Thursday, April 27, 2017

In 1976, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that whites are protected by the civil-rights laws against racial discrimination McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co. 427 U.S. 273 (1976)

U.S. Supreme Court

McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976)

McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co.
No. 75-260
Argued April 20, 1976
Decided June 25, 1976
427 U.S. 273
Petitioners, both white employees of respondent transportation company, were discharged for misappropriating cargo from one of the company's shipments, but a Negro employee, who was also charged with the same offense, was not discharged. After subsequent grievance proceedings pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the company and respondent union and complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) secured no relief, petitioners brought an action against respondents, alleging that in discharging petitioners, while retaining the Negro employee, respondent company had discriminated against petitioners on the basis of race, and that respondent union had acquiesced in this discrimination by failing properly to represent one of the petitioners in the grievance proceeding, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits the discharge of "any individual" because of "such individual's race," and of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which provides that "[a]ll persons . . . shall have the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens. . . ." The District Court dismissed the complaint on the pleadings, holding, inter alia, that § 1981 is inapplicable to racial discrimination against whites, and that the facts alleged by petitioners failed to state a claim under Title VII. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

1. Title VII, whose terms are not limited to discrimination against members of any particular race, prohibits racial discrimination in private employment against white persons upon the same standards as racial discrimination against nonwhites. Pp. 427 U. S. 278-285.

(a) Title VII has been so interpreted by the EEOC, whose interpretations are entitled to great deference, and its conclusion accords with uncontradicted legislative history. Pp. 427 U. S. 279-280.
(b) That petitioners' dismissal was based upon the commission of a criminal offense does not preclude them from seeking relief under Title VII. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Page 427 U. S. 274

Green, 411 U. S. 792. While respondent employer may decide that participation in a theft of cargo may warrant not retaining a person in its employment, this criterion must be "applied alike to members of all races," or Title VII is violated. Crime or other misconduct may be a legitimate basis for discharge, but it is not a basis for racial discrimination. Pp. 427 U. S. 281-284.
(c) Respondent union, as well as respondent company, is subject to liability under Title VII, since the same reasons that prohibit an employer from discriminating on the basis of race among culpable employees apply equally to the union, regardless of whether the union, under the circumstances, may find it necessary to compromise in securing retention of some of the affected employees. Whatever factors such a compromise may legitimately take into account in mitigating discipline of some employees, under Title VII race may not be included. Pp. 427 U. S. 284-285.

2. Section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in private employment against white persons as well as nonwhites, and this conclusion is supported both by the statute's language, which explicitly applies to "all persons," and by its legislative history. While the phrase "as is enjoyed by white persons" would seem to lend some support to the argument that the statute is limited to the protection of nonwhite persons against racial discrimination, the legislative history is clear that the addition of the phrase to the statute as finally enacted was not intended to eliminate the prohibition of racial discrimination against whites. Pp. 427 U. S. 285-296.
513 F.2d 90, reversed and remanded.

MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, STEWART, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, and in Parts I and II of which WHITE and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. WHITE and REHNQUIST, JJ., filed a separate statement, post, p. 427 U. S. 296.

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

The Drug Called LGBT And Dopers

 Image result for pothead

Addictive drugs provide several benefits for people who take them.  They enable the user to turn away from reality and avoid facing the real problems of life.  Drugs provide enjoyable feelings that temporarily relieve stress but siphon off the energy to create real happiness.  They also imprison the user in a welcome but false sense of aloneness, enabling the intoxicated to separate from others and ignore the needs of the real people around them.  The expectorant "LGBT" has become such a drug for the people who are addicted to it.

Yapping "LGBT," especially when combined with the meaningless term "community," provides all three drug effects for the addicted yapper.  Using "LGBT community" enables people who like to yammer about politics to turn away from any recognition of political, economic, or even social realities.  Two or three LGBTs taken daily allow addicts to feel good about themselves for no apparent reason.  In fact, high-dosage LGBTs stimulate a trip on hallucinated virtue and self-satisfaction while simultaneously blocking off a sense of responsibility to their nation or real community.

There is a fourth purpose of the verbal knee-jerk "LGBT community."  It is a cover for people who are not intelligent or mentally clear enough to think about complex issues.  That was on display during Tucker Carlson's pitiful "interview" with Braitlyn Jenner.  After a rambling answer, in which Jenner said the Olympic Committee is the best arbiter for high schools in Texas, where testosterone-drenched muscles are pounding undrugged girls into the mats, Carlson dropped any attempt to ask serious questions.  To do so would have seemed like elder abuse against a mildly cognitively impaired person, and Tucker just let Jenner perseverate about "my community."  Braitlyn fashions himself as the courageous leader of this imaginary community and is allowed to maintain that delusion by an addled media craving their next LGBT fix.  In truth, the claptrap "LGBT" exploits the identities of individuals as heterogeneous as any other group of humans, and who would never choose Braitlyn Jenner as their leader.
 Braitlyn was at the most confident defining the difference between sexuality and gender.  Wrong again.  Gender is for pronouns; sex is for people.  It doesn't matter that the whole world uses the wrong word; it is still wrong.  Simone de Beauvoir did not pen The Second Gender.

Binary sex structure is the set-up for mammals, birds, reptiles.  But not flatworms – let's give them flatworms.  Because Braitlyn Jenner monetizes himself as the face of trangenderism, he is under pressure to convince people he was always really a woman.  He says, "I've always dealt with this."  Everyone deals with something.  Any clouded feelings Bruce Jenner may have had about his sex, he dealt with his body about as well as Albert Einstein dealt with physics.  Looking at this man who once had a handsome face and physical abilities the gods would envy, and who is no longer a man, but not really a woman, underscores how harmful it is when LGBT pushers try to instill doubt and confusion in children about their sex.

LGBT dopers are meeting with increasing resistance and even resentment from the non-addicts.  Sexuality minorities are free in law and in custom to live how they choose, but not to force their views on others.  LGBT addicts, desperate for another fix of political power that is not coming, have taken to falsifying the reason people with h and b and t (homo, bi, transsexual) elements of mind are at heightened risk to harm themselves.  Clue: It's not because of other people's phobia.

Now to Tucker.  Here's the question.  Tucker Carlson is gifted at poking holes in what he believes to be false, but he has not demonstrated talent for forcefully articulating what he believes to be true.  The major political opinionators (predominantly conservative) relish opening their sets with what they take to be brilliant discourses (e.g., "The Memo").  That is their natural proclivity.  Not so for Carlson.
Tucker Carlson's well bred quizzicality is an enjoyable antidote to O'Reilly's street level, brash assurances.  The challenge for Carlson to carry The Factor is that it is not in his nature to be a factor himself.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Psychiatry expert: ‘scientifically there is no such thing as transgender?

This as we know, He Not a real women, But A Male Cross Dress, How Does Putting Female Body Part On Him, Make A Real Women? 
 Image result for male cross dresses

A prominent Toronto psychiatrist has severely criticized the assumptions underlying what has been dubbed by critics as the Canadian federal government's "bathroom bill," that is, Bill C-279, a private member’s bill that would afford special protection to so-called "transgender" men and women.
Dr. Joseph Berger has issued a statement saying that from a medical and scientific perspective there is no such thing as a "transgendered" person, and that terms such as “gender expression” and “gender identity" used in the bill are at the very least ambiguous, and are more an emotional appeal than a statement of scientific fact.

Berger, who is a consulting psychiatrist in Toronto and whose list of credentials establishes him as an expert in the field of mental illness, stated that people who identify themselves as "transgendered" are mentally ill or simply unhappy, and pointed out that hormone therapy and surgery are not appropriate treatments for psychosis or unhappiness.

From a scientific perspective, let me clarify what ‘transgendered’ actually means," Dr. Berger said, adding, "I am speaking now about the scientific perspective – and not any political lobbying position that may be proposed by any group, medical or non-medical."

"‘Transgendered’ are people who claim that they really are or wish to be people of the sex opposite to which they were born, or to which their chromosomal configuration attests," Dr. Berger stated.
"Some times, some of these people have claimed that they are ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ or alternatively ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’."

"The medical treatment of delusions, psychosis or emotional happiness is not surgery," Dr. Berger stated.

"On the other hand," Dr. Berger continued, "if these people are asked to clarify exactly what they believe, that is to say do they truly believe whichever of those above propositions applies to them and they say ‘no’, then they know that such a proposition is not true, but that they ‘feel’ it, then what we are talking about scientifically, is just unhappiness, and that unhappiness is being accompanied by a wish – that leads some people into taking hormones that predominate in the other sex, and even having cosmetic surgery designed to make them ‘appear’ as if they are a person of the opposite sex."
He explained that cosmetic surgery will not change the chromosomes of a human being in that it will not make a man become a woman, capable of menstruating, ovulating, and having children, nor will it make a woman into a man, capable of generating sperm that can unite with an egg or ovum from a woman and fertilize that egg to produce a human child.

Moreover, Dr. Berger stated that the arguments put forward by those advocating for special rights for gender confused people have no scientific value and are subjective and emotional appeals with no objective scientific basis.

"I have read the brief put forward by those advocating special rights, and I find nothing of scientific value in it," Dr. Berger said in his statement. "Words and phrases, such as 'the inner space,' are used that have no objective scientific basis."

"These are the scientific facts," Dr. Berger said. "There seems to me to be no medical or scientific reason to grant any special rights or considerations to people who are unhappy with the sex they were born into, or to people who wish to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex."

"The so-called ‘confusion’ about their sexuality that a teenager or adult has is purely psychological. As a psychiatrist, I see no reason for people who identify themselves in these ways to have any rights or privileges different from everyone else in Canada," he concluded.

REAL Women of Canada asked Dr. Berger for a statement on the issues surrounding Bill C-279 after the organization appeared before the review committee hearings on the bill.

Gwen Landolt of REAL Women told LifeSiteNews that after being initially refused permission to present their perspective on the bill to the review committee, the group was accepted, but found that all other groups and individuals who had been accepted to appear before the committee were supporters of Bill C-279.

"It can scarcely be an impartial review of any bill if only the witnesses supporting the bill are invited to speak to it," Landolt said.

Landolt explained that after passing second reading on June 6, 2012, Bill C-279 went to the Justice and Human Rights Committee for review.

At the review committee hearings, REAL Women of Canada presented a 12 page brief setting out the harms created by the bill, and pointing out that the terms “gender expression” and “gender identity," as written in Bill C-279, were so broad that they could be used to protect pedophilia along with other sexual perversions, if passed into law.

REAL Women provided the committee with evidence that post-operative trans-gendered individuals suffer substantially higher morbidity and mortality than the general population, placing the so-called “sex reassignment” surgery and hormone treatment under continued scrutiny.

They pointed out that a pioneer in such treatment, Dr. Paul McHugh, distinguished professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, stopped the procedures because he found that patients were no better adjusted or satisfied after receiving such treatment.

McHugh wrote in 2004 that “Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness” by catering to the desires of people who wanted surgery to change their biological sex.

“We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia,” he stated, adding that “to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it.”

Landolt noted that the committee hearings ended in confusion over the terminology presented in the bill, and that even the bill's sponsor, NDP MP Randall Garrison (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca), was not clear as to who is included and who is excluded in these terms.

"The definition for 'gender identity' proposed by Mr. Garrison is a subjective one that he defined as a 'deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex that the individual was assigned at birth'," Landolt said, adding that "The committee engaged in extensive discussions on the meaning of “gender identity” and “gender expression” without much clarification."
"As a result, instead of a smooth, orderly dispatch of this bill through the Committee orchestrated by Garrison, Conservative MP Shelly Glover (St. Boniface, Manitoba) and Conservative MP

Kerry-Lynne Findlay (Delta-Richmond-East, BC), the committee hearings broke down in confusion at the final hearing on December 10th. The result is that the bill will be reported to the House of Commons as originally written without amendments," Landolt stated.

Following this state of confusion over terms at the review committee, REAL Women sought out an expert in order to provide the scientific and medical evidence relating to "transgenderism" and the other terms used in the bill.

Gwen Landolt told LifeSiteNews that REAL Women of Canada will be including Dr. Berger's statement in an information package to be sent to MPs before the bill comes to final vote.
"It is crucial that MPs know that this legislation is harmful, not only to those who think themselves transgendered but also to society, and should not be passed into law," Landolt said. "We must therefore write to our MP’s to request that they speak against this troubling bill."

Dr. Berger is certified as a specialist in Psychiatry by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and is an elected Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. He is also a past Chairman of the Toronto district of the Ontario Medical Association and past President of the Ontario branch of the American Psychiatric Association.

Berger has been an Examiner in Psychiatry for the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology for twenty five years, has taught as Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and is the author of many published papers on different aspects of Diagnosis and Independent Psychiatric Assessments, as well as author of the book “The Independent Medical Examination in Psychiatry” published by Butterworth/Lexis-Nexis.

To contact Prime Minister Harper and the Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson, about Bill C-279:
The Rt. Hon. Stephen J. Harper
Office of the Prime Minister House of Commons Ottawa, ON        K1A 0A6
Fax: 613-941-6900
The Hon. Robert Nicholson
Minister of Justice House of Commons Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Fax: 613-992-7910
Find contact information for Members of Parliament here.
Canadian ‘transsexual’ bill passes second reading 150 to 132
15 federal Conservatives who helped Canadian ‘transsexual’ bill pass 2nd reading
Transgender bill ‘isn’t necessary,’ concedes Canadian Human Rights Commission
TV personality slams Conservative government for supporting ‘transgender’ bill

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Scientist Claims Crop Circles Are Messages From ALIENS Stargate SG-1, Any One? and TIME TRAVELERS

Image result for sg1

FAKE WHITE INDIANS - Dawes Rolls: History of $5 Dollar Indians

Cherokee Genealogist Slams Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren Gets EXPOSED For LYING About Planned Parenthood

$250,000 Fine For Calling Caitlyn Jenner a He, Well To Bad, HE A HE/She And A Fag It!

March for Science Draws Thousands To Capitol, Your Telling US That This March for Science , Was To Prove Gender Identity. And Give US The Hard Science To Prove This ?

 An estimated 10,000-15,000 people have assembled for the local March for Science, part of a series of rallies held globally in support of the sciences?

Image result for weird science

Read more here:

 'The March for Science'; Let's take a look at Gender Identity.   One's most innermost concept of Self, as male or female,  or Attempt to blend both ;  Now that may be all well and good, but when talking about the March for Science, the right question to ask. Where is the science to prove this ?  No matter how many times the Party of Science is asked .. for Hard Science to prove this, we get nothing back as Proof to back this claim. What  do we get back from the Party of Science ? They try to Shut Down all debate on Singular Gender  Identity;  "Why, good question? "  If there is HARD Science, then there's no reason to shut down all debate; "would you not agree," Party of Science ?  You may not feel  'Science' needs to prove it with Hard Science ,  but , let's look at some questions:  Where dose D.N.A. Science play a roll , when it comes to Gender Identity? 

 Other Questions  to ask  would,  or ' might be ';   likewise with Cell & Molecular Biology;  Where dose it play a leading roll, when It come to Gender Identity? Where dose the science , or biology play a roll , when it comes to Male and Female Gender Identity? s   Looking at some real facts of science;   Where dose problem-solving, and decision-making, of Male and Females,  play in the science of .. Proving .. Gender Identity?  When we think about science, we want the right questions asked , 'as you do as well ,   But now, let's look to science ..  and see what we get.   Are there 25 Biological differences between Men and Women that are commonly known, " science can prove ?"  that is there no biological differences between Men and Women ? ;  and with men  and women's brains ?   "Are they indeed wired in fundamentally different ways ?   Can science prove that our brains are NOT wired in fundamentally different ways ? :"   So , .. where dose medical science play a roll  .. in puberty development of girls and boys ?  Have We Forgotten about NATURE :  the March for Science ...  Indeed!.

Friday, April 21, 2017

Calling Socialist Sanders Why Socialism Always Results in Tyrannical Rule?

Related image

Calling Socialist Sanders Why Socialism Always Results in Tyrannical Rule?

 Image result for Socialist Sanders

The Controlling Elite Love Socialism for the People-Control Properties of the System, But for the Average Citizen the Results Have Always Been Disastrous.

In the 20th century there have been numerous political systems, but in the latter half of the century there were only two survivors, Socialism and Capitalism. So we have at this time in the Western world, which for all practical purposes controls the world, two opposing political systems. (I have already previously stated that there is no basic difference between socialists and communists. There are, however, some very important factors relating to socialism of which you should be aware. Socialism will not work in a free market economy and, as a consequence it invariably deteriorates into a totalitarian state. Anyone wishing to argue that point is asked to point to one single instance where this was not the result).

It therefore behooves us to remember who the worst despotic governments of this century were: Nazis in Germany, Fascists in Italy, Communists in the USSR, [Romania, East Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.] and China - each and every one of them a paragon of socialist endeavor. Their leaders; Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin [Ceausescu, Tito, Pol Pot, etc.] and Mao Tse Tung. The outstanding legacy of these individuals is that they each tried to out-do the others in the total number of their own citizens which they murdered. It is a fact that each of these men killed more of their own civilian citizens than they lost in military conflict.

The reason for this is inherent to socialism. It promises things that it cannot possibly deliver. When socialist politicians in power come to the realization that it is impossible to deliver on their promises and political unrest develops, they have two options if they plan to stay in power. First, they must locate a scapegoat on whom they can blame their inability to deliver. Any Jew can tell you who that was for the Germans and the Russians. The second is to develop, and rapidly so, a state security apparatus to keep them in office - the SS, the KGB, [Securitate, Stasi] etc.

The basic tenets of socialism are:
1. Seduce the populace into accepting the government as the arbitrator of all problems; government from cradle-to-grave

2. Begin delivering on those services to make the citizens dependent

3. Take away the citizens' guns

4. Increase taxes on all services while destroying any free market alternative services

5. Blame the chosen scapegoat for the inability to meet demand for services

6. Have the centralized national police force round up any dissidents

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Jordan Peterson Destroys SJW Professor on Gender Pronouns and Censorship

Moron SJW Thinks She's Entitled To Money

Public High School Censors Student's Article Criticizing S.J.W Safe Spaces

 Image result for space safe, funny

a student at a public high school in upstate New York was, fittingly, told his article addressing the dangers of "safe spaces" in school settings was "too harsh" to be published in the school's paper, Spartan Expressions
New Hartford High School junior Richard Falvo told The Daily Wire that he submitted a piece called "Why New Hartford Needs To Stop Labeling Classrooms As 'Safe Spaces'" for his "Prime Time Politics" column in advance for approval, but was met with strong pushback.

"I write a column titled 'Prime Time Politics' where I address my opinion about various political events," Falvo told The Daily Wire. "This past week I decided to write about why I believe safe spaces are a threat to both the education of students and why they also hinder a teacher's ability to teach. However, my school wanted nothing to do with my opinion. After multiple English teachers and faculty members at the head of the school discussed my article, they came to the conclusion that the tone of my article could be 'too harsh' for some students to read."

In other words, Falvo's piece suggesting "safe space" culture can seriously hinder learning by censoring ideas was censored.

"Safe spaces directly hinder a student’s ability to explore and learn new ideas of thought," Falvo argues in the unpublished piece. "This is evident from the fact that avoiding controversial or offensive opinions leave a student who chooses a safe space uninformed about the opposing side of a subject."

Monday, April 17, 2017

University of Wisconsin-Madison offers free tampons in men’s bathrooms

So here a question? if both are biological male and female, before Sex reassignment surgery ? , When did they stop being  biological male and female after reassignment surgery, when did that happen? 

Image result for hospital operating room

The University of Wisconsin-Madison is rolling out a new pilot program to provide free menstrual products in several of its campus bathrooms — including some men’s restrooms.

The public university will offer the women’s hygiene products in three campus buildings. In two of them, Helen C. White and Sterling halls, the products will be available in all of the women’s restrooms, said Steve Wagner, a spokesman for the school, in an email to The College Fix.

But in a third venue, the Red Gym, the products will be available in all of the building’s bathrooms, he said.

Asked why women’s hygiene products are needed inside men’s bathrooms, Wagner said: “Menstrual products will be available in all of the bathrooms of the Red Gym so that they are available to any student who might need them.”

It appears the products are needed in men’s bathrooms to benefit transgender males (biological women who identify as male).

The three-level Red Gym houses the institution’s Lesbian, Gay and Transgender Campus Center, the Office of Multicultural Arts Initiative, Multicultural Student Center and a variety of other student and academic programs and divisions, according to its website.

The free tampon program was brought forth by the university’s student government. Student Rep. Katrina Morrison called purchasing menstrual products “an unnecessary burden,” according to the Badger Herald campus newspaper.
“Having them be free and readily available in campus buildings is definitely a necessity,” she said.

Student leaders cited other large universities that have installed free tampons in bathrooms as one big reason why it was needed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which is also not the first to place them in men’s bathrooms as well.
The program is slated to launch at the end of the month and run through December, the Herald reports.

The Herald also ran a “clarification” on its article, stating “a previous version of this article referred to these products as women’s hygiene products.” The article appears to have replaced “women’s hygiene products” with “menstrual products.”

The university will reportedly be looking at the most cost efficient way to handle the pilot program by determining whether to renovate the existing dispensaries to ensure they’re free of charge, or scrap the old dispensaries and purchase new ones.

According to The Cap Times, in the fall of 2015, Wisconsin State Assembly Rep. Melissa Sargent, D-Madison, announced legislation to provide feminine hygiene products in all public school and government building bathrooms in Wisconsin. Sargent was met with stark criticism, and her plan ultimately failed.

Friday, April 14, 2017

L.M.A.O At S.J.W , This Is Getting So Funny, Now, What Will S.J.W Come With Next? Clemson University: S.J.W Say That Expecting People To Show Up On Time Is Racist S.J.W VS LOGIC And Reason,Ecip Face Plam!

 Image result for facepalm

Does your employer expect you to show up to work on time? If so, he or she might be racist. That is, according to the “inclusion awareness course” at South Carolina’s Clemson University.

The state-funded college purchased online training curriculum that suggests as much, Campus Reform reported earlier this week. The training asserts that time is up for debate. In other words, 9 a.m. apparently doesn’t bear the same meaning for every person.

The curriculum depicts several different fictional scenarios. One slide features a man named Alejandro, who is planning a meeting between two groups, each of which contains foreign professors and students. One group shows up 15 minutes early, the other 10 minutes late.

The guide says it would not be “inclusive” of Alejandro to “politely ask the second group to apologize” for wasting the time of the group that arrived several minutes before the designated meeting time — 9 a.m. Instead, Alejandro should “recognize cultural differences that may impact the meeting and adjust accordingly.”

It is important for Alejandro to understand “that his cultural perspective regarding time is neither more nor less valid than any other,” the training continued.

The training is provided by a company called Workplace Answers and cost Clemson a total of $26,945, according to an invoice obtained by The Tiger Town Observer, the university’s student-run newspaper. And it appears the purchase was approved by Clemson’s chief diversity officer, Lee Gill, whose salary tops $185,000 a year.

In another made-up scenario in the curriculum, one character, Maxine, believes the “diversity training” is a distraction about nothing more than “political correctness.” In response, the training says, Henry, a fellow character, should discuss with Maxine “how diversity can lead to better decisions” and “decrease employee turnover.”

The incorrect response, the curriculum points out, would be for Henry to “say nothing” to Maxine, allowing her to believe she’s correct.

Other examples in the training tackle issues like sexism. In one slide, two characters — Tanisha and Jonathan — apply for a college administration job posted by a character named Stephanie, who later receives an email from Tanisha when she finds out she was not granted an interview for the position.
“You invited him to interview and not me, apparently because he is a white male,” Tanisha writes in her email to Stephanie.

The slide encourages Stephanie to “reflect on her behavior to see if Tanisha is correct,” adding that it would be inappropriate for her to “tell Tanisha it is offensive to accuse a woman of sexism,” because in the U.S., “we are all raised with biases” and “as a woman, Stephanie could have discriminated against another woman or against someone of her own race.”

Last April, Clemson President James Clements pledged “all employees will participate in diversity education and training” in an effort to create a more inclusive environment on the South Carolina campus.
According to one professor who spoke anonymously with Campus Reform, faculty and staff are “encourage[d]” to take the training. It was not immediately clear whether or not they could face disciplinary action for refusing to participate.

Instead, staffers were incentivized with free mugs and T-shirts by Clemson’s Office of Inclusion and Equity and the Office of Human Resources. In an email about the “inclusion awareness course,” faculty and staff were informed: “Employees who have not completed the training will receive two automated reminders.”

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Harvard students protest free speech event as 'hate speech'? , Sorry Tell You All At Harvard, You Cant Stop Hate, Ever-One, Got The Right To Hate Any One, Trans Love is Power", No It Not, It's Gay Love, Nothing More! ,

 Image result for liberal tolerance

This Transphobia Card, IS Nothing More, Then S.J.W   Again, Try To Shut Down All Speech And Debate On  Confused Gender , They Want To Be Told And Have It Proven Them , That They All Fake And Not Real.

 The front of the flyer, a copy of which was obtained by Campus Reform, states in bold letters, “Get the facts about gender diversity. Fight transphobia.”

On the reverse side, the handbill states that Peterson “incited direct threats to trans students,” and even went so far as to say that “transgender people…[face] elevated rates of violence, murder, and harm, which Peterson exposes them to.”

new “free speech club” at Harvard University elicited student protests by inviting a conservative psychology professor to lecture on how gender nonconformity threatens free speech.
Harvard’s Open Campus Initiative recently invited University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson to speak as part of its mission of “support for freedom of thought, speech, and association,” but many students are bitterly complaining that Peterson is a purveyor of “hate speech” and must therefore not be allowed on campus.

“Transgender people…[face] elevated rates of violence, murder, and harm, which Peterson exposes them to.”   
[RELATED: VIDEO: Harvard students say Trump is more dangerous than ISIS]
According to a Facebook page for the event, attendance at Monday’s lecture was limited to those with Harvard College credentials, but a recording of the conversation will be made available in the coming days.

During Peterson’s speech, protesters stood outside the venue holding a flag stating, “Trans Love is Power,” and also distributed fliers “compiled by concerned Harvard students.”

Freedom From Religion Foundation Anti-Religion Group Condemns Tweets by Ole Miss football coach, But Then This Anti-Religion Gruop, Will Go And Defend The Religion Of Islam , But Still Cliam To Be Anti-Religion Group, Atheist Double Standard

  •  1-in-3 college-aged Americans (18-29) are not religious and about 43% are non-Christian.
  • Image result for atheist meaning

  • The Freedom From Religion Foundation is condemning the University of Mississippi for allowing its football coaches to make “overtly religious” statements on social media.
  • Although the tweets were sent from private accounts, the FFRF says Ole Miss violated the separation of church and state by promoting them on a website for its football program.
  • In a letter sent to Chancellor Jeffrey Vitter last week, FFRF Staff Attorney Sam Grover complains that head football coach Hugh Freeze “regularly promotes religion on his Twitter page,” providing several examples of posts referencing God and Bible verses.

    “Freeze isn't the only state employee who expresses his religion through social media.”   
    “Lead us by your truth and teach us 2day, for you are the God who saves us! All day long I put my hope in you. Ps 25:5 - be a blessing 2day," states one of the tweets cited by the FFRF, while another says, “Here’s the best news ever, your eternal standing with God doesn’t depend on the [sic] your goodness, but on God’s unshakable faithfulness.”

    [RELATED: U of Florida to keep biblical inscription despite atheist protest]
    The FFRF says such messages raise “a serious constitutional concern over religious promotion by the University of Mississippi,” arguing that while Freeze is entitled to express himself as a private citizen, “he may not promote his personal religious beliefs while acting in his capacity as a university employee.”

    According to Grover’s letter, the university crossed that line by publicizing Freeze’s Twitter account on a website for Ole Miss football, which the FFRF claims “creates the appearance that the university endorses Freeze’s tweets and the religious promotion therein.”

    The letter also objects to tweets published on the website from coach Maurice Harris’ Twitter account, referencing one that reads, "God's comfort soothes us perfectly. As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you. Isaiah 66:13."

    Grover asserts that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1995 that coaches at public schools may not promote religion to athletes, calling on Ole Miss to remind its coaches that they “cannot promote religion to their players or to the public at large while acting in their official capacities.”
    [RELATED: FFRF wants Toledo football players to stop pre-game prayers]

    The matter is particularly pressing because Ole Miss “serves the least religious population in the country,” the letter contends, though it only provides generic data claiming that “1-in-3 college-aged Americans (18-29) are not religious and about 43% are non-Christian” while speculating that the proportion of religious believers is even lower among the school’s foreign student population.
    Teylar Patton, a Criminal Justice major at Ole Miss, told Campus Reform that he believes Freeze should be free to express his religious views through Twitter, saying, “it's his social media and he should be able to express himself.”

    [RELATED: Clemson coach: football program doesn’t violate separation of church and state]
    “Regardless if he's a state employee or not, he should not have to watch what he tweets if it's not negative or offensive to others,” Patton added, pointing out that “Freeze isn't the only state employee who expresses his religion through social media; many other coaches do it also. It's not like he's forcing his religion on anyone.”

    Other students took the opposite stance on the matter, such as Public Policy Leadership major Caleb Pracht, who told Campus Reform that as “a financial supporter of the FFRF,” he is pleased that the organization is taking Freeze and Ole Miss to task.

    “I support their inquiry into Coach Freeze's tweets,” he said, explaining that “while I support his right to freedom of expression, I believe that as a public employee he should not favor a particular religious doctrine.”
    Overall, Pracht estimated that Ole Miss students “are split 50/50” on the question, suggesting that the FFRF letter could become a hot-button issue on campus.
    Campus Reform reached out to the university for a statement or comment on the matter, they said that they do not have a comment on the matter.

    Ben Shapiro Bebates Feminist Who Thinks The Constitution Is Sexist?

    Image result for c.n.n lies

    CNN’s Acosta Rules It’s Un-American to Slam CNN, News Media; Doesn’t Regret Screaming at Trump? So Were C,N,N Screaming at Obama For Eaght Year's

    Image result for c.n.n lies

    CNN’s Acosta Rules It’s Un-American to Slam CNN, News Media; Doesn’t Regret Screaming at Trump? So Were C,N,N Screaming at Obama For Eaght Year's

    Image result for c.n.n lies

    CNN’s Acosta Rules It’s Un-American to Slam CNN, News Media; Doesn’t Regret Screaming at Trump? So Were C,N,N Screaming at Obama For Eaght Year's

    Image result for Obama and C.N.N

    CNN’s Jim Acosta has become a prominent media figure thanks to the presidential campaign and is frequently blogged on NewsBusters. On Wednesday at Washington D.C.’s The Newseum, Acosta was unhinged, ruling it’s un-American to harshly criticize the media and apocalyptically spoke of Trump eradicating the media.
    Acosta appeared with fellow White House reporters Julia Pace of the Associated Press, NBC’s Kristen Welker, Glenn Thrush of The New York Times, and Breitbart’s Charlie Spiering in a panel moderated by the Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier. Other panelists offered intriguing quotes, but Acosta rose above them in significance with his diatribes.

    Acosta spoke at length about his contentious exchanges with Trump, with one from January 11
    He and I had this back and forth and just to quickly go over that, my feeling is that our news organization was being attacked on that day. We were being called fake news and so forth and I felt that I deserved and our organization deserved a question to challenge him on what was being reported at that time[.] 
    Skipping ahead to their February 16 throwdown, Acosta noted that Trump “enjoys the sparring back and forth”before getting on his high horse, trotting out the argument that the truth is important now more than ever (and supposedly not during the Obama years).
    “I think, now more than ever, speaking truth to power means everything and so, I think that is what I was trying to do on that day back in January and I think that’s what we at CNN and I think my colleagues here try to do every day,” Acosta complained.

    Wednesday, April 12, 2017

    The Dangerous Side of Political Correctness

    Image result for The Dangerous Side of Political Correctness





    I have seen it often argued that “Political correctness isn’t gone mad or posing a danger to free speech. It’s just about treating people with respect!”

    You may have seen this belief expressed in this video put out by MTV addressing the question “Is PC Culture Anti-Free Speech?” But that type of conception of Political Correctness paints a very incomplete picture which results in a lot of misunderstandings regarding what is actually being criticized when it is said that Political Correctness has “gone mad” or is “out of control”.

    The Meaning of ‘Political Correctness’

    We of course need to define the term “Political Correctness” in order to have any debate. Dictionaries differ slightly in their definitions but the following encompasses the idea that I am discussing in this article, regardless of what you want to call it:

    “Political correctness” refers to the use of various forms of social pressure to prevent words, ideas, and opinions from being expressed that are viewed by some people as offensive or harmful in some way (usually only to a group perceived as disadvantaged in society. Offense or harm to anyone perceived as non-disadvantaged is generally ignored, excused, or even encouraged).
    Initially this may sound simple enough so it may be hard to imagine how any problems could arise from it. However, as I will explain, the effort to strongly enforce respect for others and suppress harmful speech is actually fraught with major problems.
    Note: What Political Correctness is NOT
    Political Correctness is not about suppressing any general rudeness and vulgarity. It is about suppressing speech that is perceived as inherently harmful to an entire group of people who are considered disadvantaged or oppressed. Often a statement or joke can be both rude and seen as politically incorrect, but these ideas are distinct.

    The Dangerous Side Of Political Correctness

    I don’t have a problem with treating people with respect. Political Correctness can often have some benefits as intended. For example, insisting that people avoid using derogatory slang for people of East Asian or African descent. Certain terms are just unnecessary and do not help in communicating any information more clearly than using other terms or phrasing. The terms merely carry emotional baggage that insult those groups and – for related reasons – tend to be used to express disgust of those people.

    But unfortunately this idea is that it can be used – intentionally or otherwise – to justify social intolerance of all kinds of disagreement and thus become a tool for dogmatic ideological control of society.

    So the problem with political correctness “gone mad” or “out of control”, is not “respect for the oppressed”. The problem is people becoming irrational and viciously intolerant of dissent in their zeal to enforce what they consider respect for who they believe are oppressed; and that these behaviors ultimately undermine important freedoms and many of the goals of social justice.

    Close-Mindedness And How Social Intolerance Undermines The Goals of Social Justice

    Employing the idea of political correctness entails being socially intolerant of many statements and ideas which you think are harmful. Due to the nature of this practice, it necessarily operates under the presumption that your current opinions are extremely accurate and your current information is sufficient to form such accurate beliefs.

    But there is a problem: Anyone can have inaccurate and illogical views about which ideas, statements, and so on are morally good or bad.

    There is no perfect and utterly objective method of analysis and judgment at the basis of political correctness. What is suppressed depends on which beliefs and dogmas become popular among a large or powerful portion of the population sufficient to wield a strong influence over political discourse and social behavior. This means that politically correct censorship has the potential to be applied to any ideas, information, opinions, or form of expression at all. This includes truthful statements and disagreements made on grounds of legitimate disagreement, not merely hate or delight in aggravating others.

    And the problem can worsen through a self-reinforcing effect on close-mindedness. By using social intolerance, existing feelings and beliefs are exposed to fewer and fewer challenges that could help create a more realistic understanding of a topic. And this has the effect of making those current views inflexible and prone to building up to extremes as issues are perceived through an increasingly simplistic and information-lacking lens. This means that political correctness can undermine its own noble goals by inadvertently condemning ideas that benefit society or defending sources of harm.
    These problems make “politically correct” social intolerance a very dangerous practice to let spread as a normal and acceptable form of political activism in any society.

    The Dangerous Behaviors

    In the following list, I explain the most disconcerting behaviors that are often fostered by political correctness and which lead to the problems described in the previous section. Political correctness does not always involve the behaviors I describe below – and these behaviors are not only seen in cases of political correctness – but these are the behaviors that are of primary concern when speaking about political correctness “gone mad” and posing a threat to free speech.

    1. Using “offense” as a standard for deciding what speech should be considered intolerable

    The standard for deciding that a statement or idea is socially intolerable is often based on whether a particular group of people feel that it is “offensive” to hear, either because it is perceived as harmful or as just not respectful or whatever other reason.

    But offense is a necessary element in the concept of free speech. This is not for the sake of offense itself, as offense has no value as a goal in itself, at least in my own view. But rather, offense must be tolerated because it is crucial that people are able to speak their true opinions and present information and discuss ideas despite how others may feel about it, because otherwise, important truths and good ideas can be silenced.

    The list below describes the main reasons that offense is a poor basis for censorship.
    1. A. Subjective

    2. B. Caters to extremists

    3. C. Necessary speech

    2. Irrational Analysis And Jumping To Conclusions

    The desire to be attack injustice can sometimes overwhelm a person’s desire to have a correct understanding of what is actually happening. Often people will hastily jump to conclusions or simply use illogical reasoning because they’re trying to believe that evil is occurring more than they are trying to consider the details fairly.

    They will make accusations of racism, sexism, and myriad other “isms” and “phobias” based on short video clips or a few sentences a person spoke rather than make an effort to understand the person’s complete statement, argument, or perspective. Or, in cases where they have sufficient pertinent information, they will still make those accusations based on illogical thinking.

    They also often conflate fundamentally different ideas that are not mutually inclusive. Criticism of zionist ideology and Israeli government policy may be misconstrued as anti-semitism. Or criticism of some claims and ideas from self-identified feminists may be accused of being anti-feminist or misogyinistic.

    Consequently, people and situations that are not sexist or racist etc by any definition (including definitions defined by relative power of different people) suffer the same accusations and vitriol as the people and situations for which those labels are apt.
    You can read numerous examples of this in the drop-down below.
    1. Stephen Fry makes a joke at the BAFTA awards

    2. Sam Harris accused of racism for criticizing Islamic belief

    3. Misuse of Accusations and Negative Labels as a Political Tool

    I touched upon how political correctness often involves making irrational judgments and accusations, but in this section I want to point out how the accusations are themselves political tools, not merely annoying results of irrational thinking.

    The constant, ferocious use of accusations of racism, sexism, and so on is a form of political activism in itself which, it appears, many people have found to be an effective tool for combating dissenters.
    People will often use negative labels (e.g. “sexist”) or even create entirely new pejorative terms (e.g. “Islamophobic”) to label any speech they disagree with. The constant use of these terms has enabled them to make their way into mainstream usage in American media, and they have quite effectively been used to simply identify all a wide variety of opinions and information as inherently “bad”, immoral, malicious, and factually wrong, regardless of any actual information, discussion, analysis, or logical argument. These labels and accusations are being used as tools to demonize and shut down ideas that the accusers cannot, or do not want to, contend with rationally – and they are surprisingly effective.

    The most appalling example of this is that criticizing Islamic beliefs or the Quran or even debating possible negative impacts of mass immigration of Muslims is all labeled “Islamophobic” as if these views are inherently wrong and “bad” despite all evidence in their favor and the fact that our culture has no trouble viciously criticizing myriad other beliefs and ideologies.

    4. Extreme emotional reactions

    Highly charged emotional reactions are a common sight in the realm of political correctness, and it comes from all corners of the political spectrum. Of course being highly emotional is not always a bad thing in every context, but leaping to such reactions should generally be discouraged since it feeds into the following problems:

    A) Causes close-mindedness. An extremely emotional state of mind tends to impede one’s ability to think rationally and be open to disagreement and new information.

    B) Causes hastier judgments. An extremely impassioned person will be more likely to make hasty judgments based on little information about an event that occurred or a statement someone made. Intense emotions are often a major factor in causing the irrational accusations mentioned in earlier sections.
    C) Fosters more extreme dogmas. Highly charged emotions can lead people to adopt more simplistic and extreme perspectives of reality in their attempt to eradicate what they see as problems, while also causing them to ignore the problematic aspects of their own ideas.

    D) Extreme actions. Extreme emotion produces extreme choice of action, especially with regard to the more extreme dogmas it can create. These extreme actions, whether on an interpersonal, social, or legislative level, can have very harmful effects.

    E) Severely disturbs discussion. Very strong emotions make it difficult or impossible to discuss an issue in person or to maintain a peaceful protest. The extreme passion and fear or anger leads to people speaking over each other or starting physical fights.

    A rather stark example of these problems manifested itself in the now infamous case at Yale where a student was filmed screaming at a professor who very calmly and politely disagreed with her about an issue of cultural insensitivity that had occurred at a party.

    5. “No-Platforming”; Discourse And Even Tolerance Itself Are Demonized

    There is a common doctrine within many groups on the political left which holds that dissenters with politically incorrect views should not be engaged with via discourse. The act of even listening or tolerating the speech of such dissenters is itself considered approval or promotion of terribly harmful views.

    Obviously no private organization should be required to provide a platform for all speech and ideas they may disagree with, and private groups have a right to decide who they wish to associate with or represent them. I support this very much, since specialized groups are important for advocating certain ideas, which requires them to maintain unity and convey a coherent message (however, do not confuse this with the individuals themselves being closed-minded; these issues are not mutually inclusive).

    But there is a problem when A) people are being rejected form private groups as a result of the issues mentioned in the previous sections, especially when they are being disinvited due to views they hold which are not directly related to that group and which they would not even be discussing in that group. And even worse than that is when people are disallowed from speaking in places intended for debate and learning (when such spaces are eliminated) by either, B) again, disinviting speakers due to the irrational aforementioned issues, or C) by disrupting events at which they speak, or D) by forcefully trying to bar entrance for speakers they dislike and the people who wish to hear them.
    Forcefully trying to bar entrance is very disturbing. It reveals an extreme degree of close-mindedness and it is an escalation of the methods used to silence dissent by entering the realm of physical force.
    Examples (corresponding to letters above):
    1. A. Rejection from private groups

    2. B. Disinviting speakers

    3. C. Disruption and threats

    4. D. Forcefully barring access

    The Danger of Political Correctness Becoming Law

    The ultimate danger of the intolerance of dissent is that those views may become established in law, and numerous opinions will be made illegal to express. Using government power to punish speech deemed “harmful” is largely subjective to the opinions of whoever has power at the time (i.e. the people making the laws), and sets a dangerous precedent that is easily used for sociopolitical control by any group that gains popularity.


    As a society, we must remember that tolerance does not mean to just love certain things and hate other things, although that connotation has become commonly used. Tolerance, at least in the basic sense I mean here, means to be willing to endure the existence of, and exposure to, what you dislike. It is this latter form of tolerance that ensures more fair discourse and helps foster an atmosphere where people are more open to learning and changing their beliefs.

    I cannot claim that any society will be perfect in this regard – far from it – but we can certainly avoid the dangerous path of going straight in the opposite direction.