The Glade 4.0

No, really, we just wanted to create a 'dialogue'.

Summary: College "diversity council" posts flyers intended to create racial outrage, then claims it was really just to start a 'dialogue'.

Unfortunately, we already know that to college leftists, a dialogue means they get to talk and everyone else has to listen and agree - and if not, fire alarms get pulled, speakers get disinvited or shouted down, and campus protests replace actually going to class as the primary activity.

This is how we know we're living in a country where 'hate' and 'oppression' are real problems. When they're real problems, you don't try to manufacture more of it. You only manufacture hate with a strawman of what you believe people who disagree with you think when you're terrified that people understand your side is not the only side to a debate (and in fact, if there is only one side, it probably isn't yours or you'd be stating it rather than inventing 'bias' incidents out of thin air.)

The best part is that it's not even hard to detect these incidents. When posters like these appear around a college campus but not anywhere else, the first place that should be looked at as the source is any organization that regularly uses words like "diversity" or "inclusion".

edit - quote tags fixed.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Um, what?

People who are suffering actual oppression and hatred don't try to invent more on top of what they're already suffering?

This seems like a fairly straightforward concept.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Real hatred to combat would mean (to me) that when war starts, it's no holds barred. A nation can't be against combat in theory since it doesn't take 2 to tango.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

In theory, any (actual) war should be "no holds barred". In practice, no one's wanted to commit to that since 1945.

However, we're not talking about real wars here, but the "wars" on various forms of bias that the left imagines itself to be fighting.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It was of little surprise that the sudden surge of antisemitism in the news was created by someone other than Neo-Nazi.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

You're making a strong case for an argument that you simply don't believe oppression in America exists because you don't suffer it yourself.

Repeatedly posting Anecdotes and then making blanket claims about lack of racism, persecution, etc smells of trying to overwhelm stats with quips. Find statistics that back up your claim or you're just posting smoke

Don't put words in people's mouth. Though I'd like to see proof of said oppression. You can't find stats on a "lack of racism" that's **** absurd.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Hint: Arathain's quote from you is confusing because it's missing a word.

I live 30 minutes away from Ferguson and work just down the street from there in Hazelwood. Sure looked like war to me. Traditional America is under attack on many fronts. I don't think it's specifically under attack by liberals, but liberals are being used as willing pawns.

Who pays those that travel from riot to riot? Where's the money coming from that finance the professional **** disturbers? Soros? I have no idea, but it takes money to mount the kind of attacks that are being waged against this country.

There's no shortage of hatred to combat. It's just being ignored. Your link is a perfect example, an incitement directly against white americans splashed all over, which is quietly explained away after the outrage has burned itself into the conscious of what science tells us are still impressionable youth.

It's war, idiots are willingly embracing the aggressors narrative, and the target of the aggressions aren't alerted to the fact because doing so isn't politically correct.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I'm pretty sure propaganda is still a thing even when the subject of the propaganda is already legitimately terrible. I mean, hell, we made up and exaggerated various things about the Soviets and the Nazis, and they were actual mass murdering, totalitarian regimes bent on world domination.

You're kidding, right?

It's been proven that some of the agencies behind the protests are receiving funds from companies controlled by Soros.




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/black-lives-matter-cashes-100-million-liberal-foun/

Italics are mine.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

BLM, Occupy, etc. They're funded to the hilt. moveon.org makes no bones about it, they take cash to protest Trump. It's big business, raking muck.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

EDIT: Never mind, subsequent posts clarified.

Every political movement requires cash. Including all your right-wing **** everyone but white Protestant anglo Saxon males movements. Why is "funded" somehow perjorative?

All you're trying to do here is perpetuate the false narrative that liberals are somehow lazy and get paid by rich people to protest.

Because of the violence these groups advocate and the resulting consequences, those funding BLM and such are complicit. The shootings, looting, and associated violence at these events is a direct result of those financially supporting these criminals.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Well, seeing as even the DOJ thinks statistics are unnecessary to demonstrate bias, I don't see what the problem is.*

Actually, strike that. I do see the problem. The problem is that you're simply accepting oppression as a given and want other people to disprove it. This isn't just a matter of finding statistics and claiming they constitute "oppression"; it's a matter of demonstrating that the things you're calling "oppression" are, in fact, oppression, and happen, and are officially condoned, on a widespread enough basis to constitute oppression rather than just... anecdotal incidences of misbehavior, or in some cases, not even misbehavior.

It's particularly amusing that you ask for such studies when the tools touted as demonstrating it do not, in fact actually work, and psychology itself having a major issue with reproducibility. One might be hard-pressed to find a study on "oppression" that is credible at all, especially since the definition of "oppression" is what's at issue here. I really don't care if some lefty professor finds that "oppression" exists; he may be well qualified to conduct the study, but it isn't for academia to define oppression. That's for the public at large to do, including the right, white people, males, etc.

That's why incidents like this take place. Had this incident actually been real, it would unquestionably have been evidence that some racists were running around there at the college (though not necessarily of oppression; the mere existence of hateful people doesn't = oppression). The people doing it are smart enough to understand that they have to create an incident that meets everyone's definition of racism.

*The report. While the report cites court findings that statistical evidence isn't required, a DOJ report isn't a court case, which lacks due process or any meaningful check on the DOJ's subjective judgment. Furthermore, court cases are about specific anecdotes, and the courts do not like to establish numeric thresholds for deciding future cases because that would prejudice examination of the specific evidence of such cases. The courts may not need statistical evidence in specific cases, but the DOJ certainly does if it wishes to issue reports on bias that are anything other than "it exists because we say so."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I can't think of anything we made up about Nazis that was legitimately more terrible than what they were actually doing; they set that bar pretty high. Propaganda about your opponent that's less bad than reality is pretty terrible propaganda.

In this case, however, the propaganda is about an opponent that doesn't actually exist, and that's the problem. The opponent was fabricated by the diversity council.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So if a church funds an anti-abortion group, and members of that group bomb an abortion clinic, the church should be held responsible?

For the same reason that it's somehow pejorative when the "Koch Brothers" (quick! hide under your bed) fund something that the left thinks is a "**** everyone" movement, when in fact it's really "we don't need to throw money at and protect the feelings of everyone but white males". Notably, though, it's not the right that is showing up at places rioting, or even having unhinged has-been celebrities advocating violence and calling for military coups as if we were some banana republic.

The Left is really good at claiming everything about the right is "scary", "violent", and "dangerous", then excusing violence by anyone they agree with, whether its burning down stores or pulling fire alarms and injuring professors over a controversial speaker.


Some leftists are paid to protest.

Many others, however, are perfectly willing to go out and make fools of themselves or act like **** barbarians for free.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That depends on the specific circumstances, and whether the church knew or reasonably should have known at the time they contributed money.

However, this is the standard the left likes to promulgate; any time someone says something that the left perceives as negative about one of its favorite protected group, it claims that this is "encouraging violence" against that group.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Get evidence that the leader of the group funding the movement had advocated the bombing, then absolutely.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

How do you apply this theory of accountability to citizens and criminal government activity?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Only to the degree that the government criminalizes it's own activity, which it typically doesn't

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.