>>4799550 lb

>nonsense shilling

Not a shill. You still haven't presented evidence to refute my claims of general trends among races or genders. Not asking you to, just saying that if an anon makes an argument based on a claim to fact, the only reasonable argument is to refute the facts & the argument as presented, not to attack them personally or strawman their argument. My argument wasn't "therefore all men/women/this-or-that race are {insert descriptor}," my argument was about general trends. I also didn't say I wanted to block anyone from any role based on their race and gender. My argument is that giving special advantage to "privileged classes" is bullshit, that we shouldn't pretend anyone has abilities they don't have based on affirmative action. When anon complained earlier about having so many damn women appointed, I'm guessing it's coming from this fatigue of knowing there's a good chance that a woman is being placed to play identify politics even tho there might be other men more qualified. In this case (SCOTUS), I'm not even saying that's a bad move, we gotta play the politics game as it exists. I'm just saying that the argument of "muh equality" applied to the sexes is unfounded, that it's Marxist programming. But that's cool, I don't wanna fight about it. We have bigger fish to fry. I only said something in the first place cuz you used an anti-white slur against a fellow anon only bc you disagreed w/his position. Not to attack you, but so you could choose to reflect if you wanted. I've been in a position to have my biases and assumptions checked recently. It's not fun in the moment, but worth it in the long run. Boot camp for the mind and all.

Godspeed anon.