…for French beauty Catherine Deneuve, who (along with some other sensible women) recently called out the “#MeToo” movement for being a bunch of joyless scolds:
“This expedited justice already has its victims, men prevented from practicing their profession as punishment, forced to resign, etc., while the only thing they did wrong was touching a knee, trying to steal a kiss, or speaking about ‘intimate’ things at a work dinner, or sending messages with sexual connotations to a woman whose feelings were not mutual.”
Read the whole thing, because the Womyns, as is their wont, have accused her of being Literally Worse Than Hitler or something.
But because it’s Sunday, I won’t dwell on the unpleasantness. Instead, let us revel in Mlle. Deneuve’s past:
…and my all-time favorite pic of Catherine:
Fully clothed, and as sexy as hell.
Here’s an article which got me thinking.
Investigation finds Facebook is STILL letting housing advertisers exclude by race, religion, and even disability.
Facebook allows advertisers to discriminate by race in housing ads, allowing advertisers to filter out certain ethnic groups from seeing their ad… [and] advertisers could still discriminate by race, as well as other categories such as mothers of high school children, people who require wheelchair access ramps, and even expats from Argentina.
My initial reaction: so fucking what? If I’m advertising for a room mate, isn’t it my right (under the Constitution, First Amendment, freedom of association etc.) to decide with whom I want to associate?
I’m sick of the negative implication that’s been applied to the word “discrimination”, by the way. If one is said to have discriminating tastes, that’s okay; but if I don’t want to rent my house to college students (reason: noisy, drunken all-night parties etc.), adherents of Santeria (reason: animal sacrifices in the basement) or cripples (reason: no handicapped access or facilities) then all of a sudden, according to government, I’m discriminating in a bad way?
I thought that the essence of “private property” (the protection of which is one of government’s few legitimate functions) is that one may use it as one wishes. So if I don’t want to share a house with a Catholic, vegan or [gasp!] a Chinese woman, isn’t that my right?
I know, I know; discrimination against people of other races, religions and cultures etc. is supposed to be wrong — and it is, when practiced by government or public entities. Government can’t say that only Protestants can apply for a government job, and cab drivers can’t refuse service to a blind person with a guide dog (because of their anti-animal religion) because the cab service is a government-licensed activity.
But as an individual, I’m supposed to be able to practice any kind of discrimination as long as it doesn’t actually harm other people. And no, not wanting to share your living space with a Black gang member is not causing him harm — except that according to the modern liberal mindset, it is.
These groups are protected under the federal Fair Housing Act, which makes it a federal offense to publish ads that indicate a preference for or discriminate against people based on race, color, religion, gender, handicap, family status or national origin.
The only blessing I can see arising from all this nonsense is that I don’t have a Facebook account and am unlikely to ever have one. (So in that regard we can both breathe a sigh of relief.)
Update: Uh huh. Never saw this one coming:
Facebook could soon lock you out of your account unless you’re willing to upload a ‘clear’ selfie to verify your identity