(Talking about the George Zimmerman verdict)

This begs the most obvious question: why wasn’t he charged with manslaughter when this was a textbook case of the offense? I think the key to this puzzle lies with the all female jury. I’ll lay long odds that if a simulation of this trial were presented before a separate host of male and females jurors, that the males would reach a verdict of guilty 90% of the time while the females would reach the opposite verdict 90% of the time. To most sane and rational men, Tulio’s position up there rings true. However, to most women born and bred on rape culture paranoia, Zimmerman’s actions were morally justifiable, or atleast to a point where they did not elicit a guilty verdict. Since the entire setting occurred at night, in isolation, with one party dominating the other, the female jury quite possibly perceived it as a ”rape analogy” (to borrow a phrase from a friend). Those that have spent time at University would be adequately familiar with female paranoia.

Western women are paranoid, schizophrenic, and possess an inflated victim-hood complex. A few months ago Joe Salazar got into trouble for remarking that women on campus should not be allowed to carry concealed firearms as they were likely to act on their paranoia and shoot an innocent passerby. The feminist thought police were all over him, predictably so, and the man had to issue an apology for stating the obvious. Between the bogus rape culture and the inflated victim-hood, it seems unlikely that western women are capable of thinking rationally. Their moral particularism and solipsism casts additional doubt on their capacity to reason with a clear mind. Sadly, the high cost of political correctness must be borne as Zimmerman walks free while American society has yet to bear the burden of another mockery of justice.



