-frequency-events-large-sample-surveys
https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/wp-content/uploads/sites/760/2015/11/AnsolabehererResponse_2-8-17.pdf
The ACLU essentially admitted to unconciously promoting white supremacy. Unless you think they are okay with doing that, the context is obviously apologetic. But you are correct, they indeed did not use the words "im sorry".
I'm a liberal Democrat. Why aren't people saying my statements represent the beliefs of liberal Democrats?
Harassment and reaction to it is no different for anyone - no matter of gender, skin color or sexual orientation. Different people will be accused of attention whoring and laughed at for different reasons, but they will no matter who they are. Yet, instead of fighting mistreating itself, we are rallied to fight a particular mistreating of women/black/gay/whatever. Why?!
Nobody is fighting for human rights, for equality. No, the fight is always for rights for one group only. Only one - my - group is suffering, others are privileged. Segregation in it's best.