Not if they are infringing on my rights. I shouldn't expect you to acknowledge that little part, given your track record, but I did say that.
I will not let some self-righteous morons socially engineer countries that they despise in order to fit their communist ideals. The western countries were built on the ideas of liberty and equality of legal rights. No one has the authority to reconstruct societal norms and relations, these changes have to come naturally from people's freedom to associate.
Which is why people have the right to complain about white privelege and such, but I am also free to fight their ideas.

Nice work. That will be helpful to both me, and anyone else who is interested.

There is bias towards white people in primarily white countries. Boom. Head explodes. Yes, and that's how it should be. As long as everyone has the same rights, I couldn't care less about the bias. And the term "white privilege" is an sjw term that in reality does not exist.

Given just how much I get downvoted overall, I wouldn't be surprised.

Do you have any proof of the supposed "mysoginy" you claim? If your only reasoning for assuming this is that the campaign was aimed primarily at female "journalists", it wasn't because they were female, it's because they were corrupt as fuck.
.
Again, you are not disproving anything, you are making claims based on the same premise that the narrative spouted in Wikipedia is the only correct one.

Or how about some political figures?
.
Milo Yiannopoulos - "far-right political commentator, public speaker, and writer".
The guy is a fucking conservative at most, I'd say he's center-right

Here's the prime example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy
#GamerGate, a consumer advocacy movement that exposed the corruption in games journalism is summarized by Wikipedia as: "The Gamergate controversy stemmed from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate. The controversy centered on issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture."
No mention of journalist corruption, and the people advocating for exposing and removing corruption were labelled to be a part of a "harassment" campaign. Against the people who were sleeping with the game developers whose games they reported on. Suck my fucking dick Wikipedia.

And, most importantly the dimension of power. This is what marxism has always been about, but here they don't even hide it. Join in the protest and obey the people running it, because if you are not with them, you are against them and you're fair game. And the last point outlines it so well. "who has all the money and power". Because that's all this is about. It's a power grab, plain and simple.
.
@xvarnah, @firmlee_grasspit

And even if these were invalid criticizms, here is the final nail on the coffin. This is a neo-marxist propaganda leaflet. The focus on power politics, on workers, on "phobic" language, and implication of moral guilt for not supporting them.
.
The base premise of marxism, which is then extrapolated into fracturing versions of communism, is the division of people into classes of "oppressor" and "oppressed". Originally this was between the capitalists, the factory owners, and the proletariat, the workers in those factories. This was 200 years ago, but these morons didn't get the memo.
.
Now, the innovations that came with neo-marxism are the same things that we see illustrated in the rest of the radical left today. Namely, ascription of moral guilt for holding a different viewpoint - never purchase from a company who the strike is against, because that makes you a bad person. "phobic language", just the same as everyone getting accused of being islamophobic, transphobic, etc.

So, advice number 1 is disqualified because no protest has a legal right to obstruct the movement of citizens.
.
Number 2 is disqualified because that choice is up to you and your conscience, not the mentality of "the worker is always oppressed and therefore right".
.
Numbers 3 is out for the same reason.
.
Number 4 is particularly dumb and irresponsible, because in order to participate in the protest, PEOPLE HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE PROTEST. Or at least know what it's about or why in the first place.
.
Number 5 is yet again disqualified because not every protest is just, and it is wrong to assume so in the first place.

Glad to be of help to someone besides myself. :)

We can prove the biological aspect. We can prove that the link is causal. We may be able to measure the biological aspect and ascribe the rest to socialization, but the socialization itself is built upon the biological premise.
You can have nature without nurture. You can't have nurture without nature.
.
wrote this before saw another string of replies.

Custom made for you, too.

Or. Orrrr. Maybe because as you said, women are biologically not as strong as men, and therefore their inclinations to violence have tuned to be much less prominent than those of men.
.
Society is built on biological reality and the practices that worked best over the years. And social engineering is unethical at best, and utterly disastrous at worse.
And when people claim that something is a societal construct it pisses me off. Because, yes, it is, so what. Not all of these constructs are bad, moreover, most of them are directly reponsible for advancing humanity to this point. And nobody created them, they evolved on their own through the development of society, so trying to rapidly change them is like replacing a card in a pyramid of cards. One wrong move, and everything will come tumbling down.
The argument of nature vs nurture is only valid if nature comes before nurture, because nature is the biological, scientific reality. We can debate how much comes from nature, but it comes1st

By the way, @xvarnah, in that last comment I was responding to guest_'s direct words, so that wasn;t aimed at you, I know you know almost nothing of the situation. Just realized that you might have mistook that for me being a dick to you.

Thanks. I will.

It actually was a different search, but yes, Google is ideological trash now.

Humans are not a blank slate, and women have different inclinations that men, which is why they express them differently than men. But the dichotomy between strength and weakness is one of the best ways of framing these, provded you set the value judgement aside.

Horseshit about both sides not being innocent, Crowder's job as a political commentator and comedian is to debunk videos like Maza's and he did nothing wrong while doing so. So don't give me the "oh, but both sides fucked up", Crowder was completely justified in saying everything he said.
.
And I won't let people restrict language to be limited to only a privileged class of people. If we aren't allowed to call people niggers, then nobody should be. Otherwise, you are privileging a group above the individual, and that is poison to freedom.
An even better option is to not restrict language in that manner at all, but the hypocrisy is what shows how full of shit that argument is.