Re: Meet U.N. "Climate Advisor" Ayisha Siddiqa...

On Apr 9, 2024 at 6:13:48 PM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 4/9/24 12:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  On Apr 9, 2024 at 6:48:25 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
 

  On 4/8/24 4:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

    In article <uv0vg6$3hsmc$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
    wrote:
   

    On 4/5/24 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

    FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 4/4/24 8:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

    In article <uuneea$uqll$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
    wrote:
>

    On 4/4/24 3:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

    In article <uum8rd$ln18$3@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
    wrote:
>

    On 4/3/24 11:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

>

    Ayisha Siddiqa (@Ayishas12), a climate adviser for the UN.
>
    https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1775191286032523366?s=20
>
    She claims the "white man" and "capitalism" are responsible for
    bringing life to "the verge of extinction" and calls white men
    killers, looters, and abusers. Her account is filled with hateful
    anti-white posts.
>
    Apparently, it's totally fine to be disgustingly racist against
    white people if you work at the United Nations.
>
    Why are we funding these racist clowns with our tax dollars? The
    United States should simply withdraw from the U.N., send these
    bigoted assholes back to their shithole countries, and retrofit
    U.N. Plaza to house our homeless veterans.

>

    Libs of Tik Tok. That's all I need to say.

>
    LOL!
>
    Because posting other people's self-owns somehow invalidates those
    self-owns.
>

    Posting racists and book banners, you mean.

>
    Ayisha Siddiqa is a racist, I'll grant you, but what books has she
    banned?
>

    "Raichik has left up scores of tweets denying the existence of systemic
    racism.

>
    Cool. Now answer the question I asked.
>
    The day after Juneteenth 2021, Raichikšs account posted a

    callout to her followers, asking them to reply with one word and she
    would try to find a video saying why that word is racist.

>
    So she finds various videos from leftists claiming almost any word you can
    think of is racist and she's racist for posting them?
>
    Oooo-kay, Jan.

>

    So now you're a racist if you don't automatically agree with whatever
    racism claims leftist make? That's in an interesting take. Insane, but
    interesting.
   

  Nope. I forgot you can't read. "She's racist because she holds racist
  opinions." is a simple concept to grasp, even for you.

    What opinion of hers is racist?
 

  Slate scrolled through thousands of Raichik's tweets, including hundreds of
  deleted tweets, to understand how one real estate agent could gain such
  clout and to try to discern her next targets. One notable trend was clear:
  Raichik’s feed is colored by an intense hostility to liberals generally, but
  she holds an especially pronounced animosity toward LGBTQ people, city
  dwellers, and black people who have been killed at the hands of police.

>

  The same week that Raichik said she started "the tik tok thing", Minneapolis
  police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of murdering George Floyd. Prior
  to his conviction, Raichik had focused on a different flavor of right-wing
  content under other usernames. But around the time the verdict came down,
  Raichik let her apparent views on police violence be known: Floyd was a
  criminal and his death was the result of drug use, not Chauvin's brutality,
  she made clear in a series of tweets.

    That's actually true. Saint Floyd's cause of death was a drug overdose.
 

  Raichik’s apparent hostility for black victims of police violence didn't end
  with Floyd. She also tweeted repeatedly mocking the killing of 16-year-old
  Ma'Khia Bryant, and in another video, the account endorsed random police
  brutality.

>
  So you can go right out and fuck right off.  She's a goddamned racist
  because she holds racist opinions.
>
  Just. Like. I. Proved.

    You proved nothing other than Slate has called her a racist. They say they
  found racist tweets but then said they were deleted, so we conveniently
can't
  see all this racism they claim exists.
    And then they, like you, claim that just denying the existence of 'systemic
  racism' is itself racist. If that's what Slate (and you) consider racism,
then
  you're both full of shit.
    Oh, and by the way, just as you constantly dismiss things based on the bias
of
  the messenger, you're going to have to come up with something better than
  Slate if you want to actually prove anything because-- according to Effa's
Own
  Rules-- Slate is a very biased messenger, which nothing they say is
  trustworthy and you've proved nothing.
  >

You can see the old tweets just fine, Dumbo.
>
>
https://www.queerty.com/libs-tiktok-deletes-thousands-tweets-owner-exposed-internet-remembers-forever-20220420

 Queerty.com... that's all I need to say.
 (Hey, this is fun! Just dismiss a source because it's biased and there's no
need to go any further. Thanks for this rule, Effa!)