The main problem with "Lift All Voices" as a justification for the Black National Anthem is the word "All." In order to achieve "All," the Woke are going to have to cook up more different unique national anthems than they have gender pronouns.

Mathematically speaking.

1/

And why would the Black community be the first to get their own anthem over the American Indians? The Indians used to have all the land, and they still do have some of it.

(use of "American Indian" here is intentional, as that's what they prefer to call themselves)

2/
This "inclusion by division" game is just the "separate but equal" logic for 1950s segregation reskinned, but when the Woke self segregate, they self segregate based on Krenshaw's Intersectional Matrix of Oppression, which in Theory is necessarily near infinite in size.

3/
When the Woke did this with gender pronouns we went from 2 genders to 37 genders to infinite genders in the span of about 5 years, but the trans folks discovered this really didn't help them out on Tinder, so they pivoted back to "trans women are women" to try and get dates.

4/
The only people left doing the "gender pronouns" game are the ones signaling their Wokeness on Twitter to their in-group, the trans women in the dating community aren't even doing it anymore. They've gone back to 2.

5/
So we need a Jewish American National Anthem, and a Latin American National Anthem, and a Female National Anthem, and an Asian American National Anthem, and a Black Women's National Anthem, and off we go into a web of combinatorics math.

6/
Let's do the math, because math is fun. Typical Intersectionality Matrix categories: race, sex, gender, sexuality, class, disability, religion, age. Sticking to common subgroups within these classifications, we've got around 12,960 combinations.

7/
"All history is white history" is the Woke justification for having other kinds of history. Well, there might be black history, but also black female history, or such, because Intersectionality. Same number of combinations.

/8
Once *two* national anthems isn't inclusive enough, the original National Anthem becomes classified as the White Male Male-identifying Hetero Rich Able Bodied Christian Adult national anthem.

/9
And we have 12959 more National Anthems to go, before we've "Lifted All Voices."

Good luck ever getting your baseball game started.

It's almost as if inclusion and self-segregation don't work very well together.

/fin

More from Maths

OK, I may be guilty of a DoS attack attempt on mathematicians' brains here, so lest anyone waste too much precious brain time decoding this deliberately cryptic statement, let me do it for you. •1/15


First, as some asked, it is to be parenthesized as: “∀x.∀y.((∀z.((z∈x) ⇒ (((∀t.((t∈x) ⇒ ((t∈z) ⇒ (t∈y))))) ⇒ (z∈y)))) ⇒ (∀z.((z∈x) ⇒ (z∈y))))” (the convention is that ‘⇒’ is right-associative: “P⇒Q⇒R” means “P⇒(Q⇒R)”), but this doesn't clarify much. •2/15

Maybe we can make it a tad less abstruse by using guarded quantifiers (“∀u∈x.(…)” stands for “∀u.((u∈x)⇒(…))”): it is then “∀x.∀y.((∀z∈x.(((∀t∈x.((t∈z) ⇒ (t∈y)))) ⇒ (z∈y))) ⇒ (∀z∈x.(z∈y)))”. •3/15

Maybe a tad clearer again by writing “P(u)” for “u∈y” and leaving out the quantifier on y, viꝫ: “∀x.((∀z∈x.(((∀t∈x.((t∈z) ⇒ P(t)))) ⇒ P(z))) ⇒ (∀z∈x.P(z)))” [✯]. Now it appears as an induction principle: namely, … •4/15

… “in order to prove P(z) for all z∈x, we can assume, when proving P(z), that P(t) is already known for all t∈z∩x” (n.b.: “(∀z.(Q(z)⇒P(z)))⇒(∀z.P(z))” can be read “in order to prove P(z) for all z, we can assume Q(z) known when proving P(z)”). •5/15

You May Also Like

12 TRADING SETUPS which experts are using.

These setups I found from the following 4 accounts:

1. @Pathik_Trader
2. @sourabhsiso19
3. @ITRADE191
4. @DillikiBiili

Share for the benefit of everyone.

Here are the setups from @Pathik_Trader Sir first.

1. Open Drive (Intraday Setup explained)


Bactesting results of Open Drive


2. Two Price Action setups to get good long side trade for intraday.

1. PDC Acts as Support
2. PDH Acts as


Example of PDC/PDH Setup given
The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.


This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/


A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/

https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/

https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/