Friday, November 25, 2005

Damn those white males

Question from Oregon Coast Community College Equal Opportunity study guide:

____ 20. A backlash against diversity efforts comes from ____ who believe they are set up as scapegoats for societal problems.

a. white males
b. middle managers
c. undocumented workers
d. professional women


20. ANS:A

You have to be real careful around those white males... they get unruly sometimes and need to be kept in their place.

18 comments:

Kate said...

Isn't it WhiteMale hunting season in the city?

Tony said...

Classic! While insinuating that white guys are just oversensitive about a preceived scapegoating, they actually scapegoat them in the question!

Only a government employee or their liberal enablers can think this is not dangerous Orwellian doublespeak!

But then, I am a white guy, so obviously, I am just oversensitive.

Kaelri said...

"Liberal" around here is basically synonymous with "evil," innit?

Either way, I don't see a problem with the question. A lot of white males think they've been scapegoated and subsequently "backlash against diversity efforts." Deal with it, I s'pose.

Tim Lewis said...

That's because "diversity" has nothing to do with normality. Its backlash exists because their civil rights (by that, I mean mine as well) are being violated by those who claim to support them.

You can insinuate all you want, but the "liberals are evil" idea only came from you. That might tell us all something.

Robin said...

Gee, I did not realize that you white males still had so much power!

especially when you come in second when it comes to jobs, health benefits, etc.

You don't get the advantages of society for being a woman...

You don't get the benefits of hiring privileges because you're white... [when you become more of a minority, does that mean that you will receive more privileges? I doubt it]

And yet,white males yield so much power that they they are to be blamed for everything that is wrong in society.

gads, I sure am glad that I am not one. it's too much responsibility :-)

Daniel said...

Kaeleri, try this one:

New Question:

A backlash against lynching laws comes from _________ who believe they are set up as scapegoats for societal problems.

a. black males
b. masons
c. missionaries
d. women

Does that put it into perspective?

Diesel said...

Either way, I don't see a problem with the question. A lot of white males think they've been scapegoated and subsequently "backlash against diversity efforts." Deal with it, I s'pose.

Isn't that the ultimate insult to "liberalism?"

Examples:

1. 2005 - White males yield more "power" in this culture. "Deal with it, I s'pose".

2. We have that "slavery" thing going on. Just deal with it, I s'pose.

3. 1900 - Women don't get to vote. Why don't they jsut "deal with it".

Kaelri, being liberal isn't "evil", it jsut lacks all common sense and logic. Just deal with it, I s'pose.

Diesel said...

And I can't seem to get my fingers to hit J-U-S-T in the correct order.

Anonymous said...

Am I a white male or simply a "Victim" of Albinoism syndrome?

MAX Redline said...

"Diversity" is just the latest term for "racism".

And "tolerance" is a euphemism for "intolerance" - because in both cases, it's a one-way street.

Daniel said...

To see how good white males have it check out this scholarship list from PCC.

There's pretty much something for everyone... except white males.

Kaelri said...

"That's because "diversity" has nothing to do with normality. Its backlash exists because their civil rights (by that, I mean mine as well) are being violated by those who claim to support them."

Agreed.

"You can insinuate all you want, but the "liberals are evil" idea only came from you. That might tell us all something."

Ahm... not so much, no. Certainly not when liberalism is jokingly attributed to having a brain the size and shape of a radioactive coconut.

But take this example from last March: "The argument for a 'rainy day fund' is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. (Topped only be the assertion that liberals [are] on our side in the war on terror)."

Or this: "The problem with liberals is that they can't understand a compassionate God because their idea of compassion is backwards."

April: "The homogenous liberal culture present in our public schools should make any parent nervous."

Is this really all your idea of "humor?"

"A backlash against lynching laws comes from [black males] who believe they are set up as scapegoats for societal problems."

Obviously quite a gap between theatrical murders and affirmative action. They're both signs of a somewhat skewed sense of racial equality but the latter isn't sinful...

"2. We have that 'slavery' thing going on. Just deal with it, I s'pose.

3. 1900 - Women don't get to vote. Why don't they jsut 'deal with it'."


Erm. They did. They're called the 13th and 19th Amendments.

MAX Redline said...

Well, kinda on topic...

http://www.whatarerecords.com/vanilla/

Tim Lewis said...

Funny...none of those things say "liberals are evil" or even insinuate it. Stupid maybe.

Again...only you.

Tony said...

Kaelri, I see nothign wrong in the examples you bring up. In my view, they are all true.

Liberals do have a cockeyed view of compassion as relates to the compassion of God (at least, the God of the Bible).

Liberals are not on the side of the US in the war on terror. Oh sure, they are against terrorism, but they identify more with the bad-guys-as-victims-of-oppression-so-who-can-blame-them-they-were-forced-into-it than the American soldiers. To liberals, the real terror threat is George Bush, so the war on terror is a war on Bush. The axis of evil is not Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld. They are not what keeps me up at night. Remember, it wasn't the conservatives who only a week ago called for us to surrender to the terrorists.

And the most correct of all the comments you took umbrage at was that parents should be nervous about the liberal agenda in the schools. Duh. Daniel's headline today and on many a past day refers to a racist organization, MECHA, who advocates the violent overthrow of the United States, being allowed to use school funds, property, and people to promote its racist, separatist, terrorist aims. Did you see their graphic, with a picture lionizing Che Guevara? I mean, why not promote communism, it only killed 100 million people. Put Hitler on that shirt and people would be rightfully up in arms. Stalin, Guevara? No problem.

The schools are more interested in teaching kids to do waht feels good to them than to listen to those who care most for them, their parents, who the 9th Circus Court of Schlameils says are not the final arbiter of their childrens moral teachings.

The same schools who wont let your kid take an aspirin, but would be happy to take her to get an abortion without your consent or knowledge.

The same school whose teachers go on strike to demand more and make death threats against the school board, hit people's cars, scream at them, block them, etc.

Guess what? It isn't conservatives doing any of this. It is liberals. No, not every liberal. But liberals nonetheless.

Don't complain about being labeled. Help fix the fact that those who have been appropriately labeled as liberals are leading this country to destruction with these and other ridiculous, naiive, and unrealistic proposals.

Kaelri said...

" Funny...none of those things say "liberals are evil" or even insinuate it. Stupid maybe."

Come off it, you're smarter than that. What they insinuate, especially in the context, is that liberals are the allies of terrorism - an ideology that advocates indiscriminate, vengeful destruction of everything and everyone you don't like; that the intent of the "liberal agenda" is to harm children through schools; and that they are beyond the redemption of God. Sounds rather like evil incarnate to me.

" Kaelri, I see nothign wrong in the examples you bring up. In my view, they are all true."

Huh. That must be rather sad for you.

"Liberals are not on the side of the US in the war on terror. Oh sure, they are against terrorism, but they identify more with the bad-guys-as-victims-of-oppression-so-who-can-blame-them-they-were-forced-into-it than the American soldiers."

Yeah, so much so that they voted to depose the Taliban 518-1. (Yes, the 1 was a Dem, have fun with it.) Victims of oppression, we identify with; but someone who decides to remove the oppression with a [gun/bomb strapped to chest/Boeing 747] is no longer a victim.

"To liberals, the real terror threat is George Bush, so the war on terror is a war on Bush. The axis of evil is not Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld."

I wonder just what kind of bloody-mindedness you think we're endowed with... the war on terror is the idea that we can end terrorism by killing all terrorists, everywhere. Never minding the omnipresent fact that it's impossible, the broader point is that President Bush is simply not the one we want in charge of it.

"Remember, it wasn't the conservatives who only a week ago called for us to surrender to the terrorists."

Hm. Here's a piece of information that maybe you haven't grasped yet.

Some people fear that we'll surrender to the terrorists, but some people fear that we already have.

"Guess what? It isn't conservatives doing any of this. It is liberals. No, not every liberal. But liberals nonetheless."

I wonder, do you think that they're doing this because they're liberal, or that they're doing this therefore they're liberal?

Kaelri said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tony said...

Your last question is easy: liberals do these things because they are liberal, not vice versa. Some people have difficulty making hard choices that are painful to make, like the parent who spoils a child for fear of being the bad guy.

Yes they have good intentions. But good intentions are not enough.

Some people fear we have already surrendered to the terrorists? Yeah, I grasp it. I fear that. The liberals' incessant and despicable drumbeat portraying America as the enemy has a lot of Americans starting to doubt that validity of our mission.

I do not believe that liberals approve of terrorism. Terrorism is a method, not the ideology. Of course liberals are opposed to terrorism. Of course, they continually refuse to deal with those who do (take Arafat, for example, or their constant pining over "palestinian" squatters being victims).

Or take France as an example. A nation that lost its backbone a long time ago. Look at its failure to deal with its problems at the risk of offending someone.

Liberals are, by and large, hand wringers who have problems dealing effectively with the world as it really is, instead of how we might like it to be. It doesn't make them bad people, it just means that we can't trust them with power.

And your Taliban vote is a maningless example in the context of liberals' treasonous behavior in the 4 years since. And the Taliban was not the end-all of terrorism. Had we just cleaned out Afghanistan and came home, the world would be much more dangerous today.

No I do not think that we can kill all terrorists everywhere. But each one killed is a good start. But what is your solution? Dont kill them, send them love letters and hope they stop wanting to murder us? You fail to realize that it doesn't matter if it is the US or someone else, these throatcutters will kill anyone who does not subscribe to their particular brand of extremism, and they don't give a crap how nice you are or how many flowers you put in your hair or how much you just want to be frieds. And that is why you cannot be trusted with power. You think that crap works, when in reality, the problem has been VASTLY exacerbated by the last 2 democrat presidents for pursuing exactly this type of rose colored foreign policy (Carter with Iran, Clinton with Somalia).

You don't want President Bush in charge of it? I just brought up two reasons why he is the best one to deal with the problem - Carter and Clinton. Carter's foreign policy led to the resurgence of islamofacism under the ayatollah khomenhi in Iran when he failed to support the Shah.

This led to the rise of the islamic radicalism we face today. And when Clinton cut and ran from Somalia, and failed to deal with the WTC bombing, failed to deal with Khobar, and failed to deal with the embassy bombings, Bin Laden himself told a reporter (NBC?) that this is why he believed he could get away with attacking the US over and over. As I said, liberals can't be trusted with power. They aren't bad people, they just can't make tough decisions like this - they don't think like that.

So I am quite confident in Bush's leadership in this area. He gets the same kind of hate speech rhetoric form the left that Reagan did regarding the cold war on communism, so we have been here before. The ability of the radicals to make war on us has been dramatically crippled, evidenced by the fact that they have not attacked us in this country for over 4 years. We have disrupted their ability to make war by deposing the Taliban, they going after the Iraq regime. We are killing them there so we dont have to do it here, and I am fine with that. We are getting intel from the area, we are causing other governments in the area to disarm (eg, Libya), hold elections (eg, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan), and basically stop acting like the tyrants they are (Syria).