Skip to main content

Evidence Discrimination

The institutional and interpersonal application of Evidence Prejudice, where individuals or groups are denied opportunities, accommodations, or respect because their knowledge systems do not produce evidence in the form demanded by dominant institutions. Evidence discrimination can be seen in academia, where oral traditions are excluded from “scholarly” status; in medicine, where traditional healing is dismissed as “unproven” despite generations of observed efficacy; and in law, where cultural practices are disallowed because they cannot be documented in Western formats. It uses “evidence” as a gatekeeping mechanism to preserve epistemic hierarchy.
Example: “The court refused to consider Indigenous oral histories as evidence of land stewardship, demanding written deeds instead—evidence discrimination, imposing one culture’s evidentiary rules to erase another’s history.”
Evidence Discrimination mug front
Get the Evidence Discrimination mug.
See more merch

Trickle down discrimination 

What happens when parents, not considerate of the fact that kids will be mean to other kids, say racist or otherwise discriminatory jokes and stereotypes between them or directly to kids, transferring the mindset to their children and feeding their bullying. Generally followed by the minority kids getting bullied for being different from the group, and so feeling increasingly apart, sometimes even turning to radicalism in response.
Trickle down discrimination typical case :

6 year old Kid : Hey dad there is another boy in my class who speaks French, isn't that cool!?
Dad: Oh I see! Haha you know, we call them frogs because they eat frog legs.

6 year old kid next day : Hey Frog! BAHAHAHA do you really eat frog legs?
French kid : ew no!
Other kids : Hahaha you do Frog!

Chub on Chub discrimination

Chub on chub discrimination is when a chubby person discriminates another chubby person for being chubby
Did you hear kevin make fun betty for being fat when he fat

That's chub on Chub discrimination

ALIMENTARY SEX DISCRIMINATION 

NOT LIKING SHIT.

RELIGIOUS RATIONALIZATION to run away from it's existence.

STICK THE LANDING SEXUALLY.
SORRY this is an impossibility as ALIMENTARY SEX DISCRIMINATION will BAN ANYTHING WITH THE MOUTH AND ASSH0LE as really we have TO EAT and ESPECIAKLY SHIT PISS which is for some people HARD TO STOMACH.

Unfortunately most people for the most part don't realize how hard it is to be truly religious so the once were practice active ALIMENTARY SEX DISCRIMINATION.

CERTAINLY to be sure as the NAY NEE factor becomes affirmative as the BABIES AND CHILDREN have the say of what SEX PARTNERS you are allowed to have given the ABORTERS practce active ALIMENTARY SEX DISCCRIMINATION.

ALIMENTARY SEX DISCRIMINATION 

PENNSYLVANIA AIR STRIP ...LOCATION
NON PENETRABLE

FLIGHT 93 PERPETUITY

AGAINST ELDER ABUSE ...EXAGGERATION ABUSE ...FEIGN ABUSE ...WHISTLEBLOWER TOP [SECRET INSTALLATION...and SCUM WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM
HYGIENE EQUIPMENT THEFT ABUSE PROTECTION

NOTHING LIKE SHIT

RELIGIUOUS RATIONALIZATION that shows the fact....

STICK THE LANDING SEXUALLY.
Due to HA HA HA there will be a change of climate of an ALIMENTARY SEX DISCRIMINATION on the PENNSYLVANIA AIR STRIP.

The DEDICATION TO SHANKSVILLE ON THE PENNSYLVANIA AIR STRIP THE MAGA PEOPLE will make this TRUMP CARD POSSIBLE.

THE biggest fact that the vast grand majority engage in ALIMENTARY SEX DISCRIMINATION by interference with the SO CALLED GAY BASHERS are as just expected arriving in a DIGESTIVE LOGICAL FASHION even though nature seems to want to disagree and some of the NATURE in itself EMPATHIZE about the PROCREATIVITY IMPOSSIBILITY...

IT'S when this fact is so endemic that the ALIMENTARY SEX DISCRIMINATION shows there is an ABORTED behavior that makes no sense to this main fact and that is the practice of ALIMENTARY SEX is done by the VAST MAJORITY OF THE HUMAN RACE in fact FARTING LIVES MATTER.

IT is when the determination of a SEX PARTNER is done by the BABIES AND CHILDREN as this is ALIMENTARY SEX DISCRIMINATION put into practice by the WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM which is spelled out ON THE MONEY.

Evidence-Based Discrimination

A subset of scientific discrimination that specifically invokes “evidence” as the justification for prejudicial treatment. It claims that because a belief or practice lacks scientific evidence, those who hold it deserve exclusion, mockery, or even legal restriction. Evidence‑based discrimination often appears in policy debates (e.g., denying religious exemptions for vaccines), educational settings (e.g., banning indigenous knowledge from curricula), and online harassment (e.g., coordinated attacks on “pseudoscience” communities). The appeal to evidence masks underlying bias against worldviews that do not conform to materialist orthodoxy.
Evidence-Based Discrimination Example: “The university refused to allow indigenous elder teachings in the anthropology department, citing ‘lack of evidence’—Evidence‑Based Discrimination, using evidential standards to exclude non‑Western knowledge systems.”

Anti-AI Discrimination

The concrete, harmful application of anti‑AI bias, prejudice, or bigotry in social, professional, legal, or institutional contexts. Examples include refusing to hire a skilled worker because they use AI tools in their workflow, banning AI‑generated art from exhibitions regardless of quality, or passing laws that disproportionately disadvantage AI‑assisted creators. Anti‑AI discrimination often hides behind appeals to “authenticity” or “human touch,” but results in unfair treatment. It is a growing concern in creative industries and academia.
Anti-AI Discrimination Example: “The gallery rejected all AI‑collaborative pieces without review—anti‑AI discrimination, punishing the tool rather than evaluating work.”