Can you even imagine what it feels like when someone says something mean to you on the internet.

No, you can’t.

You will never know what that feels like, because you are white, and white people do not have emotions like brown people.

Brown people feel everything so, so deeply, because they are so much more human than whites.

Whites are really just like animals – or more like insects – and do not have human emotions. They will never feel the weight of a mean internet message in the way a person of color feels it.

The Guardian:

Mehreen Faruqi has told the federal court she has suffered from insomnia, psychological distress and death threats after a tweet from One Nation’s Pauline Hanson, as the Greens senator pursues a claim under the Racial Discrimination Act.

Faruqi’s lawyers said in a court filing that she was “offended, insulted, humiliated and intimidated” by Hanson’s tweet in 2022, which told the Greens senator to “piss off back to Pakistan” after her comments on the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

Faruqi last month launched federal court action against Hanson under the Racial Discrimination Act. Faruqi wants Hanson to make a $150,000 donation to charity and publish a new tweet saying she had used offensive language. The New South Wales senator said she chose to escalate legal action over the September 2022 tweet after a complaint through the Human Rights Commission was terminated.

On 9 September, the day of the Queen’s death, Faruqi tweeted: “I cannot mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples.”

Hanson quote-tweeted that post to her own followers, replying: “Your attitude appalls and disgusts me. When you immigrated to Australia you took every advantage of this country. You took citizenship, bought multiple homes, and a job in a parliament. It’s clear you’re not happy, so pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan.”

The Greens moved a censure motion against Hanson in the Senate, but amendments from Labor and the Coalition leaders saw Hanson’s name and her comments removed from the motion, instead replaced with a general call for respectful debate.

In her own speech on the motion, Hanson refused to retract her tweet and doubled down by saying she would “take [Faruqi] to the airport”.

Faruqi is supported by the half-Chink lesbian born in Malaysia who is Australia’s foreign affairs minister

Faruqi’s concise statement, obtained by Guardian Australia, was filed to the federal court on Tuesday and prepared by Michael Bradley of Marque Lawyers. It accused Hanson of “unlawful offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin”.

The statement says that people of colour, migrants, Muslim people, people who have experienced racism and person who have been told to “go back to where they came from” or variations of that, had been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by Hanson’s tweet.

The statement goes on to say that Faruqi and members of the stated groups had suffered psychological distress, mental ill health, fear of imminent physical attack, and “hypervigilance, including to the extent of insomnia and lack of enjoyment of home and private life.”

“Further, since and as a result of the Respondent’s tweet, the Applicant [Faruqi] has been subject to a torrent of abusive phone calls, social media posts and hate mail (including death threats, misogynistic and racially and sexually violent content),” the statement said.

“Many of these missives make direct reference to the Respondent’s [Hanson] tweet and reiterate its racist and offensive remarks.”

In one section of the six-page filing, which claimed Hanson had made her remarks for reasons including “the colour of the Applicant’s skin”, Faruqi’s statement accused Hanson of white supremacist views.

“The Respondent has a long and well-documented history of commentary implying that she holds white supremacist views,” the statement said.

“She has made countless hateful remarks over many years about Asian and Muslim people (both ethno-religious groups to which the Applicant belongs) and people of other races and ethno-religious origins.”

We are trying to build a utopia of child trannies and Moslems.

We are never going to reach that point if we continue to allow whites to “simply exist.”

We know who is sending the mean messages, we know who is doing all kinds of hurt feelings.

It’s time we started to consider a final solution to the white problem.

This is rather disconcerting news.

Urban Dictionary was one of the few sites in the Alexa top 500 that seemed unwilling to succumb to Semitical Correctness and censor its user-made content, even though a lot of that content was pretty hardcore by normieweb standards.

Now that the founder has shown weakness by letting a black/Abo Facebook group pressure his team into removing some racist definitions from the site, however, further attempts at censorship are guaranteed to follow.

Give these apes an inch and they’ll take a mile.

Daily Mail:

Urban Dictionary has been forced to delete racist definitions of what an Aboriginal person is.

The website, which features user-submitted definitions for slang words, was home to a string of vile, and abusive descriptions of what an Aboriginal person was.

The racist definitions, which described Aboriginal people as ‘filthy black humans’ and ‘smelly pr***s’ were wiped from the site on Thursday following an online campaign.

Until Thursday, the top definition for ‘Aboriginal’ was ‘filthy black humans who inhabit Australia, abuse drugs and alcohol, sniff petrol and any other chemical they can get their hands on’.

‘Thieving anything they can carry, and bash and rob old people or those who can’t defend themselves,’ it said.

…

The post had more than 300 votes, and was therefore the first thing people saw when they clicked on the site.

Before we continue, I’d like to make an obvious point: the above definition is highly accurate.

Abos are the worst brand of niggers on the planet. I visited the city of Cairns in 2016 and those orcs made my stay an absolute misery. They were everywhere, constantly picking fights with white humans on the street, calling small children “cunts” and other colorful four-letter words, aggressively begging for money and much more.

Same species lol.

I don’t know how Australians put up with them. Then again, we are talking about a people who live on a continent packed with carnivorous trees and birds that can disembowel humans with their talons, so I guess they’re so accustomed to hostile wildlife that they barely notice them any more.

I’m always looking for an excuse to post this vid. For some reason I find the roo’s startled reaction after being punched hilarious, as though he was thinking, “dude I was just joking around, wtf man.”

A campaign to remove racist definitions from Urban Dictionary was created earlier this week by the Blackfulla Revolution Facebook page.

The page urged its followers to protest the appropriateness of the definitions.

The page also asked followers to submit new definitions to replace the old.

The campaign garnered more than 7,000 signatures in less than a week.

The petition described the definitions as ‘hurtful and dangerous’ and called for the owners of the site to pull them down.

In response to the backlash, the site deleted the racist definitions on Thursday.

The new top definition of “Aboriginal.” A little anti-huwhite if you ask me.

So there were no good (i.e., legal) reasons for the site to remove the original definitions. They just hurt the fee-fees of coloreds, so were removed and replaced with SJW definitions instead.

This is what the Internet has come to in the current year.

Instead of catering to these darkies’ demands without resistance, Urban Dictionary should have gone into TOTAL SHITLORD MODE and responded with, “we’ll be happy to remove those definitions if you can prove that they aren’t true.”

Seriously, the inevitable media blacklash would have benefited the site. The Internet has a serious drought of popular sites that still believe in actual free speech, so the ones that continue to guard their principles in the face of ongoing political oppression are practically guaranteed to expand their userbase over time.

Alas, the damage is done. Urban Dictionary fucked up and censored their site to appease a bunch of brainless nogs on another continent. They can easily recover from this minor bump, but they need to show more backbone in the future.

Censorship is a slippery, slippery slope.

Hurt feelings are an epidemic in today’s society.

Black people feel them after seeing unarmed White teenagers being treated well by police, women feel them after seeing men receive higher wages for doing the same job, and overweight people feel them after seeing slim people fit into airline seats without having to raise the arm rests.

Fortunately, Facebook – often nicknamed the “Conscience of the Internet” because of its commitment to social activism – aims to end the epidemic of hurt feelings by banning advertisements that cause them.

The latest victim of their righteous censorship campaign is an Australian anti-obesity ad that risked offending Aussies of size.

Breitbart:

Facebook has banned a Western Australia anti-obesity advertisement over concerns some users may find the ad offensive.

The West Australian reports that Facebook has banned WA’s anti-obesity advertisement campaign, claiming that the advertisements “grabbable gut” imagery could be offensive to users. LiveLighter, the West Australia state-wide campaign funded by the Department of Health, was told that their advertisement, featuring a man grabbing his stomach, would be blocked on the Facebook platform as it could offend those with body image issues.

Facebook reportedly told LiveLighter, “Your advert wasn’t approved because we don’t allow adverts that reference body images in a way that may make some viewers upset.” Facebook continued to state, “Adverts that refer to someone’s health or appearance are sensitive in nature.” Maurice Swanson, the chief executive of the WA Heart Foundation, accused Facebook of being hypocritical in their advertising stance, allowing the advertising of junk food while opposing the advertisement of messages warning users about the health risks of junk food.

I can understand why Facebook reacted negatively to this insensitive advertisement.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 63.4 percent of Australian adults were overweight or obese back in 2015 – and that percentage is expected to be higher now. From both a financial and moral standpoint, banning an ad that hurts the feelings of a nation’s majority is a no-brainer.

The simple fact is that overweight people don’t like being reminded that they’re overweight. Often, this is because their size is not their fault. Due to extreme variations in metabolism, a woman who eats nothing but lentils and broccoli every day can easily become heavier than a woman who consumes McDonald’s for breakfast, brunch and dinner.

That is a Jewish fact.

So, why encourage these people to repair the irreparable?

Countless Internet trolls bullied Pierce Brosnan’s wife, Keely Shaye, because of her ongoing weight gain. Naturally, none of those yokels stopped to question whether her size was the result of hypothyroidism.

Moreover, studies show that if overweight people are reminded of their obesity, they comfort eat out of unhappiness – resulting in further weight gain. This is especially true of obese men, whose estrogenic fat reserves make them even more sensitive to hurt feelings than slim women.

Personally, I applaud Facebook for its tireless work in censoring images and words that invoke distressing emotions. I used to be suspicious of its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, but it has become obvious to me that this Jew truly intends to repair the world.

Hurting someone’s feeeeelings due to their race or religion in this politically correct Western world, in terms of its repulsiveness, falls just short of committing another Holocaust. And in order to avoid hurt feeeelings, the Leicester branch of a halal-only KFC refused a hand wipe to a non-Muslim customer because it consisted of alcohol.

Needless to say, Graham Noakes, the customer in question, was disgusted.

Mirror:

The 41-year-old thought he was the victim of a wind-up by staff at the Leicester restaurant – but KFC bosses confirmed the policy was genuine.

He said: “They told me it might offend other customers. I explained that it wouldn’t affect me. In fact – I told them I like alcohol, so it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest.

“When they wouldn’t give me one, I was disgusted. I will never be going to KFC again.”

…

“Why shouldn’t I be allowed a wipe for my hands?” he added. “They use wipes in hospital, what happens when we start being told we can’t have wipes there? I just can’t understand it.”

Even Suleman Nagdi, the spokesman for the Federation of Muslim Organizations, claimed that the hand wipe policy of the Leicester KFC was absolutely ridiculous:

“Using alcohol doesn’t mean you’re consuming it. It seems like an unusual decision to be made. In fact, it sounds bizarre.”

…

“I’ve never come across anything like this before. KFC have made a commercial decision to do this, and now the Muslim community will face backlash,” he said.

KFC moreover released a couple of statements, with the second statement reading:

“Our alcohol-based hand wipes are approved for use in all our restaurants, including those who are part of the halal trial.

“There was a misunderstanding at the store in question, but the wipes are now being used again. We’re sorry for the customer’s experience.”

As Nagdi alluded to above, Islam forbids the consumption of alcohol; but not its general use, e.g., using rubbing alcohol or alcohol-saturated hand wipes. Whether one views this issue from a non-Muslim or a Muslim perspective, it is simply a consequence of the insanity of political correctness.

I applaud KFC for recognizing the stupidity of this policy and subsequently correcting it. But shame on that branch for allowing it to happen in the first place.

A policeman is suing his bosses after colleagues allegedly offended him by referring to Romany people as ‘travellers’.

Jim Davies, an Englishman of Romany descent, accuses police staff of using the word ‘pikey’ to describe other members of the Romany community.

The speed enforcement officer is suing Thames Valley Police for racial discrimination over the use of the terms.

He outlined his case at a preliminary hearing today, where a panel is set to rule which parts of his evidence will be admissable at the full tribunal.

The officer, who lives in Brackley, Northamptonshire, told the hearing in reading that he was offended by hearing Romany people described as ‘travellers’.

He claimed the term had been ‘institutionalised’ at the force over the 20 years he has worked there, and was a discriminatory reference to his own ethnicity.

Mr Davies said he could not remember the details of every alleged use of the word, but insisted that it was used ‘on a frequent basis.’

At the preliminary hearing, a section from Mr Davies’ claim was read out that said: ‘I have continuously witnessed colleagues making offensive comments about travellers.’

He also claimed colleagues used the word ‘pikey’ as a derogatory term for Romany people.

A representative of Thames Valley Police argued that the use of the word ‘traveller’ referred to the whole community, not just those of Romany origin.

James Arnold told the panel: ‘What we have got is a generic use of the word traveller to describe those people living on traveller sites, regardless of ethnicity.’

However, the claimant is to argue that there were incidents when the term was used in a more specific context when it was likely to refer to Romany people.

Members of the Romany community are legally protected from unfair treatment under laws forbidding racial discrimination.

Read More