The log entry makes an excellent point (several, actually). At one time, say during the mid-fifties, automatic suspicions in regard to the likelihood of fair treatment of races and sexes ("gender and racial equality") meted out by a judge were reserved for candidates with some sort of blemish in their backgrounds of a kind that might reasonably arouse concerns. But here's a candidate with no such blemishes in his background, yet the automatic suspicion is the same as if there were. In other words the new attitude is, as the log entry notes, that sexually-normal white men without blemish in their backgrounds abuse others if left to themselves -- which never used to be the attitude. Such an outlook is highly perverse to say the least. It denies and advocates against normalness, both at the same time. It's got to be changed back to the way it used to be, obviously. The other thing is, and this is related, who says adherence to modern Dem-Party notions of "gender and racial equality" amounts to fair treatment of races and sexes? There's evidence of the reverse, in fact: adherence to such notions can in some instances amount to supporting what harms races and sexes.
________________________
"Does that make any sense at all?" In a word: No.
The log entry makes an excellent point (several, actually). At one time, say during the mid-fifties, automatic suspicions in regard to the likelihood of fair treatment of races and sexes ("gender and racial equality") meted out by a judge were reserved for candidates with some sort of blemish in their backgrounds of a kind that might reasonably arouse concerns. But here's a candidate with no such blemishes in his background, yet the automatic suspicion is the same as if there were. In other words the new attitude is, as the log entry notes, that sexually-normal white men without blemish in their backgrounds abuse others if left to themselves -- which never used to be the attitude. Such an outlook is highly perverse to say the least. It denies and advocates against normalness, both at the same time. It's got to be changed back to the way it used to be, obviously. The other thing is, and this is related, who says adherence to modern Dem-Party notions of "gender and racial equality" amounts to fair treatment of races and sexes? There's evidence of the reverse, in fact: adherence to such notions can in some instances amount to supporting what harms races and sexes.
________________________
Long live free Flanders!
________________________