There is a profound difference between the upper middle class educated professional communities that many of us grew up in, and those communities populated by what used to be called "trailer trash."
If intelligence and academic achievement were not "cool" where you went to school, then you need to make sure that your kids grow up in a place where they are.
You're making the mistake of assuming that Jackson is the least bit honest in what he is saying.
He is a hustler.
He goes around and shakes down companies for money, under the threat that failure to pay will result in his legion of useful idiots making trouble for them.
You can't judge people by which group they belong to. That this group or that group is "underrepresented" does not mean that there is a problem to be solved, let alone a problem that can be solved by manipulating admissions and hiring standards.
People from whatever group you want to bring up who have the chops to pursue a challenging carreer, and are actually interested in pursuing it, will do so, and they will do as well as anyone else in that field. Their membership in such and such a group does not define who they are, their individual abilities and inclinations do that.
The only valid way of judging someone is as an individual.
Social engineering efforts based on group membership backfire. The people behind such efforts are fools, and all too often villains.
The lowering of the standards is not a side effect, but is in fact the goal.
Why? it isn't because those behind these schemes want to make it easier for members of arbitrarily defined groups to do well in comparison to members of other arbitrary groups, but to sabotage them.
The greatest trick that bigots ever pulled was convincing the targets of their bigotry to view themselves as victims.
A black or mexican or what have you student in the 92nd percentile put into a school where everyone else is in the 98th percentile is being screwed over, plain and simple.
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.
Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.
All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.
Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.
The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.
The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded." Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century --- "dangerous human pests" who represented "the rising tide of imbeciles" and who were polluting the best of the human race.
The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded --- Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks --- and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.
As Margaret Sanger said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty... there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste."
Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against "ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said tha
A lecture by Michael Crichton Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003
My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming.
Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.
Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science—namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.
I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack.
It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics—a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values—international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be a very good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world.
But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought—prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.
But let's look at how it came to pass.
Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:
N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL
Where N* is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.
This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be es
Social Justice: The flawed notion that losers and failures are the victims of the adequate and the able and that society must be rearranged to punish the latter and liberate the former from personal responsibility. See Marxism.
Social Justice Hipsters are people who disparage those who make wise and proper choices in life, knowing that with every good turn, the targets of their disdain pull further and further away from people who huff paint, stick needles in their arms, or otherwise engage in behaviors that lead to failure. Social Justice Hipsters hate anything that is a key behavioral difference between winners and losers. A stable and functional marriage is one of the strongest institutions for the creationg of wealth and social capital. Functional marriages also have a profound role in the creation of next-generation's winners and achievers. Therefore the Social Justice Hipsters hate it, just as they hate anything else that contributes to human happiness and well being.
Women want to marry "up." IT pros tend to make more money than the average schlub.
Therefore a woman, upon discovering that a tolerably attractive man is an IT pro, is more interested than she would be otherwise.
Now obviously the kooks, creeps, freaks, and autistic weirdos are excluded from this, but then they are excluded no matter what they do for a living.
Used to be that women wanted to marry doctors and lawyers. Doctors they still do. Lawyers are toast as there are NO JOBS for law school graduates. People currently in law school may not realize this, but women looking to marry sure as hell do. Men who make good money in the IT realm have been added to the preferred list of potential husbands.
Once upon a time I would have assumed that the claims of whales dying were made in good faith.
Not anymore.
The environmental movement is so overrun with watermelon-marxists (green on the outside, red on the inside) that any claims have to be carefully screened to ensure that they are not an anti-capitalist scam masquerading as environmental concern.
That the target of this claim is an oil company looking for new sources of petroleum, makes me highly suspicious.
A professionally trained, well-paid human teacher eh?
If this is true, then how come our schools are so awful?
We the people have been throwing more and more money at schoolteachers, and requiring ever-increasing levels of training and education to maintain their license to teach, yet the educational achievments of our students have been flatlined for 40 years, and have even fallen dramatically in some districts.
Meanwhile home schooled children, taught by parents with no formal training as teachers, outperform government-schooled students so often that the high achieving home schooler has become a cultural meme, if not a cliche.
Charter schools have also been able to deliver superior results at lower cost.
No, I don't think we need professionally trained well paid teachers. What we need are voucher programs, more home schooling, teachers and schools that have to compete, the utter end to tenure of any kind, and pay/bonuses based on classroom performance instead of seniority. Opening up the teaching profession to anyone with a bachelor's degree and a demonstrated knowledge of a subject (english, math, science) would be even better. There is no evidence that having a master's degree in early childhood education helps someone teach 3rd graders how to multiply. Let those who want to teach and who are good at it take the field, and get rid of parasitic space takers for whom a teaching job is a state-paid sinecure.
Most of all, outlaw public sector unions so that groups like the NEA aren't able to block real education reform.
Problem is, scientific knowledge doesn't advance the people who possess it. It does not make them better human beings. It does not impart wisdom or an understanding of human nature.
Religious belief, despite all of its many flaws and shortcomings, is the only thing that has consistently been able to do these things.
Biblical creationists believe that evolution undermines the idea of divine creation, specifically the idea that man is created in God's image. This is a very important belief for them. Without it, their world crumbles.
When you present them with facts and evidence supporting evolution, they're not dispassionately evaluating the evidence, but desperately trying to avoid confronting it, to the point of profound intellectual dishonesty.
They are what used to be called neurotic, irrational and disturbed in one specific area or about one specific thing, but otherwise relatively functional human beings, able to work, raise families, etc, etc.
The answer to the question of why Biblical Creationists are like this is the same as the answer to the question of why some people are holocaust deniers, or Marxists, or followers of any other ideology or belief that is in obvious defiance of objective reality. They have invested their sense of self into this belief, and they cannot abandon that belief without sacrificing their sense of self along with it.
The point isn't whether the FBI can use evidence collected in this way in court, the point is that in performing these acts in the first place, the FBI is guilty of violating numerous federal laws.
They say this is about tracking down pedophiles. Yeah, right. Great cover story. Nobody likes child molesters after all. The state can do just about anything, and the public will accept it, if they can pretend it is about finding and eliminating child molesters. But that's not what this is actually about. The point of this is the same as it always is, government resentment at discovering it is not omniscient.
You can call them Killer Butterflies if you want. The point is, they're PREDATORS. You can train them, but you can't tame them. Sooner or later, they're gonna decide you look better than the fishes you're tossing at them, and have themselves a little snack.
Slashdot Mirror
The very notion of a "minority" is a scam.
It is just a made up word that seems to mean someone who isn't "white."
People are encouraged to fret over whether some person or another is a "minority" or not, instead of just treating them like a human being.
What is more, in fields that tap a global talent pool, people who aren't "white" are the numerical majority.
Ever watch "Winter's Bone?"
You can thank LBJ's "great society" for this.
Depends on which "American" culture you're talking about:
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-A...
There is a profound difference between the upper middle class educated professional communities that many of us grew up in, and those communities populated by what used to be called "trailer trash."
If intelligence and academic achievement were not "cool" where you went to school, then you need to make sure that your kids grow up in a place where they are.
You're making the mistake of assuming that Jackson is the least bit honest in what he is saying.
He is a hustler.
He goes around and shakes down companies for money, under the threat that failure to pay will result in his legion of useful idiots making trouble for them.
The guy is a walking cancer.
It doesn't help anyone.
You can't judge people by which group they belong to. That this group or that group is "underrepresented" does not mean that there is a problem to be solved, let alone a problem that can be solved by manipulating admissions and hiring standards.
People from whatever group you want to bring up who have the chops to pursue a challenging carreer, and are actually interested in pursuing it, will do so, and they will do as well as anyone else in that field. Their membership in such and such a group does not define who they are, their individual abilities and inclinations do that.
The only valid way of judging someone is as an individual.
Social engineering efforts based on group membership backfire. The people behind such efforts are fools, and all too often villains.
The lowering of the standards is not a side effect, but is in fact the goal.
Why? it isn't because those behind these schemes want to make it easier for members of arbitrarily defined groups to do well in comparison to members of other arbitrary groups, but to sabotage them.
The greatest trick that bigots ever pulled was convincing the targets of their bigotry to view themselves as victims.
A black or mexican or what have you student in the 92nd percentile put into a school where everyone else is in the 98th percentile is being screwed over, plain and simple.
"Affirmative action" is a system where people are treated as a member of a group rather than judged as an individual.
Companies that practise such shenanigans are at a competitive disadvantage.
http://www.michaelcrichton.net...
(Excerpted from State of Fear)
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.
Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.
All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.
Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.
The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.
The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded." Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century --- "dangerous human pests" who represented "the rising tide of imbeciles" and who were polluting the best of the human race.
The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded --- Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks --- and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.
As Margaret Sanger said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty ... there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste."
Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against "ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said tha
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~s...
A lecture by Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture
January 17, 2003
My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming.
Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.
Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science—namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.
I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack.
It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics—a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values—international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be a very good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world.
But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought—prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.
But let's look at how it came to pass.
Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:
N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL
Where N* is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.
This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be es
Social Justice: The flawed notion that losers and failures are the victims of the adequate and the able and that society must be rearranged to punish the latter and liberate the former from personal responsibility. See Marxism.
Social Justice Hipsters are people who disparage those who make wise and proper choices in life, knowing that with every good turn, the targets of their disdain pull further and further away from people who huff paint, stick needles in their arms, or otherwise engage in behaviors that lead to failure. Social Justice Hipsters hate anything that is a key behavioral difference between winners and losers. A stable and functional marriage is one of the strongest institutions for the creationg of wealth and social capital. Functional marriages also have a profound role in the creation of next-generation's winners and achievers. Therefore the Social Justice Hipsters hate it, just as they hate anything else that contributes to human happiness and well being.
Women want to marry "up." IT pros tend to make more money than the average schlub.
Therefore a woman, upon discovering that a tolerably attractive man is an IT pro, is more interested than she would be otherwise.
Now obviously the kooks, creeps, freaks, and autistic weirdos are excluded from this, but then they are excluded no matter what they do for a living.
Used to be that women wanted to marry doctors and lawyers. Doctors they still do. Lawyers are toast as there are NO JOBS for law school graduates. People currently in law school may not realize this, but women looking to marry sure as hell do. Men who make good money in the IT realm have been added to the preferred list of potential husbands.
A majority of Young American Adults also think the world is getting hotter and that money is something the government gives you.
I knew something like this was in the works.
The only alternative was to come up with Yet Another Excuse (YAE) for national and international kleptocrats to assert control over people's lives.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Bad people don't get a pass just cause they like computers.
Too bad that idea can't be applied to government(s) and the kleptocrats who corrupt it.
Once upon a time I would have assumed that the claims of whales dying were made in good faith.
Not anymore.
The environmental movement is so overrun with watermelon-marxists (green on the outside, red on the inside) that any claims have to be carefully screened to ensure that they are not an anti-capitalist scam masquerading as environmental concern.
That the target of this claim is an oil company looking for new sources of petroleum, makes me highly suspicious.
A professionally trained, well-paid human teacher eh?
If this is true, then how come our schools are so awful?
We the people have been throwing more and more money at schoolteachers, and requiring ever-increasing levels of training and education to maintain their license to teach, yet the educational achievments of our students have been flatlined for 40 years, and have even fallen dramatically in some districts.
Meanwhile home schooled children, taught by parents with no formal training as teachers, outperform government-schooled students so often that the high achieving home schooler has become a cultural meme, if not a cliche.
Charter schools have also been able to deliver superior results at lower cost.
No, I don't think we need professionally trained well paid teachers. What we need are voucher programs, more home schooling, teachers and schools that have to compete, the utter end to tenure of any kind, and pay/bonuses based on classroom performance instead of seniority. Opening up the teaching profession to anyone with a bachelor's degree and a demonstrated knowledge of a subject (english, math, science) would be even better. There is no evidence that having a master's degree in early childhood education helps someone teach 3rd graders how to multiply. Let those who want to teach and who are good at it take the field, and get rid of parasitic space takers for whom a teaching job is a state-paid sinecure.
Most of all, outlaw public sector unions so that groups like the NEA aren't able to block real education reform.
As scientific knowledge advances, DOGMA shrinks.
Problem is, scientific knowledge doesn't advance the people who possess it. It does not make them better human beings. It does not impart wisdom or an understanding of human nature.
Religious belief, despite all of its many flaws and shortcomings, is the only thing that has consistently been able to do these things.
Biblical creationists believe that evolution undermines the idea of divine creation, specifically the idea that man is created in God's image. This is a very important belief for them. Without it, their world crumbles.
When you present them with facts and evidence supporting evolution, they're not dispassionately evaluating the evidence, but desperately trying to avoid confronting it, to the point of profound intellectual dishonesty.
They are what used to be called neurotic, irrational and disturbed in one specific area or about one specific thing, but otherwise relatively functional human beings, able to work, raise families, etc, etc.
The answer to the question of why Biblical Creationists are like this is the same as the answer to the question of why some people are holocaust deniers, or Marxists, or followers of any other ideology or belief that is in obvious defiance of objective reality. They have invested their sense of self into this belief, and they cannot abandon that belief without sacrificing their sense of self along with it.
So they hold on to that belief, no matter what.
The point isn't whether the FBI can use evidence collected in this way in court, the point is that in performing these acts in the first place, the FBI is guilty of violating numerous federal laws.
They say this is about tracking down pedophiles. Yeah, right. Great cover story. Nobody likes child molesters after all. The state can do just about anything, and the public will accept it, if they can pretend it is about finding and eliminating child molesters. But that's not what this is actually about. The point of this is the same as it always is, government resentment at discovering it is not omniscient.
So they're Killer Dolphins then.
You can call them Killer Butterflies if you want. The point is, they're PREDATORS. You can train them, but you can't tame them. Sooner or later, they're gonna decide you look better than the fishes you're tossing at them, and have themselves a little snack.
"Hey Ya'll... watch this!!"
Why are we keeping killer whales in giant fishbowls?
Seriously though, what is the point?
People dying while putting out fires, pursuing criminals, or doing other work that is dangerous, but necessary, is one thing.
People dying so that tourists can watch killer whales jump through hoops? Not necessary.
What exactly does "anti woman" mean?
I'm being serious here. Exactly how does someone create a page/group that attacks half the population in a way that anyone would take seriously?
Exactly how do you successfully cast half the world as the "other?"