Doxxers Attack Google After Leaked Diversity Memo | Soshal Network, Social Circle Connection

Doxxers Attack Google After Leaked Diversity Memo


Enjoyed the video ladies check these swimsuits out

Google just recently needed to cancel a companywide conference to go over a leaked memo concerning sex equal rights due to fears of harassment. Cenk Uygur, Maytha Alhassen and also Ana Kasparian break it down on The Young Turks. Inform us exactly what you think in the remark section listed below.

Learn more here:

" Google just recently canceled a set up companywide conference at which execs had actually intended to talk about a memorandum that doubted the Silicon Valley titan's diversity efforts after workers shared concern that they would be subjected to harassment online.

Google is grappling with the results from the memorandum, which was created by a software engineer that suggested that organic distinctions– such as women experiencing greater degrees of stress and anxiety and also a reduced tolerance for tension– assisted explain why there are substantially fewer ladies compared to guys in vital engineering positions and also management duties at the firm." *.

Hosts: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian, Maytha Alhassen.

Cast: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian, Maytha Alhassen.


The Largest Online Information Show in the Globe. Organized by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE STREAMING weekdays 6-8pm ET.

Sign up for The Young Turks on YouTube:.

Like The Young Turks on Facebook:.

Follow The Young Turks on Twitter:.

Buy TYT Merch:.

Download audio and also video of the full 2 hr show on-demand + the members-only blog post game show by coming to be a participant at. Your subscription sustains the day to day procedures and is crucial for our ongoing success and also growth.

Youthful Turk (n), 1. Youthful modern or anarchical member of an establishment, movement, or political celebration. 2. A young person who rebels versus authority or social expectations.( American Heritage Thesaurus).

Share Your Comments


  1. Posted by Vishank Jain-Sharma, at Reply

    All you rightwingers are doing is pushing me further to the left on feminism, as your existence confirms to me that the movement is actually still needed to stamp out your disgusting views.

    • Posted by Vishank Jain-Sharma, at Reply

      Dylan *Insert Generic Name* Yes, I read the whole thing carefully, with its shoddy ‘evidence’. It’s disgusting because among qualified workers at a prestigious COMPANY, minor biological differences among the GENERAL population are so negligible compared to company culture and social culture in perpetuating company wide gender pay differences that bringing biology up as a major cause is inherently sexist and disgusting, as it would be for whites vs blacks. Don’t repeat the eugenics mistakes of the 50s.

    • Posted by Vishank Jain-Sharma, at Reply

      Lenny Stoat If you do something that massively tarnishes your company’s brand, then yes you should be fired. Including if his stuff was hypothetically extreme feminist. And why not use this ‘free discussion’ argument to bring up ‘biological causes’ for blacks’ inferiority to whites? Oh right, because even you fuckers are afraid to spout such inherent racism. Soon it will be true for this inherent sexism as well.

    • Posted by Colton Shidaker, at Reply

      Vishank Jain-Sharma All of the claims made in the memo are backed up with extensively peer reviewed scientific journals. Putting the topic on the table for discussion isn’t sexist. If you think that the differences between men and women are due to society then argue that point. What you don’t want to do is label people as sexists and bigots.

    • Posted by Vishank Jain-Sharma, at Reply

      Don’t talk about science when you don’t know anything about it. I’m in science myself. The ‘evidence’ he cites isn’t extensive by any means. All it does is show some minor differences in the general population distributions for certain characteristics. Anyone who knows basic statistics would know that conflating that with the distribution of specially selected COMPANY workers is disingenuous and inherently sexist as I mentioned, because such factors are obviously negligible compared to company policy and decisions. And yes, genuine sexists such as many people in this thread need to be called out, and the ‘labels’ fit. Quit the Sam Harris/Dave Rubin style whining. Social ostracization is deserved.

  2. Posted by Kevin Montrond, at Reply

    Its statistical fact thay men are more prone to schizophrenia. Therefore they cannot handle stressful tech jobs. Whats wrong Trumptards? Im just stating statistical facts.

    • Posted by Chris Dexter, at Reply

      Kevin Montrond I guess I just don’t know what you read in that memo… the author goes out of his way, and reiterates, the importance of distinguishing generalizations from individual people. He provides graphs, for visual aid, to illustrate how any trait can have different averages and still have significant crossover. Meaning saying one group is more likely to have X and one group is more likely to have Y does not imply anything at the individual level. It only applies when talking about aggregate numbers.

      He tried to give an explanation for why less women are in the tech sector, aside from discrimination. His hypothesis is that a smaller percentage of women are *interested* in tech than men. He tries to explain it by pointing out traits that are more prevalent in women (group prevalence, not that every single woman has this trait!!). One example he uses is the higher prevalence of anxiety. This is a researched and well-documented statistic. They taught us in med school that women are more than twice as likely to suffer from generalized anxiety disorder or panic disorder. This isn’t an opinion. So what he is saying, is if anxiety makes you want to do tech less, and women are much more likely to have anxiety, it is reasonable to assume that that may cause less women to do tech. Again, in no way does that mean that any given woman is unable to work in tech, nor does it accuse any of his coworkers of being unable to handle stress. It’s just an offered explanation for why FEWER women (out of the entire population of women) than man choose tech. By nature of this argument, that the anxiety deters you from tech, he is saying the women who do work there do not suffer from this problem. So definitely not an attack on coworkers…

      i really want to make this point as clear as possible… suppose “trait a” causes people to be unable to do tech work. Suppose that well-documented research shows that 10% of men have this trait and 30% of women have this trait. This means 90% of men are potentially willing to do the job and 70% of women are potentially willing to do the job. It would make sense, then, that men would make up a larger part of the sector, because there is a larger talent pool. To explain the gender discrepancy, one might propose that the higher rate of trait a in women, led to less women applying for the job. That would in no way indicate that the 70% of women who want the job are unqualified or prejudiced agains. Does that make sense?

      I think the other “differences” he points to are also used under the same principles. Again, he states throughout this memo how important it is to distinguish between generalizations and individuals, and that his proposals were for explanations on a population level, and in NO WAY talking about any individual woman. No where in the memo does he say that any woman would inherently be less qualified for the job.

      Lastly, the conclusion of the memo was to find ways of getting MORE women interested and applying, by making the job more appealing to women. By pointing out higher prevalence of certain traits, he proposes you can widen the pool of interested women by possibly changing certain policies to be more accommodating to a group of women who would be otherwise uninterested. So the guy is actually trying to find ways to attract MORE women into tech! And he continuously repeats that he values diversity and is trying to attack the gender discrepancy from a different angle. Instead of trying to hire any woman to try to hit quotas, let’s make the job more attractive to a larger part of the female population…

      If you ACTUALLY read the memo, and you still find it sexist or anti-diversity, and to the point that he deserves to be fired, please please please explain it to me…

    • Posted by charlesvan13, at Reply

      What does that have to do with the conversation?

      Statistically more men want to be computer programmers and engineers. This guy was fired for suggesting that that fact was responsible for a hiring discrepancy.

    • Posted by Colton Shidaker, at Reply

      Read the memo, dude. He never said women are unfit for tech jobs. Don’t let your overlord liberal platforms make decisions for you. All he said was that tech jobs tend to appeal to the male personality more, and he even dedicated a whole page as to how we can evolve the jobs to appeal more to women. Don’t be so dense.

    • Posted by Hugh Mungous, at Reply

      _Its statistical fact thay men are more prone to schizophrenia._

      _therefore they cannot handle stressful tech jobs_
      no, this is a logical fallacy. It is only true for those men with schizophorenia.

  3. Posted by Savage-American Imperialist, at Reply

    Awe, TYT is cucking for a corporation that’s trying to control the public with their propaganda. TYT you are worse than Faux News and that’s saying a lot about your shitty propaganda shitshow.

    • Posted by Cenk Uyger, at Reply

      Colin Stop flooding our countries with immigrants, simple.

    • Posted by I am Gumby, dammit, at Reply

      Cenk: So why don’t you get on the bandwagon and oppose Trump’s further tax cuts for corporations? Why don’t you campaign to close corporate tax dodges?

      Oh, right, you’re just a hypocrite who wants to whine.

    • Posted by Be N S O N, at Reply

      Kevin Montrond

      They have a right to not hire Colin Kaepernik. Go cry about it.

    • Posted by Colin, at Reply

      Cenk Uyger can we send dumb trolls like you back to the bridge you crawled out from?

    • Posted by ryan francis, at Reply

      The powerless Google gains victim status with out showing any proof, must be nice to be one of the worlds most powerful corporations who controls the internet and be a victim at the same time

  4. Posted by thisnotjesus, at Reply

    I guess people like doxing, or stupid angry people down vote before watching the video.

    • Posted by thisnotjesus, at Reply

      +Colton Shidaker your whole comment? Yes I have, but those are other videos. There is a troll army that’s not why this video got the dislikes. Ironically people only dislikes this video because of right closed-minded opinion on the left, didn’t watch the video. For some reason you can’t criticize the right, well you can but that criticism goes unheard or excused.

      I.E. the right elected Trump out of spite not because he was experienced.

    • Posted by thisnotjesus, at Reply

      Colton Shidaker this is a legit argument from the right. I guess I should point out the right don’t engaged intellectual, they prefer more emotional and child like games. He can explain his position or he can take a loss.

    • Posted by Colton Shidaker, at Reply

      thisnotjesus And what the hell does Trump have to do with this? Not everybody that points out the lefts lunacy is a Trump supporter. Another example of close mindedness from the left, you guys really like to label us so you don’t have to argue. You should really take some lessons from intellectual speakers. Don’t worry, there are plenty of REAL liberal speakers so you don’t have to step out of your echo chamber that much. Sam Harris for start. Get yourself educated and read some books pal, and then see if you have the audacity to make these absolutely preposterous statements.

    • Posted by thisnotjesus, at Reply

      +Colton Shidaker your starting to get sad. You haven’t pointed out what wrong with this video. Your playing tribal games with me, but you claim it’s only bad when I do it. And the Crux of your argument is liberals do it worse.

      Trump supporters are on the right, grow up. Read Noam Chomsky, you might learn how many facts are liberal.

  5. Posted by Khaled Katergi, at Reply

    Conservatives are anti-free speech snowflakes.

    • Posted by ryan francis, at Reply

      The powerless Google gains victim status with out showing any proof, must be nice to be one of the worlds most powerful corporations who controls the internet and be a victim at the same time

    • Posted by james smith, at Reply

      So a leftist was fired for his views? or wait that did not happen… A conservative was fired.

    • Posted by letoIIAtryda, at Reply

      Oh that’s why google fired man who only want to solves a problem google create.

    • Posted by Rekt communist, at Reply

      guys, look at this garbage’s profile pic, its so clear!

    • Posted by tek2095, at Reply

      +Mjölnir Should he also practice beating his chest and grunting?

  6. Posted by C Wilson, at Reply

    Why are conservatives bitching about this? Let the free market sort this out. Who are you to tell Google how to run their business? MAGA!

    • Posted by Time Lord, at Reply

      Oh, so we can fire people for being conservative? How about communists and socialists can we fire them too? Their views can be “problematic” in an American workplace.

  7. Posted by Sean Hayes, at Reply

    Google just wants to “have a conversation;” you can tell by the way they fired the guy who first wanted to start the conversation. The internet is smart enough to smell their bias bullshit. Go internet. =]

    • Posted by james smith, at Reply

      I like the way liberals can always claim to be victims.

    • Posted by John Johnson Jr., at Reply

      hardly a few days passes since the author is fired, and he finds his way onto stefan molyneux’s youtube channel. Same channel with a video “The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon”. Funny how that works. One moment, you’re lying about your academic credentials and claiming many of your female coworkers don’t deserve their job because they’re biologically female. Next moment you decide to go on a show hosted by an white supremacist who wants to demonstrate solidarity with you. Oh, but you *swear* you’re all for equality of opportunity.

    • Posted by tek2095, at Reply

      +james smith You mean like how you guys get punished or criticized for violating policies against hate speech, and start playing the victim and crying that your free speech is being violated (Despite the fact that *free speech doesn’t work that way*.)?

  8. Posted by Lynn Jung, at Reply

    You forgot to mention that this man from Google did this on his own. His employer did not ask him to do it. How would you feel if you came into work and found a 10 page memo on your desk from one of your co-workers that basically says, women are biologically not right and too emotional to do the same job as a man and the only reason women work at your company is to fill a quota. This is the very definition to “hostile work environment” and Google was right to fire him. I also feel that this man did this just to file a suite against Google. I think he’s just looking for money. He’s already got a GoFundMe page and a new job at WikiLeaks. Yeah, he’s cashing in.

    • Posted by sillent, at Reply

      Ironically, by reacting to this memo in the way that certain women are, they are acting out the stereotype they claim to be offended over. That is not what the memo said, it was just giving a reason for the disparity in representation, not questioning the skills of any particular woman working at Google. It was also offering alternate suggestions for how to increase representation in a way that isn’t discriminatory. Along with that, to frame the conversation, he offered data points into ways where liberals and conservatives can be different, and ways where men and women can be different — there was no judgement attached to the differences, that is something you are projecting onto it. Yes yes, accuse me of mansplaining, handy bag of tools to dismiss any opinion that you don’t like.

    • Posted by Sean Holmes, at Reply


    • Posted by Lord Zeus, at Reply

      Lynn Jung…LMAO! Where did he ever say ” women are biologically not right”? You’re hyperbolic and disingenuous.

    • Posted by kestrel archer, at Reply

      you read the memo? i also did read it… he didn’t say anything about “biologically not right” or the likes of that. should i call you a liar?

  9. Posted by Aicha Daillo, at Reply

    It’s crazy to hear racists complain about how the standards are lowered for women and of course black people. In most corporations there are hundreds of white people for 2 black people, imagine if 100 black persons apply for a job only 2 people are taken. So these two people need to be extremely qualified. And then imagine if 100 white persons apply 98 are taken. So use your brains and analyze if you need more skills to get a job out 98/100, or 2/100. And see if black people and women are held to a lower or higher standards to get that job. But of course you prefer staying ignorants which is why you’re racists and misogynists in the first place.

    • Posted by Henry Townshed, at Reply

      Aicha Daillo hey stupid it has nothing to do with white and has to do with Asians that are obviously more skilled being passed off because of diversity

    • Posted by Hillbot Tear Dispenser, at Reply

      Are you saying that Black people and women are less capable than White males? Because when you say that we need affirmative action, that’s what you’re saying.

      You guys are Charles Darwin levels of racist when it comes to that.

    • Posted by Brian Bernstein, at Reply

      Huh? There are more white people than black people in American companies (assuming that’s what your referring to) because black people make up 13% of the population and white people make up 60%. so 4-5 white people for every black person would theoretically suggest equal hiring of the two races at a given company, but that assumes equal interest in the job by both races, or equal qualifications for the job by both races. There’s no logical reason either of those should be equal, if anything they’d be as random as…people’s interests and qualifications.

      Secondly, there’s nothing remotely racist about demanding that jobs be awarded on the basis of merit and hard work. On the contrary, giving jobs to less qualified people in order to expand diversity and public image is the definition of special treatment and unfairness, and people have every right to be outraged by that. Treating people equally means treating people equally, not giving massive advantages to some but not others to compensate for population statistics that may or may NOT reflect discrimination – that will just create anger by the people not getting those advantages, which, predictably, is exactly what’s happened from this effort.

  10. Posted by azarah69, at Reply

    How’s that Armenian genocide going guys?

    • Posted by Keeper Nod, at Reply

      Funny how TYT don’t want to have open and frank conversation about that.

    • Posted by Alexander Demkin, at Reply

      They talked about it plenty in the past decade. At this point it is just a rehash.

    • Posted by C Wilson, at Reply

      Hopefully better than the weak blowjob your mom gave me.

    • Posted by Keeper Nod, at Reply

      Alexander, that’s a lie and you know it.

  11. Posted by iamgoddard, at Reply

    Anna says he shouldn’t have been fired, just cut his pay.

    So your income should correspond to how well you profess belief in feminist theory.

    • Posted by iamgoddard, at Reply

      Wilson, I agree with those examples, but Damore wasn’t telling people not to use Google, or that Google sucks. So those are not analogies for this case.

    • Posted by C Wilson, at Reply

      Yes they are. ”
      So your income should correspond to how well you recite mandated beliefs.” You didn’t state which mandated beliefs. Which means all are fair game. Moving on.

    • Posted by iamgoddard, at Reply

      Wilson, you’re right, that wording was too broadly applicable. So I made it more exact: _So your income should correspond to how well you profess belief in feminist theory._

      That would be reasonable if you signed up for a job requiring professing feminist belief. But that case isn’t this case. It would be just as illiberal to dock the pay of employees at a tech firm like Google for proposing that differences in life choices between men and women are culturally constructed. Or for docking someone’s pay for believing in Muhammad or the bible, unless they agreed to be paid to profess contrary beliefs.

    • Posted by iamgoddard, at Reply

      A question for Anna would be: In what professions would it be okay for those who believe testosterone affects behavior to receive the fair-market value for their services?

    • Posted by P.S S, at Reply

      iamgoddard Who is Anna?

  12. Posted by Stranger Happened, at Reply

    *Google has installed a totalitarian thought police system that ends up firing people who are not actually “misogynist” at all,* whose all points are backed by science (including on how females are naturally way less “assertive” simply due to low testosterone levels), and they also “doxx” those people. But now Google pretends to be outraged at “doxxers”? Cenk also pretends to believe that Google was going to have a conversation about political conservatives while in reality this conversation was closed before it even began with Google illegally firing the guy for stating scientific facts.

    • Posted by Eddie Fetherman, at Reply

      Your science isn’t the majority science. But, go ahead and make up alternative facts, sir.

    • Posted by Jake Andrews, at Reply

      Dunning-Kruger at it’s finest.

    • Posted by Stranger Happened, at Reply

      *Search for the testosterone studies.* It is proven that it defines the level of aggressiveness/assertiveness. It is seen especially clear when scientists monitor female-to-male transgenders when they start to administer testosterone.

    • Posted by SixOfNine, at Reply

      when you pump an animal full of testosterone, it behaves differently… END GAME

  13. Posted by hyperboreean, at Reply

    Nasty bigot gets fired for hurting his employer’s business and all the alt-reich filth pretend his a victim.
    Poor misunderstood cry-nazis.

    • Posted by Pointless Bunkum, at Reply

      Not a nasty bigot. Just a concerned rational person.


    • Posted by Hillbot Tear Dispenser, at Reply

      You guys are the ones who are crying about Google employees getting exposed lol.

    • Posted by Lester Brunt, at Reply

      Taking away someone’s livelihood, potentially ruining their life, over a difference in opinion = perfectly fine according to the left

      exposing public information = the worst crime ever according to the left.

  14. Posted by Richard Hunter, at Reply

    It amazes me when people try and claim that the writer of this memo was somehow being reasonable. It makes me think they haven’t actually read it. He claims that pro-diversity policies are actually part of a Marxist conspiracy to overthrow Western society. It’s insanity.

    • Posted by Reece Drystek, at Reply

      He is simple drawing comparison as to how Marxist pushed far left wing communism policy not supported by any evidence, and every instance resulted in failure, just like Google is doing now marketing their discriminatory race and gender policies as being both morally and economically superior without evidence.

      He never makes the claim “pro-diversity policies are actually part of a Marxist conspiracy to overthrow Western society.” He does claim that Marxist are marketing left-wing politics the same way they did before, but now they are trying to rebel against the patriarchy instead of capitalist, and Google is blindly supporting that notion without doing research or looking at evidence, and it will hurt Google over time.

    • Posted by Lester Brunt, at Reply

      You think it is insanity, so what? People can’t have radical political opinions? So much for diversity.

    • Posted by Richard Hunter, at Reply

      I’m glad you agree it’s insanity.

    • Posted by Lester Brunt, at Reply

      Where did I agree?

  15. Posted by The Ball, at Reply

    LOL, Google is CLEARLY not interested in a conversation! They just FIRED the guy who wanted the conversation!

    • Posted by The Ball, at Reply

      Cenk thinks James Damore caused the hostile work environment! Let’s see what he says when stories of co-workers being punched for wrongthink are proven in court!

    • Posted by iiquicksilverii, at Reply

      No, the guy didn’t want a conversation.. He had his View made up….as a private company they had the right to fire him… Had he posted his meno on facebook..its different.. He shared it on intra-company mail

    • Posted by Reece Drystek, at Reply

      +iiquicksilverii All you have to do is read the table of contents and you can see that he wanted a conversation. I mean everyone that has their mind made up includes sections for The problem, solutions, and suggestions.

      Google’s biases
      Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech
      Personality difference
      Men’s higher drive for status
      Non discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
      The harm of Google’s biases
      Why we’re blind

      I don’t understand the difference between intra-company mail and facebook. Are you telling me the numerous people that have been fired for facebook and twitter comments shouldn’t have been?

  16. Posted by Eric Friday, at Reply

    You hippies think only that the right doxxes people, but I have seen the left doxx more people then the right ever has..This is why trump monster is don’t see the transgressions on your own side.

    • Posted by Eric Friday, at Reply

      This Identity politics thing is gonna turn hard on you people, its gonna be the end of affirmative action and all equality politics and its gonna go back to the way it was before, the power structure will not tolerate this intrusion into its world..They will fight with force if that’s what it takes, but you will not topple the system

    • Posted by Eric Friday, at Reply

      Sorry but they fought long and hard to get to the top, and they are not about to let “political correctness” bring them down

    • Posted by Air Bud, at Reply

      John Cullen Nice snarky useless comment.

    • Posted by dffykvn, at Reply

      Kiwifarms, voat….nope it’s definitely the edgelord right

    • Posted by dffykvn, at Reply

      @Eric Friday

      ” its gonna be the end of affirmative action and all equality politics ”

      Which is totally egalitarian and not neo nazi bullshit right?

  17. Posted by Jasminewynja, at Reply

    TyT is not for free speech and opinion, that’s absolutely clear now. They are only for their own free speech regardless if it’s just fake or direct lies.

    • Posted by Jasminewynja, at Reply

      *+dffykvn* Yeah, because firing people who are questioning a certain kind of policies is not silencing people? To know that you can’t express your opinion even in a non-offensive way without the risk of losing your livelihood is not silencing people?

      Personally I don’t agree with his conclusion in why diversity policies might not be the most constructive and productive way to go. But I am as little offended by that memo as you calling me an idiot. Not at all in other words. That’s your opinion. I do not think that your livelihood should be taken away because of your opinions. Or am I wrong here. Should you? What do you say?

    • Posted by fay guled, at Reply

      Jasminewynja Google can silence whoever they want they are a private company.

    • Posted by Jasminewynja, at Reply

      *+fay guled* True. In the same way as a private company can choose to not give service to or hire people because of their religious ideology, political ideology and so on. But is it right?

    • Posted by dffykvn, at Reply


      If it’s bigoted then yes there is nothing wrong with that.

    • Posted by Jasminewynja, at Reply

      *+WorldWar Z* Like the bigotry in Islam?

  18. Posted by Diego, at Reply

    Let’s be fair here, doxxing has been more of a left wing tactic.

    • Posted by Diego, at Reply

      No, it was just based on observation. Liberals always have more to gain from doxxing. They do it to people who express racist, xenophobic, homophobic (etc.) sentiments. What do right wingers have to gain from it? Who can they Doxx and what can they expect from it? It’s not like people preaching socialism or racial equality are gonna be fired from their jobs or expelled from their universities. To be honest this is the first time I’ve ever really seen right wing doxxing.

    • Posted by types10000, at Reply

      “Said with no evidence.”
      – The Leftwing are frequently observed to engage in censorship and opposition to freedom of speech, most notably through widespread acts of no-platforming and college safe-spaces.
      – Far-Left groups such as Antifa are observed to consistently attempt to shutdown discussions dismissing anyone who disagrees with them as a fascist/nazi. Also as a domestic terrorist group they are considerably more active than the modern KKK.

      Doxing people to shutdown discussions and or shame people into silence is certainly in the Left’s MO, far more-so than the right.

    • Posted by Evan C., at Reply

      types10000 Looks like you need to look up the Virginia rally that’s going on today.

      “B-b-b-but, the left-wing are the _real_ racists and the _real_ snowflakes, right?”

  19. Posted by MW 77, at Reply

    Why do white leftists hate white people??

    • Posted by Christophe Beckers, at Reply

      Why do white righties hate everyone??

    • Posted by Genghis Don, at Reply

      they are infested with PC police & femi-nazism. actual leftists don’t

    • Posted by David 666, at Reply

      Some sort of masochistic white guilt run amok.

    • Posted by Center of Enrichment and Diversity in Geek culture, at Reply

      honestly, i never heard of right wingers in 2017 hating on the sikhs, budhists, japanese. Why is that?

    • Posted by Christophe Beckers, at Reply

      honestly , I’ve never heard of white leftist hating on white people and when i say never i don’t just mean “in 2017”.